Justice 0 Report post Posted October 14, 2003 If it were save % they could probably win a Vezina in the NHL . But anyways: Supreme Court to here California Case on the Constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Thoughts? Opinions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted October 14, 2003 I'm not one of those ACLU types that cringes everytime someone says God. I find "God Bless America" for instance, to be simply of well-wishing and not an endorsement of a major religion. I say it myself sometimes. This change to the pledge was added in WW2 in attempt to keep our kids from turning into godless Commies. It was intentionally placed there to be a religious message. AFAIK, it can go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 14, 2003 I got better things to do than think about the Ninth Circuit. Why couldn't Tim McVeigh park his van outside of this place and do some real good?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted October 14, 2003 This isn't the 9th court, this is the SCOTUS. It was expected that they'd hear this; we've been talking about it in Con Law the entire semester. I would bet it goes, but that's just a hunch based on the other more progressive rulings we've seen lately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted October 14, 2003 I really doubt it will. I don't see any reason to discard the Pledge since it isn't mandatory and it's really hard to find a specific religion that actually benefit over another from something as vague as "God". Jobber: In all reality, it doesn't even serve that purpose anymore so that's not a valid claim against it. Whatever it was put in place for doesn't matter because all that matters is what it is doing in the now. Otherwise it's just moot and has no business in the courts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted October 15, 2003 Blame the Knights of Columbus. They're the ones who pushed to get it in there. I have no problem with the ORIGINAL Pledge, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 15, 2003 I really doubt it will. I don't see any reason to discard the Pledge since it isn't mandatory and it's really hard to find a specific religion that actually benefit over another from something as vague as "God". They say it isn't mandatory, but when I was in high school I didn't stand up for the pledge a few times (just one of those youthful attempts at being "against the system") and got threatened to be taken to the principal's office. Oh if I only knew about the ACLU back then I might have turned out quite differently... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted October 15, 2003 Tyler's taking Con Law? Christ, please someone tell me he isn't in law school. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted October 15, 2003 Hopefully you'll slit your wrists when I tell you that I'm on my way. Anyway, out of particular interest is the fact that Scalia has recused himself from the case. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spicy McHaggis 0 Report post Posted October 15, 2003 Let's see here... No one is forced to say the pledge. It doesn't endorse one, particular religion. That use of God is secular. Why is the SC hearing this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted October 15, 2003 That use of God is secular. I agree with you that this is a ridiculous case; as long as no one is forced to say the Pledge there is no harm being caused. Of course, I think that references to "God" and "one nation indivisible" should be removed and everyone should be forced to say the Pledge, but that's beside the point. It's rather funny, though, that you're claiming a reference to God is "secular." Last time I checked, there was nothing under the sun less secular than God. It doesn't endorse one, particular religion. But it excludes quite a few, doesn't it? Let's see, all polytheistic religions right off the bat, it's blasphemous for any number of the stricter faiths who refuse to say or even write the word "God," and aren't the religious fundamentalists always claiming that atheism is a religion itself? A reference to "God" is contrary to all these examples, and many more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
