No school pledges

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Tonio
How would removing "under God" from the Pledge be an infringement on someone's religious beliefs? I don't understand your point. Are you saying that some people explicitly believe that America was founded as some new Holy Land for God's chosen people? It's one thing for people to believe that for themselves. It's another for them to push for that as the only acceptable form of patriotism.

I see it as equal an infringement to including the words, if in fact there is one one way or the other. But that isn’t to say that many zealous religious types (which BTW I am not) would be offended just as Mr. Newdow was because of the opposite action.

As I understand the establishment clause our government has not endorsed any specific religion with the inclusion of the words, they have not declared that to be considered a loyal citizen you must recite the pledge and they haven’t established punishment for those that choose not to recite it. I simply do not see this as a violation of any Constitutional right.

 

[jimmy]

Our elected representatives ONCE decided that they should be there, but there's no reason that the thinking there can't change. Especailly when the reasons those words were there had many political overtones and nothing really to do with intrinsic beliefs held by the State.

Yes the idea of "God" has been present throughout our contry's history but what I'm refering to are the references to God on our money, in the pledge, etc. that are at issue here.

Its not enough to point out the various, specific religious beliefs of our elected officials as evidence that references to God belong in State-sponsored venues.

I think the problem is that you are still advocating the status quo here. You are still saying that the reason we shouldn't remove the references is because they've been there for a long time and, historically, the elected officials of this country have held a belief in God.

But that still doesn't negate the idea that the State and religion should be two seperate entities. If your only reason is that this is the way it has been, then why not let mistakes of the past be corrected?

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Ken King
I see it as equal an infringement to including the words, if in fact there is one one way or the other. But that isn’t to say that many zealous religious types (which BTW I am not) would be offended just as Mr. Newdow was because of the opposite action.

As I understand the establishment clause our government has not endorsed any specific religion with the inclusion of the words, they have not declared that to be considered a loyal citizen you must recite the pledge and they haven’t established punishment for those that choose not to recite it. I simply do not see this as a violation of any Constitutional right.

I don't see this as being about Constitutional rights. You're certainly right that no one is being forced to say the Pledge. In my elementary school, we had two students whose families were Jehovah's Witnesses. They refused to say the Pledge because their religion regarded the flag as a graven image. So they simply stood during the Pledge and remained silent.

Still, the Pledge is America's official statement of patriotism, as adopted by Congress. In my opinion, any statement in the Pledge declaring belief in a Supreme Being flunks the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause, at least in spirit. It doesn't matter that people aren't forced to say the Pledge. "Under God" implies that Congress is endorsing a specific religious belief, even though that isn't stated explictly. That's a whole lot different from the President mentioning God in a speech when discussing his own beliefs.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by jimmy
Our elected representatives ONCE decided that they should be there, but there's no reason that the thinking there can't change. Especailly when the reasons those words were there had many political overtones and nothing really to do with intrinsic beliefs held by the State.

They still feel that way, shortly after the decision of the 9th Circuit was announced the Senate voted on a resolution “expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance”, it passed 99-0 (obviously, no support anymore, huh!!!). If you want to ask someone about why the words were changed Robert Byrd was in Congress at the time and still is, ask him? He probably can give you some insight.

Yes the idea of "God" has been present throughout our contry's history but what I'm refering to are the references to God on our money, in the pledge, etc. that are at issue here.

At issue, at the present time, is only the pledge and whether or not the insertion of the term “Under God” has actually harmed anyone or violated a Constitutional protection. I say that I don’t believe that is has.

I think the problem is that you are still advocating the status quo here. You are still saying that the reason we shouldn't remove the references is because they've been there for a long time and, historically, the elected officials of this country have held a belief in God.

And what are you advocating? That a person that actually hasn’t been harmed can bring legal action seeking remedy against something that didn’t harm them. Damn it, I want to sue the government because they allowed the continuous depiction of the planes hitting the WTC and the resulting collapse to be displayed on the free airwaves of our country and now I am no longer feeling as safe as I used to.

But that still doesn't negate the idea that the State and religion should be two seperate entities. If your only reason is that this is the way it has been, then why not let mistakes of the past be corrected?

The government and religion are two separate entities. Always have and hopefully they always will, this is no mistake. But being separate does not mean that in government a person can never utter any phrase that contains a religious thought or concept. Our government is of the people and by the people and the people have the right to religious expression. The fact that the elected representatives did change the words is simply one example of that right and it was done without stating that any particular religion is the only one that a loyal American must adhere to.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Tonio
Still, the Pledge is America's official statement of patriotism, as adopted by Congress. In my opinion, any statement in the Pledge declaring belief in a Supreme Being flunks the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause, at least in spirit. It doesn't matter that people aren't forced to say the Pledge. "Under God" implies that Congress is endorsing a specific religious belief, even though that isn't stated explictly. That's a whole lot different from the President mentioning God in a speech when discussing his own beliefs.

But is it any different then placing on our currency or using as the National Motto "In God We Trust". Is it any different then when the Supreme Court opens a session and the Clerk concludes with "God save the United States and this Honorable Court". There is no challenge on these uses so why should there be a challenge elsewhere?

 

[Penn]

I think you missed my post earlier....

Originally posted by jimmy
Our elected representatives ONCE decided that they should be there, but there's no reason that the thinking there can't change. Especailly when the reasons those words were there had many political overtones and nothing really to do with intrinsic beliefs held by the State.

But that still doesn't negate the idea that the State and religion should be two seperate entities. If your only reason is that this is the way it has been, then why not let mistakes of the past be corrected?

"Oh, and by the way didn't 535 Congressmen stand together, in front of the Congressional Building and recite the Pledge of Allegiance enmasse, right after the California Court rendered it's decision? Probably the first time in 50 years or so, they came together in agreement on a belief."

They also did it enmasse in defiance of that court decision!

Furthermore, who do you think elects the men and women into office? If there is going to be a change in philosophy, as you would like there to be, the entire country is going to have do a major change in thinking, in order to replace the entire Congress and vote in new "freethinking" and sensitive members.

I don't think the majority of Americans are going to do that; do you?

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Ken King
But is it any different then placing on our currency or using as the National Motto "In God We Trust". Is it any different then when the Supreme Court opens a session and the Clerk concludes with "God save the United States and this Honorable Court". There is no challenge on these uses so why should there be a challenge elsewhere?

Good question. The national motto runs into some of the same problem, because it's officially adopted by Congress, but it's not as big a deal as the Pledge.

Also, I don't have a problem myself with the Clerk's statement. That would be like complaining about religious displays in town squares. The people who do that kind of complaining need a serious sense of perspective.

So why is the Pledge such an issue? As I said, it's America's official statement of patriotism. The issue isn't about religion in public places or public life. The issue is about the difference between religious doctrine and patriotic feelings. Once you blur the line between those two, you start down a very dangerous road.

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by Ken King
You're opinion is not relevant to this case in any way, shape or manner.
I’d say pissing contest, because of someone trying to spin it into another unrelated issue.

No one forced you to reply to my post. If you wanted to stay within the bounds of this case, you could have easily replied to someone else. Personally, I hope the supreme court upholds this current ruling, just so I can hear you complain about it some more.

 

[demsformd]

Re: I think you missed my post earlier....

Originally posted by penncam
"Oh, and by the way didn't 535 Congressmen stand together, in front of the Congressional Building and recite the Pledge of Allegiance enmasse, right after the California Court rendered it's decision? Probably the first time in 50 years or so, they came together in agreement on a belief."

They also did it enmasse in defiance of that court decision!

Furthermore, who do you think elects the men and women into office? If there is going to be a change in philosophy, as you would like there to be, the entire country is going to have do a major change in thinking, in order to replace the entire Congress and vote in new "freethinking" and sensitive members.

I don't think the majority of Americans are going to do that; do you?

First let me say that I am glad to see that there are others that see the Pledge of Allegiance as a government endorsement of religious faith. After all it was the Congress, a major component of this government, that decided to insert the words "under God" to the Constitution. How can that not qualify as an endorsement of religious sentiment?

As to penncam's post here...yes Congress has the power to make laws. But these representatives are on the Hill to represent the majority of people. Have you ever considered that the reason these congressmen did such an act was to appear good for TV cameras? I can tell you that they did. If I was on Capitol Hill still, I would have told my boss to be there.

It is for that reason that the United States government has the judiciary branch, which is not elected and thus free from political pressure. Here the Court ruled correctly based on the First Amendment. Separation of church and state is absolute and when the government decides to force people to say things such as that the nation is under God, they are endorsing a certain set of religious sentiment. It is impossible to say that the statue is "voluntary." Children do whatever the group does and thus they could feel compelled to act just as everyone else despite their actual beliefs. The California Appeals Court showed clearly that the majority rules, but the minority has protection.

 

[Penn]

Re: Re: I think you missed my post earlier....

Originally posted by demsformd
As to penncam's post ...yes Congress has the power to make laws. But these representatives are on the Hill to represent the majority of people. Have you ever considered that the reason these congressmen did such an act was to appear good for TV cameras? I can tell you that they did. If I was on Capitol Hill still, I would have told my boss to be there.

The California Appeals Court showed clearly that the majority rules, but the minority has protection.

:razz2: As I said or implied in my post Dems, WHEN was the last time you saw 535 Congressmen and women all standing together on ANY issue?

Photo-OP you say? They get that every single solitary day, man! I don't think that was even a minor purpose for what they did. I give them a lot of credit on this issue.

Thank GOD for the majority rules!! I hope the Supreme Court has better sense than the California Court.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Warron
No one forced you to reply to my post. If you wanted to stay within the bounds of this case, you could have easily replied to someone else. Personally, I hope the supreme court upholds this current ruling, just so I can hear you complain about it some more.

And no one has forced you to place a post here either and if you noticed I have been responding to almost everyone participating in the discussion. Unlike you, who has stated his wishful agenda that the Supreme Court upholds the decision in an effort to make a singular person complain about the decision. Also unlike you, I have familiarized myself with the issue at hand while I'll gladly wager you haven't even bothered to read the opinion issued by the 9th Circuit (it’s online, if you can find it).

Additionally, if it is determined I am wrong I will gladly admit it and accept the ruling. Do you have the same integrity and character to do the same? I think not, if the case is dismissed you will probably whine and snivel that your rights are being further eroded.

BTW it isn’t time yet for this case to head to the Supreme Court as the 9th Circuit has reversed and remanded the case, meaning it is back to the lower court to be heard again. This is a long way from over and it will, in my opinion, squander more of the tax-payers money to appease someone that hasn’t shown that they are being harmed.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Tonio
The issue is about the difference between religious doctrine and patriotic feelings. Once you blur the line between those two, you start down a very dangerous road.

Good point and admittedly I might be blurring my view on the subject. Like you, I don't see the big deal especially when you consider who it was that wrote the original phrase (and their background).

What gets me the most is the claim that Mr. Nednow has been harmed because his daughter has to hear the words when in fact his daughter nor the custodial parent has an issue with it.

 

[Ken King]

Re: Re: Re: I think you missed my post earlier....

Originally posted by penncam
:razz2: As I said or implied in my post Dems, WHEN was the last time you saw 535 Congressmen and women all standing together on ANY issue?

In actuality I think it was less than 200 that amassed for the group recital, but what did they do later? Seems that they passed Senate Bill 2690 to become Public Law 107-293 reaffirming the pledge as it currently stands. Senate vote was 99-0 with one not voting and the House was 401-5 with 4 stating “present” and 21 not voting. This certainly indicates that Congress has not changed their opinion on this matter.

 

[Penn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you missed my post earlier....

Originally posted by Ken King
In actuality I think it was less than 200 that amassed for the group recital, but what did they do later? Seems that they passed Senate Bill 2690 to become Public Law 107-293 reaffirming the pledge as it currently stands. Senate vote was 99-0 with one not voting and the House was 401-5 with 4 stating “present” and 21 not voting. This certainly indicates that Congress has not changed their opinion on this matter.

Alright, then I'm wrong for saying all of them were out there in front of the Congressional Building, reciting the Pledge. It was on the tube that evening, and the announcer, I thought, reported "they were all out there in defiance" to the Calif. Courts' ruling. It may have been a figure of speech, but I thought it was remarkable for that many to overtly defy the court and recite the pledge.
Not that it makes much difference, but when I was a kid, we said that pledge every day in homeroom, and I cannot recall anyone getting upset with saying it. I felt proud to say it, facing my National Flag.
So Congress passed that law 500 -5(4p and 21 abs); still a healthy indictment showing how Congress feels towards it. Bravo!

But wait ! What is going on now? Appeals Court Grants Stay of Pledge Ruling??

http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=17060

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Ken King
What gets me the most is the claim that Mr. Nednow has been harmed because his daughter has to hear the words when in fact his daughter nor the custodial parent has an issue with it.

No argument there. That guy must be channeling Madelyn Murray O'Hair. He's so fanatical that I wonder if a preacher ran over his puppy when he was a little boy, and swore eternal vengeance on religion. (Off topic, I wonder if O'Hair realized that her obnoxiousness only drove more people into the arms of the religions she detested.)

 

[Penn]

Wait a moment....

Originally posted by penncam
But wait ! What is going on now? Appeals Court Grants Stay of Pledge Ruling??

Somebody has changed their minds and granted a 90 day stay of execution of the court order on the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/reuters20030304_606.html