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

I don't the "under God" in the pledge and "In God we trust" on the money indoctrinate your child into Christianity any more than Christmas and Easter do.

Martin does your child get Christmas presents or visits from the Easter Bunny?

 

i dont have a child, i only discuss it in hopes that you will understand.

i dont see the relevance of asking about the easter bunny. i am aware that the easter bunny and christmas are excuses to give gifts. nobody is telling kids to pledge allegiance to the easter bunny, and i suppose that if they did, you wouldnt be arguing that it makes sense that our dollars say "in bunny we trust"

do you get it? to me god and the easter bunny are somewhat equivalent. who are you to define my beliefs for me?

 

Sorry didn't know your daughter wasn't real. Sorry for your loss . :grin: :grin:

I never tried to define your beliefs. I only asked you a question.

The reason I asked about those two holidays is that Easter and Christmas are both religious based holidays. Which are Federal holidays as a matter of tradition. If you would have a problem with the gvt "indoctrinating" your child into Christianity with the pledge and school prayer. Would the school/govt celebration of Christmas and Easter bother you too.

 

well, i obviously think christmas is a waste of time, but i like vacations. i feel the same way about christmas that a jew might. if people want to celebrate christmas, thats cool, i will help em decorate the tree, but i would prefer that they dont tell my fictional daughter that jesus was the "savior" and thats why christmas is important, or that she should pledge allegiance to god.

if i had a daughter i would give her christmas presents for sure, but i would say it was all because of santa, who i really like. santa is way cooler than jesus.

 

That is a route not even this far-left Supreme Court is likely to take questioning Congress' spending power.
There is no way around the necessity to bastardize the 14th Amendment for the secular fanatics to strike down state and municipal actions regarding religion.
If the USSC started questioning federal funding of school programs specifically designed, as most are, for underprivileged children and special-needs children and stretched the purpose of such funds as establishing a religion, which Congress is forbade from doing, it would indeed start a true Constitutional crisis.
Because what the secular fanatics would be doing would be a direct assault on the plenary powers of the Congress.
No, that is not a fight even the most liberal of Supreme Courts is likely to commence.
Much easier to take on some poor school district in Texas from afar than a co-equal branch.
Therefore, your suggestion is absurd.
The only plausible route to continue the secular march is to continue to bastardize the 14th Amendment, ignore the plain language of the Constitution and re-write history as the Court has done since the 1960's.

 

You keep saying im trying to force my beliefs into the government's practices and your way of life. You've got it backwards. You guys are trying to force your non-belief on everyone else. I never said anything couldn't be added to the pledge as long as it held some historical significance and relevance to our American traditions. I'm not worried though. No congressman or judge will ever approve the idea of taking God out of our way of life. I have faith in that.

 

but i am the one who wants religion to be free from government meddling! i dont want to force my beleifs on anyone, i dont anyone to force any beliefs on anyone. what i favor is the government not taking a positive or negative stance on god, not forcing anyone on anything.

how can you claim: "You guys are trying to force your non-belief on everyone else".? i dont want the pledge to say "god doesnt exist"! i want it to say nothing about god at all!

 

Lottery, I think you are half-right.
No legislator or ure would dare *take God* out.
For a simple reason, democracy.
They are accountable for their actions every 2-4-6 years.
On the other hand, a lifetime appointment offers a Federal Judge the opportunity to do absolutely whatever he or she pleases with no real accountability.
Unless you believe impeachment is an option, which really it isn't.
Regardless of where one stands on this issue, I believe the *field of play* has been purposely distorted by the advocates on the far left.
They know good and well, as you point out, that they can not *win*, or at least not often enough, in the court of public opinion, a legislature of the people, or even by referendum.
Therefore, they must *win* in the Courts.
And, therefore, that's why when an elected public official or one running for office uses the word *extremist* to describe a judicial nominee, I believe they should be asked what they mean by that description, specifically.