U.S. Pledge of Allegiance now illegal....

[Guest mikehaska]

Breaking news from CNN Newswatch:Judge who issued Pledge of Allegiance ruling is now blocking the ruling from taking effect, according to the Associated Press.Ahh... the futility of democracy :-lol j/k(Newswatch pops those up when the story is hot, so there is no further text along with that headline)

[BobP 56]

David,Please read my post. I made no such statement relative to Clinton appointing them. I ask if he did.ThanksBobP :)

[Sonar5 3]

It will now be sent to the full 9th so it can be trashed since it never should have been appealled in the first place.The Original dismissal should have stood and been left alone, but this guy just wanted to push it a bit.Regards,Joe http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

I just wanted to bring out a distant memory about the pledge back in 1987. I was a 10 year old boy from Finland and had just come to the States for 1 year because of my father's studies. I attended a normal elementary school with a language program for kids out of the States.I remember being yelled at by my teacher when I forgot to put my hand on my chest when we did the every morning pledge of allegiance. I didn't mind back then and frankly didn't understand what all the fuss was about. It just felt a little silly to me being from Finland and not immigrating to the country. But at least I memorized it within a few days :-) Cheers,Viljami

[Guest]

It won't make it out of the 9th, and even if it did it certainly wouldn't make it through the Supreme Court. They have already ruled on similar issues in the past, and have held that similar phrases do not show any government bias towards religion.Some other items to consider. First, the Federal Reserve and U.S. Mint do NOT have the authority to put phrases on coins and currency. This is strictly the domain of Congress, and they must receive permission from Congress (currently, coinage denominations can only be altered no more than once every 25 years without congressional intervention, and must contain the phrases "Liberty", "In God We Trust", and "E Pluribus Unum". For historical reference, the phrase "In God We Trust" was added to coinage in 1864 - the 2 cent piece was the first coin showing this phrase (on the obverse, in the scroll above the shield). This was due to sentiments in the nation following the Civil War.Second, as others pointed out here, the Bill of Rights specifically restricts not only separation of church and state, but also freedom of religion. For those who could even argue that our Founders would agree with the ruling this week, please refer to our National Archives. I personally have full-sized replicas of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights on my office wall. Even taking a cursory look, I see phrases like "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..." and "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge...". No, they do not single out a belief in a particular religion, but to suggest our founders did not believe in a Creator (or feel unthreatened enough about a reference to a Creator to sign their names) is ludicrous. The wonderful thing is that these men gave us a framework where you are free to disagree. That, however, does not mean you can take away freedoms from others either.This political correctness gone awry crap has got to stop. After reading the interview with this father I was disgusted, because he openly admitted that his daughter had NEVER even mentioned this to him, nor did she have any problems or issues with the pledge in school. *He* was not comfortable, but he could not sue the school district without naming his daughter, which he conveniently did. Regardless of what happens, I personally will continue to recite my pledge as it was taught to me, and I have passed it to my children, and we will sing "God Bless America" at any time we choose, and truly In God We Trust. Oh, better cover my butt: These are my personal views and not necessarily those of my employer. These views may be restricted outside the boundaries of the United States and it's territories. Prices subject to change. Sales tax of 8.25% added for residents of Texas. Returns may be subject to restocking fee. Refunds with valid receipt only. Rich

[Guest Holliday]

Thomas Paine has got to be laughing his head off where ever he might be. We all need to keep in mind that Thomas, along with many of the other people who helped shape this country at its infancy were not Christians. Yet they had no problem using the term

[Guest Jeff S KDTW]

>Regardless of what happens, I personally will continue to >recite my pledge as it was taught to me, and I have passed >it to my children, and we will sing "God Bless America" at >any time we choose, and truly In God We Trust. AMEN! :-)Regards,http://home.earthlink.net/~snyders2000/A1.jpg

[Sonar5 3]

Hi Rich,I love the disclaimer. :-)I agree with everything you wrote. I saw this father in a few interviews last night, and he said something to the effect that this is his deal and wishes to leave his daughter out of it.Well, that Daughter because of the actions of her father will most likely be ridiculed for the rest of her life for being the One person who tried to overturn history and the force of law.She doesn't desrve that, and I am sure someday she will unfortunately have to answer for his emotional problems.The peer pressure his daughter will receive is now far greater regardless of outcome.I heard Dorris Kearns Goodwin, the plagiarism author state we might be surprised at this outcome if it goes to SCOTUS, like anyone would trust her credibility. What a laugh.. :-lol :-lolThis is The United States of America, and I still believe that if you take away things like our history until there is no one in the country left, we may not have a United States of America, and I feel that is the ultimate goal of some of these people. There are continuous attacks on our country as to why we don't conform to the UN.Well, the EU is going to be one country some day. They already are in many ways with a President, Currency, Ministers, and much more.But this Political correctness for the few who disagree is ridiculous. The Framers, IMHO, did not intend for the Majority to have every single right granted surrendered for the sake of a few. Thanks for adding to the discussion Rich,Regards,Joe :-wave

[Guest]

"You are advocating forcing your beliefs on someone else - plain and simple."Without entering into the larger scope of this entire discussion, I've always been puzzled by the poor logic demonstrated by statements such as the above.How is it that the case of someone attempting to force their "non-belief" belief system (and it is a 'belief-system,' atheistic protestations notwithstanding!) immune to the same defective argument?Or, putting it another way, how does anyone's "right" to non-theistic belief trump another's "right" to theistic belief?

[Guest]

As I stated above, I too fully agree with the decision. That doesn't mean that I don't think it's a bit of a stretch. The Judges following the law and strickly interpreting the constitution came to the right conclusion. Think of this way. It is totally illegal to drive one mile an hour over the speed limit. But, common sense tells us, hey it don't matter whether I'm going 55 or 56mph. Well, common sense is probably right. But, I'm still in violation of the law. If a policeman who happens to be a stickler for the rules, stops me and gives me a ticket, the court should find me guilty and make me pay the consequences. Now, if the judge used his common sense, he'd throw the speeding charge out and dismiss the case. But, our judges if they are to act in accord to the oath that they took, must find me guilty of speeding. That's the law. He has to follow that law. I don't have a problem with the students saying the pledge as drafted; but then I don't have a problem with a driver going 56 in a 55mph zone, either.

[Guest]

Bill,I concur. This isn't a "belief" vs. a "non-belief". They are both belief systems. If you choose not to choose, you've still made a choice. Rich

[BobP 56]

Hi Rich,Good to hear from you. You can also bet that this gentleman is a card carry member of some group. That is why all this legal and constitutional debate above is meaningless. It is a political game where common sense gets trumped by legal gamesmanship. I am not comfortable with that. :)The contest is between the majority of the American population and one small selfish group with their own agenda. This time we win, but they will be back. Hopefully the silent majority will squash this lunacy just as quickly. BobP :)

[Guest]

>The contest is between the majority of the American >population and one small selfish group with their own >agenda. This time we win, but they will be back. Hopefully >the silent majority will squash this lunacy just as quickly. >BobP :) That was precisely my point with the sub-thread entitled "Logical Fallacy."Using such an illogical construct to interpret legal issues is a red herring."I object to X because it infringes on my rights to believe in Y," will ultimately lead either to no rights whatever remaining (totalitarianism), or else the opposite extreme of excessive 'freedom' (anarchy).There are only a few well-defined 'inalienable rights,' which should be never be abridged by law. All other "rights" are those that're determined by the majority of a particular nation's citizens.

[gosta 0]

Hi Joe,you said:>Well, the EU is going to be one country some day. They >already are in many ways with a President, Currency, >Ministers, and much more. Actually, the EU does not have a president, neither does it have ministers. The Council of Ministers consist of the of the government ministers of the member states. They are members of the national governments, and neither elected or appointed directly by or to the EU. The EU presidency rotates every six months between member states, again, the presidency is held by the national government of that state - there is no EU appointment or election to the position of president. The European parliament, however, is directly elected by the people. EU legislation, though, is made via a process of internationl treaties betweeen the member states. The European Commission may then issue directives, which are binding on the member states who have ratified the relevant treaty to which the directive relates. The European Commission does have a president, often (wrongly) referred to as the 'EU' president. He will represent the EU as a whole internationally, but he does not have executive powers. Those lie with the heads of state of the member nations. Cheers,Gosta.

[Sonar5 3]

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is most likely a duck.You are attempting to use symantics and word speak to twist facts to your analogy. I am well aware of the formal makeup of the European Union . :-) The fact is that the EU has a President.The Fact is that the EU Has MinistersThe Fact is the EU has CurrencyThe EU as a whole has a greater population then the USA. There is no nations on Earth where the President has the same powers as another nation. They may be different powers, but thay still have a President.So FACTUALLY, I am correct. A president is a president, and a minister is a minister.Here are some facts from the EU Website."Unlike the United States, the EU is founded on international treaties among sovereign nations rather than a constitution. The power to enact laws that are directly binding on all EU citizens throughout the EU territory also distinguishes the Union from international organizations. This governing system differs from all previous national and international models."Having the power to enact laws across the entire territory acts like a country to me. And I hope they becoem on, as maybe it will bring lasting peace top that region of the world.Having a Parliament with a President that serves a 2 1/2 year term acts like a country to me."The European Parliament (EP) comprises 626 members, directly elected in EU-wide elections for five-year terms. The president of the Parliament is elected for a two-and-a-half year term. Though they are elected on a national basis, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) form political rather than national groups based on party affiliation.The legislative role of the European Parliament has been strengthened over the years. Although the EP cannot enact laws like national parliaments, the Maastricht Treaty provides for a codecision procedure that empowers Parliament to veto legislation in certain policy areas and to confer with the Council in a "conciliation committee" to iron out differences in their respective drafts of legislation. The Amsterdam Treaty extends the number of policy areas in which Parliament can exercise these powers."And the link:http://www.eurunion.org/infores/euguide/Ch...tm#Chapter%202:They even are forming a formal Capital:"European CouncilThe European Council brings together heads of state and government and the president of the Commission. It meets at least twice a year at the end of each EU member state's six-month presidency. The Single European Act (SEA) of 1986 formalized the European Council, which was not foreseen in the original EC treaties.The Nice European Council decided that, from 2002 on, one European Council meeting per presidency will be held in Brussels. Once the Union has reached eighteen member states, all European Council meetings will be held there, reinforcing its status as "the capital of Europe."Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif