June 15, 200422 yr Can't believe no one picked up on this, but here goes..... Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the words "Under God" are constitutional and should not be omitted from the Pledge of Allegiance. The suit before the Supreme Court was brought forward by an atheist father in CA who did not want his school aged daughter subjected to the overt references to God in the pledge. Why did the Court uphold the pledge? No, not because of some highly regarded ideology that is inherently tied to the foundation and/or history of these United States. The Court did a sidestep and ruled the suit unconstitutional on a technicality b/c the divorced father, who only had custody of his daughter 10 percent of the time (read: weekends and holidays) was not the legal guardian/representative of the child and could not bring forth the motion on behalf of the minor. Why is this total crap? First off, let me say that I think religion is a very important right of the individual. I think that every citizen has the right to participate in any religious undertaking he/she sees fit. BUT.... The reference to God HAS NO PLACE within the secular confines of the pledge. The very right to worship any God also includes the right to worship no God at all. Also, remember that the words "under God" were added to the pledge in the early 50's (In what I can only assume was a symbolic and irrational effort to feed anti-communist phobia that ruled the day back then.) Contrary to the conventional wisdom society has been fed, there is no historical foundation in which the words "under God" were added to the pledge. This really pisses me off to no end. Oh, and one other analysis if I may..... I really think the Court has opened a can of worms by disallowing the father to bring suit on behalf of the minor. I'm guessing that a large portion of children whose parents are divorced are subjected to the same type of custodial arrangement that this child has, with the father holding visitation rights 10 percent of the time. The court now has, by defacto and unrelated ruling, decreeed that the divorced father has no legal rights as a parent within a divoced marriage unless he holds visitation rights exceeding 10 percent of the child's time. The SC really, really screwed the pooch here, not only on an ideological level with the pledge itrself, but on a practical level with its' refining of legal guardian status.
June 15, 200422 yr I'm confused by the 'overt references' part. Other than the words 'under God', where else is a deity mentioned?
June 15, 200422 yr The S.C. side-stepped the issue entirely by ruling that the father had no standing to bring the case. Thus, the constitutionality of "under God" is still in question, opening the door for a spate of cases filed by parents who do not have questionable standing. While Rehnquist, Thomas, and O' Connor signed a separate opinion stating that (1) the father didn't have standing, but (2) even if he did they would still have ruled "under God" constitutional, a 5-member majority (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer) ruled only on the standing issue. Scalia recused himself. The Court did not, in its opinion, dismiss the rights of divorced parents. However, the standing question in this case was a real concern, inasmuch as the girl did not live with her father and, therefore, does not attend school in the district where he resides. In short, it was the father's rights in relation to the district he sued and not his rights in relation to his daughter which were questioned. I've not yet read the opinions, but my sense is that the Court would not be so united on the lack of standing unless it was very problematic.
June 15, 200422 yr atheists are not allowed to say "oh my God" or "by God" anymore either then. good point it is not offending in any way. how about getting rid of god references in martin luther king's speeches? they're offending!
June 15, 200422 yr The liberal elitists are at it again. The anti-chrsitian movement trying to pervert our constitution. Too bad seperation of church and state has to do with the govt controlling what religion people have tobe a part of, for example jailing all non-christians. The under god in the pledge can refer to anything really, even money if you want it to. This issue should be filed in the who cares category, because the majority really doesnt care and is not offended by that. The abuses of the 1st amendment and the time and money wasted by these law suits is absurd. The 9th CCA is a farce and everyone knows it
June 15, 200422 yr The liberal elitists are at it again. The anti-chrsitian movement trying to pervert our constitution. Too bad seperation of church and state has to do with the govt controlling what religion people have tobe a part of, for example jailing all non-christians. The under god in the pledge can refer to anything really, even money if you want it to. This issue should be filed in the who cares category, because the majority really doesnt care and is not offended by that. The abuses of the 1st amendment and the time and money wasted by these law suits is absurd. The 9th CCA is a farce and everyone knows it It's so easy to point fingers and blame the liberal atheists isn't it? There's no one crazy or stupid in the GOP... Gimme a break.
June 15, 200422 yr The "God in the pledge" debate is ridiculous. Whoever thought of the idea that it is offensive is either: A) an oversensitive wimp or B) an a**hole anti-religion person going out of their way to make religion less and less a part of our country's heritage. My .02
June 15, 200422 yr It pisses me off to hear liberals talking about how we should eliminate all "God" allussions in our government, schools, monuments, court houses, etc. This is a nation cemented on Christian principles. This isn't a theocracy or anything of the sort, but as a nation, we hold a set of Christian values that I personally defend and will defend forever. Whoever is offended by "Under God", "God Bless America", etc. can get the hell out. The same right that that person has to demand the elimination of all religious allusions, I also have it to demand a staunch defense of our national values. Each country has its own culture, values, etc. The USA also has its own values, and it is our duty as Americans to defend them at all costs. People elsewhere in the world do the same thing....I couldn't go to Iran right now and demand all religious allussions to be eliminated as a sign of respect to my Christian culture, now could I?
June 15, 200422 yr It pisses me off to hear liberals talking about how we should eliminate all "God" allussions in our government, schools, monuments, court houses, etc. This is a nation cemented on Christian principles. This isn't a theocracy or anything of the sort, but as a nation, we hold a set of Christian values that I personally defend and will defend forever. Whoever is offended by "Under God", "God Bless America", etc. can get the hell out. The same right that that person has to demand the elimination of all religious allusions, I also have it to demand a staunch defense of our national values. Each country has its own culture, values, etc. The USA also has its own values, and it is our duty as Americans to defend them at all costs. People elsewhere in the world do the same thing....I couldn't go to Iran right now and demand all religious allussions to be eliminated as a sign of respect to my Christian culture, now could I? No, you can't do that... because then they'd hang you from a bridge and have a celebration in the streets... not like the news would air that anyway. :cool
June 15, 200422 yr It pisses me off to hear liberals talking about how we should eliminate all "God" allussions in our government, schools, monuments, court houses, etc. This is a nation cemented on Christian principles. This isn't a theocracy or anything of the sort, but as a nation, we hold a set of Christian values that I personally defend and will defend forever. Whoever is offended by "Under God", "God Bless America", etc. can get the hell out. The same right that that person has to demand the elimination of all religious allusions, I also have it to demand a staunch defense of our national values. Each country has its own culture, values, etc. The USA also has its own values, and it is our duty as Americans to defend them at all costs. People elsewhere in the world do the same thing....I couldn't go to Iran right now and demand all religious allussions to be eliminated as a sign of respect to my Christian culture, now could I? No, you can't do that... because then they'd hang you from a bridge and have a celebration in the streets... not like the news would air that anyway. :cool So true its sad, media is the root of all evil
June 15, 200422 yr It pisses me off to hear liberals talking about how we should eliminate all "God" allussions in our government, schools, monuments, court houses, etc.? This is a nation cemented on Christian principles.? This isn't a theocracy or anything of the sort, but as a nation, we hold a set of Christian values that I personally defend and will defend forever.? Whoever is offended by "Under God", "God Bless America", etc. can get the hell out.? The same right that that person has to demand the elimination of all religious allusions, I also have it to demand a staunch defense of our national values.? Each country has its own culture, values, etc.? The USA also has its own values, and it is our duty as Americans to defend them at all costs.? People elsewhere in the world do the same thing....I couldn't go to Iran right now and demand all religious allussions to be eliminated as a sign of respect to my Christian culture, now could I? No, you can't do that... because then they'd hang you from a bridge and have a celebration in the streets... not like the news would air that anyway. :cool So true its sad, media is the root of all evil Nah, they just suck.
June 15, 200422 yr The "God in the pledge" debate is ridiculous. Whoever thought of the idea that it is offensive is either: A) an oversensitive wimp or B) an a**hole anti-religion person going out of their way to make religion less and less a part of our country's heritage. My .02 Or © an historian who knows that the phrase was added in a "with us or with the Commies" frenzy (sound familiar?). That's why I find it to be problematic. Debating the "under G-d" phrase is a different can of worms (ie.: some influential people could take it to mean their OWN god and no one else's, in case you're listening, Revs. Robertson and Falwell). The context of the placement should be the issue, because let's be frank, this had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the "godless Commies". Heck, the original writer, who was a Baptist minister, consciously left out any mention of G-d and even had the phrase "my flag" rather than "the flag of the United States of America".
June 15, 200422 yr The "God in the pledge" debate is ridiculous.? Whoever thought of the idea that it is offensive is either: A) an oversensitive wimp or B) an a**hole anti-religion person going out of their way to make religion less and less a part of our country's heritage. My .02 Or ? an historian who knows that the phrase was added in a "with us or with the Commies" frenzy (sound familiar?). That's why I find it to be problematic. Debating the "under G-d" phrase is a different can of worms (ie.: some influential people could take it to mean their OWN god and no one else's, in case you're listening, Revs. Robertson and Falwell). The context of the placement should be the issue, because let's be frank, this had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the "godless Commies". Heck, the original writer, who was a Baptist minister, consciously left out any mention of G-d and even had the phrase "my flag" rather than "the flag of the United States of America". Why do you people leave out the O in god? Its annoying as hell.
June 15, 200422 yr im guessing he's Jewish. Some Jewish sects or whatnot refrain from using God's name at all. At least that's what I learned some time ago. I thought it was for the extremely religious Jews.
June 15, 200422 yr im guessing he's Jewish. Some Jewish sects or whatnot refrain from using God's name at all. At least that's what I learned some time ago. I thought it was for the extremely religious Jews. Oh, I did not know that. Well if I offended anyone I apologize. It just looks weird to me when I see a hyphen in between the G and the D.
June 16, 200422 yr I finally get to back Fish Fillet! :thumbup "Under god" wasn't there in the first place. it was added to differentiate the holy U.S.A. from the godless communist soviets. Everyone makes such a stink over changing it, but the truth is it was already changed. Did the pledge just not work well until "under god" was added?
June 16, 200422 yr who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's in our Pledge of Allegiance. If you don't wanna say it, then I would expect you to never use the word "God". If an atheist is offended by having to say "under God" in the pledge, then he shouldn't ever say "oh my God", "my God", "by God", etc.
June 16, 200422 yr Author I finally get to back Fish Fillet! :thumbup "Under god" wasn't there in the first place. it was added to differentiate the holy U.S.A. from the godless communist soviets. Everyone makes such a stink over changing it, but the truth is it was already changed. Did the pledge just not work well until "under god" was added? *prepares to spontaniously combust*
June 16, 200422 yr wait Fillet! let me get some marshmallows to roast first.... :afro who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? It's in our Pledge of Allegiance.? If you don't wanna say it, then I would expect you to never use the word "God".? If an atheist is offended by having to say "under God" in the pledge, then he shouldn't ever say "oh my God", "my God", "by God", etc. why shouldn't I use the phrase "my god" or "oh my god"? god is a word. Should I never use the word "prayer" or "repent" or "sin" just because I don't happen to follow these things? I would find it equally wrong if the pledge went something like "and to the republic, for which it stands, one secular nation, indivisible, etc..."
June 16, 200422 yr god is a word. exactly. my. point. God is a word. People take it different ways. "God" actually means my God...Jehova, Yahweh, etc...Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Others it's simply a word to be used, as in "oh my god", "one nation under god", etc.
June 16, 200422 yr it's bulls***, it needs to be removed. You always make posts like this and never back up your opinion or come back to defend it.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.