Supreme Court Rules on Pledge Case!!!

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040615/D8375L7G1.html

Comments?







(P.S. If this is a repost, then I apologize. I honestly didn't look)

He argued that each day his daughter hears the pledge is another day that a teacher tells her, in effect, that her father is wrong.

I hear my teachers proving my parents wrong about things almost every day, but I don't sue the school do I? IMO, religion is bullshit, something just used as an excuse and sanctuary for peoples dumbass actions.

I'm glad it was dismissed. Considering that the 'Pledge' has been around as long as it has, why should it change just because the 'minority' doesn't like it. No one is forcing them to say the pledge. I'm sure his daughter had never put any thought into the whole 'under God' wording at all. But thanks to him, it wouldn't surprise me if this girl takes some harrasment for it.

Actually the orginal Pledge of Allegiance never had the words "under god" in it, even tho it was written by a Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931).

This is how is should read:
'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

I find it interesting that even Bellamy's grandaughter said he wouldn't have approved of the change adding the words "under god".


On a side note, as a highschooler, I chose not to say those words, because I didn't think it had a place in the public school system, but I really dislike the use of our court system to change what is really a non-issue. I'd rather have the school spend the money on supplies for the teachers, not new cars for the lawyers.

The thing that strikes me the most is that the father who brought the suit had no basis ti bring it. Thats sad - it means that this guy who is so worried about his daughter saying 'under god' didn't care enough about her to get even joint custody. The guy is a shallow poor excuse for a father.

One day, currency will face a similiar suit.

From my point of view, saying 'under god' or having 'in god we trust' on currency isn't goverment creating or promoting a religion.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

The thing that strikes me the most is that the father who brought the suit had no basis ti bring it. Thats sad - it means that this guy who is so worried about his daughter saying 'under god' didn't care enough about her to get even joint custody. The guy is a shallow poor excuse for a father.

One day, currency will face a similiar suit.

From my point of view, saying 'under god' or having 'in god we trust' on currency isn't goverment creating or promoting a religion.werd! :1:

It's just another one of those "there's not already enough to complain about" things.
I find it funny that the guy who brought all of this up didn't even see the irony of getting angry about other people doing something you don't believe in. :smile: Maybe he should be religous.
Personally, I couldn't care less whether or not they left "under God" in, or restored the pledge to it's original form.

its just one of those things. dont believe it? dont say it.