PDA

View Full Version : Kinda surprised no one has mentioned this ("Under God" Decision")



Pages : [1] 2

Thantos
06-15-2004, 10:48 PM
Linky Linky (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge.case.ap/index.html)
I'm kinda torn. While I'm glad it wasn't removed, I am disappointed that a decision wasn't made on the central issue. Though I do see their point, how can a jackass parent sue on behalf of their daughter, who he believes he concieved when he was "raped", who's mother and the daughter disagree with the parent. (ok that was a really badly worded sentance but oh well ;) )

bennyandthejets
06-16-2004, 12:35 AM
I'm not American so I don't know the full facts about this pledge thingy, but I certainly agree that a person should not be forced to utter words that imply a certain religious standing. As for removing the words completely, I think that would be unnecessary.

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 12:39 AM
Ya me too thantos i wish it was won on the it should stay because thats just how it goes instead of winning on a technicality but hey winning is winning

RoD
06-16-2004, 01:01 AM
Here we go, i can already feel the heat!

Glad with the decision, rock the [mod edit: looks like we're going to have to add yet another misspelling to the spam filter.] on.

B-Con
06-16-2004, 01:53 AM
Right decicion... just unfortunatly that it wasn't for the right reason, leaving it open to possible conflict in the future....

whackaxe
06-16-2004, 02:06 AM
well as much as the dad maybe a muppet, i think that training kids to be sheep is a very bad and even more so if it concerns god. Americans may have found the banning of islamic scarves in french schools anti semite but i'm loving this example of the 'land of the free'

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 02:19 AM
I was never EVER forced to say the pleadge of alliangece so if a kid doesn't want to s/he has every right to sit there and do nothing if s/he fells that it imposes on their beliefs. no one is going to shun you beacuse you don't say the pledge

whackaxe
06-16-2004, 02:27 AM
really? ive only ever heard the opposite, i.e being forced to say it or being threatend by adults and/or students.

i still don't think it's a good idea though, because a child doesn't know whats in his best interest and that should be more the parents place than the schools

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 02:29 AM
who have you been talking when I was in hs we rarely even said the pledge and if we did you could sit sometimes I did because well i was tired :P
one to many even's

HybridM
06-16-2004, 03:35 AM
As long as the kids know they don't have to say it if they don't want to.

The thing is though, no matter how many times those kids repeat that pledge, they will probably never consider its actual meaning.

I have issues with forcing religion on children. It should be left up to them to decide whether they are religious or not, not their parents. This is one thing the amish do right! Although they still have 16 years of brainwashing time.

Clyde
06-16-2004, 04:02 AM
Of course it should be removed, it violates the constitution, and serves to indocrinate the young.

I suspect it will eventually be scrapped though it may well take a long time to go.

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 05:25 AM
oh wow mr england boy knows it all

bennyandthejets
06-16-2004, 05:26 AM
oh wow mr england boy knows it all

::: smells flame bait :::

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 05:28 AM
well im sorry but if your not from america then what right do you have to say anything about what goes on here i don't tell you to get a new queen or anything like that

Prelude
06-16-2004, 05:55 AM
I think people are just a little too uptight. Most controversial issues are about trivial things IMHO.

bennyandthejets
06-16-2004, 06:02 AM
well im sorry but if your not from america then what right do you have to say anything about what goes on here i don't tell you to get a new queen or anything like that

If you hadn't noticed this forum is called General Discussion. We're simply discussing an issue, giving our viewpoints. Don't get so riled up.

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 06:09 AM
I think people are just a little too uptight. Most controversial issues are about trivial things IMHO.

I agree with you on that prelude this should have never even been an issue its just two words and benny that wasn't directed at you i just don't think it violates the constition at all which was written by people that belived in God. Our country was founded on the belief in God and thats just how it is.

bennyandthejets
06-16-2004, 06:23 AM
I agree with you on that prelude this should have never even been an issue its just two words and benny that wasn't directed at you i just don't think it violates the constition at all which was written by people that belived in God. Our country was founded on the belief in God and thats just how it is.

I totally agree. A lot of the time controversial issues only arise because people are so pedantic.

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 06:25 AM
benny i have no hate for you.
Just people from england
Im kidding don't kill me :)

bennyandthejets
06-16-2004, 06:27 AM
Oh don't get me started on England... :p

ober
06-16-2004, 07:29 AM
I agree with you on that prelude this should have never even been an issue its just two words and benny that wasn't directed at you i just don't think it violates the constition at all which was written by people that belived in God. Our country was founded on the belief in God and thats just how it is.
Simply not true. Most of our "founding fathers" were not even Christian.

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 07:33 AM
such as?

Clyde
06-16-2004, 07:35 AM
well im sorry but if your not from america then what right do you have to say anything about what goes on here i don't tell you to get a new queen or anything like that


.... if you have rational arguments for why we should scrap the Monarchy i would be happy to hear them though it seems out of context here. Why should the coordinates we are born on restrict what we can form opinions on?


Plus you must realise that countries are not completely cut off from each other, they interact, what happens in one country has influence on other countries (though it may be long term rather than short term influence).

Thantos
06-16-2004, 07:40 AM
I agree with you on that prelude this should have never even been an issue its just two words and benny that wasn't directed at you i just don't think it violates the constition at all which was written by people that belived in God. Our country was founded on the belief in God and thats just how it is.Simply not true. Most of our "founding fathers" were not even Christian.

Hmm I don't see prog-bman mentioning Christian :) I do believe they were all believers in God even though they weren't Christians.

DavidP
06-16-2004, 07:41 AM
>Hmm I don't see prog-bman mentioning Christian I do believe they were all believers in God even though they weren't Christians.

'tis true indeed.

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 07:43 AM
sorry cycle didn't mean to lash out at you

Govtcheez
06-16-2004, 07:51 AM
I agree with you on that prelude this should have never even been an issue its just two words and benny that wasn't directed at you i just don't think it violates the constition at all which was written by people that belived in God. Our country was founded on the belief in God and thats just how it is.
You don't think it violates the Constitution? Remember that whole establishment clause thing?

The Pledge didn't originally have this in it, and our money didn't originally have "In God We Trust" on it. They were added to differentiate us from those Godless Commies. Sorry guys, the Cold War's done. It's time to get this out.

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 07:58 AM
im pretty sure the cold war wasn't going on in 1909 when In God We Trust was added to the penny
check this
http://www.pennies.org/history/two.html

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 08:25 AM
And check this link out if you thought that children were forced to say the pledge and basic history on it :)
http://www.usflag.org/pledgeofallegiance.html

Govtcheez
06-16-2004, 08:32 AM
im pretty sure the cold war wasn't going on in 1909 when In God We Trust was added to the penny
check this
http://www.pennies.org/history/two.html
You missed my point, but you're right.
> And check this link out if you thought that children were forced to say the pledge and basic history on it

We were always forced to say the pledge when I was in school.

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 08:38 AM
well that sucks but that shouldn't have happened i just don't see how having God in these things forces anyone to believe in God

Govtcheez
06-16-2004, 08:53 AM
It doesn't "force anyone to believe in God". It implies state endorsement of a religion, and according to the Constitution, that is illegal. Jesus, it shouldn't be this complicated.

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 08:59 AM
your not understanding the constitution was based on God check this one im sorry for the link bombing
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

Govtcheez
06-16-2004, 09:09 AM
> your not understanding the constitution was based on God check this one im sorry for the link bombing

Learn how to construct a sentence that makes sense, please.


Also, hahahahhaha

I was waiting for someone to pull that crap out. The Courts have repeatedly interpreted the establishment clause of the Constitution to mean that Church and State are intended to be seperated. I'm not going to go through all the garbage on that site, but that's simply the truth. It's the SCOTUS's job to interpret the Constitution, and that's how it's been interpreted.

major_small
06-16-2004, 09:23 AM
first off, to all those saying that children aren't forced to say it: there are alot of schools across the nation that will suspend children for not saying the pledge... (read: the children are forced to say it)

second, this sums it up best:
Those religious conservatives who worry much over the "original intent" of laws and statutes are hard put to argue that Congress was not acting with religious intent in 1954 when it inserted "under God" by joint resolution. The Cold War context provided the motive to contrast our way with godless communism. President Eisenhower declared, "From this day forward the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim ... the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." As the flag was then raised above the U.S. Capitol, the bugler played "Onward Christian Soldiers."(http://atheism.about.com/b/a/077323.htm)

IMO, it should be taken out of the pledge and off the money. the word 'God', even if used in the context you're talking about, still implies a higher being, a higher solitary being. not only do alot of people not believe in any higher beings, alot also believe in more than one higher being. no matter how you look at it, it's offensive to millions of americans.

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 09:27 AM
I say we agree to disagree and leave it at that :)

vNvNation
06-16-2004, 09:55 AM
Was there any reason why this guy brought his case to the supreme court other than he didn't want his daughter to hear it in school? If he is just trying to fix the world, he's going to need some help you guys :)

edit

I do think that it is unconstitutional, but there are so many other things that normal people have to put up with in their everyday lives that putting up such a strong fuss about this seems at least moderately silly, even if he's right. I guess this is just really important to him, but I would never try to change it, no matter how much I agree.

Govtcheez
06-16-2004, 10:29 AM
I say we agree to disagree and leave it at that :)
Translation: My argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

prog-bman
06-16-2004, 10:33 AM
no im just tried of researching for posting here when i could be studing c++ stuff :D

bludstayne
06-18-2004, 06:24 PM
It violates seperation of church and state. End of story. I don't know why people have to make things overcomplicated. Is it going to hurt you not to say "under God" in your pledge? No it will not. But does it hurt millions of people TO say "under God" in the pledge? Yes.

If you guys would ever try to see things from more than one angle, this crap wouldn't even get started.

And the part about "the US was founded on Christian beliefs". That is BS. If the country was founded on Christian beliefs, this country would be much, much different. Even if it was formed "in christian intent", it's the statement of law, not the intention, that matters. If you write something and mean something else, well then you are a flipping moron.

I know this country will never change. It's because we have so many ignorant Christians in this country. No, I am not saying anything bad about Christians, I'm saying ignorant people who just happen to be Christian as well. They don't want to consider people of other religions. No, they want to criticise and/or convert them. They figure that they have to shove the bible down everyone's throat. You know a perfect example of this? George Bush. That retard needs to STFU. My cousin has a pet rat that could do his job a heck of a lot better than he can.

gcn_zelda
06-18-2004, 07:07 PM
I don't care whether or not they take it out. I'm going to say it anyway. And the majority of the Christians in high school are going to say it, also.

okinrus
06-18-2004, 11:01 PM
first off, to all those saying that children aren't forced to say it: there are alot of schools across the nation that will suspend children for not saying the pledge... (read: the children are forced to say it)

I don't remember in news of any children who were forced to say the pledge.

Are you willing to remove all those songs played at school dances containing the word God?



IMO, it should be taken out of the pledge and off the money. the word 'God', even if used in the context you're talking about, still implies a higher being

This only amounts to those who are willing to see money as a religious symbol. These same people, who would see the words "in God we trust" on money as a religious symbol, should also see it removed to be an endorsement of atheism.

VirtualAce
06-19-2004, 02:09 AM
If it offends you don't say it.

The military no longer even requires you to say 'so help me God' in their oaths but they give you the option to.

Say whatever you want but don't make a big deal over nothing. Seems to me lots of folks are spending lots of time on issues that are more based on a personal dislike or a personal vendetta.

Everyone is offended somewhere at sometime in this country. Get over it, man. You'll never remove everything that is offensive to everyone because we are all different people, with different backgrounds, different views, different principles, etc, etc. What is it that you guys are looking for? A perfect world? A perfect country? It ain't gonna happen.

I personally wouldn't waste my time on the issue.



...should also see it removed to be an endorsement of atheism.

A fact that is overlooked quite often. One could argue that the endorsement of no religion is actually an endorsement of a religion to not have one. Either way you are going to offend those who don't like the slogan because they don't have a religion or they do....it's just a decision not to have one....or you are going to offend the one's that do claim a certain religion.

Either way, no religion is still a religion or we wouldn't have the word atheism in our vocabulary.

Face it....there is no correct answer here. Waste of time.

whackaxe
06-19-2004, 02:59 AM
Even if it was formed "in christian intent", it's the statement of law, not the intention, that matters. If you write something and mean something else, well then you are a flipping moron.

thats exactly what happend in france. in the constitution it is written that two "persons" may be joined in mariage, seeing as it was written 50 years ago it was supposed that these two people would be of opposite sex. recently the mayor of a town (who's function is to celebrate mariages) married two blokes. he then got suspended.(said mayor is also the leader of the green party :D) the couple are being sued to cancel their mariage


I know this country will never change.

shame that, because in that case you're pretty much screwed

Clyde
06-19-2004, 09:02 AM
These same people, who would see the words "in God we trust" on money as a religious symbol, should also see it removed to be an endorsement of atheism.


That's nonsense. If they replaced it with "We don't trust in God because we don't think he exists" THAT would be an endorsement of atheism, simply removing it would make money/ the pledge religion neutral - neither for nor against.

vasanth
06-19-2004, 09:12 AM
That's nonsense. If they replaced it with "We don't trust in God because we don't think he exists" THAT would be an endorsement of atheism, simply removing it would make money/ the pledge religion neutral - neither for nor against.

why do i always feel clyde is a super computer from the future.. He is always logical (may be relative to me) and right on the point....

itld
06-19-2004, 11:20 AM
Howdy,
How does kids saying "one nation under god.." being said in the pledge have anything to do with
Plus you must realise that countries are not completely cut off from each other, they interact, what happens in one country has influence on other countries (though it may be long term rather than short term influence).

M.R.

okinrus
06-19-2004, 02:31 PM
That's nonsense. If they replaced it with "We don't trust in God because we don't think he exists" THAT would be an endorsement of atheism

Yes, without historical precedence that would be endorsement of atheism.



simply removing it would make money/ the pledge religion neutral - neither for nor against.

If religion is based upon perception, then what you consider neutral may not be what another considers neutral. It's quite well possible that there is a group of worshipers of George Washington out there, and those one dollar bills are a religious icon. But the state, notwithstanding, can continue printing these bills because the state considers money to be non-religious and the picture of Washington to be historical.

Likewise, "in God we trust" is historical. If someone wants to attach something religious to what the state considers non=regious, that does not invalidate the state's perception.

whackaxe
06-19-2004, 03:14 PM
it's not the endorsment of atheism, it's the endorsment of freely practising your religion knowing that the state isn't biased in any way towards one religion or another.

ZakkWylde969
06-19-2004, 06:50 PM
Actually it's pretty odvious that if you don't wish to say those couple of words then don't! It is in no way more harmful to ones health than passing by a church while driving down the road. You aren't forced to look at the church. Just look at the other side of the street. Same with the pledge. Just skip those words. Heck, 90% of the kids where I go don't even do the pledge, they just stand up and wait for it to finish.