[MERGED]One Nation Under God... [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

Excalibur

10-14-2003, 05:08 PM

Now they are going to decide as to whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional or not. It makes me sick.

The seperation of church and state was created, so that the government couldn't tell churches what to do, and to keep churches from telling the goverment what to do. It wasn't intended for people who have turned against God to take away everything this country was founded on.

Next thing you know they are going to say that the Constitution is unconstitutional!

Little by little the constitution has been undermineded to the point where we are on the verge of losing our rights, just so those who have decided God doesn't exist can have the run of the country and persecute those who still have faith.

up2date

10-14-2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Excalibur
It wasn't intended for people who have turned against God to take away everything this country was founded on. Not all people who oppose this have "turned against God." And even if they have, that is their constitutional right.Originally posted by Excalibur
Little by little the constitution has been undermineded to the point where we are on the verge of losing our rights, just so those who have decided God doesn't exist can have the run of the country and persecute those who still have faith.Actually, the Supreme Court is hearing this case because people are concerned of the exact opposite, that people who don't believe in God or believe in a different God are being persectuted.

lawman

10-16-2003, 04:49 AM

Just for clarity's sake... let's all understand that what the USSC is examining is not "whether the pledge of allegiance is constitutional," but whether it's constitutional for public schools to have official recitals of the pledge when it includes the words "under God" (which, let us remember, were not part of the original pledge composed in the 1890s, but were added by Congress in the 1950s).

Thus, even if the USSC finds this specific practice barred by the first amendment, it will still be permissible for public schools to have pledge recitals without the offending religious language (so long as such recitals arent' mandatory -- that was established long ago in other cases), and of course for private individuals and organizations to recite whatever pledge they like.

For the record, I personally think that the words "under God" in this context are about as blatant a violation of the first amendment as one could ask for. (I have problems with an officially endorsed loyalty pledge of any kind, actually, but that's another discussion.) It ought to come off our money, as well.

However, even if all that were to happen, I rather doubt that it would amount to "people who have turned against God trying to take away everything this country was founded on." First of all, after all, America doesn't break down into two neat categories of those who are for God and those who are against him (except perhaps in the minds of a few overzealous types). Second, the principles America was founded on have far less to do with God or religion than with the political philosophy of the enlightenment, of thinkers such as John Locke. The Bible endorses all sorts of social practices that would be abhorent to any educated 18th-century politician, never mind to citizens of a modern pluralist democracy.

So what's the big deal here, really? We live in a pluralist, secular society. Religion is a private matter, and that's how it should be. Let's keep "state action" well away from it, I say.

shikaki

10-16-2003, 09:32 AM

Once again, as we evolve towards a Republic, there are a handful of people getting stirred up over something ridiculous. Whatever happened to the notion, religion aside, of a Democracy? The majority determines the outcome, not the one or the few. Why are the courts wasting time and money pursuing ideological opinions about anything? The majority needs to become much more vocal in this “Democratic” society. I believe this would add the common sense piece back into the governmental equation. It should not be part of judicial process to determine whether an individual “belief” should be mandated or enforced. We as a society need to “grow-up” and stop being a society of maladjusted whiners with nothing more important to do than to worry about whether the Jones’ believe the way I do or not.

JD3

10-16-2003, 09:58 AM

Mostly it should be noted we are a republic and not a democracy. Our founding fathers recognized early on that the majority not only could be wrong, but they could be oppressive, otherwise, we'd be a striaght democracy. I suspect that is still true.

shikaki

10-16-2003, 10:44 AM

Also, to me an even more scary thought would be presuming that the minority could be right. Right wrong or indifferent the majority still should be considered our best barometer for action. I don’t believe that there is a group of enchanted oracles with the ability to discern right from wrong. Ultimately we are all human and all subjugated to the human condition, corruptibility, etc. If there were going to be this enlightened group looking out for everyone’s best interest, it should be possibly IQ based.

Eliot

10-16-2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by JD3
Mostly it should be noted we are a republic and not a democracy.

JD3's right. We are a representative republic, not a democracy. Many people think we are a democracy, but we are far from being one.

booboohead

10-22-2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by shikaki
an even more scary thought would be presuming that the minority could be right
I'm interested. Why would that be scary?
Originally posted by shikaki
Right wrong or indifferent the majority still should be considered our best barometer for action.
You're in luck. Majority rule is how the USSC works. Most judges wins. The one caveat is that they are not supposed to judge whether they 'like it' or not, but to judge whether 'under God' is consistent with the constitution.

Personally, I don't know how anyone could logically conlude, right wrong or indifferent, that any declaration about 'God' is not a religious 'stamp of approval'. However; as precedent, the USSC has already ruled that 'In God We Trust' (added to our money by a religious movement in the late 1800's as I recall), is not a 'religious phrase' (hence we still have it on our money). So there is certainly precedent for completely illogical findings.

To offer a formal definition re JD3 and Eliots statements above re Republic:

A Republic (America) is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority. A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (clearly, the better choice when you're in the majority - dangerous when you're not).

NetxMan

10-22-2003, 03:21 PM

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

booboohead

10-22-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by NetxMan
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).
Huh? Did this come from here (http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)? I read the article and it seems to lose itself.

I can see a rough (very rough) analogy between
common (historical) and statutory(legislated) law, and
democratic (majority rule) and republic(constitutional) governance.

Legislated laws and the constitution are both 'written down'.

Beyond that I fail to see the point.

Just because our Republican government employs democratic processes does not make us a 'mixture'. Nor does giving department heads control of their departments make us partly fascist? I'm open to your further explanation, though.

NetxMan

10-22-2003, 04:29 PM

Just because our Republican government employs democratic processes does not make us a 'mixture'. Nor does giving department heads control of their departments make us partly fascist? I'm open to your further explanation, though.

Actually, that most certainly does make us a mixture. We are a Republic Democracy.

jacobsbb

10-24-2003, 03:01 PM

Lawman's prior post was right on the money in all respects. Esp. his ability to distinguish reciting the pledge in the context of public schools vs. other contexts. Cases involving governmental acts of endorsement in the context of public schools are rightfully very vigilant in protection impressionable young minds from governmental religious indoctrination of all sorts. Families and churches and such are more than up to the task of indoctrination.

DRMIZER

10-26-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Excalibur
Now they are going to decide as to whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional or not. It makes me sick.

The seperation of church and state was created, so that the government couldn't tell churches what to do, and to keep churches from telling the goverment what to do. It wasn't intended for people who have turned against God to take away everything this country was founded on.

Next thing you know they are going to say that the Constitution is unconstitutional!

Little by little the constitution has been undermineded to the point where we are on the verge of losing our rights, just so those who have decided God doesn't exist can have the run of the country and persecute those who still have faith.

I wouldn't spend too much time on the responsibilities of the Supreme Court. Afterall, they decided the last "s-election" for us!

DRMIZER

10-26-2003, 03:17 PM

The US was formed and separated from England in large part because of lack of freedom of religion in the Anglican Church or, Church of England.

When our ancestors arrived as "Puritans" they began to burn "witches" at the stake because they were possessed by the devil. :devil: Floggings were held to "beat the devil out of people" and on and on it goes. Superstitution has been allowed to be weaved into religion down through the ages.

The Constitution guarantees rights of religion, regardless of how crazy or weird religion may get. Take Jones Town and the "comet clan" who just took off through suicide. (I know the difference between a religion and a cult. . .both began as religions...read on)

I think the point is this. No one is going to delete religion from our country. This is a rational impossibility. The fact is that the rest of the citizens in this country do not want to be subjected to religious rituals outside of the house of worship. It is a bit too much now and then. No, not receiting the pledge or a prayer, but the "Christians" who INSIST that they be heard.

"One nation, under God, . . . ." has never been a problem for me personally....still isn't. Saying it doesn't change my life one way or the other. It's the people fighting so hard to have it ALL their way! If we take out the phrase, we'll all live, trust me.

President Eisenour placed the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm sure he's turning in his grave right now as I write this because of the dasterdly political correctness. :sleep: Too many people have too much time on their hands.

I've got an idea. Instead of sitting around wringing your hands about how you are "losing" your religious rights, why don't you go out and show someone less fortunate than you a bit of care and love. . .maybe even give them a gift of a few dollars, or just talk with them. You'll find plenty of lonely people in nursing homes who still don't care about phrases. You won't have so much time to think about this phrase or the 10 commandments being "RIPPED OUT OF THE COURT HOUSE". But you will be showing others what it means TO BE a Christian. :angel:

Eliot

10-26-2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by DRMIZER
they decided the last "s-election" for us!

Oh, please! :rolleyes: Give us some proof, O Wise DRMIZER. :rolleyes: Oh wait, there isn't proof.

DRMIZER

10-26-2003, 03:41 PM

Oh wait. . .there is proof. . . . . . . .Look whose President! :lol:

DRMIZER

10-26-2003, 03:45 PM

It's a joke. . .don't get crazy!

Eliot

10-26-2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by DRMIZER
It's a joke. . .don't get crazy!

I know it's a joke. :D I can tell (sometimes) the difference between seriousness and jokes. :)

Blueangel

10-27-2003, 04:30 AM

One day I will read the title of this thread and not start singing 'One Nation Under The Groove' :p

Duo_Maxwell

10-29-2003, 01:55 AM

if the pledge was redid to actually represent the true America it would go like this:

I pledge Alleigance to the flag of the united states of America
and to the sham represenatitive plutocracy for which it stands
one nation devoid of god
indivisible and liberty and justice for those with money.

It's not meant to offend anyone, but take a look at how rich senators and congressmen are, who gets fairer treatment in court, and our lacking morals and ethics.

booboohead

10-29-2003, 08:47 AM

Thanks for introducing the idea of actually studying this pledge, Duo. The nature of pledges and sometimes prayers is that people, over time, come to recite them without really thinking 'what does this really mean, anyway'.

IMO, the idea of pledging allegiance to a 'flag' seems a bit silly. It has been said that the flag is used as a substitute for a king in our culture. People used to pledge allegiance to a king.

In the US, the term citizen did not enter our constitution until the 14th ammendment, and was primarily about government not abridging the rights of people, not allegiance to the 'crown' or 'state house'.

Personally, I like pomp and all as much as the next guy, but I think the pledge of allegiance, on some level, sustains a way of thinking that raises government above the stature it was meant to carry.

In this country, technically, the government serves the people at our discretion.

We don't (are not supposed to) look anything like a monarchy or feudal country.

NetxMan

10-29-2003, 09:04 AM

I Pledge Allegiance = I Promise to be faithful and true (Promise my loyalty)

I think it is a nice allegiance. I do think that, if you are a true American you should have no problems saying it. If it bothers you, then you need to question, what is your allegiance? Are you a loyal American?

The Flag is a symbol, a symbol that stands for America. I don't really find that "silly".

Blueangel

10-29-2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by NetxMan
I think it is a nice allegiance. I do think that, if you are a true American you should have no problems saying it. If it bothers you, then you need to question, what is your allegiance? Are you a loyal American? I find it peculiar that you have to keep reaffirming your allegiance.
There is no such parallel in the U.K.

I think the closest we've got is...

"Three lions on a shirt,
Jules Rimet still gleaming.
30 years of hurt,
Never stopped me dreaming."
:D

booboohead

10-29-2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by NetxMan
I Pledge Allegiance = I Promise to be faithful and true (Promise my loyalty)
I think it is a nice allegiance. I do think that, if you are a true American you should have no problems saying it. If it bothers you, then you need to question, what is your allegiance? Are you a loyal American?

First, I don't understand what do you mean by 'true American', as opposed to just a plain old 'American'. Please clarify.

Second, IMO, our founding fathers were trying to get AWAY from the whole monarchy/symbol/allegiance(which means 'obediance', more than 'loyalty') model of government they'd been accustomed to in England and France. Hence, the Constitution.

Third, you're actually questioning my 'loyalty' to America, because you like saying a pledge that some guy thought up in 1890ish and published in some kids magazine... and I don't?

Geesh. If pledges and symbols give people an excuse for labeling people they don't even know as 'loyal' or 'disloyal', perhaps even 'treasonous'... then you've just argued for the best reason to get rid of all of them.

I'll bet everyone liked that rah rah 'Heil Hitler' thing in the 30s before Hitler became 'Hitler'... until it got to the point where NOT doing it meant you were 'disloyal to Germany' and were shot.

Pledges and symbols can divide as well as unite. You like them because they unite. But you've just demostrated that you also use them to divide.

I'm happy for you to say the pledge. You can shout it from the rooftops, as long as its before 10PM. Just don't make it, or the flag, a litmus test for loyalty to our country and its constitutional process. Its a poem some guy thought up for a kids magazine for goodness sake.

up2date

10-29-2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by NetxMan
I do think that, if you are a true American you should have no problems saying it. If it bothers you, then you need to question, what is your allegiance? Are you a loyal American? Ah ha! Remember a few threads ago you asked for examples of how republicans labeled many democrats unpatriotic? I (and others) commented that the republicans were smart enough not to use the word. Though I supplied some examples, yours is an excellent one of how it can be done.

As booboohead said, I have always loved the pomp surrounding the flag and pledge. But at the same time I always thought it just a bit strange. Why would a country so great, that prides itself on the personal freedoms it provides it citizens, that offers people opportunities hard to find elsewhere, a country so great that people come from all over the world, why would a country like that require something like a pledge?

Blueangel

10-29-2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by up2date
Why would a country so great, that prides itself on the personal freedoms it provides it citizens, that offers people opportunities hard to find elsewhere, a country so great that people come from all over the world, why would a country like that require something like a pledge? Are you talking about the U.K. again? Or France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, etc,etc,etc...

That's what I find perplexing.
The U.S. is far from unique in these liberties.

up2date

10-29-2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Blueangel
Are you talking about the U.K. again? Or France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, etc,etc,etc...

That's what I find perplexing.
The U.S. is far from unique in these liberties. I was actually speaking rhetorically. Why would any country that prides itself on these values need to have a pledge? My statements could apply to many countries. Oh, except the U.K., of course. :D

Blueangel

10-29-2003, 02:22 PM

Too right! :D
The only thing we need to pledge allegiance to, is our national football team, because they push the levels of our patience and endurance at times.
Oh, to have been born Brazillian....

Our Royalty is hanging on by the skin of their teeth. I mean...the Queen's not a bad old bird and I'd sooner have her on our stamps that Tony 'Bumble' Blair.
She has her uses and puts up a good arguement by all accounts.

As for our politicians, they are mere subjects of ritual ridicule, regardless of their policies.
That is the nature of us Brits. ;)

NetxMan

10-29-2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by up2date
Ah ha! Remember a few threads ago you asked for examples of how republicans labeled many democrats unpatriotic? I (and others) commented that the republicans were smart enough not to use the word. Though I supplied some examples, yours is an excellent one of how it can be done.

As booboohead said, I have always loved the pomp surrounding the flag and pledge. But at the same time I always thought it just a bit strange. Why would a country so great, that prides itself on the personal freedoms it provides it citizens, that offers people opportunities hard to find elsewhere, a country so great that people come from all over the world, why would a country like that require something like a pledge?

I was questioning no one here at all. I was making a general statement. And to booboohead, I haven't said the allegiance but maybe 1 time in several 10 years. I just think the times that I do, I shouldn't hate my country for saying it. No one is holding a gun to my head.

I also look at the flag with respect and dignity. Not a some symbol, or piece of cloth hanging on a pole.

I am suggesting respect for your Country, respect for the fathers that built, respect for the blood that was shed for you.

PatriotChick

11-01-2003, 03:48 PM

I am an Atheist. I think that the words 'under god' do not belong in our schools. When I was school I was discriminated against because I made the decision to not stand during the Pledge Of Allegiance. After I was in school to learn, not to have religion shoved down my throat.

Duo_Maxwell

11-01-2003, 07:09 PM

The under god can stay. I don't care. To remove it would cause huge uproar and is definitely not worth the time or the effort. There are somethings in this world not worth changing. That is one of them.

Is a country truly great if it needs to keep telling itself it? The only people i know that tell themselves such bs are those who are insecure, don't have any of what they tell themselves, and have small egos.

America is great. we don't need to tell ourselves that. However, we could use a phrase to constantly remind us that our civil liberities were paid for in blood and cannot be taken away. Fricken Patriot Act. Police state here we come!

Triggerfish

11-06-2003, 06:52 PM

To me this whole "under God" thing is ridiculous. It is not un-constitutional in any way. Our First Amendment says we have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. What I am trying to say is that you will be exposed to other religions and beliefs, but whether you choose to acknowledge them is your choice. In addition, does it specify anywhere what God they are referring to? We all interpret it to be a Christian God because of our Founding Fathers beliefs, but it does not say what the exact God we are talking about in words. All Gods from different religions, Allah, Zeus, whatever, are all considered a God, and until the Pledge says, "under the Christian God and only the Christian God," I am going to stick with my point. Back to the Founding Fathers, it was not their intent to have this interpreted the way it is today. For example, such as the case in the Second Amendment, it says we have the freedom to bear arms, which now-a-days is said to say that everyone can own a gun. But, the Fathers intent was to say that the STATES have a right to form and militia, and WITHIN the militia you have the right to own a gun. You see, most of what this federal case is about interpretation, or the lack of proof saying that it is referring to a Chirstian God. Lastly, I'm sure alot of you ahve thought or heard, "Hey, this is a violation of church and state!" Well, no where does it says in an legal document that the church and state HAVE to be seperated. In fact, this idea was written in a LETTER by Thomas Jefferson and is in no way a law. It's a very good idea to seperate church and state, I am all for it, but this "under God" debate is no way related to that. And also, those peoples who say that these words are a violation of what our country was founded upon, well, your whole rebuttal is about to shot out of the water. Did you ever realize that our country was founded upon God? And by taking those words out would be a violation of what our country was founded in itself.

For those who got tired of my speech, here's a shortened version. "Wait... before you testify that the words "under God" in the pledge is a violation and is unconstitutional, please place your right hand on the BIBLE and swear to, "Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing bu the truth so help you GOD."

If you want to try to prove me wrong, angeredwasp@hotmail.com

THANKS.

DRMIZER

11-06-2003, 07:01 PM

Triggerfish,
I don't give a damn either way! There are too many really important problems out here. As long as we fiddle with these things, other things burn.

Triggerfish

11-06-2003, 07:51 PM

Well put!

booboohead

11-11-2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Triggerfish
...until the Pledge says, "under the Christian God and only the Christian God," I am going to stick with my point...

It's a very good idea to seperate church and state, I am all for it, but this "under God" debate is no way related to that.

... before you testify that the words "under God" in the pledge is a violation and is unconstitutional, please place your right hand on the BIBLE and swear to, "Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing bu the truth so help you GOD."

angeredwasp@hotmail.com

I'm having a hard time reconciling your arguments.

First you state 'under God' does not imply the 'Christian God'. Second, you say 'under God' is not related to the separate of church and state. Third, you argue that 'under God' should be OK, because our justice system has a tradition of swearing on the BIBLE and saying 'so help you GOD'.

The 3rd statement is clearly referencing the Christian God, because it refers to the Bible. It is common knowledge that it was Christian evangelicals who fought to add 'In God We Trust' to our money in the late 19th century, and 'under God' to the pledge in the 1950's. Also, that their intention was to put more of the Christian God INTO our government and society.

On the one hand, you're claiming that results of the Christian movement in the 19th and 20th centuries to put more of the Christian God into our government system failed, because they failed to specify the 'Christian God'. Perhaps you feel the 'Bible', in this case, might also refer to 'The Microsoft Windows Bible'.

I believe I understand your basic argument that the terms could logically be construed as meaningless (this was the Supreme Court ruling on 'In God We Trust'... that the term 'God' didn't mean anything really.)... but that argument has about as much integrity as, well, the statement that the earth is flat. Everyone knows what 'God' we're talking about, and what 'under God' refers to.

The intent of our founding fathers was to keep 'God', Christian or otherwise, out of government, except to the extent that some God-fearing people might be elected to run it.

Other instances (other than the money and pledge) of the use of 'God' in our justice system and the inauguration, are personal traditions only, are not requirements, are not part of the defined process, and are not part of our system of government.

Based on your apparent preference for the separation of church and state, I'm surprised that you would not be in favor of returning the pledge to its original, pre-church-influenced state.

Rather, you seem to support the here-to-fore successful efforts of christian religious groups to combine church and state; by arguing that 'God' doesn't mean anything; or that it actually can mean 'anything' anyone wants it to mean.

To impress upon you the impact of these statements, reread your own post and consider one of your own justifications for using 'under God'...

Your justification and your percieved (though incorrect) notion that references to the 'God' are already part of our justice system. They're not.

shikaki

11-11-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by booboohead
I'm interested. Why would that be scary?

You're in luck. Majority rule is how the USSC works. Most judges wins. The one caveat is that they are not supposed to judge whether they 'like it' or not, but to judge whether 'under God' is consistent with the constitution.

Personally, I don't know how anyone could logically conlude, right wrong or indifferent, that any declaration about 'God' is not a religious 'stamp of approval'. However; as precedent, the USSC has already ruled that 'In God We Trust' (added to our money by a religious movement in the late 1800's as I recall), is not a 'religious phrase' (hence we still have it on our money). So there is certainly precedent for completely illogical findings.

To offer a formal definition re JD3 and Eliots statements above re Republic:

A Republic (America) is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority. A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (clearly, the better choice when you're in the majority - dangerous when you're not).

Again, isn't it even scarier when a handful of people, Republic, have the ability to control the rights of the majority? To me a Democracy is a much easier concept to swallow, even if on occasion I'm in the minority. ;) By nature I think a Republic would lend itself to corruption. Let's say the elitist in the country wanted to stop funding education for the people that could not afford it. A hyperbole yes, but an easy example to prove my point. After all, if we try to please everyone, often no one gets pleased.

I think Abraham Lincoln said it best!!!

marv

11-11-2003, 10:28 PM

PatriotChick,I am an Atheist. I think that the words 'under god' do not belong in our schools. When I was school I was discriminated against because I made the decision to not stand during the Pledge Of Allegiance. After I was in school to learn, not to have religion shoved down my throat.I too am an atheist - my wife of 24 years is a Southern Baptist, born-again Christian as are many of our friends. I've never felt discriminated against.

DRMIZER,I don't give a damn either way! There are too many really important problems out here. As long as we fiddle with these things, other things burn.For once I agree with you.

I have no problem with "In God We Trust" or "...under God..." :sleep:~

booboohead

11-12-2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by marv
I have no problem with "In God We Trust" or "...under God..."
The reason this is an important issue with me has to do with integrity. While its true the issue is pretty benign for most people; the fact of the matter is that these both provide a ready example of hypocrisy in our government and American society.

Missouri Mule

11-12-2003, 09:17 AM

I'm one of the "unchurched" but believe that we ought to leave our currency, coins, and pledges alone. Only an idiot in robes from the Ninth Circuit Court could have found anything wrong with this custom. But what else is new?

DRMIZER

11-12-2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by marv
DRMIZER,For once I agree with you.

Now that's scary!!;)

marv

11-12-2003, 10:23 AM

DRMIZER, Boo! :eek:~

booboohead

11-12-2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
I... believe that we ought to leave our currency, coins, and pledges aloneMissouri, do you mean we should have left them alone in 1890 and 1950 before they were changed to include 'God', or we should leave them alone now that they've been changed to include 'God'? Or both (ie, you just don't like 'change', period).

Also, WRT the pledge and money, we're talking about a 'law', not a 'custom'. Trick or treat is a 'custom'.

Whats wrong with the 'law' is that it violates the intent of the Constitution. I applaud the 9th circuit for their sound judgement on the matter. But, as you say, even an idiot would have reached the same conclusion.

marv

11-12-2003, 01:27 PM

A reminder of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercize thereof;..."

I've been called to jury duty twice and called as a witness twice. "So help me God" never bothered me. It could have been just as easily "So help me toothpick". That's not worshiping a deity. Neither is "...One nation under God..." in the pledge. These are simply phrases agreed to by a majority of the people. So be it.

I accept that these phrases have a different meaning for my wife, a Southern Baptist, than they do for me, an atheist. But again, so be it. There are no constitutional grounds to either add or delete these references.