America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

The Liberal Left Freaks have won another battle. Our Pledge of Allegiance has been deemed "Unconstitutional" by the federal courts. That evil three letter word is the culprit, they say. Apparently, even though this GREAT country was founded by people with strong Christian beliefs it has become unhip to use the word "God" anywhere. First, they cry that it's on our dollars, then the walls of our public buildings, now our Pledge to our Country. Give me a break. Just who are we protecting? The word "God" can mean any god you choose. And if you're atheist then it can't possibly offend you because you don't believe anyhow. This isn't about "God". This is about the outlandish belief that anything American and filled with pride could potentially offend the weak souls who infiltrate our borders. Sorry if I sound a bit unfragmented, but I just can't recall my school chums becoming Jesus "freaks" because of the morning Pledge. And I don't remember the Budhists and Jehovas being burned at the stake during recess. We've got to stop feeling sorry for everyone else and start worrying where our loyalty has gone to.

GOD BLESS AMERICA...or (IMO) at least those who believe in A god, but hopefully THE God that this country WAS founded on! Let them bring it on! I'll stand firm in MY beliefs.

Please, don't fling "geezer" comments in my direction (e-Chick, that includes you), but I remember quite well when the pledge did NOT contain "under God" ... the phrase was added near the height of the "cold-war" to emphasise the contrast between ourselves and the Soviets, who were, of course, officially an atheist state ... with that phrase just sort of jammed in, the revised pledge has always sounded a little awkward to me and would not be harmed in any way by the deletion .... HOWEVER ... it absolutely pisses me off that some little sh**-head doctor in Sacramento gets a weed up his a** and gets the Supremes to go along ... this same dork failed in his attempt to get "In God We Trust" removed from our money and now revels in his accomplishment in getting the pledge ruled unconstitutional ... small wonder he says in the paper this morning he fears someone will toss a brick through his window ... if it were me in his spot, I'd feel pretty good if it were ONLY a brick ...

First: I think the guy who filed the suit is just too damn smug. I don't like him. Second: Take out the words "under God" and the pledge is still an affirmation of American patriotism. It is also more inclusive. This is no longer a monotheistic society. We need to bring our Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic and all Americans of diverse faith brothers and sisters into the fold. I see his point. But I don't like the way it was made.

I can't even talk or write about these idiots without getting really pissed off!

I used to think I was conservative till I started reading cigar bulletin boards! I feel like Ralph Nader over here. ;)

public executions ... now THERE's the topic of a really hot thread ... you might be onto something that will really spark some response now ... I, by the way, am not at all sure you're wrong ... there is potential merit in that suggestion ...

Very true, Steve. To quote Cervantes "Beneath my cloak, I kill the king". Whether I say "under God" or not, it has no bearing on what I believe.

As for public executions, I believe those are popular in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iran.

I don't know what effect that has on their crime rates, but it seems that they would certainly be greater deterrants if implemented on a timely and public basis ... as it is, few of us can even recall the events that (finally, in a few cases) result in capital punishment ... there is pitifully small conection between crime and punishment the way the system works (or doesn't work) now ....

oh, my ... this IS getting interesting now ... the founding fathers, some of whom were quite religious men and some of whom were not (good call on Tom Paine, Jim) were not concerned about freedom FROM religion, but freedom OF religion ... they wanted to preclude the possibility of a state IMPOSED religion, which is what England at the time had done. They rightly wanted to be free to choose their own expression, which is not a bad thing at all ... the addition of the "under God" phrase did not change the essential meaning of the pledge, nor would it's removal do so now ... but the over-legislation of all these issues IS the underlying destruction of our societal fabric ... we need fewer laws and less government, not more ... goverment should do that which can be done no other way and nothing more ... those who choose one religion over another should have that option, including those who choose "none" ... e- is right in saying the terrorist crowd is no doubt smiling at all of our in-fighting ... that is the precise intention of their terrorism ... they cannot beat us, but will win if they can induce us to beat ourselves ... without the "under God" phrase, the essential element and intent of the pledge is, in some ways, made more clear ... "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" ... if divisible, we cannot win, but if indivisible, we cannot fail ... I hereby take the pledge.

And furthermore, if that guy's kid was in one of my kid's classes...I can bet you anything that MY kid would be the first to stand up a say a prayer out loud...just to piss her off!

Ok, that my not be a nice thing to do, but I guarantee, the children that I'm raising will represent!

I work in a high school and we recite the pledge every Tuesday morning at 9 am. I get up from my desk, stand facing the flag in our office and place my hand over my heart and say "I pledge allegence to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" and I will continue to do so until I am no longer alive.
God Bless America

I personally think that public executions for trash like the perverts that abduct and kill little girls and commit crimes such as Rape and murder would be a good thing! Maybe even execute the bastards in a really harsh manner, such as electric chair or firing squad! Ok you liberals can jump all over me now! Charlie

First of all J, I'm not much of an authority on anything, but I sure am entitled to my opinion just as you are. And as far as I'm concerned regarding who's damned, if you don't subscribe to the God vs Devil belief as I do, why would you even be concerned about who is and who isn't damned? Without that belief, is it still possible to be damned?

And as requested, I'll include you in my daily prayers when I talk to God and pass along the "howdy" for you, but it isn't hard to pray for yourself. It's a faith, trust, or I guess you could say insurance policy...for example, would you consider being without insurance? Not me! I doubt everyone in my family will ever have an accident or be seriously ill, my mind won't let me believe it. But we all have insurance just in case. Religion, any religion that I know of is the same scenario.

And if you think your comments can belittle me as I am interpreting them, you are wrong. They have the opposite effect. I'm not picking a fight here with you and don't want to either. But I sure feel some pent up hostility coming from you...Yes people were afraid of the lynch mob that YOU'VE brought up. But again, you are trying to put words into my mouth...and NO, that's not what I want. Reread my posts. I think it's pretty clear.

Chill out everyone! The idiot who wrote the majority opinion for this hot topic(Judge Alfred Goodwin) has stayed his ruling for future reconsideration by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals! Amazin what a little political heat can do! It's almost as if tthey ruled this way to cease all future attempts by morons to challenge the word "GOD" wherever it may appear in our country!

Oh, and TopDog the 9th court upheld the ruling.
I am posting a couple of quotes here:
"Even though school children have been reciting the Pledge since 1892, it was not until 1942 that Congress officially endorsed it. In 1954 Dwight D. Eisenhower amended the Pledge by adding the words "under God." "


KANSAS CITY, MO, June 27, 2002-The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, the nation's premier veterans' group and patriotic organization, are seething over the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling yesterday declaring the nation's Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The ruling, which affects children in public schools in nine Western states, said the pledge cannot be recited in public schools because the phrase "under God" endorses religion.

"The Pledge of Allegiance has long been the bulwark of American pride and patriotism," said VFW Commander-in-Chief James N. Goldsmith of Lapeer, Mich. "It is an unconscionable act by our court system, especially when patriotism is renewing the spirit of our nation. In no uncertain terms will the 2.7 million members of the VFW and its Ladies Auxiliary tolerate this total disregard for the patriotic values our Pledge symbolizes. We fully condemn the actions of the 9th court and will dedicate all our resources to fighting this decision."

In addition, Goldsmith said every American should be outraged at the direction of the court and is encouraging all Americans to join the Veterans of Foreign Wars at 11 a.m. local on Friday, June 28, to say the Pledge in solidarity. "We are asking all Americans to join us in demonstrating unity and resolve toward preserving a vital part of our nation."

Check out this link for more: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/pledge.allegiance/index.html

The 9th Circuit covers California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Montana and Idaho.
Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Perhaps we should just remove those states from the union which are represented in this action so they may apply for induction to a country better suited to their religous or atheist beliefs.

Saying the words "under GOD" in the pledge does NOT constitute a governmental push of one religion over another. The issue here isn't whether the words are relevant or not. The issue is the PC mentality that once again makes the majority "suffer" to appease the vocal thin skinned minority. This whacko is just that: A nut job who wants "God" removed from our monetary system and everywhere else he may look. I don't care if you're Athiest or Islamic or whatever. If the pledge offends you because of words put there 50 years ago, then tough. Deal with it. You are not being persecuted by OUR PLEDGE.

God probably won't get in the way of us being friends. - You are a cat hater though. LOL!

NOW, that is far better. I love purrs....... or doing what causes them!! ;)

Charlie: my constitutional rights prevent you from infringing on my rights and you are free to leave the room and say anything you want. how dare you tell me i have to listen to your godlike approach to morality and your prayers.

Charlie char5353? ---and my big brother can beat your big brother any day of the week.

Rick: Firstly, the constitution only prevents the govt from infringing upon your rights. It does not apply to private instituions or individuals.
Back to the subject. This arguement has become rediculous. This is such a trivial matter that does not merit consideration, and the court was very short sighted when they made this ruling. The judges should have realized the amount of backlash they would get in this most patriotic of times. The pledge is fine with myself and 99% of Americans the way it is now. However the US faces many more important issues right now. Like the ruling of the court that federal executions are unconstitutional, or the fact the US is being pressured by the UN to join the new international war crimes court. This would, in theory, significantly reduce the United States autonomous power, and it would make us subjects of international law. This would be a court higher than our own, above our laws and our country. That is a very scary thought. Not that the US goes around breaking int law, but the ideology is important. The EU is very high on the new court, and they are outraged that the US is not on board. Even our most steadfast ally England is against us on this one. I know all of you will say who cares what Europe thinks, but this may become a major hurdle. We are a member of NATO with the same countries, and while I think we are correct in resisting the court, it may cause a rift in the alliance. The EU has the potential to become a very powerful entity if it can get off the ground, and I'm sure that we want those former autonomus countries to remain our allies. This is a very serious matter that deserves more attention that the ruling of 3 wackos from the peopls republic of california that will ultimately be overturned.