Poll: Most Americans Think 'Under God' Is Constitutional

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

[Michael2001]

An overwhelming majority of Americans

[Senator Pardek]

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

Did you bother to read the article?

"It was certainly designed to disrupt or to interfere with the patriotic routine in which other students were participating."

If during history class, a teacher recited a part of the Constitution, and the little punk raised his fist in defiance, should he be able to sue?

[Bandolier]

No, the article clearly states they were censured for remaining silent; you are being disengenuous.

[Michael2001]

Well obviously it worked. Our nation flourished under Christianity while Russia collapsed under Communism.

[Bandolier]

So, what about the other students who did not raise their fists, but were punished?

[Bandolier]

Well obviously it worked. Our nation flourished under Christianity while Russia collapsed under Communism.

No, our country flourished because it did not enforce any dogma; Christian, Atheist, or other.

[Texasforever]

No, the article clearly states they were censured for remaining silent; you are being disengenuous.

No they were expressing a gesture as "speech". If the wannbe weatherman had just kept his punk hands behind his back he had no problem.

[Southack]

"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."

That's false logic. Forcing religion onto the class would be threatening punishment for those who don't join the teacher and/or offering rewards for those who do join the teacher.

If rewards and punishments aren't in play, however, then the views of the teacher haven't been forced upon the students.

A teacher can bow to Allah or worship Satan, so long as she's not forcing students to do likewise (and isn't unduly interfering with their education, of course).

Our Constitution prohibits government, however, from banning or infringing on said teacher's right to freely exercise her speech and religious practices.

[Bandolier]

Read the article again. This dork kid raised his fist because he was protesting the punishment of another kid who did not raise his fist, but merely remained silent during the pledge.

[Senator Pardek]

Show me where the first student was punished, and I'll agree he should sue.

[Texasforever]

This dork kid raised his fist because he was protesting the punishment of another kid who did not raise his fist, but merely remained silent during the pledge.

I see so his case is even weaker huh? It was a simple act of idiotic "solidarity" and not a protest against the pledge. I think you just made my case.

[Southack]

"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 ruling said that teachers could not engage in free speech while in front of students. That's unconstitutional.

[B.R. Burton]

Is it not SCARY that 80% of Americans agree on an idea, and yet TWO(!!!!) people havethe power to overturn it? Liberals were brilliant when they decided that the COURTS were the best path to advancing the evil agenda

[Bandolier]

Forcing religion onto the class would be threatening punishment for those who don't join the teacher

Read the article I've linked to a couple of times, punishment for not saying the pledge is clear.

and/or offering rewards for those who do join the teacher.

Social acceptance is a strong carrot to a school child.
(But you knew that.)

[Bandolier]

Well, all, I have to go. Taking my grandaughter to the Chinese restaurant.

We can chew on this later.

[Hajman]

Read the article I've linked to a couple of times, punishment for not saying the pledge is clear.

You keep bringing this up. Alright, let's assume it's true. A lawsuit would have been valid in that case.

Alright, now what? What relevance does this have with the recent court ruling? Does it even have a direct correspondance with said ruling? Now that we've admitted you're argument (as it is) is valid, what shall we do with it?

-The Hajman-

[Texasforever]

Ron Barrier, Communications Director for American Atheists noted that the court decision acknowledged the coercive element of the pledge.
"Students who don't believe in a deity shouldn't have to worry about being bullied by classmates, or being marginalized in some way simply because they don't share a particular religious faith."
As to concerns that the decision might affect religious slogans on the nation's money, or in courtrooms, Barrier welcomed today's ruling. "I hope we can use this as a legal instrument to stop any government endorsement of religion, whether it's by putting 'In God We Trust' on money or hanging the Ten Commandments on a courthouse or school house wall."
"Religious belief should be a private matter, not something government enforces or endorses."

http://www.atheists.org/

[Senator Pardek]

Alright, let's assume it's true.

It's not true, and the article makes no allusions to any punishment for the first student.

Don't worry, I doubt Bandolier will be back...

[uncbob]

Constitution says congress shal establish no official religion( E.G. Luthernism etc
Under God doesn't even come close to this

[PROTESTBYPROXY]

I'M MAHAIWNTIA! REMEMBER 9/11! GOD BLESS AMERICA!
EXECUTE LIBERALISM!

[Hajman]

It's not true, and the article makes no allusions to any punishment for the first student.

He insists on getting a good long rope for himself. I say let him have it and see what he does with it. It'll most likely at least stop that particular flawed line of argument.

-The Hajman-