Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, yeah...to be honest.

I did hesitate, but...

😂

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.

(Excuse my parsing) Establishing a religion is not unconstitutional (in the strictest interpretation of the Constitution), but making a law that respects an establishment of religion would be unconstitutional. Besides, what is wrong with establishing a religion?

No law can be made establishing a religion, therefore a religion cannot be established by law, therefore cannot be established by the state.

Besides, I think the national religion should be Islam. It provides the best opportunities for this nation to move forward. I'm sure you don't object.

Originally posted by Alliance
No law can be made establishing a religion, therefore a religion cannot be established by law, therefore cannot be established by the state.

Besides, I think the national religion should be Islam. It provides the best opportunities for this nation to move forward. I'm sure you don't object.

No law can be made respecting an establishment of religion is a more accurate rendering of the First Amendment.

Why are you sure that I don't object?

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]

As Robin Williams pointed out -

One nation under Canada, above Mexico.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No law can be made respecting an establishment of religion is a more accurate rendering of the First Amendment.

Why are you sure that I don't object?

So, basically that means that the government can't respect Christianity. 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, basically that means that the government can't respect Christianity. 😆

Neither can they hate it.

🙄 😄

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Neither can they hate it.

🙄 😄

Hate it? Why not?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hate it? Why not?

The First Amendment prevents them (freedom of religion).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The First Amendment prevents them (freedom of religion).

Does freedom of religion also include freedom from religion?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Does freedom of religion also include freedom from religion?

If the individual so wishes, yes.

Originally posted by Devil King
If the individual so wishes, yes.

But I wanted an answer from JIA. 🙁

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[COLOR=darkblue]Neither can they hate it.

How does the government hate religion? Oh wait...they don't.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Neither can they hate it.

🙄 😄

Originally posted by Da Pittman
They can hate it all they want, nothing says that they can't.

By the same token, nothing says that they can.

And this conversational exchange is exactly why the constitutional authors said the government and religion had no buisness being involved with one another.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
By the same token, nothing says that they can.

The constitution also does not explicitly give you the right to have children.

Originally posted by Alliance
The constitution also does not explicitly give you the right to have children.

Neither does it prohibit me.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Neither does it prohibit me.

You are now arguing about nothing.