Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Pledge of Allegiance IS Unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter decem
- Start date
y'all know i'm an AM radio listener right? well there's a local AM radio talk show host who is just awesome. i call his show about once a week or so, and i ALWAYS agree with his views and opinions on EVERYTHING.. except today. i was floored when this guy said that the freedoms granted to us are not granted by democracy but by GOD, that he was opposed to the recent ruling, that since the founding fathers wrote it in the constitution that it must be right, that the term "god" is recited in so many different government mottos and sayings, etc etc..... WTF!!!!!!!!!! How could it be? my hero has joined the dark side!!!!!!
anywho.. since i'm at work and can't call in.. i wrote him this email. please feel free to comment (<-- like i need to say that).
Dear Mr. Mangino:
I respect your views and opinions on every issue so much; I am always in accord and agreement with the statements you make, the views and opinions you hold, and the stance you take on such issues. All except this "Pledge of Allegiance being unconstitutional" that is.
I wish I could call in and address these issues with you on the air, but since I cannot, I hope that you will at least read this for yourself, if not on the air.
1. The founding fathers are not always right, their words are not absolute truths, and they did not take everything into consideration when writing the constitution. This is why new laws have been ratified and the constitution amended.
2. I was absolutely floored when you said that our country is founded on the beliefs of God and that our freedom is granted by a creator and not by people or democracy. This is absolutely ludicrous. The only entity that has ever restricted human behavior or actions is the behavior and actions of other, usually more powerful, human beings. Therefore, it follows that the only one that could ever grant freedoms from restriction of behavior and actions would be humans themselves. Am I not right?
3. Many different religions are now followed and practiced in America, and many different views on such are held by so many various groups and peoples. Society, America, and the world have all changed so much since the adoption of the constitution that the views the founding fathers held on religion are no longer current, nor are they the views held by the majority.
4. I am an Atheist/Agnostic/Buddhist and I served my country in the USN for six years. I believe in America and in her government. I do not believe in God, and for someone to say "God bless America" means nothing to me. To say "In God we trust" means nothing to me. Why can't "United we stand" be the motto? For is that not what we truly stand for, a civilization free and UNITED against tyranny and oppression and restriction?
5. Simply because the word "God" is used by so many other government entities and in so many other statements, prayers, pledges, etc and that it has been allowed to slip its way into to so many parts of government, does not make it right. Are we not a society that is based on changing what is wrong and making it right? Is that not what the founding fathers did? Should we be discouraged from righting the wrongs simply because it seems so daunting a task?
6. What if you were to take the word "God" and replace it with Allah, or Ganesha (a Hindu diety), or Mahakala (a Buddhist figure)? What if you also held the same beliefs in your God that you do today? Would you want to recite or hear the word "Mahakala" over and over again? Would it mean anything to you? Would you want it force fed to today's youth and your child? Would you not disagree with someone or some government entity practically trying to convert your child's views on the world and the universe by making her listen to the vast majority of her peers and the leaders of her country constantly reciting "Om Mani Padme Hum" (a buddhist saying that encapsulates all of Buddhism meaning "Hail to the jewel in the lotus.")??
Please read this on the air, or please at least respond to this to let me know that YOU read it.
Very respectfully,
Nugga Supremo
A-to-the-mothafuckin-K
anywho.. since i'm at work and can't call in.. i wrote him this email. please feel free to comment (<-- like i need to say that).
Dear Mr. Mangino:
I respect your views and opinions on every issue so much; I am always in accord and agreement with the statements you make, the views and opinions you hold, and the stance you take on such issues. All except this "Pledge of Allegiance being unconstitutional" that is.
I wish I could call in and address these issues with you on the air, but since I cannot, I hope that you will at least read this for yourself, if not on the air.
1. The founding fathers are not always right, their words are not absolute truths, and they did not take everything into consideration when writing the constitution. This is why new laws have been ratified and the constitution amended.
2. I was absolutely floored when you said that our country is founded on the beliefs of God and that our freedom is granted by a creator and not by people or democracy. This is absolutely ludicrous. The only entity that has ever restricted human behavior or actions is the behavior and actions of other, usually more powerful, human beings. Therefore, it follows that the only one that could ever grant freedoms from restriction of behavior and actions would be humans themselves. Am I not right?
3. Many different religions are now followed and practiced in America, and many different views on such are held by so many various groups and peoples. Society, America, and the world have all changed so much since the adoption of the constitution that the views the founding fathers held on religion are no longer current, nor are they the views held by the majority.
4. I am an Atheist/Agnostic/Buddhist and I served my country in the USN for six years. I believe in America and in her government. I do not believe in God, and for someone to say "God bless America" means nothing to me. To say "In God we trust" means nothing to me. Why can't "United we stand" be the motto? For is that not what we truly stand for, a civilization free and UNITED against tyranny and oppression and restriction?
5. Simply because the word "God" is used by so many other government entities and in so many other statements, prayers, pledges, etc and that it has been allowed to slip its way into to so many parts of government, does not make it right. Are we not a society that is based on changing what is wrong and making it right? Is that not what the founding fathers did? Should we be discouraged from righting the wrongs simply because it seems so daunting a task?
6. What if you were to take the word "God" and replace it with Allah, or Ganesha (a Hindu diety), or Mahakala (a Buddhist figure)? What if you also held the same beliefs in your God that you do today? Would you want to recite or hear the word "Mahakala" over and over again? Would it mean anything to you? Would you want it force fed to today's youth and your child? Would you not disagree with someone or some government entity practically trying to convert your child's views on the world and the universe by making her listen to the vast majority of her peers and the leaders of her country constantly reciting "Om Mani Padme Hum" (a buddhist saying that encapsulates all of Buddhism meaning "Hail to the jewel in the lotus.")??
Please read this on the air, or please at least respond to this to let me know that YOU read it.
Very respectfully,
Nugga Supremo
A-to-the-mothafuckin-K
mekannik
New member
So just your particular rights and beliefs, created and fought for by the founding fathers of this country - the most powerful nation on the face of the earth, are more important than 200+ years of history and independence?
Step off the soapbox and relax your extra tight sphincter.
This is just another example of the court system in America (one nation under God) wasting precious time and resources on a non-issue.
BTW - WTAM 1100?
Step off the soapbox and relax your extra tight sphincter.
This is just another example of the court system in America (one nation under God) wasting precious time and resources on a non-issue.
BTW - WTAM 1100?
Last edited:
epimetheus
New member
mekannik said:
YEAH! wasting time with a non-issue is right. Great that our tax dollars are going towards making it so America is even more PC.
As an athiest that gets tired of hearing of God all the time, I must state that the pledge of allegiance has never, ever bothered me. Anybody that it has is a nit-picky prick.
JohnnyO
New member
Convertives again are trying to make people believe God was part of the founding father's agenda.
As I watched fellow members of "God's Own Party" (GOP) throw themselves before live television cameras last night to approximate outrage over a Nixon-appointed circuit judge (damn, we can't blame this on Clinton) taking umbrage in the recitation that we are one nation "under God," it struck me that it is rather less plausible that we are in fact "one Nation" – regardless of whom we may find ourselves under.
The court's decision, however, is rather convenient for Christians. After all, it will be far easier for Jerry Falwell to roust up some tithes for his latest pyramid scheme by using Old Glory sporting a huge phlegm ball from the judicial bench than blaming the fires in Arizona and Colorado on Planned Parenthood in cahoots with insolent drag queens in the Castro. And while the Senate passing a resolution 99-0 tonight to bravely support the Pledge of Allegiance may not win any inclusions in the last-Kennedy-you-can't-say-anything-bad-about's "Profiles in Courage," it does provide a convenient opportunity to feign conviction.
As for this "one Nation under God" slogan, many of my brethren in the Republican party (and even some Demon-crats) have resorted to some histrionic history in support of the supposedly objectionable statement. Fortunately for us, the past has proven to be a rather malleable thing.
History is like shampoo: exotic or generic, the last step is always
"repeat." Like bad fashion, if you wait long enough, you'll see something you wisely threw out on someone younger and wonder, "Why wasn't I there to warn them?" Since we're apparently helpless to avoid our past's obdurate cycles, isn't it a better use of our time simply to change the past, rather than try to sidestep its inevitable encore?
Conservative Americans have embraced inventive revisionism with alacrity. After all, it is rather inconvenient to acknowledge that the men who forged our wonderful democracy were products of the Enlightenment and viewed the Bible with alarming skepticism. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson had the temerity to refer to that lovely leather-bound book as a "dunghill." (Oct 12, 1813 letter to John Adams.) And John Adams wrote: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" (April 19, 1817 letter to Thomas Jefferson.) Frankly, who can forgive
Adams for signing the Treaty of Tripoli, which provides in Article 11 that "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"?
Faced with such unsavory facts, Christian conservatives have had no choice but to recreate the Founding Fathers in THEIR image! Suddenly, our nation's history is imbued with Puritanical showmanship for piety that our actual ancestors were apparently too preoccupied by thinking to display. Many assume that the logan "In God We Trust" has been stamped n coinage and ourthouses since before the Liberty Bell got its unsightly rack. Not so. Our national motto is the less divisive (and decipherable) E
Pluribus Unum ("out of many, one"). We didn't decide to flaunt our distrust of people who actually lived in our country by adopting "In God We Trust" until the 1950's cried out for a gesture to thumb our noses at the godless commies in the USSR.
This fervor to sideline an eagle and adopt a national mascot who could not only fly, but also damn people who rubbed us the wrong way, led to the insertion of the words "under God" (which is similar to being under Pat Buchanan, only not quite so hairy) into the Pledge of Allegiance during the last gasp of Christian America, known more generally as the "McCarthy Era."
Peggy Noonan has made a busy vocation out of turning Ronald Reagan, a divorced man who didn't speak to his children and was almost impeached for Iran-Contra, into her mascot for "character." Our current President is assisting Peggy's wistful efforts by banning the disclosure of all the Reagan administration documents, which threaten to intrude on the conservative gilded recollection of Reagan's magnificence.
But, truly, why should we have to pause 200 – or even 20 – years to make history more presentable and palatable? In this age of instant gratification, we can't be expected to wait until so-called "time" passes to allow less energetic historians an opportunity to languidly "reflect." Being admirably proactive, we have now taken to revising our history while we are actually living it the first time.
Just look at how we are industriously repackaging our current leader before he even leaves office. In a time of crisis, we needed an eloquent and polished President so, like a Southern seamstress in a rush might say, we "whipped one up!" Indeed, believing that Shrub is competent and an eminent statesman is simply the result of our shared anxiety and earnest desire for
it to be so. This mirage is akin to our nation having a collective
hysterical pregnancy. I can only hope future generations are grateful for the time we have saved them by altering history before it has even slipped into their meddlesome hands.
As I watched fellow members of "God's Own Party" (GOP) throw themselves before live television cameras last night to approximate outrage over a Nixon-appointed circuit judge (damn, we can't blame this on Clinton) taking umbrage in the recitation that we are one nation "under God," it struck me that it is rather less plausible that we are in fact "one Nation" – regardless of whom we may find ourselves under.
The court's decision, however, is rather convenient for Christians. After all, it will be far easier for Jerry Falwell to roust up some tithes for his latest pyramid scheme by using Old Glory sporting a huge phlegm ball from the judicial bench than blaming the fires in Arizona and Colorado on Planned Parenthood in cahoots with insolent drag queens in the Castro. And while the Senate passing a resolution 99-0 tonight to bravely support the Pledge of Allegiance may not win any inclusions in the last-Kennedy-you-can't-say-anything-bad-about's "Profiles in Courage," it does provide a convenient opportunity to feign conviction.
As for this "one Nation under God" slogan, many of my brethren in the Republican party (and even some Demon-crats) have resorted to some histrionic history in support of the supposedly objectionable statement. Fortunately for us, the past has proven to be a rather malleable thing.
History is like shampoo: exotic or generic, the last step is always
"repeat." Like bad fashion, if you wait long enough, you'll see something you wisely threw out on someone younger and wonder, "Why wasn't I there to warn them?" Since we're apparently helpless to avoid our past's obdurate cycles, isn't it a better use of our time simply to change the past, rather than try to sidestep its inevitable encore?
Conservative Americans have embraced inventive revisionism with alacrity. After all, it is rather inconvenient to acknowledge that the men who forged our wonderful democracy were products of the Enlightenment and viewed the Bible with alarming skepticism. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson had the temerity to refer to that lovely leather-bound book as a "dunghill." (Oct 12, 1813 letter to John Adams.) And John Adams wrote: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" (April 19, 1817 letter to Thomas Jefferson.) Frankly, who can forgive
Adams for signing the Treaty of Tripoli, which provides in Article 11 that "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"?
Faced with such unsavory facts, Christian conservatives have had no choice but to recreate the Founding Fathers in THEIR image! Suddenly, our nation's history is imbued with Puritanical showmanship for piety that our actual ancestors were apparently too preoccupied by thinking to display. Many assume that the logan "In God We Trust" has been stamped n coinage and ourthouses since before the Liberty Bell got its unsightly rack. Not so. Our national motto is the less divisive (and decipherable) E
Pluribus Unum ("out of many, one"). We didn't decide to flaunt our distrust of people who actually lived in our country by adopting "In God We Trust" until the 1950's cried out for a gesture to thumb our noses at the godless commies in the USSR.
This fervor to sideline an eagle and adopt a national mascot who could not only fly, but also damn people who rubbed us the wrong way, led to the insertion of the words "under God" (which is similar to being under Pat Buchanan, only not quite so hairy) into the Pledge of Allegiance during the last gasp of Christian America, known more generally as the "McCarthy Era."
Peggy Noonan has made a busy vocation out of turning Ronald Reagan, a divorced man who didn't speak to his children and was almost impeached for Iran-Contra, into her mascot for "character." Our current President is assisting Peggy's wistful efforts by banning the disclosure of all the Reagan administration documents, which threaten to intrude on the conservative gilded recollection of Reagan's magnificence.
But, truly, why should we have to pause 200 – or even 20 – years to make history more presentable and palatable? In this age of instant gratification, we can't be expected to wait until so-called "time" passes to allow less energetic historians an opportunity to languidly "reflect." Being admirably proactive, we have now taken to revising our history while we are actually living it the first time.
Just look at how we are industriously repackaging our current leader before he even leaves office. In a time of crisis, we needed an eloquent and polished President so, like a Southern seamstress in a rush might say, we "whipped one up!" Indeed, believing that Shrub is competent and an eminent statesman is simply the result of our shared anxiety and earnest desire for
it to be so. This mirage is akin to our nation having a collective
hysterical pregnancy. I can only hope future generations are grateful for the time we have saved them by altering history before it has even slipped into their meddlesome hands.
