Unconstitutional? ERRRRRRRR!!!!!

[Jamvis]

Every American here knows what im talking about... isnt that a bunch of bull crock or what? i think like one woman said on TV "Those who want to say under god oughtta be allowed to and those that dont want to say anything ... say nothing" this has been a part of tradition for YEARS why change it now??? if ya ask me i think all the things i liked about this country is going to hell...

[User Name]

I'm not American, what are you talking about?

[Queen Asuka]

[color=crimson][size=1]They are still trying to separate the church and the state completely. I mean, it's a tradition and I don't think it should be changed. Some people just like to bring up issues just for the sake of having disagreement. They thrive on it. It's really sickening if you ask me. [/color][/size]

[Kent]

yea if i could get my hands on the dude responsible... ahhhh!
democracy is about listening to the voice of the many (majority) not catering to the few. in this case its worse, hes just one guy forcing his child to be an atheist. hey if you want that, fine, but i want my pledge back. luckily the 9th district court of appeals is reffered to as the circus court of appeals and this will most likely be over turned. at least i hope.

[Manick]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by User Name [/i]
[B]I'm not American, what are you talking about? [/B][/QUOTE]

Some court ruled that the words 'under god' in our pledge of alliegence (sp?) were unconstitutional.. and now its a huge debate.

[ZeroBlade]

I'm with Jamvis. Its been part of tradition for years and now they realize this? But I don't understand how is it that it can be unconstitutional if it isn't a law! This all started because the father of a child didn't want his daugther to HEAR it in class. How absured is that?

[Jamvis]

the way i see it the aethiest ppl have won already, but no matter what THEY CANT SEPERATE THE CHURCH AND THE STATE!!! whenever they look at our currency, there it is as big as day " IN GOD WE TRUST" so their efforts to do so arent going to work and if they did change the currency all it would do is put us in much much more debt that before, after 9/11 we were in over 3 trillion dollars of debt... so to the courts i have one reply,, HA!!!! WHAT NOW? anyways... i think im on a rant... (if any mod interffeers with this im gonna blow a fuse) (all that want a current events section added to OB say aye) aye

[Kinetic]

[color=royalblue]
Aye, and Nay, but still.

This is wrong, this country was started in the religions that believe in god, and alot of people come over who are different religions. Did you have to live here? No. This country is under the influence of God, and just because someone doesn't want their child to heard "under god" in a sentence, doesn't mean we have to change the freaking pledge. This issue is really getting on my nerves, and I'm not usually like this, but for the love of god. Alot of my friends are of the muslim religion, and they just don't say the pledge, nor are they required to. It is freedom of choice. If he doesn't want his little girl to say or hear the pledge, I don't care. She doesn't have to say it, and she doesn't have to pay attention to it.
[/color]

[Jamvis]

Dang, if ya dont want her to hear it get up off your annoying butt and BUY SOME EARPLUGS!!!! for one and for two, there are alot of other chirldren so that idiot can just shove it! (( i was really meaning to attract two main ppl with this yet they havent come... you know... ravenstorture and the other guy and i was sure that aries was coming and sure enough... there aries is!))

[Queen Asuka]

[color=crimson][size=1]Yeah, I agree with you Aries. That is just the most ridiculous thing. And instead of starting a national contraversy, the man could have just taken his daughter out of school and had her home-schooled if it was such a big huge deal to him. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but that's the pledge. And like you said, it isn't a law. So yeah...[/color][/size]

[Transtic Nerve]

I was gonna make this topic dammit!

Anyway.... while it's quite obvious that it IS unconstitutional... anyone who knows ANYTHING about the constitution will tell you the same, which is exactly why it was ruled that way... I don't really think it needs to be removed, although I won't oppose the idea...

It doesn't seperate church and state like the constitution is written... it assumes everyone has a God... I've thought about it for many years myself and have found it to do that....

I won't argue here, but like I said, it's obviously unconstitutional, and if you believe in the foundation of this country, you will support the fact it is not constitutional.

I also find it rather funny people are over reacting on this. The words "Under God" were ADDED to the Pledge of Alligence, meaning, it wasn't originally there. So I feel, what can be added, can be subtracted.

The President did say something about it, that the meaning behind it suggests that our freedoms were giving to us by God, as stated in the constitution itself... now.. again, this fails to seperate church and states, which is just another contradiction in the constitution...

Whatever choice people make or however this ends, it won't change the way I see things. I don't say the pledge, and in school, I always said it really fast where no one understood me and then I sat down... so it didn't matter to me....

I have a question for some of you... In school, are you forced to say the pledge of alligence?

[Queen Asuka]

[color=crimson][size=1]We have morning announcements everyday where we do the Pledge of Allegience. Some teachers will get pissed if you don't say it. Sometimes I wouldn't say it and sometimes I would. It just depended on my mood. I don't know if they make you say it, but they do at least want you to stand up and show some sort of respect, if you know what I mean.[/color][/size]

[James]

[color=royalblue]TN makes a really good point here. The words "under God" were actually added in the middle of last century..and thus, they weren't even a part of the original pledge.

I think that both sides have a point. On the one hand, it is a tradition...but on the other, it [i]is[/i] effectively unconstitutional. I mean, taking the words "under God" out of the pledge...who really cares? I think a lot of people are just nitpicking.

If you want to add those words yourself, you can. And if you want to say it privately with those words, you can. I know it seems like nitpicking on the part of the judges who said it was wrong...but really, I can see where they are coming from.

If you have "under God" in the pledge, then really, you are not seperating church and state. I don't think that this ruling is pushing beliefs on anyone...rather, I think that the addition of that line is actually far more an invasion of free speech -- because it doesn't really allow for an alternative (at least, in an official sense).

So I think that the "official" pledge should have no references whatsoever...so that it is totally relatable to every member of the population. But those who want to add their own words to it should be able to (so in a church for example, you should be able to actually have the words written in or whatever).

I hope that made sense. o_O[/color]

[Jamvis]

well, ive also taken into consideration that that violates some law about the right to persue happiness and heck, that makes the saved ppl happy so there! the under god is only two words that keeps america from turning into afgahnistan in my point of view. and in the words of Regis" Doesnt America have something better to worry about? i mean jeez... i couldnt think of anything better can you kelly? (sarcastic)"

[Kinetic]

[color=royalblue]
I see where you're coming from James, and I agree. There is a point to taking it out, and now everyone can say the pledge without not believing in it, but I know for one, that I will still say "under god" every time.
[/color]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Aries [/i]
[B][color=royalblue]
I see where you're coming from James, and I agree. There is a point to taking it out, and now everyone can say the pledge without not believing in it, but I know for one, that I will still say "under god" every time.
[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]Yeah, exactly. And that's totally fine. :)

I mean, I'm saying that it should be "legal" to allow people to put in whatever they want. Under Allah, under God...or nothing at all.

But if the default pledge doesn't contain anything, then it's not offensive to anyone...and you can add what you like to it. ^_^

I think that ultimately, it makes a good compromise...and at the same time, allows people to have their own freedom of speech.

Jamvis: Please clean up your posts...in this thread in particular, they are very poor.[/color]

[PiroMunkie]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]I have a question for some of you... In school, are you forced to say the pledge of alligence?[/B][/QUOTE][color=indigo]Not really. I mean, it is, but it isn't. It is just moreso encouraged. I mean, every morning they'll recite the pledge, which was only inserted because of 9/11. At first I think it was kind of like, we had to do it, but some people started complaining because it was against their religion or whatnot. So they said you don't have to do it. So then a lot of people jsut stayed seated during the pledge and then the teachers became irritated cause they were juset sitting just to be "against the grain" but really they are probably part of the majority. I, myself, just stood up out of respect for the country, but I didn't recite the words, because I don't agree with a lot of what happens under that flag.

As for the whole " under 'God' " deal, that is just another smaller reason I don't recite the words to it. As most have said, almost everyone knows it is unconstitutional. Those who say differently believe in "God" and don't want it taken from the pledge. This whole thing about those words being in the pledge isn't something that has just been noticed. I think people have brought it up before, the government jsut over-ruled it cause the pledge is "tradition" and has been around for so long that it wouldn't be right to change it. Most government officials, I'm sure, believe in "God" so those who are against "under God" are really on a bad position, because those officials are already biased to their religion. I don't agree with "under God" at all. I say if they're not goig to remove that line from the pledge, at least change it to something more general. Since a higher majority believes in some kind of god(s), it would probably be more satisfactory to the people if they said something like "under divinity". But still I find it pointless, and that whole line shuld be omitted from the pledge.[/color]

[Chaos]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]I have a question for some of you... In school, are you forced to say the pledge of alligence? [/B][/QUOTE]


In my school, yes. Even though it's public, and we're not required/supposed to, the principal and teachers make us. I remember one time when I didn't stand up, and I got a detention. The next day, I was walkin about outside, and I saw that teacher (with whom didn't even belong in my classroom for the morning announcements), and I cursed her out. Screaming about how she has no right to tell me what to do.

The next day when she had lunch duty on the field (You know, to be there in case any fights broke out like usual), and she didn't even come near me. I'm glad too. If she would've told me anything, I woulda belted her right in her friggin mouth.

But yeah, the local government says we can't put Rebel flags in/on out cars or lawns, but makes us say the damn Pledge, when there are Athiests, Islamics, and even more religious-oriented, ethnic-related students in just one room.

The Jefferson Parish School Board can blow it out their ear if they think I'm gonna say "Under God", or the Pledge at all.


Edit: In a discussion with James...


JamesOtaku01 (3:52:38 PM): so I think it's just a mark of respect, to stand
JamesOtaku01 (3:52:41 PM): but you don't have to sing/say it
SSayian5 Blank (3:53:24 PM): I would stand for it, except of two things:
SSayian5 Blank (3:53:32 PM): 1) The "Under God" part
SSayian5 Blank (3:53:40 PM): and 2) If we didn't HAVE to
SSayian5 Blank (3:53:50 PM): If we had a choice to stand or not, then I would
JamesOtaku01 (3:53:56 PM): Hm, yeah
SSayian5 Blank (3:53:58 PM): If we were forced to, I'd sit

[Transtic Nerve]

Just so some of you know, the forcing of you to say, or even stand up, for the pledge of alligence, is against the law. So if you don't stand up or don't say it and get in trouble for it, be sure you tell the teacher what the law is...

I don't know how this whole issue will effect people... I don't see why it should anyway... people say it or not... the only people that say it are like kids that don't know any better. Like when I was in Highschool, I knew enough if I wanted or not wanted to say it... and if I didn't want to say it, I didn't... I think this is more for the effect on children... who normally don't have a greater sense of what they are saying, but that "hey, everyone else is saying it, I guess I should too" or whatever goes to their head... I know we were basically forced to say it in Elementory schoola nd the only reason I did it was because I didn't know any better.... so as far as taking the words out of the official pledge, I don't care... out of elementory and middle schools... I would have to say that I would like to see it to be an optional activity, if not abolished completely. If you want to say your pledge, you can say it before school... no one's stopping you.

[PiroMunkie]

[color=indigo]Personally, I think the pledge would be much better without that line. It will not affect reciting it at all. Say it to yourself real quick without saying that line:

I pledge allegiance,
To the flag
Of the United States of America.
And to the Republic,
For which is stands.
One nation,
With liberty and justic for all.

It even just sounds better. I would really like to see that line omitted from the pledge. Although, I'm kind of weary as to what a victory like that would bring. I mean, if people can remove a line from the pledge, which has been around for a very long time. They might try and do many other things, and become power hungry. Trying to rid any kind of religious favoritism from everything. Some people might just take it way too far.[/color]

[Guest Matt]

[color=red][b]If they take the "under god" out of the pledge, they will have to take the "in god we trust" off all the money. and that would cost way too much to do, so i think the pledge will stay the same.[/b][/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Son Goten [/i]
[B][color=red][b]If they take the "under god" out of the pledge, they will have to take the "in god we trust" off all the money. and that would cost way too much to do, so i think the pledge will stay the same.[/b][/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

That was another point made by the guy who filed the lawsuit.... but no one reads what the coins say... they just care how much of it they have.... when James said something about the Freedom of Speech, I think that also plays a major role in this... even though the coins do not seperate itself from church and state, I don't see that becoming much of a deal...

[Anna]

Well, being a Christian I have absolutely no problem with the pledge. In order to try and get a better view of things from the opposing perspective, I thought to myself; "how would I feel if the line was 'One nation, under Satan, with liberty blah blah...'". Now, that actually sounds kinda funny, but that's off the subject ^_^. But, I've put myself in other people's shoes who were in the minority on this matter, and I can see where those two words could bring discomfort if one was very devout to another religion that wasn't Christian. But, "God" doesn't [i]have[/i] to be "God of Israel", or "God of the Sun" or whatever may be out there. I think "God" just symbolizes personal belief.
There are a LOT of things in this world [i]I[/i] don't agree with. Some that I can change, I change. And others I simply live with and I don't allow those things to affect me. The way I see it, standing/sitting/hearing the Pledge of Alligence for 10 seconds isn't very threatening, and just that phrase "under God" is like 1 to 2 seconds, depending on how fast it's being said. And for many, myself included, who have no problem and actually like the pledge the way it is, it's rather unfair to us to take away something that has meaning to us. Like I said, I have to deal with a lot of crap, like everyone else here. If you don't like something, ignore it- cover your ears or whatever. That's what I have to do, and you don't see me going to court because so-and-so did this-and-this which really offended me and I think we should suspend their rights. And with what Piro said, this could jumpstart even more the ridding of religious favoritism that really isn't all that necessary. Some [i]will[/i] probably take it too far, and then those who actually still do have Christian beliefs will the ones dealt unfairly with. So, it's going to be a no-win situation in the long-run, and people on both sides of the matter are going to continue to be 'nit-picky'. I think the pledge should just be left alone and this issue be dropped from the courts. They have plenty of more important things to deal with.

[James]

[color=royalblue]It's all very well to say "if you don't like it, ignore it"...but I think that for everyone else, it's a case of forcing a line on everyone.

I mean, it's better to have nothing there than to have something which is not representative of everyone in the community.


By effectively "forcing" the line into the pledge, I think it's actually stifling free speech, technically...by stifling the free speech of others. Why should they just "sit and take it"?

I don't think it should have been added in the first place, to be fair to all.[/color]

[Anna]

*sighs* Well, sadly enough for all of us now, the phrase [i]was[/i] added, and therefore a small and simple thing is sucking out tax dollars for the courts to debate on this. This whole thing is just stupid. I can completely understand some being indifferent or annoyed by something that conflicts with their beliefs, but this particular case w/ this father raising a ruckus just seems to me a person that wanted unrest in society. Now, if there's a problem that just [i]demands[/i] addressing and it causes waves, so be it. But this, a two-word phrase in a pledge we aren't even required to say, is ridiculous.