Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what is meant by the word God. If I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I am not talking about the bible god. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me. In America we have the right to view the word God in any way we wish too. The word God can even be viewed from an Atheistic point of view as meaning the laws of nature or science.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals thinks otherwise. It has declared the daily recitation of the Pledge to be unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God." It believes that the phrase violates the establishment of religion clause (althoug there is no such animal).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what is meant by the word God. If I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I am not talking about the bible god. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me. In America we have the right to view the word God in any way we wish too. The word God can even be viewed from an Atheistic point of view as meaning the laws of nature or science.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals thinks otherwise. It has declared the daily recitation of the Pledge to be unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God." It believes that the phrase violates the establishment of religion (not nature or whatever someone wants it to mean) clause, although there is no such animal.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Congress and Michael Newdow have a problem with the phrase "under God" because they feel that it violates the "establishment of religion" clause in the Constitution. But there is no such animal. The phrase "establishment of religion" is not a stand alone phrase that can be used to decide whether something is unconstitutional or not because it is a dependent phrase. It is dependent on the phrase that precedes it for proper contextual interpretation and understanding.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals thinks otherwise. It has declared the daily recitation of the Pledge to be unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God." It believes that the phrase violates the establishment of religion clause (althoug there is no such animal).

Ya, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is very liberal, and has made many controversial judgments.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
(althoug there is no such animal).

Originally posted by Robtard
Because you're mixing religion directly in with Government.

Would you not get your panties in a bunch if the Pledge was suddenly changed to "One Nation under Allah, who's one true prophet is Mohammad"? Yeah, I think you would; you'd also be crying about "Freedom of Religion".

But the First Amendment does not prohibit the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Read the First Amendment again. Here is what it states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is very liberal, and has made many controversial judgments.

So then it has misapplied the First Amendment?

😕

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But the First Amendment does not prohibit the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Read the First Amendment again. Here is what it states:

Congress shall [B]make no law respecting an establishment of religion…. [/B]

Very true, and the word God does not establish any religion. However, if Atheism became a religion, then there might be a case for religious discrimination.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So then it has misapplied the First Amendment?

😕

Along with other things.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Very true, and the word God does not establish any religion. However, if Atheism became a religion, then there might be a case for religious discrimination.

So then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal--in their effort to protect one person's right--has actually violated someone else's (i.e. freedom of speech/religion)?

😕

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal--in their effort to protect one person's right--has actually violated someone else's (i.e. freedom of speech/religion)?

😕

Fun how the legal system works ain't it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fun how the legal system works ain't it.

😄 (yup!)

I am going to Law School.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal--in their effort to protect one person's right--has actually violated someone else's (i.e. freedom of speech/religion)?

😕

You would have to ask a lawyer.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not in favor of the Pledge of Allegiance mentioning God or not I am simply asking what you feel about this controversial subject. I am indifferent on the issue.

Originally posted by inimalist
Precidence is used in order to interpret the constitution. While the strict seperation of church and state is not explicitly written out in the letter of the constitution, it has been adopted by the supreme court as being the way that the ammendment is interpreted. This is how the judical system works as a check and balance on the other systems of government in a democracy.

I feel the way Digi does about the issue as well, but that is the plain and simple answer to why "seperation of church and state" is upheld by your constitution

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you feel that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment? How or why do you feel this way? The First Amendment does not say that religious terminology cannot exist in the Pledge of Allegiance it simply states that [B]Congress shall not make any law "respecting" an establishment of religion. So, based on that criterion how does the Pledge of Allegiance violate the First Amendment clause, and thus the Constitution?

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law that has been made by Congress or is it? [/B]

Congress had no part in applying religion to the Pledge. That was Eisenhower's doing. "Under God" was added by Eisenhower after Congress had already approved the fourth or fifth version of it, which made no mention of god. Later, it was the Supreme Court that upheld the seperation of church and state by decreeing that it was a violation of a child's rights to make the pledge recitation mandatory.

Besides, all the pledge started out as was propoganda aimed at children.

Originally posted by Devil King
Congress had no part in applying religion to the Pledge. That was Eisenhower's doing. "Under God" was added by Eisenhower after Congress had already approved the fourth or fifth version of it, which made no mention of god. Later, it was the Supreme Court that upheld the seperation of church and state by decreeing that it was a violation of a child's rights to make the pledge recitation mandatory.

Besides, all the pledge started out as was propoganda aimed at children.

We just need to convert all the children to Buddhism. Then we will not have a problem. 😆

The phrase does not bother me at all. It's a simple tradition, it is not harmful, and it does not threaten my life, comfort, or beleifs.

However, I understand why it bothers others, and I don't think someone should be compelled to say something they don't want to say. I don't understand why it's okay for the Pledge of Allegiance to be pushed with the "God" Phrase in Public School, but then it's wrong for a Muslim student to pray to Allah in class, or to bring the Quran to school.

I just find that very hypocritical. Whenever a Christian is restricted to what he or she can do in public school, it becomes national outrage, but when a Muslim wants to practice in school, no one cares.

If Christianity, in any form, can be pushed or exist in Public Schools, then every other religion should have the same freedoms.

I hate that. It's rediculous how Christianity gets a free bee in a non-religious establishment, like Public Schools, but religions such as Islam and Wicca become taboo. That's hypocrisy 👇

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you feel that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment? How or why do you feel this way? The First Amendment does not say that religious terminology cannot exist in the Pledge of Allegiance it simply states that [B]Congress shall not make any law "respecting" an establishment of religion. So, based on that criterion how does the Pledge of Allegiance violate the First Amendment clause, and thus the Constitution?

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law that has been made by Congress or is it? [/B]

Adding the phrase "under God" estabishes religion by claiming there is one god.

The pledge should be retruned to its ORGINAL and HISTORIC text and not some bastardized cold war legisislation of fear.

Originally posted by Alliance
Adding the phrase "under God" estabishes religion by claiming there is one god.

The pledge should be retruned to its ORGINAL and HISTORIC text and not some bastardized cold war legisislation of fear.

Originally posted by Alliance
Adding the phrase "under God" estabishes religion by claiming there is one god.

The pledge should be retruned to its ORGINAL and HISTORIC text and not some bastardized cold war legisislation of fear.

Then everyone should say "under Gods". 😆