All Posts

post a reply | post a new topic

Author

Topic: U.S. looking for a new sponser

topic by John Calvin 6/27/2002 (20:39)

reply top I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, (SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE), INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL San Francisco (SatireWire.com) — A U.S. federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase 'under God,' a decision blasted by Democrats, Republicans, and brand managers who say the United States is making a grave mistake in dropping its principal sponsor. 'Over the years, the U.S. under God has been a great draw for the major players — Einstein, Solzhenitsyn, John Lennon,' said government marketing analyst Gil Treacle. 'Without God's brand recognition and infinite marketing powers, you risk losing the marquis names to competitors. Then the networks don't renew, the money dries up, the fans revolt, and the next thing you know, you're Argentina.' The U.S. Justice Department, assigned the difficult task of finding a replacement, said it has already been in contact with several entities ('One nation, but 24,000 Starbucks') interested in having their brands associated with America. Until an agreement is reached, however, the U.S. will advertise the position by replacing the phrase 'One nation, under God,' with 'One nation, (sponsorship opportunities available).' While the words 'under God' were only added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954, God has been the title patron of the United States since its founding in 1776, and the God name adorns everything from U.S. currency to the phrase 'So help me God' used to swear in the President. The three-judge panel who voted to sever that 226-year relationship has come under heavy fire, but many have defended the decision, saying it is wrong to force religion on anyone. 'The phrase 'under God' clearly violates the First Amendment's separation of church and state,' said McDonald's CEO Jack Greenberg. 'However, there is nothing in the Constitution that separates chicken and state, which is why we're proposing, 'One nation, six chicken McNuggets and a medium Coke, all for $1.99.'' A handful of Americans, however, has insisted the United States can get along just fine without a primary sponsor. Their suggestion that the Pledge phrase be regularly updated to reflect the national condition, however, has so far attracted little interest, as a CNN/Gallup poll found only 10 percent of respondents would feel comfortable reciting 'One nation, under indictment.' Europeans, meanwhile, seemed to be confused by the entire episode. 'I don't understand. I always thought it was 'One nation, we are God,'' said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. 'Oh my, I've been worshipping them for nothing.' God, in various forms, currently supports most nations, with the exception of officially atheist China and Vietnam, and the Netherlands, which hasn't been told yet but is in for a nasty shock tomorrow. Copyright © 2002, SatireWire. Back to Top

reply by ADAM 6/27/2002 (21:00)

reply top NOT TOO FAST, I JUST HEARD THAT IT WAS OVERTURNED!!

reply by John Calvin 6/27/2002 (21:32)

reply top What, your beer?

reply by truth 6/27/2002 (21:43)

reply top LOL

reply by Analyze 6/27/2002 (21:45)

reply top John, The Declaration of Independence begins with 'In this day of our Lord' The constitution refers to 'ever person's inalienable right given by our creator' I guess our constitution will be unconstitutional pretty soon & the atheist communist will be coming out of the cold.

reply by John Calvin 6/27/2002 (22:06)

reply top The Supreme Court Ruled sometime ago that 'under God' is not sufficiently sectarian to be deemed unconstitution. The furor in the Press about some nutty, psychotic appeals court Judge acting completely on his own without consulting the other members sharing his bench should be just that, not that this latest ruling somehow represents some kind significant development in Constitutional law. As a matter of fact this kind of ruling has been a significant problem in our judicial system for some time- a kind of complete disconnection- which costs taxpayers millions of dollars, stalls the administration of Justice and brings the courts into great disrepute.The Press runs the story to distract from important issues like the collapse of ethics in American business and the slaughter of innocent Arabs in Palestine. The fact that Congress actually took this ruling as a serious challenge to well established precedents is a mark of their stupidy, corruption and pure, partisan opportunism. As for ADAM. Few people on this site have any connection or agreement or interest in what he has to say so it must be presumed that the only real reason he's here is because people arn't allowed to post in CAPS ONLY on teen-idiot chatrooms run by MSN and AOL but being able to so represents to him the epitome expression of his peculiar sense of personal grace and power.

reply by Human Rights come from being human 6/27/2002 (22:51)

reply top Reference to the day of the lord just refers to the date.... nothing else... There is NO mention of Jesus, Zeus, Yahveh, Mohammed, Zarathustra, Elohim, Adonai, El Shadai, Jehovah, Zarathustra, or any other deity in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.. My creator & yours are your parents... Human Beings. This gives you human rights !!!... Visit... atheist.org ... ... americanhumamnist.org ...

reply by Lynette 6/28/2002 (8:14)

reply top OZ news says the Judge has set it aside pending an appeal...it that correct? Bushie is as mad as 'Hell'....oops.

reply by John Calvin 6/28/2002 (8:22)

reply top It seems exceedingly unlikely that the Supreme Court will approve changes in the wording of public documents and rituals that only satisfy the narrow sectarian interests of the party of American atheists, especially since they have refused to do so on numereous occasions. And the issue is of such little practical consequence that the will of the people acting through their representatives in Congress or the States individually may be allowed to settle the issue. What are we talking about anyway? The so-called self-esteem of a single child, or rather the parent of a single child- who it might be presumed still has to decide when he becomes an adult whether he agrees with his father's atheistical faith- which some psychologist has hypothizes to be damaged by being forced to decide whether to (voluntarily) participate in the empty ritual of reciting the pledge of allegiance in school. This, as opposed to around 80%( a further 19% arn't sure) of the American people who profess some sort of belief in 'God', that is, a 'creator' who might represent an authority of greater significance than the latest PhD candidate in childhood development at San Franscisco community College. But nice recitation of the various names for God and their prophets. Gee wizz, one has so much to learn from visiting discussion groups like this and the links one gets an opportunity to discover are just amazing! I admonish all members to visit atheist.org immediately to find out how completely destructive of the health and well-being of the human race religion has been all these thousands or years and how a lack of belief in God is finally going to save us all! 'Human rights come from human beings', why waste our time with such drivel? This is MIddleeast.org, a site studying propblems in the Middleast- one giant fox-hole- where there are no atheists.Give me a clue, really. Explain what contribution you think you have made.

reply by interesting 7/1/2002 (16:58)

reply top the original pledge of allegence didn't say 'under God,' it was added in the 1950's. Why they can't just change it back to the way it was, i don't know. (probably because it would make too much sense :) )