Should we keep the orginal or change it?

 

The original is the one that DOESN'T have the "under god" part in it.

 

Is it too awfully non-pc to say that (as groups) I really hate Christians (and Catholics), Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, Athiests, Bahaii-ists, Raddites, Amish, Satanists.....?

Did I miss any?

 

Which one are you, since you included Athiests (non believers) and every other God worshiping religion. I'm curious what your system of beliefs are.

 

I don't care really.

What really upsets me are these types of abominations the left and activists take-up instead of utilizing their time more wisely. If you really want to change it then pass a law already! Oh that's right! Congress has better things to do then worry about the non-sense you spew.

 

+1

 

Due to the fact that I'm a, what? 4th or 5th gen American, I'm a christian-influenced-way-of-thinking agnostic.

It's just that I don't identify with agnostics......and if there were a group of them together or organized in any sort of matter, I imagine that whatever they did or said would most likely alienate me or polarize me away from them.

Bottom line, if there were a 'group' of folks who only ascribed to being a good citizen and who tried to be as selfless as possible, they would probably be the only group that I could identify with.

My mom calls that being a pollyanna.

 

I think you're missing the point, buddy.

It is unconstitutional to pass a law regarding religion.

Hence the ruling alluded to in this thread.

 

i agree we should go back to the orginal pledge..

 

I'm going to have to ask on what basis you declared a practice that dates to the beginning of the republic unconstitutional.

Yes, I realize the pledge was changed in the fifties....but references to God in government, ie, prayers in congress and what not, are as old as the constitution and were practiced by some of the drafters. I could see if the pledge said "one nation, under Jesus alone's divine protection, with scorn for all atheists..."

But since when is just using the word God in an official capacity or ceremony unconstitutional?

 

You're missing the point. Remember when Roberts used the Umpire allusion? Well, guess what. Whatever a federal court rules is constitutional or not stands until appeal. In a sense, they've just refined that living document.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/ex...alReview.shtml

 

One major underlying point is that the separation of church and state was meant to keep the state out of the church, not the other way around.

 

I imagine there were a bunch of archaic ideals the founding fathers had....along with the timeless, revolutionary, genius ones.

I think that their overarching, most genius ideal was that the Constitution was meant to be a living document.

 

Using the phrase is not unconstitutional, but passing a law requiring it's placement in a "pledge of allegiance" almost certainly is. also, requiring schoolchildren to "pledge allegiance" to a nation "under god" certainly is....at least according to the ninth circuit.

 

WRONG! It has been found to mean both.

http://fact.trib.com/1st.religion.html