one nation, under god

[Liability]

When I hear the Pledge and the part that intones "One Nation, Under God . . . " I confess, I do not get worked up.

I also don't get worked up over a creche on the grounds of some town's hall.

I don't get worked up over the motto "In God We Trust" on our coins.

I don't get worked up over the motto "In God We Trust" inscribed on the walls of a Court House or a court room.

I don't get worked up over the benediction given by a preacher, a rabbi or an imam at the opening of a session of Congress.

Not one of those things establishes an official religion.

Not one of those things prevents any folks from the free exercise of their own respective religions.

Oh nozies!

 

[Mr.Nick]

ACTON (CBS) – The Pledge of Allegiance is becoming a sore subject in the Acton-Boxborough school district, all because of the words “under God.”

“Atheists and Humanists do not accept the notion of God,” says attorney David Niose.

An Acton family, who is atheist and chooses to remain anonymous, is suing the school district claiming they are discriminating against their children during the pledge. They want the words “under God” taken out

Acton Family Wants “Under God” Removed From Pledge Of Allegiance « CBS Boston

thoughts?

That is the beautiful thing about the United States and our First Amendment.... If an individual disagrees with our pledge then they don't have to recite it....

 

[Liability]

ACTON (CBS) – The Pledge of Allegiance is becoming a sore subject in the Acton-Boxborough school district, all because of the words “under God.”

“Atheists and Humanists do not accept the notion of God,” says attorney David Niose.

An Acton family, who is atheist and chooses to remain anonymous, is suing the school district claiming they are discriminating against their children during the pledge. They want the words “under God” taken out

Acton Family Wants “Under God” Removed From Pledge Of Allegiance « CBS Boston

thoughts?

That is the beautiful thing about the United States and our First Amendment.... If an individual disagrees with our pledge then they don't have to recite it....

That last part is what some of us like to call "common sense."

 

[Foxfyre]

ACTON (CBS) – The Pledge of Allegiance is becoming a sore subject in the Acton-Boxborough school district, all because of the words “under God.”

“Atheists and Humanists do not accept the notion of God,” says attorney David Niose.

An Acton family, who is atheist and chooses to remain anonymous, is suing the school district claiming they are discriminating against their children during the pledge. They want the words “under God” taken out

Acton Family Wants “Under God” Removed From Pledge Of Allegiance « CBS Boston

thoughts?

That is the beautiful thing about the United States and our First Amendment.... If an individual disagrees with our pledge then they don't have to recite it....

And hopefully we will retain sufficent inidvidual liberty in this country that those who don't want to recite it will not obtain the power to keep the rest of us from reciting it or having it taught to our children.

 

[del]

ACTON (CBS) – The Pledge of Allegiance is becoming a sore subject in the Acton-Boxborough school district, all because of the words “under God.”

“Atheists and Humanists do not accept the notion of God,” says attorney David Niose.

An Acton family, who is atheist and chooses to remain anonymous, is suing the school district claiming they are discriminating against their children during the pledge. They want the words “under God” taken out

Acton Family Wants “Under God” Removed From Pledge Of Allegiance « CBS Boston

thoughts?

That is the beautiful thing about the United States and our First Amendment.... If an individual disagrees with our pledge then they don't have to recite it....

And hopefully we will retain sufficent inidvidual liberty in this country that those who don't want to recite it will not obtain the power to keep the rest of us from reciting it or having it taught to our children.

ironic doesn't even begin to cover this.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is the beautiful thing about the United States and our First Amendment.... If an individual disagrees with our pledge then they don't have to recite it....

And hopefully we will retain sufficent inidvidual liberty in this country that those who don't want to recite it will not obtain the power to keep the rest of us from reciting it or having it taught to our children.

ironic doesn't even begin to cover this.

I hope it doesn't. Because when the angry minority is able to trash something as innocuous and meaningful as the Pledge of Allegiance and have it banned from the public venue, I am pretty sure we'll be pretty much done as a nation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

foxfyre, you can teach it to your children and your children's children all you want.

You let me know if anybody tries to stop you, and I will fly to New Mexico to put end to the evil one.

 

[Liability]

It's in a pledge the recitation of which is not mandatory.

So the fact that it's in there really imposes nothing on anybody.

Why, then, should those who object to it (I presume they are still in a minority) have some claim to demand its removal?

Damn it. The First Amendment "analysis" is silly. It SHOULD be much simpler and clearer.

Here's the proposed test: Does this complained of act (or whatever) REQUIRE anybody to adhere to some particular faith? OR, does it prevent anybody from having their OWN religious (or lack of religious) beliefs?

If the answer is "no," then there is no violation of the 1st Amendment's religious guarantees.

 

[del]

And hopefully we will retain sufficent inidvidual liberty in this country that those who don't want to recite it will not obtain the power to keep the rest of us from reciting it or having it taught to our children.

ironic doesn't even begin to cover this.

I hope it doesn't. Because when the angry minority is able to trash something as innocuous and meaningful as the Pledge of Allegiance and have it banned from the public venue, I am pretty sure we'll be pretty much done as a nation.

exaggerate much?

 

[SFC Ollie]

why? it's not illegal or unconstitutional and requires no mention of god.

Because I support a constitutional amendment changing that........... And that would deserve a whole different thread which it probably has had in the past.........

so you support a constitutional amendment abridging freedom of speech?

One can twist almost any statement into something that sounds bad.......
But if that's what gets your rocks off, yes I support the proposed constitutional amendment which gives congress the power to protect the Flag of the United States from physical desecration.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Because I support a constitutional amendment changing that........... And that would deserve a whole different thread which it probably has had in the past.........

so you support a constitutional amendment abridging freedom of speech?

One can twist almost any statement into something that sounds bad.......
But if that's what gets your rocks off, yes I support the proposed constitutional amendment which gives congress the power to protect the Flag of the United States from physical desecration.

I could care less if someone wants to desecrate the flag...

That shit doesn't affect me....

 

[Foxfyre]

ironic doesn't even begin to cover this.

I hope it doesn't. Because when the angry minority is able to trash something as innocuous and meaningful as the Pledge of Allegiance and have it banned from the public venue, I am pretty sure we'll be pretty much done as a nation.

exaggerate much?

Nope. I freely admit when I exaggerate. But this happens to be a subject about which I am especially passionate. I am concerned and angry that there is a narrow minded and intolerant minority in this country that would deny others the right to have what offends that minority but which takes no rights of any kind away from that minority. And denying people the ability to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is just one more example of that.

We won't lose our American exceptionism by military defeat from some outside source or via revolution within this country. We will lose it by just accepting the loss of our freedoms, drip by drop, chip by chip.

 

[Valerie]

I hope it doesn't. Because when the angry minority is able to trash something as innocuous and meaningful as the Pledge of Allegiance and have it banned from the public venue, I am pretty sure we'll be pretty much done as a nation.

exaggerate much?

Nope. I freely admit when I exaggerate. But this happens to be a subject about which I am especially passionate. I am concerned and angry that there is a narrow minded and intolerant minority in this country that would deny others the right to have what offends that minority but which takes no rights of any kind away from that minority. And denying people the ability to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is just one more example of that.

We won't lose our American exceptionism by military defeat from some outside source or via revolution within this country. We will lose it by just accepting the loss of our freedoms, drip by drop, chip by chip.

WithOUT the phrase, no citizen is Pledging Allegiance under something they don't believe in.



WITH the phrase, SOME citizens are denied the ability to recite The Pledge of Allegiance in good conscience...



IF you're going to be that dramatic about it, you could say THAT ^ is just one more example of "just accepting the loss of our freedoms, drip by drop, chip by chip."

 

[Ravi]

just because it's constitutional doesn't make it right, imo.

flag burning is also constitutional, as is being a nazi.

As is being a Republican.

All joking aside, there is some serious stupid on this thread.

 

[del]

Because I support a constitutional amendment changing that........... And that would deserve a whole different thread which it probably has had in the past.........

so you support a constitutional amendment abridging freedom of speech?

One can twist almost any statement into something that sounds bad.......
But if that's what gets your rocks off, yes I support the proposed constitutional amendment which gives congress the power to protect the Flag of the United States from physical desecration.

the courts have ruled that burning the flag is protected speech; i'm not twisting anything.

 

[del]

I hope it doesn't. Because when the angry minority is able to trash something as innocuous and meaningful as the Pledge of Allegiance and have it banned from the public venue, I am pretty sure we'll be pretty much done as a nation.

exaggerate much?

Nope. I freely admit when I exaggerate. But this happens to be a subject about which I am especially passionate. I am concerned and angry that there is a narrow minded and intolerant minority in this country that would deny others the right to have what offends that minority but which takes no rights of any kind away from that minority. And denying people the ability to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is just one more example of that.

We won't lose our American exceptionism by military defeat from some outside source or via revolution within this country. We will lose it by just accepting the loss of our freedoms, drip by drop, chip by chip.

so you're okay with a narrow minded and intolerant majority, as long as you're in it.

 

[Liability]

just because it's constitutional doesn't make it right, imo.

flag burning is also constitutional, as is being a nazi.

As is being a Republican.

All joking aside, there is some serious stupid on this thread.

Now that you've contributed more than your fair share. Sure.

 

[Peach]

so you support a constitutional amendment abridging freedom of speech?

One can twist almost any statement into something that sounds bad.......
But if that's what gets your rocks off, yes I support the proposed constitutional amendment which gives congress the power to protect the Flag of the United States from physical desecration.

the courts have ruled that burning the flag is protected speech; i'm not twisting anything.

I say SEEKING liberty and justice rather than WITH; no one has ever "punished" me. The Acton family is taking up Court time and taxpayer money to foist their BELIEFS on others. The children can omit the words and it probably would not have been noticed; THEY are putting their children in an awkward position.

 

[Foxfyre]

exaggerate much?

Nope. I freely admit when I exaggerate. But this happens to be a subject about which I am especially passionate. I am concerned and angry that there is a narrow minded and intolerant minority in this country that would deny others the right to have what offends that minority but which takes no rights of any kind away from that minority. And denying people the ability to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is just one more example of that.

We won't lose our American exceptionism by military defeat from some outside source or via revolution within this country. We will lose it by just accepting the loss of our freedoms, drip by drop, chip by chip.

so you're okay with a narrow minded and intolerant majority, as long as you're in it.

I am okay with a free people having their unalienable rights secured and then forming whatever society they wish to have. That requires social contract which is established democratically via majority vote. Because nobody's unalienable rights are involved, so long as the majority wishes to have 'under God' in the official Pledge, that is what should be in the official Pledge. At the same time no local school board or community is required to order a recitation of th Pledge in classroom, and also every school or ewery community can have whatever statement they wish to have instead or no statement at all so long as nobody's unalienable rights are violated.

But when nobody's unalienable rights are violated, no single individual or small group should be able to make the rules. Express their opinions yes. Petition for change, yes. But dictate to the majority what they MUST do? No. When they can, that does violate our unalienable right to form the sort of society we wish to have.

Again, when the majority wants 'under God' out of the Pledge it will be gone. It is as simple as that.

May 4, 2004

Americans Indivisible on Pledge of Allegiance
by Linda Lyons, Education and Youth Editor

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule next month on the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in late March in the case that challenges the phrase's inclusion, Gallup asked Americans* whether they would prefer that the pledge remain as it is or that the phrase "under God" be removed, restoring it to its original, pre-1954 language.

Those two words -- "under God" -- seem to matter to most Americans. Currently, 91% want the pledge to remain as is, while just 8% would like to see the words removed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11551/Americans-Indivisible-Pledge-Allegiance.aspx

 

[Valerie]

One can twist almost any statement into something that sounds bad.......
But if that's what gets your rocks off, yes I support the proposed constitutional amendment which gives congress the power to protect the Flag of the United States from physical desecration.

the courts have ruled that burning the flag is protected speech; i'm not twisting anything.

I say SEEKING liberty and justice rather than WITH; no one has ever "punished" me. The Acton family is taking up Court time and taxpayer money to foist their BELIEFS on others. The children can omit the words and it probably would not have been noticed; THEY are putting their children in an awkward position.

That's true... They could end up ostracized even more. The kids could have stood and recited without the phrase while others would have never noticed... Could be the whole thing was precipitated when the kids came home from school and expressed to their parents how awkward it was for them and then, when they eventually chose not to Pledge every day, other kids started making fun of them, etc...


The bottom line for me is, I just don't see any reason for keeping it especially considering there are Citizens who won't Pledge Allegiance under those terms.