Anonymous wrote:Why marriage has not yet been deemed unconstitutional is beyond me.
We are stil tackling "ona nation under god"...maybe some day.
Anonymous wrote:Was "indivisible" added with "under God" as well? I'm 40, and all I remember is "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"Under God" was added in 1954. "Indivisible" was always there. What's really ironic and sad is that they added "under God" right next to "indivisible," when which god people worship, or whether they worship one at all, is one of the best ways of dividing a society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
Anonymous wrote:Why marriage has not yet been deemed unconstitutional is beyond me.
We are stil tackling "ona nation under god"...maybe some day.
Was "indivisible" added with "under God" as well? I'm 40, and all I remember is "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why marriage has not yet been deemed unconstitutional is beyond me.
We are stil tackling "ona nation under god"...maybe some day.
Just to remind those who may not be aware of it, some of us remember when "under God" was not part of the Pledge. We were "One nation, with liberty and justice for all." That was an ideal to be proud of, and one that should not have been marred by the addition of a phrase that made some of us feel less entitled to liberty and justice.
This is about as stupid as the time you blamed unions for that teacher and it turned out she was in a nonunion state.Anonymous wrote:In a lib state, no suprise
Someone flunked civics. This is federal court, moron.Anonymous wrote:In a lib state, no suprise
Anonymous wrote:In a lib state, no suprise
Anonymous wrote:Why marriage has not yet been deemed unconstitutional is beyond me.
We are stil tackling "ona nation under god"...maybe some day.