The Pledge of Allegiance

[SPLN SUX]

Kieth, settle down buddy. Noone fought and died so "under god" could be put into the pledge...

 

In 1954, the words "under God" were added, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men's service organization, and other religious leaders who sermonized that the pledge needed to be distinguished from similar orations used by "godless communists."

 

They were added so we could feal different than the rest of the world we didnt trust, not because of spilled blood.

 

I agree the suit is stupid... just about as stupid as the McDonalds/Coffee lady... but in all reality, none of use conrtol the law. If you want to be pissed at someone, put a hit out on the judge

[martindc1]

The largest disaster relief besides the red cross in this country are religious organiztions.

 

Tech?

 

Best I could find with a quick google search was this:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2005-09-12-katrina-corporate-giving_x.htm

 

Which is from the 12th of September. Wal-mart alone has contributed over $30 million in goods and cash.

 

Where does all the money that the Red Cross is contributing come from? From what I can tell private donations.

 

Edit: Where is it stated that this country was founded on religion? I see this in the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Forcing kids to recite "under God" in the pledge is a violation of the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say that this country was founded "on religion." The Constitution protects the citizens from having religion forced upon them by the government. As stated before "under God" was put into the pledge under the influence of groups with a religious agenda. According to the Preamble of the U. S. Constitution that states:

 

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

The securing of liberty of the right to the free exercise of religion can not go far enough that it inhibits the liberty of another. I agree that anyone who doesn't like this country can go somewhere else and I also agree that this was a trivial law-suit that probably ate away thousands of the tax-payer's dollars but the writing is on the wall within the Supreme Law of the Land.

[Mensan]

Keith, not saying I doubt you or anything, but can you site your source for your "communist agenda"?

 

Also, homosexuality is normal, natural, and healthy(Just as much as being a heterosexual is, anyway).

 

The right of a child to recognize God in school is not being challenged. Forcing a child to recognize a religion is being challenged. I think even you can understand that this is a violation of the first amendment. (How would you feel if your child were forced to recognize foreign deities in school?) Would I take it to court? No. Do I really care if it says "under God"? No. Do I think it violates the first amendment? Clearly. If you disagree, please tell me how the first amendment protects the pledge of allegiance as it currently sits.

[desperado]

Eli,,,, In 1958, Cleon Skoussen, former FBI agent, revealed in his book, THE NAKED COMMUNIST, the long term goals of the communist agenda. This information is also contained not only in the Congressional Record (August 1963), but also in the Communist Manifesto itself. For the sake of brevity, only a few of those goals are listed here:

 

That is where I got the list, If you search for "communist agenda" on the web you will find this list or one similar to it several places, all referencing this book and author.

 

Now as far as religon in schools, and the federal govenment. The federal govenment has little to do with schools. Public schools are state run and funded, the feds do little with education, which is why I question all the money the the fed claims to spend on education, because it doen't go to schools. I believe that it's put into federal grants for higher education in reality. So constutuional law, has little effect at that level. It says that government shall make no law, I don't remember seeing a law saying that you HAD to say under God. Look hard, I bet you can't find it either. Nor have I ever seen a law imposing prayer in school. But there are now laws, referencing the constitution that prohibit it. And those laws ARE unconstutional, because they do specify religon, lack of religon or promote Atheism. It depends on how you look at it, but it's still a law, specific to religon.

Moreover, removing prayer and the pledge of allegiance from schools violates the other part of the first amendment clearly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" removing the name of God, Alaha (sp?) Budda, Jesus Christ, or any other religous icon is clearly unconstutional.

[martindc1]

Eli,,,, In 1958, Cleon Skoussen, former FBI agent, revealed in his book, THE NAKED COMMUNIST, the long term goals of the communist agenda. This information is also contained not only in the Congressional Record (August 1963), but also in the Communist Manifesto itself. For the sake of brevity, only a few of those goals are listed here:

 

That is where I got the list, If you search for "communist agenda" on the web you will find this list or one similar to it several places, all referencing this book and author.

 

No doubt there are extreme liberals with a communist (or nearly) communist agenda. We (as citizens) must be very alert to those groups who will use parts of the Constitution to promote their agenda (like the 1st Amendment) but at the same time will go against the Constitution and do things like reduce our rights to protect ourself (2nd Amendment). Or use the 1st Amendment to REDUCE citizen's right to free practice of religion.

 

Now as far as religon in schools, and the federal govenment. The federal govenment has little to do with schools. Public schools are state run and funded, the feds do little with education, which is why I question all the money the the fed claims to spend on education, because it doen't go to schools. I believe that it's put into federal grants for higher education in reality. So constutuional law, has little effect at that level. It says that government shall make no law, I don't remember seeing a law saying that you HAD to say under God. Look hard, I bet you can't find it either. Nor have I ever seen a law imposing prayer in school. But there are now laws, referencing the constitution that prohibit it. And those laws ARE unconstutional, because they do specify religon, lack of religon or promote Atheism. It depends on how you look at it, but it's still a law, specific to religon.

 

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore the states can enact any law that is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Regardless of where the feds. spend their money, the Constitution has the final precedent. It protects the citizens (to a point) against things like a state that has an unusually high proportion of some demographic that would use its high percentage to push it's agenda.

 

I have not seen a law imposing prayer or forcing a student to say "...under God..." But what I have seen (and experienced) are SCHOOL policies forcing prayer and the statement of "...under God..." Since the school is in the public domain, those policies are specifically prohibited by the Constitution. I fail to see how a law of prohibiting the force of religion on someone promotes atheism. Martin Luther didn't write his 95 Thesis and the Pilgrims didn't break away and come to America for nothing. They did what they did to break the oppression of religion from authoritative figures. The Constitution is an extension of that movement that specifically gives the citizens of the United States protection from the imposition of religion by authority. By no means should students in the public schools be forced to practice religion, however it is also in violation of the Constitution to disallow those same students to practice religion in their own will in the public schools. I have heard of Muslims being allowed to practice religion in public schools where Christians are not. I don't know how true that is, but if it is true, that would be in violation of the Constitution and Brown v. The Board of Education.

 

Moreover, removing prayer and the pledge of allegiance from schools violates the other part of the first amendment clearly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" removing the name of God, Alaha (sp?) Budda, Jesus Christ, or any other religous icon is clearly unconstutional.

 

No its not unconstitutional. Forcing kids to say the pledge that religious groups placed "..under God..." into is a violation of the Constitution. Not allowing kids to have the right to practice religion in school under their own will is unconstitutional. Forcing kids to practice religion is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Constitution also allows people to turn their back to the flag during the National Anthem. As mad as that makes me, the best thing for real Americans to do is show respect to the flag and use our rights as set forth in the Constitution to make sure that the integrity of the Constitution is ever-protected.

[Mensan]

That was much more well put than my reply. It still says the same thing though.