Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

... I don't really care what their intent was. God means different things to different people....

And to some people, "God" means the Judeo-Christian God. I don't think Allah is God, so why should a Muslim think God is Allah? You are entitled to a happy fuzzy view of God as all-inclusive. (How very 60s flower child of you! It brings a tear to my eye. ) But that doesn't make it so for others. And in this case, the "we don't think it should bother you" attitude doesn't fly.

[Morrigoon]

God, as a word is both a proper and regular noun, however. "God", capitalized, would mean a (one) god who is known by the name God, whereas an uncapitalized "god" would mean any god, be it God, or Allah, or I suppose Buddah (though that's pushing it, isn't it) or Jehovah, or Mars, or whatever.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It doesn't say "Christian God". It says God. Could be Allah. Could be Vishnu. Could be Zeus. All it does is acknowledge a god. I don't really care what their intent was. God means different things to different people.

The question to me is if saying "under god" constitutes government favoritism of a specific religion. I guess I don't see it that way.

Well, if nothing else, "a god" sure seems to imply monotheism. That leaves out Hindus, Native Americans, Wiccans, and to some extent, Buddhists. Shouldn't a country that professes a love of equality and democracy have a pledge that is as all-inclusive as possible in regard to personal faith? Or, are you less of an american if you don't believe in one god. That is what George Bush Sr. seems to think and I strongly disagree.

Nothing about a lack of government getting involved in religion keeps people from practicing their faith in this country. Government and religion can both co-exist just fine. There is no good reason for them to intertwine and plenty of bad ones.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

or I suppose Buddah (though that's pushing it, isn't it)

Yeah, pretty much. Buddha isn't considered a god to Buddhists. More of an enlightened prophet. There are some Buddhists that believe in multiple gods though.

[PanTheMan]

You know what gets me, of all the silly things to tie a court up with, is this. Something that ammounts to not much more than a poem that includes the word "god"

I would like to see how much money this case has cost us.

And Yes, i was DEEPLY Damaged psychologically for having to repeat this every morning for 12 years. (13 if you count kindergarden)

And it's not over yet, the opther side will appeal, this will go all the way to the Supreme Court, and it's looking mighty righty in there these days.....

[jdramj]

I just feel that based on interviews I have seen with this idiot, having not actually read the court transcripts of what was agrued, that this guy is just plain and simple an idiot. His ex-wife stated that his daughter, who he was originally fighting for, is herself a very happy Christain and has no problems saying it with "under God". He states that he is being perscuted on a relgious basis due to the fact he is an aethist and that all aethists are treated as second class citizens.

I did like the LA school districts response....we won't be changing anything based on this ruling....if you don't want to say the pledge based on religious differences, you are not required to do so.

Personally, my kids are in a private Christain school and they will say it everyday until the cows come home or graduation....whichever comes first. If my children decide it is against their beliefs as they come of an age to make their own decisions, it will be their responsibility to handle themselves and their own beliefs in an appropriate manner.

I feel for the school districts (and I believe there were 2 or 3 named in the lawsuit) that had to waste time, effort, and resources on this.

[Gemini Cricket]

What offends me the most about this is that the media is putting this out there to get people all worked up and angry and argumentative about a non-issue. It's silly, not newsworthy and certainly not worth the thousands of dollars going to be thrown at this pro and con...

Here's what I think:

PRO: Church and state should be separate. The 'under God' phrase was put in there during the McCarthy witch hunts by Congress after the Catholic men's only groups, the Knights of Columbus, pushed for it. The original version should come back w/o the 'UG'.

CON: Newdow's weird. He creeps me out. And, I mean, when was the last time you said the pledge? Who cares?! Leave it, I care not.

But religious groups are going to victimize themselves and say their freedom is being taken away. Okay, but what if the pledge said, 'under Allah'? Wouldn't that piss off the Christians, too? What if it were the Koran being placed in courthouses around the country? Hmmm?

All in all, I can see both sides of the argument, but I really couldn't give a rat's patootie about any of it...

[wendybeth]

I think you hit the nail on the head, GC- the Islamic terrorists are the new Communists, so this issue will not fade away anytime soon. (Imho). Got to cover all of our bases, dontcha know.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I'd like to say, that as a child my parents were Jahovah's Witness' and i was barred from saying the pledge, among other "things." (Yeah, somewhere, someone's saying, "That explains alot.")

To this day, I don't know the Pledge. I would stand, that's about it. No hand over heard, no lip movement, etc.

In the grand scheme of "this is America" I think it's perfectly a-ok if folks don't want to say it or anything else. The thing that erks me about this jerk is that he seems to not want to understand and accept that other ideas and opinions exists.

Maybe they should replace "God" with "I?"

[MickeyLumbo]

may God bless Sacramento - the LEFT side of Sacramento.


and God Bless LoT, damnit!