The W
Views: 100863604
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.11.14 0527
The W - Current Events & Politics - Pledge of Allegiance... Unconstitutional
This thread has 71 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 Next(2524 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (58 total)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
Pledge of Allegiance ruled Unconstitutional



Your a retarted looser.
Promote this thread!
Debaser
Mettwurst








Since: 22.3.02

Since last post: 4489 days
Last activity: 4454 days
#2 Posted on
Hmph. On the one hand, I basically agree with the ruling in the "if it were up to me" sense. On the other hand, even as an atheist myself, complaining about it always struck me as much ado about nothing.



I don't really understand what Debaser said but I agree with him.

- Santa Sangre
Tom Dean
Bockwurst








Since: 30.8.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3340 days
Last activity: 2709 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on
The Supreme Court, being quite conservative, will overturn it as soon as it gets to them. I honestly hope that is very soon, because I feel the exact way as Debaser about it (am against it myself, but am not nearly as emotionally involved in it as its supporters), and don't feel like hearing people flip their lids over it for years.



"How YOU Doin'?"
- Tom Dean, weekly at [slash]
"History is being make-ed... somebody here is getting their head completely shaved off"
- David McLane, PPV opening promo

gonna build a giant drill and bore straight into hell releasing ancient demons from their sleep-forever spell so they can walk upon the earth and get recituated and run the diet pill pyramid that MC Pee Pants has created
Torach
Pinkelwurst








Since: 12.6.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 4516 days
Last activity: 4398 days
#4 Posted on
Well on the one hand, it makes sense because of the whole seperation of shurch and state thing, but why has it taken so long for this to be handed down? It was passed in the 1950's and is just now being struck down.

I went through first to fourth grades having to say it at assemblies and in class at the beginning of the day. So that is about 10.8 hours of my time I would like back please. ;^)

This is either political correctness carried to an entirely new level, or just something our courts needed to do because they had nothing else to do.



Guest Commontator! Who whoo! I'm calling all the women's title matches.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
#5 Posted on
If they would just take to words "under god" out, you know, like how it was written, then they wouldn't even be having this problem, now would they? I, for one, applaud this decision.

THE HISTORY OF THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm





"It's a sad day when mocking one's opponent via midget becomes an acceptable form of entertainment."
--Lance Storm
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 339 days
Last activity: 26 days
#6 Posted on
As a Canadian, I have a special perspective on this. We don't have a Pledge of Allegience, except to hockey. Mmmm...hockey. Any-hoo, maybe the Supreme Court can rule that the words "under God" don't appear in the Pledge of Allegience. In fact, they never did. You see, when it was written, somebody coughed and the writers THOUGHT that the cough sounded like "under God" and wrote it in. So, instead of saying "under God", you can all just say "under *cough*" and continue on like nothing happened.

Or to quoth Judge Snyder from the Simpsons:
"Everything will be exactly the way it was before any of this happened, and nobody will mention this again...UNDER PENALTY OF TORTURE!"
YAY!



Bart: Hey, immigrants! Beat it! Country's full!
Sailor: OK people, you heard the lady. Back into the hold. We'll try Canada.
[the immigrants moan]
-- "The City of New York Vs. Homer Simpson"


"That's what the Internet is for, slandering others anonymously" Banky Edwards (Jason Lee) in Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

El Weasel
Longanisa








Since: 11.6.02

Since last post: 2709 days
Last activity: 2665 days
#7 Posted on
Why can't they just let the school boards decide this junk. We have three people who apparently have decided for everyone in nine states, one being California, what can be said in schools.
My question would be when you are teaching these kiddies don't you have to teach them about the different areas of the world and their faiths? What happens when they talk about umm Christians? Do they not mention Jesus? When you learn about Islam don't you need to know Mohammad was? Maybe this isn't taught anymore.
Debaser
Mettwurst








Since: 22.3.02

Since last post: 4489 days
Last activity: 4454 days
#8 Posted on
    Originally posted by El Weasel
    Why can't they just let the school boards decide this junk. We have three people who apparently have decided for everyone in nine states, one being California, what can be said in schools.
    My question would be when you are teaching these kiddies don't you have to teach them about the different areas of the world and their faiths? What happens when they talk about umm Christians? Do they not mention Jesus? When you learn about Islam don't you need to know Mohammad was? Maybe this isn't taught anymore.



There's a difference between teaching something and asking students to profess faith in something. By pledging allegience to a nation "under God", you are claiming such a God exists, and that He goes by the name God. Nonchristians of all stripes disagree with one or both statements, and wouldn't want their children asked to claim otherwise. This is pretty basic. And schoolboards tend to be insular affairs run primarily by the area's mainstream (i.e., Christian) community. Little Omar's mommy probably doesn't have a whole lot of say in these things, which is why the courts have to step in.

And who the hell learns comparative religion in grade school, anyway?

Then again, like I said above, it's two words in a rote recitation most kids consider little more than a daily annoyance, and I don't really see why we need to waste time and money debating it in court.

(edited by Debaser on 26.6.02 1653)


I don't really understand what Debaser said but I agree with him.

- Santa Sangre
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3509 days
Last activity: 3503 days
#9 Posted on
"There's a difference between teaching something and asking students to profess faith in something. By pledging allegience to a nation "under God", you are claiming such a God exists, and that He goes by the name God. Nonchristians of all stripes disagree with one or both statements, and wouldn't want their children asked to claim otherwise. This is pretty basic."

And yet our Declaration notes belief in a "Creator," our money says "In God we trust," prayers being every session of Congress, etc. I guess I can understand why some hardline atheists get perterbed by these things. But the fact is that this has historically been a "Christian" nation in the limited sense that the majority of people in one way or another profess belief in the Judeo-Christian God. If they wish to express this belief in these ways (and to many people, they are *small* ways) then why shouldn't they be allowed to? If atheists don't like it, then when they take over the country they can get rid of them. I guess they have been in the process of this in recent years and decades, but gauging by the amount of religious adherence still present in America I think they still have a high road to climb.

DMC



"You! You're sumthin' you!" -Robert DeNiro, Analyze This
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 106 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42

    Originally posted by DMC
    But the fact is that this has historically been a "Christian" nation in the limited sense that the majority of people in one way or another profess belief in the Judeo-Christian God.


Then we are also "historically" a white nation. Perhaps our pledge should say "GOD BLESS THE WHITE MAN."

Most white people during the various civil rights movements in our nation's history I'm sure disregarded it as minor and "a waste of time."

I have another problem that is not addressed in this court's decision. The pledge is expressing another belief that all those forced to participate in it may not agree with. What if I don't want to pledge my loyalty to America? What if my alegiances lie with my family's native Germany, even though I enjoy it in America more? I'm sure the typical knee-jerk reaction will be "THAN LEAVE!", but regardless of my loyalty laws in this country say I have as much right to be here and feel this way as you do.

The bottom line is, the pledge of allegiance represents the government crossing lines it has absolutely no right to cross. Not only are they jumping over the seperation of church and state barrier, but they are simply telling their citizens what to think. They can't do that.



Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?"
Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"

"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!"
-Norman Smiley

"She is one of them! She's CANADIAN!"
-Stevie Ray
Debaser
Mettwurst








Since: 22.3.02

Since last post: 4489 days
Last activity: 4454 days
#11 Posted on
I think at least token allegience to America (or any country) is part and parcel with citizenship. If they can draft you on threat of imprisonment to kill and die for the U.S. then they apparently have your allegience, willing or otherwise. You might have a point as far as resident aliens go, but eh.



I don't really understand what Debaser said but I agree with him.

- Santa Sangre
Sean
Cotechino








Since: 26.3.02
From: Mastic, NY

Since last post: 4519 days
Last activity: 3608 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#12 Posted on

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan

      Originally posted by DMC
      But the fact is that this has historically been a "Christian" nation in the limited sense that the majority of people in one way or another profess belief in the Judeo-Christian God.


    Then we are also "historically" a white nation. Perhaps our pledge should say "GOD BLESS THE WHITE MAN."

    Most white people during the various civil rights movements in our nation's history I'm sure disregarded it as minor and "a waste of time."

    I have another problem that is not addressed in this court's decision. The pledge is expressing another belief that all those forced to participate in it may not agree with. What if I don't want to pledge my loyalty to America? What if my alegiances lie with my family's native Germany, even though I enjoy it in America more? I'm sure the typical knee-jerk reaction will be "THAN LEAVE!", but regardless of my loyalty laws in this country say I have as much right to be here and feel this way as you do.

    The bottom line is, the pledge of allegiance represents the government crossing lines it has absolutely no right to cross. Not only are they jumping over the seperation of church and state barrier, but they are simply telling their citizens what to think. They can't do that.



I don't mean to be rude, but you quite obviously don't have any understanding of life in just about any other country in the world. In terms of raw patriotism, America requires so little of its citizens it's positvely astounding.

Germany, to use your example, requires severe patriotism of a different sort: complete economic dependence on the government. Rather than require its citizens to utter a small oath before their school days, it requires that people hand over a giant portion of their wages to support its governance.

When it comes to the pledge of allegiance, the legal issue is pretty screwy - see, nobody actually HAS to say the pledge. In fact, we had quite a few Jehovah's Witnesses flat out refuse to say it, as was their right.

Furthermore, this whole "separation of church and state" business is being taken fiercely out of context. Quoting from the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The pledge of allegiance simply does not fall under this clause, no matter how much you twist the legal language. Congress hasn't passed a law to do anything. Also, schools requesting that students say the pledge of allegiance before class does not prohibit the free exercise of religion at all - because there is no prohibitive act.

In addition, the pledge simply does not "express a belief." This is another simple misrepresentation of the language. The person reciting the pledge merely admits his support of the United States - the remaining parts of the pledge are merely descriptors of the country.

The bottom line is this: the Supreme Court will reject this ruling because it infers meaning about the "separation of church and state" clause that is simply not present. Under this ruling, the Constitution prohibits tax exemption for religious organizations. The court's reasoning is so nutty I could go on all day.



Giant Baba is a sexual icon.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 106 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
Well if there is no law existing, why has every public school in the country-until now- said the pledge at the beginning of each day? Also, be careful. Interpreting something differently does not necessarily = misinterpretation.

Also, America requires little patriotic participation, however they have the right to require absolutely zero. And your example about not having to say the pledge holds about as much validity as school prayer supporters saying students don't have to participate in certain prayers. The issue is not (to me) the actual saying of the pledge. It's about the government taking action in a field where they have no business doing so.

EDIT: An example. Imagine saying this pledge is really really important to someone, and they feel the need to say it. They will still have the right to do it, at school. The big difference is now it does not have an endorsement that the government should never have given in the first place.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 27.6.02 0032)


Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?"
Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"

"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!"
-Norman Smiley

"She is one of them! She's CANADIAN!"
-Stevie Ray
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 594 days
Last activity: 7 min.
#14 Posted on

    Originally posted by Sean

    Furthermore, this whole "separation of church and state" business is being taken fiercely out of context. Quoting from the Constitution:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


You beat me to this point. No where does the US Constitution say that in the eyes of the US goverment god does not exist. See if the pledge said "one nation unders Jesus Christ" that would be unconstitutional but under the broder "god" wording there is no favoring of any religion.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on
    Originally posted by Sean
    Furthermore, this whole "separation of church and state" business is being taken fiercely out of context. Quoting from the Constitution:
      Constitution:
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
    The pledge of allegiance simply does not fall under this clause, no matter how much you twist the legal language. Congress hasn't passed a law to do anything. Also, schools requesting that students say the pledge of allegiance before class does not prohibit the free exercise of religion at all - because there is no prohibitive act.


Actually, they did. In 1954, as we all know, Congress drew up and passed an act adding "under God" as a response to religious leaders who feared Communism. Thus, they made a law establishing a Christian view towards God. Calvinh, that wording in and of itself, IIRC, does favor Christianity over, say, Judaism, since it explicitly says his name; if it were to favor Judaism, it'd say "G_d", if anything.

As far as the ruling goes, you can't compare it to civil rights, as it's two words in a piece that's usually recited thoughtlessly by most Americans. Personally, I could live without it, but whatever. It's more of a principle thing than anything else.

(edited by drjayphd on 27.6.02 0111)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








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

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
In highschool i refused to recite the pledge on grounds of it being a religous act...

glad to see others feel the same...

I heard on the radio that the IN GOD WE TRUST does not violate church and state, and the High Court has refused to rule on it many times...



"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college." -Lewis Black

"Yeah, fuck you E.T. you ungrateful dick." -BigDaddyLoco 5/20/2

"MAY PRE HOUSE THE SEAMY SIDE VOLITATION!!!" Warning from a "Flying Goku" Dragon Ball Z toy

"I'm her sugar momma, which is ok, because I'm her sister." Connie French, and the funniest thing one of my customers has ever said to me
evilwaldo
Lap cheong








Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3441 days
Last activity: 3222 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
This is nothing more than political correctness run amok.

We all have to put up with shit we do not like so deal with it and move on.






Prime evil of Kaiju Big Battel is very mysterious and expensive doctor.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 106 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42

    Originally posted by evilwaldo
    We all have to put up with shit we do not like so deal with it and move on.





I guess we don't need to investigate murders anymore. I mean, hey, people die anyway, right?



Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?"
Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"

"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!"
-Norman Smiley

"She is one of them! She's CANADIAN!"
-Stevie Ray
Sean
Cotechino








Since: 26.3.02
From: Mastic, NY

Since last post: 4519 days
Last activity: 3608 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#19 Posted on
    Originally posted by drjayphd
      Originally posted by Sean
      Furthermore, this whole "separation of church and state" business is being taken fiercely out of context. Quoting from the Constitution:
        Constitution:
        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
      The pledge of allegiance simply does not fall under this clause, no matter how much you twist the legal language. Congress hasn't passed a law to do anything. Also, schools requesting that students say the pledge of allegiance before class does not prohibit the free exercise of religion at all - because there is no prohibitive act.


    Actually, they did. In 1954, as we all know, Congress drew up and passed an act adding "under God" as a response to religious leaders who feared Communism. Thus, they made a law establishing a Christian view towards God. Calvinh, that wording in and of itself, IIRC, does favor Christianity over, say, Judaism, since it explicitly says his name; if it were to favor Judaism, it'd say "G_d", if anything.




Just wanted to say that this last bit is inaccurate. "God" is a generic term for higher being and is not particular to one religion. Jews forbid saying the name of "God," which is Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, or a variety of others, depending on your faith. This whole G_d business is another example of nutty political correctness.

To reiterate: Congress did not pass a law that:

a) required saying the pledge of allegiance in schools and
b) respects one religion over another

Edit: fixed some formatting

(edited by Sean on 27.6.02 1057)


Giant Baba is a sexual icon.
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 594 days
Last activity: 7 min.
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by drjayphd
    Actually, they did. In 1954, as we all know, Congress drew up and passed an act adding "under God" as a response to religious leaders who feared Communism. Thus, they made a law establishing a Christian view towards God. Calvinh, that wording in and of itself, IIRC, does favor Christianity over, say, Judaism, since it explicitly says his name; if it were to favor Judaism, it'd say "G_d", if anything.



From Merriam-0Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gńd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
Main Entry: 2god
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): godĚded; godĚding
Date: 1595
: to treat as a god : IDOLIZE, DEIFY

Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Pages: 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: A great day in Minnesota....
Next thread: Creamy Goodness from Ann Coulter
Previous thread: The G-8 Summit
(2524 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Amen...a class act late 20th century politician. May he rest in peace. Unfortunately I too only remember Franken's spot-on impression of Simon at times. DMC
- DMC, Sen. Paul Simon, RIP (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Pledge of Allegiance... UnconstitutionalRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.171 seconds.