Court OKs ``Under God`` In Pledge of Allegiance

Submitted by: Pooptart19 6 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100311/ap_on_re_us/us_god_and_government

Well sure, ""Under God"" is okay, but ""Under Chuck Norris"" would certainly be an improvement, don"t you think?
There are 71 comments:
Male 230
F god he is made up.
0
Reply
Female 5,222
:P
0
Reply
Male 2,841
Honestly, who the hell cares?
0
Reply
Male 25,416
yay more IAB rsligious things!
0
Reply
Male 2,056
i agree with the caption lol
0
Reply
Male 235
Seems to me that this guy has too much time on his hands
0
Reply
Male 224
Indoctrination is child abuse :(
0
Reply
Male 9
GEEKKITTIE;

You`re probably right; about one-half of one percent of "believers" will becom caustic towards persons who omit the "under God" line...

..They`re a lunatic fringe. And they`d be in the wrong. And they are culturally (and probably genetically) irrelevant. Ignore them.

I just think that if we let this foolishness die then maybe we can shift our focus to some real, genuinely important issues. This guy (who initiated the lawsuit) and this issue should be on 14:58-and-counting of the "15 minutes of fame". Let`s just move on...
0
Reply
Male 7,378
I respect the kids who don`t recite the pledge. It`s a form of brainwashing.
0
Reply
Female 24
The founding father`s never heard of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was written in 1892.

The "under god" part, as others have mentioned, wasn`t included in the pledge until the 1950`s. It was a response to "godless" communism.

The problem is that few people realize this. So when someone does choose to omit "under god" it causes a great scandal and a lot of trash talk.

I don`t care that the currency says "In God We Trust" (Also a more recent addition), but I can understand wanting the line removed during school announcements or other political institutions.

Of course no one is required to say those lines, but those who choose to omit it are placing themselves at risk of being harassed or seen as anti-patriotic, among other things.

0
Reply
Male 9
Who cares? Or rather, why should anyone care?
If someone doesn`t want to say "under God" then they can simply omit that line when the Pledge is recited, right?

If I don`t like a show on television I change the channel. If I disagree - as is my right - with a politician I don`t vote for him/her.

What I don`t do is sue to have MY position decreed the "absolute".

And that is more of what this whole time-wasting lawsuit was about. It was self-indulgent; "My religious belief is being infringed upon" or something to that effect. No one is compromising anyone else`s right to choose or follow any religion; if you don`t like the words then don`t SAY them. Why does someone believe that they have the right to deny the rights of others who DO want say "under God"? No one is being "injured" by that line and no one is being "forced" to believe...in ANYTHING.

Or we can go and make a great-big-giant &qu
0
Reply
Male 23
the government isn`t going to pay all that money to correct everything in circulation -- even if it said in POO POO we trust, the ruling would have been the same
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Meh neither points are important Angillion. Basically we agree, at least with regards the pledge, which is what this is about.

(Zoroastrians have a big thing with fire for various reasons, considering them one of 7 "important elements". Though they technically don`t worship it, I felt it was enough to draw a comparison. Though that might just be a misunderstanding of Zoroastrianism on my part.)

As for "which Monotheistic religion it could be", it 1) Doesn`t matter to me. 2) Could have easily intentionally incorporated Islam and Judaism anyway.

Washington: (The USA) as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (...) it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between (us).
0
Reply
Male 42
In the case of it being rhetoric, that would imply a social sub-conscious to which these beliefs are comfortable, as apparently was the case when the words were added to the pledge (I-A-B has informed me), and therefore agreed upon. However, this isn`t the case, so there is backlash and saying "Who gives a --" hardly promotes any beliefs other than laziness and apathy; it is irrelevant to cultural continuity.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You can`t argue one week "Pshh, you made this argument for God, but WHICH God?! You haven`t established that! RAWR!" then next week go "God has only one meaning! Equal amounts of RAWR to previous statement!".[/quote]

I`m refering to a specific reference to God (note the capitalisation).

The capitalisation and the use of the singular makes it monotheism.

The fact that it`s official in the USA makes it Christianity. What other religion could it have been added for in the 1950s?

[quote]However: Not every mention of God is promotion of religion, any more than every mention of Fire is promoting Zoroastrianism. [/quote]

Could you explain why that makes sense?
0
Reply
Male 3,431
Indivisible my ass.
0
Reply
Male 9,306
1939 - Porky Pig Recites the Pledge

What isn`t there, that is there today?
0
Reply
Male 85
yay! why are we fighting over this anyway?
0
Reply
Male 762
"now it`s been there for a 200+ years"

"In God we trust" has not been on our currency for 200 years, try 50... That is exactly why people fight for it even though they are using misinformation to validate their point.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Also Lazyme:
"If "in god we trust" is patriotic, then you live in a theocracy. But please people, show me how I`m wrong!"

*Points at an actual Theocracy*
*Points at dictionary definition of Theocracy*

Showing done. Your turn. Please, see how you`re wrong.

Note, God is not the civil ruler of America, nor are His (claimed) representatives. There is no religious authority which the US is subject to.

All these have specific meanings. Can the USA be influenced by Saudi? Yes. Does this make it a theocracy? No, not by any definition unless you have misunderstood some part of it.

The same is true of Christianity as a whole, which influences the USA very strongly. Does this make it a Theocracy? No.

Christianity is a Religion, not a Religious Authority (like, say, the Vatican). The States are not bound by it. It is not a civil authority. Etc.
0
Reply
Male 3,369
FlameOfUdun
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
1152 Posts Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:42:12 PM
"This is why America is srewed!

When did the lunatics take over the asylum? "

Overreaction much?
---------------

Not really! I said that the day you voted Bush jr into office and you`ve been on a downward spiral ever since!

But the real funny part is that Historys allready agreeing with me!
0
Reply
Female 288
I do think it`s wrong to just appeal to the Christians, but I don`t really mind enough to be angry about it. If we were just discussing the matter of official US currency for the first time, then I would be outraged, but now it`s been there for a 200+ years, so whatever. Just play your part by crossing out the "God" on the basck of the bill. I do.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Ang, you`re trying to have your cake and eat it too a little here.

You can`t argue one week "Pshh, you made this argument for God, but WHICH God?! You haven`t established that! RAWR!" then next week go "God has only one meaning! Equal amounts of RAWR to previous statement!".

Having said that, I agree that keeping the phrase "under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional. It was introduced into the pledge 60 years after it was written as a way of identifying communists via Atheism.

Considering the original writer of the pledge was a Socialist and a Priest, this method is clearly bullpoo, and negatively stigmatizes Atheists as "the enemy" with nothing backing it but prejudice. ("You must be a dirty commie if you won`t say the pledge").

However: Not every mention of God is promotion of religion, any more than every mention of Fire is promoting Zoroastrianism.
0
Reply
Male 2,372
Dakkar...you took the words right out of my mouth.
0
Reply
Male 1,254
Or, as most rational people regard it, it is harmless providential rhetoric that captures some of the history of this country. I don`t know why some non-religious types get their panties in such a knot over that fact.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]And it is a vast exaggeration to claim that the U.S. is a theocracy based on the invocation of providence in the Pledge of Allegiance and on currency.[/quote]

Not so much of an exaggeration when the supporting argument was that explicitly giving your support to the state-supported religion is patriotic. Patriotism is supporting the country. If supporting a specific religion is supporting a specific country, it is reasonable to conclude that the country is a theocracy - the religion is being officially decreed to be the country.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]1st Amendment to the constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [/quote]

Which is obviously broken by the official imposition of a specific religion (or even religion in general) on the law and government and on everyone`s lives.

[quote]There are many religions that believe in God and the mere mentioning of the word "God" does not establish or promote one religion over another.[/quote]

Arguing that it refers to anything other than the Abrahamic god is only slightly less ridiculous than the court`s ruling that it has nothing at all to do with religion.
0
Reply
Male 1,254
Yeah, the War of 1812 was when the White House was razed. The day of prayer Madison was pressing for was mainly in response to the entire war, not just that event. But let`s not forget the Battle of New Orleans where General Andrew Jackson crushed the same British army that defeated Napoleon.

And it is a vast exaggeration to claim that the U.S. is a theocracy based on the invocation of providence in the Pledge of Allegiance and on currency. The executive is not a religious leader, the state does not collect tithes for any church, there is no national religion. The list can go much longer.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
"If "in god we trust" is patriotic, then you live in a theocracy."

Our legislature opens with a prayer and has so since it`s inception. Our Declaration of Independence mentions "God" & Creator"

1st Amendment to the constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There are many religions that believe in God and the mere mentioning of the word "God" does not establish or promote one religion over another.
0
Reply
Male 1,220
"This is why America is srewed!

When did the lunatics take over the asylum? "

Overreaction much?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`m an atheist. I don`t want under God taken out of the pledge. That`s the Pledge. Don`t change it.[/quote]

It`s been changed before, so there`s nothing strange in changing it again.

You`re supporting the *addition* of religion to it, which is a very odd position for an atheist.

If you were arguing that the pledge should never be changed, that could be on patriotic and/or cultural grounds, but you`re explicitly arguing that religion should be added to the pledge.

The original pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Note the lack of religion. Back then, they were at least trying to live up to the idea of seperation of church and state.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]If "in god we trust" is patriotic, then you live in a theocracy.[/quote]

An excellent succinct summary.

This ruling means that the USA is officially based on a lie. Either the constitution is a lie or the highest legal ruling so far is a lie.

Either way, it`s worrying that in a unanimous ruling an appeals court issued a ludicrously false ruling. "In God We Trust" is explicitly religious.
0
Reply
Male 1,629
initially i had no issue with "under god" tho it is most definately unconstitutional. but them saying it isnt is truely wrong. they are forcing christian beliefs on everyone that needs to recite the pledge( namely every schoolchild in america )
0
Reply
Male 3,369
This is why America is srewed!

When did the lunatics take over the asylum?


0
Reply
Female 15,763
"The Pledge is constitutional."

Okay... but that "under god" part was added later... was it not?

"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."

Facepalm quote of the week.
0
Reply
Male 3,756
If we remove God from our government, then who created us all equal? In that case, maybe we`re not.

Just a thought.
0
Reply
Male 868
It`s called ceremonial deism.

tl;dr This is stupid.
0
Reply
Male 71
Kick ass, DarthDefault
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] a national day of prayer during the War of 1812. [/quote]

Isn`t that when we burned the White House to the ground? I think it was.

Anyway, this is another step back for progress in America. If "in god we trust" is patriotic, then you live in a theocracy. But please people, show me how I`m wrong!

But honestly I think they`re keeping it because it would upset too many fundies.
0
Reply
Male 928
All I can do is hope that Mr. Newdow appeals this case to the Supreme Court.
0
Reply
Male 928
The pledge was changed to include the words "Under God" in the fifties during the twilight of McCarthyist paranoia. We should return to the original pledge--the constitutional pledge--which was written during the late nineteenth century. Not only do the words "Under God" constitute an unconstitutionally coercive endorsement of religion, they are an usurpation of tradition. This ruling is absurd, and contrary to a previous ruling by the same district court.
0
Reply
Female 4,376
Who cares. Keep it there. If someone doesn`t believe in God or if they don`t worship the christian God they can either refuse to say that part or they can just sit down through the pledge.

Although I admit that last part might not go over so well. I once tried to refuse to stand up and say the pledge but The teacher forced me to stand out of respect because of 9/11 or something and I might offend the kids who lost family members or something in it. Sigh.
0
Reply
Male 98
Since they didn`t say which god, I`m going to continue encouraging my son to name off random gods & goddesses every day.
0
Reply
Male 606
@ Rick_S;

There was a time when the pledge didn`t have "Under God". Nothing wrong with that.
0
Reply
Male 606
Take it to the Supreme Court.
0
Reply
Male 3,314
I`m an atheist. I don`t want under God taken out of the pledge. That`s the Pledge. Don`t change it.
0
Reply
Male 1,254
"Most of the founding founders were atheist or agnostic. FAIL."

Wrong. Most actually followed the Enlightened doctrine of Deism, which coincided well with non-fundamentalist Christian religions. Also, one of the most staunch supporters of separation of church and state, James Madison, issued Presidential proclamations encouraging a national day of prayer during the War of 1812.
0
Reply
Male 988
"Under God and In God we trust were actually added because of a campain by some fundamentalists. I don`t remember what year. "
1954. It was because of the cold war that they were added. The forced Atheism in Russia scared us enough to try to become the exact opposite. Of course, the United States being the laughing stock of the world, completely forgot about this and still clings onto it dearly.
0
Reply
Female 355
"...With lemon trees and jell-o for all!"

Ahah! I`m not sure why I found that extremely funny, but I did. If ever find myself in the position to say the pledge, I will definitely substitute the last part for this one.
0
Reply
Female 1,677
I never said anything.
0
Reply
Male 79
Boadicea, if her position was purely ceremonial then that would be the case. As it isn`t, that terminology isn`t appropriate. She is, for all intents and purposes our head of state. Merely because she doesn`t actively participate in that role doesn`t disregard the fact.
0
Reply
Female 1,677
"She doesn`t play much of a role at all in our government though, basically just a benign figurehead."

You could almost say... a symbolic figure of leadership.

"Little nitpick here, Elizabeth II isn`t on our money for ceremonial or symbolic reasons."

...Oh. Or not.
0
Reply
Female 635
XD Damn it SmagBoy1! You beat me to it!
0
Reply
Female 635
Under God and In God we trust were actually added because of a campain by some fundamentalists. I don`t remember what year.

I find it somewhat disturbing that fundamentalists can change big pieces of America and atheists can`t.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
What`s even worse of a fail, ggolbez, is that it wasn`t even put in the pledge until 1954! So, it`s not like taking it out is like slapping our founders in the face. It was put into the pledge in the middle of the Great Commie Red Scare!!! Ooooo, shakin` in our boots!

So yeah, ironic as hell that the court doesn`t recognize the relatively short history of the phrase and the fact that, as you say, many (but I don`t think "most") of our founders were Diests or Agnostics. I`m not sure too many were Atheists, though. Not arguing, just saying.
0
Reply
Male 478
DGAF
0
Reply
Male 1,931
"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded." Most of the founding founders were atheist or agnostic. FAIL.
0
Reply
Male 79
"Also, who cares what it says on our money? Elizabeth II, the queen of England, is on Canada`s money. It doesn`t really matter."

Little nitpick here, Elizabeth II isn`t on our money for ceremonial or symbolic reasons. She is actually our sovereign head of state, as in she is not only the Queen of England, but of Canada as well. She doesn`t play much of a role at all in our government though, basically just a benign figurehead.
0
Reply
Male 473
2-1 ruling. So there were just 3 people deciding on this? yay.
0
Reply
Male 351
Im glad it turned out how it did. For some reason people seem to think that it is legal to only have complete separation of state and church, which is dead wrong. As long as laws are not passed preventing the worship of any religion or forcing a religion upon people, it is not illegal.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"Reached on his cell phone, Newdow said he hadn`t been aware that the appeals court had ruled against him Thursday.

"Oh man, what a bummer," he said."

Lol.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
This is good, especially because the 9th Circuit tends to be the most liberal.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
I`m an atheist, and I solve this problem by standing respectfully but not actually saying the Pledge.

Also, who cares what it says on our money? Elizabeth II, the queen of England, is on Canada`s money. It doesn`t really matter.
0
Reply
Male 716
I would establish "God" as a synonym for "Universe" in legal terminology... that would solve it.

Because, really, when I think of "God"... I pretty much think of the cosmos.
0
Reply
Female 525
I`m atheist and I don`t get butthurt over the use of God on the bills and in the pledge. I feel as if it`s much more symbolic than anything else. And if you have a problem with the pledge, just skip over the part that says "Under God". There, problem solved!
0
Reply
Male 81
I met that guy once when he participated in a debate at my university. A fairly decent sort, but there was a definite undertone of butthole.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
...With lemon trees and jell-o for all!
0
Reply
Female 179
gir!
0
Reply
Male 2,592
them crazy jesus freaks obviously still have the status quo something needs to get done quick
0
Reply
Male 3,842
Considering it says "In God We Trust" on our money, I think courts have pretty well decided that using the word "God" does not establish an official religion.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
Link: Court OKs ``Under God`` In Pledge of Allegiance [Rate Link] - Well sure, ``Under God`` is okay, but ``Under Chuck Norris`` would certainly be an improvement, don`t you think?
0
Reply