Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional [Archive]

Proletariat

09-15-2005, 00:55

I used to care about things like this, but I couldn't be bothered anymore. I've learnt these debates are dominated by two lunatic fringes (like just about anything else) that barely even exist in common everyday life.

The religious who feel like atheism is being pushed on them, and the atheists who believe Christianity is being forced upon them. It takes a certain type of person who really believes either of these things.

Also, life's too short, so Big Deal.

Adrian II

09-15-2005, 00:55

So if I'm getting this right, you believe the pledge should be unconstituional? Why do I suspect that's not right?If I got that right, Strike is going to confuse you even more in the next post.
:dizzy2:

Xiahou

09-15-2005, 01:00

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."Open and shut. My kind of judge. :bow:
The saying of the pledge of allegiance is neither coerced nor a requirement. The judge was wrong on both counts. Looks like we'll get to see Roberts overturn the 9th Circus for the first of undoubtedly many times when he gets confirmed.

Adrian II

09-15-2005, 01:03

The saying of the pledge of allegiance is neither coerced nor a requirement. The judge was wrong on both counts. Looks like we'll get to see Roberts overturn the 9th Circus for the first of undoubtedly many times when he gets confirmed.
The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

Xiahou

09-15-2005, 01:09

Proletariat

09-15-2005, 01:10

Gawain of Orkeny

09-15-2005, 01:20

Adrian II

09-15-2005, 01:22

Heh, spoken like a true non-veteran of the Virginian Public School system.

What's your impression of Virginia, Adrian? What are you taking 'requirement' to mean? That children who sit during the pledge are suspended or expelled or sent to gulags?The words 'under God' were added only in 1954 by a joint resolution of Congress. I have little recollection of Virginia except for its beautiful scenery. I suppose if the words 'under God' have no religious meaning, they could easily be replaced by 'under Allah'. Or better still: 'under the Flying Spaghetti Monster'. I have no doubt the good citizens of Virgina would shrug it off, just like atheists are supposed to thrug off the words 'under God'.

Azi Tohak

09-15-2005, 01:24

Meh. I'm with Prole. Aren't there bigger things to do? Like a kitty BBQ?

Azi

AntiochusIII

09-15-2005, 01:29

Its pretty sad how the 1st amenddments protection of religion has come to mean you cant mention god or pray out loud in school. By establishment of religion the founding fatrhers were refering to things like the Church of England where the church and the government were one and the same. They beleived that religion should be taught in school in fact that it was unconstitutional not to and yet today we deny federal funds to schools just because they also teach religion.Yup. Claiming monopoly on intrepeting the minds of dead men in a different age. Oh well...

Perhaps they've gone too far and the word "God" should be uttered without inconvenience (unless, of course, they're actually preaching in public schools outside of a clearly-labeled "Christianity" class) but that doesn't mean people should be forced to use the word "under God." This situation is more like a philosophical/political gesture, as in reality I just stand there in silence, feeling no patriotic emotions whatsoever; nor did I utter the meaningless words. It may be annoying to the politically passionate (as me sometimes) but it's really just a nothing issue, no better than things like "oooh abortion!!!" and "gays marrying? NOOOOO!!!!!" True loyalty relies on logical and realistic support, not chickenhawk-style declarations. This, of course, is not directing at you, Gawain.

Papewaio

09-15-2005, 01:29

Why not make it generic...

"One Nation under insert belief system here."

Red Harvest

09-15-2005, 01:31

In 1943, the US Supreme Court decided in WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=624) that students can't be required to recite the pledge.

That's odd. Nobody ever said it was optional when I was a kid in Kansas. They said we would recite the pledge, we did so, no questions asked.

The pledge is a fairly minor issue. "Under God" was added in 1954 to distinguish the U.S. from the "Godless communists." Seemed to work fine without the religious reference before, so I fail to see why "under God" should be required.

AntiochusIII

09-15-2005, 01:32

You know what's unconstitutional? The fact that they added the little blurb about God in the 1950s. Remove the blurb and restore it to it's original wording, and there's no problem.Hmm.. could anyone explain the situation behind the adding of the phrase? I am really interested. :bow:

Edit: I see, Red Harvest has provided a basic major point here. Thank you.

Kaiser of Arabia

09-15-2005, 01:33

...

This has to be the last straw. How long until the American people realize that the aristocracy who controls this nation has been influenced by the dark elements of the world: Atheists, Socialists, Communists, and Left-wing Radicals. How long do they realize that they are being cheated by the government, and how long until the last of our freedoms are stolen from us? Pogroms such as Affirmitave Action, gun control, and now this, are destroying our nation from the inside out. And it is time we get up, stand up for our rights. Viva la'revolution!

Adrian II

09-15-2005, 01:35

Kaiser of Arabia

09-15-2005, 01:37

I love tounge-in-cheekness. ~:D

And overreactions. Lets just revolt ~:cool:

Crazed Rabbit

09-15-2005, 01:37

Coercive requirement?! What's the judge smoking?

Kids are neither 1) required (they can sit, stand, and be silent for the pledge) 2) or coerced (nothing bad will happen if they don't say it). Heck, one of my middle school teachers didn't say it (but then she was a liberal democrat).

The silver lining is that this will force the SCOTUS to decide if its constitutional or not, and not dodge the issue like they did last time. (The storm clouds on the horizon in the silver lining are that they may be stupid and rule it unconstitutional.)

Crazed Rabbit

Proletariat

09-15-2005, 01:38

I suppose if the words 'under God' have no religious meaning, they could easily be replaced by 'under Allah'. Or better still: 'under the Flying Spaghetti Monster'. I have no doubt the good citizens of Virgina would shrug it off, just like atheists are supposed to thrug off the words 'under God'.

I was just worried that you thought it was genuinely required in Virginia, an impression I gathered from your quote.

It sure has religious meaning, but I still can't fathom anyone reasonable caring. Like when PETA has a protest to change the label for people with pets from 'pet owners' to 'pet guardians.'

Who cares about this kinda stuff? It's pretty stupid 'under God' was added in the first place, and now we compound the stupidity a half century later by bringing it up and fighting tooth and nail over it.

Proletariat

09-15-2005, 01:39

The religious who feel like atheism is being pushed on them, and the atheists who believe Christianity is being forced upon them. It takes a certain type of person who really believes either of these things.

This has to be the last straw. How long until the American people realize that the aristocracy who controls this nation has been influenced by the dark elements of the world: Atheists, Socialists, Communists, and Left-wing Radicals. How long do they realize that they are being cheated by the government, and how long until the last of our freedoms are stolen from us? Pogroms such as Affirmitave Action, gun control, and now this, are destroying our nation from the inside out. And it is time we get up, stand up for our rights. Viva la'revolution!

...

Adrian II

09-15-2005, 01:41

Who cares about this kinda stuff? It's pretty stupid 'under God' was added in the first place, and now we compound the stupidity a half century later by bringing it up and fighting tooth and nail over it.It speaks to the kind of nation you are/want to be. Nothing stupid about that, my lady.

Proletariat

09-15-2005, 01:59

I'd much more appreciate a nation that understood 'bigger fish to fry.'

Papewaio

09-15-2005, 02:03

Just come to Aus and relax at a BBQ with really big fish that are frying... we don't actually put shrimps on the BBQ and we only export Fosters...

Proletariat

09-15-2005, 02:10

I'm very glad the US and Aus don't make their dual-citizens choose one or the other when they turn 18.

~D

Gawain of Orkeny

09-15-2005, 02:22

Edit: I see, Red Harvest has provided a basic major point here. Thank you.

And the term seperation of church and state was started in 1947 by a Supreme court judge who was also a former clansmen and hated the catholic church. I believe it had something to do with denying funds for religous schools.

Heres a goos artilce on the subject.

Separation of Church and State (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0212/reviews/smith.html)

In 1947, the Supreme Court attempted to define the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the court, held:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a "wall of separation between Church and State." [Everson v. Board of Education (1947).]

Xiahou

09-15-2005, 02:24

(The storm clouds on the horizon in the silver lining are that they may be stupid and rule it unconstitutional.)Pretty much zero chance of that happening. I doubt even the most liberal justices have the stones to declare the Pledge unconstitutional. Certainly nowhere near enough of them for a majority.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-15-2005, 02:29

"Establishment of Religion" seems pretty self explanatory
Yes it means there cannot be a church of the United States like there is a church of England and thats all it means.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-15-2005, 02:38

Really? Where's all that text that says so? Establishment of Religion means just that. An Establishment of Religion. Any Establishment of Religion.

OK exactly what constitutes the establishment of a relgion?

GoreBag

09-15-2005, 02:46

By "clansman", you both mean "klansman", right? Just clearing this up.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-15-2005, 02:50

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

To imagine suggest anything else is assinine.

The Myth of the Separation of Church and State (http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html)

ichi

09-15-2005, 02:57

Alright my poll sucks but the pledge should stay just like it is

you're right about the poll, I voted Gah! because I didn't know how to vote to say that the government should not be allowed to require children to say things that have anything to do with religion or god or faith.

IMO children should be aloowed to say the pledge, with or without the God thingy part, but no one should be required to do so. Remember that the Judge didn't declare the Pedge unconstitutional (although thats what the media hype and fanatical ravings will imply), he said that it is unconstitutional to require anyone to affirm a beleif in God.

Which is exactly as it should be. If guv can make kids say they believe in God, they can make you say things too.

ichi :bow:

Red Harvest

09-15-2005, 03:09

It's good that we have Gawain to determine what Jefferson meant, and the Constitution. ~:rolleyes:

One thing is clear to me. Religion and government don't mix, and should be kept separate. One of the great advances of the last few centuries has been in separating one's church from one's government. The alteration of the pledge is a textbook example of a change being made for religious reasons. It's backers wanted to display their religious beliefs in comparison to the atheist communist regime. If they had chosen Allah, Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Christians would be screaming to have it changed. If it said the state was more important than God, we would also scream. That's why that First Amendment is there, to prevent things like that from happening.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-15-2005, 03:13

Religion and government don't mix, and should be kept separate.

But what the bloody hell does that mean?

Can a law be passed that had religious basis?

The Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - and we have laws to that effect. To completely seperate religion and government, must we remove laws prohibiting homicide, which is prohibited by several religions?

Red Harvest

09-15-2005, 03:23

But what the bloody hell does that mean?

Can a law be passed that had religious basis?

The Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - and we have laws to that effect. To completely seperate religion and government, must we remove laws prohibiting homicide, which is prohibited by several religions?

I don't see a need for a religious basis for prohibiting murder, theft, etc. You are going out in left field on something that has nothing to do with the topic. You are in effect saying that with your interpretation we could not have any laws that *coincided* with any religious laws.

"Under God" is superfluous to the pledge. It is not necessary when pledging allegience to the nation and flag. In fact, when those of other faiths (or lack thereof) make the pledge it would seem meaningless. Should they be denied a pledge that respects their faith (or lack thereof?) It's a rather simple case of one religion being elevated over others. However, I keep in mind this is about symbolism. Never get between the religious right and their empty symbolism.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-15-2005, 03:45

It's good that we have Gawain to determine what Jefferson meant, and the Constitution.

I dont think Jefferson wrote the first amendment. His letter on seperation of church abd state had nothing to do with the consitution. I explained what it was a bout.

One thing is clear to me. Religion and government don't mix,

Again the founding fathers thought just the opposite and since it was they who wrote the constitution I will go by their views not yours thank you. They know that a good religous base is neede for democracy to work. They believed that government should be a last resort to solving problems not the first. They didnt want a "CHURCH" making laws. Chritains do not constitute a church.

Don Corleone

09-15-2005, 03:52

I think Prole's right. I think the judge is trying to poke a finger in the eye of the religious half of this country, but he only really wins if they let him.

Despite what folks on the Left might actually want, as it stands today I'm still free to go to Church every Sunday, and last I checked, I could say "Thank God" or grace before a meal, even at work.

The thing about slippery slopes.... they're not. Dig your heels in where the fight really should be. We shouldn't have changed the pledge in the first place, but by the same token, the fact that the Democrats are making a big deal out of this shows where their agenda lies...

In the meantime, real news...

Extra!!! Extra!!!! Read all about it!! Republicans abandon any pretense at fiscal restraint, record low turnouts for conservative candidates predicted for next election!!!

Xiahou

09-15-2005, 04:10

All nice and cheery, Gawain, but the Constitution says what it says, and the Supreme Court has ruled on the finer points. So, to be fair, you are the one saying things that are asinine.So what happens when the Supreme Court overturns this latest decision?

Crazed Rabbit

09-15-2005, 04:13

Pretty much zero chance of that happening. I doubt even the most liberal justices have the stones to declare the Pledge unconstitutional. Certainly nowhere near enough of them for a majority.

Remember, the 9th circuit has already ruled it unconstitutional.

Crazed Rabbit

Xiahou

09-15-2005, 04:19

Remember, the 9th circuit has already ruled it unconstitutional.

Crazed RabbitYeah, the 9th Circuit- the most overturned of the circuit courts. Honestly, the only way it will stand is if the schools don't appeal it all the way up.

http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/supreme_court_wary_of_9th/decisions_by_court_detail.jpg

Edit: By liberal justices, I meant SCOTUS justices- just to be clear. The 9th Circus is capable of anything. ~D

Lemur

09-15-2005, 05:01

I'd much more appreciate a nation that understood 'bigger fish to fry.'
Amen. Whoops, I don't mean ... I mean, by saying "amen," I'm not endorsing a specific ... meaning to say, I don't mean "amen" in its religious-specific ... oh, the hell with it.

Papewaio

09-15-2005, 05:07

I'm very glad the US and Aus don't make their dual-citizens choose one or the other when they turn 18.

~D

Is that a subtle hint that you have dual citizenship?

Xiahou

09-15-2005, 06:25

Then the SCOTUS has spoken, now hasn't it?Along with almost 9 out of every 10 Americans. ~:)

Gawain of Orkeny

09-15-2005, 06:40

One thing is clear to me. Religion and government don't mix,

Nor do they care. They just like it.

Red Harvest

09-15-2005, 07:00

Despite what folks on the Left might actually want, as it stands today I'm still free to go to Church every Sunday, and last I checked, I could say "Thank God" or grace before a meal, even at work.

Oh come on. The Left and most moderates don't really care what you do personally. It is the government endorsed public religious issues that are at the forefront.

It is real hard to take my fellow Christians seriously anymore.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-15-2005, 07:00

Thanks to the wonderful propaganda effort by people like yourself, who seek to discredit the perfectly valid and perfectly constitutional "Wall" between church and state.

Except its not there. Maybe you wish it were but that does not make it so.

It shows a disrespect for the constitution, and a desire to promote your own religious agenda.

No it shows your lack of respect for the constitution . Either that or your lack of knowledge about it or american history. By the way I have no religous agenda. I hate organised relgion and have stated it ad nauseum

Pull the whole "The founding fathers say otherwise!" thing all you like, but SCOTUS and the Constitution have spoken on that matter.

SCOTUS also upheld slavery. Does that mean the constitution does? No where in the constitution is their any mention of seperation of church and state nevermind a wall. In fact the phrase came from a preacher.

While I agree the issue named by the original poster is silly, that is no less silly than violating the constitution to add the "God Blurb" to the Pledge just for the sake of some international pissing contest with Russia.

The god blurb does not violate the constitution. Making it against the law to add or say it certainly does violate the constitution.

Xiahou

09-15-2005, 07:43

It shows a disrespect for the constitution, and a desire to promote your own religious agenda. That's very much in the eye of the beholder. I could easily apply the same statement to you.

You seem to forget the fact that 'seperation of church and state' is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, Congress has opened each session with a prayer since its founding and our courts have a long history of invoking God and, of course, swearing on a bible. The text of the Constitution is quite clear...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Ronin

09-15-2005, 09:13

can´t people just say the pledge without those 2 words?

seems like making a lot of fuss over something that can be dealt with very easily.

Proletariat

09-15-2005, 12:41

Is that a subtle hint that you have dual citizenship?

Indeed.

:reminisces about BBQ's at Christmas as a child spending time in Sydney, being the American cousin:

Ja'chyra

09-15-2005, 13:25

I'm going with the who cares crowd, but if it means that much to you then scrap it from schools and anyone who wants to say can say it at home before school starts.

Adrian II

09-15-2005, 13:37

I'd much more appreciate a nation that understood 'bigger fish to fry.'The U.S. is a pretty big fish and its splash is felt in most faraway waters, except maybe deown unda. I say, why don't we all take Papewaio up on his offer and move to Strayler? Some of us could use some bloody mimmoth changes.

*Throws another cliche on the barbie*

Proletariat

09-15-2005, 14:03

Can I ref the Org's First Croc-Wrestling Bash?

I'm in. I hear Sydney throws a mean Mardi Gras.

Don Corleone

09-15-2005, 15:12

Oh come on. The Left and most moderates don't really care what you do personally. It is the government endorsed public religious issues that are at the forefront.

It is real hard to take my fellow Christians seriously anymore.

Well, that's good because I haven't taken you seriously for months. ~D

Like I said, I don't consider the pledge to be an issue worthy of debating over. But don't tell me there isn't a move in this country to outlaw religion. Kids get sent home from school just for saying God bless you when somebody sneezes or wishing somebody a Merry Christmas. That doesn't sound like 'live and let live' to me.

By the way, Red, bonus points for misrepresenting my argument. I said "the Left". You subtly changed that to "the Left and moderates". I never said squat about moderates. Please reference what I say properly or don't reference it at all.

Adrian II

09-15-2005, 15:17

Can I ref the Org's First Croc-Wrestling Bash?And here I ricckond you were do be da croc, Ma'am. Oath!

*Shoots monster hog*

Kanamori

09-15-2005, 15:28

Kids get sent home from school just for saying God bless you when somebody sneezes or wishing somebody a Merry Christmas.

Where has this happened? And your defeinition of left seems to be a strawman entirely.

Don Corleone

09-15-2005, 15:58

Where has this happened? And your defeinition of left seems to be a strawman entirely.

Gee, who do you think is banning religious expression? The religious right you're all so terrified of?

As for where it's happening... hmm..

Westfield High School, Boston MA: 7 students suspended from school for distributing candy canes with notes attached that explained the origins of candy canes (a shepherd's crook. The red & white represent the blood of Christ's martyrdom & the purity of His spirit).

Eric Bast, of Delhi California, was suspended for 10 days because he published a flyer that talked about the origins of Christmas (the birth of Christ).

And at the Virginia Military Institute, a federal appeals court ordered them to stop saying grace.

I could go find more examples, but I already know where this is going. You claim there's no move against Christianity. I show you examples of it, and you claim in each case they're justifiable. I don't have time for this, you're not going to convince me that there's not an organized secularist fundamentalism movement out there.

This is phase 1, where the secularists claim that legal prinicple requires that all religious expression be hidden from public view. We'll see where phase 2 takes us.

drone

09-15-2005, 16:45

GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My tax dollars are paying for this crap? When I was in school, if you didn't want to, you could leave out the "under God" part. Simple and easy. Sort of like offensive TV shows, if you don't like them, don't watch them. What's next? A lawsuit by people who don't want to use US currency because it says "In God We Trust"?

Kanamori

09-15-2005, 17:15

Gee, who do you think is banning religious expression?

Certainly, it must be all of the people on the left. Because I know that Klansmen are perfect examples of what the entirety of the right is like.

I could go find more examples, but I already know where this is going.

Actually, I guess you don't.

I'll admit, I was skeptical; nothing like that has ever happened anywhere I've gone to school. People have gotten suspened for swearing at teachers and the like, and that's about it. I have been shown the examples, they can rightly be decried. Be civil, I have never been uncivil towards you.

Red Harvest

09-15-2005, 17:44

Well, that's good because I haven't taken you seriously for months. ~D

Like I said, I don't consider the pledge to be an issue worthy of debating over. But don't tell me there isn't a move in this country to outlaw religion.
Oh GET REAL, take off the tinfoil hat and dispense with the ridiculous conspiracy theories. :dizzy2: No wonder your posts have been so hysterical. I see no effort afoot to ban religion. The problems we have as a nation on these issues are primarily from the intolerance of so called Christians towards fellow Christians whose views aren't so extreme and towards those who have different or no faith. These are the Christians who don't seem to understand the difference between the Old and New Testaments, and seem to be focused on the Old.

Why did I comment on moderates? Because while you tried to classify it as the Left, it was and IS clear to me that you feel the same about moderates who have the same view of separation of church and state and have clearly expressed that here repeatedly.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-15-2005, 22:10

Gelatinous Cube says he wants all religions banned. Or something eerily close to that. In the "Atheism = Religion" thread.

~;p

Ice

09-15-2005, 23:00

AntiochusIII

09-15-2005, 23:19

This is ubsurd. WHO THE HELL CARES!!! It has been this way since 1812 and it should stay that way. Do non-believers really think the words "Under God" are going to influnce their children to suddenly start believing God? This is absolutely rediculous. You already don't have to stand up and recite the pledge. What's next, flag burning in school is required so all the Anarachists don't feel left out?Erm...I'm not sure but Red Harvest seems to point out that "under God" came much, much later as in the Cold War.

I, of course, am uninformed. And still wishing some would post more information on the pledge's history.

BTW, thanks for the contribution of another point of view on pg 2, Gawain.

Though I do agree it's a nonissue.

Ice

09-15-2005, 23:47

Erm...I'm not sure but Red Harvest seems to point out that "under God" came much, much later as in the Cold War.

I, of course, am uninformed. And still wishing some would post more information on the pledge's history.

BTW, thanks for the contribution of another point of view on pg 2, Gawain.

Though I do agree it's a nonissue.

I stand corrected. I should have looked it up. It was written in 1892 and the words "under god" added in 1954

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Sorry about that, but my view still stands.

Proletariat

09-16-2005, 00:17

Way to think before you type. You're exactly the problem here, along with all the other slippery-slope Chicken Littles.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-16-2005, 00:28

Some of you seem to think the founding fathers were out of their minds and dont realise no christianity equals no United States as we know it . In fact the constitution would never have been written. If you destroy christianity in the US you kill our system of government. Its all based on the fact the we get our rights from a supreme power not of this earth. I dont give a rats ass what you call it. It is this god all you secularists and lefties dispise that gives us these rights. Its hard for me to believe any of you have a sense of history reading some of the crap thats spewed forth here.

AntiochusIII

09-16-2005, 00:31

Some of you seem to think the founding fathers were out of their mindsAnd you do realize you are basically saying you know what they think, and also disregarding the simple fact that it's like...wait...200+ years ago? And that at the age, democracy was considered radical?

Gawain of Orkeny

09-16-2005, 00:38

And you do realize you are basically saying you know what they think,

Well since they wrote their thoughts down and eloquintly so the answer is yes.

and also disregarding the simple fact that it's like...wait...200+ years ago? And that at the age, democracy was considered radical?

Really. I thought it was already a few thousand years old. Besides what has this got to do with the constitution. Are we going to throw it out because it was written by christains?

Ice

09-16-2005, 01:04

Well since they wrote their thoughts down and eloquintly so the answer is yes.

Really. I thought it was already a few thousand years old. Besides what has this got to do with the constitution. Are we going to throw it out because it was written by christains?

I hope not. The United States is still a Christian country by far, and people are going to have to accept that. We tolerate all relgions, but the majority of us are christian.

Soulforged

09-16-2005, 01:20

The separation of secular society in general and religion, must happen, not only because it motivates rational thinking and desidence, but also because the power of the state must decrease eventually. Though this may seem like "freedom of speech", it's not. Why? Because that is a guarantee given by the state to the citezens and not the other way. The state is very pourly justified in it's very exisitence, so it's even more irrational to let them say what they want. If it's a public school (for instance i think subsidiated and ruled by the state, and a part of it's organs) then this kind of imposition cannot be constitutional, different is the case of the private schools. Here luckily this doesn't happens.

khelvan

09-16-2005, 10:37

I don't understand what is so upsetting about this. To this uninformed person, the "separation of church and state" has benefitted both church and state. The Church of England seems to be much less strong in England than Christianity is in the United States. This separation seems to benefit all parties.

Why does anyone get upset that a policy which has allowed the church to survive and thrive in this nation be upheld?

Gawain of Orkeny

09-16-2005, 16:44

Why does anyone get upset that a policy which has allowed the church to survive and thrive in this nation be upheld?

What policy would that be? Its the first amenment that protects religion here. The seperation crap does just the opposite. Again no where is this mentioned in the constitution. Once mopre the founding fathers considered this a christian nation and dont try to feed me that treaty of tripoli crap. Its easily rebuffed.

khelvan

09-16-2005, 21:55

Once mopre the founding fathers considered this a christian nation and dont try to feed me that treaty of tripoli crap. Its easily rebuffed.I see, so what the "founding fathers" wrote, from what you say earlier, allows us to understand exactly what they wanted, except when it disagrees with your pet theory?

Redleg

09-16-2005, 22:54

It really is a non-issue. So what if a judge declares the Pledge unconstitutional - it has absolutely no bearing on matters in the nation. The pledge is not a requirment of citizenship imposed on us by the government.

If a school wants to say the pledge of alligence - so what. If a school doesn't want their students to say the pledge of alligence - so what.

1) The founding fathers would of laughed this off. Many of the founding fathers would of scoffed at the idea of a pledge of allegience.

2) Schools for the most part are managed by the county or school district - not by a Federal Mandated system. What each school does or doesn't do is actually more around what the state requires of it - then Federal oversite. This seems to be more of someone wanting to make a Federal Issue of something that is really only a local issue.

3) If your school district wants you to say the pledge in class and you don't want to say it - then its unconsitutional. However if the school recites the pledge and gives you the option to say it or not - then its really not unconstitutional by the standards of the constitution as it is written.

4) Seperation of church and state is not written in the consitution its based upon writtings of Thomas Jefferson - one of the main contributors to the drafting but not the sole one. The constitution only states what it does in the 1st Amendment - in the freedom of speech - freedom of religion statements made. Varying interpations are available - however most that say its unconstitutional are really not refering to the constitution itself - but to papers and letters written by Thomas Jefferson only.

5) Again the pledge would only be unconstitutional if your forced to say it.

Slyspy

09-16-2005, 23:11

As a Brit I am looking forward to seeing whether the Christian or secular fundamentalists win this one. According to the people on this forum the States are awash with both these groups and at any moment the old system will be swept away and a new order established. Presumably this will involve the destruction of the tolerant and democractic country we now see but, ah well, so long as the fools in this world get what they want....

I intend to profit from these epic powerstruggles over the inclusion of two words in an oath which doesn't have to be taken and therefore has no meaning anyway. This I shall do by selling kindling, whether the fires are to be set for the burning of heretics or for the burning of Bibles.

Proletariat

09-16-2005, 23:16

5) Again the pledge would only be unconstitutional if your forced to say it.

Bravo. Precisely what I tried but failed miserably to get out yesterday.

The thread can pretty much be locked now.

:happyg:

Gawain of Orkeny

09-16-2005, 23:47

Again the pledge would only be unconstitutional if your forced to say it.

And this is why his ruling will definetly be overturned. All those of you who want it gone dont stand a chance. Again the mention of God in no way establishes a religion. Belief in god is not a religion and therefore the mention of god cannot be seen as establishing a religion.

On the matter of them adding this becaiuse of the cold war. It wasnt just symbolic. We then truly believed we were a christain nation and that the Russians were doomed and bad because of their lack of belief. Also lost in this little debate is the fact the the US indeed was one nation formed under god from the get go.