The Pledge of Allegience...Unconstitutional????

Everyone here has made some very good points and being that we are a free country means that we do not have to say or do anything that we do not wish to do. There for the supreme court should no say that it should go or stay. The pledge of allegiance was writen to say this is my country and I back her. When it was wrote no one even considered this to be a religous act. So lets not make this a religous act when everyone knows its not sappossed to be.
This is my reccomendation that should make everyone happy.

I pledge alligence to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stand. One Nation, United for liberty and justice for all.

Oh I forgot something, as far as having to remove monuments I think this is a very bad idea these monuments represent our past and are not promoting any sort of religion. They are celebrating our history.

The Deal with our money is simple every year millions of notes are produced and destroyed so why not on the new notes just leave out In God We Trust and over time the notes with it on there will be desrtoyed and the ones without it willtake over without causing any problems.

JB...I think you are very mistaken. Removing In God We Trust will create all sorts of new problems.....You just may not be able to visualize them yet.

really you are right too. No matter what you do someone is not going to like it. As far as I'm concerned they can leave god on whatever they chose because I could really careless either way. I will still say the pledge of allegiance and I will still use the money. Wait I got it, God = Bald Eagle. God is the name of our mascot, now we have to leave it on everything. Whew I knew there was a valid reason for putting that word on everything.

Bwolfe,

I don't think this is just athiests. I am not athiest and I tend to agree with the idea.

The US is a melting pot of cultures, races, and religions. Just to name a few, we have Shaman, Wiccan, Buddhist, Taoists, Confucionist, Jewish, Muslim, Christian (broken down into Baptist, Lutheran, Seventh Day etc), Catholic, Mormon, just to name some. And that is not including the Satanist, Athiest and Agnostics.

While all these religions (excluding the Judeo Christian faiths) are a minority in the religious sense, we are talking MILLIONS of people that are not "Christian". Why shove it down their throat that this is only a country for the God (capitol) loving people.

"All men are created equal" "We hold these truths to be self evident"

Sorry, but, I think there is much to be considered.

Originally posted by ImAlreadyPsycho
#2 Separation of church and state should mean total separation. Not partial

How are you viewing the separation of church and state? I think I said it before, but I'll say it again in case I didn't.

When I was taking my government class in high-school, we spent about a month and a half on the constitution. We read every word, broke down every point, memorized parts, and defined the terms as they would originally be interpreted when the Constitution was drafted and approved.

If you follow your history, the separation of church and state was to keep the STATE from controlling the CHURCH.

It had happened in England when their government told them that they could only go to the Church of England and practice it's doctrines.

That is where the term "Separatists" was coined. They were 'separating' themselves from England and it's established church.

In order to prevent this from happening in America, it was written and sealed in the Constitution that it would be unlawful for the government of the United States of America to support one religion over another, forcing it's citizens to attend one and only one church. That is where you get your freedom to believe whatever doctrine you wish. It was not, however, to keep the influence of the church out of the government.

I garuntee you that this is the way it was originally intended to be interpreted.

Now through the course of events, we have allowed the Supreme Court to have their way with the Constitution and fall away from it's original meaning and intent. They took it as far as to say that the CHURCH must be separated from the STATE. They twisted the intended interpetation to mean the exact opposite of the original meaning. In its entirety, the separation of church and state was obviously to give people religious freedom. The fact that it was added to the Pledge or was put on our currency means only that the people who put it there were trying to represent their beliefs and those of the Founding Fathers. It is not to force anyone in any way, shape, or form, to follow one specific religion.

(*Sorry this posting was so long. The Supreme Court has been over-stepping their boundaries for far too long and it is a HUGE issue with me. This forum was never intended to be an argument of religion...I was merely trying to point out that the Supreme Court is WRONG not only in its interpretation of the Constitution, but also in it's rulings! Thank you all for your input. It is appreciated!! There have been several very good points brought up. Keep 'em coming!*)

Thoughts/speculations?

It is curious that this even made it to the supreme (jesters) court.

If those who choose not to believe in any "god", simply do not say the pledge or the words that offend. The issue with the populace who want to deny any mention of "God" or his existence is that which I have a beef with. You now make it illeagal for my son or daughter who wants to express their belief without offending some poor non-believer.
The problem is not so much the Pledge and what was written it and when, it is about the fact that there is no mention of the words "seperation of church and state" in our constitution- hence, this issue is not un-constitutional. Period. It is about the exiling of God from our culture and forcing Christians to be force feed a steady diet of non-christian ideas and belief systems. Other religions do get a pass at times also. When I was on staff in our library system we had to make special considerations and allocations of space for Muslims to offer daily prayers. We had people on their knees in the middle of isles praying for minutes at a time- you can not interrupt. I would really like to see this form of accomodation for a bible group or christian worshiper...?

The humanists and atheist can never defeat God and it is almost laughable what is happening if it were not so sad for the absolute truth those people will be faced with one day. PC has evolved into something a little more insidious than calling handicapped persons "physically challenged".

The anger and glee from some here leaves me a bit baffled- why are you so offended and challenged by God? Why are you insecure concerning this tiny phrase in a voluntary pledge? It's funny to see the cheers go up. Really quite humorous indeed.

My reason for being athiest is basicly because I chose to believe the scientific evidence that I have studied. I am not saying that there is not a God, I am just saying that there is no proof of one and there is so much scientific proof of how the world was created that I have a hard time believing in a Superior being that controls all. I will never strike anyone down for the religion they chose and I would appreciate it if I wasn't given a bad rap for chosing not to believe in a god.

Originally posted by Tyriffic
...there is no mention of the words "seperation of church and state" in our constitution...

This is correct. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in our Constitution. However,

The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)

Found here: www.noapathy.org...

The principal still remains in the First Amendment though. I believe in ruling the Pledge un-constitutional, the Supreme Court would in fact be violating the First Amendment. It also ties in with a point I made earlier about the Supreme Court over-stepping their boundaries. Go back to the Constitution and read how a bill becomes a law. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it. However, through their rulings in controversial issues (i.e. - prayer in school) the Supreme Court has in effect made un-constitutional laws. One cannot hold prayer time in school and will be punished accordingly if they do so. The issue is NOT religion, however, the free exercise of religion is being trampled under our very noses as the Supreme Court violates the Constitutional guidelines clearly laid out before them. Some may ask why this is such a big deal... Think about this. In order to get a ruling by the Supreme Court to be determined un-constitutional, one would have to present the case to....guess who...?? That's right...the Supreme Court... Do you sort of see where my problem is? The fact that religion is involved is un-fortunate, but as I stated before, that was not intentional. I would appreciate any feedback or thoughts on this issue. Tell me what you think...after all, I certainly have told all of you what I think...Thank you for the input made so far... Keep the thoughts coming!!