Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional by federal judge.

[Lie]

You guys are talking about separation of church and state like this whole thing is a simple, deliberate threat that exists outside of the U.S. on a completely ideological level.

Who exactly is making who do what and why and when you think something "should" or "shouldn't" be done, who do you think "should" or "shouldn't" be doing it?

Jesus.

[sleeper]

Originally posted by Lie
You guys are talking about separation of church and state like this whole thing is a simple, deliberate threat that exists outside of the U.S. on a completely ideological level.

Who exactly is making who do what and why and when you think something "should" or "shouldn't" be done, who do you think "should" or "shouldn't" be doing it?

Jesus.

oh dont act like youre above it!

[ryan patrick]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Since it's not a federally controlled or mandated mantra, that doesn't matter

The feds could suggest adding "under God" to "Yesterday" by the Beatles. It won't mean anyone has to sing it that way

this statement is stupid.

it is a federally controlled and mandated mantra. how is it not? it was recognized by the government, changed by it, and there was highly coerced, if not forced, recitation of the version it specified.

it falls under the establishment clause in a complete sense, since the whole point of adding under god was to establish the nation as an officially religious nation.

as Eisenhower said at the time:

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

justify that from a libertarian perspective.

[ryan patrick]

in fact, all laws and declarations made regarding the pledge of allegience at all should be stricken, as they are an extraneous, unnecessary use of government.

[Mayfuck]

Originally posted by DeadSwan
good ol' san francisco, and it's "wacky" idealogy

What are yout alking about, the deciison was for Sacramento

[Corganist]

Originally posted by ryan patrick

it falls under the establishment clause in a complete sense, since the whole point of adding under god was to establish the nation as an officially religious nation.

The establishment clause doesn't have anything to do with the absence or presence of religion in the government. Its disingenuous to assert that it does. if anything, the establishment clause presupposes that the nation is religious. It merely serves to ensure that the government doesn't recognize or support one religion above all others. It takes a highly tortured interpretation of the clause to say that any recognition or decalration of an "official" belief in religion is not allowed.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by ryan patrick


this statement is stupid.

it is a federally controlled and mandated mantra. how is it not? it was recognized by the government, changed by it, and there was highly coerced, if not forced, recitation of the version it specified.

it falls under the establishment clause in a complete sense, since the whole point of adding under god was to establish the nation as an officially religious nation.

as Eisenhower said at the time:

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

justify that from a libertarian perspective.

I'm justifying it from a legal perspective. The federal government does not require the pledge.

Neither do the states.

[Lie]

Originally posted by sleeper
oh dont act like youre above it!

Oh, don't act like you're above being above it!

If you're not, then argue with me, bitch.

[Fonzie]

Can you guys get 'non-god' money if it insults you so much?

With stuff like "In a higher being we trust" on it or "In myself I trust"?

[DeadSwan]

Originally posted by Mayfuck


What are yout alking about, the deciison was for Sacramento

haha, sorry, i only read the first sentence

anyway, i would like to amend my former statement to: "good ol' northern california and its wacky idealogy"


which is neither a condemnation nor approval

it is what it is


anyway, i can't believe this is even a relevant topic in this day and age. it's like the whole "intelligent design" debate--it should have been null and void 50 years ago.

[Lie]

I think the idea of the pledge being protocol in the first place seems like a bigger issue for most people than the "under God" part.

It seems pretty ridiculous to want to remove that part of it and not take it a step further and do away with it all together.

I'll admit that I'm very ignorant about the technicalities of what I'm about to say, but the part that bothers me is the amount of influence the federal government has over public schools in the first place, legal or no. Obviously, there's the issue of funding but if someone could enlighten me as to any details...for example, are there any public schools that don't recite the pledge, and is that something they would have the power to stop themselves and if so who would decide? I honestly have no idea.

Just because there is no real legal hold on the pledge doesn't mean that the actual issue of it could not be a problem for people. But cutting part of it out by rule of law doesn't seem like a viable solution considering the way people feel about it, even just judging from this thread.

[Lie]

Originally posted by Lie
I'll admit that I'm very ignorant about the technicalities of what I'm about to say, but the part that bothers me is the amount of influence the federal government has over public schools in the first place, legal or no. Obviously, there's the issue of funding but if someone could enlighten me as to any details...for example, are there any public schools that don't recite the pledge, and is that something they would have the power to stop themselves and if so who would decide? I honestly have no idea.

Haha, I knew that would kill it.

[Lorenzo]

The real hypocrisy is the fact that 'Christians' are pledging allegiance to anything other than god, which is what they are doing by pledging allegiance to a flag, regardless of what the flag represents. Anyone who understands Christian doctrine knows god is a jealous god. He even said his name was jealous. The biggest proponant of the separation of church and state was god himself! People are so fucking stupid.

[Orenthal James]

what if it said "above God"?

that would be funny, right?