# Lets all become robots check this out



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

BREAKING NEWS AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.

WTF is wrong with this we now can't be allowed to teach kids how to be patrotic.. This guy needs to come hunting with me.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Sota, I agree!!! If I remember correctly it is the word "God" that has people all "up in arms"!!! Maybe if we incorporated Alla(spell), Budda, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, all the tree spirits, both the Greek and Roman Gods, the beer god, all of the Native American gods, bigfoot, yeti, .....you get my drift!!! Then MAYBE people wouldnt ***** anymore.....welcome to the world we now live in!!!! uke:


----------



## Van Wey (Jul 15, 2005)

I agree with both of you. This crap is getting way out of hand.


----------



## MossyMO (Feb 12, 2004)

This is the United States of America, the American citizens can not show respect to thier country because anti-american's (non-norwegians) find it unconstitutional? They moved to this country and are enrolling their children in our public schools. They also participate in our welfare programs, they do not seem to complain to how they American dollar is handed to them.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Yeah, I put a lot of stock in those left-coast Federal Courts of the 9th Circuit (the bastard child of the 13 Circuits).

Don't forget the fish gods.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

and Fred Bear>>>--------->

I'm with ya sota.... this new world order is for the bushs I mean the birds..


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

This guys a federal judje? I wonder for what federation?


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Has anyone ever stopped to think about which constitution is being violated here I mean it is for sure the 1st amendment as that constitutes the freedom of speech and religion and both are suppose to be taught in school these days. However it looks as if somethings we use to learn are now being left out and they wonder why our country is going bad!! The teachers are told not to teach any of these things and the parents are left to teach these things in the home WHY? I don't mind spending time with the kids and showing and teaching them things that they do not learn in school, but this is getting way out hand pretty soon we won't be the land of the free we will be the land of "you need a permit to do that"!! Parents wonder why they are having issues with kids these days, look what they learn in school, and yes I realize some people do not pay that much attention to their kids, however maybe they should!!


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

buckseye I am wondering why you think it is bush compared to lets say maybe some of the liberal judges the past president but on the bench.

I am so sick and tired of the squicky well getting the greasy maybe they need to be told to shut up and color because you are such a distance minority that your voice is falling on deaf ears.. I know this can create some other problems but what ever happened to the majority rules??

I guess buckseye and I see stuff at different levels and by no means do I think he should not be allowed to state his understanding of things. I just tend to see stuff at face value more then he does. I have talked and hunted with buckseye and he is a outstanding person that I love to visit with.. But if we all had the same thoughts what fun would that be then..

Jd next time I am in St cloud I will by ya beer if you want. My wife is from there and I grew up south of there in Litchfield..


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

The above link will take you to the United States Constitution, Gut feeling tells me this may be overturned by the Supreme Court. There are some pretty flakey "circuit courts" out there.

Bob


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

oh ya

I do feel that a school has a responsibility to teach kids what is morally exceptable in soicity and how you difine that is a tough one.. But there is one rule that no one should be able to argue and needs to be taught by all of us. I think most of us forget it but here is a remeinder.. Threat people as you want to be threated.. IF that was drilled into every americans head this country would not be heading down the road it is..


----------



## MossyMO (Feb 12, 2004)

If I am understanding the objection to the pledge correctly, they are offended or object to the "One nation, under God" part. 
But they do not have a problem accepting and using American money which states "In God we trust".

Sounds like a bad case of double standards to me?


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

I would place a bet that it will eventually come off the money too


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I'm not taking sides here....but if the words "under God" were removed it would still be patriotic wouldn't it.What does that have to do with patriotism?This has nothing to do with "anti-Americanism."Atheists can be just as patriotic as you and I are.

And it has nothing to do with Allah or Jehovah or any other name for god.Some people don't believe in god.Since as some of you say....the first amendment says freedom of religion....doesn't that also mean you don't have to believe in god?

So why should we require a child from an atheist home to say "under God."Because that's what this is all about isn't it?In other words don't they have the same rights as we who believe in god do?


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

ken then why was the ruling sent down the way it was with a ban not a recomendation to alter it or anything.. When I took the oath of enlistment it gives you an option to say Gor or I afferem to nothing so to speak. So why is this not the same.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't know....but the first amendment also guarantees the right to not believe in God.

This will go to the Supreme Court.The same athiest sued in 2002 and the Supremes got out of making a ruling because the guy did not have custody of the child in question.This time he is representing 3 families that do have custody.

The judge in San Francisco said...."the pledge's reference to one nation under god violates school children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm god."


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Lets go out of government and into Religion. We have all heard of the Lords Prayer or the Our Father I hope, the prayer was handed down for centuries until one day the Lutherans decided to add some words to the end of the prayer. OK I'm Catholic and in our Church we still say it the old way, so is it wrong for me to just NOT SAY those words when at Lutheran ceremonies if I don't want to??? Freedom of speech does cover not speaking too.

I don't see a problem, but then I'm not out trying to make problems like the yahoos who can't just sit through two words. Two words that probably have very little meaning to a child.

UNDER GOD... IN GOD WE TRUST


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This will go to the Supreme Court and they will rule that it is traditional and does not have religious connotation.Plus they will say it is not coersive.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

The Pledge of Allegiance will survive, And a little history about the original author Francis Bellany, who was a Civil War Draft dodger, by that he had the $600.00 that was required to buy your way out. I t survived in its original form until 1954 when "under God" was added after one nation. Some times I wonder why a Civil war draft Dodger should of been preaching patriotism but then look at a majority of the neo cons today with the flag on their lapel who like Cheny had more important things to do so he had five deferments. Vietnam Veterans got a raw deal when they returned and I as a Merchant Seaman in WW2 had about the same reception. But we are probably more patriotic then most. God Bless America


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Why is it that they are upset over the words under God? It does not stipulate which god, me personally, I prefer to believe in the one that most prodistant churchs believe in since that is the God that was in reference when all of these things were printed for the first time. Maybe it is patrotisim, maybe it is about history. People that were never in this country in the first place coming here and trying to change our history and re-write our history for a modern version of what most Americans believe in. Maybe that is why some people get upset about dropping words out of phrases, that have been used for hundreds of years in the USA. Never the less no judge, president or anyone else for that matter has enough power to change my mind about what is right and what is wrong!! This taking out "under God" is wrong just like it would be wrong to erase the the words "In God we Trust" from our money, United States of America money, not USA and other foriegn coutries money just USA money. IF they don't like what they have here in the USA then why in the HE// did they even come here? If it is so bad here in the USA then why don't they go back where they came from? I tell you why because it was so bad there where they came from that any place in the USA is BETTER than what they had back home. They all should stop complaining about what they have here and leave our system alone, and start enjoying what is available to them here, FREEDOM to make choices!!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> AMENDMENT I
> 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
> ...


Removing "under God" from the Pledge does not make the Pledge unpatriotic. Read the 1st Amendment about again... then stop and read it a few more times.

Public schools are a government entity. Therefore, when children are asked to recite a pledge that states "under God", how is can that not be regarded as the school (the government) endorsing that there is a "God"?

I fully agree the Pledge is unconstitutional when it contains "under God" simply because that statement clearly serves as the government's endorsement of religion. We can pretend that "God" does not refer specifically to our Judeo-Christian god, but we all know that this is the god that the statement refers to.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Yes schools are a government entity but do you suppose if we voted on it and the American people said leave it there do you suppose it would stay? I don't think so, I know of several laws made that were unpopular with the people. One was prohibition and the latest was seat belts. In ND we voted down mandatory seat belts three times in the voting booths but the regulators found that if they legislate the law and find some sucker to write the ticket to, that won't fight it in court, it will be a law. The hiway patrol gave citizens the choice between a larger speeding ticket or the small seat belt fine, so of course the simple minded people who were wrote up took the lesser of the two tickets and seat belts were coerced in law.

Nothing is sacred from lawyers these days. What kind of a lawyer would even take on a job to change such tradition???


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

buckseye:

Our constitution guarantees certain civil liberties to all citizens. A person's civil liberties are protected, regardless of whether the majority feels to the contrary.

For example, the citizenry could not vote to prohibit my free speech, free expression of my religion, freedom from search and seizure, or any other civil liberty unless I was endangering public safety. If our constitution did allow this, civil liberties would only be protected for those citizens that expressed views or practices that were popular.

To present another example, how do you think that the majority of people in the Deep South would have voted in the 1960s if it was put to ballot whether or not Blacks should have the same civil liberties as Whites?

The seatbeal analogy is not a fair one because wearing or not wearing a seatbelt is not guaranteed by the Constitution. In other words, it is not a civil liberty. Therefore, it is a public safety and economic issue.



> What kind of a lawyer would even take on a job to change such tradition???


The answer: A lawyer that loves this country and the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. There are lots of "traditions" that are not right, and it is not right to continue certain practices just because we have always done it that way. If we did, we would never change.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

You missed my point... the damn lawyers will bend and destroy every thing on this planet if we let them...

The point was legislation can be coerced into law. That is more important to the citizens than anything else wrote here so far.

I totally disagree with your opinion BigDaddy... I have to say you are on the opposite side of the fence from me and the majority of US citizens, notice I wrote citizens. But without the negative forces always pulling at us we can become complacent, so thanks for helping keep us on our toes.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> I totally disagree with your opinion BigDaddy... I have to say you are on the opposite side of the fence from me and the majority of US citizens, notice I wrote citizens. But without the negative forces always pulling at us we can become complacent, so thanks for helping keep us on our toes.


That's what I'm here for. I respect your views, although I disagree with you. Furthermore, as you will hopefully gather, the views of the majority of US citizens are irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

If we are so concerned about the Government Endorsement Of God?

Am I missing something does President Bush and other Presidents prior to him often make reference to paryer and to pray and God bless America in his national addresses. Yes he most certainly does. Where is the seperation of church and state in this case? The President is the ultimate representative authority of the state.

Bob


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob,

The First Amendment guarantees a person's right to freely exercise their religion. Thus, any president is allowed to pray or worship as they see fit. They are also allowed to use a bible during an oath if they want to. However, they are not obligated to do so.

Freely exercising a person's religion is different that the government endorsing a religion. Having students in a public school recite "under God" is likened to having a teacher or other school employee leading the children in a prayer. Either act can be viewed as that school (i.e. the government) endorsing that religion.

Here's a little primer that discusses the Court's precedence as to when activities cross the line of separation of church and state:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031700a.htm


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Big D

I can see your point.

It is still a jumbled mess

There are so many instances where the two are combined that I still find it difficult to accept the strict division of church and state. take the example of Congress, they open sessions with a prayer. The Supreme Court has mention of God at the entrance to the building. Our legal tender has God referenced. Do the people that do not believe in "A God" reject the currency because of it?

I think this is pure and simple the responsibility of parents to educate their children to the different aspect of life they will encounter instead of expecting those "aspects of life" to conform to them.

civil liberties should be protected but they sholuld also be understood and explained to our children and our children should know that cultural diversity is ever present and accept it.

Just my two cents.

Bob


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

nicely said Bob. BigD I do understand your point thanks everyone for keeping this a respectful post this is a lot of fun to read..


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

The Pledge of Allegiance is a prayer of sorts. The men who fight and die for our country should tell us how they feel about this. Any of you guys around? Were you thinking Religion or Government when you were getting shot and shot at?


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

I myself do not have a problem with the pledge as it is, but can imagine the firestorm if some wanted to add "under Allah or Budda which could very well be the case some day if we continue at this pace, like school led Christian prayer and next the Moslems would demand the same rights with the prayer rugs and all.


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

There is the oath of enlistment.. I sure don't here anyone in the service pissing and moaning about it here.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

I just want a little clarification here, were in the pledge of allegence does it say what religion the God is it does not say under the baptitis god or the lutheran god or the catholic god does it? So why would any one say that budda or allah or any another idol should be added to the pledge of allegence.

And Further more if these people are truely U.S.A. citiziens than did they or did they not have to pledge allegence to this country when they declaired their citizienship to be the USA, at that point in time they forsaked their old country!!! Because part of citizienship classes is learning the pledge of allegence not some other forien countries promise to it's citiziens. Get real if these people are really citiziens of the USA then they made a promise not to forsake their NEW country upon becoming a citizien, and part of that would be defacing the flag, our monies as we know it, and YES our pledge of allegence to OUR country!!!!!

So Big Daddy if you do not see my piont of view I would have to question your patriotism, what country do you call home? Do you sing the national anthem at sporting events, do stand tall and proud with the rest of us or do sit in your seat with your hat on in disrepect to our flag and our country? Do you pay tribute to those who gave their life so you can live in this country? You live in state that has TWO active, working, military bases and God only knows how many part time gaurd units, do mean to tell us that you do not appreciate the patriotism of the poeple that are there in your state protecting your butt from foriegn coutries that would like to go to war with the US but know that they do not have the power to compete with the MOST powerful country in the world. Man do need a reality check.

Part of our patriotism comes from the religions we practice and no one is telling anyone what religion to practice including the "Pledge of Allegence" no where in there does it tell you what religion to practice, no matter how many times you say it!!

So again if they do not like being a citizien in the GREAT COUNTRY OF THE USA, pack and leave there are many other countries in the world but none as GREAT as this ONE!!! Oh and if they are not a citizien then SHUT UP and quit the bithching, they have no legal rights to complain or ask for it to be changed.

That should about end this argument.

Sincerely J.D. Lundgren


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

jd:

Let me say a few things.



> I just want a little clarification here, were in the pledge of allegence does it say what religion the God is it does not say under the baptitis god or the lutheran god or the catholic god does it? So why would any one say that budda or allah or any another idol should be added to the pledge of allegence.


Notice that the pledge says "God" and not "god". Therefore, it refers to a specific entity, not to gods in general. I have never heard of Buddha or Allah being called "God", and I think that we would be disingenuous if we didn't freely admit that the "God" included in the pledge was the Judeo-Christian god. If it truly refers to any god, than let's change it to read, "One nation under a god..."

Second, you question my patriotism, but I think that you have religion and patriotism confused. Here is a definition out of Webster's:



> Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism
> Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-
> Function: noun
> : love for or devotion to one's country


True, new citizens pledge allegiance to the USA. What does that have to do with their religion? Are you saying that they can't be patriots if they don't believe in God or even in a god? I don't think so.

In addition, you discuss "these people" (your wording, not mine) that should forsake their former citizenship. I agree totally. However, what about the millions of buddhists, muslims, unitarians, agnostics, hindus, and atheists that were born here? Did you forget that we have plenty of "these people" that were born and raised here (for generations), have joined the military, been productive members of society, and have done everything that the other patriotic God-fearing citizens have done.

Plain and simple, patriotism has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Patriotism is defined as love for one's country, not love for one's god. Go tell the atheists in the military that they are less patriotic than you are.


----------



## leadshot (Aug 2, 2004)

Hmmm, Like jay Leno put it lastnight. If a teacher has his class say the pledge and gets arrested, he then goes to court and they make him put his hand on the Bible and say .....So help me God.... Wow, this all make sense to me now. :eyeroll:


----------

