We need to fire the Senate

[AKSWulfe]

I know Tumor, don't worry, I didn't take it as an attack or anything other than a reply to my post. So I couldn't let it go without replying and making my stance clear... you can never be too safe.
-SW

[weazel]

Originally posted by Eagler
Just the ones holding up Bushs nominees ...

Yeah....our country NEEDS more criminals in the bush regime.  

He already has most of the Iran/Contra thugs in his cabinet, who will the chimp nominate next....John Gotti?

[Nifty]

you're right Tumor.  It's not hurting anything.  Well, it obviously hurt someone, or they wouldn't have made an issue out of it.  Overall, though, you're right.  It's harmless.

However, it WAS brought before a court.  So what if the person brought it up was a whiner.  It got there.  So the court didn't say "oh, you're just whining, get over it."  The court actually took the case seriously.  They looked at "under God" in the context of the Pledge and interpreted it to be a federal endorsement of religion.  (I agree 100% in that it is a federal endorsement of religion.  Read Eisenhower's quote from 1954 when the words were added to the Pledge.)  The court then ruled that this endorsement is in violation of the 1st Amendment.

It's not the popular decision, that's plainly obvious.  Based on how I interpret the reason for the addition of the words, plus the fact it is the proper noun God and not the common noun god (big difference, IMO), I see the addition as a federal endorsement of a specific deity (the one from the Jewish/Christian faith) which is even more of a reason for the Pledge, as written since 1954, to be in violation of the 1st Amendment.  

Does this fact even hurt 0.001% of the US population?  Probably not.  It does NOT matter in the grand scheme of things.  However, it is still, IMO, a violation of the 1st Amendment as it is, once again IMO, a federal endorsement of religion, specifically the Christian (or less likely, the Jewish) faith.

[Thrawn]

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP)

-- A federal appeals court heard arguments Friday on whether an Alabama school system had the right to discipline a student who stood silently with his fist raised rather than recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

The student, Michael Holloman, a high school senior who has since graduated, was spanked three times with a wooden paddle and given a written reprimand.

The case was argued before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta only days after another federal appeals court ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional because of the words "under God."

The attorney for the school board in Walker County, Alabama, told the judges that Holloman was punished two years ago for disrupting class, not for refusing to say the pledge.

"He acted out, and he has attempted to cloak his behavior in the First Amendment," attorney Russell Robertson said.

Holloman's lawyer, Charles Tatum, said his client did not disrupt the class and raising a fist was a form of speech.

"You've got a right to disagree with things that are seen as morally and politically correct in this country," Tatum said.

A federal judge dismissed Holloman's lawsuit last year

[Fatty]

Speaking in class out of turn is disruptive.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Nifty
you're right Tumor.  It's not hurting anything.  Well, it obviously hurt someone, or they wouldn't have made an issue out of it.  Overall, though, you're right.  It's harmless.

However, it WAS brought before a court.  So what if the person brought it up was a whiner.  It got there.  So the court didn't say "oh, you're just whining, get over it."  The court actually took the case seriously.  They looked at "under God" in the context of the Pledge and interpreted it to be a federal endorsement of religion.  (I agree 100% in that it is a federal endorsement of religion.  Read Eisenhower's quote from 1954 when the words were added to the Pledge.)  The court then ruled that this endorsement is in violation of the 1st Amendment.

It's not the popular decision, that's plainly obvious.  Based on how I interpret the reason for the addition of the words, plus the fact it is the proper noun God and not the common noun god (big difference, IMO), I see the addition as a federal endorsement of a specific deity (the one from the Jewish/Christian faith) which is even more of a reason for the Pledge, as written since 1954, to be in violation of the 1st Amendment.  

Does this fact even hurt 0.001% of the US population?  Probably not.  It does NOT matter in the grand scheme of things.  However, it is still, IMO, a violation of the 1st Amendment as it is, once again IMO, a federal endorsement of religion, specifically the Christian (or less likely, the Jewish) faith.

Nifty
  What started it was a girl (I don't recall the age or grade) who from all accounts actually said had no problem with it.  It was Daddy who got involved.  Anyway, I respectfully disagree.  Each person who says the pharse "under god" has the responsibility of interpreting what "god" is or is not.  Further, each person also has IMO the responsibility to choose whether or not to say the pledge at all (or the phrase).  I don't see why the Courts should have to, or the PEOPLE simply MUST rely on the government to legislate thier thoughts.  This case is a complete waste of taxpayer money and nothing more than an attention getter for ... someone.  Menial and wasteful, nothing more.

[Sandman]

Well... the 9th Circuit Court is done wasting their time. Now it's time for the Senate, the House, and all the states to start wasting time rather than accept the decision and move on.

[Ping]

John 18:36 :   Jesus answered, My Kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
 King James version.

 I think that Jesus already commented on seperation of Church and State.
 Are we so Arrogant as to beleive we should tell God what His stand should be?

 Jesus wanted no part of Worldly political power, Satan offered him all the kingdoms of the world and he rejected that offer. Should we not follow his example?(those of us who are Christians, Athiests need not apply).
 It seems everyone here is arguing from their own viewpoint, But not once has Gods View been quoted or stated.

 It seems all Nations Claim...maybe not Russia or Cuba that God is on their side ex: Nazi Germany....Seems Jesus stated non allegiance to any state for a reason.

 Argue this all you want When it comes to issues regarding God, Christians should look to the Bible and base it on that...Not some politician who has other agendas.

[Thrawn]

Holy crap.

I may not be religous, but that was the most enlightened thing I've seen posted on this subject so far.

Ping.

[Tumor]

Nice Ping!

[lord dolf vader]

""GOD" itself would cover Buddha, Allah, all of them."

ripsnort.

god most certainly does not cover buddha, you ignorance of religion matches most other subjects. not that you will care.

the friggin pledge of allegence came from cosmopolitan magizine  a rag magazine then and now. conservative people cant see the forest for the trees . your religion is you prob, ALOT of people dont want to pledge toejam to your imaginary friend. and get this it is a garrenteed right.

dont see where the prob lies except probly preachers had a field day on the crappy mindwashing sermon of the week.

[Steven]

I'll pledge to god in school and other *public* settings if you all pledge to Bubbles (the yellow-haired Power Puff Girl) in your churches.