Quantcast

Comments about ‘Pledge of Allegiance faces another legal challenge’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Sept. 3 2013 1:00 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Christopher B
Ogden, UT

Sorry liberals, God will remain.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Is this part of the transformation, of our country?

Pretty sad when gays, and people for abortions, have more rights than the pledge of allegiance.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

The original pledge of allegiance didn't have "under God" in it. There's no reason it needs to be in there.

Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

once again with the very misleading compilations DN, good job. sighting a case were the pledge was "voluntary" reciting to make the case against a lawsuit based on the "compulsory" reciting of the pledge.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@chris and worf

How is you not being able to force someone else to recite the pledge a violation of your rights? this is a case were they are claiming they are forced to recite the pledge not one were they claim no one should.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The pledge of allegiance is not a law, it is a saying passed as a resolution by congress.

Article 1 section 1 paragraph 1 of the constitution states: All legislative authority, granted herein, belongs to a congress consisting of a house of representatives and a senate.

Since ALL legislative authority belongs to congress there is NO legislative authority anywhere else.

If congress has no authority to pass laws regarding religion, and it is their job to create law, how did the SCOTUS ever prohibit prayer in school? It simply is not possible for a law to exist that effects religion.

Congress never passed a law prohibiting prayer anywhere. If you were charged with leading prayer in school, where would they charge you with? No law exists prohibiting it.

The first amendment was intended to protect religion from the state. The SCOTUS has turned the law on its head and is using the constitution for the exact opposite purpose.

OHBU
Columbus, OH

I'm all for saying the Pledge, but the original one, not the modified one written out of the Red Scare. The insertion of those two words skewed the original message by separating the adjective (indivisible) from the noun (nation). Ironically, by putting those two words in, they cause great division and bitterness in regards to the pledge. Why not go back to the pledge as it was written? Let's work towards becoming, once again, "one nation, indivisible"!

Esquire
Springville, UT

1. Do we really need a pledge? What other countries have this?

2. What about Americans who don't believe in a higher being? Are they not Americans, or do they have a lesser status?

3. Would it weaken the religious beliefs of the rest of us if those words were not included?

I am interested to see so reasonable, rational responses to these questions. Don't really want emotion or dogma....

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Wow. How strange. Prayer is not prohibited in schools. Where did you ever get that idea , the Rock?

" It simply is not possible for a law to exist that effects religion."

Well that sure isn't true.

"The first amendment was intended to protect religion from the state. The SCOTUS has turned the law on its head and is using the constitution for the exact opposite purpose."

In other words they are protecting the state from religion? Well that's okay, the state should be, and needs to be, protected from religion. Good heavens, who would think it shouldn't be?

You know, also, it seems you don't understand the roll of SCOTUS.

And another thing, the Pledge of Alligence is NOT religious, and has nothing to do with religion. Its a pledge to the United States, not to a religion.

Grandma 20
Allen, TX

Numerous countries, they refer to them mostly as "oaths of allegiance" or "oaths of citizenship". United Kingdom, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, Jamaica, Norway, Philippines, Singapore, China, Thailand, Fiji, and South Africa to name a few.

worf
Mcallen, TX

@spring street:

There's a saying--"America! Love it, or leave it"

That love for America is the purpose for the pledge, and gratitude for the God which helped bring about this nation. It's respect earned by those who gave their lives for this country.

No one is forcing any person to stay in this nation. The pledge of allegiance is a simple thing,--but if it's offensive, Cuba (with its state run medicine), may let you in.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@worf

"America! Love it, or leave it"

and this is what you think of the freedom so many have fought and died for? A freedom were if people don't agree with you and think they should have the right to refuse your dictates they should leave?

B ob
Richmond, CA

In this case, there is no reason why the rights of a few should trample the rights of many. There is no one that is held back from a job, denied enrollment in a university, held back socially because he/she doesn't believe every word of the pledge. Those who do not believe in any part of the pledge - simply need skip the parts that they don't believe in. Freedom of speech also means the freedom of silence.

The reference to divinity - was proposed by a Republican from Michigan and passed by Congress in 1954. The bill was signed by President Eisenhower. The phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge through all the proper channels and legalities.

Maudine
SLC, UT

So - according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, "God" in the Pledge is not a religious reference, it is a political reference.

If "God" in the Pledge is not religious, than why is Becket defending it? If "God" in the Pledge is not religious, than why are so many religious people so adamant that He remain there?

It seems to me that atheists and others who are not part of the Judeo-Christian-Islam religious grouping have more respect for God as a religious figure than many of those who claim to worship and honor Him.

Sorry Charlie!
SLC, UT

@bob

as has already been pointed out in this thread the reason for the lawsuit is that these people are claiming they were not allowed to simply skip part or reman silent.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "It makes us appear as second class citizens just because we believe something different from the majority . . . ."

You say it like it's a bad thing.

worf
Mcallen, TX

@spring street:

On this? Yes!

That's how important America is! We have a duty to those who paved the way. They earned, and deserve that respect.

Don't love the country? Goodbye.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@worf

Who said anything about not loving their country? If someone chooses to not say "under god" as part of the pledge, something inserted much after those how "paved the way" they hate their country? Again simply because someone does not want to go along with your dictates does not make them anti american. the fact that you believe you should be able to force your will on other however maybe a different story.

rusby
Minneapolis, MN

The phrase "under god" is the only reason, I can even bring myself to say the pledge. If that phrase were removed, I don't think I could find myself reciting the then official pledge. The phrase is important to me, as is the phrase "in god we trust" on the coinage because it is, to me at least, an acknowledgement that there is a higher authority than our country to whom we owe a greater allegiance. If the government assumes the role of highest moral authority, the pledge serves nothing more than a show of nationalism, and we've been down that road before. Actually, if I were to remove words from the pledge, I would remove the phrase "indivisible" and "justice". Because, in reality, countries are divisible and any justice meted out by a temporary authority is inherently skewed from being truly just. The words just seem like a government trying to accumulate power.

Sorry Charlie!
SLC, UT

@rusby

you may want to look up articles of legitimation, that government you are so worried about accumulating power is manipulating your religious convictions to get you to allow them to do just that.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments