Leave it to San Francisco
- Thread starter rack'm
- Start date
Can't they just skip that part and say the rest? I think the courts have enough to do. People need to bend a little. 
Larry Gude
Strung Out
You said...
...'flying hell'.
I do not feel free from a coercive requirement to affirm Satan.
vraiblonde said:
...'flying hell'.
I do not feel free from a coercive requirement to affirm Satan.
ylexot
Super Genius
You're off by about 150 years. The phrase comes from a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists:Tonio said:
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok...
...but we agree that our Constitution IS amendable, yes?
tomchamp said:
...but we agree that our Constitution IS amendable, yes?
slotted
New Member
Wouldn't it make more sense to pledge "One Nation, Under A Constitution"?
After all, that IS what we are.
Removing "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegience in no way deprives anyone from worship. This country is filled with tax-exempt churches and temples. Our country is supposed to represent ALL the people, both religious and non-religious, and they are supported by tax dollars from both groups.
After all, that IS what we are.
Removing "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegience in no way deprives anyone from worship. This country is filled with tax-exempt churches and temples. Our country is supposed to represent ALL the people, both religious and non-religious, and they are supported by tax dollars from both groups.
Including "Under God" in no way establishes a religion or forces anyone to believe in one either.slotted said:
I guess some of you will be saying that we should ditch the Declaration of Independence too and go back under British rule because it contains the words God and Creator.
Toxick
Splat
slotted said:
I gotta say, I agree.
I'm a Christian, and I lean toward conservatism - but I don't see this is a religious nor ideological issue. It's semantic BS is what it is - and if atheists, agnostics, or pagans, or Heaven's-Gatists don't want to live in a nation that's Under God, then so what?
Remove religion from the pledge - who cares. God doesn't really have much to do with pledging one's allegience to one's country anyway.
I don't make references to the Good Ol' US of A when I'm saying the "Our Father". Neither God nor the United States seem to take offense.
After all, if someone's going to fry in hell for all eternity, it can't hurt to give them temporary indulgences now.
But it did define the beliefs of those that were being repressed that were now breaking free. And it was their belief, as it still is of many today. The term in the "Pledge" does not in any manner or form violate the Constitution or any amendment. It is a phrase that is nothing more then the belief of many of the nation, much like the national motto "In God We Trust". It forces no belief requirement upon the citizenry or provides better benefit for those that believe.slotted said:
Twist what you think it means anyway you want and then show me exactly where it is in violation of the Constitution or the amendments? Cite the specific section or amendment please.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Valid point. I don't think "Under God" and "In God We Trust" is inherently coercive or harmful. It's not in the same league as, say, requiring public schools to teach Christian creationism as scientific fact.Ken King said:
I see the issue as one of general principle. That principle is keeping patriotic feelings separate from any religious faith. Responsible lawyers and responsible journalists (hey, no snickering from the peanut gallery) understand that an appearance of a conflict of interest is the same as an actual conflict of interest. Why should our government do anything that gives the appearance of being biased in favor of one religion? As I see it, having "Under God" in the Pledge is the equivalent of the referees at a Washington-vs.-Dallas game wearing Redskins armbands while doing their jobs. Even if those referees swear on their children's lives to officiate fairly, they still give the appearance of bias.
I think your analogy is overstated, but I’ll play along. Since when does the appearance of bias become an infraction of legal procedure or Constitutionality? The only religious legal declaration is that which is contained within the 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Inclusion of the word God in the pledge neither establishes a religion nor does it interfere with anyone’s rights regarding how they choose to believe or if they believe at all. Recognition of a higher power, a deity, of natural wonders, or of nothing is not impacted by the addition of that text. However, any attempted blocking or banning of the use of the term is indeed a violation as it prohibits the free exercise of a religious belief in the existence of a God and that my friend is explicitly protected.Tonio said:
You should've been a lawyer Slick.
ylexot
Super Genius
My personal feelings on the topic...I don't care if it is in the pledge or not. Tonio has a good point about the perception of favor, but as Ken countered, that is not enough for a judge to strike it. "Under God" is not unconstitutional. Plain and simple. If that nutjob wants to remove it, it should go through Congress. Of course, he probably realized that it would go nowhere in Congress, so he's taking it to the activist judges of the great state of Kalifornia.