It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Federal Judge Rules "Under God" Unconstitutional in Pledge

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
The pledge has changed over the years as our society has changed. We put "Under God" into the pledge back in the 50's and we can take it out. Hell they used to have the children do this:



GrndLkNatv,
Speaking of the Supreme Court, if it was rule by majority Al Gore would be President right now. And Mexifornia? Grow up please.




posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Despite that can you imagine the uproar if someone actually recited "One nation under Allah"? Thats the hypocracy of the whole clause. How many non muslims would be okay with it? Honestly? More to the point why is it even important to be there? Was not before and things got along just fine.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I'm inline with some of what The Parallelogram stated. I don't understand what the big deal is. I grew up with it, it didn't make me religious, didn't make me anti-religious. Didn't have much, if any affect on my opinion of the nation, neither brainwashing me into loving it nor building resentment towards it.

Am I just that different, that I was more worried about stupid stuff like homework, girls, friends, where I was going to get alcohol on Friday and who was going to buy me cigarettes later that day? Is it normal that an impressionable youth as I was did not get affected by a little one-minute recitation every day for 6 years? That I can recall, the only people who ever had any kind of a problem with it were Jehova's Witness kids, who sat it out. I think there were two such children in my entire career as a student, and they never received any crap for it--in fact, they were respected more for that than most kids I knew for getting good grades.

What exactly is the point that I'm missing? Why is this such a big deal? I mean, how much money was spent on trying to fix this "problem" that could've been spent on textbooks, calculators, pencils, notebooks, countless other items that more directly affect a student's ability to study.

Or is this yet another instance of "hostile environments"? Again, I can't think of anyone I've ever met, in my entire life, who has been affected by the pledge, adversely or otherwise. Even if the children I knew who didn't recite the pledge with the class got made fun of, who wasn't made fun of in school? It's part of growing up, you learn to deal with the fact that some people are just flat out jerks, you learn to get over it and you're stronger for when you get into the "real world."


Ox

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Yeah.. it was deemed unconstitutional.. And the Judge has probably been deemed "Un-patriotic" by Bush.. And all this and more is the reason Dubbya is trying to get Roberts in as Chief justice.. Things will change dramatically for the worse if he is given the chair of Chief Justice.. These actions were put into play long ago..



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The "under God" was added back in 1954 and signed as an act by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a "way of fighting back against the aethistic communists and the threat that communism presented to the world


The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.
The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."




Pleade of Alliegence

This is a nation that was founded on religious freedom. It has not been that for a very long time. It is a nation of aethism (no offence intended to those of that outlook). It is becoming an aethistic nation since it is becoming more and more against the law to be of any religious belief, to express your faith in any religions be it RCC, Islam, Shinto etc. As soon as you (as a citizen) do, you are identified as infringing on the rights of another NOT to have the same belief.
If you as a person of faith, complain then you are identified as a whiner etc. as I am sure that I will soon see such coming. Let it!



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I agree the pledge should not have the words "under God" in it if it is spoken in public schools (state schools for the British amongst us), for the reason that it flies in the face of separation of church and state. However, I've never had much of a problem with the idea, not because I believe in God, but because the pledge of allegiance as I understand it is not mandatory. You can always choose not to say it. However, I think many schools do not make this option clear to their students, particularly younger ones.

-koji K.


Ox

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Wow Flinx!.. In that picture it almost looks as if the kids are getting ready to chant "Sieg Heil".. Isnt that what we're close to now with the Bushling in office?

And notice how the media doesnt even refer to him as "President Bush" just "Mr Bush"?



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
It's a ridiculous ruling, saying "one nation under God" in the Pledge certainly doesn't rise to the level of state establishment of religion -- anyway reciting the Pledge is optional, no one is forcing people to say it at all. I'm certain the Supreme Court will reverse this decision in due course.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The term God is capitalized in the English language as a proper noun when used to refer to a specific monotheistic concept of a Supreme Being in accordance with Christian, Jewish )as "G-d" - cf. Names of God in Judaism), and more recently (in the U.S.A) Muslim tradition.

From wiki



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Despite that can you imagine the uproar if someone actually recited "One nation under Allah"? Thats the hypocracy of the whole clause. How many non muslims would be okay with it? Honestly? More to the point why is it even important to be there? Was not before and things got along just fine.



Fred if they were reciting it in English the phrase would be "under God"
I don't know what "under" is in Arabic, but the word after it would be "Allah". I went to kindergarten with my nephew a few years ago and there was a boy next to me reciting the Pledge in Spanish.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
It is becoming an aethistic nation since it is becoming more and more against the law to be of any religious belief, to express your faith in any religions be it RCC, Islam, Shinto etc. As soon as you (as a citizen) do, you are identified as infringing on the rights of another NOT to have the same belief.


Name a single law that criminalizes personal religious expression. Name a single case in the last 50 years of an individual being prosecuted for expression of religious expression. As it is, the law makes special exceptions for religious practices to a degree (such as tax exemption for property taxes on religious facilities, blue laws that still exist, etc.)

Religious freedom implies your right to hold and practice your beliefs to the extent they do not infringe on my rights. However, the Bill of rights is stronger than that. It says the government may not even respect the establishment of religion.

I'm curious though, do you consider the pledge an act of idolatry?



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
To those that say "what the big deal?" about atheists complaining about having the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance: if its not such a big deal why the resistance to remove it?

There is meant to be a seperation between church and state in the United States. When the government starts representing the church in its actions the seperation between church and state is blurred. The pledge in itself is pretty innocuous but allowing the blurring of church and state is highly dangerous. Once the state becomes religious, any dissent becomes heresy and rationality goes out the window.

Also this Federal judge isnt legislating from the bench at all, he's actually upholding the constitution, ya' know like the judicial branch is meant to...



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
It clearly does represent an endorsement of specific religions, as not all religions (Buddhism for example) embrace the concept of a singular God. "Religion" is not a synonym for "monotheism".

It is also true as was posted before, that "under God" was not a part of the original pledge, it was added during the McCarthy years.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
To those that say "what the big deal?" about atheists complaining about having the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance: if its not such a big deal why the resistance to remove it?


While I agree in the need for separation of church and state, the main reason I'm complaining against it is because there's much bigger fish to fry that people's time, energy, and money could be spent on. How many other cases are pending in the courts that this is pushing back? How much money was spent on the attorneys and judges to hear this? How much time did the attorneys, judges, witnesses, etc. invest into this proceeding?

I think it's a blatant waste of resources that could be used to serve more important purposes. Hell, I'd rather see the time and money donated to PETA--as much as I disagree with their methods--than wasted trying to remove 2 words from a one-minute "speech" that nobody is forced to speak. Spend it on trying to educate kids against hate, spend it on trying to make sure kids have lunch to eat, spend it on trying to keep kids off of drugs and out of gangs. Use it to help fund a rehabilitation center for people who wasted part of their life or donate it to an inner city rec center so kids have something to do after school. It may be a drop in the bucket, but it's one drop more than what was there before.

As far as "resistance", I only offer my cynical commentary and spend my time and energy learning from this so I can educate my kids in the future on how to spend their time. Frivolous court actions--which I strongly feel this is--are probably one of the most wasteful actions in our nation today, and if I can teach my children to avoid them then I'll feel I've done my part. I have little delusions that my own avoidance of such actions and teaching my kids as such will change the world in any way, but at least I can feel I didn't contribute to the problem, even if I didn't contribute to the solution.

EDIT: minor spelling.

[edit on 9/14/2005 by MCory1]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
spamandham,
To answer your first question, yes there are laws that have been imposed that criminalizes personal religious expression in the last few years let alone 50.
Please reference Harvard Civil Rights Protecting Religion
It lists a few cases where a person has been persecuted for their religious beliefs.

As to your second question, no I do not believe that the Pledge of Allegiance is a case of idolotry. Since it seems that the arguments are christian orientated, I will answer you with the christian response where Christ told his people to give unto Cesar what is due to Cesar. the pledge of allegiance with or without the "under god" termanology does not come anywhere close to being idolotry so I am wondering as to your reason for asking.

Edited to add another reference




Freedom of Religion

[edit on 14-9-2005 by kenshiro2012]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892 and the original words were:

"I pledge allegiance to my flag the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

The words "Under God" werent added until 1954 by Congress.

They were added because a religious group campaigned and won on the idea that they were needed to show that we were different from the "godless communists".

This may sound silly, but this was during the time of MacCarthyism and everyone was terrified of the communists.
----

go to loudobbs and vote whether you think it's unconstitutional or not.

www.loudobbs.com...

it's 50/50 right now.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ox
Wow Flinx!.. In that picture it almost looks as if the kids are getting ready to chant "Sieg Heil".. Isnt that what we're close to now with the Bushling in office?

And notice how the media doesnt even refer to him as "President Bush" just "Mr Bush"?


It's the Bellamy salute and was used from 1892 to 1942, when it was discontinued (for obvious reasons). Oh Wikipedia, the things I learn from you!


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Some of the "Gods" common in American Society....
To me, the "God" a person serves would be that which they hold closest to their heart, that which they devout most of their thoughts, the thing that is #1 to them.....
So, here are some of the "Gods" that come to mind......
spouses, children, drugs, alchohol, MONEY, a new car or other posessions, their SELF, pride, sex, and well......you could probably easily think of your own list.
So, what are we saying when we say the pledge really, since, I'm sorry, I don't believe the MAJORITY of americans serve the CHRISTIAN GOD. If this was true, more youths would be attending church, prayer meetings would still be held, and well, our society would be more "Godlike" and we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with!
SO, what are we saying.....I pledge allegiance to this peice of cloth here, but, I'll tell ya now, my allegience to my family, my money, my posessions, my self, and my drug or alchohol habit will always be above it? Considering how many people cheat on their income tax, lie for their public benefits, have avoided the draft in years past, and basically done whatever was necessary to obtain the wealth and power that they desired, well, I will admit that it is true.. for most people, their "GOD" will always trump their obligation to their nation, but why bother having our children confess this on a daily basis.....is it really that admirable of a trait to have?



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx

Originally posted by Ox
Wow Flinx!.. In that picture it almost looks as if the kids are getting ready to chant "Sieg Heil".. Isnt that what we're close to now with the Bushling in office?

And notice how the media doesnt even refer to him as "President Bush" just "Mr Bush"?


It's the Bellamy salute and was used from 1892 to 1942, when it was discontinued (for obvious reasons). Oh Wikipedia, the things I learn from you!


en.wikipedia.org...


See that is exactly why I dislike the use of wikipedia as a reference. Anyone can put up what they want and some will take it as fact when there is nothing factual at all about it


Makes mental note to go and change the Bellamy salute to Gore Salute



With that said, I think they should take the judge out and castrate him



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
spamandham,
To answer your first question, yes there are laws that have been imposed that criminalizes personal religious expression in the last few years let alone 50.
Please reference Harvard Civil Rights Protecting Religion
It lists a few cases where a person has been persecuted for their religious beliefs.


I read it, and I'm not finding a single example of criminalization of religious expression. What it has are numerous examples of special rights being granted due to religion, such as the right for prisoners to have Kosher meals, hate crimes legislation that imposes additional penalties for crimes thought to be related to religion, the rights of Muslims to wear hijabs to schools etc. This is not criminalization of religion by any stretch of the imigination, it is exactly the opposite - special treatment.


Originally posted by kenshiro2012
the pledge of allegiance with or without the "under god" termanology does not come anywhere close to being idolotry so I am wondering as to your reason for asking.


Pledging allegiance to anything but god seems like idolatry to me. It is elevating something to the status of being unaccountable - a status reserved solely for god I thought. If this isn't idolatry, it's hard to imagine what is.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join