Air Travel

Question:

>Personally: >1. I feel the "under God" statement, if required to be listened to in >public schools, or printed on money, MIGHT be violating the >constitution. >2. I also feel that changing the constitution to permit this would be an >easy thing to do. After all, the Senate voted 99-0 to keep saying it.

Do you realize what that would be opening the door to?! We are fighting countries where there IS no civil law; it’s sharia (Islamic law).  What kind of rights do people over there have, compared to our rights?! I don’t want this country run by Christian ayatollahs or indeed any kind of religious authorities. As to the Senate, those cowards would vote for anything politically correct. — Polar

Response:

> uh… wrong, they are BOTH there .."nation under god, indivisible, with…" > note the lack of break between "nation" and "under god" – there was no pause > there as written, people just seem to PUT it there.

You may well be right, but then again, it’s more than a half-century since I was a student in a public school.  There was no intent to mislead. Also, no defense for my use of a double negative in my last sentence.  I should have read it carefully after editing and before posting. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m old enough to know the old pledge, which we recited in school every > day, and > I still stumble in one part of the "new" one. > Let’s be accurate about this.  The pledge had a SUBSTITUTE made under > Eisenhower in 1954. > It used to go, "…one nation, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice…" >    (It was written, I was told, as a reaction to the U.S. Civil War.) > It was changed to, "…one nation, UNDER GOD, with liberty and justice…" >    (As a response to "Godless Communism" in 1954.) > Somehow, the old pledge didn’t keep me from serving in uniform honorably > for 45 months, 39-months overseas (without a break, and not by choice). > And, neither the old or new pledge never changed my belief in God.

Response:

Personally: 1. I feel the "under God" statement, if required to be listened to in public schools, or printed on money, MIGHT be violating the constitution. 2. I also feel that changing the constitution to permit this would be an easy thing to do. After all, the Senate voted 99-0 to keep saying it.

Response:

uh… wrong, they are BOTH there .."nation under god, indivisible, with…" note the lack of break between "nation" and "under god" – there was no pause there as written, people just seem to PUT it there. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m old enough to know the old pledge, which we recited in school every day, and > I still stumble in one part of the "new" one. > Let’s be accurate about this.  The pledge had a SUBSTITUTE made under > Eisenhower in 1954. > It used to go, "…one nation, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice…" >    (It was written, I was told, as a reaction to the U.S. Civil War.) > It was changed to, "…one nation, UNDER GOD, with liberty and justice…" >    (As a response to "Godless Communism" in 1954.) > Somehow, the old pledge didn’t keep me from serving in uniform honorably > for 45 months, 39-months overseas (without a break, and not by choice). > And, neither the old or new pledge never changed my belief in God.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Re: One Nation Under God! > > (Snip) > > it was found that parts of our national anthem broke them and a few > > words were changed in our anthem, no big deal. The change was announced > > as a done deal to abide by the charter of rights, as opposed to the > > anthem being publicly declared void etc etc etc. > > The Pledge Of Allegiance will not be altered or changed. > Welcome to the beautiful world of bigotry… > It was altered in the middle 1950s.  That’s when the "under God" was > added.

I was referring to the view of the previous poster.

Response:

> > And the Supreme Court must take into consideration the consensus of the > popuous. > Actually, it is the opposite, it must protect the minority’s rights against > the majority if such majority decides to do stuff that would be against the > rights anf freedoms of the minority.

No its not… its part of the decisions of the court all the time… even in Bill of Rights cases.  Its not the sole criteria though. > If the constitution states that there should be no religion in government, but > elected representatives pass a law that says that they must pary before > starting a debate, isn’t that against the constitution ?

A "must" would be something that would not hold Constitutional muster… what do you think the populous would say on this anyway ? jay Thu, Jun 27, 2002 > Now, if they pass a law to amend the constitution to allow prayers (eg: > religion) in govermment, then that is different. > The problem happens when you have the "spirit" of a constitution that is taken > too literally and every word is then parsed to see if it fits the litteral > meaning.  The "in god we trust" probably violates the litteral constitution, > but it doesn’t violate its spirit.

– Legend insists that as he finished his abject… Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Response:

>The Pledge Of Allegiance will not be altered or changed.

It was altered in 1954.  Why not again? —  -Rich Steiner >>>—> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>—> Eden Prairie, MN     OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS = PC Hobbyist Heaven!      Applications analyst/designer/developer (13 yrs) seeking employment.         See web site in my signature for current resume and background.

Response:

> > What surprises me is that it took so long for someone to go to Court to > challenge these words. Here in NL about 40-50% of the population are > non-believers, and one would expect that that percentage is not much lower > in places like California and New York? > Could be… but the U.S., in general, is at about 85+% believers. > And the Supreme Court must take into consideration the consensus of the > popuous.

Naive me…  I thought they were supposed to enforce the constitution? Which seemingly includes strong words on freedom of religion (and one would hope from relation too)?   Is that all now subject to the politics of opinion polls too?

Response:

> The last official change to the Canadian Anthem was in 1968, well > before the new Canadian constitution and its Charter of Rights was in > effect.  And the change in 1968 added a reference to God no less.

Sorry, it was changed in the early 1980s. Something about "men" only wording being changed to be more gender neutral. I don’t know off hand what the changes were, but there have been satires of this made on TV a few times.

Response:

… snip > Note that after Canada included a charter of rights in its constitution, it > was found that parts of our national anthem broke them and a few words were > changed in our anthem, no big deal. The change was announced as a done deal to > abide by the charter of rights, as opposed to the anthem being publicly > declared void etc etc etc.

… snip The last official change to the Canadian Anthem was in 1968, well before the new Canadian constitution and its Charter of Rights was in effect.  And the change in 1968 added a reference to God no less.

Response:

I’m old enough to know the old pledge, which we recited in school every day, and I still stumble in one part of the "new" one. Let’s be accurate about this.  The pledge had a SUBSTITUTE made under Eisenhower in 1954. It used to go, "…one nation, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice…"    (It was written, I was told, as a reaction to the U.S. Civil War.) It was changed to, "…one nation, UNDER GOD, with liberty and justice…"    (As a response to "Godless Communism" in 1954.) Somehow, the old pledge didn’t keep me from serving in uniform honorably for 45 months, 39-months overseas (without a break, and not by choice). And, neither the old or new pledge never changed my belief in God.

Response:

> And the Supreme Court must take into consideration the consensus of the > popuous.

Actually, it is the opposite, it must protect the minority’s rights against the majority if such majority decides to do stuff that would be against the rights anf freedoms of the minority. If the constitution states that there should be no religion in government, but elected representatives pass a law that says that they must pary before starting a debate, isn’t that against the constitution ? Now, if they pass a law to amend the constitution to allow prayers (eg: religion) in govermment, then that is different. The problem happens when you have the "spirit" of a constitution that is taken too literally and every word is then parsed to see if it fits the litteral meaning.  The "in god we trust" probably violates the litteral constitution, but it doesn’t violate its spirit.

Response:

> What surprises me is that it took so long for someone to go to Court to > challenge these words. Here in NL about 40-50% of the population are > non-believers, and one would expect that that percentage is not much lower > in places like California and New York?

Could be… but the U.S., in general, is at about 85+% believers. And the Supreme Court must take into consideration the consensus of the popuous. In fact, that was the thrust of the recent decision against capital punishment of severely mentally challenged individuals. Specifically, that 33 States had already outlawed it. jay Thu, Jun 27, 2002 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Sjoerd > > > > Re: One Nation Under God! > > > > (Snip) > > > > it was found that parts of our national anthem broke them and a few > > > > words were changed in our anthem, no big deal. The change was > announced > > > > as a done deal to abide by the charter of rights, as opposed to the > > > > anthem being publicly declared void etc etc etc. > > > > The Pledge Of Allegiance will not be altered or changed. > > > Welcome to the beautiful world of bigotry… > > It was altered in the middle 1950s.  That’s when the "under God" was > > added. > That was known as "The Eisenhower Amendment"

– Legend insists that as he finished his abject… Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Response:

> What surprises me is that it took so long for someone to go to Court to > challenge these words. Here in NL about 40-50% of the population are > non-believers, and one would expect that that percentage is not much lower > in places like California and New York?

No, many profess a religion hoping they too can go to heaven.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Re: One Nation Under God! > (Snip) > it was found that parts of our national anthem broke them and a few > words were changed in our anthem, no big deal. The change was announced > as a done deal to abide by the charter of rights, as opposed to the > anthem being publicly declared void etc etc etc. > The Pledge Of Allegiance will not be altered or changed. > Welcome to the beautiful world of bigotry…

It was altered in the middle 1950s.  That’s when the "under God" was added.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Re: One Nation Under God! > > (Snip) > > it was found that parts of our national anthem broke them and a few > > words were changed in our anthem, no big deal. The change was announced > > as a done deal to abide by the charter of rights, as opposed to the > > anthem being publicly declared void etc etc etc. > > The Pledge Of Allegiance will not be altered or changed. > Welcome to the beautiful world of bigotry… > It was altered in the middle 1950s.  That’s when the "under God" was > added.

That was known as "The Eisenhower Amendment"

Response:

What surprises me is that it took so long for someone to go to Court to challenge these words. Here in NL about 40-50% of the population are non-believers, and one would expect that that percentage is not much lower in places like California and New York? Sjoerd – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > Re: One Nation Under God! > > > (Snip) > > > it was found that parts of our national anthem broke them and a few > > > words were changed in our anthem, no big deal. The change was > announced > > > as a done deal to abide by the charter of rights, as opposed to the > > > anthem being publicly declared void etc etc etc. > > > The Pledge Of Allegiance will not be altered or changed. > > Welcome to the beautiful world of bigotry… > It was altered in the middle 1950s.  That’s when the "under God" was > added. > That was known as "The Eisenhower Amendment"

Response:

> Well, is it?  And how might this affect air travel?

No. Not at all.

Response:

Re: One Nation Under God!   (Snip) it was found that parts of our national anthem broke them and a few words were changed in our anthem, no big deal. The change was announced as a done deal to abide by the charter of rights, as opposed to the anthem being publicly declared void etc etc etc. The Pledge Of Allegiance will not be altered or changed.