Atheist Pleads With Justices

[MagicNakor]

So determined is atheist Michael Newdow to not have his 9-year-old daughter hear the Pledge of Allegiance recited in her classroom that he went to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to argue his case in person.

Newdow was in the rare position of being both a party to a landmark constitutional case and the attorney arguing the case before the court.

Every time his daughter’s class recites the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase “under God” in it, Newdow told the justices, she is being forced "to say her father is wrong.”

'Slapped in the face'
Even though Newdow is not the girl’s custodial parent and even though the girl’s mother wants her to recite the pledge, Newdow insisted that his rights and his conscience were being violated.

Knowing that she recites the pledge “is like I’m getting slapped in the face,” Newdow told the justices. “I want my beliefs to given the same weight as everybody else’s.”

What’s wrong with the pledge, in Newdow’s view? “The government is saying there is a God,” he told the court.

Two years ago, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Newdow, who had contended that the Elk Grove, Calif., school district violated the First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” by requiring teachers to lead students in the pledge.

But Newdow received a skeptical reception from eight justices Wednesday. (Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself from the case because he had given a speech expressing his view that "under God" could be removed from the pledge only by Congress.)

Does Newdow have standing?
Based on questioning from the justices, it appears that Newdow’s primary problem will be to convince them that he has legal standing in the case.

A California court has given Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdow’s daughter, final decision-making authority over the girl’s education.

It is highly unusual for the Supreme Court to involve itself in ordinary custody disputes between two alienated parents, but for much of Wednesday’s oral argument, it seemed as if the justices and the audience were in a family court, not in the august precincts of the highest court in the land.

Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested in questioning Newdow that his attempt to be given standing in the case “violates the common core of the court’s standing rule.”

Justice David Souter wondered whether allowing Newdow to make himself a plaintiff in the case would undercut “next friend” precedents, which guide courts in deciding who can properly speak for minors or for anyone who can’t speak for himself.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor pointed out to Newdow that his daughter “does have a right not to participate” in her class’s recitation of the pledge.

Newdow responded that the court had ruled in 1992 that a rabbi could not recite a benediction including references to God at a public school graduation ceremony because the setting created coercion for students to join the prayer or listen to it.

Referring to that 1992 case, O’Connor replied to Newdow, “That was a prayer,” pointedly implying that the pledge, even including “under God” is not a prayer.

Is the pledge a prayer?
Chief Justice William Rehnquist joined in, telling Newdow the pledge “doesn’t sound anything like a prayer.” Rehnquist quoted the phrase “with liberty and justice for all” from the pledge and told Newdow, “You can disagree with ‘under God,’ you can disagree with ‘with liberty and justice for all,’ but that doesn’t mean it’s a prayer.”

A few moments later Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned to the coercion question, agreeing with O’Connor and telling Newdow, “the child does not have to say it at all,” because the school district’s policy allows students to remain silent if they choose.

But Newdow insisted that the classroom setting would “impose on a small child,” forcing her to go along in what he saw as a religious expression.

Kennedy impatiently told Newdow, “you’re arguing based on the child’s interest,” instead of arguing why he — Newdow — was having his rights violated.

By trying in effect to represent the child and not himself, Kennedy said, Newdow had created “a serious standing problem.”

Even though Newdow’s argument did not seem to receive much support from the justices, Newdow did get a boost from the audience in the courtroom. Newdow had argued that the words “under God” were divisive and damaging to national unity, by pitting atheist against believers.

“What was the vote in Congress” when it decided in 1954 to add the words “under God” to the pledge, asked Rehnquist.

Newdow replied that it was “apparently unanimous,” prompting Rehnquist to question how divisive the pledge really was.

“That’s because no atheists can get elected to Congress,” Newdow insisted, prompting a sudden round of applause in the audience — in flagrant violation of the court’s rules. “The courtroom will be cleared if there’s any more clapping,” Rehnquist declared.

After the oral argument ended, both Banning and Newdow walked out to an array of television cameras and reporters in front of the court to give their assessment of how the historic day had gone for each of them.

Mother hopes for quick ruling
Expressing a naively optimistic view of how quickly the high court works, Banning told reporters: “As a mother, as a Christian and an American, I’m hoping the court will resolve this issue today and that this will be the last time that as a nation we will have to come to the Supreme Court in order to determine whether our pledge is unconstitutional.”

Asked for her evaluation of Newdow’s skill in representing himself before the high court, Banning said, “Michael did very well. He was very well-spoken.… He showed as much passion today in the Supreme Court as he does in the family law court.”

Banning has kept her daughter out of the public eye as the case has wended its way through the courts. Banning told reporters Wednesday, “The first day of third grade she volunteered — she was the first one to raise her hand to lead the class in reciting the pledge.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4594537/

What I'm curious about is how his rights and conscience could possibly be violated. He is not his child.

:ninja:

[Busyman]

Newdow is an ass. He doesn't even have custody of the child.

He obviously believes in no God very strongly. He is missing one thing. Children don't have to and are not "compelled" to say the Pledge Of Allegiance.

He's working backwards. He should argue that "under God" shouldn't even be in the Pledge....but I guess that's been done before.

The reason an atheist is not elected to Congress is because everyone wants to know where your moral fiber comes from....even if you're lying about it.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

http://mysmilies.ipbfree.com/s/contrib/navigator/usa.gif

This has been tried so many times before, shot down every time. The precedent has already been set from those numerous previous judgments in those cases.

[Jems]

The reason an atheist is not elected to Congress is because everyone wants to know where your moral fiber comes from....even if you&#39;re lying about it.

Out of genuine concern for other human beings to create a better society, rather than merely fear of hell? If you stopped believing in God would you go out and kill a bunch of people for fun?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Jems@25 March 2004 - 14:53

The reason an atheist is not elected to Congress is because everyone wants to know where your moral fiber comes from....even if you&#39;re lying about it.

Out of genuine concern for other human beings to create a better society, rather than merely fear of hell? If you stopped believing in God would you go out and kill a bunch of people for fun?
I have stated this before and will state it again.

You may be different but there is a line that many people won&#39;t cross because of this fear of going to hell. Call it an added layer against amorality.

Scary huh?

Without this fear I can honestly say that I would have killed some folks (not for fun though)...well that fear, jail time and death. It called deterrence

You are saying that there should be this feeling of "Do it because it is right". Well.....what&#39;s right? Where do you get right from?

Just because it is not harming someone else (that&#39;s the most popular among atheists and non-religious types).

Well....why not harm someone else (to play devil&#39;s advocate)?

[Jems]

If you don&#39;t kill people because you were afraid of hell...doesn&#39;t that nevertheless make you evil? God would see that in your heart you would be evil.


You are saying that there should be this feeling of "Do it because it is right". Well.....what&#39;s right? Where do you get right from?

An answer which probably isn&#39;t very satisfactory is evolution...we are a societal species and need rules and morality to function. If everyone acted without any concern for anyone else the world would collapse and the species die out.
Being good to others means that they will be good to you, and I always feel good from helping others. Maybe thats selfish in some way, but so is doing good to avoid hell- in the end I suppose that their is always some selfish cause behind everything you do, whether you believe in God or not.

-and as an agnostic, I reserve the right to play devil&#39;s advocate that there is a God :)

[vidcc]

my 5 year old goes to pre school and where we live it was difficult to find one that isn&#39;t run specifically by a church group..
We make this choice because we feel that any religious instruction is the parents responsibility. My wife believes in God and does attend church , however i have doubts that he exists or ever has. If my children ask me i will never tell them that there is no God as i could be wrong.
my opinion on the pledge is that if parents object to the god part then there should be an allowance to omit it...at least untill the child is of a reasonable age to decide for itself.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Jems@25 March 2004 - 15:18
If you don&#39;t kill people because you were afraid of hell...doesn&#39;t that nevertheless make you evil? God would see that in your heart you would be evil.


You are saying that there should be this feeling of "Do it because it is right". Well.....what&#39;s right? Where do you get right from?

An answer which probably isn&#39;t very satisfactory is evolution...we are a societal species and need rules and morality to function. If everyone acted without any concern for anyone else the world would collapse and the species die out.
Being good to others means that they will be good to you, and I always feel good from helping others. Maybe thats selfish in some way, but so is doing good to avoid hell- in the end I suppose that their is always some selfish cause behind everything you do, whether you believe in God or not.

-and as an agnostic, I reserve the right to play devil&#39;s advocate that there is a God :)
No it does not make me evil. You are trying to boiling it down to black and white.

Take for instance if a loved one was murdered by someone you knew.

If I didn&#39;t have my beliefs to fall on, that person would be killed.
I would corner them in a dark alley and fire 10 times until they were dead.

I&#39;m not saying there is this fine line for me, between sanity and insanity.
I&#39;m saying when your emotions get the best of you, you have your faith in God, or your religion.

You make it like you have never had an "evil" thought. The difference is whether you act on it.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@25 March 2004 - 15:48
my 5 year old goes to pre school and where we live it was difficult to find one that isn&#39;t run specifically by a church group..
We make this choice because we feel that any religious instruction is the parents responsibility. My wife believes in God and does attend church , however i have doubts that he exists or ever has. If my children ask me i will never tell them that there is no God as i could be wrong.
my opinion on the pledge is that if parents object to the god part then there should be an allowance to omit it...at least untill the child is of a reasonable age to decide for itself.
The child doesn&#39;t have to say the Pledge at all.

People go their own route when they get older anyway.
This atheist probably grew up saying the Pledge himself. It didn&#39;t make a difference.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman@25 March 2004 - 12:02
[The child doesn&#39;t have to say the Pledge at all.

People go their own route when they get older anyway.
This atheist probably grew up saying the Pledge himself. It didn&#39;t make a difference.
but in this case the parent just doesn&#39;t want the god part. He doesn&#39;t mind his child being patriotic. One shouldn&#39;t be forced to not pledge at all just because of ones religious views.. Of course a sensible action would just be that one doesn&#39;t say that part and let those that wish to, do so.
in agreeance I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone has been swayed one way or the other as to Gods existance because they said the pledge.

[ilw]

Originally posted by Busyman@25 March 2004 - 18:07
You are saying that there should be this feeling of "Do it because it is right". Well.....what&#39;s right? Where do you get right from?

Just because it is not harming someone else (that&#39;s the most popular among atheists and non-religious types).

Well....why not harm someone else (to play devil&#39;s advocate)?
without god there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong and there is no good/evil. But you can create your morals and base your laws on reasoning instead of saying they were handed down from on high, and imo that seems like a good idea. You don&#39;t really have to decide whats right just what works best...

As to why not hurt someone, well theres :
quid pro quo
the police
the fact that you hopefully wouldnt like actually doing it or/and would feel bad about doing it later
fear that someone would do it to you
and then why harm someone?

[leftism]

Morality is founded on evolution.

Animals of the same species rarely kill each other. e.g. When two dogs are fighting one will roll over on its back when it gives up and the other dog will not rip its throat out but it&#39;ll walk away.

Does that dog follow a religion? Does it have any sense of morality?

Mammals that live in social groups do not kill each other if they can avoid it. This is because their survival is based on co-operation.

The only animals that do kill each other with unnerving frequency are humans. We often do it in the name of religion as well don&#39;t we?

Witchhunts, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Islamic extremism.. need I go on?

I don&#39;t need a book or a myth to know right from wrong. It&#39;s something that all mammals are born with. Its the socialisation process that twists that inbuilt morality, and that process ironically enough often involves religion.

[Biggles]

This does rather seem to be cutting one&#39;s nose to spite the face.

It may have more to do with feelings of alienation from input to his daughter&#39;s upbringing; especially if he is an atheist and his ex is a Christian. I don&#39;t want to get too pink and fluffy, but he may simply, perhaps sub-consciously, be shouting "I care too".

As I have indicated before, my opinions on religion are perhaps not mainstream. I find a degree of satisfaction in marking the seasons as they pass in time with the old Celtic calendar. The understatedness I find comforting - :)

My daughter takes it more seriously than I and in the enthusiasm of youth tends to be very "out there". In fairness to her though she has talked her religious education teacher into allowing her to use her own beliefs in class work and projects. This would suggest to me that, in our state schools at least, religion is not much of an issue. This is, from my perspective, good. Then again, not being burned at the stake as an heretic is even better. :01:

[J'Pol]

"This is, from my perspective, good. Then again, not being burned at the stake as an heretic is even better. "


You consider the "h" in heretic a silent one old bean ? Or have you been at the happle already ?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@25 March 2004 - 23:22
"This is, from my perspective, good. Then again, not being burned at the stake as an heretic is even better. "


You consider the "h" in heretic a silent one old bean ? Or have you been at the happle already ?
:unsure:

I fear this is not the first time I have lapsed into a somewhat archaic use of English. Too many years cooped up reading old texts (with happle in hand) to blame (oh, and society of course)


At least I rarely stick the letter e on the ende of words though


Damn :blink:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by ilw+25 March 2004 - 16:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 25 March 2004 - 16:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@25 March 2004 - 18:07
You are saying that there should be this feeling of "Do it because it is right". Well.....what&#39;s right? Where do you get right from?

Just because it is not harming someone else (that&#39;s the most popular among atheists and non-religious types).

Well....why not harm someone else (to play devil&#39;s advocate)?
without god there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong and there is no good/evil. But you can create your morals and base your laws on reasoning instead of saying they were handed down from on high, and imo that seems like a good idea. You don&#39;t really have to decide whats right just what works best...

As to why not hurt someone, well theres :
quid pro quo
the police
the fact that you hopefully wouldnt like actually doing it or/and would feel bad about doing it later
fear that someone would do it to you
and then why harm someone? [/b][/quote]
There fairly obvious reasons to harm someone.

Why do you need them stated?

[Arm]

If the Pledge of Allegiance was ever put up for banning, ide support it. Though I am an atheist, I hate the pledge for other reasons. Mostly being so because I see the pledge as some bullshit propagonda to brainwash the kids into blindly supporting America. Though it&#39;s not the kids can understand the big words they are saying. I know when I was in kindergarden and recited the pledge I didn&#39;t know what the hell I was saying. I just blindly followed like a dog. If I could go back ide stop myself from saying the pledge. Though saying the pledge is mandatory. You&#39;ll get your name written on the board if you don&#39;t&#33; :ph34r: :blink:

Now that I know what the hell I am saying it is safe to say that I don&#39;t pledge allegiance to the flag or the United States of America. Arm no like America. <_<

Remember kiddies, it&#39;s not the "Under God" part that gets people, it&#39;s the whole damn pledge. :01:

[Alex H]

Originally posted by Busyman@25 March 2004 - 19:59
I&#39;m not saying there is this fine line for me, between sanity and insanity.
I&#39;m saying when your emotions get the best of you, you have your faith in God, or your religion.

You make it like you have never had an "evil" thought. The difference is whether you act on it.
Interesting question that. There was an episode of Law & Order SVU I watched last night where a cop was in trouble for telling a police psycologist that he fantasised about killing rapists and murderers. He had never actually done it, but the fact that he thought about it put him at risk of loosing his job.

Eventually the review panel decided that he was ok to keep working because he had never hurt a perpetrator, and that thoughts of violence against the criminals he arrested were normal.

Whether he was religious or not wasn&#39;t discussed. He managed to get a set of moral values from somewhere though.

[hobbes]

"Morals", as I have said before, come from a uniquely human ability to appreciate "selfish" behavior.

It is that simple, you don&#39;t need a God to tell you this.

[3RA1N1AC]

the pledge is no more sacred today than it was in the 1950s when congress decided to amend it. we oughta be able to put it up for a vote and see if people want to change it again. if people want to make an expression of patriotism without having to draw attention to their religious differences, they shouldn&#39;t be forced to live with a decision made by congress 50 years ago when non-christian religions and atheism were, shall we say, relatively inaudible compared to christian lobbies.

in a classroom full of atheist children, should the pledge go "one nation... (awkward silence)... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"? if children are allowed to insert the deity of their choice, instead of "god," should the rest of the class have to pause and wait for one student to finish pronouncing the name of a deity that&#39;s several syllables longer than "god"? :lol:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Arm@25 March 2004 - 22:08
If the Pledge of Allegiance was ever put up for banning, ide support it. Though I am an atheist, I hate the pledge for other reasons. Mostly being so because I see the pledge as some bullshit propagonda to brainwash the kids into blindly supporting America. Though it&#39;s not the kids can understand the big words they are saying. I know when I was in kindergarden and recited the pledge I didn&#39;t know what the hell I was saying. I just blindly followed like a dog. If I could go back ide stop myself from saying the pledge. Though saying the pledge is mandatory. You&#39;ll get your name written on the board if you don&#39;t&#33; :ph34r: :blink:

Now that I know what the hell I am saying it is safe to say that I don&#39;t pledge allegiance to the flag or the United States of America. Arm no like America. <_<

Remember kiddies, it&#39;s not the "Under God" part that gets people, it&#39;s the whole damn pledge. :01:
Well that&#39;s you Arm. The guy is atheist, he didn&#39;t say anti-American.

You also have the right to GTFO of the country if you don&#39;t like it so much.

I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll like it somewhere else much better since you don&#39;t like America.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Busyman+26 March 2004 - 06:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 26 March 2004 - 06:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Arm@25 March 2004 - 22:08
If the Pledge of Allegiance was ever put up for banning, ide support it. Though I am an atheist, I hate the pledge for other reasons. Mostly being so because I see the pledge as some bullshit propagonda to brainwash the kids into blindly supporting America. Though it&#39;s not the kids can understand the big words they are saying. I know when I was in kindergarden and recited the pledge I didn&#39;t know what the hell I was saying. I just blindly followed like a dog. If I could go back ide stop myself from saying the pledge. Though saying the pledge is mandatory. You&#39;ll get your name written on the board if you don&#39;t&#33; :ph34r: :blink:

Now that I know what the hell I am saying it is safe to say that I don&#39;t pledge allegiance to the flag or the United States of America. Arm no like America. <_<

Remember kiddies, it&#39;s not the "Under God" part that gets people, it&#39;s the whole damn pledge. :01:
Well that&#39;s you Arm. The guy is atheist, he didn&#39;t say anti-American.

You also have the right to GTFO of the country if you don&#39;t like it so much.

I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll like it somewhere else much better since you don&#39;t like America.[/b][/quote]
Busyman,

Arm is just a little boy who doesn&#39;t feel loved by his Mommy. Story end.

I feel badly for his circumstance, but I have little value for his "opinions".

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@25 March 2004 - 22:28
"Morals", as I have said before, come from a uniquely human ability to appreciate "selfish" behavior.

It is that simple, you don&#39;t need a God to tell you this.
Some people do. You don&#39;t.

Keep in mind most us right now got most of morality from religion whether it came from selfish behavior or not.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes+26 March 2004 - 01:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 26 March 2004 - 01:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@26 March 2004 - 06:50
<!--QuoteBegin-Arm@25 March 2004 - 22:08
If the Pledge of Allegiance was ever put up for banning, ide support it. Though I am an atheist, I hate the pledge for other reasons. Mostly being so because I see the pledge as some bullshit propagonda to brainwash the kids into blindly supporting America. Though it&#39;s not the kids can understand the big words they are saying. I know when I was in kindergarden and recited the pledge I didn&#39;t know what the hell I was saying. I just blindly followed like a dog. If I could go back ide stop myself from saying the pledge. Though saying the pledge is mandatory. You&#39;ll get your name written on the board if you don&#39;t&#33; :ph34r: :blink:

Now that I know what the hell I am saying it is safe to say that I don&#39;t pledge allegiance to the flag or the United States of America. Arm no like America. <_<

Remember kiddies, it&#39;s not the "Under God" part that gets people, it&#39;s the whole damn pledge. :01:
Well that&#39;s you Arm. The guy is atheist, he didn&#39;t say anti-American.

You also have the right to GTFO of the country if you don&#39;t like it so much.

I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll like it somewhere else much better since you don&#39;t like America.
Busyman,

Arm is just a little boy who doesn&#39;t feel loved by his Mommy. Story end.

I feel badly for his circumstance, but I have little value for his "opinions". [/b][/quote]
Just another anti-American who happens too live here and won&#39;t move. :lol: <_<

[Arm]

Originally posted by hobbes@26 March 2004 - 00:58
Busyman,

Arm is just a little boy who doesn&#39;t feel loved by his Mommy.&nbsp; Story end.

I feel badly for his circumstance, but I have little value for his "opinions".
:D You value Arms opinions more then most people (which is not at all). :blink:

Oh me bitching about loving mommy. Thats so damn cliche. :01: Lets just say Arms too opinionated for his own good and hates the world. Thats good.

And hes the guy said he was atheist and not Anti-American. Well depending on how redneck(politically correct: convervative and narrow minded) the person is, some god-fearing church goers would say all atheists are anti-American. ;)

And it&#39;s kinda hard to leave America when you are a slacker 16 year old who is about to drop out and doesnt give a damn about anything. And with my state of mind I wouldnt find happiness anywhere.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Arm+26 March 2004 - 04:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Arm @ 26 March 2004 - 04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@26 March 2004 - 00:58
Busyman,

Arm is just a little boy who doesn&#39;t feel loved by his Mommy. Story end.

I feel badly for his circumstance, but I have little value for his "opinions".
:D You value Arms opinions more then most people (which is not at all). :blink:

Oh me bitching about loving mommy. Thats so damn cliche. :01: Lets just say Arms too opinionated for his own good and hates the world. Thats good.

And hes the guy said he was atheist and not Anti-American. Well depending on how redneck(politically correct: convervative and narrow minded) the person is, some god-fearing church goers would say all atheists are anti-American. ;)

And it&#39;s kinda hard to leave America when you are a slacker 16 year old who is about to drop out and doesnt give a damn about anything. And with my state of mind I wouldnt find happiness anywhere. [/b][/quote]
Explains a whole lot.
Now I reeeeally don&#39;t value your opinions.

I see you are one of those 16 year olds who has "problems".

[bowrabob]

Is this the new sport now ... Arm bashing? Can&#39;t 16 year olds have opinions? l&#39;m on your side Arm, you keep thinking for yourself and you&#39;ll become an inteligent adult.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by bowrabob@26 March 2004 - 15:15
Is this the new sport now ... Arm bashing?&nbsp; Can&#39;t 16 year olds have opinions?&nbsp; l&#39;m on your side Arm, you keep thinking for yourself and you&#39;ll become an inteligent adult.
I am not Arm bashing Bob, I was giving Busy a behind the scenes look at who Arm is. It was apparent from Busys response that he did not know Arm&#39;s backround.

I didn&#39;t make up what I said about Arm. I have read many of his posts, several concerning his age and dissatisfaction with life.

I was letting BM know that he should not invest too much effort in this guy as he has "anger" issues and likes to vent them here from time to time. He is mad about everything, whether it is legimate or not.

I see Arm post his little tirades from time to time and I don&#39;t let them provoke me because I understand what is actually motivating them.

[dwightfry]

I think that reciting the pledge in school is wrong.

1. The kids aren&#39;t forced to recite it, but honestly, do the kids even fully understand what they are saying? As Arm said, no, they don&#39;t, I know I didn&#39;t. They just follow blindly and who would want to be different than the other kids by refusing to say something they don&#39;t even understand. So they are, technically, forced to say it.

2. It shouldn&#39;t be in the pledge at all because even if they do refuse to say it, they are still forced to hear it. Kids go to school to learn, not hear about god.

3. In the last 6 months, three 10 commandment monuments were forced off of government property because they were unconstitutional. I disagreed with that because you cannot be forced to read the monument everyday. You can easily ignore it. So how come it&#39;s legal for kids to be forced to say/hear &#39;under god&#39; everyday at school?

4. The same idea goes along with the entire pledge itself. It is our constitutional right not to agree with our country, there for it is our constitutional right not to be forced to say/hear allegiance to it, especially at a place that they are required to go to by law.

[Biggles]

The pledge is not really my area of expertise. Nevertheless, it does not appear to specify which God. It could therefore be a pledge to Mammon, or to your favourite automobile. Who would would know or care?

However, I do recall though that Bart Simpson had to write lines on the blackboard the gist of which was "the pledge of allegiance does not end Hail Satan" :)

Busyman, are you really saying that without the restraining fear of being an everlasting toasted muffin on a pitch fork you would run amuk?

Incidently, why did they change it in the 1950s were the founding fathers just plain wrong?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by bowrabob@26 March 2004 - 10:15
Is this the new sport now ... Arm bashing? Can&#39;t 16 year olds have opinions? l&#39;m on your side Arm, you keep thinking for yourself and you&#39;ll become an inteligent adult.
No I&#39;m saying Arm bashed himself.

He a "person" that doesn&#39;t give a damn about anything.

So why should I care about what he has to say.

Pretty simple to me.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@26 March 2004 - 12:38
The pledge is not really my area of expertise. Nevertheless, it does not appear to specify which God. It could therefore be a pledge to Mammon, or to your favourite automobile. Who would would know or care?

However, I do recall though that Bart Simpson had to write lines on the blackboard the gist of which was "the pledge of allegiance does not end Hail Satan" :)

Busyman, are you really saying that without the restraining fear of being an everlasting toasted muffin on a pitch fork you would run amuk?

Incidently, why did they change it in the 1950s were the founding fathers just plain wrong?
Biggles oh Biggles please read it again.

I didn&#39;t say "Because of my belief in God I would not kill everyone".

Come on man.

Have you ever had an evil thought?

Having the thought of killing someone makes you crazy?
I didn&#39;t even say I constantly think about killing but my belief in God just...just...just stops me. Arrrgh&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol: <_<

Do know for what reasons?

Or is everyone taking the moral high ground?

[Biggles]

:D

Busyman

I think you live in a different world from me. I do get irritated with people. I do have bad days. However, at times, from things you say, you appear to live in a war zone.


:unsure:


Ok, Ok, I am a wuss - if a bee gets trapped in my house I get a glass and a postcard so I can set it free.

[Phyltre]

There&#39;s another side to this, too. There&#39;s some religions, one in fact that I sed to belong to when I was five, that don&#39;t recite the pledge at all because they don&#39;t believe in unquestioningly pledging one&#39;s allegiance to an entity other than God or say, a spouse or children. Especially a political entity.

So the fact that God is included in the pledge just isn&#39;t good enough, in their view. They kind of have a point; I mean, theoretically, every person that recites the pledge has basically no grounds for protesting any law it makes or political policy that gets created. That&#39;s what allegiance IS, by definition. Either you trust whatever or you don&#39;t.

And from a wholly un-religious standpoint, the pledge is basically just propaganda. I agree with most of what America stands for, but if a minor cannot have a legally binding contract, why do we teach them to mindlessly pledge their allegiance to America?

[vidcc]

in thinking about the "anti american " bit here.

i don&#39;t think that when one objects to the way HIS country is run it would make him anti American, rather anti politition.
We all have objections to our "leaders" that doesn&#39;t make us unpatriotic, just free thinkers. I would say that to many Americans the pledge appears to be a pledge to the government of the day. Just as other lands see our governments actions as being completely representative of us, so do some Americans. The rights or wrongs of this are purely personal.
Often i have seen comments on this board that are aimed at being a dig at the USA from other nationalities and the recoil about american bashing was fierce. Well who has the right to question our ethics better than an American?. And ALL Americans have the right to free speech without the backlash of "get out if you don&#39;t like it".
Advancement doesn&#39;t come from the status quo, it comes from people questioning the status quo and the resulting debate.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Biggles+26 March 2004 - 08:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles &#064; 26 March 2004 - 08:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Incidently, why did they change it in the 1950s were the founding fathers just plain wrong? [/b]
the founding fathers had nothing to do with it. the pledge was written by a commie baptist minister in 1892.


Bellamy commented on his thoughts as he created the pledge, and his reasons for choosing the careful wording:

"It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

"The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the &#39;republic for which it stands.&#39; ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

"Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, &#39;Liberty, equality, fraternity.&#39; No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy



<!--QuoteBegin-Phyltre
I mean, theoretically, every person that recites the pledge has basically no grounds for protesting any law it makes or political policy that gets created.[/quote]
no... wrong. the pledge was written as an expression of loyalty to the nation&#39;s founding principles as set down in the constitution & its amendments, and of unity & fraternity with one&#39;s countrymen. it&#39;s not about obedience to the whims of every politician and passing fad that comes down the pike. dissent and protest are great american traditions.

"under god" just doesn&#39;t fit into the pledge because the intention of the pledge was to reinforce the value of unity. a statement of vague religious affiliation added nothing to that sentiment, and even undermined it by introducing a point of unnecessary division/exclusion. there may as well be an extra line in there, declaring one&#39;s preference for a certain sports team or soft drink.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles@26 March 2004 - 17:38
The pledge is not really my area of expertise. Nevertheless, it does not appear to specify which God. It could therefore be a pledge to Mammon, or to your favourite automobile. Who would would know or care?

However, I do recall though that Bart Simpson had to write lines on the blackboard the gist of which was "the pledge of allegiance does not end Hail Satan" :)

Busyman, are you really saying that without the restraining fear of being an everlasting toasted muffin on a pitch fork you would run amuk?

Incidently, why did they change it in the 1950s were the founding fathers just plain wrong?
Biggles,

This topic was discussed here before you were even contemplating your first rant :lol:

Here is a little history on the "Pledge of Allegiance"

Pledge (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=49497&view=findpost&p=352881)

A snipet from that post.

Here is the original pledge of allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.&#39;" He considered placing the word, &#39;equality,&#39; in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * &#39;to&#39; added in October, 1892. ]

The current version, which includes "under God" was added in the 1950s, in that delightfully McCarthyesque time, to separate us from those Godless Russians.


edit: looks like Brianiac beat me to it, that&#39;s what I get for not reading to the end before replying.

[J'Pol]

Let me get this right.

In the home of the free, children must pledge allegiance and have no option in this and neither do their parents. Is that what we are saying.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@26 March 2004 - 12:39
Let me get this right.

In the home of the free, children must pledge allegiance and have no option in this and neither do their parents. Is that what we are saying.
there is not compulsion to say pledge (unless you wish to become a citizen, then you make the pledge at the ceromony)
it&#39;s said as a matter of course rather like they used to have prayers in assembly in the Uk ( i hear that&#39;s not normal these days)

[Phyltre]

3rainiac, you just called my previous religion wrong. Not that it offends me or anything, you have the right to say that, but just because you have the opinion doesn&#39;t make it the kill-all. Rational belief systems are built on the fact that "allegiance" means more than just appreciating the precepts and concepts.

I think that&#39;s what allegiance means, who you listen to in a pinch. "The Republic" is a pretty large term, and I think it&#39;s just more than the constitution and fraternal relationships.

So, basically, no government or nation is worth devoting one&#39;s self to in comparison to one&#39;s higher allegiances to morality, religion, or at the least self interest.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by vidcc+26 March 2004 - 22:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 26 March 2004 - 22:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@26 March 2004 - 12:39
Let me get this right.

In the home of the free, children must pledge allegiance and have no option in this and neither do their parents.&nbsp; Is that what we are saying.
there is not compulsion to say pledge (unless you wish to become a citizen, then you make the pledge at the ceromony)
it&#39;s said as a matter of course rather like they used to have prayers in assembly in the Uk ( i hear that&#39;s not normal these days) [/b][/quote]
So what&#39;s the issue, if his kid doesn&#39;t have to say it then why is he up before the Justices.

One has to suspect another agenda, as others have suggested. Tho&#39; this does seem to take it a bit far.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@26 March 2004 - 14:13
So what&#39;s the issue, if his kid doesn&#39;t have to say it then why is he up before the Justices.

One has to suspect another agenda, as others have suggested. Tho&#39; this does seem to take it a bit far.
the issue isn&#39;t about the pledge more about the inclusion of the words "under god" and this parent being an athiest possible finds it offensive.
As i said a modicomb of common sense could prevail here and the kid could just not say it but this parent wants to make an issue of it, which is his right.
We may see it as trivial in the same way we see lawsuits against mcdonalds for causing obesity, but to this person it seems important.
You appear to look at yourself as something of an authority on the technical word of the law in your counrty.....do you still have to swear on the bible or say "so help me God" if you are a witness in court?....if so could an athiest have a different oath?...which is what this parent wants in regards to the pledge.
The reason it actually ended up in court is because the father (an athiest) who has no custodial rights doesn&#39;t want his child to say the pledge, but the mother ( a believer) who does have custody of the child does wish the child say it

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Phyltre@26 March 2004 - 14:12
3rainiac, you just called my previous religion wrong. Not that it offends me or anything, you have the right to say that, but just because you have the opinion doesn&#39;t make it the kill-all. Rational belief systems are built on the fact that "allegiance" means more than just appreciating the precepts and concepts.

I think that&#39;s what allegiance means, who you listen to in a pinch. "The Republic" is a pretty large term, and I think it&#39;s just more than the constitution and fraternal relationships.

So, basically, no government or nation is worth devoting one&#39;s self to in comparison to one&#39;s higher allegiances to morality, religion, or at the least self interest.
wha? who? why?

i just called your previous religion wrong? do you care to elaborate? i have no idea what yer talkin&#39; about, or why it&#39;s still an issue if it is your "previous" religion.

if you honestly believe that loyalty to one&#39;s country means unquestioning obedience to anyone and everyone who happens to gain some public influence, then we&#39;re not going to find a middle ground. i happen to disagree, and believe that no government or vocal majority should hold a monopoly over patriotism. if allegiance truly meant obedience to the incumbent government rather than the nation&#39;s ideals, there would be no point in even holding elections, &#39;cause by your reasoning any opposition to the incumbent is treasonous. i think you&#39;ve expressed a rather dim, cynical, and wildly slanted view of what allegiance to the republic means.

[cisco52315]

I feel that "Under God" should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. I am seemingly forced to bend under Christian beliefs into saying "Under God." Yes, I may be 16, and yes I am an Atheist, but I respect other people&#39;s right to worship how they please or not to, that’s all fine with me. As long as they don&#39;t try to force it down my throat, like they try here in the mid-west, I won&#39;t complain too much, I just don&#39;t say "Under God." I have no major problems with co-existing with Christians and Muslims and Arabic. And morals, I believe that they have come from evolution and not a god. So many people are bent on the extreme thinking that they&#39;re religion is always right and everyone should be like them. Everyone should stop, step away from their life, and look at everything. Atheists are not killing fanatics with no morals. Take a look at Christian history. Far from perfect. So are humans, so we ALL are humans. The true minority in America is Atheists, and the biggest for of discrimination is based upon religion. I love America and its basis, I accept and respect everyone&#39;s freedom of free speech and religion, and I just don&#39;t think enough people take what makes this country great and different. Still I believe that there should be no church in school, only ones funded by churches. In thousands of years Christians are going to be like the Greeks and Romans, looked upon as silly and ridiculous. I&#39;m not saying you have to remove any references to a god right this minute, but to respect our rights as human beings and our beliefs.

[Neo 721]

ahhhh <_< its all a shear folly, pollitics the law and religion is destructive triangle that will never accomondate one an other its all pointless.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by vidcc@27 March 2004 - 01:48

You appear to look at yourself as something of an authority on the technical word of the law in your counrty.....do you still have to swear on the bible or say "so help me God" if you are a witness in court?....if so could an athiest have a different oath?...which is what this parent wants in regards to the pledge.
The reason it actually ended up in court is because the father (an athiest) who has no custodial rights doesn&#39;t want his child to say the pledge, but the mother ( a believer) who does have custody of the child does wish the child say it
I do not see myself as "something of an authority on the technical word of the law". Like everyone else here I express my opinions, sometimes I know things about computers, or the law, or various other things. Then I will state them, as everybody else does. Frankly I don&#39;t see what your problem is with that.

The answer to your question is that witnesses do not have to swear on the bible. That would just be ridiculous, what if they were Muslim or Jewish. In fact they do not have to swear on any Holy Book if they do not wish to.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@27 March 2004 - 11:00
I do not see myself as "something of an authority on the technical word of the law". Like everyone else here I express my opinions, sometimes I know things about computers, or the law, or various other things. Then I will state them, as everybody else does. Frankly I don&#39;t see what your problem is with that.


who said i have a problem?

[Twigboy]

Well if I had to come up with a solution to this problem,this is what I would suggest.
To let everbody who doesn&#39;t believe in it to step out of the classroom while this goes on.

I don&#39;t believe in stepping on someone elses beliefs,and everyone has a right to believe in what they want to.

Living in the states I don&#39;t like someways they go about things.
But the Freedom of speech for what it&#39;s worth gives me a right to voice my opinion.

[Phyltre]

In response:

I was making the point that some religions reject the pledge on different moral grounds, and that the atheistics aren&#39;t the only ones who object to the pledge on religious terms.
They (my former religion) see a pledge of allegiance to a country as a conflict of interests with their obedience to God. I&#39;m not naming this religion because if you know very much at all about religions, you know which one I&#39;m talking about anyway. And if you don&#39;t, then go find out and don&#39;t work off your preconceptions.

The fact that some people see this view of conflict-of-allegiance as "dim," "wildly slanted," or "cynical" is not an issue with me. However, debating the issue merely by delineating said view in such a way is hardly conducive to a positive learning or even debating environment. See, I&#39;m offering a point from the standpoint of another religion. This is not necessarily MY viewpoint, but I know my stuff about it. I&#39;m not offering up some straw man. Arguing with one of the crux points of a religion by calling it dim may not be the best procedural decision.

Oh, and the incumbent basically DOES hold a monopoly on patriotism. That&#39;s certainly not ideal, and I&#39;d hardly call such a system true patriotism. But remember all the instances of our hearing about "un-American" actions and attitudes? That&#39;s propaganda. The president (our incumbent) is a figurehead of patriotism, nearly by definition. And they&#39;ve just about all been guilty of pointing a few stern glances at individuals who dare question said figurehead.

I&#39;m ending this post now so I don&#39;t lose myself in criticizing the shortfalls of government.