I Pledge Allegiance...

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Angelicpower

LMAO..omg..you are something else...you broght up the majority..get your head on straight...YOU BROUGHT UP MAJORITY FROM GET GO!

Regardless of who brought up what, let's once again read what our government has decided about the establishment of clause:

"...The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion..."

This is obviously doing at least one of the three, so I fail to see how anything about our government's decisions is on your side, other than the obvious presence of ignoring of its' own decisions by our government.

And I agree with Roach, answer this question:

Originally Posted by Roach

This is the truth of the matter...and how most people feel who are speaking out against it. Angelic, I'd still like you to answer this question above. You have to think for both sides of the people, not just yourself.

[Angelicpower]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

Regardless of who brought up what, let's once again read what our government has decided about the establishment of clause:

"...The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion..."

This is obviously doing at least one of the three, so I fail to see how anything about our government's decisions is on your side, other than the obvious presence of ignoring of its' own decisions by our government.

And I agree with Roach, answer this question:

There hasn't been a law passed to aid any churches....people are knitpicking the hell out of this under God..but people still refuse to complain about God being on our money! Satan is a God to the satanist, the supreme leader in their eyes...under God is for all religions..it is not a law passed to aid a church or religion! Pretty much every president has had a strong belief in some God..Bush speaks of God alot.

In 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that people could not be forced to salute the flag if doing so violated their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court decided that refusing to salute the flag posed no danger to patriotism and public order. The Court has not ruled against students praying on their own in school. Students are free to pray on their own at anytime and in any place ~ in or out of school. Congress acted in 1984 to allow students religious groups to meet in school. Under the 1984 Equal Access Act, student religious groups have the same right as other student groups to use public school buildings for meetings. The Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Access Act was constitutional as long as the clubs are created by students. In spite of the seperation of church and state, many official U.S. symbols and customs involve religion. The money you use bears the phrase In God We Trust. During certain holidays your local government may sponsor a religious display on publicly owned property. How do the courts apply the Establishment Clause to these situations? The Supreme Court has ruled that these references to God and to religious beliefs do not support religion as much as they recognize many Americans' deeply held beliefs. The Court has used this reasoning to rule, for example, that chaplains may open sessions of Congress' and of state legislatures with a prayer. In addition, holiday displays in which nonreligious figures such as Santa Claus share space with religious symbols like Nativity scens are constitutional. In general, the court has held that these long-practiced customs do not violate the Establishment Clause.

[Rock_on]

The phrase "In God" is not reffering to god himself. Our forefathers used the term to refer to a higher power which allows us to live. This higher power and be different for what you believe in, if you are religious, for you it may hold a religious meaning such as Jesus. However if your belifes are held more in science this higher power could me water or food, which we could not live without, or even the laws of physics due to gravity which allows our earth ot exist.

[Angelicpower]

Originally Posted by Rock_on

The phrase "In God" is not reffering to god himself. Our forefathers used the term to refer to a higher power which allows us to live. This higher power and be different for what you believe in, if you are religious, for you it may hold a religious meaning such as Jesus. However if your belifes are held more in science this higher power could me water or food, which we could not live without, or even the laws of physics due to gravity which allows our earth ot exist.

TYTY...I have been telling these people that under God means whoever your God is!

[Rock_on]

Its not whoever you god is, but what you believe in.

[Angelicpower]

Originally Posted by Rock_on

Its not whoever you god is, but what you believe in.

Same thing! whoever or whatever God means to you!

[thebastardsword]

Originally Posted by RoaCh Of DisCord

[/b]

thE mAjoriTY of AMERIcans DonT BLieve IN gOD

see you did say it!

the thing is, most people relate the under god part to the christian god because it is the most widespread religion in the world, not saying the majority of the world is christian but the majority knows what it is and means. Anyways, as i said, the majority of people see the under god part being related to the chirsitan god, especially seeing how all zerglites posts have been about the christian god and not any different god. Meh did that make any sense? ill rephrase it if it doesnt

EDIT:

ok, ill try and rephrase it best i can....

zerglite was under the impression saying the added under god section of the us pledge of allegiance was meaning under the care and guidence of the christian/jewish/islamic god, seeing how he said he doesnt want to recognize HIM(which is how god is referred to many times in the bible or quran or torqa(sp?)) leaves me under the impression most people in the world view the under god portion to mean the christian god.

which is what rockon and angelic power are trying to say could mean any god, whether its yourself, buddah, zeus, etc.

but then there are people like roach and tipsy and janitor who see it as recognizing a god, which is very much against the constituition seeing how atheism doesnt believe in a god, therefore their ethical rights aren't on par with everyone elses or other crap like that.

does tat make more sense?

[TheJanitor]

Angelic power, Make your own arguments instead of copying large pieces of text.

[Angelicpower]

Originally Posted by thebastardsword

see you did say it!

the thing is, most people relate the under god part to the christian god because it is the most widespread religion in the world, not saying the majority of the world is christian but the majority knows what it is and means. Anyways, as i said, the majority of people see the under god part being related to the chirsitan god, especially seeing how all zerglites posts have been about the christian god and not any different god. Meh did that make any sense? ill rephrase it if it doesnt

ty bastard for finding the quote...I knew he did but I couldn't find the exact quote!

EDIT:Janitor..that is my argument and in my own words..yes I read some literature first but this is my own argument!

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Angelicpower

There hasn't been a law passed to aid any churches....people are knitpicking the hell out of this under God..but people still refuse to complain about God being on our money! Satan is a God to the satanist, the supreme leader in their eyes...under God is for all religions..it is not a law passed to aid a church or religion! Pretty much every president has had a strong belief in some God..Bush speaks of God alot.

"...The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion..."

Is that clear enough? There is no God in the practice of atheism, for example, and forcing an atheist to say the words 'under God' is infringing on his religious freedoms. Even if it was aiding all religions it would be unconstitutional. This in my opinion is closer to the preferring one religion over another.

Originally Posted by Angelicpower

In 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that people could not be forced to salute the flag if doing so violated their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court decided that refusing to salute the flag posed no danger to patriotism and public order. The Court has not ruled against students praying on their own in school. Students are free to pray on their own at anytime and in any place ~ in or out of school. Congress acted in 1984 to allow students religious groups to meet in school. Under the 1984 Equal Access Act, student religious groups have the same right as other student groups to use public school buildings for meetings. The Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Access Act was constitutional as long as the clubs are created by students.

Who said anything about that? That is not forcing the religious beliefs of one upon on another, on the contrary, those people are there by choice. I support those decisions because they do not violate the constitution. There is a very thin line. The Pledge of Allegiance applies to the blue part below and the listings you just made apply to the green part below.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

What I want is tolerance. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by Angelicpower

In spite of the seperation of church and state, many official U.S. symbols and customs involve religion. The money you use bears the phrase In God We Trust.

This is more on the iffy side in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Angelicpower

The Court has used this reasoning to rule, for example, that chaplains may open sessions of Congress' and of state legislatures with a prayer.

This is something that might need to be looked at again, after all, the Supreme Court has overturned its' own decisions before, and there is already one specific ruling I know to be unjust **cough** Roe vs Wade **cough**.

Originally Posted by Angelicpower

During certain holidays your local government may sponsor a religious display on publicly owned property. How do the courts apply the Establishment Clause to these situations? The Supreme Court has ruled that these references to God and to religious beliefs do not support religion as much as they recognize many Americans' deeply held beliefs... In addition, holiday displays in which nonreligious figures such as Santa Claus share space with religious symbols like Nativity scens are constitutional. In general, the court has held that these long-practiced customs do not violate the Establishment Clause.

I also have no problem with these, they are not forcing anyone to take part in or watch anything that would infringe on their right to freedom to practice a religion of their choice.

The phrase "In God" is not reffering to god himself. Our forefathers used the term to refer to a higher power which allows us to live. This higher power and be different for what you believe in, if you are religious, for you it may hold a religious meaning such as Jesus. However if your belifes are held more in science this higher power could me water or food, which we could not live without, or even the laws of physics due to gravity which allows our earth ot exist.

And yet it would still violate the First Amendment:

"...The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion..."

Originally Posted by TBS

the thing is, most people relate the under god part to the christian god because it is the most widespread religion in the world, not saying the majority of the world is christian but the majority knows what it is and means. Anyways, as i said, the majority of people see the under god part being related to the chirsitan god, especially seeing how all zerglites posts have been about the christian god and not any different god. Meh did that make any sense? ill rephrase it if it doesnt

The word "God" is specific to certain, mostly monotheistic, religions. The word god is completely different than the word "God", which used as a proper noun usually refers to a god of Abrahamic origin. Many religions are excluded by the use of "God" rather than "god".

[Rock_on]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

"


And yet it would still violate the First Amendment:

"...The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion..."

it is not violating the 1st amendment because it is not directly refering to any religion, it is instead interpreted into your own beliefs which may make it into a religious issue on a personal level.

[Roach Of Discord]

Originally Posted by Rock_on

it is not violating the 1st amendment because it is not directly refering to any religion, it is instead interpreted into your own beliefs which may make it into a religious issue on a personal level.

Originally Posted by Tipsy

"...The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion..."
.

I thought the red part above made it extremely clear. Guess not.

[Rock_on]

it is not in any way aiding any religion, but promotiong personal belifes which are not nessisarily religious, they can be anything you make them, such as an example i gave in my first post.

[Angelicpower]

tipsy's quote:"...The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion..."

No law has been passed..the pledge isn't a law, religion nor is it a church.

tipsys quote:forcing an atheist to say the words 'under God' is infringing on his religious freedoms.

In 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that people could not be forced to salute the flag if doing so violated their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court decided that refusing to salute the flag posed no danger to patriotism and public order.

Originally Posted by Angelicpower
In 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that people could not be forced to salute the flag if doing so violated their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court decided that refusing to salute the flag posed no danger to patriotism and public order.

tipsys quote:Who said anything about that? That is not forcing the religious beliefs of one upon on another, on the contrary, those people are there by choice.

By saying God, that is the argument here..obviously everyone feels they are being forced into saying the pledge..I am pointing out that you don't have to say that part! The one atheist father who created all this drama from looking at his money and seeing in God we trust could have easily asked that his daughter be removed from class during that time or just tell the teacher that his daughter will not be reciting that part of the pledge! No one has forced this upon anyone..it is not the government aiding a religion, the pledge is not a religious law they have passed..BTW they passed the law against polygamy ages ago, which the mormons believe in and I don't think they will get that back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelicpower
During certain holidays your local government may sponsor a religious display on publicly owned property. How do the courts apply the Establishment Clause to these situations? The Supreme Court has ruled that these references to God and to religious beliefs do not support religion as much as they recognize many Americans' deeply held beliefs... In addition, holiday displays in which nonreligious figures such as Santa Claus share space with religious symbols like Nativity scens are constitutional. In general, the court has held that these long-practiced customs do not violate the Establishment Clause.


tipsys quote:I also have no problem with these, they are not forcing anyone to take part in or watch anything that would infringe on their right to freedom to practice a religion of their choice.

There's that word force again...people do not have to say the pledge, and if they want to anyway then don't say under God!

Quote:
The phrase "In God" is not reffering to god himself. Our forefathers used the term to refer to a higher power which allows us to live. This higher power and be different for what you believe in, if you are religious, for you it may hold a religious meaning such as Jesus. However if your belifes are held more in science this higher power could me water or food, which we could not live without, or even the laws of physics due to gravity which allows our earth ot exist.


tipsys quote:And yet it would still violate the First Amendment:
"...The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion..."

No, it doesn't..the pledge is not setting up a church. The pledge is not passing laws to aid any religion. It is not choosing another religion over another. It is not forcing anyone to believe anything..people do not have to say the pledge!

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Angelicpower

No law has been passed..the pledge isn't a law, religion nor is it a church.

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law, no one ever said it was. The law is that the Pledge of Allegiance is to be said. That is no less extreme then making a law requiring every school to lead a Pledge of Allegiance saying “we are one nation that denies the existence of God.”

Originally Posted by Angelicpower

In 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that people could not be forced to salute the flag if doing so violated their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court decided that refusing to salute the flag posed no danger to patriotism and public order.

Last time I checked the flag of the United States didn't mention having the words "under God" recited around you, nor such a large coercion as having an athiest, as we keep using for example, to put him in a state funded environment where God's existence is proclaimed everyday around him. No one can deny that is influential. Also, this hurts your argument if anything, because that supports the religious freedom of not having to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Originally Posted by AngelicPower

By saying God, that is the argument here..obviously everyone feels they are being forced into saying the pledge..I am pointing out that you don't have to say that part! The one atheist father who created all this drama from looking at his money and seeing in God we trust could have easily asked that his daughter be removed from class during that time or just tell the teacher that his daughter will not be reciting that part of the pledge! No one has forced this upon anyone..it is not the government aiding a religion, the pledge is not a religious law they have passed..BTW they passed the law against polygamy ages ago, which the mormons believe in and I don't think they will get that back.

So you can say without a single doubt in your mind, a person who has not been to a public K-12 school in quite awhile that every single school does not require you to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I do not think I can put this any more simply: You are wrong. I went to a public high school last year, so my information is a bit more current than yours. And last year, if you were caught not saying the Pledge of Allegiance, being given a detention was commonplace.

And polygamy? Who said anything about marriage? Monotheism means belief in one god. Polytheism means belief in many gods. No one ever brought up polygamy.

Also, unlike freedom of religion, marriage is not a universal right and can be regulated.

And a third point, even if we ignore the cases where people are forced to recite the pledge, the last line of the quote I’ve given to many times still applies.

"...The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion..."

By the time this argument is over I will have had to highlight every single part of this quote.

Originally Posted by Angelicpower

No, it doesn't..the pledge is not setting up a church. The pledge is not passing laws to aid any religion. It is not choosing another religion over another. It is not forcing anyone to believe anything..people do not have to say the pledge!

Passing a law to say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words “Under God” in it is what is in question. The law that has the Pledge of Allegiance recited in public schools is what is unconstitutional. If the words “Under God” are removed, it would make that law constitutional.

it is not in any way aiding any religion, but promotiong personal belifes which are not nessisarily religious, they can be anything you make them, such as an example i gave in my first post.

It is aiding any religion that has a singular god used as a proper noun. Perhaps it does what you say, but in that case it would be doing both which is unconstitutional.

Is tolerance such a hard thing to ask for?

[Angelicpower]

tipsys quote:The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law, no one ever said it was. The law is that the Pledge of Allegiance is to be said. That is no less extreme then making a law requiring every school to lead a Pledge of Allegiance saying “we are one nation that denies the existence of God.”

There is no law requiring people to say the pledge! [quote=Angelicpower] In 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that people could not be forced to salute the flag if doing so violated their religious beliefs.[quote] When we salute the flag we recite the pledge..there is no law requiring you to do this..or to even say it as it is. Flag day at 7pm to celebrate the flag people are supposed to recite the pledge!

tipsys quote:Also, this hurts your argument if anything, because that supports the religious freedom of not having to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Exactly..so why all the fuss..no one has to say it! There is no law requiring anyone to say the pledge nor say it as it is...you wanna skip under God then go for it!
Concerning the detention when not saying the pledge ~ your parents could have raised hell and wrote the school board..possibly sue.

y did I bring up polygamy..because mormons believe in it, mormons are a religious group. The government stepped in on their belief in polygamy!

Tipsys quoteNether can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion..."


No one is being forced..school boards can and do receive letters from parents..a child does not have to remain in the class during that..just like a field trip or class that a parent doesn't want their child to take part in!

There is nothing illegal or wrong about having under God..just as we have In God We Trust on all of our currency!

[Forged]

Exactly..so why all the fuss..no one has to say it! There is no law requiring anyone to say the pledge nor say it as it is...you wanna skip under God then go for it!
Concerning the detention when not saying the pledge ~ your parents could have raised hell and wrote the school board..possibly sue.

You are wrong ma'am. You clearly have no ****ing clue what you are talking about, it might be like that in a perfect world but not here. If you refuse to stand for the pledge the teachers can and will kick you out of their class. I went to a public highschool last year and can vouch for that.

[Roach Of Discord]

Forged is totally right. It was that way when I was in HS as well.

[Angelicpower]

Then all of your parents could have raised hell with the school board..cause let me tell you something about me...I don't care if it is a school or not...if they make my child do something I am against...hell will be raised! Clearly it states that no one can be forced to recite it...it wasn't the government who forced you to say it..why doesn't anyone look at what their parents are doing or not doing..the school tried to give my son a detention the other day and it wasn't for a good reason so I called the school and informed them that my son would not be serving a detention that is uncalled for! I told them if they have a problem with it they can take it to the board! My son had no detention and is still in school! The parents now need to stand up to the schools, the government already stood up for people years ago, 1943. The schools are forcing, not the government people and parents just have to remind the schools of a 1943 law passed stating no person can be forced to say the pledge!!!

EDIT: Forged...obviusly you have no idea..don't you know about the 1943 law..do your parents know about it????

[Forged]

EDIT: Forged...obviusly you have no idea..don't you know about the 1943 law..do your parents know about it????

I believe texas law states that a student must stand for the pledge. Granted this is superceeded by any federal law demeing otherwise it would still take a long time for the trial to go up to the supreme court, and by then I would be out of highschool anyway.