It's not the pledge that is at issue, it is its recitation in public schools. Children cannot be forced to say the pledge, as that is a violation of conscience and free speech. The question is whether the schools can conduct the pledge in the classrooms and whether that violates the church and separation clause. It is a constitutional issue to be determined. I am glad there are some here who think that whoever is on the other side of the issue ought to leave the country. There can never be a shortage of boneheads trading from whom I can legally separate their funds.
Actually, Im hoping you die, but it was you and aphie threatening to leave the country unless you get your way.
GG did not say this...sombody stole blumpkin boys password and posted this about leaving the country.....What a pathetic loser you are today?????
The zealots on both sides of this issue can argue from now until the Sun goes nova and they'll never find common ground. It's because zealots are so self-rightous and convinced of their own correctness that they see no reason to bother to hear any descenting views. Which is why zealots of all kinds never solve, they only contribute to global problems. However, it should be noted that the first amendment provides for freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. The purpose of the first was (right at the top) to state that they didn't want a specific state controlled or imposed religion like they had in England at the time. It wasn't intended to completely segregate all religious elements - that would have been antithetical to the founder's basic principles. It was strictly to avoid another Church of England and insure that churches of all kinds would be allowed. "...We hold these things self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..." - seems doubtful that a phrase like "In God we Trust" or "one nation under God" would have bothered the founders. The founders also clearly had no expectation of a complete elimination of religion from state operations - they've had a chaplain opening legislative sessions with a prayer since the Continental Congress in 1774. And there's been a Chaplain of the House and Chaplain of the Senate since the first congress in 1789. Clearly their intent was NEVER to remove religion as a whole from government - simply to insure that a Church of America wouldn't one day be established and all other religions and churchs persecuted. The vehement attempts by zealots to "protect" people FROM religion is just as absurd and dangerous as the zealots on the religious right trying to shove their specific religious interpretation down people's throat. Zealotry of all kinds is dangerous. God's giving a tour of Heaven to a new arrival and after seeing the Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindi, etc. are all happily living together they come to a wall. The new arrival asks what's behind the wall. God says "Oh, that's where the Catholics are - they like to think they're the only one's here - substitute the religion of choice. On the flip-side, the founders would not have wanted something like a religion-specific prayer to be mandated in schools - e.g., even while the founders were themselves Christians, they would have objected to requiring the recitation of the Apostle's Creed in school for the simple reason that it would institutionalize a specific religious form. An expectation of religious neutrality does not infer anti-religion.
religious people just can't lose their bias. here's something that always seems to be overlooked: if in the constitution it listed the world is flat, should we still hold on to that, or recognize they didn't know what the f#$% they were talking about at the time??! to tell you the truth, i don't care what the constitution says. ANY HINT OF RELIGIOUS BIAS SHOULD BE OUT OF GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC SCHOOLS. do all the worshipping you want of any religion in america--no one will stop you--just get it off our freaking money, etc. A $20 BILL SHOULD STATE IT IS WORTH $20. THAT IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED. SOME RELIGIOUS CRAP IS IRRELEVANT AND IS JUST GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS. REPLACE "IN GOD WE TRUST" WITH "IN NO GOD WE TRUST" AND ALL THE RELIGIOUS BITCHES WILL WHINE JUST LIKE I AM (except they'd probably also burn me to death in the name of "god"). TAKE THE NEUTRAL GROUND AND PUT IT'S WORTH $20 AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.
WOW GG One very powerful speech!! A++++ 'ol buddy! You pass semester with FOUR OH and Sum bodies cum louda
yeah, move over james madison... the usa would do well to have me fix a few things. =] BTW, IF the supreme court's judgment is to keep things as is, THEN THIS FIGHT IS JUST TOO EARLY. in my lifetime, ALL THIS CRAP IS GOING TO GO OUT THE WINDOW AND I KNOW IT!! it just might be a bit too early (although it should have been done a long time ago). =[
this is a big test for Supreme Court. if they will follow the letter and spirit of the law of the land they will strike out any mention of God.
However, the constitution itself was designed as an organic document, one whose principles could be adapted to a changing and growing society. The ideas embodied within it are deliberately broad and fundamental. The constitution itself has a device for its own amendment. That certain founders deemed religious references in thier own state machinery to be kosher does not mean that they wished or intended this to be an enduring practice. Thier ideas on separation were founded upon their negative experiences of the church of England and its insinuation in the state machinery and the resulting dominion of the church over the people. The founders wished for the people to have freedom of worship, but their OVERARCHING CONCERN WAS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECULAR REPUBLIC, A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. It was the striving to imbue this ideal within a republic that motivated the founders most of all in the concerns and fears of church influence on the state. They understood that weaving religion into the fabric of the state resulted in a restriction of freedom and allowed for a tyranny of sorts.