Yay! The Pledge of Allegiance survives!!

[brianlojeck]

>I guess we should ban God Bless America next.

as an official statement, yes. I have no issue if YOU say the country is united under god, I just don't see why it should be an official prayer.

>You have to recognize the difference between ceremony and prayer.

pretty much the same thing, unless you want the prayer to be part of the ceremony.

I might ask what you would do if I killed a goat before my trial as "ceremony", but "not prayer" because I was a santeria (spelling?) beleiver.

>Seriously. I love how the minority wants to use the courts to rule this country.

that's what the courts are FOR. The majority already has their way, so they don't want to change anything, they want to prevent change. If not for the court system, the minority would have no voice.

>The majority believe in God and want a Nativity, Menorah, etc.. displayed on public land >that they own too, yet one ot two atiests sue claiming violation of Church and State and >those 2 people can override the will of the 1000s of others in that town.

the majority want blacks to remain slaves, yet 1 or 2 sue claiming "human rights' and they can override the will of the 1000s of others in that town.

Being numerous doesn't mean you are right. When athiests start sueing to put "God Does Not Exist" posters on public land, then you can claim we are trying to force something on you. I don't see why "keep thy religeion to thyself" is such a bad thing.

> A Christmas tree is not religous for God's sake.

damn skippy. I have a tree in my house every year. It's actually a Nordic ceremony adopted by the Romans while they were christian and going around being a massive military force, but that's not all that important.

I tend to think there's no religeous significance to christmas any longer to the average person, but even if there was it's a fantastic holiday in it's own right.


>They used a body of non-elected whacko judges to create new law out of nowhere.

What about a body of non-elected judges upholding "under god"?

That whole process is pretty messed up in my opinion, we should be voting on judges just like we vote on congressmen. the typical 1vs.0 election of a judge is pathetic.

[brianlojeck]

Allah is the same person as God.

If they are the same, then lets change the pledge to say "under Allah". After all, Moslems were around before Christians, isn't it reasonable that THEY got his name right?

EDIT: Islam came about centuries after Christianity. I withdraw the statement.

[tony3]

I have to agree with you on this. Parents seem more willing to talk to a judg and the five oclock news team then to their own child.

Exactly.

[Hasty8]

If they are the same, then lets change the pledge to say "under Allah". After all, Moslems were around before Christians, isn't it reasonable that THEY got his name right?

Unfortunately you are wrong here.

First were the Pagans (Romans and Greeks and the like)
Then came Abraham and the Jews.

Then came Christ and subsequently the Christians (contrary to popular belief Christ was not a Christian)

Then cam Mouhammad and Islam.

While there were Middle Eastern peoples long before the Romans they two were polydiety belief systems.

The Jews were the first to adhere to a mondiety system.

Just to be clear, I am not saying this to imply that the Jews are superior or better or anything else. Lord knows we've screwed up the word of god too.

[brianlojeck]

>Unfortunately you are wrong here. (Jews->Christians->Moslems)

(checking encarta)

Doh! I guess being off by 5 or 6 centuries isn't too bad. (sheepish grin)

[Python14]

This thread WAS started by someone who claimed "the good guys won". How would you like to be labeled "the bad guys" in casual conversation?

As to who will or will not die if we do/don't say "under god", then why don't we remove it? It's not like you won't die if you don't say it, is it?

The phrase was added for racist, evil reasons (see Joseph McCarthy), and doesn't belong.

You just labeled me as a bad guy, and it didn't bother me one bit. Try being a white male in a predominately black residential area with a history of Black Panther activity.

Yea, I'll die just fine.....but for me atleast, it's what happens afterwards that matters. My job is to do what I can for God. Remembering him when I pledge allegiance is one way I do it.
What I meant originally by that statement though was that saying "under God" will not have any effect on your afterlife, because afterall, you apparently have none. With some work, and a little grace, I do. You can mute over that section of the pledge if you want, your loss. But don't tell me I have to go along with it because son, we(those who believe in a God or higher being), outnumber you(those who don't) by quite a large sum.

And in closing, you lose at life.

[brianlojeck]

>You just labeled me as a bad guy, and it didn't bother me one bit. Try being a white male
>in a predominately black residential area with a history of Black Panther activity.

I'm white, and I live in Compton, CA. Does that count? ;-)

[Kellen_p8nt]

I personally think it, along with countless other things that may not have anything to do with religion but impose some philosophy/belief/code of ethic/etc.

Yea everyone has the right to vote, yea this is a democracy. But to say "Hey I have the right to vote and because we, a majority or a minority who got off ther buts and voted, believe such~n~such, were going to vote it in as law/etc. and thereby impose our belief on the people, to some extent argueably, but most importantly upon the govnt'" is oddly silly.

Gov't should make no law no act no nada zip zilch that supports any ethical/beflief/philosophy. And along with that no law/etc. should diminish feasible rights.


sorry, i got into politics agin.


sooooooooooo oh well.

pbj and pbj

[Konigballer]

If the "under God" phrase had been in their since the begining, I would'nt care at all if it was kept forever.

The only thing that pisses me off is the fact that people are acting like it WAS in the pledge from the begining and that the pledge, or the countries moral/spiritual identity, would be in jeopardy if it was taken out. The fact that this "under God" crap was added in the 50's is what makes the whole uproar over the issue bogus to me to begin with... Plus the 50's is one of my least favorite decades in American history.

I guess it doesnt matter though, kids mumble the thing like mindless robots each morning either way.

I also don't understand why people are saying dumb crap along the lines of "the minority should'nt try to change things for the majority of the country"

Thats how things get done!!! Its always been up to a small minority to ensure or enact change for the majority throughout human history. The masses need to be moved to change, they wont do it one their own, just look at Iowa. Its takes a few dogs to get a herd of sheep to do anything but stand still.

The only reason we are even comunicating with each other via the internet is because a
very small minority of people figured out a way to kick the majority into the 21st
century of communications even though many in the majority where, and are,
skeptical or fearfull of it and see it as change from "how things used to be".

Their would'nt even be Christianity, or a United States of America, without an initially
very small minority of people who actively tried to enact change among the majority.
Often at great risk to themselves in the process.

[bornl33t]

Same here. Honestly, I don't have a problem with saying it, but if they removed it I wouldn't care either ("Under God" has only been around since the 1950's anyway. It's not like we'd be loosing an incredibly important/symbolic line).

Actually it is EXTREEEEEMLY symbolic. But they don't teach that in schools any more. It's been replaced with crap like gay toleranz and so on.

Infact America was founded on regilious freedom by pilgrims who largly fled from Europe because they were being prosecuted for their religion. It's no coincidence that a great deal of our founding fathers were christian and believed in God.

I for one think "under God" should stay. But if is doesn't I won't shed a tear. Because America is truly not under God anymore. Which is a crying shame. America is more of a modern day sodom and gomora. Lets hope we don't suffer their fate.

[shartley]

[oldsoldier]

Wow, an educational thread! I actually learned several things today, thanks guys. Personally, I honestly think that it upsets parents moreso than kids. I mean, at grade school age, did you even think about what it meant? Most kids dont. It is the parents that use the dialogue in the pledge, and it being used/recited in a public school, as a forum to voice their own personal beliefs. Ask a 6 year old to define the Pledge of Allegiance. Ask them that, if they take out the words "under God", if it changes the meaning. Honestly, I truly am tired of the BS adults throw around about stupid crap.
People need to stop trying to create a "vanilla" America. All the griping about how the word "God" offends Muslims (just using this as an example folks), or Athiests, or whoever, isnt going to make things any better. What if Christians are now offended that the word God is taken out of the pledge (the McCarthy reference notwithstanding...I was unaware of that till this thread)? In essence, no one will be happy. Maybe replace the phrase with "One Nation, under whoever or whatever you believe, or choose not to believe... See where this goes? And, again, this is a total ADULT arguement. A six year old doesnt understand it...probably not until they are ten or so does it make sense to them.
UNfortunately, it doesnt stop with the pledge. As has been stated, it goes to equal rights, hell, it can be turned into an arguement for damned near anything.
I am a DEVOUT anti-theist. I wont explain why, or debate it...but I have never, nor will I ever, believe in a higher power. However, spending 12 years in the military, I have stood in countless formations that were tended over by a chaplain doing opening prayer, prayer for the dead, etc. Not ONCE have I felt offended. I realize that religion is a comfort for some, and I can accept that. Maybe people should start focusing outside themselves, and not think about being "personally offended" by a pleadge that fellow men and women have given their lives for protecting.
There was a point to my rant, and I forgot it...sorry

[1stdeadeye]

as an official statement, yes. I have no issue if YOU say the country is united under god, I just don't see why it should be an official prayer.

It is not a prayer. It is a a two word phrase in a ceremonial pledge.

pretty much the same thing, unless you want the prayer to be part of the ceremony.

I might ask what you would do if I killed a goat before my trial as "ceremony", but "not prayer" because I was a santeria (spelling?) beleiver.

Not religious Ceremony, but civil ceremonies and tradition is what I meant. Do you think they use bibles to swear people in for fear of lightning strikes or maybe just because it is tradition now.

>Seriously. I love how the minority wants to use the courts to rule this country.

that's what the courts are FOR. The majority already has their way, so they don't want to change anything, they want to prevent change. If not for the court system, the minority would have no voice.

>The majority believe in God and want a Nativity, Menorah, etc.. displayed on public land >that they own too, yet one ot two atiests sue claiming violation of Church and State and >those 2 people can override the will of the 1000s of others in that town.

the majority want blacks to remain slaves, yet 1 or 2 sue claiming "human rights' and they can override the will of the 1000s of others in that town.

You are wrong. The majority passed the ammendments to ban slavery. They passed the ammendments to add suffrage for women and equal rights (14th). So the majority does protect the minority. JUdges should interpret, not legislate.

They used a body of non-elected whacko judges to create new law out of nowhere.

What about a body of non-elected judges upholding "under god"?

That whole process is pretty messed up in my opinion, we should be voting on judges just like we vote on congressmen. the typical 1vs.0 election of a judge is pathetic

They threw out a case where the plaintiff had no standing to drag his daughter through this mess. They can also recognize the difference between civil ceremony and prayer!

[FactsOfLife]

They used a body of non-elected whacko judges to create new law out of nowhere.

What about a body of non-elected judges upholding "under god"?

That whole process is pretty messed up in my opinion, we should be voting on judges just like we vote on congressmen. the typical 1vs.0 election of a judge is pathetic.

They ARE voted on, when you vote for President you are electing the person who is going to be appointing the judgeships.

Why do you think AlGore attempted to steal the election in 2000 with fraudulent recounts and the outright attempt at disenfranchising our overseas military?

There is the very real possibility that in the next election one or more SCJ's may be appointed.

Certainly at the COA level there are numerous appointees.

Of course, if you're a congressional Democrat, you can thwart the will of the people by NOT confirming the President's appointees.

[cphilip]

Again it turns political....