Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional

[QueHuong]

For anyone who happens to be siding with me on this, I've realized there's nothing to fret over long-term. This is only at the court of appeals level, and only for a few western states- does anyone in their right mind think that it's going to progress any farther? Get a good laugh out of this and the people behind it while you can, because this b.s. will be shot down the drain as fast as it's surfaced. The Supreme Court wouldn't even consider such a fallacy.

Gee, great argument you put out there. Instead of providing a logical reason as to WHY the government should keep "Under God" in the pledge, you fall back on the hope that the Supreme Court will overturn the decision due to their religious adamancy. In fact, it's already been clearly established the words "Under God" have very specific religious overtone, regardless of what your personal interpretations may be.

This decision may be overturned later on, but I'll guarantee you that the those who still passionately care about religious freedom will continue to make efforts to strike those two words from the pledge, so you don't get to sit in your pretty little chair getting a "good laugh out of this" yet.

 

[AmdInside]

Christians and athiesists should both be happy with this decision (sort of). Athiests should be happy for obvious reasons. Once (and if) the "under god" is removed, then it will make athiests happy. I don't know why a Christian's would want to pledge alligiance to the flag or have their children pledging allegiance to the flag. A Christian is to pledge alligiance to and only God. Not to a flag which can be interpretted as an idol for this country. When I was in school, I would stand up for the recital out of respect for others but I would not recite the pledge of allegiance.

 

[Red Dawn]

NightFlyerGTI

The Supreme Court wouldn't even consider such a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. The fallacy is that you believe that public Schools should force the belief of your Mythology on the students by including "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. If you suckers had it your way the US would be like the Mass. Bay Colony or even worse, a Christian Al Qaeda. Now not all Christians are Fund A Mental Cases like you and they realize that there should be a seperation of Church and State.

 

[LH]

Whats funny is, they are over turning another court, actually more than one court.

This same guy has tried to try the same case in a couple states, each of his cases was thrown out, except this one, he lost, he appealed, and the extremely liberal 9th circuit overturned the original court ruling. Several courts have tossed his case out/ruled against him, but this appeals court overturns.

 

[badluck]

I'm tired of having others beliefs shoved down my throat---that's right--I'm sick and tired of peoples ATHEIST beliefs being FORCED upon me by the government, the ACLU, and every other group of people that want to FORCE their ideas on me.

Ummmmm...and why is that our dollars and pledge of allegiance shove your God down my throat? Get a clue.....Get used to Americans declaring our rights against this nonsense!!!!

 

[xirtam]

"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..."

If the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, so is the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: NightFlyerGTI
The Supreme Court wouldn't even consider such a fallacy.

I believe the fallacy is your mythological diety. You may disagree. That is your Constitutional right. It's also mine, and I will greatly appreciate not having your particular beliefs shoved down my throat any time I choose to declare my allegience to the U.S.

 

[Red Dawn]

For anyone who happens to be siding with me on this, I've realized there's nothing to fret over long-term.

Well Jeebus has this to say about that

And the Pope adds his 2 cents

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
It is about time we did something about the Pledge. I quit saying it in high school because of the god part. Why do these people insist on pushing their religion on other people? The religious based messes in Iran, India - Pakistan, Ireland, just to name a few are reasons enough to keep religion as far from the goverment as possible.

I do not care what god\gods you pray to just keep it to yourself.

I was waiting for this particular slippery slope argument! If we don't take out the "under God" that has been in our Pledge of Allegiance for 50 years, we'll be no different from Iran and Pakistan! Thanks for the larf! Now stop that.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: NightFlyerGTI
The Supreme Court wouldn't even consider such a fallacy.

I believe the fallacy is your mythological diety. You may disagree. That is your Constitutional right. It's also mine, and I will greatly appreciate not having your particular beliefs shoved down my throat any time I choose to declare my allegience to the U.S.

Since the existence of God cannot be proven or disprove, atheism is as much a "religion" as any other.

 

[Red Dawn]

atheism is as much a "religion" as any other

Nice try but you are full of Fund A Mental Case Bullsh!t

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

atheism is as much a "religion" as any other

Nice try but you are full of Fund A Mental Case Bullsh!t

Please tell me how. If you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, the the belief that there is no God cannot hold a favorable or unfavorable position relative to the various beliefs that do maintain the existence of God. Just because you believe something doesn't mean your beliefs are superior to those of others. Try an actual argument next time, thanks. Goodbye.

 

[Red Dawn]

Please tell me how. If you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, the the belief that there is no God cannot hold a favorable or unfavorable position relative to the various beliefs that do maintain the existence of God. Just because you believe something doesn't mean your beliefs are superior to those of others. Try an actual argument next time, thanks. Goodbye.

Fund A Mental Case Translator: Bullsh!t

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: NightFlyerGTI
The Supreme Court wouldn't even consider such a fallacy.

I believe the fallacy is your mythological diety. You may disagree. That is your Constitutional right. It's also mine, and I will greatly appreciate not having your particular beliefs shoved down my throat any time I choose to declare my allegience to the U.S.

Since the existence of God cannot be proven or disprove, atheism is as much a "religion" as any other.

hence removal of the "in god" part will not do any harm to anyone...cos it doesnt cater to the religions which have a god or the religions that dont have a god.

i know that besides the "the service and worship of God or the supernatural " definition there is also a "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" definition for religion. But im sure that you do know what people here mean when they say "separation of religion and state". quit being such a lawyer !

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Ramsnake hence removal of the "in god" part will not do any harm to anyone...cos it doesnt cater to the religions which have a god or the religions that dont have a god.

i know that besides the "the service and worship of God or the supernatural " definition there is also a "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" definition for religion. But im sure that you do know what people here mean when they say "separation of religion and state". quit being such a lawyer !

No, I cannot know what people mean when they refer to "separation of religion and state," considering that no such language is in the Constitution and that the meaning of the First Amendment has been debated for 200 years.

The deliberate removal of "under God" could hardly be considered anything but an attempt by nonreligious to alter the status quo. It is not the role of courts to overturn the decisions of the people as expressed through laws made by their elected representatives, the Congress and the President, especially when those decisions are and have long been consistent with cultural norms unless they facially violate the Constitution. I would certainly consider the use of "God" in the Pledge, the national motto, oaths before the courts, etc. to be a cultural norm that has, until recently, never been considered a matter of the establishment of religion or the prohibition of religious practice. In that light, this 9th circuit decision contradicts the will of the people and is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

Thank you for calling me a lawyer already. I still have to go to law school

 

[Gaard]

Pretend for a moment that under God had never been added to the PoA. Now today there was a drive to add it. How many of the people here, that are against the decision to remove it, would be against adding it due to separation of church and state.

 

[Ramsnake]

you still dont get it do you

in lay man terms, the ruling is you can refer to god if you want to, whereas the original was you have to refer to god. if you dont understand that , then you are insisting me to look at you as a religious fanatic.

 

[StattlichPassat]

Originally posted by: MindStorm

For anyone who happens to be siding with me on this, I've realized there's nothing to fret over long-term. This is only at the court of appeals level, and only for a few western states- does anyone in their right mind think that it's going to progress any farther? Get a good laugh out of this and the people behind it while you can, because this b.s. will be shot down the drain as fast as it's surfaced. The Supreme Court wouldn't even consider such a fallacy.

Gee, great argument you put out there. Instead of providing a logical reason as to WHY the government should keep "Under God" in the pledge, you fall back on the hope that the Supreme Court will overturn the decision due to their religious adamancy. In fact, it's already been clearly established the words "Under God" have very specific religious overtone, regardless of what your personal interpretations may be.

This decision may be overturned later on, but I'll guarantee you that the those who still passionately care about religious freedom will continue to make efforts to strike those two words from the pledge, so you don't get to sit in your pretty little chair getting a "good laugh out of this" yet.

Thanks for reading the entire thread before you post- read my initial message on Page 3.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Pretend for a moment that under God had never been added to the PoA. Now today there was a drive to add it. How many of the people here, that are against the decision to remove it, would be against adding it due to separation of church and state.

The points is that the people chose to add "under God" to the Pledge and that they did not choose to remove it. Your accusation of hypocrisy is based on the false premises that this is a first amendment issue and that the will of the people is unimportant. It is not a first amendment issue and never was until the ACLU came along.

 

[Dedpuhl]

Most of the points I would have made are made above.



The dechristianization of America will take time.

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Pretend for a moment that under God had never been added to the PoA. Now today there was a drive to add it. How many of the people here, that are against the decision to remove it, would be against adding it due to separation of church and state.

rephrase it better please....too many negatives in that sentence...

i disqualify myself from answering the question as Iam for the decision to remove it

 

[Red Dawn]

The deliberate removal of "under God" could hardly be considered anything but an attempt by nonreligious to alter the status quo.

The Status Quo was altered by the Religious 40 years ago. Todays ruling just remedied that blatant attempt by the Political Right to force their beliefs on the Population at large.

 

[jjones]

I don't understand why people are upset over this ruling. Those that have faith in God should find it comforting to know that all people's rights are being protected. They may find the tables turned on them one day. Those that argue tradition are groundless; this is returning the PoA to tradition. While the current wording may be known by you and perhaps by your fathers, it certainly isn't the traditional wording that your grandfathers or great-grandfathers knew.

Having the words "under God" in the Pledge doesn't bother me either way really, but for the sake of Constitutional and Traditional consistency, I think they should be removed.

 

[StattlichPassat]

Originally posted by: AmdInside
Christians and athiesists should both be happy with this decision (sort of). Athiests should be happy for obvious reasons. Once (and if) the "under god" is removed, then it will make athiests happy. I don't know why a Christian's would want to pledge alligiance to the flag or have their children pledging allegiance to the flag. A Christian is to pledge alligiance to and only God. Not to a flag which can be interpretted as an idol for this country. When I was in school, I would stand up for the recital out of respect for others but I would not recite the pledge of allegiance.

I think you're confused or misinformed- pledging allegiance is a lot different than worshipping. You can pledge allegiance to a company or brand in a competitive market, or even sides in a tug of war game. Pledging is showing who you support, not who you worship. Would you worship Toyota?

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: xirtam
"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..."

If the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, so is the Declaration of Independence.

Great post.

It would be nonsensical to say that we have inalienable rights without referring to some higher being or force.