Judge Rules Reciting Pledge in Public School is Unconstitutional

That's beautiful. Book it, Danno!

 

No, but as times change, so must we and so must our institutions.

The courts, the entity responsible for making sure that the Constitution is followed, have determined that as the times have changed, so must the way we treat religion in this country. As we become a more religiously diverse culture, we must assure that no religion is singled out as a prevailing religion, at least not in the eyes of government institutions.

Again, if we simply remove the phrase which was inserted in the 1950s, we could get past all this and go on without further challenges to the Pledge.

 

I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of the voters in this country are Christians and it would be a hard sell for any politician to sponsor and get passed any sort of legislation to remove it. While it may not seem like that big of a deal, it probably will be for another generation or two.

 

But is the phrase "Under God" solely Christian?

 

Well, at least the original intend is Christian God.

 

Only problem I see was we used to get "in trouble" for not standing up and saying the pledge... that should not happen.

 

Christians are the ones making the biggest fuss about it. I haven't heard of many Muslim/Jewish/Islamic/Buddhist/Hindu/etc. groups whining about it. You'd wonder why except it's so obvious...

 

they don't love their god as much as we love our GOD!!!


yes it is a joke folx

Rocket River

 

I am assuming that the phrase was added to reference the "Christian God". I doubt they were thinking about the God of other religions back in the mid-50s.

 

Regardless of how you feel on this issue, I think everybody should expect the decision to be overturned by the Supreme Court. On 6/27 the Court released two opinions:

McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky

&

Van Orden v. Gov. Rick Perry

Both of them use belief in the legality of the "under God" part of the pledge as a central bit of precedent in explaining their decision. Justice Stevens seems to be the only person who believes otherwise.

 

Taking God out the pledge would be a mistake. This country was founded with Christian belief's. Sorry its truth. We turn our back on God, he will turn his back on us. I am not a conservative more liberal/independent and I know this will spark some harsh words from others. We should not have to change things this country was founded on for more and more people to feel "comfortable" in this country. You dont like it, dont say it. If we keep changing our rules for others then where will we be? I guess I must invoke religion into this, anyone who is a Christian and agree's with taking out "GOD" on anything in America, should really read the word more often. I am far from perfect, far, far, far. One thing I will always do, is treat others as I would have them treat me. One thing I will never do is turn my back on GOD.

 

Just to let you know how the Supreme Court views this question, this is from Justice Scalia's response to Justice Stephens' arguement along the same lines. Take it for what you will.

Personally, I'm not sure that sayings by Charles de Gaulle should be the basis for our Constitutional decisions. That having been said, if one wishes to argue that Roe v. Wade is now legal cannon based on a decision from 1972, it would seem slightly contradictory to state that slightly older Court precedent regarding this issue should be ignored.

Still, the existence of the religious symbols in politics strikes me as inherently dangerous, as it tends to try and augment patriotism with religion in the most blatantly public way. In other words, people entangle their belief to the point that they can't separate politics from religion. It leads to faith being used as a lever by politicians, and wars being fought for the country's goals in the name of God. Good politics and diplomacy is all about compromise, where as good religion and pious belief can accept none.

 

You mean like Mathew 22?

 

"You mean like Mathew 22?
"

I would love for you to explain your point. Seriously, I am truly curious????

 

First, the "under God" part was introduced in the 1950s, not when the nation was founded.

Second, this country was also founded on slavery, unequal rights between land-owners and non-land-owners, and unequal rights between men and women. The whole argument about needing to keep something intact because it is part of the American heritage is ****ing stupid.

 

Judge Scalia's response seems awfully like a cop-out. I disagree with him on so many levels. Using the majority and minority concept to avoid dealing with the actual legality of the pledge is very deceptive for a supreme court justice.

 

I know it was put in in the 50's and I dont see anything wrong with it being there. I know the country was founded on Slavery and Unequal this and thats (I AM BLACK) however alot of things have changed for the better. (Yes we still have a ways to go). I guess I put it wrong, not really because of american heritage. I just think the reason that this nation has been so blessed in the past was because we put HIM first. I think the reason the country has issues today is because HE has been put in the backseat. You dont have to believe it, but I do and I will go to my grave believing it.

 

Why should they? If you examine it closely, it is not at all an absurd decision decision under the establishment clause law as it's currently constituted. There's a reason why this is not the first time this has occurred. The last time they copped out with a standing argument rather than have to re-write the whole thing.

 

You can pray and pledge as much as you want. But state-sponsered recognition of God is specifically not allowed. Would you want your child in a class with the teacher saying a pledge that refers to the Hindu Gods? Why introduce trouble for not only atheists, but also Christians like yourself. It's actually better for Christians to get rid of this bias pledge.

 

Uh... it seems pretty clear that Jesus is making it clear that while he is the spiritual King, he is not the political King, and that earthly politics and finance and all the day to day power crap doesn't mean anything to Jesus and by extension God.

Jesus doesn't run for office, or try to pass laws in the Roman Empire to make Christianity the state religion. When he does his thing, he does it in a personal manner, and to the poor, and the sick. He doesn't demand everybody worship him, but delivers the message, and goes away from the power centers. People are judged by what's in their hearts and minds, not how often they make donations at the temple, or by how publicly pious they are. In fact, he eschews all pretence.

Furthermore, God has never been in favor of a political state. If you go even further back and read your Old Testament, you'll see that even before this, in the much stricter and more legalistic time period around David, the people had to basically fight with god to get a King.

You suggest people who separate church and state should read the Bible. Well I do, and everything I read leads me clearly away from the position that you are claiming is apparently as plain as the end of your nose. This particular verse is the first that came to mind.