united we stand???

[pixiefied]

here (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html)

i grew up having to say it....but my kids may not.

[Xerxes]

Now the muslims won't attack America because of evil christendom, they'll attack America because they're atheist savages... :rolleyes:

[deadrabbit]

yes!!!! finally! i was the only person in a school of 900 that would refuse to stand up and repeat that bullshit at assemblies. fortunately,my opinion was respected, and i didn't get in trouble. at a nearby school, a person got suspended for the same thing. the god part has always irritated me the most, now if only the rest of it would go away too . . .

[Xerxes]

I should add that this ruling was made in San Francisco, the most liberal court in the US.

The US Supreme court will promptly shoot this down- this decision has far to much implications for it not to hit the supreme court.

[dollerspark]

Damn, just HAD to find this thead after I took like half an hour posting mine...

:mad:

[Aeroe]

i suggest selling california, and we can throw in celebrities for free. who would like oprah, the baldwins, rosie o'donnel, pauly shore, the sheens?

but seriously though, when will liberals stop? why not burn the declaration of independence?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

liberals want to remove God, so they can remove God given rights to every man and woman of all races. remove God, and let's make it "mother earth." :rolleyes:

[Xerxes]

Heck, I just wrote a similar argument in the other thread using the same point... kinda. ;) I think these threads should be merged...

[Sandman2012]

Personally I beleive in a god, but I don't think that belief should be thrust on anyone else. Take 'em out. I have more of an issue with the rest of the pledge...


Main Entry: al·le·giance
Pronunciation: &-'lE-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English allegeaunce, modification of Middle French ligeance, from Old French, from lige liege
Date: 14th century
1 a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government (2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides
2 : devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause

Mindless brainwashing of children before they even know what the words mean. When I have kids they're gonna go to a private school where they won't have to say shit like that!

Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

To those in other countries, is there something like that in your nation that you have to say every morning in school?

BTW, perhaps a mod can merge the two threads about this?

[Aeroe]

eh i second that, but i was also thinking is when cali decides to ban currency. they can promptly ship it to me.

[Khakionion]

Well, I kinda tried starting this discussion earlier on the end of the dead Bitchlist topic about...Geez, I forgot what it was about...anyways...

Personally, I don't have any problem with saying "one nation under god." I mean, isn't "god" an abstract enough term to refer to any omniscient/omnipotent sentient being that created/watches over our universe? I guess that still kinda leaves Atheists out in the cold, doesn't it?

But as I remember it, the motives for inserting "under god" were in response to "godless Communism" during the Cold War, right? So, while I'm sure that a Christian God was the intended/implied meaning, it could mean whatever you want, even something as "un-religious" as a patriotic spirit amongst Americans.

Seems that since America is so diverse, nothing would be wrong with pulling diverse (read: your own) meanings out of the Pledge.

[FunkDoc]

I really don't see what the big deal is? What difference does it make if it stays the same or if it's changed to be more "liberal" minded? seriously! go ahead...make my day.

[Khakionion]

What difference does it make if it stays the same or if it's changed to be more "liberal" minded?
Not to dog on you, of course, but some people just have REALLY strong beliefs, and can't stand the idea that they're having someone else's beliefs imposed on them.

<MiddleSchoolMemory>
A girl (call her SuperChristian) started crying uncontrollably when another girl (call her NegaVerseMonster) was reading a Satanic Bible to kill time in Study Hall. They made NegaVerseMonster put up the Satanic Bible to make SuperChristian stop wailing, so everyone else could work.
</MiddleSchoolMemory>

See? Some people just really don't like others' beliefs.

[Khakionion]

Some people are just too sensitive.

/me agrees.

Some people just need to take a chill pill. Getting rid of "under God" would just open a Pandora's box of aforementioned.....uh, mentionings, like...well, THE CONSTITUTION, "In God We Trust" on our currency, and all those patriotic songs.

[dollerspark]

Originally posted by Aeroe
but seriously though, when will liberals stop? why not burn the declaration of independence?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I don't think the liberals will stop, and when they are exluded by the words of a government which claims to give everyone equal rights, I don't blame them a single bit. If you were being excluded and were told that you had rights, would you want to fight for them too?!

Also, does the Declaration of Independance simply just overpower the First Amendment of the Constitution?

Furthermore, the Declaration of Independace fought for freedom from the British. Yes, that's right, it fought for freedom, just like the liberals are doing...

And created doesn't always imply that God made it, although it does mention "Creator." Keep in mind, you were "created" when your parents had sex!

Originally posted by Aeroe
liberals want to remove God, so they can remove God given rights to every man and woman of all races. remove God, and let's make it "mother earth." :rolleyes:

How do you know those rights are "God given"?! I believe in equal rights, yet I'm not too sure if there is a God. And acutally we're fighting to regain rights, not take them away. Like I said in the other topic, please tell me where it says that it is the right of those who believe in God to mention their beliefs in any government document?! I have yet to find that out...

Really though, is it THAT STINKING HARD for them to take out those to words?! Is it?!?!?! Why is it SO FREAKING HARD for them to allow nonbelievers to feel INCLUDED?!?!?! Please tell me! I'd like to know what makes them think that they have the right to feel more included than nonbelievers do!

[deadrabbit]

i am happy to see any rulings against patriotism these days, not matter how small . . . a year ago, imprisoning an american citizen indefintely , without allowing him access to a lawyer would have caused an uproar (i'm talking about jose padilla of course)

[Trigear]

i used to just skip the "under god" part, which i feel is perfectly fine. and now they found it unconstitutional to say the pledge of allegience also. that should be enough. fighting to remove all references to god is as much an imposition of beliefs as the references to god are. i say the damage is already done. god is already in the documents. no point in taking him out. two wrongs don't make a right.

but seriously though, where will this go? can we expect them to ban the phrase "bless you" because it's an unwitting reference to diety? how about "good bye" which has it's origins in the phrase "god be with ye" (think about that one for a minute or two)...


just leave everything be dammit!

[asshole]

I see no problem with it. I don't believe in god, but it doesn't hurt to say something that's about being united.

[pixiefied]

ok, this is the way i remember saying it:D


i pledge of allegence,to the flag,of united states of america. to which it stands,one nation,under god individualble,for liberty and justice for all.(i never could get indivisible right.it always came out different:D )

[henry3k56]

"under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was added in 1954. They didn't want any godless communists to screw over America.
Also if you want to bitch more about god, its on Dollar Bills, you put your hand on the bible "To Help You God" when testifying. The President says it as oath when getting Inagurated. Said in the Supreme court. Instead of "under God", make it "under god". Don't capitalize the g in God. That makes it what ever god you believe in, or gods you believe in, may they help you.
If no god, then make it something else. A generic god, whatever suits your boat. Even if you say "Under Devil" you still said The Pledge.
In most children its imbedded in their minds to say that daily. I think there was a situation here where the Principal decided not to say The Pledge, and he was under scruitny for not doing it.

[stttafffy]

i never said it in public school, either, i got quite a few detentions from some anal teachers, too. i used to have to stand up with the class, at least, or i would get detention. bastards. anyway, i dont say the pledge of allegiance because i dotn like the idea of giving myself up to the state, which is what i get out of the pledge. i dont beleive in god, either, anddont really care, but if you asked me i would say take it out. the whole separation of church and state thing comes into play. why have children swear allegiance to america every morning, what good does it do? will kids love america when they grow up because they had to recite the pledge? anyway, why is flag burning dissalowed? if you draw a flag, then take it on your personal property and burn it, thats illegal. or at least around here you get arrested for it. that ticks me off more than the pledge.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I love being British.

[Sandman2012]

Yes, everybody knows England doesn't use any propaganda. ;)

[ElChevelle]

Now if only we can change that freaky eye over the pyramid on the dollar bill to a UFO:confused:

[fish]

Originally posted by Xerxes
I should add that this ruling was made in San Francisco, the most liberal court in the US.

The US Supreme court will promptly shoot this down- this decision has far to much implications for it not to hit the supreme court.


San Fran is part of the 9th judicial circuit - the most overturned circuit by the Surpeme Court, I heard this morning on the radio.

[papadoc]

Originally posted by phisherman
San Fran is part of the 9th judicial circuit - the most overturned circuit by the Surpeme Court, I heard this morning on the radio.
This is true...it's the most liberal court in America.
It was also revealed today, that the man pushing this case,
first tried to have the words "In God We Trust",
removed from all our money, the coins and the bills.
He could'nt get anywhere with that,
so he choose to attack the Pledge of Allegiance.
He also said that if the Supreme Court,
overturned the 9th Circuit of Appeals decision,
he'd find something else to attack.
Makes you wonder about his motives...:confused:

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by Khakionion

Not to dog on you, of course, but some people just have REALLY strong beliefs, and can't stand the idea that they're having someone else's beliefs imposed on them.

<MiddleSchoolMemory>
A girl (call her SuperChristian) started crying uncontrollably when another girl (call her NegaVerseMonster) was reading a Satanic Bible to kill time in Study Hall. They made NegaVerseMonster put up the Satanic Bible to make SuperChristian stop wailing, so everyone else could work.
</MiddleSchoolMemory>

See? Some people just really don't like others' beliefs.
Stupid crying girl should have been taken out of the room.

I had a teacher who told me one time about when he was in school. There was one kid that was dreadfully allergic to peanut butter, so they banned it from the school. Rather than teaching the kid that if he ate it he was going to die (and therefore be a shining example of Darwinism in effect), they decided that no child could bring peanut butter into the school. What bullshit.

dollerspark, there's a difference between fighting for freedom and being anal. Itdoesn't hurt anyone to allow the pledge of allegience to be read it school. If someone is that offended, then they can simply refuse to recite the pledge. There's no need to modify the pledge, or anything else. That's just overkill, and I think you and all the other overzealous liberals know it.

If I went this far overboard trying to say that we need more religion, then I would be labelled as a nut. When some liberals try to strip out everything that might have some slight religious connotation, though, they are just fighting for freedom? Freedom from what? Historical documents? Please.

stttafffy, It's not illegal to burn the American flag. If you get arrested, then your constitutional rights are being violated. I think it's disgusting (yes, I feel that strongly about it) to burn an American flag if you are an American citizen, (if you dislike America thats much, you just need to leave), but I think that denying someone that right is even worse.

I'm tired of all this hyper-sensitivity. I get offended a lot, but i don't whine about it like a spoiled brat. Grow up.

Like someone already mentioned, forcing atheism upon everyone is no better than forcing religion upon them.

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by ElChevelle
Now if only we can change that freaky eye over the pyramid on the dollar bill to a UFO:confused:

Hey! Some people like ancient Masonic Symbols :)

[dollerspark]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George
dollerspark, there's a difference between fighting for freedom and being anal. Itdoesn't hurt anyone to allow the pledge of allegience to be read it school. If someone is that offended, then they can simply refuse to recite the pledge. There's no need to modify the pledge, or anything else. That's just overkill, and I think you and all the other overzealous liberals know it.

If I went this far overboard trying to say that we need more religion, then I would be labelled as a nut. When some liberals try to strip out everything that might have some slight religious connotation, though, they are just fighting for freedom? Freedom from what? Historical documents? Please.

Like someone already mentioned, forcing atheism upon everyone is no better than forcing religion upon them.

I'm sorry if I've sounded like an anal nut, but I feel strongly about this, as it seems many people do about keeping the words.

And I want to stress that no one is trying to force atheism upon anyone by doing this. The point in doing this is to keep the American government free of religion like it was meant to be.

And I agree, they can refuse to recite the pledge, or even exclude certain words when they do so, but that's not what's bothering me. It makes me, a previous proud American (not too sure about America now...), very sad to see that the country that America was meant to be run over by a bunch of Xtians who were able to put their beliefs wherever they wanted. Keeping the words would just be unraveling another thread which was sewed by our great forefathers who had the intent to create a country which stressed freedom of church and state. In other words, this country wasn't created to have some God-lovers shove their beliefs into the government.

And it's freedom from religion that we want. We don't want to take religion away from everyone, at least I don't. Ya know, if you believe in God, then I really truly hope that it allows you to be happy and helps you live a good productive life. I really do. Just keep it away from me and everyone else who doesn't want it, and keep it out of the government. That's not what America was made for.

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/distance.gif

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/iran.gif

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by phisherman

San Fran is part of the 9th judicial circuit - the most overturned circuit by the Surpeme Court, I heard this morning on the radio.

Heh, I like how Limbaugh calls the 9th judicial Circuit the 9th Judicial Circus.

He also had a good point- when this is overturned (And it is only a matter of when) Bush will be able to use it as something to run on. There is a huge part of america that doesn't fall under the "9th circus" that is outraged over this.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020627/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance_18

[patroclus22]

My two cents:

I always left out the "Under God" part, and no one really cared/noticed. The words are optional. Its not unconstitutional, as long as the option is there.

The 9th Circuit is really the Twilight Zone.

[Curi0us_George]

dollerspark, America was started by a very religious group of people. They didn't want freedom from religion. They wanted freedom to practice religion as they saw fit. I think they would be angered to see the way religion has become frowned upon.

The government was never meant to be free from religion. It was not supposed to force a religion onto the citizens, though. There's a difference. Look at the Declaration of Independence. It's got plenty of religion. There's religion built into the foundation of our country.

I don't know why people can't understand that religious freedom doesn't have to involve the banning of religion. That's not freedom. The government is, in actuality, a group of people. To say that these people don't have the right to religion is unconstitutional.

[QHOBBES]

if we stand united, do we fall united? if the government can bring God
into them, can God bring the government into him/her/it? if a citizen
can be arrested for imperssanting a cop, why cant a cop be arrested
for imperssanting a citizen?

[BlueBalls]

hm, points to ponder eh QHOBBES? What about God Bless America? They gonna do something about that too?

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by QHOBBES
if a citizen
can be arrested for imperssanting a cop, why cant a cop be arrested
for imperssanting a citizen?
Impersonating an officer is a crime for a good reason. Officers have additional powers. If I dress as a cop and pull you over and search your car, then I've done things that aer completely legal for a real cop, but I don't have those rights as a citizen. If a cop dresses as a citizen, he doesn't get to act as though he has new powers.

Of course, an officer cannot impersonate a citizen. An officer is a citizen.