What about the above reasoning do you find unbelievable?
One flaw is that something as significant as the Pledge of Allegiance to Our Nation, has a legal weight comparable to a Constitutional amendment -- in other words it is INVIOLABLE BY ANY COURT. It is a PLEDGE taken under free will and has no true legal ramifications -- only moral ones.
Nonsense. The Constitution is the law of the land. The pledge has no legal standing as law. The court did not address the wording of the pledge in the abstract (which you would think by the irrational responses posted here), it addressed the case of an agent of the state reciting it in a public institution.
A PLEDGE is like a ethical contract, designed by the author in TERMS HE DETERMINES FIT.
So? That's fine for the author. It is not fine for a teacher leading a class in a state school.
I do not support mandatory pledges.
Then you agree with the court?
I am also meta-agnostic (I dont understand what I mean by God), but this ruling brings me more sadness and anger than the events of 9-11.
Absurdity. Get a grip.
If I had a flag I would burn it right now, this ruling symbolically marks the spiritual death of a nation, and I will not recognise this zombie-America as my own.
Anyone who blames this on 'three silly judges' is willfully blind to the maggots on her corpse.
mlo replied: Then you agree with the court?
Saying the pledge IS NOT mandatory. They did not base their ruling on the basis of "the pledge is mandatory", the court said the words "under God" represent a State recognized religion. No one has to say the pledge, and no on has to say it like it is written. I think this may be knocked down by the SCOTUS on this basis, if they even appeal it there. This has been REMANDED to the lower court.
Damn, this thread gets more hysterical by the minute.
Yes. Thank you.
Threads like this one calibrate me towards being careful about headlines vs. facts vs. reactionism.