The W
Views: 100715387
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.11.07 0300
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Pledge of Allegiance... Unconstitutional
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(2091 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (58 total)
Freeway
Scrapple
Level: 110

Posts: 333/3504
EXP: 14227766
For next: 181166

Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 334 days
Last activity: 22 days
#21 Posted on 27.6.02 1140.09
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1143.27
A Brief History of the Pledge of Allegiance

The original Pledge of Allegiance, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands -- One nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all," was written in September of 1892 by Francis Bellamy for "The Youth's Companion" magazine in Boston. The phrase was printed on leaflets and sent to schools throughout the United States.

The first organized use of the Pledge of Allegiance came on Oct. 12, 1892, when some 12 million American school children recited it to commemorate the 400-year anniversary of Columbus' voyage.

In 1923, the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C. voted to change the words "my flag" to "the Flag of the United States of America."

Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance in 1942, but in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that public school students could not be forced to recite it.

The words "under God" were added in 1954 by then President Eisenhower, who stated at the time, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."



So, somebody wrote something to increase nationalist fervor following the Civil War [to try and make America one great country]. Following the First World War [and the isolationist nationalism that followed] it was tweaked a bit. And following the Second World War [and the more conventional nationalism that still exists today], Eisenhower added "under God" because HE was a religious man. So, it's all the fault of social trends and Eisenhower.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 380/1180
EXP: 2778947
For next: 90811

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3505 days
Last activity: 3499 days
#22 Posted on 27.6.02 1146.30
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1159.01
And Jefferson would not have had a problem with that what-so-ever. Because even though he was a deist, he was a "religious man" as well.

DMC

(edited by DMC on 27.6.02 0947)
pieman
As young as
he feels
Level: 111

Posts: 461/3590
EXP: 14791203
For next: 77203

Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on 27.6.02 1235.26
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1237.12


Nice work, Guru. You post the link, then walk away to watch the fireworks, ya bastard!

The picture in my morning paper here in Maine had little grade schoolers from Sunnyvale, CA reciting the pledge (which of course, my kindergartner says every day!).
Debaser
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 141/159
EXP: 136383
For next: 11503

Since: 22.3.02

Since last post: 4485 days
Last activity: 4450 days
#24 Posted on 27.6.02 1251.24
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1259.04

    Originally posted by DMC
    And Jefferson would not have had a problem with that what-so-ever. Because even though he was a deist, he was a "religious man" as well.

    DMC

    (edited by DMC on 27.6.02 0947)



Jefferson didn't have a problem with slavery, either. What precisely is your point?

See, the basic idea of "freedom and equality" was originally intended within the cultural context of the time (white male landowning Protestants of all stripes), but has since proven useful in broader applications.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 381/1180
EXP: 2778947
For next: 90811

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3505 days
Last activity: 3499 days
#25 Posted on 27.6.02 1358.36
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1359.01
I'm not a Jefferson scholar, but I wouldn't say it is totally true that Jefferson had absolutely no problem with slavery. I believe he understood it as a problem and realized the dilema between what he wrote in the Declaration and the fact that he owned slaves. He was simply a very complex man, as you can imagine.

My point is that the pledge is in no way out of step with what the Founders believed and would have approved of. The slavery issue is different in that many of them realized it was an important issue to deal with and was not seen by them as the greatest thing since sliced bread. They simply chose not to deal with the consequences of dealing with slavery ("in order to form...a union") and left that to future generations. Again, you can say they were just as mistaken to have allowed for expressions of faith in the U.S. government. If you do, then join the hardline atheists who are fighting to remove all expression of faith from everywhere except underneath your bed sheets. If you think they will be successful, more power to you and them. But I doubt they will be.

DMC
Debaser
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 143/159
EXP: 136383
For next: 11503

Since: 22.3.02

Since last post: 4485 days
Last activity: 4450 days
#26 Posted on 27.6.02 1411.54
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1413.53
Um... I hope you were just being inprecise. Most people who complain about these things don't want to remove "all expressions of faith", simply all state sponsored expressions of faith. I mean if you, as a private citizen want to hang a sign on your roof that says "Jesus Saves", then bully for you. If you want to have prayer in a privately funded Catholic school, than wonderful. But, ideally, the government shouldn't be dealing in these matters.


    Originally posted by DMC
    I'm not a Jefferson scholar, but I wouldn't say it is totally true that Jefferson had absolutely no problem with slavery. I believe he understood it as a problem and realized the dilema between what he wrote in the Declaration and the fact that he owned slaves. He was simply a very complex man, as you can imagine.

    My point is that the pledge is in no way out of step with what the Founders believed and would have approved of. The slavery issue is different in that many of them realized it was an important issue to deal with and was not seen by them as the greatest thing since sliced bread. They simply chose not to deal with the consequences of dealing with slavery ("in order to form...a union") and left that to future generations. Again, you can say they were just as mistaken to have allowed for expressions of faith in the U.S. government. If you do, then join the hardline atheists who are fighting to remove all expression of faith from everywhere except underneath your bed sheets. If you think they will be successful, more power to you and them. But I doubt they will be.

    DMC

DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 382/1180
EXP: 2778947
For next: 90811

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3505 days
Last activity: 3499 days
#27 Posted on 27.6.02 1445.18
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1453.39
"Um... I hope you were just being inprecise. Most people who complain about these things don't want to remove "all expressions of faith", simply all state sponsored expressions of faith. I mean if you, as a private citizen want to hang a sign on your roof that says "Jesus Saves", then bully for you. If you want to have prayer in a privately funded Catholic school, than wonderful. But, ideally, the government shouldn't be dealing in these matters."

Before CRZ or Guru kills us both, can you just answer *why*? If the Founders were not against government expressions of faith in America, why should we be? Do these things *really* make atheists feel like second class citizens? As others have been pointing out, you don't *have* to recite the pledge in school. Personally, if I was an atheist who was secure in my beliefs, I wouldn't *care* if coins said "In God We Trust," I would just see my fellow Americans as ignorant believers in fairy tales and go on with my day. In just the same way, as a Christian, if our coins suddenly said "In Allah we trust," as long as I would not being forced to accept Islam, I would just go on my way believing what I believe and instead of bringing up these stupid issues, trying to force people to "make me more comfortable" in my Christianity, I would instead spend that time dialoguing with my fellow Americans as to why I accept Christianity as true over Islam. Are the atheists involved in this court case too afraid to do that?

DMC
Debaser
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 145/159
EXP: 136383
For next: 11503

Since: 22.3.02

Since last post: 4485 days
Last activity: 4450 days
#28 Posted on 27.6.02 1505.33
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1507.40
They don't bother me in any more than a loose intellectual sense, but obviously some atheists get pissy about it, just like many many Christians will get pissy if the SC doesn't overturn the ruling. I think the first group are in the "right" because they're asking for neutrality as opposed to favoritism based simply on popularity and pedigree, but I think both are probably too high strung about it.

As to "Why?". Well, you don't have to recite the pledge in school, but how many 8 year olds are going to feel comfortable leaving the room every morning while the rest of the class does? Do I, as the theoretical atheist parent of said 8 year old want to try to make him understand why every other authority figure in his life is into this "God" idea but he shouldn't be? Do I want the people in charge of a good deal of scientific and artistic funding officially reminded every day that this is a "historically Christian country"? Do I, simply in general, want the national entity I identify myself with to officially endorse a bunch of beliefs I think are hooey? And, as minor as these things are, there's simply no good pragmatic reason not to change it other than the fact that it would upset a bunch of Christians who have even less real reason to complain, but happen to be more numerous and hold more political power.

And... yeah, PM me or something if you feel inclined to go further on this.


    Originally posted by DMC
    "Um... I hope you were just being inprecise. Most people who complain about these things don't want to remove "all expressions of faith", simply all state sponsored expressions of faith. I mean if you, as a private citizen want to hang a sign on your roof that says "Jesus Saves", then bully for you. If you want to have prayer in a privately funded Catholic school, than wonderful. But, ideally, the government shouldn't be dealing in these matters."

    Before CRZ or Guru kills us both, can you just answer *why*? If the Founders were not against government expressions of faith in America, why should we be? Do these things *really* make atheists feel like second class citizens? As others have been pointing out, you don't *have* to recite the pledge in school. Personally, if I was an atheist who was secure in my beliefs, I wouldn't *care* if coins said "In God We Trust," I would just see my fellow Americans as ignorant believers in fairy tales and go on with my day. In just the same way, as a Christian, if our coins suddenly said "In Allah we trust," as long as I would not being forced to accept Islam, I would just go on my way believing what I believe and instead of bringing up these stupid issues, trying to force people to "make me more comfortable" in my Christianity, I would instead spend that time dialoguing with my fellow Americans as to why I accept Christianity as true over Islam. Are the atheists involved in this court case too afraid to do that?

    DMC

ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 212/1494
EXP: 3959497
For next: 46582

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#29 Posted on 27.6.02 1624.54
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1629.02
A couple of things, the Supreme Court won't overturn this ruling. They won't have to. The 9th district will overturn its own ruling within 45 days (the ruling is on hold).

The admendment stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is meant to protect religion from Government, not the other way around.

The ruling will be overturned on the grounds that no one is forced to say the Pledge. In fact, the LAW in California states that you can not be forced to recite the Pledge. The fact that you may be forced to "hear" it is irrelevent. Everyone else is simply exercising their freedom to speech. We all are forced to hear things we don't agree with. We still have no right to shut that person up. As far as endorsements of beliefs, the Constitution is the document that this country is founded on, and it's whole document of beliefs. That doesn't have 100% agreement either, but if had to have 100% agreement on everything, we would have nothing. I'm tired of people who someone how believe they have the right to never hear anything that they may find offensive. Of course, you have every right not to listen.

(I also find if funny how some people are worried about forcing a handful of kids to doing something or hearing something they don't think they should. But the solution to the problem is forcing the other bigger sections to do something else other than what they want to do)

(edited by ges7184 on 27.6.02 1628)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 476/5229
EXP: 25940466
For next: 484224

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#30 Posted on 27.6.02 1630.49
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1631.25

    Originally posted by DMC
    "Um... I hope you were just being inprecise. Most people who complain about these things don't want to remove "all expressions of faith", simply all state sponsored expressions of faith. I mean if you, as a private citizen want to hang a sign on your roof that says "Jesus Saves", then bully for you. If you want to have prayer in a privately funded Catholic school, than wonderful. But, ideally, the government shouldn't be dealing in these matters."

    Before CRZ or Guru kills us both, can you just answer *why*? If the Founders were not against government expressions of faith in America, why should we be? Do these things *really* make atheists feel like second class citizens? As others have been pointing out, you don't *have* to recite the pledge in school. Personally, if I was an atheist who was secure in my beliefs, I wouldn't *care* if coins said "In God We Trust," I would just see my fellow Americans as ignorant believers in fairy tales and go on with my day. In just the same way, as a Christian, if our coins suddenly said "In Allah we trust," as long as I would not being forced to accept Islam, I would just go on my way believing what I believe and instead of bringing up these stupid issues, trying to force people to "make me more comfortable" in my Christianity, I would instead spend that time dialoguing with my fellow Americans as to why I accept Christianity as true over Islam. Are the atheists involved in this court case too afraid to do that?

    DMC



in my expereince, GOD is used for the christian or "white" religions. the religions that started in europe. If one was going to refer to another "God", they use the proper name; Allah, Bhudda, Foley...and so on

TO ME, this is an endorsement that AMERICA is a Christian country. Don't try and tell me that the founding fathers were trying to recognise Allah & Bhudda with the use of "Creator".

As with each passing generation, the "old values" are moved to the way side and "new values" are emerging. 50 years ago, no one thought that splitting one's tounge would be cool. I know 3 people that are dying to get their tounges split.

times change, and society change. Slavery is outlawed, and eventually the "religion-ness" of the goverment will be toned-down and this whole "under god" and "in god we trust" will dissappear...
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1051/3428
EXP: 13769679
For next: 190011

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 102 days
Last activity: 102 days
#31 Posted on 27.6.02 1649.52
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1651.01

    Originally posted by ges7184
    The ruling will be overturned on the grounds that no one is forced to say the Pledge. In fact, the LAW in California states that you can not be forced to recite the Pledge.


Nobody would be forced to say a prayer if we had that in school. But we don't. Because it is state endorsement of prayer, which we cannot have.


    ges7184
    We all are forced to hear things we don't agree with. We still have no right to shut that person up. As far as endorsements of beliefs, the Constitution is the document that this country is founded on, and it's whole document of beliefs. That doesn't have 100% agreement either, but if had to have 100% agreement on everything, we would have nothing. I'm tired of people who someone how believe they have the right to never hear anything that they may find offensive. Of course, you have every right not to listen.

    (I also find if funny how some people are worried about forcing a handful of kids to doing something or hearing something they don't think they should. But the solution to the problem is forcing the other bigger sections to do something else other than what they want to do)

    (edited by ges7184 on 27.6.02 1628)



But you see, just because we put up with problems elsewhere is not justification for a problem here. By that logic, nobody should ever be allowed to press charges for anything because, hey shit happens. Deal.

People have every right to do or say what ever they want as long as it does not impede on the rights of others. I have a right to be governed by a body that does not endorse something that is religious in nature.

And the word "God," regardless of its origins, disregards those who don't believe in any "god", so there.

The thing about our Constitution's "endorsements", they are endorsing ideas entirely political, which is afterall a government's responsibility.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 383/1180
EXP: 2778947
For next: 90811

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3505 days
Last activity: 3499 days
#32 Posted on 27.6.02 1653.19
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1656.40
"TO ME, this is an endorsement that AMERICA is a Christian country. Don't try and tell me that the founding fathers were trying to recognise Allah & Bhudda with the use of "Creator"."

I'm not saying that the Founders were all-out religious pluralists, but they were Enlightenment men who understood there were other religions out there and even in American at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights. After all, they *could* have made it say "In Christ We Trust," but they didn't. Moreover, as I attempted to point out earlier, America *can* be seen as a Christian country, so I see no problem in allowing for these modest types of religious expression in our government. Excuse me for being blunt, but if it "bothers" some people, so what? Since when can any society not "bother" some type of element within it?

DMC
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 477/5229
EXP: 25940466
For next: 484224

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#33 Posted on 27.6.02 1903.15
Reposted on: 27.6.09 1907.55

    Originally posted by DMC
    "TO ME, this is an endorsement that AMERICA is a Christian country. Don't try and tell me that the founding fathers were trying to recognise Allah & Bhudda with the use of "Creator"."

    I'm not saying that the Founders were all-out religious pluralists, but they were Enlightenment men who understood there were other religions out there and even in American at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights. After all, they *could* have made it say "In Christ We Trust," but they didn't. Moreover, as I attempted to point out earlier, America *can* be seen as a Christian country, so I see no problem in allowing for these modest types of religious expression in our government. Excuse me for being blunt, but if it "bothers" some people, so what? Since when can any society not "bother" some type of element within it?

    DMC



but, just because there are religons, the point to all this is that "UNDER GOD" is forced on us who do not beleave in any religion at all, and our views are just as valid as those who have religion...

i know i'm going to watch what my local and national leaders say about this subject and those for the ban will get my vote...
Swordsman Yen
Frankfurter
Level: 56

Posts: 221/745
EXP: 1388315
For next: 9870

Since: 16.2.02
From: Shaolin

Since last post: 3967 days
Last activity: 3950 days
#34 Posted on 28.6.02 0014.05
Reposted on: 28.6.09 0017.08
And now, the new Pledge of Allegiance that won't offend anybody...

"I pledge allegiance...for all."
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 942/16361
EXP: 143934077
For next: 1791343

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#35 Posted on 28.6.02 0328.26
Reposted on: 28.6.09 0329.01

    Originally posted by rikidozan
    i know i'm going to watch what my local and national leaders say about this subject and those for the ban will get my vote...
So you're not voting, then? :)
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 242/2182
EXP: 7008591
For next: 180045

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 364 days
Last activity: 357 days
#36 Posted on 28.6.02 0336.23
Reposted on: 28.6.09 0348.57

    Originally posted by DMC
    I'm not a Jefferson scholar, but I wouldn't say it is totally true that Jefferson had absolutely no problem with slavery. I believe he understood it as a problem and realized the dilema between what he wrote in the Declaration and the fact that he owned slaves. He was simply a very complex man, as you can imagine.



Did he have a dilemma about fathering children with his slaves?
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 217/1494
EXP: 3959497
For next: 46582

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#37 Posted on 28.6.02 0941.57
Reposted on: 28.6.09 0942.48

    by Bucs Fan
    And the word "God," regardless of its origins, disregards those who don't believe in any "god", so there


And this ruling disregards those who DO believe in any "God". What's the difference (except you are disregarding even MORE people to regard the beliefs of a few)?

And I don't know what they do around here in schools (well, they probably still have a moment of silence), but I do know that they still have prayers at football games here. It's done by students, as they exercise their freedom of speech. Now, I don't really care if someone prays at a game or not. I'm not even sure why they have prayers at football games. But I do know it's important to a lot of people, and I'm not going to disregard their right to do it. I don't think I, nor anyone else, has a right not to hear it, or anything else for that matter. (And I don't think it's a problem, like you seem to. You seem to equate with robbery or murder. I'm not sure I follow the logic.)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1058/3428
EXP: 13769679
For next: 190011

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 102 days
Last activity: 102 days
#38 Posted on 28.6.02 0957.16
Reposted on: 28.6.09 0959.01

    Originally posted by ges7184
    And this ruling disregards those who DO believe in any "God". What's the difference (except you are disregarding even MORE people to regard the beliefs of a few)?

    And I don't know what they do around here in schools (well, they probably still have a moment of silence), but I do know that they still have prayers at football games here. It's done by students, as they exercise their freedom of speech. Now, I don't really care if someone prays at a game or not. I'm not even sure why they have prayers at football games. But I do know it's important to a lot of people, and I'm not going to disregard their right to do it. I don't think I, nor anyone else, has a right not to hear it, or anything else for that matter. (And I don't think it's a problem, like you seem to. You seem to equate with robbery or murder. I'm not sure I follow the logic.)



But it's not a school-organized prayer from the sounds of it. When I was in high school, students used to gather around the flagpole in front of the school and say prayers on their own before school. That's fine. Students still have the right to say the pledge. That's fine. But they don't need a state endorsement to do so.

As for comparing it to crimes: a lot of people (not talking just this board) have an attitude of "hey, we all have to tolerate things we don't like. Just deal with it and quit whining." Apply that logic to a criminal case. Why press charges for anything? I mean, we all have bad stuff happen to us, so why complain? That's the vibe a lot of people give me, but they then call the logic silly if I apply it somewhere else.

Something else that really bothers me is that George W. Bush's reason for opposing this ruling seems to be "I'm a religious man, so I have no problem with the word 'god'. It should stay."
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 387/1180
EXP: 2778947
For next: 90811

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3505 days
Last activity: 3499 days
#39 Posted on 28.6.02 1142.01
Reposted on: 28.6.09 1143.50
"As for comparing it to crimes: a lot of people (not talking just this board) have an attitude of "hey, we all have to tolerate things we don't like. Just deal with it and quit whining." Apply that logic to a criminal case. Why press charges for anything? I mean, we all have bad stuff happen to us, so why complain? That's the vibe a lot of people give me, but they then call the logic silly if I apply it somewhere else."

The problem is BucsFan, this is exactaly the connection that ges is properly calling into question. How do you show that having the pledge of allegiance said in a classroom is equally unlawful as theft or rape? Or even that certain people are made to feel less human by it, a kin to segregation in Brown vs. Board of Education? You're trying to make this kind of criminal connection but intuitively people are just having a problem with it, even someone who doesn't care for pledges or prayers.

DMC
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1059/3428
EXP: 13769679
For next: 190011

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 102 days
Last activity: 102 days
#40 Posted on 28.6.02 1148.57
Reposted on: 28.6.09 1149.53
Both this and your examples of rape or theft are examples of perceived wrongdoing or intrusion of somebody's rights. The only difference is one is a civil case, one is a criminal case. If going to a criminal case is too big a jump, then compare it to any other civil case. Blacks in the 1950's should have just dealt with the problem instead taking it to court, right? Women don't need sufferage, they should just sit back and not worry about it, right? These are both examples of what were once legal practices being banned because a civil trial led to a new interpretation of the Constitution. Protecting and promoting civil rights (which this is a case of) is just as important as finding and rapist or bank robber.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: A great day in Minnesota....
Next thread: Creamy Goodness from Ann Coulter
Previous thread: The G-8 Summit
(2091 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Pledge of Allegiance... UnconstitutionalRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.349 seconds.