One nation under god.. again

[ReiperX]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/06/pledge.allegiance.ap/index.html

Sorry, just saw this one.

The court dodged the bullet with this the first lawsuit since the father didn't have custody over the child, the court didn't have to make a ruleing.

Now.... he has other parents backing him, that have legal custody of their children. Lets see how this works this time around. Personally, I wouldn't mind under god being taken out of the pledge simply because it wasn't there to begin with. Take it back to its original form since people are so fond of tradition.

[supercubedude]

Yeah, I don't care about the pledge anymore. It's just something you do in elemtary school. I'm can't even remember all of it now.

[bcdemon]

I could handle "God keep our land, glorious and free" being ripped from the Canadian national anthem. Heck I remember kids in school that would stand in the hall because they didn't share in the lords prayer, then eventually that same child would be absent for the national anthem aswell. Now I totally understand not being present for the lords prayer, but our national anthem?? Come on.

[BAWLS]

This issue isn't really all that debatable. There's no good reason to keep in.

[Z17]

Isn't it an option that you don't have to participate in saying it? Hell, I go to a Catholic school and you don't have to pray, so I would assume the same would be for public schools.

~Z~

[7T]

At 1/6/05 05:20 PM, Z17 wrote: Isn't it an option that you don't have to participate in saying it? Hell, I go to a Catholic school and you don't have to pray, so I would assume the same would be for public schools.

~Z~

This is the attitude that one should take. If you dislike saying under god, then simply don't say it.

But trying to remove "under god" from the pledge, while technically being the correct thing to do, is simply to much work &seems that it would piss to many people off.

Can someone come up with a good reason for the removal of it. I understand that it yes, it is technically unconstitutional, but is it so bad that it harms others?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 1/6/05 06:13 AM, ReiperX wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/06/pledge.allegiance.ap/index.html

Sorry, just saw this one.

Oh wow, like this wasn't the most predictable event of the century.

The court dodged the bullet with this the first lawsuit since the father didn't have custody over the child, the court didn't have to make a ruleing.

Not really, both Sandra Day O'Connor and some other dude wrote in a follow up opinion that the phrase doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. I do wish they would have just stated that without making it possible for him to sue again. I don't even think that the Supreme Court has to take the case again.

Personally, I wouldn't mind under god being taken out of the pledge simply because it wasn't there to begin with. Take it back to its original form since people are so fond of tradition.

God won't be disappearing from the pledge. We are a nation under God and that single phrase is way too important to way too many people. My reccommendation is make God whatever they want it to mean. Jews worship God, Moslems do, Hindus do, Buddhists consider a man a deity. "God" is a loose term. Let atheists believe that they themselves are Gods and worship themselves.

[subpar]

Damn. I saw it on CNN just now, and was going to make a thread, when I saw this one.

Here's my take on the situation: The last trial did not solve the problem. They threw the case out of court because Newdow did not have custody of his child. Did they think that would solve the problem? Anyone else with a child and the same belief could step up. They've only delayed the problem, and although I was against it at first, I'm starting to agree with Newdow. And I would think he's going to win, but there are too many people against him.

The words "under God" were not in the original pledge, so why go to such lengths to protect it? And how is it not religious to say that the nation is under God? I'm not talking about why it was added, or what it means to some people. Literally, it is religious.

Also, I am not an atheist, but I understand what they are saying. What if the pledge said "under no God?" Of course, they wouldn't randomly add something negative like that. But hypothetically, what if it said something of that sort? Many people would be offended that their religion or belief is being openly denied by the pledge. It's the same for these angry atheists, but the other way around. Saying that the entire nation is under God, or any god, does contradict their belief. They have a reason to bitch about it.

If anyone wants to argue with me, that's fine, but don't expect me to change my mind.

[BAWLS]

At 1/6/05 05:35 PM, Rooster349 wrote: God won't be disappearing from the pledge. We are a nation under God and that single phrase is way too important to way too many people. My reccommendation is make God whatever they want it to mean.

So you'd be okay with the pledge saying "one nation under Allah"?

The thing is, we shouldn't keep it in because a lot of people like it. Why not throw "Broncos are awsome" in somewhere?

By taking it out we aren't saying that there is no God. As subpar pointed out, they didn't replace it with "one nation under nobody because God doesn't exist" or something.

[B-Stewie]

That guy is a huge loser with more time on his hands then he knows what to do with it. All he is looking for is attention

[RedSkunk]

At 1/6/05 12:45 PM, NotYouZ wrote: This issue isn't really all that debatable. There's no good reason to keep in.

It seperates us from the bloodthirsty communists.

What, you say the Soviet Union fell? Well what do you think Cuba is still around for? DUH.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 1/6/05 07:51 PM, NotYouZ wrote:

At 1/6/05 05:35 PM, Rooster349 wrote: God won't be disappearing from the pledge. We are a nation under God and that single phrase is way too important to way too many people. My reccommendation is make God whatever they want it to mean.

So you'd be okay with the pledge saying "one nation under Allah"?

When people are wondering about God, they don't ask, "Does an Allah exist?" They ask, "Does a God exist?" Point being, "God" has come to mean a lot of different Gods and extends to all faiths, (besides atheism). The reason why "God" doesn't refer to just the Christian faith is because there is more to God than that. There's the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. God can also mean "Hashem," and "Allah." It can mean Buddha if you want it to mean Buddha. It can mean the Founding Fathers. Whatever you want to believe. We're Americans.

The thing is, we shouldn't keep it in because a lot of people like it. Why not throw "Broncos are awsome" in somewhere?

Okay, true, but spirituality is something that this nation was founded upon. It's interwoven in our rich history, and yet it's not a government dictated by God, like a theocracy. God's recognition here is one of the things that makes this country so unique.

By taking it out we aren't saying that there is no God. As subpar pointed out, they didn't replace it with "one nation under nobody because God doesn't exist" or something.

I'll be honest: You're probably right if we want to consider every minority in this country. I will be the first to say that I don't care about atheists. They can believe what they want to believe, but they can't deny the fact that the founding fathers were deeply religious men who wrote the Constitution for men of God. James Madison (I think...) even stated in one of his federalist papers that the Constitution didn't apply to people who had no religion or moral center. Under that rule, we'd probably have the right to deport a good portion of the fringe left. :)

[Pyrrho]

At 1/6/05 05:35 PM, Rooster349 wrote:

At 1/6/05 06:13 AM, ReiperX wrote:

My reccommendation is make God whatever they want it to mean. Jews worship God, Moslems do, Hindus do, Buddhists consider a man a deity. "God" is a loose term. Let atheists believe that they themselves are Gods and worship themselves.

Lol! Well, that certainly solves the issue.

[Ravens-Grin]

I want just want to make sure that everyone knows something. The original pledge created in 1892 did not have the "under god" part in it when Francis Bellamy. Strange thing about Francis Bellamy is that he was a Baptist preacher.

Also, the pledge was added during the Cold War to differ ourselves from the Soviet Union, which they were atheists. The group that crusaded to get this done though was the Knights of Columbus. This occured in 1954.

[Ravens-Grin]

Get rid of the first want in the first sentence and it will make sense....

[MoralLibertarian]

At 1/6/05 11:20 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Also, the pledge was added during the Cold War to differ ourselves from the Soviet Union, which they were atheists. The group that crusaded to get this done though was the Knights of Columbus. This occured in 1954.

I know that. Doesn't bother me. As a matter of fact, it made a great addition and now, nearly 50 years later it is deeply ingrained in our tradition.

[AbstractVagabond]

Oh God, not this again. This thing is so petty, it's pathetic. I have never considered "under God" endorsing any religion. Felt that God was a general term to expand to all religions. Added to aid the expression of religious freedom. Sucks that some athiest asshole had to bring this issue to life. Sucks even more that Chirsitan assholes are making this issue worse by turning "under God" from a religious freedom statement into a Christian dictative creedo.

Here's some food for thought for those who want "under God" gone. Take your dislike for those words and multiply it by around 20. It'll equal the level of dislike people have for gay marriage. Now that I think of it, saying "under God" is offensive while claiming homosexuality never hurts anyone is a very big form of hypocrasy in my book. Visa versa is a given.

[AbstractVagabond]

At 1/6/05 11:25 PM, Rooster349 wrote: I know that. Doesn't bother me. As a matter of fact, it made a great addition and now, nearly 50 years later it is deeply ingrained in our tradition.

While I believe in a separtion of church and state (not to the lengths that liberals want it, though), it doesn't bother me, either. I grew up saying it and I can never get myself to not say it. Much like how I can never call Candlestick Park "Monster Park".

[Nylo]

I can't believe people are still fighting over it. It's a couple of words. People say words without meaning them all the damn time. Those dipshits need to stop tying up the damn court system over with their semantics-bitching and realize that a lot of people really don't give a shit about a few words that are in a pledge that doesn't even take up a fraction of our day.

[ReiperX]

At 1/6/05 11:08 PM, Rooster349 wrote:

I'll be honest: You're probably right if we want to consider every minority in this country. I will be the first to say that I don't care about atheists. They can believe what they want to believe, but they can't deny the fact that the founding fathers were deeply religious men who wrote the Constitution for men of God. James Madison (I think...) even stated in one of his federalist papers that the Constitution didn't apply to people who had no religion or moral center. Under that rule, we'd probably have the right to deport a good portion of the fringe left. :)

President Bush Sr. said a very similar thing before, which was disturbng for me. And I used to have some respect for him other than the war crimes he ordered commited.

[SPQRI3]

I say we should keep it in just to piss off the Atheists. It's great that they don't believe in God, but the other 90-95% of America does. Don't like, don't say it.

[Slizor]

I could handle "God keep our land, glorious and free" being ripped from the Canadian national anthem.

I could handle "God Save our Queen" being taken from the National Anthem of Britain. Then again it's the only words most people know.

PS: Hindus don't worship "God" since they believe in many many Gods each with a different purpose - not one almighty one.