Pledge of Allegiance: Unconstitutional.

[Crono]

Originally posted by: coolkatz321
I'm a freshman college student right now, and I didn't recite the pledge at all during my last two years at high school. I just didn't believe in what the USA was doign and didn't feel like saying it. Personally, I have no problem with the words 'under God' or anything like that, it was just a show of defiance I guess. Anyway, one of my teachers saw this and was pretty angry, and we got into a very heated argument. Result: she lost, badly. Anyway, this is a free country, and we're free to do whatever we want. If we want to burn the flag, we can burn it; if we want to pray to it, we can do that. But if we don't want to say it at all, then we don't have to. It's as simple as that.

See, this guy gets it. Why is it so hard for some people to understand? You don't have to say the pledge! If any teacher is forcing their students to say it, which they can't legally do anyways, they should be held accountable. If your being ostracised, I feel for you, but as a kid, there are other issues that will have the same effect. The Supreme Court should not have to deal with these kinds of petty issues.

 

[marvdmartian]

Why bother, there is no Constitution anymore. It's been decimated by the Republicans.

Of course, the Democrats that want to take our guns away have no intention of doing the same thing, do they?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: marvdmartian

Why bother, there is no Constitution anymore. It's been decimated by the Republicans.

Of course, the Democrats that want to take our guns away have no intention of doing the same thing, do they?

Democrats had Congress for what? 50 years practically? You still have guns, right?

 

[sourceninja]

I've seen christains come into my martial arts class and refuse to bow (something about idol worship). So I think I can refuse to say under god. But I dont see how its such a big deal. Just let them choose to say it or not. We had prayer in my public high school. It was called a moment of silence. Some kids went outside to pray together. I did my homework or slept for a few.

 

[marvdmartian]

Yeah, okay. Keep your eye on dems like Diane Feinstein. She won't be happy until the only people in this country with firearms are the cops & the crooks. :frown:

 

[coolkatz321]

By the way... about those guns. Aren't those the same ones that are used in school shootings? I did have a problem with the assault weapons ban not being renewed. Any sane person would be able to see that it was wrong and absolutely should have been renewed. Don't forget about this: Canadiens have more guns than we do, yet they have many less gun killings. It's unbelivable. And I see nothing wrong with making people have to register their gun, or even keepign a record about it. It's not used to take the guns away, it's used to make the country safer.

 

[skygod99]

Originally posted by: coolkatz321
By the way... about those guns. Aren't those the same ones that are used in school shootings? I did have a problem with the assault weapons ban not being renewed. Any sane person would be able to see that it was wrong and absolutely should have been renewed. Don't forget about this: Canadiens have more guns than we do, yet they have many less gun killings. It's unbelivable. And I see nothing wrong with making people have to register their gun, or even keepign a record about it. It's not used to take the guns away, it's used to make the country safer.

"Make a country safer"?

Are you serious? How does registering all weapons make anyone safer? It does not, all it does is provide the goverment a current record of who has what, so when the socialist / facist nimrods are ready they can come and get whatever you have. Nazi Germany, for example.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0502/S00074.htm (Its a NZ article, but has data about Canada)

From the article:

"The only thing Gun Registration has achieved in Canada is to squander valuable Police resources and $2 Billion of taxpayers hard-earned money," claims Linton.

Linton further states that the results of the Canadian experience with gun control mirror those of our western neighbour, Australia, where violent crime has increased 45% since the Australian government imposed "draconian gun laws by decree."

Do you have ANY idea what the assualt weapons ban was all about?
Not what the anti-gun policiticans and media has to say. It was created by Clinton and Reno as a weak attempt to piss off the NRA. That ban did nothing to stop or reduce crime, it was created to harass gun-owners, plain and simple.

Here---> http://www.awbansunset.com/

Obviously, you are not in full knowlege of the facts of firearms and firearm ownership.

Yes, about "those guns". Lets not forget the huge debt that the canadian goverment has from FORCING their citizens to register all their weapons. (see above)

It is FEAR that keeps people so nervous about guns, they are a tool, like anything else, a screwdriver, a hammer, etc...

It is the PERSON that performs the act or commits the crime, NOT the item. Our society keeps getting TOO involved in placing blame on inanimate objects, rather than the PEOPLE.

And lastly, let's not forget boys and girls. It's the Second Amendment that makes us a GOVERENED society and not a RULED one. Without it, they rest of the constitution is out the window.

Sorry for the hijack, but Second Amendment rights is one of my peevs. Its just when I see those who are COMPLETELY uninformed talk about it like they do, it unnerves me.

Forgive me for misspellings or grammicitical errors, I know when people here don't have anything to say in return, they attempt to belittle you by picking apart errors.

 

[Aquila76]

One question I've always had about the pledge is why must it be said daily? For lack of a better example, you don't recite your wedding vows every day and the two are very similar.
Pledging your allegiance to your country means that you forsake all other countries for this one; like a wedding vow forsakes all other men/women for this one.
Why not just say it once and be done with it? And if for conscientious, religious, or whatever other reasons you cannot pledge your allegiance to this country, fine. Why do we need to recite this pledge every day?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: marvdmartian

Why bother, there is no Constitution anymore. It's been decimated by the Republicans.

Of course, the Democrats that want to take our guns away have no intention of doing the same thing, do they?

Democrats had Congress for what? 50 years practically? You still have guns, right?

Youve forgotted the assault weapons ban?

 

[TheSlamma]

I was under the assumption this was a free country to have faith in whatever I wanted.

If I came here from another country and was say Buddist and my kids went to PUBLIC (remember zealots you can send your kids to PRIVATE schools) and was forced to learn Christian ways would I feel good?

I also think "In God we trust" needs to get off our currency too. Christians does YOUR God really want his name branded on MONEY anyway?

 

[TheSlamma]

What cracks me up about the Rebups is they are the ones who embrace the NRA out of the 2 parties, but then they are then under their administration we have now seen weapons taken. But the Hillbillies down south are so bound to the party for the NRA and Religious reasons they are blind to even think it's a bad deal now.

Just ANOTHER reason for separation of Church and State, religion is not just a TOOL for politics it's a WEAPON now.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: marvdmartian

Why bother, there is no Constitution anymore. It's been decimated by the Republicans.

Of course, the Democrats that want to take our guns away have no intention of doing the same thing, do they?

Democrats had Congress for what? 50 years practically? You still have guns, right?

Youve forgotted the assault weapons ban?

Which was merely pandering to his base. Most gun nuts couldn't tell a difference. No guns where grabbed - if you had a restricted gun, it was grandfathered. Most restrictive gun laws are at the state level anyway.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: marvdmartian

Why bother, there is no Constitution anymore. It's been decimated by the Republicans.

Of course, the Democrats that want to take our guns away have no intention of doing the same thing, do they?

Democrats had Congress for what? 50 years practically? You still have guns, right?

Youve forgotted the assault weapons ban?

Which was merely pandering to his base. Most gun nuts couldn't tell a difference. No guns where grabbed - if you had a restricted gun, it was grandfathered. Most restrictive gun laws are at the state level anyway.

A better example is to look at how the Democratic strondholds handle firearms. The 94 AWB was based on a similar California ban that is still in effect. Guns are illegal in Chicago.

If they could get the votes they still would not try for the full ban as the Supreme Court would very likely bitchslap them back a couple hundred years. They are now resigned to chipping away slowly at our rights instead.

 

[Bitek]

This is a losing issue. Dems should run as fast from it as possible.
Bush/Rove must be pissing themselves over this little gem. What a great way to rile their bases and distract from their Iraq/Katrina disasters. How's that gay marriage thing comin'?

Bush is getting killed right now in the support polls, and it would be suicide for Dems to take up this issue and throw thier whole advantage away. This is not an issue worth losing the '06/'08 elections for.



I've never been forced to say the "under God" part, even in 4th grade. You are free to leave it out. If teachers are forcing students to say it, deal with it on that level. REPEAT: You will only stir up the fundies pushing this issue.

 

[Bitek]

Also,


The pledge does not say "under Jesus" or anything like that. People say it refers to the Judeo/Xian Jehova, but only if you are letting it be defined as that.

"God" is generic. If you don't like the term, create a new meaning for yourself. God could be "force of Nature," "spirit flowing through all life," "greater humanity" or "lifeforce" or any other way you wish to define God. It does not require it to be a sentient big bearded man in the sky unless you let it.

Thnk of the strategy as in martial arts, deflect and redirect the energy instead of trying just repel it.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Hafen
Also,


The pledge does not say "under Jesus" or anything like that. People say it refers to the Judeo/Xian Jehova, but only if you are letting it be defined as that.

"God" is generic. If you don't like the term, create a new meaning for yourself. God could be "force of Nature," "spirit flowing through all life," "greater humanity" or "lifeforce" or any other way you wish to define God. It does not require it to be a sentient big bearded man in the sky unless you let it.

Thnk of the strategy as in martial arts, deflect and redirect the energy instead of trying just repel it.

What if you're an atheist... atheists have rights in this country too, don't they?

 

[skygod99]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
What cracks me up about the Rebups is they are the ones who embrace the NRA out of the 2 parties, but then they are then under their administration we have now seen weapons taken. But the Hillbillies down south are so bound to the party for the NRA and Religious reasons they are blind to even think it's a bad deal now.

Just ANOTHER reason for separation of Church and State, religion is not just a TOOL for politics it's a WEAPON now.

So are you insuing that all people "down south" are "Hillbillies"? Hrmm, what slur can I use for folks up north then? By putting that in your post only makes you look like an elitist ass.

Just ANOTHER condecending comment by one on the left, ASSUMING that everyone is less intellignet then them, pathetic...

 

[TheSlamma]

LOL, the dems could have bruce lee on their side and they would still be to scared to do anything with it.

Clinton was held accountable for getting a BJ from an ugly fat girl and almost lost his job.

Bush started a bogus war, has held no one accountable for any of these huge information errors and leaks, blatantly lied about weapons in iraq, never cought laden, dropping in support and he's not even faced a harsh talking to.

Demo's just want to cower with their table scraps.

This issue like all others should be delt with on an issue by issue deal, when party stradegy gets involved NOTHING gets done.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Hafen
Also,


The pledge does not say "under Jesus" or anything like that. People say it refers to the Judeo/Xian Jehova, but only if you are letting it be defined as that.

"God" is generic. If you don't like the term, create a new meaning for yourself. God could be "force of Nature," "spirit flowing through all life," "greater humanity" or "lifeforce" or any other way you wish to define God. It does not require it to be a sentient big bearded man in the sky unless you let it.

Thnk of the strategy as in martial arts, deflect and redirect the energy instead of trying just repel it.

What if you're an atheist... atheists have rights in this country too, don't they?

I am, but as said, this issue is not worth fighting for. Would you throw away and election
and let someone like Bush be elected as a reactionary responce by all the voters who see this as going too far by the anti-religionists in the left? Most people do not see this issue as a threat, but will see the paranoid responce to it as rediculous. The word "God" exists in other founding documents, but we're not going to go back and erase that from there either.


As an atheist, I can define "God" in terms that I feel comfortable with. I can say God is the summation of all the energy and all the matter that exists in the universe. God=Universe, and therefore all things are created form it and exist due to it, but I have not had to anthropomorphize it in anyway. It is simply "all that is."
In ths way I chose to define the meaning for myself and therefor I do not feel threatened by those who seek to define it differently.
Does it annoy me? Yes, but far less than many other things like war, taxation, enviroment, Supreme Court, and responsible government which are failing under the current admin and his congressional lapdogs. You gotta pick your battles, this is a stupid fight to pick in the current environment.


References to God are integral to our culture, and it is equally as selfish of me to remove that from others just bc they do not share my belief, esp when there are so many that feel this way. At some point thismay change in our culture, but now is not it.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
While the verse "Under God" in our pledge is a legacy to one of the more shamleful times in American History I don't see what the big deal is. You don't have to say it and most of the children and even young adults haven't a clue why it was added in the first place.

Because it's offensive to Mogogo who will have no other gods before Him.

There's no such thing as Mogogo, like all the other God Like Entities he was made up byacients who needed answers for questions that were beyond their comprehension.

Oh you just wait til all teh Mogogians get in here, they'll tear ya to shreds.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
While the verse "Under God" in our pledge is a legacy to one of the more shamleful times in American History I don't see what the big deal is. You don't have to say it and most of the children and even young adults haven't a clue why it was added in the first place.

Because it's offensive to Mogogo who will have no other gods before Him.

There's no such thing as Mogogo, like all the other God Like Entities he was made up byacients who needed answers for questions that were beyond their comprehension.

What hurt was that hippy called ME ancient. Mogogo is a Noob.

Oh you just wait til all teh Mogogians get in here, they'll tear ya to shreds.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Hafen
Also,


The pledge does not say "under Jesus" or anything like that. People say it refers to the Judeo/Xian Jehova, but only if you are letting it be defined as that.

"God" is generic. If you don't like the term, create a new meaning for yourself. God could be "force of Nature," "spirit flowing through all life," "greater humanity" or "lifeforce" or any other way you wish to define God. It does not require it to be a sentient big bearded man in the sky unless you let it.

Thnk of the strategy as in martial arts, deflect and redirect the energy instead of trying just repel it.

What if you're an atheist... atheists have rights in this country too, don't they?

I am, but as said, this issue is not worth fighting for. Would you throw away and election
and let someone like Bush be elected as a reactionary responce by all the voters who see this as going too far by the anti-religionists in the left? Most people do not see this issue as a threat, but will see the paranoid responce to it as rediculous. The word "God" exists in other founding documents, but we're not going to go back and erase that from there either.


As an atheist, I can define "God" in terms that I feel comfortable with. I can say God is the summation of all the energy and all the matter that exists in the universe. God=Universe, and therefore all things are created form it and exist due to it, but I have not had to anthropomorphize it in anyway. It is simply "all that is."
In ths way I chose to define the meaning for myself and therefor I do not feel threatened by those who seek to define it differently.
Does it annoy me? Yes, but far less than many other things like war, taxation, enviroment, Supreme Court, and responsible government which are failing under the current admin and his congressional lapdogs. You gotta pick your battles, this is a stupid fight to pick in the current environment.


References to God are integral to our culture, and it is equally as selfish of me to remove that from others just bc they do not share my belief, esp when there are so many that feel this way. At some point thismay change in our culture, but now is not it.

You're right. This is NOT something I would go out of my way to fight over.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Hafen
Also,


The pledge does not say "under Jesus" or anything like that. People say it refers to the Judeo/Xian Jehova, but only if you are letting it be defined as that.

"God" is generic. If you don't like the term, create a new meaning for yourself. God could be "force of Nature," "spirit flowing through all life," "greater humanity" or "lifeforce" or any other way you wish to define God. It does not require it to be a sentient big bearded man in the sky unless you let it.

Thnk of the strategy as in martial arts, deflect and redirect the energy instead of trying just repel it.

What if you're an atheist... atheists have rights in this country too, don't they?

Like he said, the word "god" in English is generic. The pledge is not "under the Christian god," for example, so the arguments that it does imply that are incorrect. The generic word "god" can (and does) include Allah (which is Arabic for "god" FYI, but more specific in that it is singular non-gender and cannot be made otherwise), Buddha, Mother Nature, "the Planet," the universe, Jehovah, Adonai, Yahweh, Zeus, Odin, Great Spirit, what have you. To insist that the word "god" in English only refers to the Christian god, under the context of this argument, is to be an ass.

About atheists... there is no single person on this earth that does not worship a god in some form (especially under definition 4 in that link, although not necessarily the idolatry of money). That so-called atheists usually don't recognize this fact never surprises me -- the very heart of atheism is an irrational denial of belief (only agnostics are truly honest on this subject). Now go pop a diet pill and dream that that new car will get you laid.

Back on topic, I really don't care about the pledge. The entire thing should be completely voluntary, if not done away with. The "under God" passage doesn't concern me so much as the entire pledge in itself, which IMO when made mandatory is the propaganda of fascism. What does concern me is that this attack on the pledge from the left is just as ignorant as the defenders of it on the right. "OMG it says 'god'!!" :roll:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic
About atheists... there is no single person on this earth that does not worship a god in some form (especially under definition 4 in that link, although not necessarily the idolatry of money). That so-called atheists usually don't recognize this fact never surprises me -- the very heart of atheism is an irrational denial of belief (only agnostics are truly honest on this subject). Now go pop a diet pill and dream that that new car will get you laid.

I guess I'm the one exception.

 

[Boxxcar]

I attended school in the 60's and I recited the pledge everyday throughout my elementary years. I don't recall if we continued to recite it in my junior and high school years-can't think that far back. Personally, I really don't care if "under God" is taken out or left in. If I had my druthers, I?d say leave it in. However, I'm pretty sure that the children that are reciting the pledge really don't care or fully understand either. It's the parents that are freaking out about this. The parents are the ones who are putting their children through the embarrassment of not standing up, or not saying the two words, or worse yet, being singled out by some jerk of a teacher who insists on making a point of it. I cannot imagine any elementary aged kid refusing to say under God, if it weren?t for the parent?s coercion. ?Now Billy, I don?t want you to say under God when you recite the pledge! Why not mommy? Because we must ensure the separation of church and state. What?? says Billy.
Exactly, what difference does it make??? The reference to God is not a government enforcement of the Christian faith. It simply references to all making the pledge to our nation?s flag that you do so while your respective god is watching. That?s how I look at it.
The term God means:
1. God. (god) noun A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in religions.
2. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: money was their god.
All religions have a God of some sort. Can you not place your hand on your heart and pledge allegiance to your country with your God watching over you?
For those of you adults who do not believe in God, do you actually practice atheism in you home? Do you actually tell your children there is no God? What do you tell you children when they ask where did they come from or how did people come to be on earth? All children need some sort of religion in their formulative years. They will make up their own mind when they get older. The fact that your god is over you while you?re reciting the pledge give the children something else to think about. It?s like when a child tells a lie or steals a piece of candy from a shop. God is over them and looking down on the child.
The pledge is nothing more than a patriotic gesture and nothing else If you have a problem pledging to your country, then that is a bigger issue. If you are an immigrant from any other country in the world who fought long and hard to come to the US to live and work, then you should pledge allegiance to the US. If not, then why to you seek to come to America if not to disrupt our way of life. What we don?t need is for some people (as an example and I mean no disrespect, Muslims) who come to our country; their children attend our schools, and then expect them to shun our flag and our country? I would expect them to pledge allegiance to the flag under Allah, as I would expect another child to pledge under Budda. Those terms sound funny when said in that context, so what?s wrong with just saying God? It?s all the same thing at the end of the day.
I do not believe there is one almighty being that created us and is looking over us. I also do not disbelieve either. There are just too many unanswered questions to convince me one way or the other. What I do know is that there are too damn many religious people here in the US that cannot practice their faith quietly as a family and in their home. They have to make a big deal about it by building the biggest and greatest church in town with the biggest parking lot, and then try to convert others to join their religion, because their faith is the only real faith to follow. And when we don?t, we are looked down upon, maybe even receive the proverbial finger occasionally. Devout church-goers tend to be the biggest hypocrites and religion is the number one reason for starting most of the world?s wars from thousands of years ago to present day.
Where do you stop? The dollar bill was referenced earlier. Does ?In God we trust? get stripped next? What about the phrase, ?do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God? Should we change that to, ?you ain?t gonna lie now are you? I guess we should consider stripping God from the phrase, Oh ..my ..God!
Lastly, isn?t there anything else more constructive to waste our tax dollars on instead of tying up the justice system with our pledge of allegiance debate?