Ugh! Pledge of Allegiance Ruling Put on Hold

If the new president wasn't a monotheist, I should bloody well hope so!

Ditto. I've always found it very ironic, anyway, that Jesus says not to make a vow on anything, which would include this case, unless I am mistaken.

I went to the White House web-site the day after the court ruling and was shocked to see that there was already something up about Bush calling it ridiculous.

.....I’d like to give several responses to points made on your program this morning.

The most popular suggestion made by people regarding this child in school is that she should just simply leave the class or not say the pledge. If the child follows these suggestions then the child is open to harassment, quite possibly to a severe degree. I know I have been a victim of harassment because of my (lack of) beliefs. It’s not only atheists who have a problem with this. Jehovah’s Witnesses as a group, Seventh Day Adventists and truly open-minded religious individuals also disagree with the pledge.

People have also tried to justify the use of the word God in the pledge because they argue that it has the ability to refer to any god. Any god? This clears up nothing unless you agree that America could be one nation under Angra Mainyu (also known as Satan) the evil spirit found in Zoroastrianism or perhaps Shiva the god of death and destruction found in Hinduism. The list continues with gods who, for example, demanded human sacrifices of unwilling participants (the god was Kali and the followers were known as Thugs, found also in Hinduism). The gods I have mentioned are not unimportant by any means. Many religious scholars have agreed that Zoroastrianism has made great contributions to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Hinduism is still, as you know, extremely prevalent today.

I didn’t even mention any groups of people who believe that god doesn’t interfere with earthly matters. The most popular example of this is the deists. As I stated earlier the Founding Fathers were mostly deists, which was a popular hide out for atheists. The use of the word Creator is such a huge wink to their deism.

In regards to the definition of democracy, I know what democracy means. Let me give you the definition my encyclopedia has:

Democracy: 1. A form of government in which political power resides in all the people and is exercised by them directly (pure democracy), or is given to elected officials (representative democracy), with each citizen sharing equally in political privilege and duty, and with his right to do so protected by free elections and other guarantees. 2. A state so governed. 3. The spirit or practice of political, legal, or social equality. 4. The common people.

It says nothing about the majority ruling of the minority in any religious capacity. Religion is not mentioned once but equality is mentioned twice.

Continuing with the issue of politics, people who take oaths containing references to God is completely ludicrous as well. When the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was created they had several concerns they wanted to deal with, they: · decided that there would be no religious test, oath or other requirement for any federal elected office · allowed Quakers and others to affirm (rather than swear) their oaths of office · refrained from recognizing Christianity or one of its denominations as an established, state church.

My last point to make concerns the motto "E Pluribus Unum" which means "One from many" or "One from many parts". I will simply give you some information from ReligiousTolerance.org; they do a nice job of summarizing the story.

On 1776-JUL-4, Congress appointed John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to prepare a design for the Great Seal of the United States. The first design, submitted to Congress on 1776-AUG-10 used the motto "E Pluribus Unum." It was rejected. Five other designs also failed to meet with Congress' approval during the next five years. In 1782, Congress asked Mr. Thomson, Secretary of Congress, to complete the project. Thomson, along with a friend named Barton, produced a design that was accepted by Congress on 1782-JUN-10. It included an eagle with a heart-shaped shield, holding arrows and an olive branch in its claws. The motto "E Pluribus Unum" appeared on a scroll held in its beak. The seal was first used on 1782-SEP-16. It was first used on some federal coins in 1795. Almost a century and a half ago, 11 Protestant denominations mounted a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents. Rev. M.R. Watkinson was the first of many to write a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase in 1861 to promote this concept. In 1863, Chase asked the Director of the Mint, James Pollock to prepare suitable wording for a motto to be used on Union coins used during the Civil War. Pollock suggested, "Our Trust Is In God," "Our God And Our Country," "God And Our Country," and "God Our Trust." Chase decided to have "In God We Trust" used on some of the coins. The phrase was a subtle reminder that the Union was on the side of God regarding slavery. Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements." In 1956, the nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, Congress replaced the existing motto with "In God we Trust."

The pledge of allegiance is really quite meaningless. As far as I know it's not a legally binding oath and there would be no point in making six year olds take one anyway. (Repetition induces belief? I think not.) It's nothing but meaningless tradition. We should just drop it altogether.

Drop the "school" and I agree with you.

Certainly it was, but people should still have the right to choose whether to say the Pledge in their classrooms. Myself, I never liked saying it in class, since it felt like I was being forced. But it is impossible to police hundreds of schools every day, to see who is following "Bush's Rule" and who isn't.

The entire Article Xl in the original treaty reads as follows:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

"governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Perhaps we should talk about the Constitution-that seems a bit more important.

---from FFRF--- The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

----- Just a refresher for everyone, the first paragraph of the Constitution says:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

Oh wait, it does mention the Lord-ONLY in the date!

"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."

But I guess I'm just delusional and silly.

surely this centralised diktat from the executive against the judiciary is going to piss off constitutional legalists right across the country, whatever the rights and wrongs of the actual case (AND whatever their party politics...)

why risk that? i genuinely don't get it: why start fires you'll have to go put out again in half an hour (ok he didn't start this fire, but why fan the flames if the fire is so minor it will go out by itself?)

i realise i am framing these questions on the assumption that bush policy is competent, internally coherent and constitutionally literate, rather than cobbled together on the hoof by an ill-assorted ragbag of semi-enemies on the assumption that liberal-kicking will always rally the troops => but (disguised by the "War on Terror", which despite its chaotic lurching most professional pols are too gutless to challenge in any public way, and by the fact that the Democrats fielded a desperately weak candidate who proceeded to lose an election he could easily have won) the overall reagan conservative-populist coalition is *still* basically collapsing, from the weight of its internal contradictions, philosophical and economic

haha if bush is serious about stomping down on corporate corruption, does that mean he'll drop a dime on his VP?

And what is this about "God doesn't have to be taken literally?" HOW can you no take God literally? Is there another meaning for this word that I'm ignorant of?

In Spanish? Burn them! http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc042108b

Asshole judge here in Tupelo jails lawyer for refusing to recite the Pledge.

Apparently it's hit Drudge and the Smoking Gun as well.

Also: how about that fantastic newspaper website design!!