Pledge of allegiance declared unconstuti

[DCitrus9]

Timebuilder, by excluding religious statements I meant "in god we trust" or "under god". As you admit, they wanted no state sanctioned religion and did not want to push their own beliefs on the country. This is very much the same reason "under god" does not belong in a declaration to state.

Turbo: I vote for fiction, just cause it's in print doesn't make it so. Your truth seems to be a lie to me. I have read the bible and studied it in church. I have realized it is all B.S. and choose not to partake in any more of that nonsense. No, it doesn't offend me. It does irritate me when people try to tell me I'm a bad person for not being religious (agnostic, atheist , I don't know and don't really care).

 

[Timebuilder]

DC, check your logic. By saying "under God", or even by making a personal choice to stand silently while others say the Pledge, everyone is operating within the confines of the Constuitution. It is not the equivalent of the Congress passing a "law respecting religion" as the founders excluded.

Indeed, most of the writings of the founders indicate a strong opinion that a "religious and moral people" are the underpinnings of a democracy, and that without those qualities, we as a nation are doomed to failure.

In summary, they simply believed that you should be making the choice, not them. When people recite the Pledge, it is by choice, not law or edict. There is no mandate to exclude religious statements made by individuals, singly or in groups. There is only a rule which says there can be no official religion of the United States. There is not one religious group that I have ever heard to express the opinion that their religion should be turned into the "official" religion.

It can be argued, however, that envirormentalism, with its ties to Gia, or Earth Worship, can be considered a religion, and that the formation of the EPA violated the first amendment by respecting that religion.

But that's another discussion.

I want to hear how somewone has labled you a "bad person" for rejecting the gospel. The basis of the gospel is to choose whether or not you will trust Him for salvation, based on faith. Just as our Constitution guarentees you right to choose you faith or lack of faith, so does the gospel. Having studied the Bible, you know the stakes and the results. After that, it's all up to you.

Just like the Pledge.

 

[DCitrus9]

Timebuilder, you check your logic. The pledge is not a prayer, why do you justify making it into one? If this is a true choice then I should be able to pledge allegiance to the flag and my country. I should not be excluded because of your choice to observe a religion. It was a mistake to add "under god" and now that is being corrected. I don't understand the outrage. If you want to pray, then pray, but don't try to put prayer in every American's mouth.
The reason we hear so much about separation of church and state is because it is the only true way to allow freedom and choices.

 

[Timebuilder]

Actually, the reason we hear so much about the separation of church and state is because a lot of politicians are willing to mislead people into believing that this is a part of the US Constitution. It isn't. It is not a founding principle, aside from the aforementioned restriction agianst congress officially recognozing a religion. That is a fact.

The pledge is not a prayer. It is a recognition that we are a nation of people who are free to believe or not believe, and that our nation was founded by men who believed that we were "endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable rights...". If you do not wish to say "under God" in recognition of why you have your freedoms as an American as shown above, then simply stop speaking briefly when you reach that portion, and resume when you reach "with Liberty and Justice for all."

Here is the reason for the outrage you don't understand: a California judge, part of the ninth circuit, the most overturned circuit in the United States, has without basis, declared the practices of a free people to be unconstitutional. This ruling would be comical if it weren't for the fact that this is a syptom of the problems in our judicial system. Judges are charged with interpreting the law, and not with legislating from the bench. America's most controversial problems are the result of judicial misconduct, forming law when their only job is to interpret the law.

I certainly don't want you doing any praying, or even think that you are praying, if it isn't in your heart.

 

[DCitrus9]

"If you do not wish to say "under God" in recognition of why you have your freedoms as an American as shown above, then simply stop speaking briefly when you reach that portion, and resume when you reach "with Liberty and Justice for all." "
NO NO NO NO
That is exactly what should not be done. The state does not impose religion. If you want to pray, go to church. You said yourself that the pledge is not a prayer, yet you continue to justify making it one.
You're blinded by religion on this one timebuilder,
I'm done.

 

[Timebuilder]

I'd love to debate you on who is blinded, but I have to point out that I have the constitution on my side with regards to this issue.

The law does not guarantee you a religion-free environment, because that was never the intent of the founders. It does, however, guarantee that others have the individual right to mention God, and that is is not a recognition of an official religion of the US. No doubt, you will hear them.

You are free to not join them, and that is the limit of this issue.

Good day.

 

[A Squared]

Timebuilder,

the trouble with people like you is deep down inside you KNOW that yours is the RIGHT religion, so it shouldn't offend anyone to have YOUR religion pushed on them, because after all it's the RIGHT one, right?

You're reasoning goes something like this: we're predomimantly a christian nation (we are) so there shouldn't be any problem in the teachers in a public school leading the students in chanting a litany which gives recognition to the diety of the majority. If those who don't subscribe to that deity don't like it they don't have to chant...right? After all, there's no freedom "from" religion, only freedom "of" religion, right?

Well then, let's turn that exact reasoning around on you and see how you like it. Let's say that you lived in a school district someplace in the US which was predominantly Moslem, let's say 83% Moslem. (unlikely, but let's say for the sake of discussion it is true)

So, your children go to a school where the administrators and the teachers are predominantly Moslem. Every morning, your childrens' teachers lead the class in chanting "praise Allah!, praise Allah!". They walk down halls that bear quotations of Mohanmmad. Several times during the day, the teachers and students in your childerens' classes roll their prayer rugs out and kneel down and face Mecca to pray.

Don't like it? of course you don't, we all know that you're going to squeal like a stuck pig.

But why should you object? Remember, there's no guarantee of freedom "from" religon. If you and your children don't like it, you're "free" to not participate if you don't care to. So what's the problem? Why are you squealing like a stuck pig and filing lawsuits?

They have their individual right to mention Allah, right? Why should you object? They are "operating within the confines of the Constuitution" It's not a "recognition of an official religion of the US" they're merely excercising thier individual right to mention Allah. The school board is not establishing an official religion, they're just allowing the teachers and student's to exercise thier individual rights.....right?

No, the reason you're squealing like a stuck pig, is that it's not the RIGHT deity they're recognizing, you know....YOUR deity, the one and only TRUE deity. In your heart of hearts, you think that your children and the 3 or 4 other christian children in this school should be allowed to stand up and chant recognition of YOUR deity. and if the 83% of the teachers and students who don't pray to your deity don't like it, they are free not to participate.

The thing is, you're all for God in schools, as long as it's the RIGHT god.... YOUR god. If it were someone else's god that was recognized every morning, I think you'd suddenly start believing that it wasn't quite so nifty. There's a word for you. It's hypocrite.

regards

 

[cherokee]

Our forefather's very intentionally excluded any religious statements from the original declaration and constitution.


Not true, here is an exerpt from the Declaration of Independence, notice the references to God and the Creator...

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Also the next section is a very small text from Article 12 of the Constitution, notice the term Lord.:

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"


Do you now want to rethink what you think the Founding Fathers meant??

 

[Delta3]

One simple way to solve all of this is to give local communities social power.

Have them decide what they want to say in school. If the Bible belt wants to recite prayers before school let them. The Berkley left wing isn't going to go along with the Bible belt and vice versa.

 

[cherokee]

You know what, looking at my last post I think the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should declare the Constitution "Unconstitutional". It clearly says "in the year of our Lord". Golly, some people may be OFFENDED! We can't have that!I will hereby start the lawsuit to get the Constitution ruled "Unconstitutional"

 

[TWA Dude]

My two cents. The Founding Parents (gotta love gender-neutral terms) used the word God in Constitution so I think it's not inappropriate for God to be in the Pledge. Atheists are still free to be atheists without fear of persecution. The CA judge will be overturned.

That being said there's no doubt that certain Christian conservatives wish to impose their beliefs on the general public and that's why they try to prohibit the teaching of evolution in public schools along with promoting "prayer in school". I used quotation marks because all public school students already enjoy freedom to pray in school and thus there's no need to set apart any designated time period. I went to a religious grade school so I know full well the difference. They do have an agenda!

 

[cherokee]

While I agree that the Catholic Church is active in trying to recruit members, so are most other religions including Mormons, Jevovahs, and especially Islam. In fact if your not Muslim in some parts of the world you're toast. Anyway what Catholics do i do not find "offensive", they're trying to grow their membership just like any other group out there including other religions, AOPA, GALPA, or political parties.

That being said I don't think it's relevent to the conversation of whether "under God" is eliminated from the Pledge. But that may be what you meant.

 

[Timebuilder]

>>the trouble with people like you is deep down inside you KNOW that yours is the RIGHT religion, so it shouldn't offend anyone to have YOUR religion pushed on them, because after all it's the RIGHT one, right?

I don't see the point in quoting the whole post, A squared, so I'll stop there.

Certainly, you have a right to your fictional belief about how I might react if the scene were set as you have described. The only problem is this: you know nothing of my background, and precious little of what I believe about our rights. I suppose I should try to make myself more clear, since I am obviously unclear to you, and perhaps others.

First, reciting the pledge of allegiance is a darn poor example of anything being "pushed" at all. The recitation takes all of fifteen seconds, is not a prayer, does not contain the gospel, does not mention Christ, nor does it direct any person to listen, find, study, respect, or embrace any religion whatsoever, much less any Christian religion. The recitation is followed by several hours of revisionist history, alternative lifestyles, sex education, multiculturalism, and and self esteem classes. I don't think the pledge of allegiance stands up very well to that onslaught.

Secondly, there are many schools where muslim prayers are practiced and life goes on just as you described. Why? Because it is seen as okay for Muslims to have it their way, even though it is forbidden for Christians at any public school to do the same. According to public school doctrine, almost ANY religion can be mentioned, taught, and displayed, as long as it isn't any CHRISTIAN religion. We can't have those rascally Christians sharing their beliefs with other students and teachers, now can we? As a journalist, I once supported that kind of flawed thinking.

You see, you can't make an argument stick when you proceed from a false assumption. "Turning that exact reasoning around" sounds good, but you first must have some factual basis for making your assertion. You have to reach very far into poetic license to try and put words into my mouth on this issue, and then you are in the untenable position of pretending further that I would be offended by Muslims praying in a school. Maybe it was a previous post that led you to this ill-constructed conclusion, I'm not certain.

Squeal like a stuck pig? Are you sure? Gee, I expected something more reasoned than this, something with substance. I'm disappointed.

You assume too much. If muslims believe that Allah is God, then they have no problem with the pledge, nor I with them. Their rights, just like mine, are guaranteed by the constitution.

Maybe one day, my beliefs will receive equal respect in the public schools as do Muslim beliefs.

I'm not going to hold my breath over it, though.

 

[LR25]

Feeling feelings feelings.

Why are people so frail when it comes to something they are unclear of?

Are people that sheltered out there, are these people's mothers still making there lunch for them in a lunch box at the age of 40.

It reminds me of that movie when the family retreats to the bunker in the 50's when an F-86 hit there house and they thought it was the big one.

There are plenty of churches and sinagogs and temples for everybody to pick and choose their religon.

Why are people so offended?

What am I missing?

You have your rights, I dont think they left alot of room for inturpretation.

Hey, I did good, I mentioned an airplane on this "AVIATION FORUM".

Yall can take it.

 

[TWA Dude]

According to public school doctrine, almost ANY religion can be mentioned, taught, and displayed, as long as it isn't any CHRISTIAN religion. We can't have those rascally Christians sharing their beliefs with other students and teachers, now can we?

I tried real hard to figure out what you're talking about but I couldn't. You sound like you feel persecuted for being a Christian. If so, launch another Crusade on Jerusalem and just maybe that'll solve a lot of problems over there.

 

[Timebuilder]

If you pay any kind of attention to the news these days, you will find that any kind of after school club is welcome on public school property, jewish clubs, muslim clubs, you name it. No Christian clubs are allowed. The NEA defines those religions as "cultures", so they are ok.

I'll let you draw your own observations from that. As for persecution, none of us here in America have the first clue of what that word means.

I've never been persecuted, and I owe that to those who have died to defend my freedom. So do you.

 

[A Squared]

Timebuilder:


>>>>> "you will find that any kind of after school club is welcome on public school property, jewish clubs, muslim clubs, you name it. No Christian clubs are allowed"
and also

"even though it is forbidden for Christians at any public school to do the same"

That's patently untrue timebuilder, I know of extracurricular christian groups in public schools. In fact, the Arizona Legislature passed legislation this year which would protect their right to form student led religious clubs. Other states and school districts may have different policies, but your charges that christian groups are systematically discriminated as a matter of national educational policy is just a fantasy. (that's a polite word for Lie)

If you can come up with specific, documented examples (not just hand waving concecture) of schools which allow jewish, of muslim student clubs, but not christian clubs, I would agree with you, that is wrong. I doubt that you can though.

As far as my hypothetical example, yeah, I knew I was giving you too much room to wiggle and squirm, cause Allah, after all is a god. I don't think anyone here believes for one instant that you would accept a public school where the students were led in Muslim prayer, but we'll let it drop as we can't prove otherwise. We only have your word, and you've already demonstrated with your previous statments that you hava a pretty casual disregard for the truth.

SO....let's pose another hypothetical situation.

Let's say your childeren went to a public school where every morning the students pledged allegience to a nation under Satan. Right, Satan, the evil one. "...for which it stands, one nation, under Satan....etc."

You have two choices. You can admit that you wouldn't like the public schools to have a plegde of allegience to a nation under Satan....Even though, to repeat your own words, it is "is not a prayer" and it does not "direct any person to listen, find, study, respect, or embrace" Satan.
If that's the case, you're a hypocrite, because as soon as it's not YOUR god the nation is under, then you don't want it in the pledge.

Or, you can try to pretend that you wouldn't be bothered by it, in which case we'll all know you're a liar. There's not a single reader on this forum who is dumb enough to believe that an outspoken born again christian who supports school prayer wouldn't have a problem with a pledge to a nation under Satan.

So which is it going to be? Hypocrite or Liar? You mind if your kids pledge to Satan or not?

 

[Timebuilder]

Well, I see we have an outspoken group of anti-religion bigots here. I sure hope that Louis Farrahakn gets wind of this after he has lunch with Saddam today. This would be sure to make him smile.

There is only one reason that you can be so aggrieved here on this message board: the freedom of speech that you enjoy as an American. Do you wish to worship Satan? Many do, and as an American, you are free to choose.

You don't have to accept my word. At 13, long before I grew up, I lived under an honor code at the academy until I graduated four years later. I learned that only a few will accept a man's word as his bond. If the word of a man is worthless to you, then so be it.

Back to facts. Do you know why the legislature you mentioned had to do anything at all? Rights were in jeopardy. This isn't the only example of religious rights being squeezed by the secular Left. I don't have to bring you any proof. I expect you to do the legwork you want done for yourself. The fact that this evidence of discrimination is freely available to you should make it easier. If you want to research specific instances of this type of discrimination, contact the Christian Coalition:http://www.cc.org/ .

Hypocrite or Liar? As a left winger, my old personal club, you have to accuse me of lying. I remeber this tactic, as it was one of my favorites when I started out. It was kind of an "off the pig, tear down the walls" kind of 'in your face' attitude. Looking back now, I feel it made me look bad whenever I had used it. I also think it is making you look bad.
I'll tell you what. If you want to cling to this line of questioning, go ahead.

First, get the US congress to to change "under God" to "under satan". If congress saw fit to pass this amendment to the pledge, as they did when they placed "under God" in the pledge when I was a baby, then I would have other choices to make. Second, I will admit right up front that my children would not be found in a public school, so your "hypothetical" is very hypothetical. If you want to test the mettle of the American people on this issue, don't even ask a single Christian how they feel about that. Ask those who have no religious affiliation, and see how far you get with them.

If I had no other choices, my Christian school, homeschooling, whatever, I would make this new pledge a "teachable moment", explaining that they don't have to say the pledge, what it means to other Americans, who satan is, etc. Actually, my friend, changing the pledge to "under satan" would be the best tool ever conceived to evangelize America. I think that blatant statement would inspire thousands, if not millions. We could see a revival of, well, Biblical proportions.

Frankly, A squared, that statement isn't far from the truth these days. In fact, it has Biblical support. God set satan as the "god" of this world, for a fixed period of time, while we make our decision based on faith. Another Biblical truth is that most people, the vast majority, will reject Christ as savior, and choose the "wisdom" of those characters the Lazy mentioned above, the "learned" people of law, literature, and science . What an impressive list of secular humanists he assembled, thinking perhaps that I would be somehow moved by old news from well known humans, as opposed to Good News from God. In fact, those quotes are the very essence of post-modernist thinking.

I do have one apology to make, and it is to the other board members who are completly disinterested in this thread. It started out as a constitutional discussion, and has degenerated into Christian bashing/baiting/whatever. I think most of you who have been here a while rocognize that this happens a few times a year, using up bandwidth for a topic that gets into the news next to airport security and airspace incursions. As always, I feel it is my duty as a former journalist to try and set people straight, particularly where I have knowlege and experience to share, and I only speak on this particular topic when necessary. Thanks for putting up with this, and thanks again to my detractors, too.

A sword is made stronger by fire.

 

[TWA Dude]

If you pay any kind of attention to the news these days, you will find that any kind of after school club is welcome on public school property, jewish clubs, muslim clubs, you name it. No Christian clubs are allowed. The NEA defines those religions as "cultures", so they are ok.

I pay very close attention to the news these days and especially issues of religion and state. I still have no idea what you're talking about.

I'll let you draw your own observations from that. As for persecution, none of us here in America have the first clue of what that word means.

You're right in that very few (but not zero) have first-person knowledge of persecution, but as a member of a religious minority I can tell you I have a darned good clue of the meaning. How well do you know history?

I've never been persecuted, and I owe that to those who have died to defend my freedom. So do you.

Of course. And this statement is relevant in what way?

As a general observation, any protests on issues of church and state tend to be viewed as an attack on Christianity. In the case of rabid atheists that may be true but in most cases it's people like me who are simply opposed to the endorsement of a specific religion on public property. For instance a Nativity Scene has no place in a City Hall, which is exactly what happened in Chicago some fifteen years ago. To "smooth" things over they proposed to add a Channukah Menorah nearby. WRONG! Neither have any place there. Yet we still often see a Christmas tree and a menorah juxtaposed, as if that somehow covers all bases. Religion is alive and well (okay, sometimes not so well but that's a different issue) in the U.S. and I believe Christianity will do just fine without governmental promotion.

 

[Timebuilder]

>>For instance a Nativity Scene has no place in a City Hall, which is exactly what happened in Chicago some fifteen years ago. To "smooth" things over they proposed to add a Channukah Menorah nearby. WRONG! Neither have any place there. Yet we still often see a Christmas tree and a menorah juxtaposed, as if that somehow covers all bases. Religion is alive and well (okay, sometimes not so well but that's a different issue) in the U.S. and I believe Christianity will do just fine without governmental promotion.

You raise an excellent example.

Who placed the nativity scene there? The government? Or, was it American citizens? Was a law passed mandating that a particular religious symbol be placed on public property by the city council, or did individual citizens, acting on their own volition, decide what they wanted to place there without any prompting from the government?

This is the very essence of the discussion: what actually entails an "official endorsement" of a particular religious belief, and can the government limit the activity of American citizens, exercising their constitutional freedoms, just because they are employed by the government in a public building, or attending a public school? Do these employees or students and teachers give up thier constitutional rights in these situations?

As I mentioned NO ONE wants Christianity to be "officialized" by the government. Why????? There are very few things that our government does really well, and we would no doubt end up with a Bible as convoluted as the tax code.

If you have a fear that Christians want to be recognized as the official religion of the United States, you can relax, now. I would fight that idea to the death.

>>That being said there's no doubt that certain Christian conservatives wish to impose their beliefs on the general public and that's why they try to prohibit the teaching of evolution in public schools along with promoting "prayer in school". I used quotation marks because all public school students already enjoy freedom to pray in school and thus there's no need to set apart any designated time period. I went to a religious grade school so I know full well the difference. They do have an agenda!

Having an agenda is a big part of being an American. The point of setting aside time is to allow an activity that has little opportunity in a busy student schedule. Some gather at the flagpole outside before school, while some are afraid of what left-leaning NOW types will say, putting them in a "jeopardy of power" similar to what a woman feels when pressed by her boss for sex: powerless. You may have a perception that Christians want to impose a belief on others, but no one has explained just how this is done. You either believe, or you don't. Maybe the CIA has some sort of serum that allows for this type of mind control, but my experience is that only God can change a heart.

Sometimes it takes a tragedy to bring about change, like September 11th, or the crash of the Alaska MD-80. How many people prayed for the first time as that plane accelerated to the ocean?

Quite a few, I'll bet.