Are you oblivious to the fact that you elect the people that serve in congress, you fuckwit?

Are you oblivious to the fact that once politicians are elected to office by the people, they become influenced solely by money/big business and special interests, cunt cheese?

Congress and the White House have already blasted the ruling, and when gets to the Supreme Court, it will be D.O.A.

If Eisenhower signed legislation, it first would have been passed by Congress. There fore it could not have been solely Eisenhower's belief.

And since God was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, how can you assume that it was merely Eisenhower's personal belief? Couldn't he be reiterating the beliefs of the Founding Fathers--including in the Pledge of Allegiance the same thoughts/beliefs documented in the D of I?

That's obvious after reading this:

"In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned 27 of 29 9th Circuit decisions so that tells you that the 9th Circuit is out of step with the rest of the federal judiciary," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.


This just shows that what happens when a judicial body continually attempts to bring the U.S. into the 21st century. The Supreme Court puts us back into the 18th century. And not only is it impossible to change the Constitution, it's just as hard to change the Supreme Court, especially when they choose our President.

hahaha. I wrote an article on exactly that, and the vice principal refused to let us print it because it was "too controversial." There's some values to teach high school journalists - stay away from controversial topics! Write about scrapbooking and wholesome movies!

ajklfhkjJKAS,DFHKJASH KASJDHFLKAJ LKASJHDFLK LIASUFGHLKASHFLUYAWE[;YRWK;;' 'ASDFJK; UHGFLA WIUYER;.



[This message has been edited by Smiley33 (edited 06-26-2002).]

The Supreme Court is considered to be one of the most conservative courts in the country as well...

It's interesting to note though, that at the beginning of each day the court is in session, God is mentioned at the beginning of the day... I forget the exact phrase, something along the lines of "May God watch over this court..." This means that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hear that every day...

The first words of the First Amendment are as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... "

If you can tell me how the placing of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, a document which is required to be recited by millions of schoolchildren across this country each day and that is meant to lay out some of the most basic tenets of American society, does not favor the establishment of a monotheistic Judeo-Christian heritage in this country, by all means, let me know.

And I loved this part of the Bush administration's response: "The Supreme Court starts off its sessions by [evoking God]." Despite the fact that's fundamentally different than reciting a pledge to a bunch of impressionable schoolchildren--a pledge that was put into law by the Congress, which is not the same thing as a traditional greeting of a high court. That's not in the law--and, frankly, if it is, that's unconstitutional, too.

And by the way--don't give me that Founding Fathers crap. Many of them were deists. The Second Great Awakening was a direct response to the trend towards deism started in America by some of its biggest celebrities at the time--the Founding Fathers. Just because a document says something (e.g. the references to God in the D of I) doesn't make it golden.

Thank God for the court's sanity and levelheadedness among this post-9/11 religious fervor. (Another interesting point: there are lots of parallels between America now and America in 1954, when Eisenhower's administration put "under God" in the pledge. Any time America undergoes crisis, its people run towards their God--which is fine, that's their right, but it's ridiculous to purge the rights of others in doing so.)

werd.

Isn't there some mention of God in the courts too? Do they still use that to swear you in? I'm fucking slow

If I say "God," can you really tell me you'll think of a religion that isn't based in either a Jewish or a Christian tradition?

Plus, even if it is a broad term, it completely ignores any polytheistic tradition. The Pledge is explicit: a nation under God, capital G. In other words, one god.

And finally, even if I thought you were 100% correct (and I do see your point, although I don't agree with it) I don't think that's the issue. It doesn't have to say anything about a specific religion. It shouldn't say anything about religion at all. Religion can be a wonderful thing for many people, but it has no place in a pledge of allegiance to a country that purports religious freedom, especially a pledge passed by and advocated by the government.

By the way: I feel I should mention that I'm not some anti-religious, leftist freak. Although there is a great deal of Christianity I don't agree with, I'm in church every Sunday. I find it fascinating, and I definitely believe in a higher power. But if somebody doesn't want to--if they genuinely just don't believe--I will damn well make sure that they don't meet any opposition in me.

And I think that this is exactly the viewpoint held by the judges on the 9th Circuit. This ruling does not mean that they don't believe in a god, it just means that they don't feel students should be forced to recite something they don't believe in. Schools around here do the pledge between 2nd and 3rd periods. That is absolutely absurd and it takes away class time. The Pledge is something that should be optional, and should be taken care of before school starts, off school grounds. If you just HAVE to have a dose of patriotism in the morning, just recite it at the bus stop while you're waiting for the bus. It really wouldn't change anything.

And God is only half the issue here. The court is also protecting those who don't feel the need or want to be patriotic to this country.

This country has been VERY bad to ALOT of people for a VERY long time, and continues to be that way. People in this country are always just thinking of themselves. Wake up, not everyone thinks of this country as the land of opportunity. Don't trick them into thinking that it is by forcing them to recite this bullshit.

i love this decision and i hate anyone who disagrees with it.

fuck the selfish christian majority and fuck the government which seeks to please them. it's so sad that the people in this country who are supposed to know the most about civil liberties and the constitution are the ones who are most blind to the fact that it specifically outlines the illegality of government endorsement of religion.

What's wrong with special interest? You yourself are a special interest. Congresspeople who want to be re-elected care very much about giving their constituents what they want.

There are different thoughts of jurisprudence on the Constitution. The one you presented is that of a strict constructionist. An activist though would look at to the Constitution as a basis or spirit of the law. And to the idiot who said the Constitution is outdated and no longer pragmatic and therefore should be burned, being that the Constitution is open to such interpretation makes it a flexible document yet consistent in its philosophy. The fact that it can still be applied to today's society, Founding Father's intentions notwithstanding, makes it one of the best documents ever written.

God is an English word, right? God is used in more than one way right? It doesnt say "one nation under Jesus's father" its a vague term....it is not partial to any one God

CHRIST ALMIGHTY

liberals have waaaaaaaay too much time on their hands

in the past and even still today people are beaten, killed, tortured, executed by governments for beleiving a certain way and in this country so many people bitch and moan about ONE FUCKING WORD said around them

LIGHTEN UP!!!!

Between 2nd and 3rd period?! That is absurd.

originally posted by sawdust restaurant:

Here is the crux of the issue, and I would say it is very well stated. But where is it stated anywhere that "God" has to be tied to religion? It doesnt, and I am free to think as such, so the term in the pledge can be innocuous. The opinion by the court here assumes it is directly tied to religion, to me, this is an arguable point.

And its a point that I will argue against this particular court because they are living proof of ol' Senator Joe McCarthy's postulations.

And that's really the crux of the issue, IMO. This court uses the consitution to undermine America the way Al-Queda and the Taliban use Allah to justify killing Americans.

Welcome to the culture war. Pick a side or get the fuck out of the way so the fight can continue.

I can't remember the last time we said the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

my eyes glaze over whenever i see people ignoring the basic truth that words have power. what may seem like a petty squabble to you is actually an important discourse on the ideologies that underlie the everyday actions of every american citizen. words are the expression of thought; thought is the source of all actions. the government-enforced beatings, killings, torturings, and executions that you decry are all the result of infirmities in thought, namely of the fear and the lack of empathy for those who don't share the religious, political, and cultural ideologies of those in power. and while the u.s. government is a galaxy and a couple of dark ages away from committing the mass extermination of all atheists, agnostics, and polytheists, the inclusion of two important words in the pledge is a reflection of that same spirit of exclusion of "others." the old "slippery slope" argument that still rings true despite its status as a cliche.

deviousj made an important point in one of his earlier posts: "the phrase is symbolic of how the separation of church and state is not maintained." you're right, in a pragmatic sense. uttering three innocuous syllables won't kill me. but symbols are just our collective unconscious bubbling to the surface. they indicate ways of thought that bleed into our everyday actions and interactions. they are important.

the reason people meticulously agonize over such minute details in documents like the constitution and the pledge is that they want to get it right. why deal with intolerant actions and policies in a reacitionary manner when they can be dealt with proactively at their root, at the symbolic level? i see those words as two small fragments being chipped away from a core american ideological tenet.

...and i have the nagging suspicion you aren't going to read all that.

This is basically the same thing that Jared said, and neither one of you understands the situation at all. Did you guys read the quote from Eisenhower upon addition of the words to the Pledge in '54? About how millions of schoolchildren would proclaim, happily and loudly, how they love "the Almighty"? I don't give a flying fuck what you perceive God to be, and frankly, it's not important to your arguments. A monotheistic, Judeo-Christian God is implied in the Pledge. Period. (And for Christ's sake, if you're evoking the ideology of Senator McCarthy, no wonder you think the way you do. Paranoia such as yours merely fuels the things you're rallying against.)

And yes, there are lots of totalitarian governments that run disgusting, despotic, murderous regimes. Many of them impose religion on their people.

I really couldn't care less whether or not some kids heard "under God" every day in the Pledge of Allegiance. But Jared, look at what you're saying, man. "People are beaten, killed, tortured, executed by governments for believing a certain way." That's exactly what this is about. It isn't about some kids having to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This is about principles--the principle that this is America, a country which, in its most important document of law, explicitly states that people will not have their freedom of religion pounced upon by the government. If you tell kids day in and day out that they should be reciting something with the words "under God" in it--a recitation, I should point out, led by teachers, who are government workers--then God damnit, in principle, we are no fucking better than the Chinese or the Saudis or the Iranians or basically the entire African continent. That's what pisses me off. You tell me to lighten up, but if everybody lightened up as much as you, we would be getting shit on even more than we already are by Ashcroft and his cronies, who will gladly collect more and more power under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Can I do jack shit to stop it? Of course not. But that doesn't stop me from thinking it's wrong.

[This message has been edited by sawdust restaurants (edited 06-26-2002).]

That's what I was trying to say.

Hurray for America, where we can pump money into something as asinine as the WWF while those people who attempt to do anything in Saudi are negated by oil interests!

You are truly, extraordinarily wrong. Read pastor's post.

dont bring the world wildlife fund into this.

look, i am indifferent about the whole thing

take it out...leave it...dont say the pledge...say it....

it wont change my life at all<---that is my point

it IS a pesky trivial squabble and i think you underestimate other peoples' ability to think for themselves

and pastor..i did read all of it

i respect your guys' opinion, i just think youre reading too far into something that in the long run (and even today) doesnt really have a big effect on our society

Considering that the American constitution is written, I can see how it could be seen as inadequate. It can be ratified and amended but it isn't that flexible.

The English constitution is largely unwritten and based on principles such as the rule of law, and the doctrine of the separation of powers. They are considered sacrosanct, and they are principles that cannot be altered. I think this gives better protection from an abuse of powers.
They are rigid principles, yet their application is flexible.
The UK constitution, by comparison with the constitutions of the US and Australia, represents the height of flexibility.
Any interference from outside bodies are considered inherently unlawful.


[This message has been edited by wangcomputers (edited 06-27-2002).]

God save the queen?

erm, when you're talking about the inadequacies of a constitution, is it not useful to compare it with other types of constitution?
i had to compare the two systems for my studies, so I do (kinda) know what I'm talking about.

[This message has been edited by wangcomputers (edited 06-26-2002).]