pledge of alliegence
 

This thread may have been in exisitence before but at 11:30 at night i dont feel shifting thru 31 pages to find it

What do you think of this calif lawyer trying to remove a portion of the pledge?

a man that doesnt even have full cusotdy of his daughter and a wife and daughter who feel he is in the wrong.....


I can forsee a pulic lynching but he had his day in court ( the hi court the supreme court ) and although they considered his case... i dont see it being granted.

its kind of funny that you bring this topic up- actually my friends and i were having a debate about this over a pint last night at our favorite pub.... my friend told me that the case was coming up to the court and she asked what my thoughts were about it. i told her that if they are trying to get rid of "under god" in the pledge of allegience in order to seperate church and state... then where does this fine line of seperation end? If they are trying to get rid of a statement such as this... then where is the justification in trying to outlaw gay marraiges? doesn't this argument have origins in the church? aren't gay marraiges amoral? If the supreme court even THINKS about trying to get rid of such a phrase- then they need to get off there sorry *sses and do something about being hypocrites too. Bush and his seperatist christian fanatics need to slow their role... what is this world coming to.... :rolleyes:

Bush and his Christian fanatics didn't put it in there. However, they, being religious people, probably like it in there.

I don't personally find the statement horribly subversive. Kids don't put a heck of a lot of thought into the pledge. They just say it because everyone else does.

The Eisenhower administration helped that little change along in 1954. It's not something the founding fathers had much to do with. Personally, I wouldn't miss those two words all that much.

ok.. your right about the Bush thing... but i just don't like him or his policies... so i like to blame things on him... thats not to say that i'm too keen on other canidates or the state of things etc.. but thats just my personal feeling... ;)

I think that "under god" should be removed from the pledge.

I feel the two words should remain, and be capitalized, underlined and written in BOLD.

I concur...

Simply because it wasn't in there originally, so it's not like removing it will destroy the pledge. Contrary to popular belief not everyone in America believes in God,Go Figure. :rolleyes:
So those people shouldn't be forced to be labeled "unpatriotic" which happens quite often, just because they don't want to say Under God.

I can remember someone complaining to a teacher about saying, "Under God." She said, "Don't say it, then."

If people try to get along, they usually will.

Good idea. Maybe they could officially make the "God" line optional.

Exactly! It's hard enough being a kid without being put in a position every day where you're reminding everyone that you're DIFFERENT.

Okay, remember when you were in elementary school and said the Pledge? Remember how everyone just mumbled along and some idiot usually had the words wrong anyhow? If it really offends you to say "Under God", teach your child not to say it.

The chances are huge that no one will even notice.

Do you think kids will really notice that another kid isn't saying it? You're talking about 20-30 voices reciting at the same time.

What really offends me is a PUBLIC school encouraging children to say anything about "God" at all. A public school is not the place for that.

Just wondering, if we remove the "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, do we have to change all of our currency that says "In God we Trust"?

If so that would kill our economy as it would be so expensive& as everyone knows if they decide to remove "under God" from the pledge others who want to remove any trace of God from our government will use it as a precedent to remove it from our money.

While we're at it, should we delete the part of the Constitution that says "year of our Lord" ?

I mean y'all need to look at the big picture.


Just my $.0354876 worth
-Mark

I think we should. Think of all the jobs it would create if we had to print new money!

I'm only half kidding. It shouldn't say anything about God on money, but I agree that replacing it all would be impratical -- it would have to be done over time.

No that was decided already from what I understand and it's not considered a religious term legally.

-Rudey

The words should be left exactly where they are. If for no other reason than to help us Americans retain some shred of humility.

I don't know. It's against Jehovah's Witness belief to say the pledge period (or in our case here in Canada, sing the national anthem), but I've heard of kids who stay in the classroom anyway.

I think they should change it to say "under what ever higher power you believe in, or don't...it's all good"

ah ah ah...

let's not mix Canadian and American culture ok? Americans are told time and time again that the culture in Canada is different, which it is. So if something is accepted in Canada, it doesn't mean it will parallel the beliefs of Americans.

She's not mixing the 2 cultures. She discussing Jehovah's Witnesses.

She also stated she heard of kids who stay in the classroom.

SImply because in Canada they might be ablle to do that. It wouldn't be as easy in the U.S. Children are bastards....

Therefore, in a sense, yes she was mixing the cultures. Unless she's talking about children staying in the classroom in both countries but I didn't get that....

I believe she was talking about both countried. She happened to through the example of Canadian children singing the national anthme in, as we have no pledge of any sort to recite.

When I was a kid, I was athiest. I didn't say the "Under God" part, never got picked on for it, I don't think anyone noticed, and it didn't make me even remotely uncomfortable.

In other words - not a big deal.

The thing people have to realize is that it's not just a YOU situation but a THEM situation. Whether you think you would feel comfortable not saying those parts or not saying them at all is different from whether someone else might feel uncomfortable.

I personally am torn on this issue. While I would like to say it's good to say it, the question is good for who? Is this representative of Islam and Judaism as well or simply a Christian saying? Is religion's role good or bad in society - and is this an issue of religion or one of humility as a certain other user posted.

-Rudey

A true thinker...

Lady Pi Phi is right. I was referring to Jehovah's Witnesses staying in the classroom during what's often termed as "morning excercises", which in the case of Canadians, means singing "O Canada". It's against Jehovah's Witness belief to say the pledge or sing national anthems of any country. However, to avoid being considered outcasts, many Jehovah's Witness kids stay in the classroom anyway. It's no different than not saying "under God" during the Pledge.

I would want to see it removed. Although I have a strong Christian faith and have no problem saying it myself, I try to put myself in others' position. If it said "Under Buddah" or "Under Allah", I would be upset. Since one of the main reasons people came to this country in the first place was for religious freedom, I think we need to respect that freedom and remove it from the pledge. I am in favor of future money being made without the "In God We Trust" on it also. With as often as they change the $20 bill and the recent state quarters, I don't believe it is that expensive to change the design to exclude those words.

Dee

There was a big debate over whether or not the pledge would be required in the Madison school district right after 9/11. The debate grew so heated that it attracted national attention and a number of religious leaders from throughout the country pressured the school board to require it. The school board bowed to the national pressure and voted to require either the pledge or playing the national anthem every morning, despite the fact that most Madisonians believed the pledge should NOT be required.

I think most of the schools (especially middle/high schools) stuck with playing the national anthem to sidestep the whole "Under God" issue.


Personally, the way I feel is this: If you leave the words in, it could lead to problems. Most of you are right that it probably won't, or if they do cause problems they won't be that bad. However, it COULD potentially cause some major problems. Taking the words out is NOT going to cause problems -- it's not like the words are the only thing holding together the morality of society and the second we stop saying them everything is going to go to hell.


Personally I think the whole national anthem thing is an okay alternative if "Under God" is getting too many panties in a twist.

I agree, and taking those words out will expand the common ground on which all Americans can together stand.

Okay, here is the only logical thing I think of to say about this...

The Pledge of Allegience was written by some one who inspired by seeing his flag wave in the wind. I guess. Anyway, he wrote the pledge. Then Eisenhower changed it. I don't think people's work should be changed. So I think they should take it back out again. Plus we do have the whole 250 year old "seperation of church and state" thing going on. Fuck it, I hate you all. If you like the words under god then you are fascist and should be killed. If you don't like it then you will burn in hell for ever, and deservedely too, heathen.

Court preserves wording...
 

Updated: 10:51 AM EDT
Supreme Court Ruling Keeps 'Under God' in Pledge
But Decision Doesn't Address Whether Phrase Is Constitutional
By ANNE GEARAN, AP

WASHINGTON (June 14) -- The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase ''one nation, under God,'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California athiest could not challenge the patriotic oath while sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

I'm extremely relieved and glad the Supreme Court made this decision.

:( :( :(

That about sums up how I feel about it too. :(

From what I've read, it did not address whether or not the "Under God" was constitutional or not. The ruling pretty much said that the father did not have the authority to sue on behalf of the daughter.

Interesting -- so it's a standing issue. I'll have to read the opinion.

That's right. They didn't rule on the actual issue. The father is in the middle of a custody dispute with the girl's mother and the court said there wasn't enough proof that he was the legal guardian and therefore, he couldn't sue on her behalf.

Interesting way for them to side step the issue!

Dee

Who really cares one way or the other?

It doesn't bother me with, it doesn't bother me without.

It's our country, our flag... be proud of it.