This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

Pepsi in a new can

Discussion in 'Open Discussion (Work-safe)' started by CCI, Apr 25, 2004.

  1. CCI

    CCI Metal Rules

    Pepsi has a new "patriotic" can coming out with

    pictures of the Empire State Bldg. and the Pledge of

    Allegiance on them. However, Pepsi left out two little

    words on the pledge, "Under God". Pepsi said they did

    not want to offend anyone. If this is true, then we

    don't want to offend anyone at the Pepsi corporate

    office. If we do not buy any Pepsi product, then they

    will not be offended when they do not receive our

    money that has the words "In God We Trust" on it.

    Now some members of BP might not believe in God,

    but some others might. I got this in an e-mail

    I thought I'd pass it on.
    :osu:
     
  2. jlb1705

    jlb1705 hipster doofus Staff Member Bookie

    "In God We Trust" shouldn't be on the money, either. And no, using such money does not make you a hypocrite.
     
  3. RAMdrvr1

    RAMdrvr1 All Galaxy '14 NCAA Pick'em Champ

    I don't believe that "In God We Trust" should be on money, either, but probably not for the same reason as you. I do believe that "Under God" should be on the can, or none of it should be.
     
  4. tibor75

    tibor75 Banned

    Last edited: Apr 25, 2004
  5. WestOgma

    WestOgma Long Live Mike Doss

    either way it doesn't effect me...I drink coke
     
  6. jlb1705

    jlb1705 hipster doofus Staff Member Bookie

    from Tibor's link:



    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    phew!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    So, this guy has no problems at all with the rewriting of the pledge that inserted the shout-out to God (bug ups to Jesus!), but when somebody has the audacity to leave this phrase out in the name of inclusiveness, it becomes a travesty. I realize that you can gain alot of money/influence by pandering to evangelical Christians, but by golly, us pagans like soda too!
     
  7. Thump

    Thump Hating the environment since 1994

    I'm not religious but this country was founded by religious people who had the foresight to write one of the the best documents ever written, the Constitution of the United States of America. It allows for many rights.

    Why does the word God have to mean a Christian God. Why can't it stand for Mohammed or Buddha or whomever someone believes in.

    If you don't like the word in the Pledge, either don't say the word or get the hell out and move to another country.

    Too many people have nothing good to say about the country they live in!:pissed:

    People like Pat Tillman are over there giving the ultimate sacrifice and we have little pansies whining about the word "God" in a Pledge. How ridiculous do you feel about your selfish wants!!

    Why don't you people get your god damn priorities straight!
     
  8. BuckeyeSoldier

    BuckeyeSoldier 2 time Reigning BuckeyePlanet Poker Champion

    ppl like pat tillman are over their fighting so we CAN have these rights, and trust me EVERYONE knows what god you are talking about when you say under god... i think it goes overboard sometimes but think about this thump,

    how would you feel if your kids went to school and had to listen to all of their class mates praise satan? dont think its like that? ask a lot of muslims or atheists how they feel and you might get another perspective..
     
  9. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    Why do people make assinine statements like this? Does this mean that if you, Thump, disagree with any law, statute or direction of the court, it should be you that gets the hell out and moves to another country? I would hazard a guess that if we applied this statement equally to all who disagree with any particular rule, law or requirement, that this whole country would be empty.
     
  10. 3yardsandacloud

    3yardsandacloud Administrator Emeritus

    Skeptical Supreme Court weighs Pledge case

    Justices debate whether saying 'under God' is reciting a prayer

    From Bill Mears
    CNN Washington Bureau
    Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Posted: 9:15 PM EST (0215 GMT)


    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Wednesday appeared skeptical that the Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion, dampening calls by a California atheist to end the ceremony in his daughter's public school, and nationwide.

    The Pledge "doesn't sound anything like a prayer," said Chief Justice William Rehnquist. "You can disagree with the phrase 'under God' but that doesn't make it a prayer."

    At issue is whether the teacher-led Pledge should be banned for its use of the words "under God." Constitutional scholars have debated for years whether the pledge serves as both a patriotic oath and a form of public prayer.

    A key aspect of the case is a family's custody dispute, underpinning important legal and social questions.

    Michael Newdow, a physician and atheist, sued the Sacramento County, California, school district his daughter attended, claiming public recitation by students violates the 10-year-old child's religious liberty. While legal precedent makes reciting the pledge a voluntary act, Newdow says it becomes unconstitutional for students to be forced to hear it, arguing the teacher-led recitations carry the stamp of government approval.

    "I have the right to be able to have my child in public school without her being indoctrinated with religious belief," Newdow told CNN. "This is supposed to be a public school and supposed to be religion-free."

    Newdow told the justices the Pledge clearly violated the constitutional separation of church and state. "To say this is not religious is somewhat bizarre," he said.

    'Far from a compulsory prayer'

    In arguments Wednesday, many of the justices questioned whether the words "under God" represented government intrusion into religious doctrine or belief.

    Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said there "so many references to God" in public affairs, noting "In God We Trust" was on U-S currency and coins. She added the Supreme Court opens all its public sessions with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

    Besides, noted Justice David Souter, even if the words "under God" represented religion "in actual practice, it's an affirmation in the mindset of a civic exercise."

    Souter added the Pledge "is so tepid, so diluted, far from a compulsory prayer."

    "God is so generic in this context as to be a neutral" expression of belief, continued Justice Stephen Breyer.

    "The child doesn't have to say the words," said Justice O'Connor. "You have the right not to participate."

    Child would be singled out, father says

    Newdow, who is not a practicing attorney, made an impressive, impassioned argument, declaring his daughter would be singled out by not saying the Pledge, and would be coerced to participate. "Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child" to conform, Newdow said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."

    Newdow also said, "I want my belief system to be given the same weight" as those with a particular religious faith. He said using the pledge as written amounts to having the government tell his daughter "her father is wrong" because of what he believes.

    The Bush administration opposes the ban, with Solicitor General Theodore Olson telling the justices the Pledge was simply a "ceremonial, patriotic exercise." He said there was "a major distinction" in public schools between reciting the Pledge, and reciting the Ten Commandments, promoting creationism, or displaying a crËche, all examples of what Olson said clearly were unconstitutional. "The Pledge is not a religious invocation, not a prayer," said Olson.

    Complicating matters is Newdow's legal standing because of a custody dispute between him and the girl's mother. The two never married. Sandra Banning believes the pledge is a "patriotic expression" and claims her daughter does not object to reciting it.

    The court spent significant time debating that issue, but offered no clear indication where it would rule on that aspect of the case.

    Scalia recusal offers possibility of tie vote

    Missing from arguments was conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who recused himself from the case, at Newdow's request. At a Religious Freedom Day rally in January 2003, the conservative Scalia reportedly said any changes to the pledge should be done "democratically," through the legislatures, not the courts. He also reportedly said removing references to God from public forums would be "contrary to our whole tradition." Cameras were not allowed at the event.

    That leaves the potential for a contentious 4-4 split among the remaining justices when it comes time to issue a ruling. A tie vote would mean the pledge would be banned in schools in the 9th Circuit, and potentially could apply to all public schools in the United States. Outside the Court, hundreds of demonstrators on both sides of the issued rallied, marched and gave speeches. There were mass recitations of the Pledge, and many sang patriotic songs such as "God Bless America."

    A federal appeals court drew sharply divided public opinion when it banned the teacher-led pledge for the nearly 10 million schoolchildren in the nine Western states under the court's jurisdiction. In striking down the pledge, the judges in June 2002 ruled "the coercive effect of the policy here is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren."

    But the ban was put on hold until the high court issues a final ruling. The First Amendment bans government "establishment of religion," but the Supreme Court twice previously has declared the pledge constitutional.

    A ruling in the case is expected by early July.

    The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, case no. 02-1624.




    Hummm, anyone find this ironic?

    Newdow, who is not a practicing attorney, made an impressive, impassioned argument, declaring his daughter would be singled out by not saying the Pledge, and would be coerced to participate. "Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child" to conform, Newdow said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."

    He's worried about his child being singled out and yet insures that she will be ostracized (by far more than her classmates) by bringing this case ... that's logical. Also, he doesn't have custody of this child and doesn't need her to make his case. Sounds like he's throwing her under the bus. She actually says in other articles that saying the Pledge doesn't bother her. Way to go dad.
     
  11. Thump

    Thump Hating the environment since 1994

    If America's forefathers founded this country based on Satan then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Religion played an important role in the development of our country.

    We indeed allow people to practice their own religion but what's wrong with having a unifying pledge for one's countrymen?

    Instead people are making it a derisive statement. I have Muslim students who just don't say the word God and no one even thinks twice about it.


    This country is too sensitive and PC anymore.

    God forbid we hurt someone's feelings!!
     
  12. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    First of all, that is not a valid analogy. The forefathers didn't found the country based on God. They founded it on the principles of liberty and liberalism. While I'm sure some of them went to church on a regular basis, their religious beliefs were substantially different from modern church doctrine. One of the things they felt was important was ensuring religious freedom to all. This means all, not "all Christians" as many would have us believe
     
  13. Thump

    Thump Hating the environment since 1994

    Woody,


    Then why is "In God We Trust" the National Motto?

    Also, are you aware that students are not "forced" to say the pledge.

    They have the right not to say if they don't feel comfortable doing so.

    People are under the impression that students get in trouble for not saying the pledge, that's just not true.

    "One of the things they felt was important was ensuring religious freedom to all. This means all, not "all Christians" as many would have us believe."


    Woody, what other religions were they referring to back in the 1700's besides Christian-based religions?
     
  14. tibor75

    tibor75 Banned

    Then why isn't school prayer allowed in schools? students could just refuse to participate, right? Because the courts correctly realized that it would put undue pressure on those who did not want to participate. How would you feel if you were the only one in 4th grade who didn't bow their head and say a prayer?

    Personally, I think the pledge thing is rather silly. Who cares if you say, "Under God". I said it all the time in school and I didn't give it a second thought. I sang Christmas carols in school and my Hindu parents didn't give a damn. All of this crap is just publicitiy on the part of parents. I did find it interesting to know that the "Under God" is not really part of the pledge...it was added on during the 50s and the fear of Godless communism.
     
  15. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    Classic liberalism
     

Share This Page