Anyone seen the stuff on the pledge being uncontitutional

For us USAnians-

I personally think it is outragous. What do you guys think?

the pledge was amended by truman to add the words 'under god', so it's not like it's been in there since creation. although i despise both the government and religon and couldn't care less either way i find the outrage humorous. change it to 'one nation under buddha' for all i care. =).

Ah, Man- this could be a discussion of hours (days as slow as I type)-

But, I'll cut to the chase:

The decision came from an "activist" judge, who is "off his medication". It came from the 9th Circuit Court, the biggest anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Christian encalve in the country.

In the last three years, 84% of it's decisions has been overturned by the Supreme Court: In 1999, 100% of its decisions were reversed by the SC. I doubt that anyone in that court has ever read the Constitution, much less the Federalist Papers. (If they did, they obviously did not understand what they were reading.)

While I can understand why some simple minded people and hard-core atheists or satanists might not want references "God" in ANYTHING, much less the Pledge of Allegiance, It is NOT a matter of the separation of Church and State;

If the word Christ were substituted, then it might really be an issue, but except for the atheists, "God" is a generic term, and probably 90% of the entire population of the earth believes in SOME kind of GOD, If it be a tree, an animal, a spirit, a celestial object, a force of nature, the "mythical Gods" or "The One True God".

What the Constitution says (I'm paraphrasing) is that there will be no State mandated religion.

NOWHERE in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say that there can be no mention of religion in connection with the federal government. It DOES say (I'm paraphrasing again) that that which is not expressly forbidden, is permitted.

P.S. It was Eisenhower that did it, with the approval of Congress. The purpose of adding it was part of the cold war strategy- He (they) wanted to use it to set us apart from the "godless communists" who had outlawed all religion, except for the worship of the Politbureau.

I'm as much "pagan" as I am "Christian", and I find at least SOME value in SOME of the beliefs of just about all the religions of the world.
Still, I don't personally care if it is there or not.

But I do believe that we as a Nation and a society are better off with it in there. It may not mean much to the average person really, but it is a regular reminder that we are all answerable to a "Higher Authority" than the police, the courts the politicians & bureaucraps (misspelling intentional) in Washington, DC, or the UN.

Political "tempest in a teapot"

I have to agree with Nightsun on this one. It is outrageous, but not suprising.
I wonder when they will start selling tickets on the handbasket?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by papasan:
change it to 'one nation under buddha' for all i care. =).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually some chick called in to Rush Limbah the other day (I was driving so my dad got to pick the station but Rush isn't bad ) and she was very as in didn't take my 5 grams of Prozac upset over the whole issue. She was buddhist and did not want her child subjected to this "Under God" stuff. When Rush suggested the child simply substitute God for Buddah she flew even more off the handle and made sure he knew that Buddah was a HUMAN and that "under" Buddah was an insult and....

Whatever...I think the best thing would be to leave it alone, but since they are changing it maybe some people should be upset, but this can't turn into another civil war!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NightSun:
For us USAnians-

I personally think it is outragous. What do you guys think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's the biggest load of horse puckey I've seen in a long time.
Makes me wonder who pissed in that guy's Cheerios that morning.

I've always recited it with the "under God" part, and that's how I'll always say it.

I knew this would be a loaded topic but someone needed to do it.
While we differ in opinion, silveron told the facts truly.

It's a wonder the guy who proposed it doesn't see what he has done to his daughter. Kids are ruthless and unmerciful and many will use this as an excuse to beat the snot out of her.
Maybe he should move to the middle east- I here the weather is nice there. Or Cuba! That way he will be kept company by his fellow freedom haters!

Oooooohh, I guess I deposited more than 2 cents on that one.

Funny thing is on 9/11/01 , GOD was Mr. Popular. How quickly we forget,eh.

Nitesun: I think at the heart of the matter, we do agree, it is just some of the minor details that we may slightly veer apart, and in the end, I hope we will end up in the same place.

Saaby does bring up an interesting point though- It is kind of hard to categorize Buddhists- They don't believe in God or gods per-se; in fact supposedly Buddhism is not really a religion but a way of life and a belief in what is right and wrong..... But then, if that isn't the same thing as religion, what is it?

I'm far from an expert on Buddhism, but I have studied it a bit...., I think it is really more of a semantics thing: What is Nirvana but another name for Heaven? And what is reaching perfection through a series of re-incarnations but achieving Godhood? Not Godhood as in Creator, or a being deserving of worship, but Godhood nonetheless.

A TRUE Buddhist wouldn't have screamed at Rush, nor would they care what the Pledge of Allegiance said because neither one would matter at all.

I could be wrong, but that is my understnding of it.

That 9th circuit will be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court anyway-probably on 1st. amendment grounds. -and rightly so.

We recited the pledge in school in the 1940s, and we were no less of a country back then than we were in 1954 when suddenly the under God phrase was added. We did not become a different country when that happened, or when I was in Pleiku in 1967.

This whole thing is about political posturing, like:"we're more patriotic than you", and is being used as a political football to get people all worked up about something that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this nation's real national security.
This nation's politicians a having a real field day jerking people's emotions around with this one

So, after watching this country's strengths firsthand, and living here for 60+ years, IMHO there's nothing here to get one's panties in a "wad" about.
-FWIW, I'm battling cancer right now, so I can't afford to spend my limited emotional energy on something that won't even be a news story 6 months from now

One man's opinion.

Doug, Good luck and GOD's blessings upon you in your current battle.

Other than a few of the really outrageous Congress critters, I don't think that this is really a political battle but a moral one.

The Senate voted 99 to nothing (one Senator was absent), and even those Godless obstructionist and opportunist Senators like Daschle and Hillary voted to censure the decision, although I'm certain that in their deepest private thoughts a lot of them would enjoy seeing the entire "Religious Right" wiped out.

They COULD have made this a "political football", but it would have further polarized this nation, and put a lot of "left leaning" politicians out of business with elections coming up in a few months. So, in this ONE matter, they have actually come together.

And this Country didn't change when you were in Pleiku in 67, but I think it DID make a big change somewhere BETWEEN then and when I left Saigon in 75.

By the way-

This thing may not make it to the U.S. Supreme Court- that Judge (Alfred T. Goodwin) that wrote the majority opinion (2-1) of the three member Judicial panel of the 9th Circuit Court put a "stay" on his own decision.

(Either he sobered up, took his proper medication, or was frightened by the firestorm of opinion opposing him.)

So this thing has no force of law anywhere in the country right now, and it may be dropped (if they are smart, they will just drop it); the 3 person Panel could re-hear it, or the entire 11 judges of the 9th C.C. could meet and come to a decision one way or another.

In the unlikely event that they do re-affirm it, THEN it can go to the US SC to be overturned.

But, I think they have licked their finger, stuck it in the air and seen which way the wind is blowing.... I'll bet $5.00 to $1.00 it will either be dropped in panel, or overturned by the entire 9th C.C.

Silviron-RE: political posturing
Exhibit A:
Those congressional clowns gathering early the other day right after the decision came down to demonstrate their political correctness. Just the fact that they voted 99-0 positively demonstates how, in this political climate, you absolutely HAVE to inoculate yourself from the accusations that are SURE to come (you are not "Godly") if you don't. The opposition would have torn you to pieces if you didn't!

When was the last time any politician ever ran for office on an agnostic or athiest platform???
-I think you KNOW the answer to that question
I just object to having someone else try politically profit by trying to throw a lasso around people's feelings -and not bother to encourage people to some real hard thinking (as opposed to just "feeling".

-Demogoguery, anyone?
Controling and capitalizing on people's emotions are part of the successful politician's path to power.
It's the "cheap and dirty" (politically speaking) way.

Life on this planet is not near and never has been as simple as a "left vs. right" proposition.
Like right to privacy as just one example....

Witness the very close friendship between Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy Two polar political opposites if I've ever seen any........
By the way, sad to say it, if I were in D.C. right now, I'd probably be doing the same posturing as these jokers did

Mr. Glow-

I think we really do agree on this- It is just a matter of semantics and the fact that I was looking at it more from the point of view of "the People" versus a nutty court decision.

The politicians HAD to come down on the side of "the People" on this with elections so near.

Certainly there is nothing in your last post that I disagree with.

Although it is funny that in the last three days, the mention of God has become P.C. whereas for most of the last 10-20 years (except during the immediate aftermath of 9-11), mentioning God was VERY non-P.C. and only the "religious right whackos" had the courage to do so in public.

But, in the end, with the politicians (and sadly, so much of general society), it is appearance rather than substance that matters. So they posture and pose and pretend to agree with the majority when there is an obvious swell in public feeling, no matter what their personal agenda is. Anything to get or stay in power.

I AM heartened that so many of our younger CPF members have demonstrated the ability to think critically, act morally and value substance over style. Maybe it is the quest for the perfect flashlight(s) that does it but I am glad to see it. I expect it from old guys like you and me, but am always surprised when someone much younger than I can do it.

I've always wondered why the act of wanting to be "one nation under god" makes your more patriotic. Just what the heck does one have to do with the other?

That's about the safest wonderment that I can offer.

Political Correctness has no permanent home.
The first example of it that I saw was on television -showing the Army/McCarthy hearings.

"Are you now or have you ever been................."

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mr.glow:
Political Correctness has no permanent home.
The first example of it that I saw was on television -showing the Army/McCarthy hearings.

"Are you now or have you ever been................."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why, If was a politician in D.C.-especially right now, I might go waaaaay out on limb, and come out in favor of "motherhood" and even "apple pie"(!)-as well as the American flag.
-'Ya gotta cover yourself politically or you WILL get your head handed to you.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darell:
I've always wondered why the act of wanting to be "one nation under god" makes your more patriotic. Just what the heck does one have to do with the other?

That's about the safest wonderment that I can offer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is why I don't REALLY care if it stays in or not-

It doesn't necessarily make you any more patriotic- most people, I think, just mouth the words anyway, with little thought or care what they are saying.

When it was put in there, it DID make people more patriotic, because back in the "olden days" of the 1950s (and earlier) people were a lot more religious in general, and adding it reminded the "God fearing" people that if the "commies" took over, they would be forbidden to worship as they saw fit.

One thing I like about this furor is that it is making a lot of people actually think about it for a change.

While leaving it in there may or may not make anyone more patriotic, if it helps make just a few people to be thoughtful, moral and honest, we as a society benefit.

Those who get "hurt feelings" or feel it an "attack on their rights" aren't really going to be particularly good citizens anyway, because they are completely egocentric and insecure in their own beliefs.

Just my silly "old fart's" opinion.
JMSOFO-
Should we add that to the acronym's list?

Oh Boy..

I'm going to get real unpopular, real fast..

I think it was wrong to put it in. And I think that removing it is the proper thing to do.

Before ripping my head off and moralizing the issue please understand that when I first heard about this I was like yourselves. "What is this non-sense?!"

But then I read a counter argument, "Would I mind if my child were forced to pledge "One Nation under Allah..".

Well I ask you to ask your-selves. "Would You Mind?"

I know my answer, I'd be steaming at the collar and spouting to my congress men "NOT MY CHILD! The GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT!". I'm guessing a majority reading this would do the same.

(Well, At least those with children and are voters)

If you 'dont' mind this allah pledge, then most likely you 'believe' in Allah. See a pattern? I do, but apparently the 80% of americans that identify with "God", don't.

Bottom line, Does the US Government have the right to imply an existence of God? Imply that he's male, and the only one? (ie. a Christian one)

No it does not. Quite the opposite, it is forbidden from doing so.. It may not show any favoritism nor even imply any gods existence. Yes this mandate is generally ignored, (It's on the Money, we've been saying it for 50 years, etc) but one person decided enough was enough and brought it to court and rightfully won. Of the three tests applicable to this issue, it fails all.

1) the "intent" of the insertion was to imply "God" exists
2) the effect is to "endorse" judeo-christion beliefs over others.
3) Children have no recorse and are "Forced" to recite it or suffer peer pressure.

It is not a matter of majority rule. It's a matter of protecting the minorities. In this case the Non-Semetic religions (and non-religions).

The phrase "Under God" does not offend you most probably because you are semetic believers, not because it is in-offensive. You can rationalize it all you want about how it's not harmfull, it's just political posturizing, etc. But please try to realize what the other persons shoes feels like before dancing in your own.

Judging by the general sentiment and attitudes being expressed here I can safely assume I am now a dead man.

Please place on my Tombstone the following:

Republican, Agnostic, Veteran of the Gulf War, and Too Stupid to keep his Big Mouth Shut.

shouldn't our elected leaders be worrying about massive losses to investors/general public due to corporate mismanagement? ie. WorldCom, Xerox, Enron, etc. etc. etc.
are their priorities a little messed up?

just my 24 cents