The Pledge of Allegiance stands!

[storm1977 0]

I am not quite sure what you are saying.... But this I do Know. The ACLU is a terrorist organization. They use terrorist tactics such as black mail and the threat to bankrupt smaller districts in court battles so that they can get their way.

The ACLU goes out if its way to find favorable judges in "weak/poor" communities to set presidence to be used at a later time in a larger arena.

The principals which the ACLU were founded on were good, however, this group has turned into a Left Wing gang with their sole purpose to turn the USA into a socialist society.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I'm not a big participant in religion, but I do have to laugh when everytime religion is mentioned, it's referred to as "shoving it down ones throat" by the athiests. Since when does the mere mention of something transgress to that image? Freudian perhaps?

It is fairly common terminology. I'm pretty sure some come across that way more so than others.

[Nightingale 0]

the court didn't rule whether the pledge was constitutional or not. They left it open by not ruling on it at all, paving the way for another, more legitimate lawsuit by a custodial parent. I'm sure one will step forward soon, and we will have a final answer.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

the court didn't rule whether the pledge was constitutional or not. They left it open by not ruling on it at all, paving the way for another, more legitimate lawsuit by a custodial parent. I'm sure one will step forward soon, and we will have a final answer.

Any child of a Jehovahs Witness is not supposed to salute the flag. It is placing something above god in your loyalties.

All that really occurs is the child is made to stand out as different. They are then subject to ridicule and isolation from peers.

However, none of the JWs will probably file a lawsuit.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

the court didn't rule whether the pledge was constitutional or not. They left it open by not ruling on it at all, paving the way for another, more legitimate lawsuit by a custodial parent. I'm sure one will step forward soon, and we will have a final answer.

I think the ruling was more of a symbolic victory for the proponents of the Pledge as it is now than a legal one. Technically, you're correct about the court ruling. I'm quite sure it will come under attack again.

[mr2mk1g 10]

My only question about the “under God” section of the oath is, do you not see it as creating a double standard?

The US is supposed to be the land of the free – a place in the world where you are supposed to be able to do whatever you like so long as you’re not harming someone else. That is a very simple and admirable goal.

So ok the, you live in the land of the free. You’re free to practice whatever religion you want. You’re even free to have no religion. Can we all agree on that much?

Then you are required to swear an oath accepting deference to a deiity in which you do not believe.

Does anyone else see a slight contradiction in those two positions? If you are free to not believe in God, why are you also required to acknowledge one?

I don’t see that your religion should enter into the question; either there is a contradiction or there is not.

Do you want to live in the land of the free or do you want to live in a country where you are told what you have to do? If you are forced to swear something can you truly say you are free?

[pajarito 0]

No one is forcing you to do anything.

[NightJumper 0]

Quote

the court didn't rule whether the pledge was constitutional or not. They left it open by not ruling on it at all, paving the way for another, more legitimate lawsuit by a custodial parent. I'm sure one will step forward soon, and we will have a final answer.

I agree, though that is not what I addressed.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

No one is forcing you to do anything.

Yup - I'm British. I'm free to worship who I like even though my £10 note has Charles Darwin it.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

No one is forcing you to do anything.

Yup - I'm British. I'm free to worship who I like even though my £10 note has Charles Darwin it.

Very well then.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"even though my £10 note has Charles Darwin it"

On tenners, I've got Mary Slessor - a famous missionary
Lord Ilay-founder of the Royal Bank
and Walter Scott - some writer dude.

Don't read too much into it Mr2.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mr2mk1g 10]

I don't - just taking the lead from the "in god we trust" comments to hint at what would appear to be another double standard.

It's not acceptable to teach Darwin's theories in US schools, as everyone's free to practice their own religion. To teach his theories, no matter how widely they are accepted in academia, would be to force a religion onto children. I can live with that rule - it's perfectly logical.

However it is ok to ask children to pledge an oath under god... Again, I can live with that rule - so long as everyone's clear that Christianity is a state mandated religion.

I just don't get how the two concepts are able to sit so happily side by side without clashing. One would seem to run contrary to the logic of the other.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"It's not acceptable to teach Darwin's theories in US schools," Is that the case? It seems silly to me.

Is there an out?
Could there be a universal acceptance that 'god' is non-specific in its interpretation, whereas 'God' might apply to broadly Christian based religions.

Pajarito?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

>"God" is not necessarily a partisan issue.

Agreed; but it is certainly not a governmental issue. That separation is called out in our constitution.

This is that famous, oft-repeated lie.

Here is what the Constitution says about the so-called "separation of church and state":

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

Would you please explain for us how you read that to mean "separation of" when clearly all it means is that the government may not establish a religion that would be considered the official government religion.

I know it may seem as though I'm playing both sides of the fence, here, since I'm obviously anti-belief-in-god-and-religion, but that being true I still don't like when "my side" (the side of religion out of government) LIES and distorts the Constitution in order to try to bolster or validate its view. There is no Constitutionally-mandated "separation of church and state": there is simply a prohibition of an offiicial state religion a la the Church of England.

Quote

>I think the ruling conveys the opinion of the vast majority of Americans.

So was preventing women from voting, back in the day. Doesn't make it right, just makes it popular.

This part, I agree with. People try to justify all kinds of things just by their popularity with poll-respondents. Doesn't make it right.

Blue skies,
-

\\

It's a Pyrrhic victory. Anyone who has lived in a country with an established church will tell you that it's the quickest way to turn the people away from religion. Just compare the rate of church attendance in the USA with that in Britain.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

Storm! You're bringing a tear to my eye, stating the ACLU's ulterior motive so eloquently. They indeed have evolved from the American Civil Liberties Union into American Communists and Liberals United.



Yours in agave,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Clownburner 0]

It'll be interesting to see. Three of the justices did write dicta stating that they thought the 9th circuit was wrong and that the pledge was constitutional, so if it makes it back up there again it'll be a pitched battle at least...


From the opinion:

Quote

Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice O'Connor joins, and with whom Justice Thomas joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[Nightingale 0]

the interesting thing is that, while the pledge is optional for the students, it is not optional for the teachers. the teachers HAVE to lead students in the pledge.

it would be interesting to see a legal challenge from a teacher. Course, no teacher could afford it. LOL!

[billvon 2,476]

> Laws can not be passed which restrict the rights of religion to freely practice.

Agreed.

>The Government can legally endorse any religion it wants.

Congress can make no law respecting any religion. Politicians can make speeches and talk about god. Heck, you can 'endorse' anything you want. But the government can take no action whatsoever to promote any religion.

[storm1977 0]

Bravo Kallend!!!!!

I am really surprised by this post I didn't think you had it in you.

I know what you believe and I know you wish there probably was Separation of Church and State, but you right... there isn't.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,476]

>It's not acceptable to teach Darwin's theories in US schools, as
>everyone's free to practice their own religion. To teach his theories, no
>matter how widely they are accepted in academia, would be to force a
>religion onto children. I can live with that rule - it's perfectly logical.

?? Evolution is not a religion. Electricity is not a religion. Calculus is not a religion. Subatomic physics is not a religion. There's a big difference between teaching science and religion in public schools.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

referred to as "shoving it down ones throat" by the athiests. Since when does the mere mention of something transgress to that image?

Let's see...laws against nudity, laws against sodomy, laws against adultery, constitutional bans on homosexual marriage, laws against bigamy, prohibition, attorney generals covering nude statues, laws against selling liquor on sunday....i could go on and on.

there's plenty of examples of christian mythological beliefs being forced on the rest of society.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

> Laws can not be passed which restrict the rights of religion to freely practice.

Agreed.

I disagree with both of you. Such laws can and are routinely passed and signed by the executive. It is the responsibility of the court systems to overturn those laws if they cannot pass scrutiny. If such laws cannot be passed, there is no need for a court system that revews these laws.

Quote

>The Government can legally endorse any religion it wants.

Congress can make no law respecting any religion. Politicians can make speeches and talk about god. Heck, you can 'endorse' anything you want. But the government can take no action whatsoever to promote any religion.

I agree withi billvon. Government cannot legally endorse a religion. Endorsement by a government means "State Sponsored." If GWB stated, "This government endorses Santeria" people would flip, and the courts would call a time out when people challenge it.

No endorsement. But, the government has full authority to acknowledge it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,476]

>Such laws can and are routinely passed and signed by the executive. It is
> the responsibility of the court systems to overturn those laws if they
>cannot pass scrutiny.

True. I guess I should have said "Laws that restrict the free practice of religion are unconstitutional."

[pajarito 0]

Quote

?? Evolution is not a religion. Electricity is not a religion. Calculus is not a religion. Subatomic physics is not a religion. There's a big difference between teaching science and religion in public schools.

Evolution is a theory and should be taught as such in school. Creation is also a theory and should just as equally be taught in school. Let the students take from each and make up his/her own minds.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

?? Evolution is not a religion. Electricity is not a religion. Calculus is not a religion. Subatomic physics is not a religion. There's a big difference between teaching science and religion in public schools.

Evolution is a theory and should be taught as such in school.

So is Relativity, and it works just fine in predicting the orbits of GPS satellites. Quantum mechanics is just a theory, but it gave us transistors and lasers. Electromagnetism is just a theory and it gave us modern communications technology.

Evolution makes testable predictions - which makes it science. Creationism does not make testable predictions, which makes it faith.

I don't see your point here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.