Agemegos

Not just atheists, but muslims, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, animists….

Is it in the interests of the State to alienate all these people?

Is it in the interests of Religion to make them engage in an insincere prayer, such is forbidden by the Commandments?

Dryhad

Ba'al just means "Lord", so I'm afraid that doesn't work either.

Dryhad

Unchristians are ungood. Jesus is doubleplusgood. All hail Jesus and his lord, Big Brother.

What, you mean those commandments that talk about loving thy neighbor? Who listens to them?

keitht

It shouldn't be this way, but I agree that it is. Just look at the last affirmative action ruling. The court basically said that racial preferences are unconstitutional, but don't ask us now, come back in 25 years. Too many on the court won't make decisions that go against their own bias.

Keith

ccolinh

Repeat the pledge with "...one nation, under NO GOD, indivisible..." then you'll see some Christians turn red. Or maybe we should change it every four years to whoever is President .. "one nation, under Bush..." ACK

Either of the above would be more truthful than UG

Chad

apex

It is unconstitutional, and should be removed. We are not targeting
the pledge, or attacking America, or attacking their religion. We
are only attacking their illegal practices, the religious statements
that should not be included in our country's pledge or in other areas
of the government. We have done no wrong, and have nothing to be
ashamed of, even if they don't see it that way.
They are the ones who are using our government and laws to promote
their religion and belittle every American who is not a Christian.
That is decietful, shameful, and unAmerican. They are the ones who
should be ashamed. They are the ones who should remove the religious
references from the pledge, money, etc. themselves, if they had any
concern for their fellow Americans.
So what if they are offended by us wanting America to be secular, and
not a tool of their religion. It offends me. I am an American, and I
don't have to let them continue to break the law, nor will I, even if
it makes atheists look bad.
They need to realize that they don't own this country, and they have
no right to promote their views over and against the will of everyone
else who doesn't agree. If atheists have to make that happen, then
so be it. I would rather be the one who looks bad, than the one
who is bad.
I do think this battle is worth it, because this is my country too.

crazyfingers

No big surprise


U.S. to fight Pledge of Allegiance ruling

"Gonzales said the pledge is one of several expressions of national identity and patriotism that mention of God but don't violate the Constitution's ban on state-sponsored religion.

The high court "has affirmed time and again that such official acknowledgments of our nation's religious heritage, foundation and character are constitutional," Gonzales said in a statement a day after the ruling by U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton in San Francisco. "

Of course I believe that he's wrong. For the Government to tell a child to affirm a religious belief is unconstitution.

Rhaedas

But it can still be a lie, in a sense. Is it truthful, on the part of the 5 year old, or the teachers teaching them, to make them mindlessly learn even the original pledge? What do they get out of it? At some point I think it has importance so far as explaining what it represents, but not at that age, and not in that manner. Scrap the pledge altogether in the schools, it serves no useful purpose.

On a slight aside, but connected, there's a slight controversy on the observance of Constitution Day, where apparently the Federal gov't has ordered all schools...ALL of them (even universities?!?), to teach about the Constitution on that day. Now again, this can be a good thing in a civics class, but the problem is, how can you teach about this to the younger kids in a meaningful manner?

It's more all or nothing legislation, not paying attention to the WHY, just the WHAT. The pledge, the DoI, the Constitution, hell, many, many more documents from our history are important to learn. But not as memorization, to satisfy the feds, who shouldn't be involved in state jurisdiction anyway.

edb

Quote:
Originally Posted by edb
To make a constitutional amendment would require 2/3 of the Congress, plus 3/4 of the states to ratify it. I don't think it could happen. This country is split 50/50, not 75/25.

First, it takes 2/3 of both houses to make an amendment proposal. I agree that that is quite possible. But then it goes to the states. 3/4 of the states have to ratify it before it becomes an actual amendment. That's the tough part. I agree that it would only take a simple 51% majority in 38 states to get there, but I still think it is highly unlikely.

As an example, in the last election, Kerry carried a total of 19 states, Bush got 31. Even if all those 31 states supported an amendment like this, it would still need another 7 states. I don't think it will happen.

Dick Springer

I have pointed this out before, but I repeat it because the idea seems to get lost in these discussions. The "pledge" has two parts, a promise of loyalty (to a piece of cloth AND a country?) and a government-legislated statement of belief, not only in god but in the indivisiblity of this country and in the truth of the assertion that there is "liberty and justice for all." The idea of a government-mandated belief, religious or otherwise, I find odious and contrary to the principles on which this country purports to be based. Also, this official belief is obviously false.