namelesstavern.net

or not...

Who knew that saying the pledge of allegiance all those years in school would someday turn into a crime?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html

Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.

"All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis," Newdow said.

I wonder how anyone could reason that it is a better thing to not say it at all, rather than just being able to say it minus 2 words of the last verse?


Being the geek I am, I personally like this version anyway:

I pledge allegiance to the United Federation of Planets, and to the galaxy for which it stands, one universe, under everybody, with liberty and justice for all species.

The ninth circuit in San Francisco and this dude have been suing for this over and over. It is no surprise they timed it for the SCOTUS nomination hearings.

He actually had it before the Supreme Court last year. They tossed it out on a technicality rather than deal with it at that time. The new process started effectively immediately after that one, and has been ongoing ever since. It is hardly timed to coincide with anything. There've been news reports about it for months, before O'Conner said she was stepping down, and LONG before Rehnquist cacked off.

The original pledge did NOT have the words "Under God" in it, and that's all that's being asked for, is to go back to the original pledge. The man makes a good point, how much furor would there be if it said instead, "We are one nation that denies God exists" in the Pledge? Yet how is a pledge of athiesm any different than a pledge to a specific diety?

Why the resistance to a completely secular pledge, with no mention of religion whatsoever? How is that a bad thing in a nation that has as one of its founding doctrines the separation of church and state?

-Arlos

Except this is clearly not an issue of separation of church and state.
Under God is not solely affiliated with any particular religion that I'm aware of.

If you want to change it, go through the legislative process. It will be overturned by SCOTUS, like most of the rubbish from the 9th.

Arlos wrote:How is that a bad thing in a nation that has as one of its founding doctrines the separation of church and state?

I swear to God no one knows what this means anymore...

Yes, Lyion, God in this case is clearly the Judeo-Christian diety. Does it say "Under Allah"? How about all the religions in the US that don't believe in a single diety? Hinduism, just to name one. How about Buddhists? Shintoists? Taoists? Wiccans? Hell, fuck, how about the Satanists? Last I checked that was a legal religion, whether you agree with it or not, and to pledge allegiance to the country they have to claim the country is under a diety they specifically flatly reject?

Face it, "God" in such a context is *VERY* specific to a given faith, regardless of whether or not that particular faith is split into tons of denominations.

The doctrine of the separation of Church and State is based on the portion of the Bill of Rights where it states effectively there shall be no governmentally sponsored religion. Well, what the hell *ELSE* is it when you're required to swear allegiance under the auspices of a specific diety in order to pledge loyalty to the country? I'd call that a pretty clear-cut governmental advocacy of a specific faith.

Again, imagine the uproar if it was tried to be changed to "One Nation, Under Satan" or "We are one nation that denies God exists." Yet why are those any LESS right than "One Nation, Under God"? Hmmm?

-Arlos

Well, being Allah is just Arabic for God, it can equally apply to them.

For religions that follow a pantheon of gods, they can pick which one the US is under. No problem.

The simple truth is there is no involvement of a church entity here, and under god can correlate to any denomination or none at all.

This is grandstanding for an item that is purely legislative, which is why it'll get tossed out.

From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.

Dwight D. Eisenhower on June 14, 1954

Almighty what? Dollar?

Obviously he means Jackie Gleason. It was the 50s.

the Almighty

Almighty \Al*might"y\ ([add]l*m[imac]t"[y^]), a. [AS. ealmihtig, [ae]lmihtig; eal (OE. al) all + mihtig mighty.] 1. Unlimited in might; omnipotent; all-powerful; irresistible.

I am the Almighty God. --Gen. xvii. 1.

Ahh...so he was referring to himself then.

IMO it seems like a good idea to spend time on this as we have cured cancer, gotten ride of urban crime, murder is at an all time low, ppl dont use drugs anymore, children arent wondering where their next meal will be and our school system is # 1 in the world - I mean really there isnt much more to fix in this Utopia

In that case, drop the "under God" (because, face it, whether you like it or not, there ARE people who believe in no supreme deity existing at all) and move on so this shit doesn't keep coming up?


Then again, some people would fight for a reversal, so I guess there's no winning this one.

I am going to raise my children in the belief there is no God, no rebuke for rude or inappropriate behavior, and no cause for treating others kindly. Surely, the world will become a better place for it. Long live far left wing judiciaries!

Hahah! You should train them in the art of melee combat with very large blades, then air-drop them into random unsuspecting towns.

I will teach them the joys of seeing your enemies fall before you and the lamentations of their women.

Explain one good reason why "under God" SHOULD be in the pledge. What is it hurting to not have it in there? It's doing more damage having it in there than not at all.

I'm gonna raise my kids to adopt at every opportunity, and to invest heavily in high-quality child cages. It'll be ok, because the children will be adopted. Or something.

Thread PWN3D!

labbats wrote:I am going to raise my children in the belief there is no God, no rebuke for rude or inappropriate behavior, and no cause for treating others kindly. Surely, the world will become a better place for it. Long live far left wing judiciaries!

Lie to them and teach them about zombies who eat bad people. It's just as arbitrary. Hell, why don't you put zombies into the pledge of allegiance while your at it. Might keep some miscreants from doing bad deeds.

Tacks wrote:Explain one good reason why "under God" SHOULD be in the pledge. What is it hurting to not have it in there? It's doing more damage having it in there than not at all.

TaXXX

The point is useless litigation. Why bother using resources to reverse something so mundane?

Isn't apathy convenient all of a sudden.

Seeing how its not even in the actual, original pledge, and was added in 1954 to kiss ass to right wing mccarthyist fucknuts, it should be removed. It was a mistake then, its a mistake now.

Guess what guys, you can be an American patriot and an atheist at the same time! Wow!

It's obviously not as pointless as some like to think with the way all these people get worked up.

Zanchief wrote:Isn't apathy convenient all of a sudden.

Yes, so convenient. And I love the 'just dont say the pledge' 'leave the room' 'just dont say those two words' arguments. That's a real solution!