9 out of 10 Americans agree...
-
I also don't get why the words "under God" mean so much to people... Is it more tradition then religious?? [I don't really understand the whole thing]
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
Because the majority of Americans are incredibly stupid. It was the biggest shock, when i moved to America.The whole freakin place is like a colony of kids constantly looking for some sort of protect(economic,political,military). They'd worship anything that seems like it could bring that protection. They don't like the slittest bit of disconfort. They think "under god" helped them win the cold war(it was inserted during that time), so it will help them also win the so called war on terrorism. NO INSULTS PLEASE!!!!!!:):):)
-
Because the majority of Americans are incredibly stupid. It was the biggest shock, when i moved to America.The whole freakin place is like a colony of kids constantly looking for some sort of protect(economic,political,military). They'd worship anything that seems like it could bring that protection. They don't like the slittest bit of disconfort. They think "under god" helped them win the cold war(it was inserted during that time), so it will help them also win the so called war on terrorism. NO INSULTS PLEASE!!!!!!:):):)
Edd wrote: Because the majority of Americans are incredibly stupid I haven't met enough Americans to form an opinion yet. Edd wrote: when i moved to America Whwere you originally from?
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
-
"...under God..." should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. But that doesn't stop the minority from getting their own way. It's not the majority who rule, it's those most politcally active. "Tell me about the god you don't believe in, and I probably wouldn't believe in him either." - Unknown
kevnar wrote: It's not the majority who rule, it's those most politcally active. exactly. but, the Christian Right isn't the minority that's winning, this time. for once. and it's about fuckin time. -c
Garbage collection, making life better - for weenies!
Image Processing - now with extra cess.
-
I'm curious, why is it so important for anyone to say "under God" when refering to the US??? If school children are expected to recite the POA, why is it important to anybody that it include a reference to God??
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
beats the hell out of me. -c
Garbage collection, making life better - for weenies!
Image Processing - now with extra cess.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The outrage concerns the arrogant abuse of federal judicial power. Most of the complaints I've heard are about the inclusion/exclusion of the phrase not judicial abuse. Stan Shannon wrote: You are telling me that you are comfortable with a non-elected member of the federal judiciary exercising the power to set aside a decision made by our elected representatives? Why the heck do we even bother having elected representatives? Why don't we just let the judges rule us and forget all this democracy nonsense. This is hogwash and you know it. Judges make these kinds of decisions all the time. It is specifically left to the judicial branch of our government to make sure that laws passed by congress are constitutional. It is one of the most important of our governmental checks and balances. Stan Shannon wrote: The first amendment was written specifically to ensure that such decision making authority would rest in the hands of the people and not in the hands of the federal government. In affect this judges interpretation of the constitution makes the first amendment null and void. It establishes a state based religion that no one may ever challange. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Sorry but I'm just not seeing anything about judges here. In fact, I see a statement that specifically says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". In the 50's when McCarthyism was running rampant and the "under God" phrase was added to the POA, I'd say that was an indirect violation of the first amendment. No?
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
Mike Mullikin wrote: Most of the complaints I've heard are about the inclusion/exclusion of the phrase not judicial abuse. That's because the media always tries to make any traditional interpretation of the constitution appear to be based upon religious zealotry. No one is trying to force specific religious views upon anyone else, but this judge is using his power and position to force his personal secular world view upon us all. Mike Mullikin wrote: It is specifically left to the judicial branch of our government to make sure that laws passed by congress are constitutional. It is one of the most important of our governmental checks and balances. Precisely. That is why this judge's actions were so vile. He is essentially saying that every important American document since the declaration of independence is unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional to require a child to recite the Gettysburg Address: ". . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth." Our money is unconstitutional: "In God we trust" He has singlehandedly made a large segment of our culture "unconstitutional". Do you believe that judges have the power to create laws and constitutionality on a whim? Where is the balance in that? If that is all the constitution means than there is no point in having one. Judges are given life long appointments because they are expected to adher to sound legal principles, includeing precedent and original intent. Of course their job is to ensure that congress operates within its constitutioal limits. But we should expect them to operate within those same parameters. Mike Mullikin wrote: Sorry but I'm just not seeing anything about judges here. In fact, I see a statement that specifically says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". In the 50's when McCarthyism was running rampant and the "under God" phrase was added to the POA, I'd say that was an indirect violation of the first amendment. No? I'm not sure I understand your point here. Show me the federal law which states that a school system must force children to say the POA. About half the states have laws which "encourage" reciting the POA, but there is no federal law mandating it. So how has the first amendment been violated? As I said, the first amendment was
-
Tom Archer wrote: So if 1 out of 10 Americans thinks they should bomb Afghanistan, that is ok? Not at all, my point was that the best decision needs to be made not necassarily the most popular one.
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
Best point
-
They don't have to say anything at all! The court ruling says we're not allowed to say it!!! I wish I had the court's email address; I'd send them a copy of the Constitution, as none of them appear to have read it. I Drowned Schroedinger's Stupid Cat!
Wrong, this bars PAID GOVERNMENT TEACHERS from leading a pledge with a statement of conformity with the dominant monotheistic religion of the country, regardless of what the class believed. It would be as if you had to go to school every day and say that your country was 'under zeus'! This is EXACTLY what chuch-state seperation is supposed to prevent.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Most of the complaints I've heard are about the inclusion/exclusion of the phrase not judicial abuse. That's because the media always tries to make any traditional interpretation of the constitution appear to be based upon religious zealotry. No one is trying to force specific religious views upon anyone else, but this judge is using his power and position to force his personal secular world view upon us all. Mike Mullikin wrote: It is specifically left to the judicial branch of our government to make sure that laws passed by congress are constitutional. It is one of the most important of our governmental checks and balances. Precisely. That is why this judge's actions were so vile. He is essentially saying that every important American document since the declaration of independence is unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional to require a child to recite the Gettysburg Address: ". . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth." Our money is unconstitutional: "In God we trust" He has singlehandedly made a large segment of our culture "unconstitutional". Do you believe that judges have the power to create laws and constitutionality on a whim? Where is the balance in that? If that is all the constitution means than there is no point in having one. Judges are given life long appointments because they are expected to adher to sound legal principles, includeing precedent and original intent. Of course their job is to ensure that congress operates within its constitutioal limits. But we should expect them to operate within those same parameters. Mike Mullikin wrote: Sorry but I'm just not seeing anything about judges here. In fact, I see a statement that specifically says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". In the 50's when McCarthyism was running rampant and the "under God" phrase was added to the POA, I'd say that was an indirect violation of the first amendment. No? I'm not sure I understand your point here. Show me the federal law which states that a school system must force children to say the POA. About half the states have laws which "encourage" reciting the POA, but there is no federal law mandating it. So how has the first amendment been violated? As I said, the first amendment was
Stan Shannon wrote: No one is trying to force specific religious views upon anyone else, ... What do you call it when congress added the phrase "under God" in the first place? They (congress) were trying to force their collective belief in a Creator upon a nation. As mentioned before, their reasons at the time were politically motivated. You cannot blame a judge for removing what never should have been added in the first place. This isn't a case of a judge pushing his religious beliefs on the nation, but rather a case of a judge declaring that congress' attempts to do so are unconstitutional according to the first amendment.
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Individuals who do not believe do not have to say the words. As a matter of fact, you are not forced to to recite the pledge, you are free to stand mute if you so choose. Come now, there are still schools in this country where 6 year olds (scared to death of their teachers) are forced to recite the POA. No mumbling, no silence allowed!! A 6 year old should not have to stand up for their rights against religious zealot school administrations. Can you give me a single reason why the phrase "under God" should be included in a federal fealty pledge?
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
Mike Mullikin wrote: Come now, there are still schools in this country where 6 year olds (scared to death of their teachers) are forced to recite the POA. No mumbling, no silence allowed!! A 6 year old should not have to stand up for their rights against religious zealot school administrations. Yes they should (one of the oddities of America is that they can), but you'll find few if any religious zealots in a public school so it is rather a moot point. Mike Mullikin wrote: Can you give me a single reason why the phrase "under God" should be included in a federal fealty pledge? Yes - the final paragraph of the following: A Brief History of the Pledge of Allegiance The original Pledge of Allegiance, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands -- One nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all," was written in September of 1892 by Francis Bellamy for "The Youth's Companion" magazine in Boston. The phrase was printed on leaflets and sent to schools throughout the United States. The first organized use of the Pledge of Allegiance came on Oct. 12, 1892, when some 12 million American school children recited it to commemorate the 400-year anniversary of Columbus' voyage. In 1923, the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C. voted to change the words "my flag" to "the Flag of the United States of America." Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance in 1942, but in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that public school students could not be forced to recite it. The words "under God" were added in 1954 by then President Eisenhower, who stated at the time, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." Mike
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Come now, there are still schools in this country where 6 year olds (scared to death of their teachers) are forced to recite the POA. No mumbling, no silence allowed!! A 6 year old should not have to stand up for their rights against religious zealot school administrations. Yes they should (one of the oddities of America is that they can), but you'll find few if any religious zealots in a public school so it is rather a moot point. Mike Mullikin wrote: Can you give me a single reason why the phrase "under God" should be included in a federal fealty pledge? Yes - the final paragraph of the following: A Brief History of the Pledge of Allegiance The original Pledge of Allegiance, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands -- One nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all," was written in September of 1892 by Francis Bellamy for "The Youth's Companion" magazine in Boston. The phrase was printed on leaflets and sent to schools throughout the United States. The first organized use of the Pledge of Allegiance came on Oct. 12, 1892, when some 12 million American school children recited it to commemorate the 400-year anniversary of Columbus' voyage. In 1923, the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C. voted to change the words "my flag" to "the Flag of the United States of America." Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance in 1942, but in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that public school students could not be forced to recite it. The words "under God" were added in 1954 by then President Eisenhower, who stated at the time, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: The words "under God" were added in 1954 by then President Eisenhower, who stated at the time, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." Ike was wrong to say it if/when he did and it is no good reason to keep it in the POA now.
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
-
kevnar wrote: 9 out of 10 Americans agree... Isn't the figure something like 3 out of 10 Americans believe they have been abducted by aliens, and 8 out fo 10 Americans believe Jerry Springer's show is real? People are stupid, it is the minority that actually have a clue - in all cases. If you listen to the majority then without exception you will have one hell of a mess at the end of it. The rule that says "the majority will decide" should be replaced by "the majority with a clue will decide". Everyone is in everything for themselves - don't kid yourself otherwise. Every good intention reaps a benefit to the individual. Note this has nothing to do you the POA at all - my stand on thatis that the whole damned thing should be done away with and replaced with Best Friends Forever by the Tweenies. No I am *not* joking. If you are going to brainwash a society, you might as well do so with something that will help make their lives' better. ____________________ David Wulff "My opinion is worth more than yours." - Everyone.
David Wulff wrote: Isn't the figure something like 3 out of 10 Americans believe they have been abducted by aliens It's quite a bit higher than that. David Wulff wrote: 8 out fo 10 Americans believe Jerry Springer's show is real? It isn't ? :omg: David Wulff wrote: People are stupid, it is the minority that actually have a clue - in all cases. Amen to that. Personally I don't percieve what all the fuss is about. The USA is clearly NOT 'under God', so why say it ? Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Could anyone who is going to get irrational about me quoting their posts here please insert the following notice into their signature: I am a whiny pussy
-
Stan Shannon wrote: No one is trying to force specific religious views upon anyone else, ... What do you call it when congress added the phrase "under God" in the first place? They (congress) were trying to force their collective belief in a Creator upon a nation. As mentioned before, their reasons at the time were politically motivated. You cannot blame a judge for removing what never should have been added in the first place. This isn't a case of a judge pushing his religious beliefs on the nation, but rather a case of a judge declaring that congress' attempts to do so are unconstitutional according to the first amendment.
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
Mike Mullikin wrote: What do you call it when congress added the phrase "under God" in the first place? I call it about as generic as you can get. Nothing specific about it. Don't misundertand me. I do not support the actions of the congress in doing this in the first place. All I'm saying is that the First Amendment was never intended to provide for anything as extreme as the absolute prohibition of even the generic utterence of the word 'God' in the government's official documentation. The Congress had every constitutional authority to amend the POA in the way they did. Furhermore, they did not attempt to establish a law mandating the use of that pledge. Mike Mullikin wrote: You cannot blame a judge for removing what never should have been added in the first place. I do blame him for not adhering to a strict interpretation of the constitution and for ignoring many years of legal precedent for the purpose of protecting one particular religious POV (atheism). Mike Mullikin wrote: This isn't a case of a judge pushing his religious beliefs on the nation Yes it is. Mike Mullikin wrote: but rather a case of a judge declaring that congress' attempts to do so are unconstitutional according to the first amendment. There was clearly nothing unconstitutional about it. We are not threatened by right wing religious extremism, we *are* threatened by left wing judicial activism. *They* are the ones trying to limit public discourse and misusing the constitution as a tool to silence POV's other than their own. :rose: "Humans: The final chapter in the evolution of rats"
-
OK. I'm not a US citizen. But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. Please don't bite my head off for this. There are probably things here that I'm not fully ofay with.
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
Brian Delahunty wrote: But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. They don't. But somehow that's not enough. They don't want anyone else to say it either. (Or so it seems)... "Tell me about the god you don't believe in, and I probably wouldn't believe in him either." - Unknown
-
"...under God..." should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. But that doesn't stop the minority from getting their own way. It's not the majority who rule, it's those most politcally active. "Tell me about the god you don't believe in, and I probably wouldn't believe in him either." - Unknown
USA is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
Isn't this some kind of religious fanaticism also? I mean, a logical analysis of the problem must be that "under God" is indeed pushing the view that you're only American if you're submitting to christianity (Jesus and that stuff). Couldn't it just be that 9 out of 10 USians are to lazy to even care? I guess it's the latter. That, and conservatism and "afraid of the dark" (i.e. "what if we removed it" and "what, I also have to learn something new now?!").
Mike Nordell wrote: you're only American if you're submitting to christianity (Jesus and that stuff) I would venture to say that, though America claims to be a Christian nation, there may be as little as only a few thousand souls who are actually practicing correct biblical Christianity. In other words, people who use the phrase "What would Jesus do?" as the basis of every decision they make in their entire lives, and live up to that conviction even when it hurts. Simply agreeing that God should be included in the Pledge does not make you a good person. Simply writing in "Christian" on a census form under Religion does not guarantee you a spot in heaven. Jesus said that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is one, but only those whose lives measure up to their professed faith. It's not that I'm saying we should all give up and just scrap the whole thing. I just wish that more people who call themselves Christians would actually look into the faith they claim to follow and try their best to live by it. :( "Tell me about the god you don't believe in, and I probably wouldn't believe in him either." - Unknown
-
USA is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: But I don't see why people who don't believe in God should have to say the words "...under God... " in a pledge. They don't. But somehow that's not enough. They don't want anyone else to say it either. (Or so it seems)... "Tell me about the god you don't believe in, and I probably wouldn't believe in him either." - Unknown
It a big wierd situation that I don't think I'd be able to appreciate and understand unless I was from the US. BTW... I like your sig :-)
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks] "It's The Soapbox; topics are optional" Shog 9
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: What do you call it when congress added the phrase "under God" in the first place? I call it about as generic as you can get. Nothing specific about it. Don't misundertand me. I do not support the actions of the congress in doing this in the first place. All I'm saying is that the First Amendment was never intended to provide for anything as extreme as the absolute prohibition of even the generic utterence of the word 'God' in the government's official documentation. The Congress had every constitutional authority to amend the POA in the way they did. Furhermore, they did not attempt to establish a law mandating the use of that pledge. Mike Mullikin wrote: You cannot blame a judge for removing what never should have been added in the first place. I do blame him for not adhering to a strict interpretation of the constitution and for ignoring many years of legal precedent for the purpose of protecting one particular religious POV (atheism). Mike Mullikin wrote: This isn't a case of a judge pushing his religious beliefs on the nation Yes it is. Mike Mullikin wrote: but rather a case of a judge declaring that congress' attempts to do so are unconstitutional according to the first amendment. There was clearly nothing unconstitutional about it. We are not threatened by right wing religious extremism, we *are* threatened by left wing judicial activism. *They* are the ones trying to limit public discourse and misusing the constitution as a tool to silence POV's other than their own. :rose: "Humans: The final chapter in the evolution of rats"
-
kevnar wrote: 9 out of 10 Americans agree..."...under God..." should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. A nationwide recognition that the country was formed on the basis of Judeo-Christian principles(having historical roots in both Judaism and Christianity). The poll means that 9 out of 10 polled are proud to publically acknowledge that fact. kevnar wrote: But that doesn't stop the minority from getting their own way. Quite the contrary, it is obvious they are not getting their way. This was a decision by an activist judge, the decision has already been stayed and will obviously be over turned. The judge is attempting to make law, not intrepret current law. Creating law is not a function of a judge in the United States. kevnar wrote: It's not the majority who rule, it's those most politcally active. Always the case, especially in our form of government. It is left to fools like this judge and disasters like 9-11 to wake the American public. In good times we tend to ignore entirely too much of what goes on around us, leaving governance and leadership to the average or the more vocal. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: A nationwide recognition that the country was formed on the basis of Judeo-Christian principles(having historical roots in both Judaism and Christianity). Absolutly correct. I find that many do not appreciate the fine difference between being based on those prinicples is not the same as being forced to believe in the religion. The latter is what is not done in this country and is what seperation of church and state really means. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Stan Shannon wrote: No one is trying to force specific religious views upon anyone else, ... What do you call it when congress added the phrase "under God" in the first place? They (congress) were trying to force their collective belief in a Creator upon a nation. As mentioned before, their reasons at the time were politically motivated. You cannot blame a judge for removing what never should have been added in the first place. This isn't a case of a judge pushing his religious beliefs on the nation, but rather a case of a judge declaring that congress' attempts to do so are unconstitutional according to the first amendment.
Mike Mullikin - People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
Mike Mullikin wrote: What do you call it when congress added the phrase "under God" in the first place? See Mike Gaskey's response. It was to make a statement on the principles this nation was founded upon. Not on a religion of the country. Mike Mullikin wrote: They (congress) were trying to force their collective belief in a Creator upon a nation. I disagree here. They were showing a fundamental difference between the principles (as stated above) vs. the humanistic principles communism is founded on. No forcing of religious beliefs was intended (as a whole). Take a look at the heritage many of the founding fathers had. They had been from families that had been forced to follow a religion dictated by a country. What makes the US founding principles unique is most founding fathers were from families that believed in individual relations with their GOD (in what ever form it may be) rather than a forced denominational relation. It was their intent (based on my interpretation of their writings) that they did not want this forced religion to be repeated in this country. They did so by basing the principles of justice on their collective beliefs of an individual relation. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli