VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]
Subject: The Pledge decision


Author:
JeffF
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 08:09:05 06/28/02 Fri
 Any comments on the decision by the appeals court judge to ban the pledge of allegiance because of the inclusion of "under God"? It seems likely the decision will be overturned on appeal, but I'm wondering if the board has any thoughts.

For those who don't know, "Under God" was not always part of the pledge. It was added under the Eisenhower administration, supposedly to show the difference between our nation and the godless Soviets(not expressing my opinion. That was the language of Congress when the passed it).
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> Subject: Re: The Pledge decision


Author:
Kevin
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 09:02:37 06/28/02 Fri
People are really getting bent out of shape on this one, but I'm all for removing both those words and the ones on the money.
[> [> Subject: Re: The Pledge decision


Author:
JeffF
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 09:28:31 06/28/02 Fri
Teddy Roosevelt tried to have "In God We Trust" taken off the money, but Congress and the press screamed, and it's one of the rare instances in his administration, where he backed down.

[> Subject: Re: The Pledge decision


Author:
Dana
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 12:11:28 06/29/02 Sat
I think the words "under God" should be taken out of the pledge, especially since it wasn't there originally. I also think "In God We Trust" should be taken off our money. I'd also like to see some colour in our currency, but that's a whole other issue. *G*

I'm a big proponent of the separation of church and state. Our country was founded on the beliefs that people are free to worship (or not worship) in the manner that they choose. Excluding those words does not take away anyone's right to free worship, but it does make it more clear that our country does not have or promote a national religion.

~Dana
[> [> Subject: Re: The Pledge decision


Author:
Mark7
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 16:48:54 06/29/02 Sat
Our Fierce Leader, Dubaya the second seems to believe just like his Dada that you don't belong to the American nation and your opinion should not have protection under the law.

The check he got from the Christian Coallition during campain times also helped him make up his mind.
[> Subject: Re: The Pledge decision


Author:
Mark7
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 17:02:43 06/29/02 Sat
If you follow the constitution, clearly the Pledge should be removed from official display. In addition, I do believe that a nation that has religion in its constitution cannot be a true democracy.

Israel and Iran both come to mind. Having religion in one's constitution tilts the balance of power and forces the believe onto people.

However, other contries we ususally consider democratic have clear mentions of official religion in their constitutions. Germany has some mention of it being a "Christian Nation" and this has implications on their school system (Catholic and Protestand religions are taught to your child if you pay a tax to either denomination).

With respect with the decision by the SF judge, I think the timing is bad. There are other issues of discrimination in the current administration that should and need to be addressed before the Pledge issue.

Detention without due process, the denouniciation of the Geneva convention with respect to rules of modern war (again Israel is another country that refuses to abide by Geneva convention), the new investigation powers of the HOmland Security office and the lack of accountability of this office (like the old KGB) are all issues of far more concern for the me, and should be for the nation.

Unfortunatelly, most of my compatriots are either too bussy with their lives, or too brainwashed by bad religion (the Mid West and the Bible Belt come to mind), or too paranoid about making war with anybody for the sake of revenge too care for those things.

Future generations will pay a dear price for the lack of resistance from our generation. In 10 or 20 years we will see American students being shot on campuses for freedom again if the current trend is not reveresed.
[> Subject: Hm


Author:
JeffF
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 09:42:19 06/30/02 Sun
I too have concerns that we've traded liberty for supposed security and that the balance has started to tilt too far, but the country has survived far worse periods of threats to liberty in exchange for the promise of security and it will survive this one too.

You sometimes know history, so you may be aware that there was a big red scare in the twenties where foreigners were often persecuted, particularly if they had Russian sounding names. People with political beliefs outside of the major parties were often arrested on flimsy charges and there were a lot of investigations based on not much. At the same time, people from China and Ireland weren't allowed in many areas to apply for jobs. We survived and got past all of this.

We survived the second Red Scare too. The days of McCarthy(and Jenner, who started McCarthyism in the House before McCarthy started it in the Senate). Survived all the FBI investigations then and the terrible perscutions of people by J. Edgar Hoover. Who defends Mccarthyism now?

We survived the shameful internment of the Japanese Americans in WWII, often people who had been here for years and were patriotic citizens. I don't like the detention of suspected terrorists from overseas now, without charges, but we've still come a long way, Mark. You don't see Americans of Afghan descent being rounded up and thrown into camps. The press is much more vigilant now for one thing.

Got past the time when blacks couldn't vote in the South. Citizens without rights.

We've survived a lot of threats to liberty. It's always hard to find the right balance between liberty and security and it's important that people stay awake and don't give up too much liberty indifferently or voluntarily. The other problem with your comparison to the Vietnam era is that fortunately, we haven't reinstated the draft now, which even with other issues thrown in was the main issue in the sixties.
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.