Poll: Most Americans Think 'Under God' Is Constitutional

FoxNews ^ | Saturday, June 29, 2002 | Dana Blanton

[jwalsh07]

So, whats your point? SCOTUS has already ruled that Americans can not be forced to recite the pledge. And the rest of us have decided that snot nosed little sob's can't disrupt class.

He shouldn't be forced to say the pledge and can't be but he can be forced to remain silent or get his ass kicked out of class.

[Hajman]

GOD is a religion of monotheism. But, since I'm sure you claim "one nation, under god" was intended to be inclusive, you would have no problem with it being changed to "one nation, under many gods." This would be less offensive to polytheists, and I'm sure you wouldn't mind it.

The only problem here is that nearly everything that's put in place of "God" will 'offend' someone. The only way not to offend anyone, is to put nothing in. But if exclusion is the only way, then that contradicts the second part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You do one thing, someone gets offended. You do the other, and the Constitution gets offended. Perhaps something's wrong in the interpretation of the First Amendment somewhere..

-The Hajman-

[Bandolier]

If not, if the ruling wasn't based off of it,

Correct. The ruling was based off the fact that the people who inserted "under god" in 1954 admitted that it was done to promote Christianity over godless communism.

[Bandolier]

The only problem here is that nearly everything that's put in place of "God" will 'offend' someone. The only way not to offend anyone, is to put nothing in. But if exclusion is the only way, then that contradicts the second part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You do one thing, someone gets offended. You do the other, and the Constitution gets offended. Perhaps something's wrong in the interpretation of the First Amendment somewhere..

So, in other words, the only reasonable way to handel this is for you to be allowed to force your religion on others?
Uhh-huhh, right.

[Hajman]

Correct. The ruling was based off the fact that the people who inserted "under god" in 1954 admitted that it was done to promote Christianity over godless communism.

Interesting assertion. Can you back that up? Can you show that Congress specifically added that phrase in to establish Christianity over all other religions?

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

So, in other words, the only reasonable way to handel this is for you to be allowed to force your religion on others?
Uhh-huhh, right.

The two phrases "allowed religion" and "enforced religion" are rather different. We're talking about the former, not the later.

-The Hajman-

[Bandolier]

Would you tolerate it if Christians were kicked out of class for refusing to swear allegiance to Satan?

[Texasforever]

LMAO. It appears he decided to play Billy Jack and stick it to the "MAN". He was NOT punished for refusing to say the pledge he was being punished for making an ass of himself. Any more strawmen you want to tee up?

[Bandolier]

Uhhhh...no. We are talking about enforced religion. When the leader of the class, the teacher, leads the children (followers) in a pledge to Jesus Christ, that is an enforced religion.

[f.Christian]

How about normal...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values GROWTH!

[Bandolier]

And the other kids who were also punished/censured even though they did not raise their fists?
(I admit that having the king of strawmen accusing me of erecting one kinda' makes me proud.)

[Hajman]

Uhhhh...no. We are talking about enforced religion. When the leader of the class, the teacher, leads the children (followers) in a pledge to Jesus Christ, that is an enforced religion.

You're correct. However, 2 points. 1) Relating to the court desision, no one was forced to say the pledge. And 2) Saying the Pledge of Allegiance isn't the same as saying a pledge to Jesus. They can pledge to the flag without pledging to that which the flag is under. For example: In the Clinton years, I pledged to the flag, but I did not pledge to that who the flag was 'under' (specifically, Clinton). This invalidates your argument.

-The Hajman-

[Southack]

"And there is no right to push a religious agenda. But it is prohibited for the government to favor one religion over another."

Atheism is a religion, by default. Sanitizing all language of theistic phrases creates a de-facto atheistic society.

That's unConstitutional.

Here's why the 9th Circuit Court's decision is legally flawed: It bans voluntary religious speech.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Pledge is voluntary. The 9th Circuit tried to ban teachers from engaging in voluntary speech.

That's illegal. The court can't ban benign voluntary speech.

[RoseofTexas]

Unfortunately, I fear in 50 years, the AMERICA we once knew will no longer exist! GOD FORBID! For the sake of our children and our future children we MUST CONTINUE THE FIGHT!!!

[Texasforever]

When the leader of the class, the teacher, leads the children (followers) in a pledge to Jesus Christ, that is an enforced religion.

The pledge is to the flag and for the country. As to Jesus Christ, you never tire of ridiculous statements.

[Southack]

"PS. No court decision has prevented you, and yours, from saying the pledge of allegiance."

That's incorrect. The 9th Circuit said that teachers may not say the Pledge to or in front of any students. Their right to speak their minds has been banned, and that's why there is such a public outcry.

[Texasforever]

And the other kids who were also punished/censured even though they did not raise their fists?

They had the right to remain silent

[jwalsh07]

Would you tolerate it if Christians were kicked out of class for refusing to swear allegiance to Satan?

Do you have a reading problem or a comprehension problem?

I have already stated that SCOTUS has ruled that making the pledge mandatory is unconstitutional and I agree with that though I don't think much of those who choose to do so.

I have also stated that disreectful little pukes should be removed from the classroom posthaste.

You do understand the nuance there, don't you?

Do you think the federal governemnt can bar my kids or grandkids from mouthing the words "one nation under God" in the public square?

[Southack]

"GOD is a religion of monotheism. But, since I'm sure you claim "one nation, under god" was intended to be inclusive, you would have no problem with it being changed to "one nation, under many gods." This would be less offensive to polytheists, and I'm sure you wouldn't mind it."

This is a free country. You are free to create your own pledge that says those very things (above), no problem.

You aren't free to force others to say it with you, but you are free to speak your own mind.

The 9th circuit tried to stop people from speaking their own mind. The 9th circuit tried to ban voluntary speech. They saw a voluntary pledge that they didn't like, and they tried to silence it.

That's unConstitutional.

No one's stopping people from coming up with, and reciting, their own pledges. That's a far cry from banning versions of a pledge that we do know about, however.

[Bandolier]

It can ban it when you have the authority to force subordinate people to join you in your "voluntary speech."
The ruling did not say that teachers cannot pledge allegiance, merely that they cannot lead students in doing so. The history of the pledge, since 1954, shows that it is clearly a propoganda tool. We decry liberal brainwashing in the schools, but love brainwashing them when it is something we believe in.