Supreme Court to Consider Pledge

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) considers on Wednesday whether the words "under God" must be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance during its recitation in public schools, an important case on church-state separation.

The high court will question what role religion can play in public life during an hour of arguments in a case that already has sparked a political uproar and generated widespread interest.

The high court will examine whether a public school district policy requiring teachers to lead willing students in reciting the pledge amounts to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

The words "under God" were added to the pledge as part of a 1954 law adopted by Congress in an effort to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.

Read complete story here.

[jipper]

lets hope this is changed so no school children become interested in religion...

[slum_goddess]

my scottish friends told me one of the reasons they think most amerikans are arrogant is cause the 'under god' wording makes people believe the USA is the only country that truly believes god's on its side (i wouldn't know). B)

as a side note, if gwb wants the wording to stay, then i want it to go. <_>

[DudeAsInCool]

Well, LOD has everyone stirred up over at ZP on this topic. Nice to see some action over there for a change. You can read the freeflowing debate and all its colorful sidetracks - here:

For my two cents, give the kids a choice on whether 1) they want to say the pledge, 2) if they do, let them use the words 'under god' if they want to, or 3) if the kids dont want to use the words, they dont have to.

Arent their more important things to focus on in this country?

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=19086

[DudeAsInCool]

Well, they are really getting stirred up at ZP over this issue.. atheists vs religious foks, christians vs non-christians, and now the humanists. Here is another thread with

a number of supporting links supporting the Humanists POV against the pledge:

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=19096

[ASUmusicMAN]

YESYES...choice is the matter...no one makes you say the damn pledge. And don't give me that "i'll be ridiculed" crap either...you have the choice to say under god or not.

What if i'm a communist and it offends me when "and to a republic", becuase I believe in reforming this country and converting it to communism, and I don't belive its this country should be a republic...then shouldn't MY insane demands be met??

(sorry to add insane ZP style post)

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

lol...this is actually surprising that it lasted so long there. Not that it should be a taboo topic...but some people can get quite....impassioned. I am happy that it is remaining somewhat civil. Today might not be so lucky. It is a shame we cannot talk about it at length here as compared to over there. But that's cool. Since some of us are over there already, why duplicate the idea? I just thought I would throw out the story for the sake of information and to provide interesting debate among forums. I think that since ZP has the greatest population and diversity, it allows it to generate so much reponse. Understand there was no ill intent in submitting this story. It was news and it is important to everyone. The issue could have been brought up outside of it being news, but then that would be aggressive. Above all, I respect the sites for what they were created as. Be it music, file-sharing, revolutionizing the "copyright" industry, or whatever. If a site did not allow news or non-relevant material, I would honor that. I thank these sites for allowing variety.

:psychofun:

[ASUmusicMAN]

Yes...most of the time at ZP I just lurk, and watch everyones posts. Very amusing most of the time...the littlest things can blow up...

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

At least for now, the decision — which came on Flag Day — leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.

The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

Read entire story here.

[Shawn]

Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor.

Hanging on by a hair I guess.

[cjules13]

While I appreciate the fast turn-around in the decision, I don't like how they skirted the whole issue altogether by just declaring a technicality... the issue is still open as far as I can tell...

[Wolfie]

Not too surprised with the ruling though. Nothing will change till they get some new as well younger blood for supreme court justices.

[NullsRevenge]

Im statisfied with the ruling because for one they prevented this one guy from using his own daughter who does believe in god and has no problem saying the pledge in order just to get attention and i think was pretty selfish thing to do.

It is stupid because the pledge was made to be a much bigger deal than it is, most especially in high school dont even say it anyways and to top it off no one can be forced to say it which is why i thought this whole thing was pretty stupid.

[Ken]

I often wish I could go back in time and smack Eisenhower upside his fucking head. That part wasn't really needed. I can remember watching an old Porky pig cartoon made before that, and he recited the pledge without it. It sounded fine to me.

As long as everyone is given a choice, that's fine. I fear though, the children aren't given a choice, by the most important people in their lives, their parents. Parents don't introduce religion to children, and then ask them if they want to use it or not. They simply "tell their kids how it's going to be", and bam, they have a belief because they know nothing else; it's brainwashing, not true belief. There is a difference to me. Belief occurs within one's self, because of one's self. Brainwashing is someone else's implantation of a certain idea.

But I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. Might as well let everyone believe in fairy tales; it makes people feel better.

These are Ken's opinions. Don't bother disputing them, it's only a waste of your time.

[NullsRevenge]

I often wish I could go back in time and smack Eisenhower upside his fucking head. That part wasn't really needed. I can remember watching an old Porky pig cartoon made before that, and he recited the pledge without it. It sounded fine to me.

As long as everyone is given a choice, that's fine. I fear though, the children aren't given a choice, by the most important people in their lives, their parents. Parents don't introduce religion to children, and then ask them if they want to use it or not. They simply "tell their kids how it's going to be", and bam, they have a belief because they know nothing else; it's brainwashing, not true belief. There is a difference to me. Belief occurs within one's self, because of one's self. Brainwashing is someone else's implantation of a certain idea.

But I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. Might as well let everyone believe in fairy tales; it makes people feel better.

I dont agree with your "brainwashing" belief because when kids get older they. make their own decisions and are able to choose to do something else if they so wish and not only with religion but with politics and everything else. I dont think that young kids are competent to make such decisions are a very young age for a wide number of choices.

Little kids get politics from teachers, usually almost always favoring the left and are put through enviromentalist crap, told pretty much that the world is dieing and its their fault along with mommy and daddy and they have to do x and get their parents and everyone else to do x or the earth will die. Thats really no different than what you've said about religion yet i dont see anyone calling that brainwashing.

Which i just wanted to show that it happens alot more than just religion.

[DudeAsInCool]

Little kids get politics from teachers, usually almost always favoring the left and are put through enviromentalist crap, told pretty much that the world is dying .... i dont see anyone calling that brainwashing.

I agree that kids are smart and can make up their own minds about most stuff. However, the suggestion that most teachers lean to the left isn't true--they simply reflect the rest of society percentage-wise.

I for one am glad that the environment is being raised--our oceans are being plundered. As to including 'religion' in the pledge, it was a bad idea because church and state are supposed to be separated, and very young kids are succeptible, as you inferred...

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

I dont agree with your "brainwashing" belief because when kids get older they. make their own decisions and are able to choose to do something else if they so wish and not only with religion but with politics and everything else. I dont think that young kids are competent to make such decisions are a very young age for a wide number of choices.

Why do kids have to wait until they get older for this? Is it implied that they must have religion in their lives from the start? This may seem easy for some of us, since we were able to make the choice that you proclaim. But the choice should be there from the earliest moment of religious realization.

Just because they may be "incompetent" doesn't mean that goD will show them the way. Fairy tales indeed.

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

House Blocks Court on Pledge Case Rulings

WASHINGTON - The House, in an emotionally and politically charged debate six weeks before the election, voted Thursday to protect the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance from further court challenges.

The legislation, promoted by GOP conservatives, would prevent federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases challenging the words "under God," a part of the pledge for the past 50 years.

Democrats said majority Republicans were debasing the Constitution to force a vote that could hurt Democrats at the ballot box.

Read entire story here.

[Shawn]

Rereading this thread... Nulls made some good posts whether a person agreed with him or not.

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

I agree. This is true of his posts in other forums also, but most never took the time to see that. It's easier to speak to a smaller class and have them understand.