Preserved Topic: pledge ruled unconstitutional (Page 1 of 3)

Top CNN story right now: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html

I applaude the decision. Don't know if it will stick, but it's good to know some folks can see through all the crap and make an informed choice. Just because someone does not believe in god(s) does not mean they are not patriotic. Now if only they can actually get our country's true motto back out to replace In God We Trust and get god off my money, we'll be all set.

On the other hand, the senate voted 99-0 to fight the decision, then they headed out to the steps to recite the pledge and sing God Bless America. I truly believe in freedom of religion, but I also believe in freedom FROM religion, and separation of church and state. The senate is just pandering to the public. Any politician who dared to not go along with the vote might as well not run for re-election.

I will pledge allegiance to my flag and country, which I proudly served while in the military for 12 years, but I will not pledge to a god that I do not believe exists.

Whew ... sorry about that folks ... got all stirred up there ... please excuse my rant ...

Cell Number: 494

Hey! I thought you were the *unbiased* moderator of the Does God Exist debate! =)

I am sure will be overturned by the supreme court. Hypothetically. if we would no longer say "under god" someone will look at money and realize it says "In god we trust". It would a LOT of money to upgrade the money to say "In democracy we trust(which is what it should say imo)"(There is a certian irony of having to pay money to may money say something different, inst there?). Anwyays, thats why this will be overturned

always thought it was strange that we have 'in God we trust' on our currency? Maybe that is unconstituional also?

Yeah this chaps me as well... though I believe it's just another shining example of political correctness run amok... just sad. We need to get some people in our offices that won't bow down to everyone's bitches and moans... cause this is just over the top, imo.

Dont get me wrong, I believe that if you have a complaint, it should be heard... but someone needs to draw a friggin line.

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

lol@slime

yea thats been pissing me off for a while too bk

but to be perfectly honest, in school when we pledge, i don't recite "one nation under god"

"The senate is just pandering to the public"

"We need to get some people in our offices that won't bow down to everyone's bitches and moans"

hmmmm, that's what we pay 'em for, yeah? yeah.

Jason

This is the dumbist thing I have heard in a while, why can't they just leave things alone?

Synthetic

[This message has been edited by Synthetic (edited 06-27-2002).]

What I'm saying is that the politicians and judges who makes these ridiculous statements and rules need to quit playin' it up to the crowd. Person A bitches and moans about how unconstitutional it is to wear red hats, so red hats are taken away and ruled unconstitutional. Well, Person B thinks the red hats should be given to everyone to wear anytime they *want*, not forced. What's the judge to do? What's the politian to do?

How about their friggin jobs, instead of trying to make America the most politically correct country in the world.

Shh! Don't say that! It could offend someone!
Hey! Don't write that! It could offend someone!
Wha? You can't do that! It could offend someone!

Until those in power realize that this is NOT the way to run a country, I have a feeling that anything and everything mildly patriotic will be taken away, one by one, until there's nothing left. Why? Because they feel it's their need to make everyone of them bitchin' people happy... and it just can't be done!


*steps down off soap box*

Oh, and BeeKay, I completely understand your ideals and beliefs... and guys, just because he's got them beliefs don't mean he still can't moderate a debate with no bias. He's a person, he's got an opinion... but I'm sure he'll keep it out of the debate.

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

Only in California could something like this have happened. Fortunetly the rest of the country isn't as naive as those who seem to support this decision. This nation is free to worship as they choose, to suggest that the printing of 'In God We Trust' or the saying of 'Under God' promotes any particular religion is ridiculous. Seperation of Church and State is wonderful on paper, but that doesn't take away from the overwhelming majority of the population who believe there is a God in one form or another.

Fortunetly cooler heads always prevail, and the decision will be over turned in due time.

-Jestah
Cell 277

First of all, this is strictly, completely, totally NOT about someone being offended and crying No Fair! This is about the constitution and what is says. Before you start blowing this off as just another whiner raising a stink about something stupid, then I suggest you read the very well-written decision the district court made. Then back that up by reading this country's constitution.

Secondly, the pledge, god on money, the motto, etc. are all in fact promoting one type of religion: monotheism. For those who do not worship a deity and for those who might worship multiple deities or spirits or a life force or whatever, this represents being forced to acknowledge someone's religion. I am patriotic and want to honor my country with a pledge, and I see no reason that while reciting that pledge I need to edit it while I say it. I have to use this nation's currency, which has emblazoned on it something I do not believe in. And the real motto of this nation United We Stand was highjacked in favor of In God We Trust.

Third, I was under the impression that in this country the minority was supposed to be protected from having their rights infringed upon by the majority. No, in this real world, that concept does not always hold true. I realize that. But that doesn't mean no one should fight to have their voice heard when they believe in something strong enough to stand up and defend it. What right is being infringed on? My right not to have religion in any form shoved down my throat by the government.

And finally, the judges in the court were not trying to appease the masses with their decision, nor were they trying to make a statement about political correctness. They correctly interpretted the constitution. Period. Once again, if you disagree, then read their published decision. If that doesn't sway your opinion, then nothing likely will. It's the pandering politicians in the senate and white house that are getting all worked up for public consumption. If any politician publishes a worthy, well-thought-out statement countering the court's decision, then I will sit up and take notice. But that won't happen. They're going to sing God Bless America for the cameras and work the masses up into a froth about the evil man who took away this country's pledge.

Unfortunately, the ruling will be overturned or backdoored in some way. This country is not ready this decision yet.



Cell Number: 494

~ no reply, my head just isn't here tonight, nothing comes out sounding intelligent, so I'm shutting up ~

[This message has been edited by njuice42 (edited 06-27-2002).]

First this isn't a california thing, the 9th circuit court represents California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the North Marianas islands and is the largest of the 13 circuit courts. It happens to live in San Francisco.

Second there is nothing here guaranteeing this being overturned. The supreme court currently has been fairly consistent in it's decisions regarding the pledge and it's religious implications. The bit about preventing the pledge from being recited maybe overturned, however it may lead to the changing of the pledge. Which wouldn't be first the first time since the "Under God" part was added by a congressional vote in the 50's (ahh McCarthiesm at it's best) and is in fact a direct reference to Christianity. There is nothing in the decision against anyone's right to choose to participate in any religion of their choice, just that government and religion should be seperate.

You may not like the decision, me personally I think guns should be outlawed, however in both cases the constitution is clear.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Yet another example of the many problems that arise when people don't read particular things in their entirety. Wrong as it is, there is a general belief in the United Stats that there is a seperation of church and state. All that mumbo jumbo about it not being about a whiner crying but rather someone correctly looking at the Constitution is wrong. The Constitution in no way prohibits all references to religion, certainly not as general as the word God. The Constitution prohibits the endorsing of a particular religon on it's citizens. Whether or not you choose to believe it, these are two completely different concepts.

Exactly which particular religion is being endorsed by the word God? Since we all know only one religion in particular worships a god(s).

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'

- and no law was made.

-Jestah
Cell 277

I hope those guys lose in the supreme court. I would not be suprised if the ruling goes that far.



'Me no here. Me go bye. Leave me message. Me reply.'

Wolfen's Sig Site

Here is all the pertinent info on this :

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive
and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to
support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under the United States.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the
states respectively, or to the people.

So, the separation of Church and State...though not in those words, is in the Constitution. And as Schools are a part of the state, therefore, there can be no required Religion...otherwise, that would be considered state-sponsered Religion. What the people do there themselves, is another matter (as I have shown, that is also protected under the constitution.) So if the Pledge is required by the School, it may not make a reference to Religion. However, they could get around this with not making it manditory.

So that about sums it up...

Your wrong about the seperation of church and state WS, at least in the generally accepted definition. The government is prohibited by the Constitution from forcing a 'national religion' it's not prohibited from mentioning any words pertaining to religion. The coinage of money with the phrase 'In God We Trust' or pledging allegiance under God is not in violation with the Constitution, which is why the asinine decision will be over turned.

While the pledge is said generally before school starts, it is not required by law that all children must take part in it. No one is being forced to worship and no religion is being forced on the people. Everyones free to do as they choose as far as this pledge goes. Say it or don't, its your choice. Thats what it comes down to.



-Jestah
Cell 277

All that I have to add to this discussion is that as an atheist, one who does not believe in the existance of any god, the phrase in the Pledge and the endorsement on the currency do at times make me feel as an outcast and unwanted in this country.

And I'm sure that those of you who are vehemently arguing in the defense of those phrases would agree that I as an atheist do not belong in this country. And that lack of tolerance saddens me.

But I am a patriot and believe in the USA. I will continue to support the rights of ALL people not just those of the religious bent. And I will sit here and applaud decisions like these because they seek to create an America for ALL people.

As an addendum: If you wish to commit a crime in the State of Arkansas, do not worry if I see you. According to the Arkansas constitution, atheists cannot hold public office nor can they testify in court. So please, if you go on a killing spree, kill all of the witnesses but me. The government has ensured that your secret will be safe with me.

Actually Jestah, that is not entirely true

quote:

---

Your wrong about the seperation of church and state WS, at least in the generally accepted definition. The government is prohibited by the Constitution from forcing a 'national religion' it's not prohibited from mentioning any words pertaining to religion

---

The Constitution says nothing about a 'national religion', on the contrary it says 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'

Now, I guess you mean how that is interpreted...and here we get into semantics...but by examining the guidelines (that's why I included those other parts of the Constitution) that we have in the constitutuion, it is fairly clear that the Founding Fathers (if you will) were aware of the problems of the State and Religion (not just a 'national religion') and took steps to emphasize that. An 'establishment of religion' means any religion...

That which you mention on the Pledge, however, does seem to be correct...I've never heard of anybody being expelled because they won't say it...however, then why is the Pledge even in the Schools? And what is the purpose of it? What is the background behind it? And taking the 'under God' out of it, is that really so bad? And wouldn't that solve the issue?

But here is the point...a Teacher leads (and teaches) the Pledge...and because a Teacher works for the State, is in effect representing the State...and the School. And therefore, it is unconstitutional...were the Pledge to be introduced from outside of the School system for example, and some of the children wanted to say the Pledge, well, according to the Constitution, they could...those Rights are protected...or, the word 'God' could be removed, and then it wouldn't matter...

@ St. Senica - uhh...this from the Ar. Con. 'Section 26. Religious test. - No religious test shall ever be required of any person as a qualification to vote or hold office, nor shall any person be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations.'

Or do you have something else to support your words...because from the state constitution, it seems that what you say is not correct...and certainly unconstitutuional...



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 06-27-2002).]

I really feel bad for this mans child. This child will now always be known as the kid who got god thrown out of the school system. I am sure many support the man and his decision but few childern get to have a father that is so widely loathed by so many americans. As a side note, I think by extension athiests should refuse to use any currency which has any reference to god.

Actually, (no, I don't consider myself to be Atheist...why? Though I don't believe in a God, I don't particularly care what 'label' people give me in that regards...) I don't think the use of God should bother an Atheist...however, most bible beaters become very rabid against someone who 'doesn't believe'...just my experience...though in the Military, I didn't get any flack...however, religious people did get to go to service on Sunday and we that didn't had to scrub the barracks...kinda unfair, if you ask me...

WS - The Constitution is what is being tested here, not the other things you've mentioned, and these other things have little to do with the issue anyway. No one is being tasted or evaluated based on religion. Whether or not the teacher leads the class, and not all teachers do mind you, all students are free to participate at will. It's almost like lunch. Students are given a time to eat. Whether they choose to eat is up to them, what they choose to eat is also up to them. Since no one is being forced to say this 'oath' it really shouldn't be an issue period and comes back to what I said before about this man whining and crying. It's a shame we've alienated 96% of the country to make you select few feel better about yourselves. 96% of the country wants to take part in this 'oath' but in 9 states they have been prohibited because of this 4%. The 4% always had the option of not reciting the Pledge or if prefered skipping the part pertaining to 'under God'. It's a pretty fair system. Do what you want. Now the problem is athiests didn't want to extend the common courtousy to those believing in a God of any form. They don't want there to be any mention of God at all. So since religion isn't being forced on anyone, it comes down to whether or not the government can use termonology pertaining to religion, and there isn't anything in the Constitution saying it shouldn't.

As to your question of why not just get rid of the phase and move on it's not that simple. That doesn't solve the problem. In fact it sets a precident. As our St. Seneca pointed out, he feels outcasted because we coin money with 'In God We Trust' on it. The Dr. who brought this lawsuit has already announced he would like to take to court this issue. So you see it doesn't stop there.

This is also what's tearing the country apart. Many working familes can't afford health care but we need to provide it to illegal aliens because we don't want to be unfair. These intrest groups think they are striking crucial blows in their favor, but what they really are doing is breaking apart the best country in the world. It's a real shame that politicians feel the need to respond to the minorities every whimper.

I have to admit I do feel sorry this doctors daughter also. Not only is she the daughter of currently the most hated man in America, personally I find little different between him and Osama bin Laden, but knowing she was used by her father to advance his political cause is terrible. Hopefully she transfers schools or something. She has a rough life ahead of her in public school, especially when topic turns to current events.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Peter, is there any more room in canada?

Izzay

I'm an agnostic of the "don't know, don't care; too much to do and I'll find out soon enough" stripe, just to put my thoughts in context. I regard most religions as curiosities.

What I want to know is, if it's so bad to take 'under God' out of the Pledge, why is it so good to have it in there?

I'd also like to note that a lot of the press coverage of this story revolves not around the 'under God' issue, but around removing the Pledge as a whole, which means that a lot of peoples' opinions (including those who don't tend to read/think for themselves, but believe what the media tells them) are being formed from a patriotic standpoint, as opposed to the 'God/no God' standpoint or even (Heaven forbid) a Constitutional standpoint.

I also find it amusing that the Pledge has been altered twice since it was created in 1892. Here's a history of the Pledge I found on MSNBC:

quote:

---

The Youth's Companion, a Boston-based family magazine, publishes the original pledge in its Sept. 8, 1892 issue. Although its authorship has since been disputed, historians believe that Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and socialist, penned the words to mark the public schools' 1892 quadricentennial celebration of Columbus Day. During the celebration it was repeated by more than 12 million public school pupils in every state in the Union.

1892 version
'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

Againt Bellamy's wishes, the pledge is altered during a flag conference hosted by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution.
'My Flag,' is changed to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'

1924 version

'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

A campaign led by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic organization, leads Congress to add the words "under God" to the Pledge.

1954 - present version
'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

---

Note that the Pledge used to say 'my Flag', and didn't mention God at all. If it was okay to make those changes, why is it bad to change it further?

quote:

---

Not only is she the daughter of currently the most hated man in America, personally I find little different between him and Osama bin Laden

---

Jestah, that seems a little extreme. Could you explain the similarities between an American exercising his (supposedly God-given) rights and a man who wants to bomb America to bits and kill everyone who doesn't believe what he believes?

(Edit: Personally, I've seen more similarities between Osama bin Laden and some of those reacting to the judgement. Are you aware he's received threatening phone calls? How different is that behavior from bin Laden's?)

[This message has been edited by Wangenstein (edited 06-27-2002).]

hello everyone,
All i can say is that Jestah voices my opinion quite well.
i dont have much time since i am sitting here in class, but as luck would have it, class discussion is exactly about today's cnn article on this topic. i am at the dept. of defense's information school, (one of the best media schools nationwide). the block i am in is broadcasting hard news ("phoner", etc.), sports broadcasting, print news, and so on.
gotta go,

Additionally, if you're truly faithful, why do you care if 'under God' isn't in the Pledge? If you truly believe that there is no God, why do you care if 'under God' is in there? (Edit: Doesn't the nature of faith mean that you don't need outside validation, either from other people or from two words in a pledge of some sort?)

I believe that, in the face of more important issues, this doesn't even appear on the radar...

[This message has been edited by Wangenstein (edited 06-27-2002).]

Wangenstein - Personally I don't find a difference between a man who assults buildings and citizens of the United States and a man who assults the Constitution of the United States. While you clearly disagree with me, both are just as damaging. Our Constitution is what seperated us from many other countries. This doctors actions, in a fit of selfish rage, has damaged the Constitution. There is no foundation to support this decision, although athiests will argue otherwise. It's not a matter of interpeting the Constitution, its a matter of reading it:

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'

And no laws were made.



-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah - "in a fit of selfish rage"? That's a little hyperbolic, isn't it? Do you know how long it takes to send a case through the courts? You can't stay 'enraged' that long...

quote:

---

Personally I don't find a difference between a man who assults buildings and citizens of the United States and a man who assults the Constitution of the United States. While you clearly disagree with me, both are just as damaging.

---

I do, indeed, disagree. One is a literal assault upon people and property, designed to bring down the United States as a whole. The other is part of the free exchange of ideas that this nation was founded upon. The fact that you dislike its consequences in no way makes it any less vital to this country's survival.

Overall, this is just another little piece of American history that you and I are living through. Enjoy it! It's a hell of a toboggan ride!

Wangenstein - Whether you choose to believe it or not, the Constitution is much more then just a free exchange of ideas. It sounds to me your either a citizen who takes their rights for granted, meaning your willing to throw away what you consider to be petty rights because you don't believe we could ever live as terrible as other countries, or your not a citizen and are content with your limited rights. Either or its your own choice and I don't care, just don't tell me its not a big deal when you want to take away rights, and you most certainly are.

I keep telling you the Constitution says one thing reguarding religion and that is it cannot establish laws to force citizens to worship a particular God and you keep saying 'oh c'mon it really isn't a big deal'. It is a big deal to many Americans, read that as 96% of the country. If you feel as though its only a pledge and money then sit there and shut up. Don't tell me its just a pledge and money, it really doesn't effect your life too much so you really shouldn't mind.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah you're being fucking ridiculous. This guy is not attacking a the "constitution" he is in fact trying to defend it and his view was just upheld by a district court. Our whole system of government and judicial process is structured to allow this guy his point of view and give him was to address those grievances.

This may stand or may not but comparing him to a Mass murdering terrorist for exercising the right's we've given him is fucking fascist.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

quote:

---

Whether you choose to believe it or not, the Constitution is much more then just a free exchange of ideas. It sounds to me your either a citizen who takes their rights for granted, meaning your willing to throw away what you consider to be petty rights because you don't believe we could ever live as terrible as other countries, or your not a citizen and are content with your limited rights.

---

So, either I'm stupid, or just foreign?

quote:

---

Either or its your own choice and I don't care, just don't tell me its not a big deal when you want to take away rights, and you most certainly are.

---

Thought 1: The doctor is a man, exercising his Constitutional rights, and you're telling him to sit down? I'm confused; which of us is talking about taking away rights? Thought 2: The doctor is a man, exercising his "God-given" (at least, according to religious-types) rights. If God gave him those rights, who are you to tell him to sit down? (Edit: From either a Constitutional-rights standpoint or a religious standpoint, I can't find a problem with his actions. Sorry...)



[This message has been edited by Wangenstein (edited 06-27-2002).]

Here's something else I found on MSNBC. I thought it was funny and that I'd share it:

quote:

---

The pure poetry of the Pledge: Why couldn?t they have left the Pledge of Allegiance alone in the first place? All through grade school, every morning without fail, I recited the Pledge of Allegiance. To my child?s ear the Pledge sounded like a cool poem. We were all of us ?one-nation-indivisible-with-liberty-and-justice-for-all.? You know how kids are with poetry. You learned it ? and recited it ? by rote.

Then one morning the Pledge changed. I had no idea the Knights of Columbus got Congress to change it. All I knew was that now we were all part of ?one-nation-under-God-indivisible-with-liberty-and-justice-for-all.?

Suddenly the lines didn?t scan. To my child?s ear, the rhythm was way wrong. It was as if ?Georgie Porgie pudding and pie, kissed the girls -under God- and made them cry.? No one would go for that.

Now everybody?s full of shock and outrage that the Pledge has been declared unconstitutional because of those two words. Why not just go back to the original wording? At least it scans.

---

Beekay, "...the senate is just pandering to the public..." Yes, as a politician you have two jobs: 1) spend money 2) get re-elected. Any actions they take on this matter will fall under the latter of those two.

In some respects I agree with Jestah but I am offended by this because it is completely frivilous. With all the issues we face as a country both externally and internally this seems like such a complete waste of time. Of all the societial issues that we as a country could be spending our time, money, and focus on we end up with trival litigious stuff like this. I am angered by the trivial nature of this whole situation. I saw some statistics stating that less than 2% of this country is athiest or agnostic...well sorry, the minority dosent get to dictate the majoritys place, (statistics can be made to say anything of course.) This man has landed himself in a shitstorm with this one especially with all the summer soldiers and sunshine patriots that have popped up since 9/11. I still have the same reaction I had when I first heard this, I just shake my head...What a sick sad world we live in.

How about this, the US is still a democracy, lets vote on it...make a constitutional amendment to prevent this complete waste of time from happening again.

Regardless of the fact that America was founded on principles of freedom from religious tyranny, I believe history portrays our founding fathers as decidedly Christian, though Protestant. While this has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual principles involved in the writing of our laws, anthems, constitutions and what have you, it does lend a real Christian flavor to just about everything...

Wangenstein - I've never said you were either stupid or foreign. What I said was you either do not value the rights given to you by the Constitution (not God btw) or you do not enjoy these rights because you live in a country that probably doesn't have them. If you choose to take that as your stupid then by all means do so. As for your second quote I was telling you to sit down and be quiet. You seem to be of the impression that it shouldn't be such a big deal because it really isn't a big deal. It's just words so why not change? At least thats the impression I recieved from your previous posts. If you feel its not a big deal then why are you making it a big deal?

Bit - Whether or not you believe it, this country was founded on a belief of God. The Founding Fathers decided that they would not promote a particular religion though, hence the first Amendment. The Founding Fathers did not decide that they would prohibit all government officials from taking part in any type of religion. The words 'under God' in the pledge does not promote a religion so this part of the 1st Amendment really isn't applicable so look at what these judges have ruled against. Speech. While it might sound silly to you, losing a touch of freedom of speech it sets a precident for future cases. What happens now when this same doctor decides the teaching of the Bible in HS's promotes religion. Certainly there is precident now for these types of bannings. How about Native Americans wanting to take American History out of public schools? Naturally it should be banned of course.

The bannings will go on forever, and thats why I think its an attack on our Constitutional rights.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Bodhi - Precisely. The Founding Fathers were all Christians (or at least, from a Christian-based society). They had every opportunity to stick in as much "Hail Jebus, twist and shout!" into the Constitution as they wanted, establishing an official religion based on praising Jebus and thumbing their noses at the British. They didn't. They left it out. So, if the Founding Fathers didn't feel that the inclusion of religion into government was important enough to mandate it in the Constitution when they were writing it, who are today's politicians to try and do it now?

[This message has been edited by Wangenstein (edited 06-27-2002).]

Also, I hold both judges just as responsible for taking away Constitutionally guarenteed rights.


Your entirely still missing the point Wangenstein. The Founding Fathers didn't leave religion out of the Constitution because they didn't feel it was important. Most of these men were very religious. They left it out because they didn't feel it was the governments place to tell someone who they should worship. They decided to leave it up to the people.

-Jestah
Cell 277


[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 06-27-2002).]

Jestah -

"under God" most certainly does promote a religion. It promotes christianity. What it does not promote is a particular sect of that religion.

It does not say "under a god", it says "under God". That makes it specific to christianity, as any other religion has other terms for their diety of choice (such as Allah and Jehovah for instance...).

What that says to anyone of religions other than christianity is that they are not a part of this unifying ritual we call the pledge of allegiance, and that their religion is not valid here.

Which, is indeed, a rather anti-constitutional train of thought.

Now, different sects of christianity may have been all there was to contend when the consitution was written, but that is obvioiusly not the case now. So religion specific items have no business in our pledge of allegiance, nor on our currency, or anywhere else in matters of national importance.

I rather doubt I'm 'entirely' missing the point quite as much as you say, but I will clairify my statement: The Founding Fathers did believe that religion was important; that's why it gets a mention in the Bill of Rights. However, if the Founding Fathers had thought religion was that critical to the nation, they had ample opportunity to do something about it when they created the country. Wisely, they did not.

quote:

---

They left it out because they didn't feel it was the governments place to tell someone who they should worship. They decided to leave it up to the people.

---

Precisely my point. Thank you. Why then, did Congress (aka, the Government) put 'under God' into the Pledge in the first place? I think we're on the same page here; you're just reading it upside-down.