Now, if only we could get back our old motto: E Pluribus Unum. No country has ever had a cooler motto than that: but McCarthy had to spoil that too.
What I’ve never understood is why ANY religious person thinks that giving the government the trappings of religion is somehow a win for religion.
—A lot of people will be pissed off. Bush will likely be pissed off.—
I’ll also never understand why people can get upset that other people are no longer being required by the government to do what they want others to do. If you want you or your kids to pledge allegience to the flag: even with as many “under gods” as you want, or even make up your own special pledge: what the hell is stopping you? Nothing.
The ONLY functional point of the ceremony in a public school is to do it in a place where people that don’t want to do it, but are required to be there, are forced to feel like an outsider if they don’t participate. If it were about people who want to pledge taking the pledge every morning, NOTHING is stopping them from doing it individually, or even in self-organized groups. It’s ridiculous.
Same thing: if you’re rich, and you decide that you want to pay more taxes because you aren’t paying whatever you believe to be your share, why wait for a vote or an election? The Treasury will be happy to recieve your donations right now! What the hell is your problem?
i would not mind having the addition “under god” taken out. the pledge worked just fine for years with out them.
in quite a few religions even saying “i pledge” would be against the rules. many people come to this country to be able to worship as they choose. the separation of church and state was one of the more inspired ideas of the founders.
I am not a strident separationist–I have no issue with Christmas trees on public property, for instance–but I have to wonder what took so long? The 1954 addition of ‘under God’ as a violation of the establishment clause seemed like a no-brainer to me.
I also don’t get it. Those who feel shocked by the ruling argue that this discriminates against the majority who believe in God, but that’s exactly the point. Isn’t a democracy not about just imposing the will of the majority, but being sensitive to the minority? If “Under God” were removed, everyone can say it, and, say, the 5% needn’t feel like they are unpatriotic only because they are atheist. The solution seems too simple to not be implemented. Besides, the fact that the phrase “Under God” was added by an act of Congress only in 1954 means that this is not really a historic cultural icon that needs to be preserved (even if such an argument can be made). Can anyone make a strong case for the necessity of the phrase “Under God”?
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
– Francis Bellamy, 1892
But they’re not talking about altering it, are they? They want to ban it altogether, and I think (considering that it cannot be required), that is shameful.
I did a big “woohoo!” when I saw this on CNN today. I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime. Of course, the Supreme Court might reverse it, but this is still more than I ever reasonably hoped for.
All they have to do is stop putting “In God We Trust” on the coins and maybe, just maybe, I’ll start believing that I really live a country that actually has separation of church and state.
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of the American government. There were two American governments between the Declaration and the government we have today.
The fundies are gonna howl, gibber, and froth at the mouth like a pack of wounded rabid dogs. I’m looking forward to seeing what amusing and erroneous things Falwell is going to say on “The Factor” later tonight on FOX.
Pity it’s going to be overturned, though. It doesn’t stand a chance if it makes it to this current Supreme Court. The ruling may not even make it to the Supreme Court in the first place, since I’ve heard that the first avenue of appeal may be for a ruling by the entire Ninth Circuit Court.
[sub]Note: by “fundies” I don’t mean all Christians, just those Christians who are irked that we don’t all live in a Christian hive-mind[/sub]
Minty – you’re evading the point. Let me pin you down:
If a school required its students to recite the D of I, would that be unconstitutional?
And, how about the Preamble to the Constitution?
The first 4 definitions of blessing are all religious. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=blesses 1 : to hallow or consecrate by religious rite or word
2 : to hallow with the sign of the cross
3 : to invoke divine care for <bless your heart>
4 a : PRAISE, GLORIFY <bless his holy name>
Of course, “blessing” also has non-religious meanings. However, so does “god.” http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary 3. a person or thing of supreme value
4. a powerful ruler
when one side argues “seperation of church & state”, the other side points to the “in God We Trust” on the coinage and “one Nation, Under God” in the POA as rationale to support that the FF’s really meant for this to be a defacto Christian Nation, conveinently avoiding the fact that the “Under God” was a really recent addition, and IIRC, the IGWT wasn’t part of the original monetary units either.
