The Pledge

[brokenbrainwave]

I'd love to see our school teachers and administrators defy such a ruling and have the pledge recited INCLUDING the phrase "under God". Force the issue. Peaceful demonstration!

The ruling WILL NOT stand. Espeically since the U. S. Supreme Court has now begun to decide cases based on public opinion rather than law. Public opinion is strong on this one!

By the way, Sch00lteacher, you must remove the "By God" from your by-line. It's unconstitutional.

I in reality agree with this approach, and would instruct my sons the MUST recite it everday at school aloud just to piss off these PC cops. No other reason, and then I would sue under the violation of their right to free speech.

 

[Mischka]

The ruling WILL NOT stand. Espeically since the U. S. Supreme Court has now begun to decide cases based on public opinion rather than law. Public opinion is strong on this one!

God, I hope our judiciary never deteriorates to that point. Federal judges are appointed for life in order to insulate them from the fluctuations of public opinion. Public opinion supported segregation, the Court did not. Public opinion despises flag burning, the Court realized the activity is constitutionally protected. If the Court ever reduces itself to following the whims of public opinion, we have truly reached a new low point.

I am an atheist. I have been since I first thought about religion. My parents are good Christians, but I have never felt the stirrings of religious beliefs. I don't pray. I don't believe in any sort of "god." I don't like seeing "under God" in my pledge or "In God We Trust" on my money because I don't recognize this "God" and don't consider such a being part of my government.

But if so many of you need that reassurance of a God's blessing on your government institutions, then so be it. I've never understood why private religious services are not enough, but if it is so necessary to sprinkle your religious ideas within the structure of the government as well, then I guess I'll just continue in silence. It's been clearly communicated on these threads, and in general public opinion, that the majority public opinion on freedom of religion does not include the freedom from religion.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

I know. I just added what I did because, since you brought it up, I DID think it was ironic that it was a required meeting (or whatever those assembly things are called in HS).

ok, my bad

but the bottom line is who is really going to stop a child from saying the pledge or praying aloud. what, going to dicipline? that would work against the school system. I seriously doubt they are going to have them arrested. I am amazed that more students do not revolt against a idealism that flys in the face of the constitution.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

God, I hope our judiciary never deteriorates to that point. Federal judges are appointed for life in order to insulate them from the fluctuations of public opinion. Public opinion supported segregation, the Court did not. Public opinion despises flag burning, the Court realized the activity is constitutionally protected. If the Court ever reduces itself to following the whims of public opinion, we have truly reached a new low point.

I am an atheist. I have been since I first thought about religion. My parents are good Christians, but I have never felt the stirrings of religious beliefs. I don't pray. I don't believe in any sort of "god." I don't like seeing "under God" in my pledge or "In God We Trust" on my money because I don't recognize this "God" and don't consider such a being part of my government.

But if so many of you need that reassurance of a God's blessing on your government institutions, then so be it. I've never understood why private religious services are not enough, but if it is so necessary to sprinkle your religious ideas within the structure of the government as well, then I guess I'll just continue in silence. It's been clearly communicated on these threads, and in general public opinion, that the majority public opinion on freedom of religion does not include the freedom from religion.

I respect your right for you belief system, but why must those that fall into the christian catagory be forced to bow down to the minority? Personally I am not christian, nor any other religion. However common sense tells me that this nation was founded under these principles, and these statements primarily serve as moral guidance and in no way forces God on anyone.

 

[KHAN-E]

Read the News!

God, I hope our judiciary never deteriorates to that point. Federal judges are appointed for life in order to insulate them from the fluctuations of public opinion. Public opinion supported segregation, the Court did not. Public opinion despises flag burning, the Court realized the activity is constitutionally protected. If the Court ever reduces itself to following the whims of public opinion, we have truly reached a new low point.

Just last week the U. S. Supreme Court made aright decision, that mentally retarded people should not be executed. But the Majority Opinion stated that the decision was NOT based in law, but in "growing public sentiment" that such executions are wrong.

The Court NOW bases its opinions on PUBLIC OPINION!!! That fact should scare the hell (whether we believe in one or not) out of every American citizen. Your freedom IS at stake!!!

 

[Mischka]

I respect your right for you belief system, but why must those that fall into the christian catagory be forced to bow down to the minority? Personally I am not christian, nor any other religion. However common sense tells me that this nation was founded under these principles, and these statements primarily serve as moral guidance and in no way forces God on anyone.

I suppose this is the part that confuses me. Why do monotheists need any sort of mention of their religion in the government? Does the exclusion of the phrase "under God" from the pledge somehow exclude them from feeling part of this nation? How did they manage for all those years before the phrase was added?

 

[Rambrat]

God, I hope our judiciary never deteriorates to that point. Federal judges are appointed for life in order to insulate them from the fluctuations of public opinion. Public opinion supported segregation, the Court did not. Public opinion despises flag burning, the Court realized the activity is constitutionally protected. If the Court ever reduces itself to following the whims of public opinion, we have truly reached a new low point.

I am an atheist. I have been since I first thought about religion. My parents are good Christians, but I have never felt the stirrings of religious beliefs. I don't pray. I don't believe in any sort of "god." I don't like seeing "under God" in my pledge or "In God We Trust" on my money because I don't recognize this "God" and don't consider such a being part of my government.

But if so many of you need that reassurance of a God's blessing on your government institutions, then so be it. I've never understood why private religious services are not enough, but if it is so necessary to sprinkle your religious ideas within the structure of the government as well, then I guess I'll just continue in silence. It's been clearly communicated on these threads, and in general public opinion, that the majority public opinion on freedom of religion does not include the freedom from religion.

That's a good point Mischka. Not everyone believes in God and not everyone who believes in a supreme being name him God. You have just as much a right to NOT have it shoved in your face. We have the right to NOT say the pledge. But there are those who wish to say the pledge and don't wish to name God.

We shouldn't banish the pledge, just make an adjustment.

We are a nation founded by people who wished to have religious freedom...I guess we don't look at our currency close enough.

 

[sunstruck]

I suppose this is the part that confuses me. Why do monotheists need any sort of mention of their religion in the government? Does the exclusion of the phrase "under God" from the pledge somehow exclude them from feeling part of this nation? How did they manage for all those years before the phrase was added?

Thank you! You can't use the "this country was founded on" argument for a phrase that didn't exist before 1954!!!

 

[brokenbrainwave]

I suppose this is the part that confuses me. Why do monotheists need any sort of mention of their religion in the government? Does the exclusion of the phrase "under God" from the pledge somehow exclude them from feeling part of this nation? How did they manage for all those years before the phrase was added?

as to religion I feel you and I would be very much in agreement. I however do feel that if a parent does not want their child saying that phrase or the pledge in general, they have that right.
The way I am taking this is that no one has the right to say what they feel, which takes away another chunk of civil liberties from the majority, something that worries me even more than exclusion of a vast minority. Our liberties are eroding before our face, and yet we seem unable to do a thing about it. Eisenhower did have that part added in 54, so the argument about being unconstitutional may have a little bit of validity, but my main concern is where does the line stop?

 

[sexy-girl]

God, I hope our judiciary never deteriorates to that point. Federal judges are appointed for life in order to insulate them from the fluctuations of public opinion. Public opinion supported segregation, the Court did not. Public opinion despises flag burning, the Court realized the activity is constitutionally protected. If the Court ever reduces itself to following the whims of public opinion, we have truly reached a new low point.

I am an atheist. I have been since I first thought about religion. My parents are good Christians, but I have never felt the stirrings of religious beliefs. I don't pray. I don't believe in any sort of "god." I don't like seeing "under God" in my pledge or "In God We Trust" on my money because I don't recognize this "God" and don't consider such a being part of my government.

But if so many of you need that reassurance of a God's blessing on your government institutions, then so be it. I've never understood why private religious services are not enough, but if it is so necessary to sprinkle your religious ideas within the structure of the government as well, then I guess I'll just continue in silence. It's been clearly communicated on these threads, and in general public opinion, that the majority public opinion on freedom of religion does not include the freedom from religion.

i agree with you 100% ... maybe its because i dont live in america but i honestly thought that there wouldn't be much objection about this except from very hard line religious people ... it just seems so unnatural to force people to pledge not only to a country but to a god ... even if they dont believe in that god

if the phrase was in the original pledge then i could understand on keeping it but its not ... it was added ... would people be fighting to keep it if it said under one nation and a pink bunny rabbit

the only reason why people are fighting for this is that they want there strong religious beliefs thrust onto others and associated with the patriotism they feel for there country ... i admire both those strong beliefs but they should be seperate in my opinion ... i have some religious belief but i would never thrust that on someone else

 

[buttercupdh]

Why is everyone here jumping to the conclusion that removing "under God" from the pledge makes that pledge any less patriotic? If anything, it will make it more patriotic by including all the US’s citizens, and not just those who believe in this particular “God.”

I've always wondered about that phrase. If there is truly supposed to be a separation of church and state, then someone please explain to me why the word "God" is included in
any government doctrines.

 

[Rambrat]

... would people be fighting to keep it if it said under one nation and a pink bunny rabbit

Only if it was Micky Mouse.

I agree about the separation of God, but I see nothing wrong with pledging to our country...like the National Anthem. If one does not wish to pledge or stand...remain seated. And I think people are fighting because of the possiblity of elimination of the pledge.

I don't like to see the fanatics stir anymore than you or Mischka. That's why religion has left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[hatara]

Just remove the phrase from being part of the mandatory pledge. If parents want to teach their children the pledge including the phrase that is their right. Just so it is known no one is forced to say it.

But the school day should begin with the pledge in every school. I don't care if you take the phrase out but still say the pledge. The pledge is a way of showing allegiance to our county. That is the important part. That is what needs to be focused on.

 

[Rambrat]

If there is truly supposed to be a separation of church and state, then someone please explain to me why the word "God" is included in
any government doctrines.

sentimental courtesy for documents written by a nation founded by people who believe in God.

 

[Rambrat]

Just remove the phrase from being part of the mandatory pledge. If parents want to teach their children the pledge including the phrase that is their right. Just so it is known no one is forced to say it.

But the school day should begin with the pledge in every school. I don't care if you take the phrase out but still say the pledge. The pledge is a way of showing allegiance to our county. That is the important part. That is what needs to be focused on.

Yes! Without this bond, our nation would fall...no one would believe in our country strong enough to defend it!

 

[SINthysist]

I don't believe in God either.

I do recognize that many people need God and communities with God tend to be better communities to live in, so I'm all for it. That's tolorance!

Let's all say it together,

Yo huro a la Bandera de los Estados Unidios, y ala Republica que represents una nacion indivisble en Dios con Libertad y justia para todos!

 

[seductivewife]

Re: Re: The Pledge

]UNDER GOD





THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE!!

I have to agree with Lioness. I don't understand why one word makes a difference anyway. The idiot that started the whole thing, could just have had his child not say the Under God part or at least add their own phrase. We need as much patriotism and show of support for our country as we can get right now. Our brave soldiers and sailors need to know that we are behind them 100%. The terrorists and nasties of the world are just looking for a situation like this to give them an opportunity to wreak havoc. Nuff said. I have stated my peace. <coming off of soap box now>

 

[Mischka]

Re: Re: Re: The Pledge

We need as much patriotism and show of support for our country as we can get right now.

You didn't even bother to read this thread, did you?

 

[Rambrat]

The Pledge of Literotica

I Pledge Allegiance to the world of Literotica
and to the Ardor for which it stands,
one World under Perversion,
Lustfulness,
with freedom
and Pleasure for all.

 

[REDWAVE]

Taking it to the next level

I agree with the 9th Circuit's decision, but it doesn't go far enough. Having the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is another example of how the "educational" system indoctrinates the youth. The Pledge of Allegiance has absolutely NO place in public schools. People should be left free to decide whether this nation is worthy of their allegiance or not, not inculcated with forced patriotism.

Personally, I prefer the Pledge of Resistance. Please raise your left hand and repeat after me:

"I pledge resistance to the fascistic states of AmeriKKKa, and to the oligarchy for which it stands, one nation, under Mammon, indefensible, with liberty and justice only for the rich!"

 

[Skibum]

This court decision is just one more example of revionist, PC, liberalism forcing us to cater to every dissenting crackpot out there. Leave things alone! If you don't like the pledge don't say it. But don't make the rest us us conform to your point of view.

And redwave still doesn't get it.

 

[seductivewife]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Pledge

You didn't even bother to read this thread, did you?

I thought that I read every word of it. I read every post. Did I not understand something? Would you care to enlighten me? I'd be grateful.

 

[seductivewife]

Re: Re: Re: The Pledge

I have to agree with Lioness. I don't understand why one word makes a difference anyway.

Yeah, I think that I did read it. I believe that I said that I agree. Why would that say that I didn't read the thread? I am quite puzzled.