student reprimanded for modification of pledge.......

[kronas]

the pledge of allegence is what many americans think is partiotism, but to one youngster its a little 'diffarent.......

kenny hess was doing a school broadcasting project and choose the american 'pledge of allegiance' as his topic in a rendition sung by millions he ommited the words 'under god' hess is an athiest and choose to take those words out and instead recite the rest of the pledge.

much to the dismay of school officials, the 18 year old has been banned from using equipment and is currently confined to reading text books

source:tribnet

http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/49...-4848428c.html

well he did the right thing, why include something you dont believe in.........

Good for him!

Unfortunately it just demonstrates that, once again, America is the "Land of the Free to Say Things that We Agree With".

So like all those countries out there they criticise...!!!

[punky]

Certainly sounds OTT to me. I can understand how freedom of speech sometimes has to be roped in a bit to try and keep everyone in harmonious accord, but who is he really offending by doing that?

[kronas]

Originally Posted by punky

Certainly sounds OTT to me. I can understand how freedom of speech sometimes has to be roped in a bit to try and keep everyone in harmonious accord, but who is he really offending by doing that?

i dont know if this is true.......

It was ADDED in after the fact. Many years later by a religious group. Under God was not in the original pledge......

The pledge of allegiance was written and created by Francis Bellamy in 1892. It never had "under god" in it.

In 1954, after a campaign by the religious group called the Knights of Columbus, they *added* the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge.

"Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this [second] change... In his [later years] he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

[punky]

I know some Americans have definitely felt that the separation between church and state was not done effectively enough. Some of it is ridiculously trivial (like the battle to remove the 10 commandments from a court in Alabama), to this, which I think is incredible. The fact remains though, who was honestly going to be seriously offended by what he did? I'd like to think even the most hardened relgious fanatic would see it as a harmless gesture.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by punky

I know some Americans have definitely felt that the separation between church and state was not done effectively enough. Some of it is ridiculously trivial (like the battle to remove the 10 commandments from a court in Alabama), to this, which I think is incredible. The fact remains though, who was honestly going to be seriously offended by what he did? I'd like to think even the most hardened relgious fanatic would see it as a harmless gesture.

you do realise how stongly most americans feel about the 'pledge of allegiance' i dont think they would want it to be changed in anyway.

he was still well within his right to do so.

[punky]

Trust me, I know. I spend enough time there (My family moved out there. My brother attended school there and he was exempt from doing it, I think).

I could understand if he was defiling in some way. Like mocking it, or twisting it round, or something, but merely removing the "under God" only, when he is atheist, makes sense. Certainly seems excessive to punish him for it.

[Theodoric]

Originally Posted by kronas

you do realise how stongly most americans feel about the 'pledge of allegiance' i dont think they would want it to be changed in anyway.

he was still well within his right to do so.

I can't remember the details but I believe that the "under god" bit is a fairly recent addition; mid 20th Century, I think.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by kronas

the pledge of allegence is what many americans think is partiotism, but to one youngster its a little 'diffarent.......

kenny hess was doing a school broadcasting project and choose the american 'pledge of allegiance' as his topic in a rendition sung by millions he ommited the words 'under god' hess is an athiest and choose to take those words out and instead recite the rest of the pledge.

much to the dismay of school officials, the 18 year old has been banned from using equipment and is currently confined to reading text books

source:tribnet

http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/49...-4848428c.html

well he did the right thing, why include something you dont believe in.........

No he did not. He can exercise his right to free speech elsewhere. He was expected to recite the pledge, the full pledge, not his own made-up one. If they gave him the liberty to recite a poem as he see fit, then fine, recite what you like.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Graham

Good for him!

Unfortunately it just demonstrates that, once again, America is the "Land of the Free to Say Things that We Agree With".

So like all those countries out there they criticise...!!!

How does the actions of a few individuals equate "America?" Isn't this just pure...ignorance? Yes I think it is.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by punky

I know some Americans have definitely felt that the separation between church and state was not done effectively enough.

Where in the Constitution is this separation of church and state you speak of?

[Theodoric]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Where in the Constitution is this separation of church and state you speak of?

Well, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." which, if not a separation, definitely seems to prohibit enforcing any particular religion.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Theodoric

Well, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." which, if not a separation, definitely seems to prohibit enforcing any particular religion.

And as far as I know, they have not made laws establishing any religion.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Where in the Constitution is this separation of church and state you speak of?

Originally Posted by US Constitution's 1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The opinion of the US Supreme Court:

"The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."
Justice Hugo Black, Majority opinion, Everson v Board of Education

EDIT:

Some more (admittedly, it's from a site you probably don't like...)

From: www.talkorigins.org

Originally Posted by Feedback reply at TalkOrigins

Yes, we are very interested in the education of our readers. While this topic is not the subject of this website, it does have some important implications.

It is true that the phrase "Separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution; but neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles. The judicial system has enterpreted the "Establishment Clause" to mean:


"The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."
Justice Hugo Black, Majority opinion, Everson v Board of Education

This means that no one religious denomination has the right to force its particular beliefs about the origins of life into the public school system. This is how the issue relates to evolution

The claim that the "Wall of Separation" is a 'one-way' wall is a myth propagated by Christian revisionist David Barton. The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 7), but in fact says the opposite: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)

If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so? In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

Thomas Jefferson, like most of the key founders of this country, was not a Christian. He was a deist, and expressed views that were quite unsympathetic to Christianity.

When Jefferson made statements like "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." it is clear that he intended the Wall of Separation to be a 2-way protection, keeping government out of religion, but also keeping religion out of government. A good list of such quotes from our founding fathers can be found here.

Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs. This country is clearly founded on secular laws.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under the shadow of McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy. These violations of the separation of church and state have been, and will continue to be, contested in the courts. See the Pledge of Allegiance Restoration Act

[Jerrek]

There is nothing in the Constitution that demands a separation of church and state. The First Amendment has applies to the Congress, the federal government, not the State governments. State governments have a right to create a state church. The Founding Fathers didn't want Congress to establish a national church. They did not intend to forbid every little activity on government property.