Metropolis Reality Forums - California seeks to restore God to the Pledge

Sponsored by: The Fans!

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 5^th, 2024, 4:18pm

Upcoming Premiere Dates:
Survivor 23, Season premiere
Thursday, September 14 (8:00-9:30 PM, ET/PT) on CBS

Metropolis Reality Forums Ť California seeks to restore God to the Pledge ť

   Metropolis Reality Forums
   Off-Topic Forums
   In the News (Moderators: lakelady, yesteach, MediaScribe, Bumper, Isle_be_back)
   California seeks to restore God to the Pledge

Previous topic | New Topic | Next topic »

Pages: 1

Add Poll

Notify of replies

Send Topic

Author

Topic: California seeks to restore God to the Pledge (Read 829 times)

Addams
You Bet Your ASS Team
ForumsNet Member

Gender:

Posts: 5398

California seeks to restore God to the Pledge
« on: Jul 26^th, 2002, 2:01am »

Quote

Modify

California Petitions to Overturn 9th Circuit's Pledge Ruling
The Recorder
In the first official request for a rehearing of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is an impermissible establishment of religion, the California attorney general's office argued in papers filed Thursday that the phrase is merely a ceremonial expression of the country's religious heritage -- something the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested, but never held.
Read full text at law.com http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024079050164

IP Logged

Tsunami
ForumsNet Member

Posts: 79

Re: California seeks to restore God to the Pledge
« Reply #1 on: Jul 26^th, 2002, 2:20am »

Quote

Modify

Why would they fight this ruling? They are arguing that it is okay because "under god" is not religious, it is ceremonial. If that is the case, why do they want it there? It doesn't make sense. They are using a technicality to argue against their own motivation. But they will lose, so I guess it doesn't matter.

The way I understand it, this was a local court ruling. If they appeal to the Supreme Court, that will expand the ruling to the whole country. So they had better think they can win, because they have effectively upped the ante.

PS- If God is everywhere can you be "under" him?

IP Logged

BlankWillWin
ForumsNet Member

The Psychotic Predictor

Gender:

Posts: 1257

Re: California seeks to restore God to the Pledge
« Reply #2 on: Jul 27^th, 2002, 11:43am »

Quote

Modify

Why would they fight it? Umm, because they think the US would be better with more religion, or because they are afraid of the reaction of the conservative Christian voting block, if they don't.

Eric.

IP Logged

The Artist formerly known as Tina, Ethan, Neleh, Helen, Deena, Tijuana, & AmberWillWin.

Bumper
ForumsNet Moderator
Moderator
ForumsNet Member

A Virginia Member of the RED SOX Nation

Gender:

Posts: 2946

Re: California seeks to restore God to the Pledge
« Reply #3 on: Jul 28^th, 2002, 7:47pm »

Quote

Modify

The reason the state Attorney General's Office is appealing the ruling is simple.
The ruling by the 9th Circuit is SO OUT OF STEP with the mainstream thinking and beliefs of the majority of the citizens.

Tail (the 9th Circuit :dizzy:

) . . . .trying to wag dog . . . .

IP Logged

If U R reading these old posts, know that we were once a great, active cyber-community, but as in all things..Time moves on. This is now a Ghost Town.

BlankWillWin
ForumsNet Member

The Psychotic Predictor

Gender:

Posts: 1257

Re: California seeks to restore God to the Pledge
« Reply #4 on: Jul 29^th, 2002, 5:21am »

Quote

Modify

Sorry, Bumper, but the Court's responsibility here is not to ram the majority's opinion down everyone's throats. It's to defend the Constitionally protected rights of the various minorities within this one nation who do not happen to worship a monotheistic God.

Eric.

IP Logged

The Artist formerly known as Tina, Ethan, Neleh, Helen, Deena, Tijuana, & AmberWillWin.

Bumper
ForumsNet Moderator
Moderator
ForumsNet Member

A Virginia Member of the RED SOX Nation

Gender:

Posts: 2946

Re: California seeks to restore God to the Pledge
« Reply #5 on: Jul 29^th, 2002, 3:31pm »

Quote

Modify

And it's the Attorney General's office's responsibility to appeal any decision by the Court that it thinks is blatantly erroneous, . . . .and that is what has happened.

The First Amendment states "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 of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is no statement anywhere in the amendment that the government shall not establish a religion or endorse any particular one. It simply says that CONGRESS is prohibited from keeping the people from the practice of whatever religion they so choose.
It is a stretch for me, IMO, to fathom how this has been construed as meaning no mention of a God can be made in a pledge to our nation.

The United States is a predominately Christian country. We were formed by Europeans of many nationalities, but a common thread was Christianity. Christian beliefs and ethics formed our country's foundation. Whatever our founding father's individual beliefs, they recognized that religion was the glue that held the culture and society together.

Today, this country embraces many of the world's religions and we seem to be successful. But we were formed as, have been and still are a Christian nation.
If an individual doesn't WANT to say "under God" when reciting the Pledge, the government is not going to step in and make them, we are a tolorant society. But on the same token, we who want to, and recognize how this Country was formed, should be able to say "under God". The 9th Circuit made a tangent ruling, and after a review by whatever Court, I believe that it will be overturned.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I make mistakes sometimes and could be wrong. . . . . I'm human and sometimes make decisions before having all the facts. Something that apparently happens to a few members of the 9th Circuit Court on occasion also.

IP Logged

If U R reading these old posts, know that we were once a great, active cyber-community, but as in all things..Time moves on. This is now a Ghost Town.

Tsunami
ForumsNet Member

Posts: 79

Re: California seeks to restore God to the Pledge
« Reply #6 on: Jul 30^th, 2002, 6:30am »

Quote

Modify

What does "no law reguarding an establishment of religion" mean? You quote it, and then in the next paragraph you say it doesn't mean what it means. You said "There is no statement anywhere in the amendment that says the goverment shall not establish a religion".. but that's exactly what it says, at least when I read it.

But no matter what you or I think, the courts have routinely ruled that it means you can't teach religion in schools. The statement "under God" is religious.. if it wasn't, then nobody would want it added. But to anyone who believes in more than one god, or no gods at all, that statement is untrue, and now finally (after what, 50 years?) it is offensive.

Sure, if someone doesn't want to say "under God" nobody is forcing them. That arguement works just as well the other way: If you want to say "under God" nobody is going to stop you, even if it isn't led and taught by authority figures. That is freedom of speech: you can say anything you want, but you can't force it upon others.

But in order to make the decision, children would already have to be taught one way or another. No child at the kindergarten or first grade age can decide whether to believe in God or not on their own. They believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, God, the Easter Bunny.. basically everything you tell them. So, unless a parent specifically tells the child not to say the pledge, or there is no God, the child is going to listen to the teacher. Parents should have the right to let their kids find God on their own, without having to tell the kid what NOT to learn

Better to tell the government what NOT to teach.

IP Logged

Bumper
ForumsNet Moderator
Moderator
ForumsNet Member

A Virginia Member of the RED SOX Nation

Gender:

Posts: 2946

Re: California seeks to restore God to the Pledge
« Reply #7 on: Jul 30^th, 2002, 4:29pm »

Quote

Modify

I will refer to Addams initial post: "The California Attorney General's office argues in papers filed Thursday that the phrase is merely a ceremonial expression of the Country's religious heritage - - something the U. S. Supreme Court has suggested, but never held."

Just as we have "In God We Trust" on our money, it is a ceremonial expression. I'm not a religious nut, don't even go to church, so don't think I'm beating my chest about religion OR trying to "ram it down the majority opinion down everyone's throat".
All I am saying is that the people who now find some of these terms "offensive" need to get a life! It is a historical, ceremonial expression AS IT IS USED on our money and in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those who wish to rewrite and sanitize the history of this country are the extremists, not any religious organization!

I am NOT talking about prayer in the schools. To me, that is a seperate issue altogether. We should not require prayer to a certain God in our public schools. A period of time to reflect, meditate, pick your nose, pick your ass, whatever, THAT'S a different matter, and I can't find fault with that.

IMO, the citizens of this country, should have no problem recognizing how and why this Country was formed and what tremendous scarfices have been made by countless people throughout history, to defend her. You are pledging allegiance to the COUNTRY, not to any God.

For that matter, "GOD" can mean a variety of things to a variety of people - - -anything! a higher authority, a spiritual leader, even a goddamn 1959 Edsel if that floats your boat! I suggest that if someone finds the word GOD so offensive, they should BOYCOTT any place or any item they find it. That's your right. You live in a free democratic society. Good men and women died fighting to preserve those rights for you.

BUT, An Orwellian approach is not the answer to every nuance of religion in our society that proports to"offend" someone!

In a gesture of recognition of the distaste some have for any reference to the word God in our society, I will provide a post office box number for all those who do not want to sull their hands with our currency due to the fact that the ceremonial words "In God We Trust" appear there. It's no problem, just happy to help. But I don't plan on running to the Post Office anytime soon. That's because you don't let those little words bother you. You look at them the same way as you do the little curlycues and other "stuff" on the bill. You don't sweat it, you just use it and go on with your life. Do I think that guy in California was actually offended, or worried about the constitution? Get real. Do I think he just wanted to have his 15 minutes of fame? You bet your ass I do!

Now, because no one is going to change opinions regardless of what is written here, we should agree to disagree. This is going to wind up in the Supreme Court, one way or the other, so I guess we'll just have to wait until it shakes out.

. . .and as Forest Gump said, "That's all I'm gonna' say about that" . . . .

IP Logged

If U R reading these old posts, know that we were once a great, active cyber-community, but as in all things..Time moves on. This is now a Ghost Town.

Tsunami
ForumsNet Member

Posts: 79

Re: California seeks to restore God to the Pledge
« Reply #8 on: Jul 30^th, 2002, 7:03pm »

Quote

Modify

on Jul 30^th, 2002, 4:29pm, Bumper wrote:

For that matter, "GOD" can mean a variety of things to a variety of people - - -anything! a higher authority, a spiritual leader, even a goddamn 1959 Edsel if that floats your boat! I suggest that if someone finds the word GOD so offensive, they should BOYCOTT any place or any item they find it. That's your right. You live in a free democratic society. Good men and women died fighting to preserve those rights for you.

The word "god" can mean a variety of things, but not when it's capitalized.. then it is a proper noun and means the Christian "God".

IP Logged

Bumper
ForumsNet Moderator
Moderator
ForumsNet Member

A Virginia Member of the RED SOX Nation

Gender:

Posts: 2946

Re: California seeks to restore God to the Pledge
« Reply #9 on: Aug 7^th, 2002, 11:10pm »

Quote

Modify

I saw on the news today that the Mother of the girl named in the original lawsuit in California has come forth to put on record FOR HER DAUGHTER, that her daughter DOES believe in the concept of a God, that the girl WILLINGLY says the Pledge of Allegiance daily at school, and that it was NOT her wish that her Father subject her to HIS opinions and desires concerning the filing of the lawsuit.

The Mother stated that she is seperated from the husband and that he has long had an interest in constitutional law and USED his daughter to further his own agenda.

IP Logged

If U R reading these old posts, know that we were once a great, active cyber-community, but as in all things..Time moves on. This is now a Ghost Town.

Pages: 1

Add Poll

Notify of replies

Send Topic


Previous topic \| New Topic \| Next topic »