- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,463
- Reaction score
- 7,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
AlbqOwl said:Several on the thread think the entire Pledge is unconstitutional. Several others have been clear that they don't like the words 'under God' in the Pledge, but none of them have expressed an opinion about the Pledge otherwise. You have to take the discussion as a whole and not just the part that has involved you.
Who's having a **** fit except those who are hellbent on seeing that the two words are removed? If they are so unimportant, why a **** fit from either side?
Yes, several in this thread have been anti-Pledge period. It's kind of like pro choice and pro life. They mean different things to different people.
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution declaring the words 'under God' in or on anything, let alone a voluntary Pledge of Allegiance, to be unconstitutional. The Constitution is specific that nobody should be denied the right to say those words.
As far as the opinion of the courts, I do not take my view of right and wrong from them. Do you? If so, that could explain a lot.
If you're going to have a rant about my posts, at least put the words in context. It will make it a lot simpler to have a reasonable debate.
The words 'under God' refer to a cultural and historical religious belief which is not unconstiutitonal. They are not an establishment of any kind of religion, and this is a further reason they are not unconstitutional.
Some of you people really do need to learn to differentiate between a religious symbol, religious history, religious heritage, religious influenced culture, etc. and an 'establishment of religion.' You also should brush up on your Consitutional history and theory and thus not so badly misinterpret the content of the Constitution, especially its amendments.
Oh the Supreme Court will sooner or later rule on it. And we can only hope we have enough strict constructionists on the Court at the time they do that we won't have more of the Constitution dismantled. You're right, some of this type of thinking is looney tunes, but I don't think my thinking is very far off the mark of what a constructionist-minded Court will come up with.
Explain how following the constutition's establishment clause is dismantling the constitution.
Please explain.