This pledge of allegiance thing…

@cystic:

Having said that, i think people need to look to their nations’ history and religious/cultural background. Whether people like to acknowledge it or not, N. Americans are primarily English speaking, generally Christian, democratic, with a capitalistic bent with some social values. The idea of working actively against these is IMO a little silly.

Ah yes. The history of the United States.

Rhode Island was founded by Roger Smith and other individuals who had been tossed out of the Massachussetts Bay colony because their religious beliefs did not coincide with those of the dominant majority in Massachussetts. Oh, and did I mention this happened in the middle of a New England winter?

Rhode Island was thus a little touchy on the subject of freedom of religion when it came time to ratify the US Constitution, and they refused to sign until and unless the Bill of Rights was approved at the same time, including freedom to practice whatever religion any citizen wanted.

Rhode Island is home to the oldest synagogue in North America.

This history of tendency of religious persecution by majorities is what is behind the push by many in the US (me included) to exclude ANY religion from government. Only if government is totally secular can all citizens be free to practice their own religious beliefs without fear of persecution by the state.

I have no problem with children in schools being socialised to say the Pledge of Allegiance - I object vehemently to “under God” being included in the pledge.

The few supporters of including “under God” I have spoken to have taken great exception to the suggestion that the words be changed to “under Allah” or “under Shiva”, which tells me that they want loyalty to the country tied to a belief in a Judaeo-Christian God. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for freedom of religion. You can’t have it both ways - freedom of religion, as long as you conform to the majority’s choice of religion - that dog just won’t hunt.

BW

Maleable as they are, if a parent, who is active in his or her child’s life, tells them something they will take it to heart before listening to a teacher/stranger on the subject…well, at least until the child is a preteen until the child’s mid twenties, give or take depending on the child.

I, personally, don’t think the words “In God We Trust” and “…Under God…” should be removed from our currency and pledge. They are part of what we think of when we think of America and American history.

It would be like taking the oil paintings out of the White House of all the former US Presidents. Sure, it won’t affect the day to day lives of US Citizens, but it is also disingenious to our history and culture.

I personally could not pledge allegiance to a nation if i was forced to use the “under god” or a “so help me god” or something like that.

@BlackWatch:

The few supporters of including “under God” I have spoken to have taken great exception to the suggestion that the words be changed to “under Allah” or “under Shiva”, which tells me that they want loyalty to the country tied to a belief in a Judaeo-Christian God. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for freedom of religion. You can’t have it both ways - freedom of religion, as long as you conform to the majority’s choice of religion - that dog just won’t hunt.
BW

1. granted that the US (and Canada) was originally populated by natives who worshipped a pantheon, the great Spirit, or nature - i’m not sure that any of these would make great substitutes to “under God”
2. most of the original settlers, founding fathers and statesmen of the US were Christian, and designed the much of their symbols around their beliefs, as well as the circumstances by which your nation was founded. Is it not somewhat revisionist to confound their original considerations of these symbols etc.?

(also granted that given time, Satanists could also well construct a craft and settle the US with Satanists and have their own symbols/pledges. Having said that, i and most other Christians would be unlikely to wish to settle at this place.)

@cystic:

@BlackWatch:

The few supporters of including “under God” I have spoken to have taken great exception to the suggestion that the words be changed to “under Allah” or “under Shiva”, which tells me that they want loyalty to the country tied to a belief in a Judaeo-Christian God. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for freedom of religion. You can’t have it both ways - freedom of religion, as long as you conform to the majority’s choice of religion - that dog just won’t hunt.
BW

1. granted that the US (and Canada) was originally populated by natives who worshipped a pantheon, the great Spirit, or nature - i’m not sure that any of these would make great substitutes to “under God”
2. most of the original settlers, founding fathers and statesmen of the US were Christian, and designed the much of their symbols around their beliefs, as well as the circumstances by which your nation was founded. Is it not somewhat revisionist to confound their original considerations of these symbols etc.?

(also granted that given time, Satanists could also well construct a craft and settle the US with Satanists and have their own symbols/pledges. Having said that, i and most other Christians would be unlikely to wish to settle at this place.)

The Founding Fathers were indeed steeped in their own cultural backgrounds and biases. Women and blacks were not “people” in their world, but were subspecies of men.

Despite these ingrained biases, they attempted to correct what they saw as great social evil, by what now seems a rather minor step of allowing “freedom of religion”, disallowing state sanctioned persecution of religious sects outside the mainstream of the general population. Judaism would have likely been at an extreme - there were many other Protestant sects which would have been found heretical by other sects and religious groups of the day. If any of those sects could gain dominance, they would have cheerfully compelled a unified religion for this country.

It is so easy, both in the US and Canada, to drive down the street through any urban community and see a diversity of churches, synagogues(mosques in NW Ohio and SE Michigan, where I live) and take for granted the freedom to practice whatever religion I want. But freedom of religion CANNOT be taken for granted - not now, not ever.

The United States has taken several tragic steps in recent years that have eroded the freedoms that have made this country the world leader that it is. Freedom is being nibbled away from the fringes:

1. Detainment without trial of the prisoners in Guantanamo. If this can be done to anyone by my government, it can be done to me.

2. Passage of State Constitutional amendments in 11 states last November of prohibitions against same sex marriage. If the majority can dictate who a person may marry, what other freedoms will they take away from me next?

3. Passage of the Patriot Act - police state here we come. Virtually uncontestable wire taps and searches are the new order of the day.

It is all part of the cultural mind shift going on in the US that seems to be dragging us further and further away from democracy and closer to a monolithic Police State.

BW

Well, we do appear to be pretty polarized with regards to what “freedom of religion” means and its implications - at least where the Pledge is concerned. Fair enough - not my problem (Canada has enough of its own with some of the bizaare-o PC BS that goes on here).

Still, we are on the same page in certain respects . . .
@BlackWatch:

The United States has taken several tragic steps in recent years that have eroded the freedoms that have made this country the world leader that it is. Freedom is being nibbled away from the fringes:

1. Detainment without trial of the prisoners in Guantanamo. If this can be done to anyone by my government, it can be done to me.

agreed. This is a bizaare occurrance in my mind as well. I am not sure how a so-called “civilized” society can allow this to happen. It is also curious to me as far as why the rest of the world seems relatively quiet on this issue

2. Passage of State Constitutional amendments in 11 states last November of prohibitions against same sex marriage. If the majority can dictate who a person may marry, what other freedoms will they take away from me next?

i think that this passage of law was silly, and quite likely reactionary to (equally silly) laws passed in Canada “allowing” for gay marriage.

3. Passage of the Patriot Act - police state here we come. Virtually uncontestable wire taps and searches are the new order of the day.

hey - it’s working right? If it’s working - why repeal it?? - at least this is the logic according to Bush. I’m thinking that mandatory curfews across the board would work equally as well.
Anyway, needless to say i agree with you.

It is all part of the cultural mind shift going on in the US that seems to be dragging us further and further away from democracy and closer to a monolithic Police State.
BW

true to a degree, however i am not sure how you can tie this in with the changing of the pledge of allegiance.

@cystic:

It is all part of the cultural mind shift going on in the US that seems to be dragging us further and further away from democracy and closer to a monolithic Police State.
BW

true to a degree, however i am not sure how you can tie this in with the changing of the pledge of allegiance.

If a citizen of this country is appalled by the direction the country is taking (moving away from freedom and toward enfornced conformity) he can rail at ALL the symptoms, or he can choose his battles.

The guy who took the individual schools to court to have them “cease and desist” reciting the pledge with “under God” included (this is the government approved official version of the pledge), has chosen to fight a battle he may in fact be able to win, and I say more power to him.

That’s the connection - if you don’t take on the little ones (Pledge of Allegiance), you may not have the ability to do spit when the big ones (Guantanamo treatment of US Citizens) comes along.

If the government thinks they can take an inch, they’ll take it all.

BW

bullshit. this guy isnt standing up for the civil liberties of the people as a whole, hes a whiny little man, who wants to get back at the christians. im an atheist too. i say “god” in every day language probably more than most theists. honestly, whats the big freaking deal? your civil liberties are not being infringed upon because the VOLUNTARY pledge of allegiance includes the phrase “under god”. if it makes you uncomfortable, dont say it. i dont say it, personally, but that has nothing to do with that particular phrase. the inclusion of this phrase is a personal choice. say it with or without it, it means the same damn thing. what is the net gain if this is changed “officially”? theists will continue to say it, atheists wont (probably in continuation of their practice), and we will have wasted taxpayer money in the courts for this ridiculous mans self-satisfaction, at changing two words on some piece of paper some where (is there even an official written copy?)
thank god (look, there i go, using it) he had the courage to stand up for what he thought was right, and challenge this heinous practice. its not as though the country is majority christian, or that the roots are almost entirely judeo-christian. the documents granting the right he is supposedly fighting for was written by theists, and heavily influenced by judeo-christian morals.

these people need to stop being so friggin sensitive, and learn to loosen up a little. no one is assaulting your right to believe in nothing, just because some piddly little pledge has a reference to a higher power.

the oath of office has no such reference to god, yet almost (if not every) every president has included a reference themselves. should we prevent them? they are setting a bad example by involving religion and government! ZOUNDS! quick, let loose the ACLU, they will sue anything and everything christian in the name of civil liberties! liberties for everyone except the majority, cause hey, fuck them, right?
:roll:

@BlackWatch:

Ah yes. The history of the United States.

Rhode Island was founded by Roger Smith and other individuals who had been tossed out of the Massachussetts Bay colony because their religious beliefs did not coincide with those of the dominant majority in Massachussetts. Oh, and did I mention this happened in the middle of a New England winter?

Rhode Island was thus a little touchy on the subject of freedom of religion when it came time to ratify the US Constitution, and they refused to sign until and unless the Bill of Rights was approved at the same time, including freedom to practice whatever religion any citizen wanted.

Rhode Island is home to the oldest synagogue in North America.
BW

Sigh

It’s Roger Williams… And he wasn’t tossed out he ran for his life before he was “deported” to England…

The rest from my knowledge is Correct…

@Janus1:

bullshit. this guy isnt standing up for the civil liberties of the people as a whole…
:roll:

Agreed - he isn’t standing up for the civil liberties of the people as a whole. He is standing up for MY rights as an INDIVIDUAL to worship whatever way I want, with no f***ing government telling me what to believe in or not.

@US_Constitution_1st_Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Any subdivision of government is bound by the US Constitution, including schools. Schools which require students to recite a pledge of allegiance containing the words “under God” have made a rule which contravenes the first phrase of the First Amendment - plain and simple. If you don’t like the US Constitution, why don’t you go live somewhere where religion is enforced by the government?

@Janus1:

…liberties for everyone except the majority, cause hey, f**k them, right?

What you evidently don’t get Janus is that liberties are for individual people, more specifically they are for EVERYONE, not just for a “majority”.

You say to “lighten up??, what’s the big deal?, etc.” Well - the big deal is that if this is not stopped, then there will be prayers instituted at schools BY THE GOVERNMENT, then there will be “correct” and “legal” forms of worship, and so on. I can’t wait for the witch burnings to start again…

Go live in a dictatorship if that’s what you want - live where everyone is compelled to think alike or “face the consequences”.

@Guerrilla:

@BlackWatch:

Ah yes. The history of the United States.

Rhode Island was founded by Roger Smith …
BW

Sigh

It’s Roger Williams… And he wasn’t tossed out he ran for his life before he was “deported” to England…

The rest from my knowledge is Correct…

My apologies - I should have looked it up instead of relying on very creaky memory cells - do I get partial credit for having “Roger” correct? ;)…

Depends… you might have meant a man on Public Television that talks to puppets and likes to sing out of key… In which case you get an F-…

GG

On the flip side of the arguement, many Theists might take offense that they have to pledge alliegance to a nation. What if that oath contradicts their religion one day? Now they are forsworn if they choose either choice, God or Country, right?

You see how this can get really bogged down in ridiculousness? So the schools play the pledge of allegiance, no one’s forced to say it, no one’s forced to believe in it, last I checked there wasn’t a marine with an M-16 in the corner ready to escort any child not reciting it to jail, right?

BTW, isn’t this the same quack who’s daughter is a christian and wants to recite the pledge as is? Or is this someone else?

Why not just eliminate the stupid addendum to the pledge? It wasn’t neccessary when it when first written. Ike just felt like slapping the word “God” on everything he could.

@Yanny:

Why not just eliminate the stupid addendum to the pledge? It wasn’t neccessary when it when first written. Ike just felt like slapping the word “God” on everything he could.

Works for me.

BW

On the flip side of the arguement, many Theists might take offense that they have to pledge alliegance to a nation. What if that oath contradicts their religion one day? Now they are forsworn if they choose either choice, God or Country, right?

well, no, because the since it specifies “under God” it shows that the nation is subordinate to God, and not preempting his position.

Why not just eliminate the stupid addendum to the pledge? It wasn’t neccessary when it when first written. Ike just felt like slapping the word “God” on everything he could.

i dont care if its there or not. i dont see the necessity of wasting tax payer money to have trials about two friggin words in the pledge of allegiance, of all the ridiculous things

He is standing up for MY rights as an INDIVIDUAL to worship whatever way I want, with no f***ing government telling me what to believe in or not.

yes, because including “under God” in the pledge of allegiance FORCES YOU to give up your religion and worship the christian god.
“well son, we cant be atheists anymore”
“why not daddy?”
“well, because someone decided to include a refererence to God in the pledge of allegiance.”

Schools which require students to recite a pledge of allegiance containing the words “under God” have made a rule which contravenes the first phrase of the First Amendment - plain and simple.

yes, thats correct. tell me, what school REQUIRES it? its VOLUNTARY! being disrespectful and disruptive while its being recited might be punished, which has nothing to with religion at all, but refusing to say it holds no consequences. if there is a school where this happens, stop it. punish the school. thats fine. when it is VOLUNTARY like its intended, than there is no conflict

If you don’t like the US Constitution, why don’t you go live somewhere where religion is enforced by the government?

why dont you stop asking ridiculous questions like this. you sound likethe flagwavers. “if you dont like america, then you can GET OUT!”
:roll:

What you evidently don’t get Janus is that liberties are for individual people, more specifically they are for EVERYONE, not just for a “majority”.

what you evidently dont get is that i am reacting to the ACLU, which imo, has a habit of being the champion for the civil rights of the minority, never the majority. not as a group, you twit, but as individuals. feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but all the cases i have heard of the ACLU getting involved in, involving religion, have been either AGAINST a christian or christian group, or FOR another religious group. those involving race, have been AGAINST a white or white group, or FOR a minority or minority group. etc. (note: i havent researched the ACLUs court history, so if you care enough to look for an example, feel free, but i dont pretend to be 100% correct in my claims)

You say to “lighten up??, what’s the big deal?, etc.” Well - the big deal is that if this is not stopped, then there will be prayers instituted at schools BY THE GOVERNMENT, then there will be “correct” and “legal” forms of worship, and so on. I can’t wait for the witch burnings to start again…

oh this is the slippery slope argument at its worst. forgive me, but ARE YOU STUPID!? (apologies)
do you honestly believe that the phrase “under god” in a voluntary pledge will lead to prayer in schools? this is paranoia, my friend. plain and simple.

Go live in a dictatorship if that’s what you want - live where everyone is compelled to think alike or “face the consequences”.

see, now you are being straight ignorant. first of all, im an atheist, so off the bat, i dont “think alike” with the theists who put the phrase into the pledge in the first place. second, you are contradicting yourself, since you are only angry at me, because i think differently from you, and you think im bad and wrong. boo hoo. you cant take opposing opinions? cry me a

edit

river.

in short, i dont care one way or the other if the phrase remains in or not. i simply feel it to be a nitpicky argument, frivolous, and a waste of court time, and taxpayer money. honestly, to the father who is responsible for this case: lighten up, get a life, and stop being a victim. you are a disgrace to atheists everywhere.

@Yanny:

Why not just eliminate the stupid addendum to the pledge? It wasn’t neccessary when it when first written. Ike just felt like slapping the word “God” on everything he could.

Why have it at all? Why do I have to pledge my allegiance to a piece of cloth with some dye on it?? “I pledge allegiance to the FLAG of the United States of America” then, after I pledge to a piece of cloth, only then “…and to the Nation for which it stands…”

So, basically, this is the order in the pledge as I see it:

Flag
Country

Oh, and we put in that the country is under God, but that’s more of an after-thought then anything really meaningful in the pledge.

So let’s just get rid of the whole thing. All or nothing! And for that matter, maybe we should get rid of the oath of office for officers and many politicians. We could strip the word “God” from every official document in the library of congress too!

(See how this quickly becomes ridiculous over a single word? A word you arn’t forced to say, a word you can choose not to say in a pledge you don’t have to recite.)

You are 100% correct Stuka. (wow, ive never said that before!) There are more important issues at hand, that should be dealt with, the last thing we need to be worrying about is if two words offend someone. I dont get how you can be offended by the words “under God” if you dont believe in God.

@stuka:

PEOPLE!! The biggest point that should be pointed out is that even if this is a case that needs to be addressed, it doesn’t need to be RIGHT NOW!! We have a war going on. We have the worst natural disaster in American history going on. We have an unbalanced economy right now with increased prices and less jobs going on. We have a need for a larger or even new energy source.

All of these are WAY MORE IMPORTANT than a couple of words which only a very minor part of the nation gives a damn about not wanting to say. This carries no physical or psychological impact in our day to day lives. Do you think when I was in third grade, I gave a sh!t about the “under god” part of the allegiance? I was just waiting for recess!!! I was thinking about that fun game “boys chase girls!!”

Our nation is in a time where only the most important problems should be taken care of. AND THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!! Our governments bank account is very real. This account you feed with your taxes. Everytime there is a large case, a disaster, a war, a crisis, a disease…. that account gets drained a little more. And who takes up the slack? WE DO. I don’t want to take up the slack for a couple of words. If you have a problem with “under god”, JUST SUCK IT UP FOR NOW.

Who are you and what did you do to Stuka??? wink & a grin

You’re right, by the way. But, if this is who I think it is bringing this to the courts again, it’s probably just him trying to get his name in the history books. I really doubt, by this time, he really cares about whether it’s in the words or not. I know his daughter - whom he is allegedly protecting - is a devout Christian, so I fail to see how this is protecting her….

Of course, it could be someone different…I don’t know. Let’s just hope with two new Supreme Court Justices on the bench it can get quashed again for more important issues like who’s got the smelliest feet or what country makes the best tasting cheese!