Comments | randomname: (без темы)

randomname

(Untitled)

Jun 29, 2002 00:20

Okay, this is going to be a forem...I have to write on the 9th district ruling on "under God" issue...so post some opinions.

lol...And I know all of you care about whats going on in my life so here-- I might get a job with Ninfas.

Comments 6

oneiryn June 29 2002, 01:42:34 UTC

Ha. Not sure what to think about the ruling itself-- or the Congressional response-- but did you know they only added "under God" in 1954? Try reciting it without that and note how much better it fits the rhythm.

Odd, no?

And I want to work with you, that'd be cool. So get hired.

adupont June 29 2002, 07:43:13 UTC

Of course, the pledge was only made official something like 12 years earlier.

Congress and Bush are taking the political way out--feigning outrage, acting the way they think their voters are acting. Never mind the fact that the ruling is correct--they refuse to comment on the merits of the case. All they do is go on and on about how many times "God" is mentioned in the D of I and all that.
Whether you think he's right or wrong, you'll have to admit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin has balls to make such an unpopular ruling.
I wish the media would stop saying that the Pledge is unconstitutional. The words "under God" are unconstitutional.

That's all I can think of now. I'm tired and I have to pick up my mother from the airport.

Re: randomname June 29 2002, 12:18:33 UTC

loll...I dont think I can say it without saying the "under God" part...throws me off.

vanfane1 June 29 2002, 17:55:04 UTC

who gives a flying fuck? i mean really....this does however give us another chance to make fun of bush so watever

Re: randomname June 29 2002, 19:31:06 UTC

I'm writing a paper thats why.

anonymous July 5 2002, 16:12:05 UTC

It would seem to me that it really doesn't matter as there are two portions of the Constitution this applies to. Church and State and Free Speech. I think that the Free Speech portion of the Constitution renders the whole issue moot as NOT speaking is a form of speech in this case (several court rulings to verify that). As far as Church and State go I am still not quite sure if the terms "under god" are really unconstitutional. It is the general misconception that the Constitution says that there can't be any mention of god or religion from our governments laws etc. This, I think comes from the common belief that all the first amendment really is is the "Seperation of Church and state", an accurate but misleading statement ( ... )