Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Our constitution was written by and with the input of a large number of very religious and very pious individuals. These people grew up in an America that was largely settled by Christians for the purpose of Christian worship. (The Puritans came to New England, the Quakers to PA, etc.) These people knew that they were putting together possibly the most important document in the history of our nation and in all likelihood in the history of the modern world.
With this in mind please peruse a copy of your constitution and see how many references our very pious and religious founding fathers made to "God", "Jesus", or to "Christianity".

Was this just an oversight? Did they merely forget to add the references to God and Jesus?

The only reference to "religion" in the entire constitution is in the first amendment which obviously does not constitute an endorsement of Christianity or any other religion. Quite the opposite. (Utilizing Christian values, principles or even the protestant work ethic is different from endorsing the religion itself).



Lack of endorsement in the Constitution still does NOT change the fact that our laws, traditions and institutions are HEAVILY influenced by Christian doctrine. It is true that it was designed to be a document for all times and that it doesn't mention by name a specific deity. Last time I checked, the pledge wasn't a part of the Constitution, nor does it govern any aspect of our rights as citizens...


Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
The phrase "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance by Federal statute in 1954. California law requires that schools conduct a patriotic exercise at the beginning of each school day and specifically states that The Pledge of Allegiance shall be acceptable. Public school systems and their teachers are regulated and funded by the various states in which they are located. That is why the actions of a public school teacher in leading the Pledge of Allegiance is considered to be a state action.



That's really stretching the case thin, as something that is deemed acceptable doesn't exclude other activities such as a simple salute, singing the Star Spangled Banner, reciting the Gettysburg Address, etc. It sounds like it is being used as an example of a patriotic excercise here, not MANDATED by law that it be done as an excercise.

Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
I don't think the problem with the phrase "Under God" is that it endorses Christianity - the problem is that it endorses religion - specifically a monotheistic religion. This leaves out people with many beliefs including atheists, many agnostics, followers of many native American religions, animists, followers of the ancient Greek, Roman, Celtic, Druidic or Viking religions etc and anyone who has not yet decided upon a religion.



I know this is going to sound trite, but tough toenails. If Buddhists came over to seek to practice their own religion the way the deemed just and appropriate in the 17th century and the values of these people were refined to represent their belief and doctrine, things would very likely be different.

Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Of course there is no legal penalty for not reciting the pledge, except that it is not fair to require kids as young as 4 years old to, on a daily basis, in front of their peers and role models, to publicly express their disbeleif in what almost everyone else in the classroom accepts as the ultimate truth.



What certain people consider fair and what's legally allowed under the Constitution are two entirely different topics. I'm sure it's uncomfortable for some individuals to sit out the pledge in front of their classmates. Since when does the government dictate "comfort"?


Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Perhaps you have forgotten what it was like to be 4 years old or perhaps you were not an average 4 years old. The desire to conform in that age group is extremely extremely powerful. Kids that age don't like to be different and don't like to be singled out as being different. I can remember when I was in kindergarten, how kids would be taunted mercilessly if they didn't wear the right clothes, have the right haircut or even the right lunch box.



I remember those days quote well, as I was one of those tormented, which lasted in one form or another throughout high school. Being intelligent AND atheletic apparently was a no-no in the redneck society where I hailed from. You were either one or the other, or so the common logic seemed to go. I never blamed my lack of conformity on the government. Why would people blame their situations on a tradition that is commonly practiced? Is it to the point to where we have to coddle EVERY belief in our actions and intentions at the expense of the beliefs and conviction of the majority?

Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Please read the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and tell me exactly where you think they went wrong. I think their decision was courageous but that it was also a no-brainer.



Time permitting, PM me with a link to it so I can read it, or please post it here.

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe