Quantcast

Do you pledge?

How do you Pledge?

  • Is the Pledge of Allegiance "unconstitutional" and should be removed from society entirely?

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Is the Pledge of Allegiance "unconstitutional" but should be maintained by patriotic souls?

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Who cares, I'm saying it anyways! GO USA!

    Votes: 18 75.0%
  • Who cares, I'm against pledging my allegiance to the US!

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • Total voters
    24

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
0
North of Oz
I don't know how wide-spread the debate is yet, or how much y'all know, but in the past couple of days the heated debates have begun.

Is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? Well technically yes, but then so is our currency, and so are our national, patriotic songs and a whole bunch of other things. However, should it be so unconstitutional that someone sues the state because his daughter's 2nd grade class stood to up to Voluntarily say the pledge of allegiance, and he didn't feel she should Have to Choose to Not Participate.

Personally, I think it's a load of bull, and I'm tired of always enabling people to take advantage of a country designed to enhance personal freedomes and liberties. If you believe in god, and you feel that pledging your allegiance to the USA should be done in your personal deities name (God, Allah, etc) than great!! If not, then Don't say that line!!! It's a personal choice, choose to personally say or not say how you pledge your allegiance.

Okay, I have a whole lot more to say, but i'm super riled up right now, and would probably say more than I actually, rationally intend to.

This was meant to be a poll....hopefully I can make the "poll" part happen!
 
Z

Zonic Man

Guest
Originally posted by Jr_Bullit


Is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? Well technically yes, but then so is our currency, and so are our national, patriotic songs and a whole bunch of other things.
Technically, those things are constitutional, NOT unconstitutional.

Hope that helps you feel better about our land.

BTW: The next session of the Court will see to it that the 9th circut is reversed, as always.
 

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
0
North of Oz
Originally posted by Zonic Man


Technically, those things are constitutional, NOT unconstitutional.

Hope that helps you feel better about our land.

BTW: The next session of the Court will see to it that the 9th circut is reversed, as always.
Aight, let the disagreements begin!!! ;)

Actually they are unconstitutional, because of our constitutional right to separation between church and state. And because of our constitutional right to not have ANY religious influence on our daily lives unless we choose to have it. Basically, if you had the choice to use US currency that did not include the phrase "in god we trust" on every piece, then it would be constitutional, because you then have the ability to exercise your preference.

But as to feeling better about "our land," sweetheart all I had to do was travel abroad to a few countries where such "freedoms" are unheard of and I was tearing up at the first sound of our National Anthem.

And my reason for posting this poll was not to get into a debate of legal technicalities, I posted it to make a point. While the gentleman who took the issue to court was exercising his right to separation between church and state, in times such as we are currently in with a country dealing with the insidious deceitful tactics of terrorists the last thing needed is to continue our awful habits of chipping away at a very fragile national sense of unity.

And yes, I'm aware that this debate has already taken place in another thread posted after my poll. ;)
 

ummbikes

Don't mess with the Santas
Apr 16, 2002
1,794
0
Napavine, Warshington
I went to a small town 4th of July parade yesterday. I saw a Pearl Harbor attack survivor riding in a restored Ford "jeep", a P.O.W from Korea, and a group of WWII veterans (these men are getting old) marching in formation. These guys are amazing, and know of sacrafice.

Sitting next to me was my very good friend who after serving 4 years in the Air Force went to college, joined ROTC and is going back in as an officer next month.

My dad went to Vietnam, both my grandfathers fought in Korea, and my paternal grandfather fought in Korea and WWII.

It is regular people who have bled, and killed, and been killed to defend our freedoms. I feel very small and unworthy to even be called an American when in the company of those who put their life on the line to keep our country free.

So like I said before, I said the pledge, I love the anthem, I cried on 9-11-01, and I am proudly a citizen of the United States of America.
 
Z

Zonic Man

Guest
Originally posted by Jr_Bullit


Aight, let the disagreements begin!!! ;)

Actually they are unconstitutional, because of our constitutional right to separation between church and state. And because of our constitutional right to not have ANY religious influence on our daily lives unless we choose to have it. Basically, if you had the choice to use US currency that did not include the phrase "in god we trust" on every piece, then it would be constitutional, because you then have the ability to exercise your preference.
Nope, the constitution guarantees that the government will remain SECULAR in their support of religion(s), we do not have "a constitutional right to not have ANY religious influence on our daily lives unless we choose to have it" as you put it.

As for this: "Basically, if you had the choice to use US currency that did not include the phrase "in god we trust" on every piece, then it would be constitutional, because you then have the ability to exercise your preference."

I don't understand this. Again, the only thing the constitution guarantees is that the government will remain SECULAR, and not directly support any religion.
 

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
0
North of Oz
Originally posted by Zonic Man


Nope, the constitution guarantees that the government will remain SECULAR in their support of religion(s), we do not have "a constitutional right to not have ANY religious influence on our daily lives unless we choose to have it" as you put it.

As for this: "Basically, if you had the choice to use US currency that did not include the phrase "in god we trust" on every piece, then it would be constitutional, because you then have the ability to exercise your preference."

I don't understand this. Again, the only thing the constitution guarantees is that the government will remain SECULAR, and not directly support any religion.
Hehe...this is kinda fun! (I do hope you're enjoying this Zonic Man, otherwise we might as well end it here...)

Anywho, yes our government will not and shall not directly support any religion. In "god" we trust, and many of our patriotic songs and pledges (which are all wonderful in my estimation) is a direct reference (in many minds) to the Christian faith (which is essentially the faith our nation was founded on...however the intelligent men who founded the US understood that more than just Christian believers would populate this country).

In this popular era, so many individuals have chosen to not believe in any religious deity at all, and there are so many acceptable names/versions of what to "call" one's chosen deity, that our current money, national songs, national pledges (including swearing in at a court of law) can be viewed as combining Church (the christian church) and state, when our constitution was designed to separate those. It's simply an unacceptable influence to those who choose to view it that way. And technically, and legally, those who take offense to any religious influence are in their right to remove those influences.

Okay...I think I rambled there, it's taken two hours for me to finish the last three sentences (work's a bear this week!)
 
Z

Zonic Man

Guest
Originally posted by Jr_Bullit

Anywho, yes our government will not and shall not directly support any religion. In "god" we trust, and many of our patriotic songs and pledges (which are all wonderful in my estimation) is a direct reference (in many minds) to the Christian faith
This is subjective, not objective. What "God" means to "many minds" does not float in the modern court. The modern Court is interpretationalist, and looks to the "plain meaning". The "plain meaning" is that "Under God" means not under any one particular god to which is being supportive, but to a universal God...

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit

In this popular era, so many individuals have chosen to not believe in any religious deity at all, and there are so many acceptable names/versions of what to "call" one's chosen deity, that our current money, national songs, national pledges (including swearing in at a court of law) can be viewed as combining Church (the christian church) and state, when our constitution was designed to separate those. It's simply an unacceptable influence to those who choose to view it that way.
Sure they CAN be viewed as that, but then again, I CAN view Osama Bin Laden as a great guy who has a legitimate political purpose in helping to blow up buildings in New York City and Washington, D.C. Again, PERSPECTIVE is subjective, and not ACUTALLY based on objectivity.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit

And technically, and legally, those who take offense to any religious influence are in their right to remove those influences.
Only if they have standing to challenge said law. So technically, and "legally", those who merely "take offense" do not actually have a right to "remove those influences" as you put it.
 

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
0
North of Oz
What if you don't believe in god, disagree with all things Theist, and are extremely unhappy with the influence society is having on Your progeny as a result of influencing factors such as the Pledge of Allegiance.

If the modern court is interpretationist, and looks to the plain meaning, they cannot overlook the fact that any reference to god on required State documents, currency, pledges and songs, directly conflicts with the multitudes of americans that have reject all forms of Theism.

What good is the swearing in at court if you do not believe in god?

Other than that, I completely agree with your statement that you can believe and think as you please, however our State cannot afford the consequences (in this day and age) of being viewed as one that requires it's citizens to conform to a religious tolerance that they do not and may not feel.

Church and state were separated initially because of the Church's direct influence in European political life. The goal here was to avoid any direct influence from any Theist or Athiest doctrine on a citizen's personal life, so they do not feel pressured to conform to beliefs they do not share.

As to challenging said law, is this not a democracy where each individual voice has the strength to overcome any law? It takes knowledge and patience and skill to do so, but any individual in this day and age has the ability to challenge the laws of this country. It is one of the many things that makes it great.
 
Z

Zonic Man

Guest
Okay. First off may I say, jen, that it's nice to discuss things with an intelligent person. I get that from your post.

Now to ruin you. ;) Kidding. I'll try to answer your questions for the sake of debate...I have to remember what side I'm on though. ;)

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
What if you don't believe in god, disagree with all things Theist, and are extremely unhappy with the influence society is having on Your progeny as a result of influencing factors such as the Pledge of Allegiance.
Honestly? Tough Sh!t. If you don't have a valid gripe, move.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
If the modern court is interpretationist, and looks to the plain meaning, they cannot overlook the fact that any reference to god on required State documents, currency, pledges and songs, directly conflicts with the multitudes of americans that have reject all forms of Theism.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the constitution ONLY has been held to go so far as to protect the people from government sponsorship of any PARTICULAR religion. Governmental sponsorship of MANY religions, while not favoring one in particular IS constitutional. (See: Texas case where court held xmas tree, star of david, and a sign that said "seasons greetings" on front law of city hall is constitutional and not evidence of the state endorsing one over another.)

I'm extremely unhappy that police want to look at my driver's license when they pull over. In fact, i'm also unhappy that there is a police at all by municipality, and not a "state militia" and sheriffs like there was 150 years ago. Can the Court overlook the fact that I have an Equal Protection right to privacy in keeping my ID hidden because I believe it's unconstitutional?

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
What good is the swearing in at court if you do not believe in god?
You don't do that any more. The standard is whether or not someone knows consequences of lying and can differentiate the true from the false.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Other than that, I completely agree with your statement that you can believe and think as you please, however our State cannot afford the consequences (in this day and age) of being viewed as one that requires it's citizens to conform to a religious tolerance that they do not and may not feel.
Again, good point, but what does this have to do with our conversation? The state DOES NOT SPONSOR ANY SORT OF RELIGION, THEREFORE THE STATE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANYONE TO CONFORM TO ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Church and state were separated initially because of the Church's direct influence in European political life. The goal here was to avoid any direct influence from any Theist or Athiest doctrine on a citizen's personal life, so they do not feel pressured to conform to beliefs they do not share.
Okay. And funny enough, I went to the restroom about a half hour ago.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
As to challenging said law, is this not a democracy where each individual voice has the strength to overcome any law? It takes knowledge and patience and skill to do so, but any individual in this day and age has the ability to challenge the laws of this country. It is one of the many things that makes it great.
You are correct, if one is smart enough, they can figure out a way to gain standing to bring suit in federal court. That is, challenging a law.

But as for the "individual voice having strength to overcome any law" I think you are looking for the legislature branch of government here, not the judiciary. As I'm sure you're well aware, the two are completely different.