Click me.

What do you think about this? Realize of course that this time the ruling was made by precedent. In 2002, the 9th circuit court of appeals made the same ruling. I think there are some pretty strong arguments in favor of taking 'under god' out of the pledge, the strongest one being that 'under god' wasn't in the pledge prior to 1954. The only reason those words were added was in an effort to defy the godless commies. Now that the words have outlived their purpose, there is no reason why we shouldn't revert the pledge.

Arguments can also be made that the pledge is a coercive requirement to affirm god. While of course the pledge is not a requirement, to a young kid in school it may as well be. You know how it goes. The class gives dirty looks to the kid who doesn't stand up and do the pledge, thinks he's a freak, etc.

On the other hand, it isn't a requirement to say the pledge, and you can't shelter the sons and daughters of uptight atheist parents from religious views forever.

Is money next?

Why is this important? Why does anyone care? Don't these people have anything important to worry about?

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]Why is this important? Why does anyone care? Don't these people have anything important to worry about?[/QUOTE]

I don't really care, but people cared enough to put it in there in the first place anyway.

Heh, I always just said "under bob".

I vote for Robin Williams' solution:

"One nation, under Canada, over Mexico..."

9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Gee. How surprising.

I'm still waiting for the part where he says, "I'm joking!" you'd have to tear up a hell of alot of stuff to get God out of the American goverment. He's everywhere. [no pun intended], money he's on the declaration if I remember right, you can't walk around any of the older citys without running into "God" somewhere, specially Washington DC and New York City. I bet next will be Boston, Boston means Children of God or something like that. City of God..... don't remember.

Anyway, lets place bets when they'll pass laws not allowing guns. I get 2018, twenty bucks!

Indeed @ the 9th circuit court deal

It's just some whiny ***** that wants their name in the paper.

[QUOTE=myn corstar]I bet next will be Boston, Boston means Children of God or something like that. City of God..... don't remember.[/QUOTE]
Along the same thinking, we have...

Los Angeles, CA
Las Cruces, NM
Any cities with "San" in it.

San Diego = Saint Diego
San Antonio = Saint Anthony
San Jose = Saint Joseph

Shall we rename these cities, 9th Circuit?

No, but you can protect them from mindless indoctrination until they're old enough to critically analyse religion.

The state has no church, and so in a state school there should be no religion whatsoever. Teaching religion is precisely what churches and Sunday schools do and is entirely the choice of parents.

Your analogy fails. It's not like the name was something else and they changed it to include god (say, Los Frijoles to Los Angeles). In the case of the anthem, it originally DIDN'T have it, as opposed to LA always being LA.

This shouldn't take too much time or effort, it's just removing an unnecessary archaism. It might not seem like much, but if you don't do it, they'll quickly pile up and you'll up like Britain, where we have loads of them.

Why do religious poeple have such a hissy fit about taking god off the pledge, it wasn't there originally there and never should of been added.

[QUOTE=Grim Zombie] never should of been added.[/b][/QUOTE]

That's a matter of opinion. Religious people have just as much a right to complain as those that want it removed.

Agree to disagree.

If this ever goes to the Supreme Court it will be over-ruled. That will be all the precedent necessary to put an end to these idiotic lawsuits.

In the land where Wolfy (Josh >.>) and I live, we have St. James, St. Louis, and a whole bunch of St. Cities.

WHY?

What do you mean "why"?

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]Why is this important? Why does anyone care? Don't these people have anything important to worry about?[/QUOTE]
.

Are government has reached new levles of stupid. But then, it does that every day.

If only people would spend as much energy/money feeding the poor or planting trees as they do fighting to pass insignificant legislation, the world would be a much better place. The real issue should be to get rid of the pledge period, not removing god from it. I love the land and many of the people in this country, but patriotism via brainwashing is retarded. Get them when they're young! Sounds very similar to religious cult tactics to me.

I don't know. We have plenty of trees where we live. And Mississippi has way too many.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]That's a matter of opinion. Religious people have just as much a right to complain as those that want it removed.[/QUOTE]

No, they don't, separation of church and state prevents that.

[QUOTE=Mr. Stafford]Agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]

When in Rome...

...do Romans.

GIGGITY!

That's a great album.

They’re being indoctrinated one way or the other. We shouldn't teach them anything if you don't like indoctrination. Besides saying the word God is hardly indoctrination.




What the heck? Separation of church and state just means the state can not have say over the church, and the church can't have say state matters. The state must have some basis for making its laws. If it totally ignored religion of any kind it wouldn’t have any ground for saying that anything was wrong.

I think the pledge of allegiance is constitutional. However, I do not think kids should be forced to say it every day in school, nor should they be forced to pray in school.

Not exactly. Laws could be made off of a human secularist base.



That nonsense stopped a long time ago.

[quote=Mort Hog]No, they don't, separation of church and state prevents that.[/quote]

Separation of church and state prevents an institution of a Church of America. It doesn't prevent the right of theists to complain.



Because it was originally French territory?

I, personally, would prefer that they simply remove the "under God" (as, as many have pointed out, it was not there to begin with, but to battle those darned evil communists) rather than deem the whole thing unusable.

FUTUREPOSTED [/color]

I really don't care. But it seems like a lot of people are really whiny. :\

If this issue is "not important," "idiotic," and "stupid," then why do people get so riled up over it? Instead of rolling our eyes and complaining, why don't we just do the right thing and remove it. Then, you won't have to hear about it anymore.

Don't complain about the lawsuits if you don't favor legislation to change it. How else are they going to change it if not through lawsuits? A petition? I don't know.

Wow. ... did ... did Wolfy just say that? If you want to know my views on the matter, consult Wolfy's post above.

Whatever. I never said the pledge anyway. :p

You freak! *gives thrawn dirty looks*

"Out of Domain Error has occured."



Make a slight effort to justify why you *believe* it is the "right" thing to do.

Fascist! >.>

Who wants to make a new country with me?

Commie!

"God" was never mentioned in the original pledge of allegience, wasn't it added in like, the 50s?