Supreme Court rules to keep "under god" in the pledge

can you recall what book their hand is on when the state the oath?

 

taken from George Washington's inaugural address:

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."


"Peculiarly improper" to omit a petition to God in his "first official act."

What does this tell you?




If Washington made a point to cite God in an official capacity in the late 1700's why should it be different now?

 

The pledge is not a law therfore it is not unconstitutional.

And 3 justices is a very good sign since one of them is O'Connor. For those of you who don't follow the supreme court decisions, O'Connor is the "swing" vote on most issues that split on a conservative/liberal line.

 

carroll, meathead?

 

Oh and just because 3 said that they would up hold "under God" as constitutional doesn't mean that the others said they would not. The other 5 judges present declined to give a statement.

 

Yeah where have you been!!! :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

 

tell her its the same way that Gore is not president.

 

If I was an agnostic and I had a daughter ask me those questions I would tell her I don't know but I would encourage her to keep an open mind about it and to seek the answers out for herself.

I think you are more an agnostic than a true athiest. An athiest is somebody who flatly state that there is no higher being while an agnostic is somebody who just dosen't know and won't believe it without proof. Some athiests carry their non belief to the point of being an anti religion, like Madalyn Murrey O'Hair who formed a national athiest organization. I don't understand why somebody who dosen't believe would spend so much time worrying about it.

I understand why you do it. You just like to argue for the sake of argument. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Are you a lawyer?

I enjoy a good argument too. I just would rather do it verbally so I don't have to type as many words as TigerEducated. He can probably type a lot faster than me.

 

right on. and dont you think it is legitimate to expect the government to not be telling little kids to pledge to our nation "under god"? lets let the kids figure this out themselves. we shouldnt be telling kids to believe things they cant possibly comprehend yet.

i dont think we should even bother teaching kids anything so complicated before they have the ability to really consider it. i know i was brought up methodist, but it was a joke, because i didnt care at all about any of it, i was a kid, i cared about soccer and skateboards. by the time i got old enough to consider it, that is when it was good i hadnt thought about it enough to be brainwashed. little kids are defenseless, it seems overbearing and unfair to teach em religion before they can even think for themselves.

i think that was the mistake with you guys. you guys were hit so early and often with propaganda, you had everything decided for you before you had a chance to fight back. the battle for your mind was over before it started. you have lost all perspective.

schools should teach children to read, not force them to consider the existence or non-existence of god. that is way over their heads.

religion is fine. i think it is stupid, but you guys enjoy yourselves. is it so damn hard for you to do your business in private? is it so necessary to voice your allegiance to "god" that you cant keep it to yourselves? cant we have a secular government?

 

The other side of that is that not being a non believer I would tell her to just say the pledge and shut up. After all, I wouldn't want my daughter to end up in hell.

Nobody is forced to say the pledge. Of course we should tell kids to believe things they can't comprehend. A two year old can't comprehend that if he wanders into a busy street he might get hit by a car.

There's your problem. Skateboards are cool but soccer is the Anti-Football.

Schools don't teach religion unless it is a church affiliated school. If a kid voluntarily recites the pledge that includes the words "under God" Its very doubtful that the kid would even attach much signifigance to the words he mindlessly recites or even gives it a second thought even before his butt hits the chair of his desk while sitting down after saying the pledge. The pledge is not all about the existence of God. It might be fun to argue about 2 words on an internet forum but anybody who gets so worked up about it that they will waste their money hiring lawyers to fight it in court is an idiot who needs to get a life.