behind it:
Changing it back wouldn't be discrimination, just disagreement. The original form would not have anything that either side of the debate would object to.
If the only reasoning taken into account is what's been shown on this board, that some people might find it offensive, then you would indeed be discriminating against those who don't. Now, on the other hand, if they decided to do so on the sweeping basis of totally separating church and state, including the 'So help me god' part of a number of oaths, then it would appear to follow the Constitution more readily.
The Founding Fathers were careful to construct a system where "majority rules" isn't the rule. They were forsighted enough to realize that there needs to be constraints on the power of the majority.
True, to a point, but they also left the opening in the declaration that a majority could indeed make vast changes through upheaval and unseating the body politic if what they considered unjust was enough. At this time, as mentioned elsewhere, the method to effect change is either going through the legal channels of various representative levels or being a charismatic enough individual to sway the masses sufficiently that said change can be brought about.
The Supreme Court hasn't made a ruling that the pledge Is constitutional, so it isn't, period. ;-P That is no sillier than your statement to the reverse. The Supreme Court has not made a determination yet, so it isn't Officially constitutional Or unconstitutional. All we can argue here is what we believe to be correct.
Poor wording on my part, as the Supreme Court has been known to change and overrule past rulings, but essentially the same effect. The current ruling, or lack thereof, remains legal and constitutional until such a time that they decide otherwise.
|
