I agree with the decision by the supreme court, already we are hypocritical, “In God we trust” on our money, for example.
If anyone believes the SCOTUS has the balls to let this decision stand decision…
well…
I have this bridge…
geez…i change my response and don’t take all the words out.
blush
Good decision. The pledge is something that pretty much disgusts me, whether “Under God” is in there or not. And no matter what may be said, being one or two out of a classroom or stadium or wherever where the pledge is being spoken DOES amount to coercion, it’s as simple as that. I was never picked on for not putting my hand on my heart or saying the words (perhaps because I always stood up), but I was quite uncomfortable with it regardless.
I was never picked on and never uncomfortable. Was I coerced?
I recall being faintly uncomfortable with the “under God” bit, simply because at the time (say 2nd grade) I had never once set foot in a church. Had I had a clue, I might have raised a fuss about it, but the whole “multicultural tolerance” thing, while it is in the Constitution, hadn’t really caught on in redneck Florida towns in the mid-70s. (We’re talking the hometown of Lynyrd Skynyrd here.)
I say hooray for the decision; but boy, check out some of the furious responses we’re getting on our discussion forum at the paper (where I work on the Web site) in this mostly conservative Baptist city… I read about half of them, and got so angry at the arrogantly flawed reasoning that I had to stop reading. That’s why I can’t read the letters to the editor anymore.
The Los Angeles Unified School District has a policy that there must be a “declaration of patriotism” every day in school. Guess what pledge they’ve been using to meet that requirement?
It’s an anachronism. In the past, it was taken for granted that an American would be a Christian. Atheism was a perversion. They weren’t counting on Moslems, Hindus etc turning up.
It’s one of those things you inherit if your country has been around for long enough. In the UK, Canada, Australia, they have a (theoretically) feudal system via the monarchy. But in practice it means nothing. It doesn’t stop those places from being free and democratic. They just shrug it off.
Why can’t people in the US just shrug this off? It’s a bit of symbolism left over from the past (like “In God We Trust” on a coin). Live with it - or ditch it. Whatever. Don’t people have anything better to do than care about something so trivial?
I will bet that not one of you who pisses moans about how unconstitutional this or that might be has never actually read the document. The “separation of church and state” can be found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, but nowhere in the Constitution. The Constitution plainly states that the government is forbidden from playing religious favorites, or establishing a state religion. This is quite different from absolute separation of church and state. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
I see nothing wrong with some device or pledge or secret handshake that is a uniting factor and shared event for school children that reminds the little buggers that they are Americans, but I don’t believe in twisting any arms about participation.
Yikes, jackelope, I justy read the first response and curled up in a fetal position:
“I cannot understand why people choose to think there is no GOD. . . . GOD is just and forgiving, but these people who want to try his patience will eventually destroy all mankind. I fail to see how these people cannot realize when prayer was taken out of our schools is when America began its downfall. I believe prayer is the only artillery we have to protect ourselves against such ignorant people.” [edited down considerably]
Requiring that the pledge of allegiance be recited each morning is not the same as requiring that any individual student or employee say it; if the students in the LAUSD are required to actually say the pledge of allegiance, then that is illegal whether the words “under god” are included or not, and has been since 1943.
This has been a very healthy thread. I was scared (and would have been very disappointed) that this was going to be a America, love it or Leave it you pinko, commie, godless whatever type of discussion. You know, the kind that they have on alleged news oriented programs on the dial.
I’m for the courts on this one, and have been for years.
Hmmm prayer.
It cures your gayness, loniless, disease, poverity and anything else.
Its kinda like Oxyclean in a way.
Unleash the power of prayer in a washerfull of water to clean your life up.
Sorry, I’d rather put my faith in people.
Anyhoo, I vote we should keep the ‘In God we Trust’ on our money, with the current auditing problems and stock market divine intervention seems like the best bet 
And I have a healthy hatred for pinko, commie, godless Communists. Does that count?
Tripler
One Cold Warrior who’s got freezerburn.
In contrast to those who were never hassled about skipping lines or the entire Pledge:
I have never spoken the “under God” part. Way back in first grade, I skipped it–I am not, and have never been, a Christian (or even a monotheist). Fellow students periodically noticed and gave me grief about it, and on two occasions teachers got nasty about it (both ended up backing down eventually, but not before making an embarassing scene over it). These incidents meant that it was pretty much general knowledge that I wasn’t Christian, and I took a lot of crap for it in the hick Fundy town of my childhood.
I am very pleased with the ruling. I’d like to see the motto on the coins go away, too.
Best post in this thread. Jeez people, lighten up…
:rolleyes:
<sigh> I already posted what I thought. I feel I’m hopelessly in the minority with my views. Funny enough, I’m a little pagan surrounded by, from what I’ve seen so far, people that I don’t neccesarily agree on “ANYTHING” else with.
Well, them and the Senate.
Oh well… <double sigh>
Uh, Hemlock, the “under God” bit was added to the Pledge in freakin’ 1954. That’s hardly “the past”; it’s within the lifetimes of a large proportion of Dopers.
And, far from any personal feelings about deities and faith, there’s a matter of principle involved. AFAIC, this is the 9th Circuit’s way of saying, “There are duties and responsibilities that our legislature has; mandating religious expression isn’t one of them.” At least some court has the balls to say that Congress had no business doing this in the first place. Would that more people would hold the legislature responsible for what they do with their time and what kinds of laws they pass, especially since they do it on our dime.
I’m not sure how I feel about this yet. I always hadn a problem with the pledge in school, but the God part didn’t bother me any more then the entirety of the speech.
While I feel it important that kids learn th evalues of our nation, I don’t think making them recite something they will say meaninglessly and without conviction within a few months (if at all) isn’t the way to do it.
Of course, I’m also for the secularization of the military …
Uh, Hemlock, the “under God” bit was added to the Pledge in freakin’ 1954. That’s hardly “the past”; it’s within the lifetimes of a large proportion of Dopers.
And, far from any personal feelings about deities and faith, there’s a matter of principle involved. AFAIC, this is the 9th Circuit’s way of saying, “There are duties and responsibilities that our legislature has; mandating religious expression isn’t one of them.” At least some court has the balls to say that Congress had no business doing this in the first place. Would that more people would hold the legislature responsible for what they do with their time and what kinds of laws they pass, especially since they do it on our dime.