STORM2K

I know it's off topic, but:

BREAKING NEWS AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.

jschlitz wrote:I know it's off topic, but:

BREAKING NEWS AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.

I don't even have to ask which court that came out of if this is verified!!!

Nothing is Off-Topic here in the Off-Topic forum.

I declare this judge in SF a total... and I'll leave it at that!

Eric

Oh lordy

Skywatch_NC wrote:Nothing is Off-Topic here in the Off-Topic forum.

I declare this judge in SF a total... and I'll leave it at that!

Eric

Sorry, I thought I had posted it in Talkin' Tropics...

I agree. Maybe we should take all the judge's money too since it says "In God We Trust"

Absurd! I wish I was still in public school. I'd say it every day, in every class. This man needs to find another job. He seems to think "he" is God.

Not this again! This seems to be redundant.

Yeah... it's so ridiclous. If you don't want to say it, just DON'T SAY IT. No one is forcing you to say it.

A lot of this could have been avoided had the congress and President Eisenhower not put the words "Under God" in the pledge in the 1950s. Imagine how the Christian Right would react if the pledge said Under Zeus, or Under Allah. It originally just said one nation, indivisible while Christianity is the most popular group of religions here, not everyone believes in it. It would be nice to be able to pledge allegience to our country without having to also acknowledge a christian god (or any god for that matter).

Good point Terrell.

Agreed. Congress never should have changed the Pledge in the first place in the 1950's.

Terrell wrote:A lot of this could have been avoided had the congress and President Eisenhower not put the words "Under God" in the pledge in the 1950s. Imagine how the Christian Right would react if the pledge said Under Zeus, or Under Allah. It originally just said one nation, indivisible while Christianity is the most popular group of religions here, not everyone believes in it. It would be nice to be able to pledge allegience to our country without having to also acknowledge a christian god (or any god for that matter).

Who actually said it was the Christian "God?" Maybe for some, it could just as easily be their faith's God, but spoken with the English term for it. After all, not everyone calls Him "God." Some say "Dios," "Jehovah," "Allah," and so on.

Brent wrote:Yeah... it's so ridiclous. If you don't want to say it, just DON'T SAY IT. No one is forcing you to say it.

I agree. It seems like if you don't want to say what this country was founded on then you should'nt have to.......but we should remeber, that is was founded on that, and respect it. Why do we have to change everything all the time. If you don't like it, thats fine, just dont make majority change for the minority.

They want to take it out because it offends a few... What about the MILLIONS it offends if they take it out? Who cares about them

waaaaaaa waaaaaaa waaaaaaa.. So tired of the whining

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Terrell wrote:A lot of this could have been avoided had the congress and President Eisenhower not put the words "Under God" in the pledge in the 1950s. Imagine how the Christian Right would react if the pledge said Under Zeus, or Under Allah. It originally just said one nation, indivisible while Christianity is the most popular group of religions here, not everyone believes in it. It would be nice to be able to pledge allegience to our country without having to also acknowledge a christian god (or any god for that matter).

Who actually said it was the Christian "God?" Maybe for some, it could just as easily be their faith's God, but spoken with the English term for it. After all, not everyone calls Him "God." Some say "Dios," "Jehovah," "Allah," and so on.

It's obvious it doesn't need to be specifically stated. Besides you conviently overlooked the part I had about "or any god for that matter" While you're at it quit telling me god exists and prove to me god exists.

I have a feeling this topic will be locked soon...

Eric

Terrell wrote:It's obvious it doesn't need to be specifically stated. Besides you conviently overlooked the part I had about "or any god for that matter" While you're at it quit telling me god exists and prove to me god exists.

*scratching head*

Hmmm...you're telling me to quit telling you something that I never really came right out and told you in the first place?

I bet I could convince you that mods exist though.

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Terrell wrote:It's obvious it doesn't need to be specifically stated. Besides you conviently overlooked the part I had about "or any god for that matter" While you're at it quit telling me god exists and prove to me god exists.

*scratching head*

Hmmm...you're telling me to quit telling you something that I never really came right out and told you in the first place?

I bet I could convince you that mods exist though.

I'm well aware of the existence of moderators. I pointed out the stop telling me god exists and prove it to me, because the existence of god is simply belief, there is no way to prove or disprove, using the scientific method, whether or not any god of any name exists. Also belief in the existence of god, something that cannot be proven, is what makes this issue controversial in the first place.

Terrell wrote:I'm well aware of thre existence of moderators. I pointed out the stop telling me god exists and prove it to me, because the existence of god is simply belief, there is no way to prove or disprove, using the scientific method, whether or now any god of any kind exists. Also belief in the existence of god, something that cannot be proven, is what makes this issue controversial in the first place.

That's why, in my first post in this thread, I said "faith."

Because of the matter of faith involved, I think the 1954 decision to add "under god" to the pledge was wrong.

While there is majority rule in this country, there are limits on what can be done in the name of simple majorities, that's the one of the most important reasons we have a constitution and a bill of rights to begin with. To protect the rights of those who may be on the wrong side of a vote.