Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sctmom

Court rules Pledge of Allegiance 'unconstitutional'

Recommended Posts

I agree with FScouter. People have gone off the deep end on this thing. The phrase "under god" is not equivalent to the establishment of religion, regardless of what some may think. Removing the phrase is not the end of the world and will not cause god to turn against the USA.

 

I am old enough to remember learning the pledge without the two words. I remember the change being introduced about the time that I was in seventh grade. It was no big deal then and it is not a big deal now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I knew if I trolled a few hot buttons, I would get a couple of bites, but I really expected someone to rise to the comment about the South. Oh well, maybe next time. But now that I've landed you and you're flobbering around on the bank next to the bait bucket, here's another. You guys can grouse all you want about your dislike of the terms, but then you've never personally had to walk in those shoes, either. It's easy to pontificate about things of which you personally know little. Of course this is all too great a diversion, it IS all about the boys and I don't apologize. I accept your views as yours and I don't pass judgement. Well, maybe I'll just poke a little fun to see how many coronaries occur. I just keep my attention on what's really important, the children. Packsaddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

packsaddle,

 

You've made four postings to this web site and at least two have been "to poke fun". Despite your claim (I'm all about the boys), your actions say otherwise.

 

OGE,

 

You'd be surprised as what we agree on...probably more than you think.

 

eisely,

 

I think I understand your point...but to contrary, I feel the phrase ("under God") is a big deal. Its a statement that most folks can ralley behind. The pledge tells the world who we are and what we believe. Of course, no pledge can fully represent every person in a 250 million plus nation. Yet, I think our current pledge does a pretty good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster7 - "Of course, no pledge can fully represent every person in a 250 million plus nation"

 

Wouldn't the pledge represent MORE folks without "under God"? It would still be valid for everyone it's valid for now (or would be, if we get past all the hot buttons, sniping and politicization), AND it would be valid for everyone it isn't valid for now. Or is that your point? Make it more applicable to more people by making it appropriate to every American regardless of religious status..?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

littlebillie,

 

Wouldn't the pledge represent MORE folks without "under God"?

 

Think about that for a few seconds. I think your question has an obvious answerit's "No." Leaving it out would offend and misrepresent the tens of millions of religious folks (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.) that believe it should be there.

 

But just for grins, let's follow your logic and see what it produces.

 

I pledge allegiance

 

LOUD BUZZER. Some "Americans" don't believe in taking pledges. We better change that to something less committal. How about "I observe" as opposed to "I pledge allegiance".

 

to the flag

 

LOUD BUZZER. What a minute. Some "Americans" like to burn the flag. We don't want to exclude them. Let's take that out.

 

of the United States

 

LOUD BUZZER. Some "Americans" (not all from the South) believe we shouldn't be united. In fact, the Supreme Court just might make that a reality if they continue down this road.

 

of America

 

LOUD BUZZER. We don't want to offend the English, French, or Spanish; they had as much to do with our discovery and establishment as a nation as the Italians. We'll play it safe and take that part out too.

 

and to the Republic for which it stands

 

LOUD BUZZER. Some "Americans" believe we should get rid of Congress. Better take this part out. We don't want to offend those folks fighting for a true democracy.

 

One Nation

 

LOUD BUZZER. There's that pesky one nation theme again. See explanation for removal of "United".

 

Indivisible

 

LOUD BUZZER. Sounds a little militaristic. Lest we offend any pacifists, we better remove it.

 

With Liberty

 

LOUD BUZZER. Are all "Americans" free? What about all those criminals filling our jails? Do we really want to offend them?

 

And Justice

 

LOUD BUZZER. Justice for whom? According to the Washington Post, only angry white men get justice in this country. Gotta take that out.

 

for All

 

I guess we can let this one go, but it could get tricky later. We'll leave it in for now.

 

SO, What does our new all inclusive pledge look like:

 

I observe the States for all.

 

There you have it. It includes ALL "Americans". It's non-offensive. It's short. It's concise. Easy to rememberit should make everyone happy.

 

Of course, it's also pretty meaningless, but that's just a minor detail in the big scheme of thingsthe main concern iswe don't offend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BubbaBear, Great site! I wouldn't exactly claim it for the South, though, especially with the stunning photo of the WTC site.

Rooster7 and littlebillie, I agree with littlebillie. I note that Rooster7 didn't disagree with my previous statement that the current pledge excludes persons who are polytheistic, nor that we are already dominated by the majority religion in this country. I also remember the pledge before it was changed. 'one nation, indivisible' was just fine back then and outside of a few of my neighbors who currently fly the Confederate flag above the American flag (in the South, by-the-way, BubbaBear), I don't remember it bothering anyone. Wearing religion on your sleeve doesn't have to make it a giant chip on your shoulder. But I still think the whole issue is a red herring, detracting from things more important. Packsaddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster7

You hit it right on with the last post. I think the line of political correctness needs to be drawn somewhere and it might as well be here.

 

For those who want to parse words 'I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I ment.' :)

 

May you all have a happy fourth. I will be away with the troop for summer camp for the next week or so. So I will miss reading all the great comments on all subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the phrase "under God" in the pledge is hardly "wearing religion on your sleeve". Apparently, recognizing and/or talking about God in public is a frightening proposition? Perhaps some folks are afraid that they just might "get saved". Wouldn't that be a scary thought? ;) packsaddle, since you seem to enjoy getting a rise out of people, I thought you'd appreciate that last comment.

 

If you believe in God, He's a part of your everyday life. Perhaps, for people who don't take their faith seriously (or who have no faith), this is much fuss about nothing. However, many folks who take their faith seriously want God to be mentioned. It's not about "wearing your religion"...its about living one's faith and recognizing one's creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey packsaddle...that was view from the "South" side of the Trade Center!

 

By the way, I am a transplant to the South. I remember a farm along Interstate 71 in Ohio where they flew the Confederate Battle flag.

 

You know, the Civil War was fought over State's Rights? It is just a matter of time when one heated issue will lead to the same kind of division all over again...not that I condone it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster,

 

As I think is clear from my previous posts in this thread, I disagree with the judge. What I find more annoying is the willingness of federal judges to act as unelected mandarins and legislate from the bench. The federal judiciary is the single most important protector of our freedoms from our own government. It deserves respect. Silly rulings like this on a relatively trivial issue erode that respect. The judge should have left well enough alone.

 

I have some time and am on something of a roll here, so bear with me...

 

This war on terror is a legitimate and fundamental governmental function and responsibility. It is necessary. However, sticky issues have already arisen and the judiciary must be careful in dealing with these issues as they come up. I have no sympathy for the likes of John Walker Lindh (and in this case, his grandstanding lawyers), but there are some legitimate constitutional issues surrounding the nature of his interrogation while under military control and how that evidence is to be used.

 

What about the guy (I forget the name - senior moment) being held in South Carolina? He too is a US citizen, and I don't understand the legality of his being held without being charged.

 

I happen to agree that the people held in Guantanamo are being properly held, but what will we eventually do with them?

 

I saw a piece in the paper this morning that a different federal judge in San Diego has ruled that the federal law enabling the executive branch to classify organizations as terrorist organizations can be challenged in federal court. If I understand this correctly, this means that Al Queda can sue in federal court to avoid treatment as a terrorist organization. If this law is not upheld, important tools in the war on terror will be lost. Do we want this to happen?

 

These are the kinds of issues the judiciary needs to be thinking about.

 

Have a happy and safe July 4. Remember why we observe this date. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BubbaBear, South side, quite right! Let's save the War of Southern Aggression for another occasion, though. Still too much fun fighting the crusades.

Rooster7, Plenty of deeply religious persons quietly view their beliefs as deeply personal. They, and I, don't offer them for public scrutiny nor do we force them on anyone else. This works fine and it makes it easy for boys in my troop (who represent 4-6 major world religions, depending on how you count them) to accept me and each other without judging or feeling judged. Like I said before, otherwise it tends to be exclusive. Packsaddle

P.S. If you can spot my actions via a few sparse sentences, you have a good eye indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster7

 

"Leaving it out would offend and misrepresent the tens of millions of religious folks (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.) that believe it should be there."

 

Offend? Well, that's why I said we needed to get past this whole hot button period. And it's certainly been brought out that folks were offended when the "under God" was put in in the first place. offense per se doesn't seem to really be germane, at least not judging by the tone and words I see in some of these posts! :-) When the atheist was offended, everyone told him to get past it. we all need to be able to get make certain things that 'offend' us.

 

Misrepresent? now, this may be a tad more interesting. Let's start with - do you think that the Christians, Jews, and Muslims that took the OLDER pledge were misrepresented? That Americans were misrepresented by the words "one Nation, indivisible"? I think MORE folks were represented. It's adding "under God" that actually moved the borders in, the way I see it. Up until then, it was a patriotic pledge, no more. Adding those words was almost like saying, we don't want any atheists or Hindus taking our pledge - draw yer own conclusions!

 

Of course now most folks only know it this way - and for many the value is as much - or even more - sentimental as religious.

 

As far as the rest of the post - pleasant and amusing exercise in hyperbole. Is it yours?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing references to "major religions" and sometimes wonder if you all refer to Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterrians and the like as "major religions"? I am hopeful that you all realize that they are sects of Christianity, which is a "major" religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BubbaBear,

Currently: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity (numerically dominant), Judaism (not orthodox). Once had a Mormon who moved away but I suppose those are just another flavor of Christian anyway. When we are hiking or camping the boys don't seem to notice the difference. Go figure, it's almost as if it's not unnatural. Packsaddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×