Poll: Should the US keep this part, or get rid of it? "One nation, under god"
Poll Options
View poll results: Should the US keep this part, or get rid of it? "One nation, under god"
Keep it as is
30 48%
Get rid of, it violates the constitution.
33 52%
Voters: 63.
#1
We had a discussion about this in class the other day, the "one nation, under god" Actually violates the constitution, i thought this was fairly interesting. Do you guys think it is viable? or that its should be removed??? Thoughts?

My things:
Bowes SLx7
Washburn WG587
Washburn X40Pro
Washburn X50
Washburn HM24
Washburn WR150
Laguna LE200s
Arietta Acoustic
First Act
Valveking 112
VHT Deliverance

#2
Dude you're so late for this debate it's not even funny. I've been hearing this about the Pledge, and I don't really care. I just don't say it. They can't MAKE anyone say it at school...
ok, yeah. my name is silly because I signed up when I was 13.

BEDBUGS
#3
it doesnt really violate the constitution... but they should get rid of it anyway.
.
..
...
I have no opinion on this matter.
#4
I just thought it was an interesting subject to bring up is all.

My things:
Bowes SLx7
Washburn WG587
Washburn X40Pro
Washburn X50
Washburn HM24
Washburn WR150
Laguna LE200s
Arietta Acoustic
First Act
Valveking 112
VHT Deliverance

#6
If you don't like it, you have the right to leave it out.
Quote by Waffleexplosion
Only in a vodka ad could Mexico win a war.
#7
I don't care. I personally don't say "under God" if I'm saying it, but it's a choice.
#8
Christ...Well, it's not like anybody actually cares what they're saying, eh? Also, Did you know, their (I forget...Like, the FBI or some other organization) definition of a terrorist now involves a person whom references the constitution or wears Levi's jeans? This is all getting so ****ed up, that FoB is starting to sound good.


EDIT: Also, Zugen...hrue...whatever your name is, if you don't think it violates the constitution, why do you think they should be rid of it? It's only 2 words. Granted, I don't like the fact that radical christians have somehow managed to work their way into the national anthem, but as said before, it was only added to seem a better nation than Russia.

IMO. IMHO.
My gear:
Schecter C-1+ w/ Seymour duncan Jazz (neck) and Full Shred (bridge), with Sperzels
B-52 LG-100A 4x12 half stack
Rogue LX405 Bass
Yamaha classical
Some sort of acoustic Squier
Boss Flanger
Lyon Chorus
Last edited by SchecterC-1+Man at May 4, 2008,
#9
uncontitiutional is a little crazy. i would pass a law saying requiring it to be there and be said out loud or a group of hand picked individuals will be ordered to beat the dog ship outta that person.

imo...
Quote by Duff_McGee
Everyone knows that the day the Metallica ends, the world ends.
#11
I think the Patriot Act is a more worrisome subject than this...oh well.


BTW I say keep it as it is.
If we're never together, if I'm never back again, well i swear to God that I'll love you forever. Evelyn, I'm not coming home tonight.
#12
i just dont say it anymore.


i think 6 years of saying it was enough pledge.
v CLICK v



Quote by musicjunkie207
The time I fell on my face on a trampoline and cracked my neck, then proceded to run around the yard in a blind panic screaming "I hope I'm not paralyzed! OH GOD I THINK I'M PARALYZED!"
#13
I think people take it too seriously. How many billions of less fortunate people would say whatever the hell they had to to even be able to live here?
We're only strays.
#15
Quote by garden of grey
Not really. However, it's an over nationalistic pledge that children say daily without knowing the meaning behind it. (Hell, adults too.) You really think making (Yes, making. At this age they wouldn't know why they shouldn't say it) children unconditionally pledge themselves to a country that they happened to be born in is a good idea?


The whole concept reminds me of fascist Germany or something modern day China would do.



Holy christskates! I was joking!

Oh, and they aren't making them say it, you don't have to say it.
#16
It's obviously unconstitutional - the addition of "under God" by statute violates the well-settled test established by the Lemon v. Kurtzman decision.
Hi, I'm Peter
#17
Quote by garden of grey
I know they aren't making them say it. At that point in a kid's life they aren't going to go against the flow because they don't even understand the flow. How many six year olds do you know that could even make a choice on whether they liked the pledge or not? Not to mention most teachers will still bitch at you for not saying it, regardless of whether they can or not.

And yeah, I knew you were joking, but I wasn't trying to attack you. Just pointing out why it's actually a bit ridiculous.



Ah, ok. But still, saying it isn't going to make a difference. I just don't see harm in keeping it the way it is. If we take it out, there will just be more bickering about meaningless things.

I won't be effected either way, so I don't care if they do away with it or not.


Quote by Dirk Gently
It's obviously unconstitutional - the addition of "under God" by statute violates the well-settled test established by the Lemon v. Kurtzman decision.



Well, I guess this topic is settled. Moving on...
#18
Quote by garden of grey
Harmful? Not really. Just stupid as hell.



Yea I know it's dumb, but removing it will just cause problems.
#19
Quote by Dirk Gently
It's obviously unconstitutional - the addition of "under God" by statute violates the well-settled test established by the Lemon v. Kurtzman decision.


hmm.....enlighten me please, ive never heard of this discussion. (9th grade here, going to ask a lot of questions, just forwarning)

My things:
Bowes SLx7
Washburn WG587
Washburn X40Pro
Washburn X50
Washburn HM24
Washburn WR150
Laguna LE200s
Arietta Acoustic
First Act
Valveking 112
VHT Deliverance

#20
Quote by valennic
hmm.....enlighten me please, ive never heard of this discussion. (9th grade here, going to ask a lot of questions, just forwarning)

Ok...in the 1970s, the Supreme Court decided a case called Lemon v. Kurtzman. I can't remember the exact details of the case, but the court, in its decision, outlined a test to see whether a governmental act violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. According to the Court, the following three questions should be asked:

1) Does the act have a secular purpose?

2) Does the act either promote or prohibit a particular religion?

3) Does the act cause excessive entanglement between the government and religion?

If the answer to any one of those questions is "no," then the act violates the Establishment Clause.

In my opinion, and the opinion of the Federal district court and Court of Appeals, this act had no secular purpose whatsoever. Also, referring to god as "God" is a Judeo-Christian practice, which violates the 2nd part of the Lemon test, in my opinion.
Hi, I'm Peter
#21
^I believe that Lemon v. Kurtzman started over a private religious school receiving government funding, but I could be wrong.

On the topic of the pledge, even if it didn't contain an unconstitutional phrase, just saying it officially in school is a ridiculous idea if you ask me. I highly doubt that more than a small minority (if that) of the kids saying it know what any of it actually means. I'm not fond of the concept of patriotism, either, especially not when it's being forced on impressionable young minds.
Last edited by Quintessence153 at May 5, 2008,
#22
I'm sorry if this has been said, but i didn't feel like reading through all of this.

Saying "One nation, under god" is not unconstitutional. The constitution says can not pass laws respecting any specific religion. It's saying congress only. If they wanted, individual states could have their own religion (Some did for a while after the revolution). Also, the pledge is in no way a law.

EDIT: I'm just talking about the original constitution. I haven't researched every recent surpreme court ruling on things like this.
Last edited by Spamwise at May 5, 2008,
#23
Yes, it is unconstitutional, but no one is forcing you to say. I don't when we do the pledge at school. It's not that big of a deal though.
#24
Quote by IronMaiden5
Yes, it is unconstitutional, but no one is forcing you to say. I don't when we do the pledge at school. It's not that big of a deal though.

Hmm. We used to get in trouble when we didn't say it in grade school.
#25
Quote by Quintessence153
Hmm. We used to get in trouble when we didn't say it in grade school.



You should have literally thrown a constitution at your teacher.
#26
It kind of connects religion to government. Whereas, these two should be separate entities. Which they are. It's just outdated tradition. And I think tradition is stupid because it stands in the way of progress.

I'm from Australia so it doesn't really apply to me. But there are heaps of examples where we do things a certain way, not because it's the most practical but because it's tradition. I think it's stupid how nostalgic everything has to be
#27
Quote by Dirk Gently
Ok...in the 1970s, the Supreme Court decided a case called Lemon v. Kurtzman. I can't remember the exact details of the case, but the court, in its decision, outlined a test to see whether a governmental act violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. According to the Court, the following three questions should be asked:

1) Does the act have a secular purpose?

2) Does the act either promote or prohibit a particular religion?

3) Does the act cause excessive entanglement between the government and religion?

If the answer to any one of those questions is "no," then the act violates the Establishment Clause.

In my opinion, and the opinion of the Federal district court and Court of Appeals, this act had no secular purpose whatsoever. Also, referring to god as "God" is a Judeo-Christian practice, which violates the 2nd part of the Lemon test, in my opinion.

Right, okay, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for that, I have never really taken any classes that involve the government, except for social studies, but I always had an interest in this.
One question though, wasnt the "under god" part added before said case ever occured?

My things:
Bowes SLx7
Washburn WG587
Washburn X40Pro
Washburn X50
Washburn HM24
Washburn WR150
Laguna LE200s
Arietta Acoustic
First Act
Valveking 112
VHT Deliverance

#28
Quote by valennic
Right, okay, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for that, I have never really taken any classes that involve the government, except for social studies, but I always had an interest in this.

Me too. I made it a point in law school to study constitutional law, especially how it relates to religion.
One question though, wasnt the "under god" part added before said case ever occured?

Yep, but the separation of church and state had been enforced by the Supreme Court for a few decades up to that point. Also, the Constitutional prohibition of post ex facto laws doesn't apply - no post ex facto laws means you can't be punished for doing something that was once legal (while it was legal, of course) that is now illegal; that doesn't mean, however, that the statute can't be changed. After all, every challenge brought before the Supreme Court is for a law that was passed years before.
Hi, I'm Peter
#29
Quote by SeveralSpecies
Holy christskates! I was joking!

Oh, and they aren't making them say it, you don't have to say it.



i got it


and i thought it was funny


it is that typical American (institution not the people before anyone gets annoyed) thing where life revolves around the greatest nation, god and the family

we all know it's a load of BS but it's still hilarious to see US 50s style propaganda
#30
You don't have to say it. Close your mouth at that particular part, and continue on as normal. Changing the establishment is business as usual; The majority catering to the minority, like a requirement that a church put a Star of David, or something to that effect, next to a nativity scene near Christmas, even though the town contains exactly 1 Jewish family (happened in my town).
Is it a bad thing if one of your testicles is larger then the other two?
#31
Quote by Dirk Gently
Me too. I made it a point in law school to study constitutional law, especially how it relates to religion.

Yep, but the separation of church and state had been enforced by the Supreme Court for a few decades up to that point. Also, the Constitutional prohibition of post ex facto laws doesn't apply - no post ex facto laws means you can't be punished for doing something that was once legal (while it was legal, of course) that is now illegal; that doesn't mean, however, that the statute can't be changed. After all, every challenge brought before the Supreme Court is for a law that was passed years before.


Okay, wow, thats interesting. So, since this law was passed before this case, it can or can't be affected by the cases effect? This is all i need cleared up.

My things:
Bowes SLx7
Washburn WG587
Washburn X40Pro
Washburn X50
Washburn HM24
Washburn WR150
Laguna LE200s
Arietta Acoustic
First Act
Valveking 112
VHT Deliverance

#32
Quote by valennic
Okay, wow, thats interesting. So, since this law was passed before this case, it can or can't be affected by the cases effect? This is all i need cleared up.

The law can be declared unconstitutional by the Court.
Hi, I'm Peter
#33
Ok, so they could legally remove it if they wanted to?

My things:
Bowes SLx7
Washburn WG587
Washburn X40Pro
Washburn X50
Washburn HM24
Washburn WR150
Laguna LE200s
Arietta Acoustic
First Act
Valveking 112
VHT Deliverance

#34
Yeah it really doesn't make any sense being in the pledge, I wouldn't call it unconstitutional though. People don't HAVE to say it either, if that's what they choose.