House OK's Bill guarding Pledge from Courts

[monkeyman]

Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_go_co/pledge_protection)

WASHINGTON - The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."

Opinions?
First off, to all the people who will come here and bash Christians, save your finger's strength. I'm agnostic, and I think the under god should stay in, to remind us of our heritage, if nothing else.

So, what are y'all's opinions? Is the bill good or bad? Should the "under God" be taken out?

[Davison Douglas, law professor], noted that "past efforts to bar all federal court review of hot-button social issues have consistently failed. Hence, if this bill is enacted, it would be a highly significant landmark in terms of congressional efforts to control the actions of federal courts."

Opinions on that?

[ice_cold_uni6]

i think that this whole "under god" thing is really overrated. its really just meaningless slogan. it all depends on the way you interpret it. a christian, jew, or muslim could interpret it literally to mean "god" or an athiest could interpret it as a metaphor for hoping to always be on the good side of any argument.

the pledge of allegiance is really insignificant, but the money thing is slightly more important, but its really still insignificant. there are much bigger issure to be debating, and small things like this are between atheism and theism, which are debates will never end because either side has no evidence, and is so audacious that neither will ever admit defeat.

therefore, i conclude that this bill is a waste of time and our precious taxpayer money, chasing votes for congressmen in november.

[Spudman]

I'm agnostic, and I think the under god should stay in, to remind us of our heritage, if nothing else.


If you mean it should stay there because that's the way it has always been, then you are a bit mistaken. That phrase was added in 1954 (I think that's the year).

I'd like to see it taken out and put back how it was before, I think it was only changed to remind us that we are different than those 'Godless commies' anyway.

Besides, I think it's a little odd that some government funded schools require the students to pledge allegiance to a nation under god.

[Jerrick]

Before I was a born again Christian, I never cared about saying "under God." Now, because I am a Christian, it does have a meaning.

Rather they keep it or not, I never cared about. I really think it was overrated, the fact that you say a phrase, doesnt mean you have to beleive what you just said. Or, if it bothers the people so much, they can just not even say it. I know a lot of people, that will jsut stand there for the pledge, and not say it or anything.

[monkeyman]

If you mean it should stay there because that's the way it has always been, then you are a bit mistaken. That phrase was added in 1954 (I think that's the year).

Yeah, I know...and the 4th of July wasn't a federal holiday until 1870.
There's a difference between acknowledging the past and dwelling on it...

Besides, I think it's a little odd that some government funded schools require the students to pledge allegiance to a nation under god.

No non-Christian student that I've ever spoken to has ever cared about the 'under God' part.

[Spudman]

No non-Christian student that I've ever spoken to has ever cared about the 'under God' part.

I don't really care that much about it, I just thought I'd point out the opposing view. :P

When I was in grade school I never knew what it meant anyway, and when it finally dawned on me what it was implying i just didn't say the pledge anymore because it felt weird.

[squirrel]

Congress violated the first amendment when they passed the law that added "under god" to the pledge. That's just a fact....the pledge, as it now is codified in law, is unconstitutional. Whether or not the courts will accept this fact is iffy.

The new law is also unconstitutional, and is only a pre-election publicity stunt.

Most Americans don't fully accept the implications of the first amendment. They feel that "majority rules" on issues of religion, and don't understand the importance of the FA in protecting THEM.

I don't expect things to get better any time soon.

[johnfoss]

Yes it was 1954. The McCarthy era and the Cold War. God is on our side and all that. I have an old documentary that's a series of educational films intended for U.S. soldiers being trained in the late stages of WWII. It shows a room full of cute kids reciting the pledge in its original version. It sounds fine.

Taking religous statements out of our government stuff doesn't mean we're taking away our religion. A big fat "DUH!" to all the ninnies to continue to claim that. The "under God" part *did* bother me when I was a kid, but not that much. I can accept it as a "traditional" thing, even though it has already been edited, like the mention of God on all of our money. That doesn't make it right though.

I think the "safe" way to interpret instances of "God" on government stuff is to assume it is used in the most generic form possible; to cover any diety(s) you may believe in, or to be ignored if you don't happen to have one.

[JJuggle]

to cover any diety(s) you may believe in, or to be ignored if you don't happen to have one.
This, to me, is like suggesting that you ignore the bullet that's just been shot into your head if you choose to.

Covering any deities does not provide an option for those who do not have one.

My daughter solved this dilemma on her own in the fourth grade. She stopped saying "under God".

I would suggest that rather than taking out "under God" the pledge be changed to read:

I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God or not, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

That provides an option for everyone I can think of.

I for one have no use for the ritual of a pledge. Certainly not for the flag, a bit of cloth, and not always for a nation, an entity whose interests almost by definition may not be in accord with the best interests of the good of humanity or the planet.

The expression is "Think globally, act locally" not "Think nationally, act locally".

Oh, and as for the House of Representatives, what a bunch of douchebags.

[markf]

to see if it should be left in, change it to "allah" or "vishnu" or "oden" or any other god you don't believe in. i think it's a shoddy remnant from the McCarthy era to separate ourselves from the "godless commies" and should be removed.

[johnfoss]

one nation under God or not,
I love it!

Oh, and as for the House of Representatives, what a bunch of douchebags.
Apparently.

[bugman]

First off I could care less if it is in there or not. It isn't a first ammendment issue, since there is nothing about the statement that establishes a national religion.

Second, I am sure none of you have any problem spending the money that has "In God We Trust" on it.

Third, Replacing "GOD" with any other name would be establishing a religion. The word God is a generic reference that can mean anything that you believe to be a god. That may not have been the intention of those that put it there, but it only has the meaning you put to it. Words are like that.

[JJuggle]

but it only has the meaning you put to it. Words are like that.
Chad, you're a butthead. ;)

[squirrel]

First off I could care less if it is in there or not. It isn't a first ammendment issue, since there is nothing about the statement that establishes a national religion.

There is something about the law that put the statement in there, that did intend to establish a national religion. Read up on it.

It's only words....but words can make a big difference in how we live.

[monkeyman]

It's only words....but words can make a big difference in how we live.

What's wrong with just not saying it? JJuggle's daughter figured it out for herself in 4th grade...

[squirrel]

What's wrong with just not saying it? JJuggle's daughter figured it out for herself in 4th grade...

In grade school, one of my sons didn't stand up for the pledge...he had to stand out in the hall instead.

Apparently the teacher thought it was indeed a big deal.

[BillyTheMountain]

Congress violated the first amendment when they passed the law that added "under god" to the pledge. That's just a fact....the pledge, as it now is codified in law, is unconstitutional. Whether or not the courts will accept this fact is iffy.

The new law is also unconstitutional, and is only a pre-election publicity stunt.


Actually, the Courts decide what is and what is not Constitutional. IF it's there, it's Constitutional, though people may have the opinion it's not.

If it means so little, try to introduce a bill cahnging the words to "under Satan" and see if it still means so little. Or try sityting in a class where all your classmates are pledging their allegiance to something that your son/daughter is not.

maybe we could open each Unicycle convention with a pledge of allegiance to the Master of MUni.

[monkeyman]

In grade school, one of my sons didn't stand up for the pledge...he had to stand out in the hall instead.

Apparently the teacher thought it was indeed a big deal.

Is that the pledge's fault or the teacher's fault? The teacher shouldn't have done that, but just because the teacher overreacted, just doesn't make thepledge faulty.

[squirrel]

Is that the pledge's fault or the teacher's fault? The teacher shouldn't have done that, but just because the teacher overreacted, just doesn't make thepledge faulty.

The teacher would have had nothing to overreact to if the pledge had not been changed.

The sad fact is that most Americans have little respect for our constititution, and want to force their religious beliefs on everyone else. Look at our national motto....it's an outright lie, because "we" means all Americans in the context of a national motto. Yet millions of Americans do not "trust in god". Does it bother you that our national motto is a lie? It apparently doesn't bother most Americans, who value their religious beliefs far more than they value honesty.

[monkeyman]

The sad fact is that most Americans have little respect for our constititution, and want to force their religious beliefs on everyone else. Look at our national motto....it's an outright lie, because "we" means all Americans in the context of a national motto. Yet millions of Americans do not "trust in god". Does it bother you that our national motto is a lie? It apparently doesn't bother most Americans, who value their religious beliefs far more than they value honesty.

In that context, yes it bothers me, but as far as the pledge goes, I think it's more of a tolerance issue for me. To some people, it just doesn't matter...I'm one of them...if it bothers you, there's nothing wrong with you trying to change it, I'm just saying I probably won't be helping

[BillyTheMountain]

Look at our national motto....it's an outright lie, because "we" means all Americans in the context of a national motto. Yet millions of Americans do not "trust in god". Does it bother you that our national motto is a lie?

The Boy Scout Motto is Be Prepared. Most Boy Scouts are occasionally unprepared. They forgot their dues, homework, or they are just plain unprepared for life. Some are unprepared for UNICON. Does that bother you? maybe mottos in general are LIES. Does that bother you?

Have federal court cases cast doubt on the constitutionality of the motto "In God we trust"?

The federal courts have held that the motto symbolizes the historical role of religion in our society, Lynch, 465 U.S. at 676, formalizes our medium of exchange, see O'Hair v. Blumenthal, 462 F. Supp. 19, 20 (W.D. Tex.), aff'd sub nom. O'Hair v. Murray, 588 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam), and cert. denied, 442 U.S.930 (1979), fosters patriotism, see Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242, 243 (9th Cir. 1970), and expresses confidence in the future, Lynch, 465 U.S. at 692-93 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The motto's primary effect is not to advance religion; instead, it is a form of "ceremonial deism" which through historical usage and ubiquity cannot be reasonably understood to convey government approval of religious belief. Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 625 (O'Connor, J., concurring); Lynch, 465 U.S. at 693 (O'Connor, J., concurring); id. at 716 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Finally, the motto does not create an intimate relationship of the type that suggests unconstitutional entanglement of church and state. O'Hair, 462 F. Supp. at 20. "After making [inquiries], we find that a reasonable observer, aware of the purpose, context, and history of the phrase "In God we trust," would not consider its use or its reproduction on U.S. currency to be an endorsement of religion. (Gaylor vs USA, 10th Cir. 1996)

[Spudman]

In grade school, one of my sons didn't stand up for the pledge...he had to stand out in the hall instead.

Apparently the teacher thought it was indeed a big deal.

The funny part about this story is that he was sent into the hall for being 'distracting' because he didn't stand up. :rolleyes:

maybe mottos in general are LIES.

But ours doesn't have to be. It could be something like, "Freedom is hip, disco sucks" heheh, I'm making a joke there disco fans

Also it looks like this topic has strayed a bit. Isn't this thread about a new bill that bans "The pledge is unconstitutional" cases? Now I'm no expert in this political business (you can tell, can't you), but I'm pretty sure that when you take away peoples' right to fight for their beliefs they are no longer free. What was this place called again? "Land of the free"? Or did we change that along with the pledge in 1954?



disclaimer: don't take my post seriously if you don't want to, I'm just a stupid teenager after all...

[monkeyman]

But ours doesn't have to be. It could be something like, "Freedom is hip, disco sucks" heheh, I'm making a joke there disco fans


I'm not. I hate disco.
:p

[bugman]

Chad, you're a butthead. ;)

You misspelled bugman.:D I'm suprised at you Raphael.;)

[squirrel]

The Boy Scout Motto is Be Prepared. Most Boy Scouts are occasionally unprepared. They forgot their dues, homework, or they are just plain unprepared for life. Some are unprepared for UNICON. Does that bother you? maybe mottos in general are LIES. Does that bother you?

The boy scout motto doesn't bother me, since I'm not a boy scout. Our traditional national motto: E Pluribus Unum (from many, one) is not a lie.

Have federal court cases cast doubt on the constitutionality of the motto "In God we trust"?

I didn't say that the motto was unconstitutional! I just said it's a lie. I realize that there is no legal recourse to get it changed, unless a majority of Americans become honest about religious matters...which isn't gonna happen in my lifetime.

[hell-on-wheel]

Right now I think I'm more concerned with how the rest of the world views our government's theological perspective - especially in the Middle East where many are certain that the US is a Christian nation engaging in a holy war with Islam. A Christian friend of mine expressed utter confusion at how people in the Mid East could think that, while our country was "persecuting Christians" (his words and opinion, not mine) with legislation like the above mentioned bill.

It occurred to me that a country's "official" stance is often far removed from its perceived stance, or its actual stance, or the stance of the majority of its people (or loudest people). Therefore, it's not pledges and official mottos that worry me as much as the millions of "God Bless America" bumperstickers that have accompanied the "War on Terror."

I used to think "how different" Middle Eastern politicians sounded from our own when they evoked the name of Allah in their speeches. Then I realized that Republicans and Democrats alike use God in their speeches all the time, always ending with, "Thank you, and God Bless America!" How do you think that looks to the rest of the world?

That said, I'm a Christian, and I think "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

That said, I think perhaps my fellow Christians (myself included) should contemplate whether we should be giving our Allegiance to a flag or nation at all, the way the Amish don't. Idolatry? Not necessarily my opinion, but something I've been thinking about.

[squirrel]

That said, I think perhaps my fellow Christians (myself included) should contemplate whether we should be giving our Allegiance to a flag or nation at all, the way the Amish don't. Idolatry? Not necessarily my opinion, but something I've been thinking about.


You're too sensible to ever be a politician! :) congratulations

[johnfoss]

The Boy Scout Motto is Be Prepared. Most Boy Scouts are occasionally unprepared.
That's life, in a nutshell. It's a motto, not a fact. A Boy Scout commits to strive to always be prepared. Of course he can't *always* be prepared. You never know when you're going to need a can of shark repellent, for instance.

A motto is a statement about what you stand for, what you want to be, what you're reaching for, etc. It's not a law, either.

Getting "God" off our money will probably be argued in the future, but will probably be tougher than the Pledge and other areas.

We are a nation which was founded by (primarily) Christians. Though they were generally of common religion, they made it a point to not include religion as part of our laws; rather they put in wording to keep religion out. It remains to be seen how much of that "baggage" we will keep as tradition, and how much we will try to be honest with ourselves and hold to the basic ideals of our founding fathers.

The percentage of Christians in this nation is probably dwindling too. This may be a factor in the future as well.

[JJuggle]

That's life, in a nutshell. It's a motto, not a fact. A Boy Scout commits to strive to always be prepared. Of course he can't *always* be prepared. You never know when you're going to need a can of shark repellent, for instance.

A motto is a statement about what you stand for, what you want to be, what you're reaching for, etc. It's not a law, either.
The problem with mottos is they have to be snappy and positive and so necessarily incomplete. Be Prepared as a motto leaves the scout completely unprepared to be unprepared, a circumstance that is inevitable.

The Boy Scouts could easily make their motto more inclusive by changing it to, "Prepare to be Unprepared". Because this has at its core the notion that being unprepared is a possibility it serves as a reminder to be prepared; the intent of the current motto. But it also makes it necessary for the scout to consider having a general plan for what to do when he is truly unprepared and to deal with it.

[BillyTheMountain]

The problem with mottos is they have to be snappy and positive and so necessarily incomplete. Be Prepared as a motto leaves the scout completely unprepared to be unprepared, a circumstance that is inevitable.

The Boy Scouts could easily make their motto more inclusive by changing it to, "Prepare to be Unprepared". Because this has at its core the notion that being unprepared is a possibility it serves as a reminder to be prepared; the intent of the current motto. But it also makes it necessary for the scout to consider having a general plan for what to do when he is truly unprepared and to deal with it.

Like when opportunity arises and you have no condom???

[JJuggle]

Like when opportunity arises and you have no condom???
Well, yeah. Exactly.

[BillyTheMountain]

Well, yeah. Exactly.

I think the new Boy Scout Manual has a section on how to please a woman and yourself in ways which do not risk prignancy or disease transmission.

Read the Boy Scout Manual and you're more prepared.

[Unimichael]

What's wrong with just not saying it? JJuggle's daughter figured it out for herself in 4th grade...

Yeah, But that doesn't always work. I had a buddy in grade school who wouldn't sing the Star Spangled Banner at the beginning of class, not for any other reason than his singing voice truely sucked.
Sister Mary Tyrannosaurus (Catholic school, in case you haven't figured it out) saw this, and insisted his sing it by himself in front of everyone.

So he does, and somewhere around the second line of the song, the picture of THE POPE that always hung on the front wall comes crashing down!

It took about ten minutes to calm everyone down again, and Joey was never forced to sing (especially acapella) again.

Sometimes you have to lipsync.

[GILD]

Sometimes you have to lipsync.
Words to live by.


I think they should take out the 'under god' and replace it with 'danny crane'.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

While we're changing it we might as well make it more accurate by changing "justice for all" to "justice for some"

[GILD]

Justice for sale?

[wobbling bear]

One day while visiting the "new World" I was brought up before a judge by the law enforcement agents. And there I was obliged to swear on the bible.
Frankly I respected the cops and the judge (though the cops were wrong ;) ) but I was really annoyed after that because I lied -not on what I said but by swearing on the bible- I thought that lying under oath was an offence .:mad: So I commited an offence by the sheer fact of using the bible! (catch22)

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Justice for sale?

exactly. I just couldn't think of nice single word to explain that.

[forrestunifreak]

The sad fact is that most Americans have little respect for our constititution, and want to force their religious beliefs on everyone else. Look at our national motto....it's an outright lie, because "we" means all Americans in the context of a national motto. Yet millions of Americans do not "trust in god". Does it bother you that our national motto is a lie? It apparently doesn't bother most Americans, who value their religious beliefs far more than they value honesty.

The founding fathers and the beginning of this nation trusted in God. Like it or not, this is a christian nation. And, it's not "forcing" anything on anyone. How does the words "under God" force you to be a christian? It doesn't "force" you to do squat. The constititution says the government shall make no law enforcing a specific religion. In other words, it says the government will not force people to a certain religion, like old england did. Which, by the way, the words under God is not forcing ANYTHING on ANYBODY.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

The founding fathers and the beginning of this nation trusted in God. Like it or not, this is a christian nation. And, it's not "forcing" anything on anyone. How does the words "under God" force you to be a christian? It doesn't "force" you to do squat. The constititution says the government shall make no law enforcing a specific religion. In other words, it says the government will not force people to a certain religion, like old england did. Which, by the way, the words under God is not forcing ANYTHING on ANYBODY.

I think you need to do some more reasearch on the founding fathers. Yes some of them were Chrisitan but many of them beleived in God only in a general sense. Part of this whole "This nation was founded on religious grounds" is part of the myth of Thanksgiving and using the Plymouth colony, which was founded on religious ground, as the archeotype for all the colonists, when in fact most colonists came here for economic opportunity not religious opportunity.

Also the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting[i] an establishment of religion". By saying "under god" they are respecting, or preferencing, [i]thethe establishment of religion. An again the "under god" was added this century and has nothing to do with our founding fathers it was just to distinguish us from the "godless communists". Which is ironic though because Jesus, who some people believe is god, was a communist or at least a socialist.

None of the pro-"under god" argurments really hold salt. It's just sort of a "that's the way it's been (in my lifetime) so that's how it's going to stay" kind of thing.

But some people don't understand how it's possible to have justice without God.

Personally I don't trust in "God" he's screwed over too many people.

[Spudman]

Personally I don't trust in "God" he's screwed over too many people.

Hahah!
Can this be the first nomination for the "Best JC quote of 2006" thread?

[squirrel]

The founding fathers and the beginning of this nation trusted in God. Like it or not, this is a christian nation.

This is a secular nation. But that's not the issue I brought up. The motto says "in god we trust". "We" means ALL citizens of the nation. I'm a citizen of the nation. I do not trust in god. Therefore, the motto tells a LIE about ME.

I expect that if the motto were telling a LIE about YOU, you might feel differently?

As I said, I doubt the motto will change back in my lifetime....

And, it's not "forcing" anything on anyone. How does the words "under God" force you to be a christian? It doesn't "force" you to do squat. The constititution says the government shall make no law enforcing a specific religion. In other words, it says the government will not force people to a certain religion, like old england did. Which, by the way, the words under God is not forcing ANYTHING on ANYBODY.

Perhaps it's time you read the first amendment? it does not mention "enforcing"....

It seems you've mixed up two distinct issues here. There was a LAW passed by Congress in 1954, which changed the pledge of allegiance, adding the words "under God". There was another LAW passed by Congress in 1956, which changed our national motto to "In God we trust".


I don't trust in God because he's someone else's fantasy :)