I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!


It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having "In God! We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to Sit Down and BE QUIET!!!

SIT DOWN SHUT UP.. SIT DOWN SHUT UP! LOL... you should bring them all here, we can take care of them.

it's just those 14% (or whatever the exact firgure is) trying to force there opinion down everyone else's throat.. something that i can't stand.

Huh?  I thougt it was "for Richard stands..."
:D

Don't sit down and be quiet, stand up and scream hysterically about how the world is persecuting you.  It worked for the Christian funnymentalists and the far-right free market absolutists, so it'll work for you too!
:D

Why don't we just tell the 14% to Sit Down and BE QUIET!!!

Because of the first amendment?

That's why they ought to send them here... we don't have one lol

I absolutely love how people scream that this is a Christian thing.

Last time I remember, it is God, not Christ.  And God can represent whatever the person thinks it is.  It may be God, Allah, Jehova, Vishnu, Gia, or even Fluffy, the large purple Bunny God.

In fact, is somebody wanted to either keep quiet for those 2 words, or add another word ("Under Allah"), I would not think anything bad.  To me, God is a very personal and private belief.

When this first came up, I immediately thought of the closing speach from an episode of the Red Skelton show.

http://www.poofcat.com/july.html

"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance...

UNDER GOD

Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?"

Say it with me:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America.  And to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The Fox News poll says that 88% of Americans support keeping "under God" in the pledge.  Personally, I'm with Alcoholica, tell the other 12% to shove it.

I agree 100%.  If you don't like it or it offends you, then don't say it. 8)

And, does everyone know that there isn't supposed to be a pause between "One nation" & "under God"?  I didn't until last night ;)


What I don't get is the people who say people are forced to say it.  The US Supreme court has ruled that a kid in school cannot be forced to say the pledge.  So how can they be forced to say "under God?"

And no, I didn't.  I thought there was always a pause between "one nation" and "under God."

I think I've mentioned this before.  My grandmother, the straight ticket Republican,
conservative, god-loving, church-going, woman that she was, took offense when they changed the wording of the pledge("under god" was added in 1954 at the urging of the Knights of Columbus).  Was she a bad person?  She has much more in common with your way of thinking than mine GW.  Still until the day she died at the age of 89 she said "one nation, indivisible" and taught us to do the same. Of course that may have been due to that fact that the K of C were not one of her favorite organizations.

The Pledge of Allegiance should be more inclusive, just not mentioning God is the best option in my opinion. Because that should please both sides, not mentioning God neither endorses or rejects the belief. I don't believe in God, and I am a citizen of this country too, it is my pledge too. Besides, it was only added to the Pledge due to Cold War hysteria anyway. The Cold War is over, take it out.

The Cold War is over, take it out.


No, I think it is actually just beginning  ??? 

Nearly.. this is the Castrol war

Nearly.. this is the Castrol war


In american we pronounce it eXXon(the sign of the double cross)

ah yes.. im sorry if i offended anybody there  ;)

The Pledge of Allegiance should be more inclusive, just not mentioning God is the best option in my opinion. Because that should please both sides, not mentioning God neither endorses or rejects the belief. I don't believe in God, and I am a citizen of this country too, it is my pledge too. Besides, it was only added to the Pledge due to Cold War hysteria anyway. The Cold War is over, take it out.

Oh we all murmured "under God" and left it where it was.  Once they let that war criminal Ronald Reagan off the hook, loyalty got to be something of a joke!
::)

The Pledge of Allegiance should be more inclusive, just not mentioning God is the best option in my opinion. Because that should please both sides, not mentioning God neither endorses or rejects the belief. I don't believe in God, and I am a citizen of this country too, it is my pledge too. Besides, it was only added to the Pledge due to Cold War hysteria anyway. The Cold War is over, take it out.


You "offend" more people by taking it out than you do leaving it.  Same with the Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays debate, the left wants Happy Holidays, yet more people seem to be offended by that.

It's not even a contest in the opinion polls, no one is forced to say the pledge.  So I will use the liberals' "logic" the kind they do when it comes to decency on television and the FCC...."you don't like it?  Don't listen to it or say it."

That goes with the liberals' "change the channel" argument.

Well 'God' is never defined in the context of the Pledge itself, so it shouldn't matter either way.  Referring to God in the context of the Pledge doesn't require you to 'believe' in any particular concept of God.  It could be a completely secular God -- like 'Nature and All Its Wonders'.

Now here is a question i would like answering.

Is the pledge controlled by the Federal Government or can individual states decide if they should say Under God, or just say the pledge at all?

Now here is a question i would like answering.

Is the pledge controlled by the Federal Government or can individual states decide if they should say Under God, or just say the pledge at all?


It's the official United States pledge.  It cannot be changed by any state.  As for saying the pledge, the US Supreme court, which has power over all 50 states and the District of Columbia, has said that no one attending public schools can be forced to say the pledge, though indivdual states can mandate if a student must be forced to stand during the pledge or not.

You "offend" more people by taking it out than you do leaving it.  Same with the Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays debate, the left wants Happy Holidays, yet more people seemt to be offended by that.



It is way beyond me to understand anyone who would be offended buy the greeting "Happy Holidays".
You would have to have a serious poker up your a** to be offended by that.

It is way beyond me to understand anyone who would be offended buy the greeting "Happy Holidays".
You would have to have a serious poker up your a** to be offended by that.


Well, I think some people feel they're being 'pressured' by the Evil Forces of Political Correctness (i.e., civility, inclusion and basic human decency) to 'give up' saying 'Merry Christmas'. 

Personally, I don't get it -- many people just don't celebrate or recognize Christmas, so if one can say HH instead of MC in order to avoid offending someone unnecessarily, I'd think it downright 'Christian' to do so...what does saying HH cost you?  Does it somehow constrain your ability to celebrate your 'Christianity'?  Some will argue it does, but they're wrong.  Unless their form of so-called 'Christianity' endorses willfully and deliberately shoving their personal beliefs into other people's faces whether they appreciate it or not.  But that's not Christianity as such, no matter what they try to call it.  Calling it so does not make it so.  Sorry, folks. 

There are many popular forms of so-called 'Christianity' that have little to do with Christ.  People are entitled to whatever hateful, provincial, exclusionist, morally judgemental attitudes make them feel all warm and fuzzy, but it's sort of unfortunate that they sometimes choose to dress it up as Christianity.  Geez, can't they just call it, I dunno... Grahamanity, or Bushinanity, or whatever's appropriate to their particular ideology?

Myself, I've find my spiritual home with Leoism, because it's a spiritual orientation that allows me to marry a healthy amount of self-righteous indignation with a reasonable understanding that people are just gonna be the way people are...

  ::)

Myself, I've find my spiritual home with Leoism, because it's a spiritual orientation that allows me to marry a healthy amount of self-righteous indignation with a reasonable understanding that people are just gonna be the way people are...

  ::)


You had me at hello  ::)

It's the official United States pledge.  It cannot be changed by any state.  As for saying the pledge, the US Supreme court, which has power over all 50 states and the District of Columbia, has said that no one attending public schools can be forced to say the pledge, though indivdual states can mandate if a student must be forced to stand during the pledge or not.

You can opt out of saying the Pledge if you want to demonstrate that you and your family are a bunch of heathens who don't love their country.
::)

You can opt out of saying the Pledge if you want to demonstrate that you and your family are a bunch of heathens who don't love their country.
::)


Hold up.  You don't think they should at least have to stand for the pledge?  At least show some respect for the men who died for this country.

You've never been to Van Nuys California, have you?  Saying Merry Christmas to someone you don't know there can get you some nasty looks and comments.

No, I haven't.  In fact, I haven't been to the peoples' republik of Kalifornia since the 1980's.  But anyone who gets offended by a two word sentence that starts off with the word "merry," is uptight.

At least show some respect for the men who died for this country.

You cannot legislate respect.  It is too deep a feeling and to try to force it only fosters resentment.
What we need are good role models in that line.  Showing respect for those who fought for our country
is a mature response. I'm sure the respect shown John Kerry received for enlisting during Viet Nam, by the leaders of this country who didn't,  was not lost on the adolescents who may be in the typical throws of age related rebellion.

I don't like the idea of a pledge of allegiance at all, let alone before "God," whoever that is. It all seems very Nazi to me. Ever see the video of all the children and/or soldiers, hands in the air, saying their pledge which began with  "Ich schwöre bei Gott..." (I swear by God)? My allegiance is to myself and to my own ethics and principles. I'm not going to swear before any supreme power, my allegiance to a large piece of land and its government just because I happen to have been reared here. I won't do it here for America, I won't do it for Germany (country of my birth), and I won't do it for Canada (my other nationality, my father's country). Out of the three, btw, the US is the only one who demands such an oath.

If 86% of the country insist upon having "God" in there, then I suppose we should let them have it. Don't expect me to participate and don't jump all over my @ss for it either, that's all I ask. Unfortunately, the chances of one or both of those conditions being fulfilled are slim to none.

Hold up.  You don't think they should at least have to stand for the pledge?  At least show some respect for the men who died for this country.
Oh grow up for Pete's sake! You don't have to recite some crummy pledge in order to "respect" the men and women who died for this country.  You advocate a very conformist and fascistic attitude when you tie in "patriotism" with "follow in line like everybody else."  Children must be educated to decide what the flag means to them and to what kind of country they want to pledge allegience.  I could not in good conscience encourage young people to pledge allegience to the Bush/Cheney vision of America.  The Bushies require loyalty of everybody to the billionaire's agenda.  The billionaire has no loyalty to America, only to capital.
Furthermore, Jehova's Witnesses are extremely religious.  Their beliefs dictate they may not "pledge allegience" to anyone but God, so it is against their religion to say the Pledge.  We need to set an ethos in classrooms across America that shows respect for students who decline the Pledge out of conscience.  The attitude that you don't love your country if you don't utter certain words is anathema to that ethos.  Heck, I remember being in sixth grade with a kid from a Jehova's Witness family.  He got ridiculed for not loving his country and accused of being a communist by some of the redneck kids.  That's not the America I want to live in.

No, I haven't.  In fact, I haven't been to the peoples' republik of Kalifornia since the 1980's.  But anyone who gets offended by a two word sentence that starts off with the word "merry," is uptight.

In Van Nuys, I think you'd get better responses by asking people if they would like to be in your pornographic video.
:-X

I'm not going to swear before any supreme power


Where the hell does the pledge make you swear allegiance to God?  It says "under God," I can't see why the far-left gets all uptight about the slightest mention of God, yet seem to have no problem with people walking around jerking-off in public naked.  That's okay with the kooks in San Francisco, California.

What after the pledge?  The nation's motto "in God we trust?"  The "in God we trust" on the money?  The military pledge ending with "so help me God?"  Talk about your fascists, I don't agree with you....so....you are banned from saying it.  That's why the right fights so hard on this, the pledge is just the far-left's first target.

Where the hell does the pledge make you swear allegiance to God?  It says "under God," I can't see why the far-left gets all uptight about the slightest mention of God, yet seem to have no problem with people walking around jerking-off in public naked.  That's okay with the kooks in San Francisco, California.

What after the pledge?  The nation's motto "in God we trust?"  The "in God we trust" on the money?  The military pledge ending with "so help me God?"  Talk about your fascists, I don't agree with you....so....you are banned from saying it.  That's why the right fights so hard on this, the pledge is just the far-left's first target.

"and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God..."
In other words, the flag represents the country and the country is ruled over by God.  Sounds like John Aschcroft to me, that's why I'd like to see "under God" removed.
It does say "In God We Trust" on our currency, but I've never heard the phrase refered to as "America's motto."

"and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God..."
In other words, the flag represents the country and the country is ruled over by God.  Sounds like John Aschcroft to me, that's why I'd like to see "under God" removed.


When you got (and I'm using the Fox News Opinions Dynamics poll as my source, other polls may vary within the MOE,) 92% of a country that believes in God, and 88% that says leave "under God" in the pledge, then you can't have a very small portion of this country dictate what can and cannot be said in the pledge.  And again, don't give me the "you can't force a kid....," garbage, the US Supreme court has ruled that no one is forced to say it, it's on your own free will.  It's not hurting anybody, is it?  Or are some people so worried that their kids may not have to have atheism shoved down their throats from day one?

It does say "In God We Trust" on our currency, but I've never heard the phrase refered to as "America's motto."

You learn something new everyday, huh?  "In God We Trust" is America's official motto.

You could of course argue that the motto is 'Out of Many, One' which is of course more commonly known as 'E Pluribus Unum'.

Interestingly the only state to have 'In God we Trust' is Florida.. however many other states do have similar mottos.

My favourite however has to be Virginia's which is 'Sic semper tyrannis' which translates to 'Thus always to Tyrants'... so many ways to misinterpret it  ;)

You could of course argue that the motto is 'Out of Many, One' which is of course more commonly known as 'E Pluribus Unum'.

Interestingly the only state to have 'In God we Trust' is Florida.. however many other states do have similar mottos.

My favourite however has to be Virginia's which is 'Sic semper tyrannis' which translates to 'Thus always to Tyrants'... so many ways to misinterpret it  ;)


Those are also the words John Wilkes Booth spoke on the stage after assassinating Abe Lincoln.

You could of course argue that the motto is 'Out of Many, One' which is of course more commonly known as 'E Pluribus Unum'.

Interestingly the only state to have 'In God we Trust' is Florida.. however many other states do have similar mottos.



I know America's motto is "in God we trust," if Florida is using it as well, it means they copied it.

The only two I know of (well now four, since I just learned Florida and Virginia's) are:

Georgia: Wisdom, Justice, and Moderation.

Ohio: With God, all things are possible.

A lot of states, and the American motto itself mention God, which is where I think the far-left will go if they get "under God" out of the pledge.

When you got (and I'm using the Fox News Opinions Dynamics poll as my source, other polls may vary within the MOE,) 92% of a country that believes in God, and 88% that says leave "under God" in the pledge, then you can't have a very small portion of this country dictate what can and cannot be said in the pledge.  And again, don't give me the "you can't force a kid....," garbage, the US Supreme court has ruled that no one is forced to say it, it's on your own free will.  It's not hurting anybody, is it?  Or are some people so worried that their kids may not have to have atheism shoved down their throats from day one?

I would feel better about the incorporationof Christianity into our public sphere if American Christians stopped ranting about Jesus so much and started living more like Jesus said to live.  The above attitude displays aggression and hostility of which Jesus would not be fond.

It does say "In God We Trust" on our currency, but I've never heard the phrase refered to as "America's motto."


According to this website it is

http://www.urbin.net/EWW/polyticks/us_creed.html

I saw an old Porky Pig cartoon from the 30s that he was stating the pledge in, and he didn't mention 'under God' in it at all.  I just think that's weird.

You know, some people don't believe in religious stuff, and that should be OK.  You shouldn't have to force your beliefs onto other people, cuz it never works.

I would feel better about the incorporationof Christianity into our public sphere if American Christians stopped ranting about Jesus so much and started living more like Jesus said to live.  The above attitude displays aggression and hostility of which Jesus would not be fond.


Well, let's not blame real Christians (and there are many) for the crazy televangelists and ass-backward citizens of all political stripes who call themselves Christians... That's like searching the 'Net pictures for pictures of a some irresponsible wackadoodles and using that as a basis for silly rants about "the far left"...  ::)

That's like searching the 'Net pictures for pictures of a some irresponsible wackadoodles and using that as a basis for silly rants about "the far left"... ::)

Snarf!  And nobody would do anything *that* crass, would they?  But seriously, that's very close to the "no real Scotsman" fallacy, isn't it?

I saw an old Porky Pig cartoon from the 30s that he was stating the pledge in, and he didn't mention 'under God' in it at all.  I just think that's weird.

You know, some people don't believe in religious stuff, and that should be OK.  You shouldn't have to force your beliefs onto other people, cuz it never works.


If it's good enough for Porky Pig, it's good enough for me! 
http://www.cba.ua.edu/~jomason/ac289/PorkyPig1.jpg

They inserted "under God" in 1954, at the height of the Red Scare, amid Sen. Joe McCarthy's reign of paranoia and intimidation.  "Under God" was supposed to distinguish us from the godless commies of the east.  Where communism of the Soviet or Maoist variety isn't dead, it is dying.  I think it's safe for "under God" to be excised.

But seriously, that's very close to the "no real Scotsman" fallacy, isn't it?


Ok, I'm not ashamed to admit that I had to look up that term... interesting... 

Well, 'Scotsman' can be defined by certain objective criteria, while 'Christian' is much vaguer...  I guess the thing is, it's most useful to be explicit in defining the specific criteria you're using...

I could live with a statement like this: "People who wish to call themselves Christians would do well to model their behavior after his..."

:)

You know, some people don't believe in religious stuff, and that should be OK.  You shouldn't have to force your beliefs onto other people, cuz it never works.


I don't remember who said, but they got it right.  No one is forcing any religion on anyone with God being in the pledge, it's not Christ, Allah, etc.  And the other 12% can get over it, I'm tired of rolling over for small minorites.

I actually think it's potentially very healthy for children to opt out of it.  That depends of course, on parents and teachers actually explaining what the pledge means, exploring it though intelligent discussion, and supporting those who make the choice either way...

Oh, wait -- what am I saying? This is America! Somebody's gotta be 'wrong'/Communist/Anarchist/Fascist/Evil...

I don't remember who said, but they got it right. No one is forcing any religion on anyone with God being in the pledge, it's not Christ, Allah, etc. And the other 12% can get over it, I'm tired of rolling over for small minorites.

Irrespective of how many people believe in God, surely the simple fact that he doesn't exist, that there IS no God should be enough not to want to have to say something which is palpably untrue.

Meh lot of people out there think he/she/it does exist.. im sure if the 'under god' was taken out.. more people would get pissed off than are pissed off with it being in there.

Irrespective of how many people believe in God, surely the simple fact that he doesn't exist, that there IS no God should be enough not to want to have to say something which is palpably untrue.


Well, I'd say that God exists, but that the reality of it simply doesn't fit the simplistic framework that most people use to try to explain it.  I suspect that many self-described 'agnostics' or 'atheists' don't doubt the existence of God, so much as they reject most or all of the most common conceptualizations of God.  And no wonder, since most common interpretations of God are simplistic, human-oriented constructs that invest God with gender, emotions, intentions and all sorts of other human characteristics.

As a self described Agnostic i will second those views.. it's not so much that there isn't a god more that the way we go about worshipping etc is flawed.

We can only see things from a simple human view and as such cannot appreciate the fact that any 'God' isn't going to be too overawed if we all sit in an uncomfortable church for 2 hours a week and then refuse to do certian things because it could be offensive towards God.

Well, I'd say that God exists, but that the reality of it simply doesn't fit the simplistic framework that most people use to try to explain it. I suspect that many self-described 'agnostics' or 'atheists' don't doubt the existence of God, so much as they reject most or all of the most common conceptualizations of God. And no wonder, since most common interpretations of God are simplistic, human-oriented constructs that invest God with gender, emotions, intentions and all sorts of other human characteristics.

At the risk of hijacking this thread... So far, I've not come across anything which makes me suspect there might be anything which under any conditions could be described as a "god", nor any evidence which points in that direction.  Thing is, if you concede that most human views of God are homocentric inventions, it doesn't take much extrapolation to realize that they *all* are.

Thing is, if you concede that most human views of God are homocentric inventions, it doesn't take much extrapolation to realize that they *all* are.


Which is why they can be very useful and constructive, but can't ever really be very accurate. 

But doesn't everyone pretty much conceive of a 'way that things work'?  call it 'Nature' or 'Randomness' or just plain old 'existence'?  It seems to me that's as much 'God' as anything else.  Though I can understand why the term 'God' gives people the willies, having been bastardized and used for ill as much as it has...

Hey, whatever works.

I don't remember who said, but they got it right.  No one is forcing any religion on anyone with God being in the pledge, it's not Christ, Allah, etc. 

Let's not kid ourselves. We all know exactly which "God" to which it was intended to refer. But that aside, mentioning even a generic deity in the pledge of allegiance implies that belief in a supreme being (and like I said, we both know the intended deity here is Jehovah) is a prerequisite, a condition of your loyallty to America or your patriotism or even your citizenship (in non-legal terms). Minority of non-believers or not, that is ridiculous.


And the other 12% can get over it, I'm tired of rolling over for small minorites.


So was King George, but he sure got what he had coming for it!

I don't remember who said, but they got it right.  No one is forcing any religion on anyone with God being in the pledge, it's not Christ, Allah, etc.  And the other 12% can get over it, I'm tired of rolling over for small minorites.

Well whaddya want?  White Christian Uber Alles?  Nice 'tude.  Maybe someday YOU'LL be a minority too.
::)

Snarf!  And nobody would do anything *that* crass, would they?  But seriously, that's very close to the "no real Scotsman" fallacy, isn't it?

What's that?  You lift the kilt, and if it's a "real Scotsman" you will phallus see!
:-X

What's that? You lift the kilt, and if it's a "real Scotsman" you will phallus see!
:-X

:D

Irrespective of how many people believe in God, surely the simple fact that he doesn't exist, that there IS no God


Well, I'm sure glad you cleared that mystery up.  ::)

Well, I'd say that God exists, but that the reality of it simply doesn't fit the simplistic framework that most people use to try to explain it.  I suspect that many self-described 'agnostics' or 'atheists' don't doubt the existence of God, so much as they reject most or all of the most common conceptualizations of God.  And no wonder, since most common interpretations of God are simplistic, human-oriented constructs that invest God with gender, emotions, intentions and all sorts of other human characteristics.


I think people get these human-orientated constructs because it explains in the bible that 'we are made in God's image'. Not saying I fully agree with it but this is what people in religion will tell you. 

Well, I'm sure glad you cleared that mystery up. ::)

I was in a particularly dyspeptic mood yesterday - I don't think this forum got the worst of it, though: a lot of it came from someone on another forum saying that the tsunami was God's way of dealing with fundamentalist Muslims/the Thai sex trade/everything else unchristian.  I don't think I need to repeat my response to that one...

I think people get these human-orientated constructs because it explains in the bible that 'we are made in God's image'. Not saying I fully agree with it but this is what people in religion will tell you. 


Of course, the Bible was written by humans who, naturally, interpret God from a human-oriented perspective.  I'd think many if not most 'believers' who view the Bible is the "Word of God" probably acknowledge that.  At least most of those I know do.  ;)

Patriotism and religiosity are both classic ways to keep the lower classes obedient to the interests of the ruling class, that's why the Right loves the "One nation under God bit so much!

Patriotism and religiosity are both classic ways to keep the lower classes obedient to the interests of the ruling class, that's why the Right loves the "One nation under God bit so much!


Oh, come on, you know that's just quasi-Marxist claptrap!  :P

No i have to agree... there are many events in History where 'God' was used to stem uprising. For instance when Henry Tudor took the crown in England he went so Ubberly over the top with his God stuff that the general population really believed he was sent by god and as such supported him as the new king.

Look at any Islamic nation, Alllah this, Allah that, i don't mean to be derogatory but God (or whatever you call it) is such an easy chip to play.

TV is the Opium of the masses but before that, and still to some people, Religion is the opium of the masses. It keeps people under control, because if they step out of line and don't do what God tells them (which is always very similar to what the Government tells them) they shalt be smited!

... i don't mean to be derogatory but God (or whatever you call it) is such an easy chip to play.



Sure, but so are 'peace', 'love', 'justice', 'democracy', 'human rights', 'patriotism', the 'search for truth', 'the rule of law' and any number of other ideas...  That an idea or practice can be used to the advantage of those with so-called 'unjust' aims doesn't invalidate the idea does it?

TV is the Opium of the masses but before that, and still to some people, Religion is the opium of the masses. It keeps people under control, because if they step out of line and don't do what God tells them (which is always very similar to what the Government tells them) they shalt be smited!

Think you've hit the nail on the head there, Alkie. It sounds like, despite the fact that state & church are supposed to be seperate, the US government is trying to tie in the idea that they are acting with God's blessing, which I'd imagine it often they often aren't!

I'm glad we don't have to make such a pledge of allegiance in the UK. Courts in the UK still require people to give evidence under an oath involving The Bible & God- does anyone know if Muslims (for example) are excluded from making such an oath in the UK?

Courts in the UK still require people to give evidence under an oath involving The Bible & God- does anyone know if Muslims (for example) are excluded from making such an oath in the UK?


There is at least one alternative oath that can be taken that doesn't mention God.  I can't remember the exact wording though.

mta:  A quick google search found this page which talks about swearing an oath on the religious book of your choice or affirming that you will tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"

http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/defendant/walkthrough/the_trial/faqs/#2641

Thanks Karen, I thought there must be some provision for non-Christians. It's nice to speak with some fellow Brits on Brit issues, but for now, I'm off home- I daresay there'll be more controversy to pass my working day tomorrow! See y'all!

Think you've hit the nail on the head there, Alkie. It sounds like, despite the fact that state & church are supposed to be seperate, the US government is trying to tie in the idea that they are acting with God's blessing, which I'd imagine it often they often aren't!

I'm glad we don't have to make such a pledge of allegiance in the UK. Courts in the UK still require people to give evidence under an oath involving The Bible & God- does anyone know if Muslims (for example) are excluded from making such an oath in the UK?


The weird thing is, it's totally ridiculous to compel someone to swear an oath on something they don't even hold sacred...

"Do you swear on Osama's life that you're telling the truth?"
"Oh... well, if you put it that way, yeah -- sure!"

Hello?

Oh, come on, you know that's just quasi-Marxist claptrap!  :P

Well you can call it quasi-marxist or you can call it quasimodo, but I wasn't thinking of Marx.  I was simply observing the obvious.  The fact that Marx saw the same thing 150 years ago, and Voltaire generations before Marx only bolsters my point.

Well you can call it quasi-marxist or you can call it quasimodo...

You mean Marx was asserting it as fact when it was merely a hunch?  Charlatan!  ::)

You mean Marx was asserting it as fact when it was merely a hunch?  Charlatan!   ::)


LOL Leo! On another of your points, I'd agree there's not much point in swearing on oaths you don't believe in- I've had to do this several times, but the wierdest was when I was pushed into being a Godfather for one of my cousins- I felt really uncomfortable making the Christian oaths at the Christening, I was brought up as Church of England but am far more Pagan in outlook. At the end of the day, I wouldn't have a problem just going through the motions (i.e. saying words but not meaning them) in most areas, as being a "man of your word" seems to be an obselete concept in the UK, but the church thing definitely disturbed me. Thinking back, maybe I was thinking God could see me wincing my way through the service, even if no humans could!  :-\\

Wouldn't worry too much aboot that. If God is the sort of chap we have all been told he is he would be far happier that you made your friends happy and went through the motions rather than making a scene and ruining there day

Wouldn't worry too much aboot that. If God is the sort of chap we have all been told he is he would be far happier that you made your friends happy and went through the motions rather than making a scene and ruining there day

Thanks Alc. I normally think of God as Nature or Evolution, but I'm hoping if he/she has human attributes, that they would react in the way you've described. If I ever anthropomorphise God, I think of him as a benign father to us all- a father whom forgives his children, whatever their sins, as they are all an aspect of him.

Yeah, as far as the Christening, that you meant well is all that counts.

If our intentions are good, the rest works itself out.

;)

You mean Marx was asserting it as fact when it was merely a hunch?  Charlatan!   ::)

Very witty, Wilde, very, very witty!  I wish I had thought of that!

Personally, I think the words "Under God" should be taken out because it was not ORIGINALLY there. If those words were oringinally in the Pledge, I may feel a bit differently about it. But WHY they put it in is really a dark time in U.S. History. If you don't like the words "Under God" therefore you must be UnAmerican. History does seem to be repeating itself. Am I the only one who sees that McCarthyism is making a comeback?



Cat

Very witty, Wilde, very, very witty!  I wish I had thought of that!


Well, I don't know that it was actually Oscar worthy, but I'm just happy to be nominated.  ;)

History does seem to be repeating itself. Am I the only one who sees that McCarthyism is making a comeback?
Cat


No, and our passports are in order/

Well, I don't know that it was actually Oscar worthy, but I'm just happy to be nominated.   ;)

It's actually a line from a Monty Python sketch you might have heard.

  Its important NOT to forget how this country was started.  UNDER GOD is apart of Americas roots, and if this was to be removed it would truly be a shame.

  Its important NOT to forget how this country was started.  UNDER GOD is apart of Americas roots, and if this was to be removed it would truly be a shame.


No it isn't.  "Under God" was written in 1894 without the words "under god" .  "Under God" was added
60 years later at the behest of the Knights of Columbus during the McCarthy in a shallow ploy for the
holier than thou.  Many people who learned it without "under god" continued, and still continue to
say it without "under god" 

  Its important NOT to forget how this country was started.

I haven't. The founding fathers were Enlightenment Age intellectuals who were members of the Masonic community.

I haven't. The founding fathers were Enlightenment Age intellectuals who were members of the Masonic community.

Is that why there's a picture of a pyramid with an eye on it on your dollars?

Is that why there's a picture of a pyramid with an eye on it on your dollars?


Yup

Well, you know, the Masons, the Rothschilds, the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, and the extraterrestrials who read all your minds (but not MINE because I wear a colander covered in aluminum foil on my head at all times) run the entire world...and you're not invited!
:o :D

and The Revolution Will Not Be Televised ::)

  Its important NOT to forget how this country was started.  UNDER GOD is apart of Americas roots, and if this was to be removed it would truly be a shame.


Hmm... how was this country started?  Don't know if I'd want to return to those great old times...

Hmm... how was this country started?  Don't know if I'd want to return to those great old times...


Oh ohhhh.  There we go with that pesky history/education thing.  How about this?  George Washington
was not voted in as first president by the people, he was appointed by congress, only white, property
owning males were allowed to vote, Thomas Jeffersons "Dusky Sally" was birthing his babies into
slavery, and employers could slap(literally) their employees for any percieved indiscretion.  That is
just the beginning of the reality.

Well, you know, the Masons, the Rothschilds, the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, and the extraterrestrials who read all your minds (but not MINE because I wear a colander covered in aluminum foil on my head at all times) run the entire world...and you're not invited!
:o :D

Dammit, Janet. We seem to have very little in the way of masonic reference on printed on UK notes. We are doomed! I sometimes see the motto 'Honi soit qui mal y pense' on our heraldry, the most common translation of which seems to be 'Shame on him who thinks this evil'; I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for the use of this phrase, but its' presence suggests (to me) that a dark secret has been buried in our history somewhere...

Dammit, Janet. We seem to have very little in the way of masonic reference on printed on UK notes. We are doomed! I sometimes see the motto 'Honi soit qui mal y pense' on our heraldry, the most common translation of which seems to be 'Shame on him who thinks this evil'; I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for the use of this phrase, but its' presence suggests (to me) that a dark secret has been buried in our history somewhere...

"Honi soit qui mal y pense" is the motto for the Order of the Garter - King Edward ... oh sod it, I can't be bothered to type it... have a look here: http://www.britainexpress.com/History/medieval/garter.htm

No it isn't.  "Under God" was written in 1894 without the words "under god" .  "Under God" was added
60 years later at the behest of the Knights of Columbus during the McCarthy in a shallow ploy for the
holier than thou.  Many people who learned it without "under god" continued, and still continue to
say it without "under god" 


  I really dont give a damn that it wasnt their origionally.  Its been that way for over a hundred years, and people opposing it now is just another example of how "those Perfect politically correct" try to change everything.  Mabey the next generation of children should just be put in plastic bubbles when they are old enough to walk.  That way they'll never have to hear anything that might offend them.  If you dont  like "under god" then dont say it.

  ^ No, It was without it for 60, it has been with it 51,(I see math is not your strenghth) It just seemed
to me that the reasons for it being there would shed some light on conversation.  I guess it shed light
on the fact that there are some who really don't care about learning about the history of American culture. Too bad too, there is so much of interest, I would suggest looking into it, that is if you are at all interested in your country.

  ^ No, It was without it for 60, it has been with it 51,(I see math is not your strenghth) It just seemed
to me that the reasons for it being there would shed some light on conversation.  I guess it shed light
on the fact that there are some who really don't care about learning about the history of American culture. Too bad too, there is so much of interest, I would suggest looking into it, that is if you are at all interested in your country.



ok this is what Im trying to say so let me be clear cause the point is NOT how much I know about American history, the point is that ITS JUST ANOTHER THING PEOPLE BITCH ABOUT, JUST LIKE HOW MUSIC THESE DAYS MAKE OUR CHILDREN KILL, HOW SPONGE BOB AND TELLE-TUBBIES ARE GAY FRIENDLY AND SO ON!
AND NOW TAKE OUT "UNDER GOD" CAUSE ITS OFFENDING.
It is ANNOYING.  People try to find fault in everything, and I dont know if you are an American, but if you are I dont understand why you disagree.

I heard comedian Doug Stanhope talking about this very thing today while I was listening to my XM. He said that people should worry less about the "under God" part and instead be more concerned about the part where it says "liberty and justice for all." He then said that they should add another line at the end: "Void for people under 18, some restrictions may apply, may not be valid in all states..."  ;D ;D ;D

I heard comedian Doug Stanhope talking about this very thing today while I was listening to my XM. He said that people should worry less about the "under God" part and instead be more concerned about the part where it says "liberty and justice for all." He then said that they should add another line at the end: "Void for people under 18, some restrictions may apply, may not be valid in all states..."  ;D ;D ;D




I got a tee shirt for Christmas that says something very similar.




Cat

  Its important NOT to forget how this country was started.  UNDER GOD is apart of Americas roots, and if this was to be removed it would truly be a shame.


You're right.

But watch out, some on the kook left (read below) will really try to deny that the huge majority of the founding fathers believed in God.

Don't worry about "under God," there is no debate.  88% of Americans want it there, and I predict it won't be removed in our lifetimes.  The Supreme court had it's chance with Newdow's suit, and they laughed him out of court.  And Bush's appointments haven't been added yet.

You're right.

Er... no, she's not.  The "Under god" interpolation was a relatively recent McCarthyite addition.


But watch out, some on the kook left (read below) will really try to deny that the huge majority of the founding fathers believed in God.

No, you're not listening, are you?  The founding fathers were guys who believed in God, as were the guys who came up with the constitution... but the latter explicitly wanted to keep church and state separate, realizing that once you start mixing religion and politics you end up with the worst kind of government.

To be honest, I don't really give two hoots whether "under god" stays or goes... it's just one more thing that makes me glad I'm not American.

but the latter explicitly wanted to keep church and state separate

Please don't tell me your one of those people who believes that "separation of church and state" is something actually written in the US Constitution.

Er... no, she's not.  The "Under god" interpolation was a relatively recent McCarthyite addition.
No, you're not listening, are you?  The founding fathers were guys who believed in God, as were the guys who came up with the constitution... but the latter explicitly wanted to keep church and state separate, realizing that once you start mixing religion and politics you end up with the worst kind of government.

To be honest, I don't really give two hoots whether "under god" stays or goes... it's just one more thing that makes me glad I'm not American.

I don't believe any of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution would have had a problem with prayer and bible reading in public schools.  The world was an entirely different kind of place in 1790.  However, mankind has progressed in 215 years.  The way mankind relates to the natural world and the way we relate to one another has fundamentally changed.  Two centuries ago there was NO expectation of equality among the races, between the sexes, or from social class to social class.  There was no Darwin, no Marx, no Einstein (I realize conservatives despise the first two and only have use for the last because he made possible their beloved atomic weapons).
If we say prayer in in school should be allowed because the Framers would have allowed it, then why not repeal the 13th amendment to the constitution?  The Framers allowed slavery too.  I don't have the judicial genius of a Scalia or a Rhenquist, but in my humble opinion, I believe we bind ourselves to the 18th century if we accept the "strict constructionalist" or "texturalist" interpretation of the constitution.  
In the 18th century, the white Christian male reigned supreme.  It is the covert--or perhaps subconscious--goal of the strict constructionalists to restore the white Christian male to his former glory, to his dominion over all others.

GWB wrote
Please don't tell me your one of those people who believes that "separation of church and state" is something actually written in the US Constitution.
That's what I was saying, it ain't, but just 'coz it ain't doesn't make the wedding of Christianity and government policies the right thing to do. 
There's no Constitutional prohibition of drunk driving, but we don't allow that, now do we?
::)

I don't believe any of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution would have had a problem with prayer and bible reading in public schools.  The world was an entirely different kind of place in 1790.  However, mankind has progressed in 215 years.  The way mankind relates to the natural world and the way we relate to one another has fundamentally changed.  Two centuries ago there was NO expectation of equality among the races, between the sexes, or from social class to social class.  There was no Darwin, no Marx, no Einstein (I realize conservatives despise the first two and only have use for the last because he made possible their beloved atomic weapons).
If we say prayer in in school should be allowed because the Framers would have allowed it, then why not repeal the 13th amendment to the constitution?  The Framers allowed slavery too.  I don't have the judicial genius of a Scalia or a Rhenquist, but in my humble opinion, I believe we bind ourselves to the 18th century if we accept the "strict constructionalist" or "texturalist" interpretation of the constitution.  
In the 18th century, the white Christian male reigned supreme.  It is the covert--or perhaps subconscious--goal of the strict constructionalists to restore the white Christian male to his former glory, to his dominion over all others.

GWB wroteThat's what I was saying, it ain't, but just 'coz it ain't doesn't make the wedding of Christianity and government policies the right thing to do. 
There's no Constitutional prohibition of drunk driving, but we don't allow that, now do we?
::)


I know this is no big deal, but who the hell says the politically correct "framers?"

As for the US Constitution, it ain't perfect, though it's much better than the idiots today could write.  Down with the 16th amendment.

I know this is no big deal, but who the hell says the politically correct "framers?"

As for the US Constitution, it ain't perfect, though it's much better than the idiots today could write.  Down with the 16th amendment.

I do.  I say "framers."  I also say "founding fathers."  I prefer "framers," not because it's "politically correct."

Yep, everybody hates to pay taxes, but I have yet to find anybody who hates the 16th amendment who I would qualify as "oppressed."  Most of them are self-pitying whiners of the nth degree!

ok this is what Im trying to say so let me be clear cause the point is NOT how much I know about American history, the point is that ITS JUST ANOTHER THING PEOPLE b*tc* ABOUT, JUST LIKE HOW MUSIC THESE DAYS MAKE OUR CHILDREN KILL, HOW SPONGE BOB AND TELLE-TUBBIES ARE GAY FRIENDLY AND SO ON!
AND NOW TAKE OUT "UNDER GOD" CAUSE ITS OFFENDING.
It is ANNOYING.  People try to find fault in everything, and I dont know if you are an American, but if you are I dont understand why you disagree.


I personally don't care if it is in or out.  I do understand why some people find it offensive, but I think
there are bigger fish to fry out there.  I was adding background to the argument, and I think knowing
the facts behind a controversy is important to arguing its merits.  Yeah, a lot of this stuff is annoying, but if you choose to engage in the dialogue you must be prepared to be annoyed.  I am an American and I understand that people sometimes agree, sometimes disagree.  I find it odd that you cannot understand why anyone would disagree with you.  ???

Just rehashing a bit now that the LAWYER got the court to find UNDER GOD not acceptable...

To those who feel the same(watch this..) DEFINE "GOD"???

my point in my NEXT reply. 

Yeah, it was that same old clown who had his recent case thrown out by the supreme court on a unanimous 9-0 decision.  Michael Newdow.  Of course it was a San Francisco judge with a long liberal record.

Yawn.  Everyone I know, and even CNN seems to be saying that this has a 0% chance in the supreme court.  Newdow can't even lock up the liberals, like Breyer, how is he going to win over Kennedy, or especially Scalia and Thomas?

What a waste of time for everybody.  And deep-down, I think Newdow knows this.  He is probably just a media whore who wants to see his name in the papers.

If an atheist or a person of another religion that worship's other dieties does not want to say, "Under God"  they should not have to.

However, taking "under God" out of the pledge of aligence is an outright slam to Christians, telling them that they can not say, "Under God".  Think logically here and realize that I mean future Christian American's.

Pledge of aligence should stay as written.  People don't want to say parts of it, don't.  People don't want to say any of it, don't.  The under God part is a whole issue in itself, but the rest of the pledge seperates the appreciative for what we have more than  and the unappreciative for what we have less than.

Feh, I think it's time for America to grow up and dump the Pledge of Allegiance altogether.  It would be healthy for America to transcend such an adolescent identity ritual.  If you want that kind of hokey pablum, go join the cub scouts or the Elks lodge!
::)

If an atheist or a person of another religion that worship's other dieties does not want to say, "Under God"  they should not have to.

However, taking "under God" out of the pledge of aligence is an outright slam to Christians, telling them that they can not say, "Under God".  Think logically here and realize that I mean future Christian American's.

Pledge of aligence should stay as written.  People don't want to say parts of it, don't.  People don't want to say any of it, don't.  The under God part is a whole issue in itself, but the rest of the pledge seperates the appreciative for what we have more than  and the unappreciative for what we have less than.




The point is "under God" was NOT what was written. It was added in much later.




Cat

The point is "under God" was NOT what was written. It was added in much later.




Cat


The pledge was changed more than once.  In fact, the pledge has had three different versions since it was first adopted in 1892.

1892: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

1924: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

1954: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Who says the plege, outside of school kids?  Do they say it in the Senate or the House?

And, does everyone know that there isn't supposed to be a pause between "One nation" & "under God"?  I didn't until last night ;)


I knew that since about 9th or 10th grade.  We'd always say it without the pause every monday morning (we had "Monday assembly").  Now it drives me crazy to have to say it anywhere else.  :D

I agree with u guys about just not saying that part.  Why do people think that saying the word "God"  or looking at a religious symbol, etc. is being "forced" to believe in it?  Why not just say one nation under MAN?  After all, isn't that the Atheist God?

Do they say it in the Senate or the House?


Yes, along with their morning prayers.  The house and the senate both started saying the pledge every morning in 1999.

The pledge was changed more than once.  In fact, the pledge has had three different versions since it was first adopted in 1892.

1892:  with Liberty and Justice for all.

1924: with Liberty and Justice for all.

1954: with Liberty and Justice for all.


Here's the real line that needs to be taken out of the pledge.

I knew that since about 9th or 10th grade.   We'd always say it without the pause every monday morning (we had "Monday assembly").  Now it drives me crazy to have to say it anywhere else.   :D

I agree with u guys about just not saying that part.  Why do people think that saying the word "God"  or looking at a religious symbol, etc. is being "forced" to believe in it?  Why not just say one nation under MAN?  After all, isn't that the Atheist God?


What I've always wanted to know is how after the 1943 supreme court case West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette anyone can still say you are forcing anyone to say "under God."  That decision stated no public school can force any student to say the pledge, so if a student can't be forced to say the pledge, how are they forced to say "under God"?

The case was brought on by a Jehovah's Witness.  The Jehovah's Witnesses still oppose the pledge, because it is against their belief system to pledge loyalty to anyone or anything other than God.

After all, isn't that the Atheist God?

Er... no.  The whole point of atheism is that there are no gods.  Unless you count the Invisible Pink Unicorn ;)

Er... no.  The whole point of atheism is that there are no gods.  Unless you count the Invisible Pink Unicorn ;)



The way I see it, a god is someone (or something) you worship, or live to serve.  In that sense, atheists are their own gods.

Nope.  I don't live to worship or serve anyone.  The very human "need" to worship something is why most gods are invented in the first place... to quote Jethro Tull: "In the beginning Man created God, and in his own image created he him"

I've returned with my original inquiry:  DEFINE GOD...okay, some say it is something to serve and worship..BUT I thought the definition of the GOD included in the pledge was the Supreme Creator of the Universe and all that is...So...if that is the meaning behind UNDER GOD, WHY is anyone upset with the recognition of SOMEONE OR SOMETHING that Created all that is...It's plain silly, unless you're BELIEF is that God is someone you serve etc.. But the God involved, I took it as the Creator of Everything and I haven't heard anyone say they don't believe SOMEONE created all of this whether it be a nature 'god' or a flash that had life in it to spark the universe..so you see, these people aren't getting it that 'under God' is whoever and whatever...THEY JUST DON'T LIKE TO ADMIT IT and they act upon banning the word or phrase!

Yes , it was added, and so someone had to agree unanimously to add it...did it come with a clause 'we'll take it out if it is challenged'?
 

So...if that is the meaning behind UNDER GOD, WHY is anyone upset with the recognition of SOMEONE OR SOMETHING that Created all that is...

Because there is no someone or something that created all that is, perhaps?


Yes , it was added, and so someone had to agree unanimously to add it...did it come with a clause 'we'll take it out if it is challenged'? 

Did it have to be unanimous to add it?

This goes exactly to what one of the liberal judge on the supreme court appointed by Clinton, Breyer, said when he was one of the five supreme court justices who voted to uphold the allowing of the ten commandments on the Texas state grounds.  If they are unconstitutional, why did it take so long for someone to challenge them?  Same holds here.  The "under God" phrase was added in 1954 and not challenged until 2002.  Why did the pledge suddenly become unconstitutional?  If the pledge is so unconstitutional like some say, why did it take nearly half of a century for someone to challenge it?  That's what Breyer asks.  It's a very good question.

Of course, why do I bother?  I've asked some good questions in my opinion.  And instead all I see are songs about if you believe in a God, you believe in some pink unicorn, and questions like "define god."  Come on, don't pull a Clinton, we here know what 'is' means.

If they are so unconstitutional like some say, why did it take nearly half of a century for someone to challenged it? That's what Breyer asks. It's a very good question.

ISTR that the reason the words were added to the constitution was to try and get God on our side against the atheist heathens that was the USSR - so in the era of McCarthy and his ilk, to challenge it would have been tantamount to siding with the commies.  Sounds kinda silly to me, but then so does the whole debate, to be honest.

ISTR that the reason the words were added to the constitution was to try and get God on our side against the atheist heathens that was the USSR - so in the era of McCarthy and his ilk, to challenge it would have been tantamount to siding with the commies.  Sounds kinda silly to me, but then so does the whole debate, to be honest.


You mean the pledge right?

Anyway, the McCarthy era didn't last until 2002, which is when I think the first legal challenge took place from the same guy it is now, Michael Newdow.  He won in the ninth circuit court of appeals, and then lost after the supreme court threw out his case on the basis he had no legal right to sue on behalf of his daughter (who believes in God) since he didn't have custody of her.

The phrase hurts no one and offends less people then it would by removing the phrase so some poor little atheist kid can not have to HEAR the word "God."  I mean, it's not like he is being forced to say it, so really all you are doing is taking away the other kids right to mention God.

You mean the pledge right?

Anyway, the McCarthy era didn't last until 2002, which is when I think the first legal challenge took place from the same guy it is now, Michael Newdow.  He won in the ninth circuit court of appeals, and then lost after the supreme court threw out his case on the basis he had no legal right to sue on behalf of his daughter (who believes in God) since he didn't have custody of her.

The phrase hurts no one and offends less people then it would by removing the phrase so some poor little atheist kid can not have to HEAR the word "God."  I mean, it's not like he is being forced to say it, so really all you are doing is taking away the other kids right to mention God.


It's a two way deal, but for some reason it's ok to beat on a little christian Kid's beliefs.  No one elses, but his/hers is fine.

Not to be mistaken..I'm for keeping it in... the question 'define' God is to point out God is considered someone or something that created the whole shebang...I hear some DON'T BELIEVE someone or something created this..you will have to prove it and forget that 'SCIENCE' jabber...because somethiing started the whole thing so God could just be the spark or the energy that blew it apart(for those who go for the big bang thing)...


I know atheists don't believe in what others call God and that's fine for them but just what GOD don't they believe in and you'll see them come around that something created us and if GOD is defined/ officially accepted as creator then atheists may have lost their arguement as whatever created us is GOD.

Nothing 'legal jargon' about it, just common sense.

The unanimous agreement I'm speaking of is basically voting to put it in the text...I meant majority involved in ruling to put it in like anything else, so until their is another 'majority' to rule on replacing anything, all is in place.

This subject was evived because I had heard of that latest attempt and heard the Newdow guys side of the battle and see he is trying something but when will the story be considered NOT PURSUITABLE anymore?

He lost the first attempt from some technicality but apparently reworded the arguement to get the latest ruling and I haven't heard if it is being appealed by anyone or if they will reverse any of this as frivolous? Then we can tell him he is yanking the wrong chain? :-\\ 
 

He lost the first attempt from some technicality but apparently reworded the arguement to get the latest ruling and I haven't heard if it is being appealed by anyone or if they will reverse any of this as frivolous? Then we can tell him he is yanking the wrong chain? :-\\ 


He lost the first attempt and went plantiff shopping.  Since he couldn't sue, he found other parents who wanted to.  Schwarzenegger told the state of California to appeal.  It will go to the ninth circuit court of appeals and then, finally, the U.S. supreme court will make the final decision if congress doesn't do anything (they did pass a resolution the day after the ruling condeming the judge who made the decision and endorsing "under God" in the pledge, the vote was 100-0, a unamimous consent voice vote.)

From what I've heard on CNN, Newdow will lose by a 7-2 majority in the supreme court.  Even liberal Clinton-appointee Breyer will side against Newdow.  The only judges Newdow will get from the U.S. supreme court will be Ginsburg and Stevens.

Now then, congress can stop it, if they were serious about more than lip-service.  Under article 1, section 4 of the U.S. constitution, congress can stop the courts from hearing cases on certain things.  It's part of the checks and balances the founders set up.  The house and the senate can vote under article 1, section 4 to keep ANY court, state or federal, including the U.S. supreme court, from hearing anything involving the pledge, thus no court can rule it unconstitutional since they can't hear the case.  The house voted under article 1, section 4 to forbid any court from hearing any case involving the pledge last year, but the senate never got around to voting on it.  Frist (the senate majority leader) is now pushing that.

Article 1, section 4 can be used to keep the courts from hearing anything.  Even issues like gay marriage.

Anyway, the McCarthy era didn't last until 2002

No, but I'd say the neo-McCarthyist era began with the Clinton witch hunt in the mid-1990s, and has been gaining in wicked strength ever since.  The right's favorite bit of lemon tart, Ann Coulter, wrote an ode to McCarthy in one of her recent "books" (crayons sold separately).
::)

Reciting the Pledge never bothered me at all.  I did think it was odd to say "under God" in public school, but I never took offense at it.  I didn't think the Pledge was serious religious doctrine.  It thought it was what I said before, hokey pablum. 
After the sixth grade we didn't even "say" the Pledge anymore.  We did this lame ritual of standing up, hand to chest, and mouthing along with the kid doing the morning announcements on the P.A.  I remember my homeroom teacher, Mrs. Sharkey, leaning over her desk and shuffling papers with her free hand.