The Pledge of Allegiance stands!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

All true Christians pray and ask for guidance in all aspects of life. GWB just has the courage to admit it publically. I admire and respect that. Also, they're allowed to attempt to get laws passed that fit their agenda just like anybody else who gets elected into public office.

Not laws based on religion. That's unconstitutional.

I think it is one thing to "pray and ask for guidance [from god]" but it is quite another to really believe you've been answered. (As I do not believer there is a god to be giving answers, I have to believe that those who think they "hear" answers are loony.)

I thought that when people pray for guidance, they are saying that they HOPE that what they choose to do ends up being a choice made because god steered them that way -- not that god actually zapped a verbal message into their head. They have a word for people like that: nuts.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[NightJumper 0]

Quote

They have a word for people like that: nuts.

And here I thought they were called televangelist.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

They have a word for people like that: nuts.

And here I thought they were called televangelist.

Cute. At least you do have a sense of humor, if not an understanding of the basic gyst of my point.



edit: Oops, dictionary says, "GIST."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[NightJumper 0]

Quote

Cute. At least you do have a sense of humor, if not an understanding of the basic gyst of my point.

I understand your point and I even agree with some of what you have said. It is the law that I am stating and what is legal. And in no means does that mean I always or blindly agree with it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No, actually we do know. There have been many laws that have been deemed unconstitutional by the supremes. What you're implying is that they weren't unconstitutional until they ruled that way. The law didn't change, the constitution didn't change. So how could they not have been unconstitutional at one point, and suddenly are? It's ludicrous.

And yet there are more than a few laws that have been ruled constitional by the Court, and then not some time later. The law and the Constitution did not change, but the viewpoints of the 9 in charge did.

Nevermind McCain-Feingold.....

[PhillyKev 0]

The point you are missing is that just because a law exists on the books, does not make it de facto constitutional. And just because the supremes don't adjudicate a case based on a technicality, does not mean that the law being challenged is constitutional. It means that the constitutionality of the law is in question and is yet to be determined.

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

If you are Shinto which one?

Wendy W.

First off, in the Shinto religion...you have gods and then you have "kami"...which are everywhere in nature...the sun goddess tends to be considered the most important.

Otherwise, you make a good point, god is a term which Christians use frequently...for the Jews though...I would say YHWH...but you are right they wouldn't say "god" out loud...


~R+R

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And yet there are more than a few laws that have been ruled constitional by the Court

There's no such thing as a law that was ruled constitutional. That's one of the beautiful things about our constitution. Except for that brief, horrible mistake of prohibition (ok, and maybe that thing about income tax), the constitution and it's amendments never tried to restrict individual enjoyment of life that had no impace on and was no concern of anyone else. Never tried to claim one way of believing or doing things was the preferred way. Never ruled anything specifically permissable. It said what is not permissable, it restricted violations of basic human rights, but never attempted to tell people how to express themselves, or how to believe. It recognized that individuality is the defining factor of humanity, and that that principle should be protected at all costs. Because without individuality, you lose humanity. That's why they are "human rights".

I occasionally get a very good feeling about simple things like the fact that I'm in my bedroom, 7 blocks from where the Declaration of Indpendence and Constitution were written.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Then why not have the pledge say, ". . . one nation, under A god. . ."?

Because there's nothing wrong with the way it is.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

you yourself just said that the word "God" is strongly associated with Christianity.

So did Truman, when he authorized that the pledge be altered.

Irrelevant

Quote

Asking children to say this pledge in schools (and not informing them that they have the right to abstain!) is government "respecting" one religion over another, which is unconstitutional.

No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head and making them say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Quote

It really has nothing to do with what any of us, christian, deitst, athiest, agnostic, hindu, buddhist, or whatever, believe personally. The government must abide by the letter of the law. The spirit thereof, is largely irrelevant, because we have no way of truly knowing what our founding fathers were thinking, because we can't pick up a phone and ask. Therefore, we must take what they have written literally. If you're unhappy with it, I would encourage you to attempt to amend the constitution in accordance with your wishes.

There is nothing unconstitutional about “Under God” being in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

So if I the government goes around shooting people for stating their opinions, as long as there has been no specific law stating that they are wrong to do that, it's not un-constitutional?

This is an idiotic example/comparison.
Something may be thought as wrong but, until it is defined and deemed against the law or unconstitutional or whatever, it's just not. I'm just saying what is and what isn't. Not what might or could be. Right now, it is perfectly constitutional to acknowledge God in the Pledge of Allegiance. You think it's wrong. Very well then. Tough shit. Vote for your candidate who will try and appoint liberal judges to the bench.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

And I have a problem with the POTUS publicly admitting that the voices in his head told him to invade another country and kill people. What's the difference between that and the Son of Sam listening to his dog tell him to kill people?

There's a difference between being religious, praying to God, and seeking guidance and being schizophrenic. You're being derogatory by saying that "he hears voices in his head" simply because you despise religion and religious people. I also don't really think his reasons for going to war with Iraq were so that he could go to another country and kill people. You're just spouting more emotionally charged babble to bash Bush and the Republicans. Now, I've heard Bush compared to Hitler, David Koresh, and Son of Sam. You guys are really out of control.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

(As I do not believer there is a god to be giving answers, I have to believe that those who think they "hear" answers are loony.)

And that makes perfect sense that you would think like that.

Quote

I thought that when people pray for guidance, they are saying that they HOPE that what they choose to do ends up being a choice made because god steered them that way

You are correct. More like they hope that what they choose or "are led" to do by God is his will...but yeah....same thing.

Quote

-- not that god actually zapped a verbal message into their head.

I fully believe that God answers prayers. Answers come differently for different people. I've had some answered. Not verbally like you'd talk on the telephone but answered nonetheless. I don't discount what God can do otherwise.

Quote

They have a word for people like that: nuts.

You can only criticize what you don't understand. It's sad that you will never humble yourself beneath your own ego. Until then, you'll never know God.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

I wonder, however, how the Founding Fathers defined those words or how they meant for them to be interpreted when they wrote them down.

The founding fathers made a conscious decision to omit references to god from the constitution. Therefore, it's obvious that they meant words such as oath, swear, etc in the broad, general sense.

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

What's the difference between that and the Son of Sam listening to his dog tell him to kill people?

Scale.

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Then why not have the pledge say, ". . . one nation, under A god. . ."?

Because there's nothing wrong with the way it is.

then lets put it closer way it was originally written, and the way it was officially recognized in 1942, as pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.

It reads better poetically (diagram the meter yourself before you argue "not IMO" without recognizing there is more to poetry than if you 'like' it) without the phrase "under God" and honestly, applying the preposition 'under' to the 'person' of 'God', is meaningless.

God had my allegiance from the first moment i drew breath. Divinity is not something you really need to learn in school in the manner you learn about the country you live in.

1942. hmm i wonder what happened then that made pledging allegiance to your country as a daily ritual a very good idea?

its rather peculiar that of the people who do recognize Divinity "God" in its myriad of forms, only the Christians are screaming about making school children swear allegiance (pray essentially) to her as well as country every morning before class.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I'm just saying what is and what isn't.

that is not a right granted to you until you become a member of the US Supreme Court.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

[There's a difference between being religious, praying to God, and seeking guidance and being schizophrenic. You're being derogatory by saying that "he hears voices in his head" simply because you despise religion and religious people.

do you really want to get into a psychological analysis of your prophets? how about your God based on the writings of your prophets?

Many many pious men have been jailed, persecuted, tortured and killed by those who called them insane.

Who were they, and who are you? To tell anyone what form the voice of God appears to them??

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Then why not have the pledge say, ". . . one nation, under A god. . ."?

Because there's nothing wrong with the way it is.

Very easy to say that when you're crhistian and it pleases christians.

Try being on of a variety of other groups and see how fine it is.

What was wrong with it the way it was before they added "under god"? According to christians, the country was still founded under christain principles, and the pledge of allegiance is not a founding document nor a governing piece of legislation, so what need was there to add a reference to god in the pledge? The answer, of course, is found in the christains' need to control everyone else and force them to swear allegiance to their god.

Christians have been into forcing people to do stuff their way for 2000 friggin' years.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

There is nothing unconstitutional about “Under God” being in the Pledge of Allegiance.

When someone who has the proper standing finally brings it to the Supreme Court, if that person wins and the supremes find it unconstitutional, will you:

a) accept their decision and grant its validity
or
b) claim that their finding is in error and there really is nothing in the constitution to prohibit reference to god?

I mean, I will tell you right now that if the supreme court were to rule on the 2nd Amendment and say that it does not guarantee a personal right but a "collective" right, I would be among the first to say that the ruling was erroneous and they were misreading what they were ruling on.

So weigh in on this hypothetical.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

You can only criticize what you don't understand. It's sad that you will never humble yourself beneath your own ego. Until then, you'll never know God.

But then, according to what I believe, neither will you know god.

So then it comes down to "whose beliefs will actually bear out as true?"

But as far as "you can only criticize what you don't understand" -- that's an utter fallacy. On what basis do you make that statement?

One can't criticize something that one DOES understand? I thought that criticism was made MORE valid if the criticizer understood the subject matter.

What if someone was watching skydivers in a swoop competition? Only someone who doesn't understand swooping can judge them and criticize them?

Please make some sense out of your statement for me.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 2,434]

>Forget it! He just doesn't f*** understand, and it seems he never will.

Tone it down there. No problem debating what he says; as usual, refrain from attacking him.

[billvon 2,434]

>No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head and making them say the
> Pledge of Allegiance.

Good point, actually. As long as we make it clear that kids don't have to say it, and that saying it does not indicate allegiance any more than not saying it does - I would agree with you. Keep it as it is, and if you don't like it, don't say it or say your own pledge. It diminishes the pledge a bit but solves the problem.

Of course, you then have to be OK with a teacher at your kid's school reciting it to the class with "under Allah" if they so choose. Again, no problem since your child doesn't have to say it. Everyone's happy.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head and making them say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Can someone who actually knows, confirm if the pledge of allegiance is included as a requirement in the immigration process? I know I've seen clips of new immigrants reciting it and I've always understood it took place but is it actually a requirement?

In the UK for example we recently changed the law to make it a requirement to take a short pledge to the UK (one avoiding reference to any religion if it makes a difference to anyone).

[mr2mk1g 10]

I just want to clear up the argument a couple of pages back over whether or not something is constitutional or not in the absence of a verdict from the Supreme Court.

The short answer is that it is presumed to be constitutional, but that does not necessarily mean that it is. Once a verdict is reached however, that law/practice was NEVER constitutional. It is deemed to have been unconstitutional right from the very day it was enacted or first took place.

You see the constitution will not have been changed. What it says after the verdict it said before the verdict. Therefore what is unconstitutional after the verdict was equally unconstitutional before the verdict, as it had to comply with the exact same constitution. It’s just no one realised it was wrong until then.

This doesn’t mean that all activities and laws are unconstitutional until ruled constitutional, just that once ruled as such, they are to be considered to have always have been unconstitutional.

I guess this is a kind of halfway house between everyone’s arguments earlier in this thread.