Court Decision on the Pledge of Allegiance

[dig dug dog]

While I am an actively religious person and the decision today from the 9th Circuit will be roasted by politicians and pundits of all sorts, it seems very logical to me to say that when public schools mandate the recitation of the words "under God", this constitutes a State-sponsored endorsement or establishment of religion.

It makes no sense at all to say, "Well, God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence". That is true, of course, but no public institutions are making their employees recite the Declaration as a contemporary act of patriotism.

Remember, we have a broader vision today of the great varieties of religious belief (and unbelief) than we did as a nation in 1789--or even 1954 when the words "under God" were added to the Pledge.

I'm wondering what others think.

dig dug dog

 

[kurchatovium]

I think the decision is reprehensible and can't wait for it to be overturned. The girl's father who started the lawsuit said his daughter was not forced or badgered or felt bad at all about having to say the pledge of allegiance. He merely saw the words "In god we trust" on his money and said I don't trust god and started is campaign to secularize the US. People have been saying the pledge ever since I can remember more to remind everyone that we are one people who believe in freedom and liberty then to push god down everyones throat. What are suppose to do sanitize everything we say because somehow if I even mention the word god some moron will get offended. Maybe we should ban this use of the expression "Thank God" from the schools in case some other person gets offended. The alliegiance is a tradition and some traditions should be followed to remind us of where we came.

 

[CDFGA]

I think it's another step in the moral decline of the United States. Got 10% of the population telling 90% what to do. It's time the silent majortiy speaks again.

 

[strokeofgenius2]

I'm with you, Kurchatovium

To me, this ruling is a disgrace. (Since I am highly cynical of higher courts, and the legal system in general, I cna't say I'm overly suprised....disgusted as hell, but not overly suprised.)

Look, you want to be an aetheist, be my guest. But this country was founded by people who strongly beleived in God and used those principles to construct our government. It's all over our country...on our money, in court you swear on a bible, popular expressions all use 'God'....

It's like we're slapping in the face our founding fathers...we're telling them "Well, since we've become more 'educated' then you, we're going to remove God from every aspect of society." These people must be rolling over in their graves, not to mention the Man Upstairs Himself....I think this hurts Him beyond belief.

I've never seen a culture work so hard to force Him out of everything.....so freakin' sad. If you're gonna outlaw "God" from speech, then you better outlaw expressions like "Goddamn" too. Oh, but no, it's okay to say 'God' if you're speaking negatively....disgusting, absolutely disgusting.


I'm sorry for preaching, but I get so pissed off when crap like this happens. This just proves to me there is a God....because He has to exist to offset the massive stupidity of people down here.

🙁

By the way, to call the Pledge unconstitutional in the wake of September 11....because of "under God".....when right after the attacks everyone turned to God and faith for some kind of hope and compassion??? FREAKIN' MORONS.

 

[siamese dream]

I think if you want to say the pledge of allegiance, you should say it, and if you don't want to say it then you should be free not to.

All through school, up until I was a senior in high school, we had to stand and say the pledge of allegiance. In high school, some people would sit through it and exercise their right not to say it... but often they would get ridiculed by the other students, or bullied by the teacher.

I pledge my allegiance to this country's notion of freedom; which means that if I want some sort of reform in the government, I should be able to say so without fear of persecution. I think censorship can work both ways with the pledge of allegiance; in classrooms where the entire class has to say the pledge every day, the students who don't want to participate are restricted from doing so... but with the new change of law, the students who DO want to say the pledge are being restricted.

I think maybe we should come up with more intelligent solutions for all, rather than freaking out about how we're all going straight to hell or whatnot. Maybe the individual classes should discuss as a class the pledge, and what they think of it and if they want to recite it. Then perhaps the students who do want to recite the pledge could find a regular time to do so, either before or after the lesson begins. And the students who don't want to say the pledge could go about their business without incident...

I don't think we have 10% of the population telling 90% what to do. The United States is a very diverse group, and the lines and definitions of people are changing all the time... their are people here of pretty much every background, and not all of them come from puritan christian wealthy white backgrounds. Which is what our founding fathers were. If they truly believed in freedom, they would believe in everyone that lives in the United States having a voice and being able to speak freely.

Maybe my ideas are too radical for this thread. I didn't know anyone who died on 9-11, but I feel great sadness for the people who died there. However, it only pains me further that right now, we're over in the middle east bombing the fuck out of them and searching for terrorists...
I like to look at the big picture; what good are we doing humanity by sending our people just to kill other people? by which many of our people will end up dead, on this mission to eradicate "evil doers". Yes, and what good are we doing humanity by restricting each other and censoring each other and hating each other for each other's beliefs? That's what starts a war in the first place. I don't agree with war, but it's reality and I'm very afraid...it's going to be the end of us all.

All I feel is pain whenever I watch the news anymore 🙁

 

[sushi854]

The issue of the use of references to "God" by state-sponsored institutions is definitely one of the more touchy subjects that we face in this country. We are faced with pitting centuries of tradition against protecting the interests of all citizens. Separation of church and state is vital to the survival of any diverse culture, and as much as I hate to see it come to this, I feel that the Pledge of Allegiance is subject to judicial scrutiny due to the fact that it supports the idea of a supreme being. While I personally feel that the reference to "God" is vague enough to avoid offending others, I cannot speak for everyone. It is for this reason that the Bill of Rights exists in the first place.

btw I will take issue with the idea that the founders of the US were deeply religious. Some may have been, but many were not. They believed in a higher power, and worded the Declaration of Independence to make reference to the "Creator" rather than "God" or "Jesus." There is no direct reference to the Christian religion in the Constitution or other early documents.

 

[venray]

Re: I'm with you, Kurchatovium

this country was founded by people who strongly beleived in God and used those principles to construct our government. It's all over our country...on our money, in court you swear on a bible, popular expressions all use 'God'....

They also strongly believed in the use of slaves....but we dont want to go back there again do we? I believe in God, and I also believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religious choice.

Freedom of speech ends when it infringes on others rights. Freedom of religion means freedom for all and no one religious faction should take precedence over another in our public institutions.

The words "under God" were added in as an afterthought....they can just as easily be removed leaving the pledge as originally intended.
It is a pledge to America and meant for all.



my 2 cents...

Ven

 

[Neutron]

I Agree

With the courts decision. The Pledge Of Allegiance isn't even recognized as an official pledge to the country. It was basically invented by someone who felt it was a good idea to have an oath.
It's not used in any official capacity. The military doesn't use it. Name ONE official occasion that does use it. In fact, if you get right down to it part of the oath is to an inanimate object, ie a flag. No other nation pledges to a flag.

I do agree it is generic enough to apply to all religions, but oh well.

Personally, I don't believe this country is in a moral slide. Information is more easily accessible than it used to be, so you hear about immorality much more often then say 50 years ago.

Tron

 

[guitman69]

I also agree with the courts decision.

I aslo feel that the words "under God" ARE specific to the Christian god. No other religions uses the word god as the name of their God. Every other religion has a name for their god, Allah, Buddah, Jahovah, Vishnu. The fact that it is even capitalized means that you are talking about the Christian God.

The majority of Americans may be Christian, and in general the majority rules, but in this country the majority cannot trample on the rights of the minority. Making athiest, Muslim, Hindu, ect. kids stand up and say this in a state controlled environment is trampling on their rights to freedom of religion.

When I was in school, if you didn't stand up and say the pledge, some teachers would give you detention.

They are not trying to 'outlaw God'. They are just trying to give people who aren't Christian the right to not have God crammed down their throats in a state santioned institution.

The words "under God" were added to the pledge, not out of a sense of reverance for their God, but out of a McArthy-istic fear. They put that in there to sepparate themselves from those 'godless Communits'

The Pledge of Alliegiance will work just as well (just like it did in '54 before those two words were added) without the "under God".

 

[soleshine]

I really respect your post, Dig Dug Dog. It's refreshing to hear someone with religious values speak with an open mind. I was just listening to a minister on CNN who was basically saying the same thing. I think it demonstrates faith that someone in his position doesn't feel like everyone needs to be required to either recite or listen to a plege that acknowledges the existence of God in order for people to be drawn to religion or even just to have good morals.

I'm spiritual (pagan) and am not offended by the current pledge. But, I think the court decision just makes sense. The constitution supports the separation of church and state and the decision reflects that...in my oppinion. Sure, the separation isn't 100% (e.g. "In God We Trust", swearing on the bible in court, etc.), but I'd hate for there to be much more overlap than that. In fact, I think that if we followed the constitution to the letter, then we would make some other changes, as well.

I say, that if the majority of U.S. citizens do want kids to ritualistically acknowledge God in public schools, we should have a vote to change the constitution. I don't think that's the best answer, though. I agree with siamese dream and think that the answer probably lies in respecting each other and trying to come up some creative sollutions to this problem 🙂.

 

[shark]

I think that if someone has a problem with "under God",don't say that part.Whenever there is a gathering where the pledge is said,many people either mumble it or say nothing.However,they do show enough respect to remain silent as the others say the pledge.

A few questions here:
Where does it say ANYTHING about the Christian God in the pledge?Even if there was a direct reference,you are interfering with the people who want to include "under God" by stopping them from saying it.Do they not have 1st amendment rights as well,or do these only pertain to certain groups?

If you don't believe that the vocal few are controlling the place, please explain why they resort to lawsuits,coercion in the public schools,and will not openly debate their views in college classrooms.
Political correctness was obviously chosen as a title to deliver the message that if you don't agree with these PC tenets,you are a screwup.So much for tolerance and respect...PC subscribers are the worst of the intolerant.Why do they not bring their whole agenda out in the open for all to see,rather than piecemeal samples that they use courts and bureaucrats to force down peoples' throats?

When I was in high school,we had a daily moment of silent meditation.
You could pray,recite the pledge to yourself,talk silently to a buddy,or just close your eyes for a moment.This was eventually halted because of fears of people like this current asshole that it still promoted religion.I think this would be the most favorable way to handle this situation,but again,you have the intolerant left trying to force their way on the population.Can anyone explain how one minute of silence promotes religion?

The reason that you see God in the pledge and not other religious personages is that this country was founded using Christian principles,and for only the last 40 years or so has this been a problem for anyone.As far as the "offended",you obviously survived,
and I see absolutely no reason to take a personal sensitivity problem
and mushroom it out so that this group controls the rest of the place.

As far as the past use of slaves and returning to it...hogwash.
Slavery was an accepted institution at the time,and people of that era knew few other ways to handle farms and such.Besides,didn't they also pass an amendment banning slavery?Doesn't this show that our ancestors saw this as a problem and corrected it?Try getting some of our current PC crowd to do that with their bullshit ideas.

As of today,replies from citizens runs 3-1 against the court's decision,and already the judge who wrote the decision is backing down to allow the full circuit court to hear the case.Hell,this guy's own kid said that the pledge wasn't a problem...it's his problem.Pull the kid out,go to a private school,and then there is little anyone else can say about whether the kid recites the pledge or not.Or is that being too politically incorrect and non-inclusive?

I don't care if you personally recite the pledge or not...I'm one of the mumblers I mentioned.However,I'm tired of hearing how PC subscribers are so oppressed and how their rights are so badly trampled.My suggestion is that they move to Cuba,China,or a like nation, and educate their crybaby asses to what oppression and violation of rights really is.Like I said before,they are the most intolerant of all,yet they cry the loudest.I believe the common word is hypocrit.If this post is offensive,tough.We all have our crosses to bear.

Oops,that had religious overtones.Maybe I better be more careful,lest some Pc crybaby find that offensive and force me to say it only in my linen closet.

 

[BigJim]

***The following is written by myself, assuming that the court being refered to, made a ruling that said children in school didn't need to make the oath of alleigance if they didn't want to---this much I gathered from reading the posts, although I havn't heard anything about it on the news***


Quite possibly I should have my sanity questioned for offering my opinion in this discussion. Also I hope that no Americans here find it annoying that an Englishman is voicing his opinion on this.

I am someone who believes in a central source of spiritual energy. Different cultures give it different names. God, the Creator, Jehova, Allah Buddha etc etc etc.........

My personal spirituality is something that I keep more or less to myself, but am happy to share without preaching it. (Sharing as in sharing the benefits of it, not the philosophy.)

Personally I find the idea of being a pupil at school in America and being shoe-horned into swearing the oath of alleigance, to be discomfiting to say the least. It is correct that the capitalisation of the word "God" infers that the Christian god is being refered to. People who find it morally repugnant and insulting to the founding fathers might do well to remember that post that was ade about the radio show. The hostess of the show had stated that she didn't agree with the legalisation of homosexual sex, because God had decreed that it was a wicked thing, in the Bible. One very able-minded listener then wrote in saying that she very much appreciated the presenter's words and was grateful that she could help. Could she also please explain how she should burn her sacrifice of cattle and stone her husband to death if he strayed?

Basically, this listener posted her letter to the radio station on the internet and made it quite obvious that she was making a fool of this woman's ridiculous statement.

America is now an evolved and an increasingly spiritually aware nation. People are finding less and less necessity (sp?) in needing confining and dictatorial religions to find their way to God. Many people these days, myself included, are finding that their spiritual alarm clock is waking them up and pointing them in the right direction. That being said, I do not think it needed to put children through a form of ceremony at school that some might consider brainwashing. A strong word? Perhaps so, perhaps not. Everyone has to draw their own conclusions about that.

In light of that, I have to say that I'd agree with a ruling that says a child doesn't have to put an arm across his chest and swear alleigance to "one nation, under God." That sort of thinking mashes a populaion of individuals into a great lump and has the capability to stifle individuality. Something that even the poorest and most ignoarant person on the streets is capable of.

To say that giving people who want to, the right to "opt out" of it, is insulting to the founding fathers is hogwash! Plain and simple! The founding fathers had a lot of virtues and a lot of human faults. One of their limitations was that they could'nt have forseen a multi ethnic and multi religion america, such as exists today. It was people like them, that would have formulated the oath of alleigance in the first place. The USA as a nation was created in the first place to establish somewhere that people could go to escape religious persecution right? The Pilgrim Fathers and all that? Denying someone the right to choose who they swear their alleigance to, is an abuse of the rights the Pilgrim Father's wanted when they were forced to leave England.

I sincerely hope that none of you see this as a foreign person interfering where he isn't wanted.That was the reaction to another post I made some time ago. I see myself as a citizen of an enlightened society that encompasses both our nations. I would hope therefore, that you'd concede me the right to air my views on this subject.

Ray, you put forward some very cogent points. Well worth considering. Tron you also make some very worthwhile points here. I agree with you both.

 

[BigJim]

I think that if someone has a problem with "under God",don't say that part.Whenever there is a gathering where the pledge is said,many people either mumble it or say nothing.However,they do show enough respect to remain silent as the others say the pledge.

A few questions here:
Where does it say ANYTHING about the Christian God in the pledge?Even if there was a direct reference,you are interfering with the people who want to include "under God" by stopping them from saying it.Do they not have 1st amendment rights as well,or do these only pertain to certain groups?

The fact that the word "God" is capitalised makes it Christian Shark. No other religion refers to Him as that, because they have specific names for him and they use "god" as a description of his staus; not his name. (Unless it's a muslim person, speaking English possibly?)

I would happily stay silent while others swore to the pledge if they wanted, but as far as I'm concerned, if I recited any of it, it makes me accept the whole thing implicitly. I'd compare it to saying that signing a contract you only read half of negates the half you didn't read. Not true, in other words.

I'm glad your school di the "silent meditation" thing. You're right; that doesn't promote anything specific. That's something I try to do every day.

 

[CitY of MicA]

I find myself agreeing with many of you, including BigJim (thanx for posting on this). One of the pivotal principles upon which this country was founded was the freedom of religion, and to quote mein comrade Venray, the words "under God" 'can just as easily be removed leaving the pledge as originally intended.'

When I was in high school,we had a daily moment of silent meditation. You could pray,recite the pledge to yourself,talk silently to a buddy,or just close your eyes for a moment.This was eventually halted because of fears of people like this current asshole that it still promoted religion.I think this would be the most favorable way to handle this situation,but again,you have the intolerant left trying to force their way on the population.Can anyone explain how one minute of silence promotes religion?

Yes, at one point in my elementary school experience we had this, too. What on earth do we need it for if not to promote religion? I guess the powers that be decided that children could have their moment of silence before they even arrived at school (several moments, even). Either that or perhaps they decided to start school a moment later.

 

[kurchatovium]

Don't fool yourselves people the jerk that brought forth this lawsuit cares nothing about religous freedom or the separation of church and state. He only cares about bashing the US and sanitizing the US with anything that mentions god. He has already stated he wishes to go forth with his lawsuit against the use of "in god we trust" on currency. The constitution gives you freedom of religion and freedom of speech it does not give you the right never to hear the word god written or spoken anywhere. I agree with shark if the pledge bugs you that much take your kid out and home school him/her or send them to a private school.

The funny thing about all this is I think this idiot had the opposite effect of what he wanted. I think there are more people reciting the pledge of alliegance now just because someone told them they can't. A chinese friend of mine once told me that there was an expression that roughly translated said "If you push a person they will always push back.". Don't worry so much about this PC stuff I think their own arrogance and stupidity will be their downfall.

 

[JoBelle]

uh oh Joby took a deep breath before she started this one....

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."

On September 8,1892, the Boston based "The Youth's Companion" magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.

======================================================================

At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words "the Flag of the United States" replaced "my flag". In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.

It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!

In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words "under God". Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of reigious 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."

======================================================================

It all makes good sense when you read the evolution. Now, the story I'm sure we've all heard.

As a schoolboy, one of Red Skelton's teachers explained the words and meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance to his class. Skelton later wrote down, and eventually recorded, his recollection of this lecture. It is followed by an observation of his own.


I - - Me; an individual; a committee of one.

Pledge - - Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.

Allegiance - - My love and my devotion.

To the Flag - - Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.

United - - That means that we have all come together.

States - - Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.

And to the Republic - - Republic--a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

For which it stands

One Nation - - One Nation--meaning, so blessed by God.

Indivisible - - Incapable of being divided.

With Liberty - - Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.

And Justice - - The principle, or qualities, of dealing fairly with others.

For All - - For All--which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.


And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:

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.

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?
Red Skelton

======================================================================Personally, I think it is a pity. We can only PC ourselves to death for so long. As was pointed out by Ven earlier, those two words were added....they can be removed. The pledge was one to the flag as a symbol of our country. It has slowly evolved to a Pledge for our country as a whole. To "tamper" with it now is almost unforgiveable. I say, keep the Pledge with it's inended meaning which was to salute the flag, to honor our national symbol, not to bicker over whether or not this country we all admittedly love is under some other person's god or our own, or lack there of. Either way, with or without god, this Pledge allows children and adults show love of country. I think anytime an issue goes before a jusdge, it devalues the concept as a whole. I hope it's settled quickly.

Joby, who says with God without god.....either or....just focus on the meaning of the pledge, not the poliitcal agenda behind the "two words."

 

[kurchatovium]

I don't think the PC people will be happy even if you took out those two words. No one is really offended by them that I have talked to whether their atheist, christian, muslim, or jewish. Its only the extreme US/ god hating leftists that are offended. If you removed those two words the PC people would say I'm offended my kids have to say the pledge of alliegance at all. It violates my kids right to free speech and try to get the whole thing removed. Of course I doubt that they could get it removed entirely. I say leave the two words in if it bugs you that much move to Cuba with its soon to be permanent socialist goverment.

 

[dig dug dog]

First, I want to thank everyone who has offered their view on this subject so far. New voices are also very welcome.

A couple points for now (since it's late)...

I was seriously surprised by the assumption of some writers here that the word "God" is inherently Christian. The word is shared by at least Jews, Christians and Mulims. It certainly goes back to the Hebrew Bible. The 4-letter name for God, which some (incorrectly) render into English as Jehova, is often accompanied in the Bible by a Hebrew word meaning "God". Or sometimes "God" stands alone in the Hebrew Bible as a name. Also, "Allah" means "God".

This, of course, has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. The issue is not whether "God" is a Christian term, but whether it is a religious term--which it clearly is. Why should a public school--which represents the government--teach its students to refer to God? Why isn't this teaching religion? Doesn't our Constitution state that our government shall not establish religion? When Congress voted in 1954 to have our national pledge refer to God, didn't this establish religion as preferable to non-religion? Shouldn't our government--or at least our laws--be neutral on this question?

The issue is not at all about "political correctness". It is most definitely not about individual or communal rights to use religious language, worship, etc. That is well protected--BY THE SAME CONSTITUTION WHICH PROHITS THE CONGRESS FROM INVOLVING ITSELF IN RELIGION. The issue here is the true meaning of our Constitution and our living according to that meaning.

Dear kurchatovium--the most UnAmerican attitude of all is the one which says: "If you disagree with me and exercise your right to disagree--you might as well pack up and leave."

dig dug dog

 

[kurchatovium]

No offense but I don't really care if anyone thinks it is unamerican, because I don't. It has a plain and simple yet forcefull validity. You don't like it here then leave. Plain and simple. No, if, ands or buts. It ticks people off because it has so much validity. If things are so awful here, can't stand money with the words "in god we trust" on it, then fine go somewhere else. I stand by those words whether you or anyone else thinks it's unamerican or not.

 

[dig dug dog]

No offense, but it has all the "simple, forceful validity" of a Fidel Castro or a Saddam Hussein calling on his secret police to interrogate you at 3:00 am for "illegal opinions".

The people who object to "under God" in the Pledge do indeed "like it" here. That's why they want to make life better here--according to their own perspectives on the way things should work and their own understanding of the Constitution.

It's called democracy.

And I pray to God that the objectors do not buckle under the kind of hate and intimidation frequently offered those who hold unpopular views. (The fellow who brought the case has been threatened with death.) Or is this no longer "the land of the free and the home of the brave" -- but merely the land of the religious and the home of the believers?

How noble of you to "stand by your words". Good thing you live in America where a person is entitled to his or her opinion, even if it is wrong-headed and objectionable. Therefore, I won't ask you to make haste for Cuba.

Respectfully,

dig dug dog

 

[dig dug dog]

Dear Krokus,

If it were not for some of those "Liberals" defending our freedom of speech, you would not be a "2nd level red feather" on a little website called the "Tickling Media Forum" because certain right-thinking Conservatives would have shut it down long ago for being "obscene" and against "American family values".

Any thoughts?

dig dug dog

 

[dig dug dog]

If that is your gentle way of saying that you only want to rant and can't be bothered to engage the issue with reasoning, then no, it doesn't give me a good feeling.

Awaiting your thoughtful argumentation,

dig dug dog

 

[Krokus]

There

I deleted both of my remarks. Now leave me alone.

 

[kyle]

If someone is so offended by having to hear (it's my understanding that students don't have to say the pledge if they choose) the words "Under God" that they are going to these lengths I do not see how they can even function in society. The guy pushing this is obviously some asshole trying to make his point. I'm not worried about it at all because if the court decision holds Congress will amend the Constitution to keep the pledge safe.

I am worried about the future though. I think by the time my generation is in their forties we will be so PC that I’ll have to start an island nation.

 

[giggleygirl25]

in my humble opinion...yes this person does have the right to voice his opinion and everything but why should he be able to force his will down everyone else's throats if he doesn't want the government to do that to him...isn't that being just a tad hypocritical(sarcasm)...i am curious though how the other lawsuit or lawsuits(not sure how many he's gonna have,especially if its overturned) go and if the courts will be so willing to go maverick and agree with him like they did on this...very disturbing trend we have going here...when one person can decide how things go in DEMOCRACY...again just my humble opinion...(aka 8:41am rantings)