Gerald Pierce
Well-Known Member
One Nation Under God attacked in court again, federal judge says it's unconstitutional. :angry:
Kollyfornia Strikes Again....
- Thread starter Gerald Pierce
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Robert Stanton
Active Member
Technically, it is.
Not sure it's worth the effort, though.
Not sure it's worth the effort, though.
Fer Echegaray
Well-Known Member
That, I think, is placing it out of context, if the pledge were reverted to its pre1954 form, when the atheistic communist view of the world was being fought, nobody would be denying the existance of any god, just reciting 'one nation, indivisible' instead; each one would still have his/her faith or lack of it.
That is not disrespectful to any religion or creed, atheists and agnostics and exotic religions followers could find it an unnecessary reference to God in a patriotic pledge.
Why should they be required to endorse the religious doctrines of the majority?
I know, I'll be waiting for your "damn liberals, gotta love 'em" remarks.
Michael Cacioppo
Well-Known Member
I believe the Federal Supreme court already overruled the State Court decision that the California state supreme court is citing that their decision is based on.
If it is not legal then swearing in ceromonies must exclude the word GOD. The Supreme court should remove all references to GOD. Remove it from our money, our federal and State buildings, etc.
If it is not legal then swearing in ceromonies must exclude the word GOD. The Supreme court should remove all references to GOD. Remove it from our money, our federal and State buildings, etc.
TomT
Well-Known Member
I don't know what's worse, over-zealous atheists or over-zealous religious nuts.
Robert Stanton
Active Member
Apathetics Unite! Or don't.... I could care less.
Dre L
Well-Known Member
This country was founded with freedom of religion for all and a separation of church and state.
If the kid doesn't want to say under god, he can just say one nation... indivisible.
Why force him to say under god?
Hell, he doesn't even need to pledge allegiance if he doesn't want to. I just can't believe this is the crap making the news and the supreme court. This is a country where one person's religious freedom impacts the freedom of another. I'm not even getting deep into this one. You can't win a battle in religion or politics NO ONE IS RIGHT. How dare anyone assume they are more correct or righteous than another person.
However, we vote people in based on faith, and their beliefs which are guided by said faith.
In a nation where freedom of religion means no one will agree, and that there should be a separation of church and state, shouldn't atheists or agnostics be the only ones to govern?
Hell, I think politicians are all godless SOB's anyhow. They'd all change religion, name, or views for a majority vote in a heartbeat.
If you don't want to say under god, don't. Let everyone else who wants to say under god, say under god, and STFU. Let the courts handle bigger things, like why the hell gas and milk are both $4 a gallon, and rent is through the roof. We're working to barely keep alive.
If the kid doesn't want to say under god, he can just say one nation... indivisible.
Why force him to say under god?
Hell, he doesn't even need to pledge allegiance if he doesn't want to. I just can't believe this is the crap making the news and the supreme court. This is a country where one person's religious freedom impacts the freedom of another. I'm not even getting deep into this one. You can't win a battle in religion or politics NO ONE IS RIGHT. How dare anyone assume they are more correct or righteous than another person.
However, we vote people in based on faith, and their beliefs which are guided by said faith.
In a nation where freedom of religion means no one will agree, and that there should be a separation of church and state, shouldn't atheists or agnostics be the only ones to govern?
Hell, I think politicians are all godless SOB's anyhow. They'd all change religion, name, or views for a majority vote in a heartbeat.
If you don't want to say under god, don't. Let everyone else who wants to say under god, say under god, and STFU. Let the courts handle bigger things, like why the hell gas and milk are both $4 a gallon, and rent is through the roof. We're working to barely keep alive.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Ape
Active Member
95% of the Plant believe in a God. Why is this a problem?
Ape Out.
Ape Out.
Dale Carlson
Active Member
Actually, the previous finding by the U.S. Supreme Court was on a technicality basically saying that the claimant didn't have any right to file the case in the first place.
But, in any case, I'm with Fer (even though I don't know if I'd be considered a moderate liberal or moderate conservative most of the time).
But, in any case, I'm with Fer (even though I don't know if I'd be considered a moderate liberal or moderate conservative most of the time).
Michael Cacioppo
Well-Known Member
The Constitution DOES NOT state that there be a separation of church and state!!. It says in the first amendment :
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
It basically says that there can not be a state religion. All people are free to practice any religion they want. One could interpret that any religion could place a religious article on government property as long as all religions were given the same privilege. It basically says, no favorites!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
It basically says that there can not be a state religion. All people are free to practice any religion they want. One could interpret that any religion could place a religious article on government property as long as all religions were given the same privilege. It basically says, no favorites!
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Right MikeC.
Over the past 30 years the so-called "separation" clause of the 1st amedment has been hijacked and used to remove all public references to religion. Clearly one can debate whether or not the Pledge and its "Under God" reference in a public school violates this so-called "separation" but most would agree that by it's nature it is not seperate. However, as Mike pointed out, the so-called separation clause is actually written as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and if taken literally, we can clearly see that the Pledge, which is voluntary, is not a law; and furthermore reference in general certainly is not establishment in specific. Cloudy enough?
But, what is even more clear is that the 2nd part of the first amendment;
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Now, that's pretty specific and pretty clear. It seems today that the courts in California passed just such a law; one that would prohibit a group's free exercise of religious reverence and reference.
I won't get into the whole "We are/were a Christian country" mantra. But I will say that it has only been the past 30 years or so that rulings have been made that define and give teeth to the notion of "separation". Though I think separation IS a good thing, and I do not want govt in religion or religion in govt, I am NOT ready to start telling people they have to take their references and reverences out of the public eye, and take them behind closed doors and keep it only within the walls of their churches and private backrooms.
Seems like that is one of the reasons many people came to this country...so they could openly and freely practice their faith.
TJR
Over the past 30 years the so-called "separation" clause of the 1st amedment has been hijacked and used to remove all public references to religion. Clearly one can debate whether or not the Pledge and its "Under God" reference in a public school violates this so-called "separation" but most would agree that by it's nature it is not seperate. However, as Mike pointed out, the so-called separation clause is actually written as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and if taken literally, we can clearly see that the Pledge, which is voluntary, is not a law; and furthermore reference in general certainly is not establishment in specific. Cloudy enough?
But, what is even more clear is that the 2nd part of the first amendment;
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Now, that's pretty specific and pretty clear. It seems today that the courts in California passed just such a law; one that would prohibit a group's free exercise of religious reverence and reference.
I won't get into the whole "We are/were a Christian country" mantra. But I will say that it has only been the past 30 years or so that rulings have been made that define and give teeth to the notion of "separation". Though I think separation IS a good thing, and I do not want govt in religion or religion in govt, I am NOT ready to start telling people they have to take their references and reverences out of the public eye, and take them behind closed doors and keep it only within the walls of their churches and private backrooms.
Seems like that is one of the reasons many people came to this country...so they could openly and freely practice their faith.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Kerry Matthews
Well-Known Member
Hey Ape...
95% of what PLANT believes in god?
And all the atheists must live right here in the central valley, because there sure are a lot of us out here!
95% of what PLANT believes in god?
And all the atheists must live right here in the central valley, because there sure are a lot of us out here!
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
There are a lot of athiests in California, that's true.
I explain that because it seems that the more self-involved the people and the more idols (job, house, hobbies, etc) within a culture the more prone that culture is to athiesm. Doesn't make them bad, just makes them different.
Ready for the "It's because we are smarter", "it's because we don't need a crutch" comments.
Hey, I understand the athiest mentality...I was one for almost 20 years of my adult life.
TJR
I explain that because it seems that the more self-involved the people and the more idols (job, house, hobbies, etc) within a culture the more prone that culture is to athiesm. Doesn't make them bad, just makes them different.
Ready for the "It's because we are smarter", "it's because we don't need a crutch" comments.
Hey, I understand the athiest mentality...I was one for almost 20 years of my adult life.
TJR
Jeff C
Well-Known Member
"was" what changed your mind?
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Jeff C asks: "was...what changed your mind?"
My kids, mostly, and several life lessons. They all made me believe that I wasn't the center of the universe and I am not as in control of my destiny as I once thought. Call it renewed faith, call it life altering experiences, whatever; but I am now one engineer that doesn't have to think I KNOW the answer to everything, or that there is an answer to everything. I guess as I got older I got more comfortable in NOT having all the answers...and I got to where I could tell the difference between facts, wisdom and truth.
TJR
My kids, mostly, and several life lessons. They all made me believe that I wasn't the center of the universe and I am not as in control of my destiny as I once thought. Call it renewed faith, call it life altering experiences, whatever; but I am now one engineer that doesn't have to think I KNOW the answer to everything, or that there is an answer to everything. I guess as I got older I got more comfortable in NOT having all the answers...and I got to where I could tell the difference between facts, wisdom and truth.
TJR
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
The U.S.A. was founded on certain principals. One is that on issues such as religion, the minority view is just as weighty as the majority view. Both views are to be free from interference from one another.
If there is 1 aetheist and 99 deists, the 99 deists cannot dictate what the 1 aethiest must or must not do in matters of faith. The aetheist is entitled to the same liberty as the 99 deists.
This is a design, created by an enlightened group of men who were tired of being an oppressed minority. They created a system that guaranteed others who followed in their footsteps wouldn't have to suffer the will of the majority, as they did.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Richard, I agree with everything you say in principle.
But I have to ask, how is saying or not saying a voluntary Pledge oppression or suffering?
Isn't this more than anything else a question of tolerance?
TJR
But I have to ask, how is saying or not saying a voluntary Pledge oppression or suffering?
Isn't this more than anything else a question of tolerance?
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Dre L
Well-Known Member
:blink: Are you kidding me?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
The state will not establish a religion. That means they cannot favor, involve themselves with, endorse, suggest, or enforce a religion.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The state will not get involved in someone's religious beliefs, nor may they attempt to control it.
You don't think that means separation of church and state???
There's nothing that explicitly guarantees a fair trial. I'd bet you'd want one of those if needed huh?
Ah crap here I go going deep into this one.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
The state will not establish a religion. That means they cannot favor, involve themselves with, endorse, suggest, or enforce a religion.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The state will not get involved in someone's religious beliefs, nor may they attempt to control it.
You don't think that means separation of church and state???
There's nothing that explicitly guarantees a fair trial. I'd bet you'd want one of those if needed huh?
Ah crap here I go going deep into this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Nobleman says:
I agree with everything except "suggest", because suggest need not mean endorse. And I think we need to better define who "they" are. Is a kid in a public school "they", or is "they" the govt or Congress?
Then Nobleman says:
Yes, I think that means seperation. But how is telling my child he can't say the Pledge with Under God in it wherever he wants NOT getting involved with my religion?
Tolerance on both sides of this issue is gone!
TJR
I agree with everything except "suggest", because suggest need not mean endorse. And I think we need to better define who "they" are. Is a kid in a public school "they", or is "they" the govt or Congress?
Then Nobleman says:
Yes, I think that means seperation. But how is telling my child he can't say the Pledge with Under God in it wherever he wants NOT getting involved with my religion?
Tolerance on both sides of this issue is gone!
TJR
Bill V
Well-Known Member
TJR--
You can make it as *technically* "voluntary" as you want--the fact remains that if you have the pledge read in settings like that, those that "opt" out of it are castigated as outcasts. Think about nazi Germany. Technically, many of the pledges to the nazi regime were technically voluntary--but opting not to do it was sure to cause you severe problems. (For the record--NO, I'm not at all comparing Christians/deists to nazis. I'm only using the nazis as an example of how so-called "optional" pledges really aren't that optional. This is obviously no where near that extreme--but it does have the same effect on a lesser scale.)
The only way to prevent such results is to simply prevent such pledges in such settings in the first place.
--Bill
You can make it as *technically* "voluntary" as you want--the fact remains that if you have the pledge read in settings like that, those that "opt" out of it are castigated as outcasts. Think about nazi Germany. Technically, many of the pledges to the nazi regime were technically voluntary--but opting not to do it was sure to cause you severe problems. (For the record--NO, I'm not at all comparing Christians/deists to nazis. I'm only using the nazis as an example of how so-called "optional" pledges really aren't that optional. This is obviously no where near that extreme--but it does have the same effect on a lesser scale.)
The only way to prevent such results is to simply prevent such pledges in such settings in the first place.
--Bill
