quote: SAN FRANCISCO — The Pledge of Allegiance was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist whose previous attempt to get the pledge out of public schools was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gotta love the 9th Circus!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Link?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And, y'know, it IS unconstitutional as written. Shame about that; they should really rewrite it.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Nope, Fox, CNN, everywhere. Just didn't have the story yet.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nah. As I'm repeatedly told, the Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what it actually says. So it's probably not unconstitutional.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Guess the Declaration of Independence in unconstitutional too.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I believe there was a law passed in Indiana this year saying that you have to say the pledge of alleigance in public schools now, and have a flag in the room.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
But the Supreme Court overruled the 9th Circus on this!!!! How....
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I believe there was a law passed in Indiana this year saying that you have to say the pledge of alleigance in public schools now,
Now, that will be overturned as soon as one student refuses to say the pledge and a school gets overzealous, unless there's something in there saying that individual students must be allowed to abstain.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
they are allowed to abstain, but I'm not sure if it's in the law (ask fugu, he's better at these things than me)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But the Supreme Court overruled the 9th Circus on this!!!! How....
No, it didn't. Check your facts.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Ok they dismissed the case. But how can he use a case that was dismissed for his ruling?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:As I'm repeatedly told, the Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what it actually says. So it's probably not unconstitutional.
Either way, it shouldn't be unconstitutional - unless you think the wording of a pledge actually amounts to some kind of real pressure on a kid to switch religions. (Having been a kid who had to recite the pledge, I seriously doubt the average student views it as anything other than one of many largely unimportant exercises they put you thorough in school.)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The Declaration pre-dates the Constitution by over a decade, does the Constitution have any authority over the Declaration?
-Bok
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
They ruled that Newdow didn't have standing to bring the case because he didn't have custody of his daughter, thereby avoiding an unpopular ruling.
All this does is put it back before the SCOTUS, so they can't weasel out of it this time.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
The Declaration of Independence is on display all over the place and large amounts of it are learned by students for them to recite.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So Dag how is this Judge using precedent from a dismissed case?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The Declaration of Independence is on display all over the place and large amounts of it are learned by students for them to recite.
And yet it is a historical document, NOT an affirmation. It is NOT unconstitutional to make students read works that include mention of God; it IS unconstitutional to force them to affirm their worship of God.
quote: So Dag how is this Judge using precedent from a dismissed case?
While I'm not a lawyer, I imagine it's because the precedent on the case remains binding even if the specific case itself was dismissed on unrelated grounds, as no higher precedent exists to contradict it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So Dag how is this Judge using precedent from a dismissed case?
The decision was overturned on other grounds, and may thus be cited for either persuasive or or binding authority, depending on circuit rules.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Nothing in the Constitution says that religious references are illegal, only that government can't make a law that establishes religion.
One of the earlier wordings of the amendment said "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion" (annals of congress) That pretty much covers "under God." A "law respecting the establishment of religion" is broader language.
The DOI isn't a law, and it predates the constitution. It IS history, however, so there is nothing illegal about teaching it. Neither is it illegal to teach that the "Pilgrims" were deeply religious people who established a religious government. The Mayflower Compact is more profoundly religious in nature, and yes, it's part of the standard curriculum. There's nothing wrong with that.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
One Nation under God means you are affirming your worship of God? That's news to me. I think if you ask an English teacher that part of the pledge is about the nation.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It affirms that one believes the nation is under a God,... The implication is that one who pledges allegiance ALSO must believe in a God.
The government is forcing people who pledge to accept (publicly, if not privately) that God exists.
The simple alternative (to me) is to just omit the mention of God, so any citizen can pledge allegiance without having to accept any stance on the existance of a God.
-Bok
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Imagine being a Christian, and having your kids told to recite what amounts to an oath, which includes the phrase "Under Allah". Or "Under Satan", or "Under the Flying Spaghetti Monster". In public school. It would be a terrible violation of their religious rights. So how is it not violating the rights of atheists to be told to recite a pledge which affirms the existance of God?
Even if your kids are not forced to recite the pledge, they still are taught it, and expected to recite it.
Its amazing to me that this is even an issue. I really have a hard time seeing the other side of this debate.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
I think it's the assumption that our nation has anything to do with god. That's a personal opinion, i guess.
Meant this to be directly after Jay's post.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think if you ask an English teacher that part of the pledge is about the nation.
Speaking as a former English teacher, I'm afraid you're wrong.
"I pledge allegiance to...the United States...(which is) one nation, under God..."
The phrase makes very clear the belief that the United States is a single nation (which was quite relevant at the time it was originally written), as well as the belief that it is a nation subservient to God.
Requiring that students say that they believe that the United States is a single nation is not unconstitutional. Nowadays. Requiring that students say that they believe that the United States is subservient to God is. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Of course, in California, all children are allowed to abstain from saying the pledge. And we were taught that we didn't have to say it if we didn't want to in kindergarten.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Pledging allegiance to the flag of a nation that you profess to be an establishment of God sounds a lot like affiring your worship of God to me.
Yes, to many it is just some boring thing we say in school, I did it many times, never really caring one way or the other what I was saying. Given the option today, I don't think I'd say it, but for other reasons.
But the fact that it can be legislated that you be forced to profess your allegiance in a statement to a God, that to me is a violation of the first amendment. Besides, everyone knows which God is meant in that pledge, they aren't talking about Allah, they aren't talking about Zeus, or Buddha, or Ahura Mazda, and certainly not the God of any animist religions. I'd certainly call that a violation of the first amendment.
And the DoI can't be unconstitutional, it isn't a piece of legislation. Also, it's a historical document, it doesn't demand you worship it or show allegiance to it just by reciting it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Since 1943 every single child is allowed to refrain from saying the pledge in public school. This is settled law.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
We could just introduce legislation to restore the Pledge to its pre-1950's version.
Problem solved.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought the entire point of the case that was brought before the court was that an athiest child was being forced to learn and recite the pledge.
If since 1943 they've been allowed to refrain from saying it, why is this an issue at all?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Frankly, the whole Pledge blows chunks. It's meant to serve as a kind of mission statement for the country AND a propaganda piece to drive certain facts into the heads of the poor lemmings who recite it.
Those "facts" initially were that the United States is "one nation" and "indivisible," just to remind people that the North won the Civil War. (The addition of "liberty and justice for all" makes it sound more noble, of course, but is kind of incidental to the reason the pledge was written.)
When "under God" was added, it was specifically to add "under God" to "indivisible" as another not-universally-accepted factoid to drill into the heads of youth. It's self-evidently unconstitutional in that format.
But the whole Pledge itself is kind of pointless, and should really be written to SAY something if we're going to keep it around.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The complaint is that the the mere saying of it is an establishment of religion.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kq, what if you are a patriotic atheist who wants to pledge allegiance, without compromising one's beliefs?
When I was growing up, all those 15-20 years ago, we were NOT told it was optional, ever. I found out later that, because one classmate was a JW that they were allowed to be silent due to religious dissent, but her parents definitely had to notify the school system. Otherwise you had the case where a bunch of my friends (in 6th/7th grade or so) refused to recite it, because they knew they didn't have to, and the teacher berated them.
All this in ultra-liberal MA.
The simplest solution is to omission.
-Bok
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
> Imagine being a Christian, and having your kids > told to recite what amounts to an oath, which > includes the phrase "Under Allah". Or "Under > Satan", or "Under the Flying Spaghetti > Monster". In public school. It would be a > terrible violation of their religious rights.
OK, I'm a Christian, so it's not a big stretch of the imagination for me on that part. I'll have to imagine the kids.
Of course, my kids are not coerced to recite the pledge containing "under the Flying Spaghetti Monster," because under Supreme Court precedent, that would clearly be a violation of their rights.
So I tell my kids, "A lot of people believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is watching over our nation. They're wrong, because there is no such thing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it makes them feel better to think that. You don't need to recite the pledge, but you should respect other people's beliefs and not make fun of them because they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
As I see it, this is about atheists trying to attack other people's beliefs, not about defending their own.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Okay, imagine a classroom in a public school during homeroom.
Every day, at the same time, the pledge of allegiance is read over the loud-speaker. At this time, the entire class stands up to recite it along with the voice being broadcast over the speakers.
You, as an atheist student, have two choices.
1) Stand and recite the pledge, something which offends you straight down to your core beliefs, and fit in.
2) Remain seated, effectively announcing to the class that you have a problem with reciting the pledge. There are two reasons that you could have for not reciting the pledge, either you are an atheist, or you have something against the United States. Whichever the students assume, a large portion will judge you negatively based on your choice, and you will stand out.
And why does every atheist have to make that choice every single day in a public school? Because of some crappy legislation passed when we were paranoid of those godless pinko commies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tom -
Do you have a suggestion? Write your own pledge. Post it here. I'm curious to see it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
EJS, except your talking about 5/6/7 year-olds, without a real grsp of these sorts of things, and it's an event that's repeated almost every day for most of their young life. Oh, and what if they actually want to pledge their allegiance to their contry, without tacitly supporting the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
-Bok
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There were at least 4 or 5 kids in every class I was in who, for some reason or another, stood but did not recite the pledge. (We were asked to stand whether we participated or not.) No one ever had a problem with it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:As I see it, this is about atheists trying to attack other people's beliefs, not about defending their own.
That's funny, as I see it, the addition of "under God" in the first place was an attack on other people's beliefs too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not the same, but I got all the kids mad at me for refusing to donate to the United Way because it conflicted with various beliefs of mine. The school was running a contest by homeroom - most donations per person - and everyone was pissed because I hurt their chances for a pizza party.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Is the pledge to the Flying Spaghetti Monster presented as the Pledge of Allegiance to our Country? Is it said daily in class? Are students instructed to face the flag and hold their hands over their hearts when they say it? I submit it's a bit different.
For the record -- and it's been gone over about a zillion times here -- I think this guy's lawsuits are not only a dumb idea, they're counterproductive because they rile up religious people who then will overreact in the pro-God direction to counter this fool's initial atheistic overreaction.
I ALSO think that the adding "under God" to the Pledge in the first place changed a pledge from something all Americans could say and mean it, to a pledge that merely most Americans could say and mean. I see it as needlessly devisive and exclusionary.
Just don't think this single-issue bozo's methods are the way to go about effecting change.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Funny, I never see or hear any of these atheists complain about currency reading "In God We Trust".
Maybe that's a different issue.
EDIT: So as not to offend anyone (not that that's possible)
[ September 14, 2005, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
They do, actually, but one complaint at a time
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well he certainly wasn't going to win by trying to get legislation passed to overturn it. No Congressman in the country would touch it.
Secondly, what can the crazy religious right really do? Rewrite the first amendment? They are powerful, but they'd never get away with that much.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I have a simple solution: get rid of it. Sing the national anthem instead. We did that in school (or, if we didn't sing, we just stood up and listened to a recording of it) in Canada.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But I hate our national anthem.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Funny, I never see or hear any of these atheists complain about currency reading "In God We Trust".
Maybe that's a god they can believe in.
While we certainly don't like that its on there, we are not expected to say "This money was trusted in God" before spending it.
And why don't you check your snide comments at the door, Pal.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:But I hate our national anthem.
Yeah, all the good patriotic songs have God in them. I guess if you took the last verse out of "My Country, 'Tis of Thee", it would be okay.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's not why I hate it. I think our anthem ought to say something about what we aspire to be, not that we managed to fight off a distracted empire in 1815.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"In God We Trust" didn't go on the money right away, either. It took almost a hundred years to get it on all the money minted in the U.S., starting from the first documented requests in 1861 to 1956 when Congress, acting in response to the godless commies, officially replaced our existing motto. "In God We Trust" appreaed on paper money the next year.
So. Our original motto was "E Pluribus Unum," Latin for "One from many" or "One from many parts." Inspiring, meant to convey the concept that America was a united country that was stronger for all its many components.
But it was decided to change that wonderfully inclusive motto to "In God We Trust," a phrase that simply does not apply to all Americans.
God was forced upon us, but if anyone says anything we are obviously heathen PC liberals trying to remove all traces of God from government.
Thing is, while I might be inclined to let such things go and hope that they fade eventually, I personally feel that "In God We Trust" is a terrible slogan even for the religious. It implies that God is always on our side, and that's a dangerous attitude to take, especially if it keeps you from examining your side very carefully.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Our national anthem should be "America the Beautiful." I've been saying it for years.
Edit: "God shed his grace on thee" could be replaced with "I stand on guard for thee." Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What about the other verses of the national anthem that no one ever sings or knows about? Maybe one of them is more palatable?
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
While we're at it, why in the world is Christmas a national freakin' holiday?
Ohhh I hate that!
(just adding a gripe)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hanakah, Ramadan, Roshashana and several other religious holidays are also national holidays. Most of the major religions are covered by a "get the day off work" protection shield.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Do you have a suggestion? Write your own pledge.
"I pledge allegiance to the principles and ideals of the United States of America, a country dedicated to securing liberty, justice, and opportunity for all people."
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
I don't get paid for any other holiday...
"Hanakah, Ramadan, Roshashana and several other religious holidays are also national holidays. Most of the major religions are covered by a "get the day off work" protection shield."
I also have a very hard time getting a day off work for any of the Jewish holidays. Are you saying I'm supposed to be able to?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:And why don't you check your snide comments at the door, Pal.
Sorry. Frivilous lawsuits make my blood boil. Didn't mean to be snippy.
Most atheists I know aren't so sensitive.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:"I pledge allegiance to the principles and ideals of the United States of America, a country dedicated to securing liberty, justice, and opportunity for all people, under the all seeing meatballs of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I believe -- have to go check to make sure -- that the Constitution only requires office holders to swear to the Constitution. There is nothing in it about swearing to God to be inaugurated, to witness in court, or any other public service. That's all been added in by custom or by religious lobbying.
IdahoEEBoy, note that TomD's suggestion only requires loyalty to the principles and ideals. Not to the country, not to any officeholders, but to the ideals. I have no problem with that.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Why is Hanukkah a national holiday? (If, in fact, Hanukkah is a national holiday, which I have never heard before.)
In terms of importance on the Jewish calendar, it doesn't rank very highly.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:What about the other verses of the national anthem that no one ever sings or knows about? Maybe one of them is more palatable?
It's the tune as much as the words. A raucous drinking song that most people have trouble singing correctly should not be our national anthem. >_<
Oh, and I know five verses. So there. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Most atheists I know aren't so sensitive.
I suspect most atheists are just resigned. Why make the noise when no politician, no political leader would dare speak out against God? For that's the only way such objections are allowed to be perceived, whatever the motives.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
They should just remove "under God" from the Pledge. I'm sure some kids will still abstain for one reason or another, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I think it's common for workplaces to allow several "floating" holidays, which you can choose to assign to any day that is significant to you. In Utah, pretty much everyone in my office took off Pioneer Day (July 24). But the idea behind these floating holidays is that if your religion celebrates a day that is not a nationally recognized holiday, you can still get it off as a holiday.
I'm also surprised that even though your office doesn't pay you for those days as they would for Christmas, they won't let you take a paid personal or vacation day on a Jewish holiday.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Are you implying that you do have a problem requiring loyalty to a country?
Our country is the Constitution. It defines us, it exalts us, it provides our path. Not our geography.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Not the same, but I got all the kids mad at me for refusing to donate to the United Way because it conflicted with various beliefs of mine. The school was running a contest by homeroom - most donations per person - and everyone was pissed because I hurt their chances for a pizza party.
I went through this at work, too. We were asked to voluntarily have money deducted from each paycheck for the United Way, but what it really amounted to was your boss told you that the money was going to be deducted and you had to go through all kinds of paperwork if you wanted to opt out. Yeah, I know - but the more people contributing, the better for the department head, because it looked good on paper for the univeristy to have people regularly contributing to the United Way. (actually it was some type of charity clearing house, united way was part of it, but they also gave money to a bunch of other charities.)
I said no, because one of the organizations they gave money to was Planned Parenthood. I was told that I could specify that my donation go to something in particular, if Planned Parenthood offended me, then just specify something else. So then I countered with "Yeah, but that just means a greater percentage of someone else's money will go to PP, and I'm not okay with that. I want to opt out altogether and not contribute at all. I give my charitable donations through my church."
You wouldn't believe the hassle. The trouble. The phone calls from various departments. Why was I upsetting the apple cart? I stuck to my guns, though.
Personally, I do think the whole thing is blown out of proportion. All kids can opt out. If they don't want to feel left out, then they can stand and recite the pledge but just leave off those two words. Or they can just stand there and say nothing. I've seen kids do that when I was volunteering in classrooms, although I'm pretty sure most of them weren't saying anything because they didn't know the words. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Chris,
I really believe in seperation of church and state. But the words "In God We Trust" on our currency rank about #11,426 on the list of things I care about. The pledge is right above it.
I just don't get why some things are such a big deal. And I'm non-religious/agnostic. I care about practical things that make a difference in our day to day lives, like health-care, education, and energy conservation. Some people like causes, and that's great for them. But I just don't get that mindset. There's always something to complain about - pick your battles.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"I don't get paid for any other holiday"
Don't complain, I don't get paid for ANY holiday.
Also, I think getting the day off work for religious reasons is federally mandated, isn't it? But you can't just get it off for the heck of it. As for Christmas, if we didn't make it a holiday, everyone would take it off and businesses would shut down anyway, might as well sanction it.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL
Maybe its just me, but THAT sounds beautiful to me. I don't think you can find a phrase more American than that.
And if we were able to go back to the original motto, I'd have to throw a party. Recently, I've been feeling that Canada is more American than America. It'd be nice to return to the ideals the Framers laid out for us.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think Tom's point about the whole "one indivisible nation" thing being parsed as "don't forget who won the Civil War" is worthy of serious consideration.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I said no, because one of the organizations they gave money to was Planned Parenthood.
It should surprise no one that this is the reason I refused as well.
You're absolutely right about the allocation aspect, by the way. If no one donated unallocated money, it wouldn't be a problem. Or if they assigned the unallocated money before tallying the allocated money, it would be OK. But they don't, so I won't donate to them.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I just don't get why some things are such a big deal.
As I said in my first post in this thread, I think the guy is an idiot for trying to make it a big deal. Arguing the point here is one thing, but I wouldn't trying to force that opinion through legislature. I agree, too many other things more worth consideration.
But as long as we're arguing anyway, I'm making my position known I really don't see how changing the motto and Pledge in the first place was in any way defensible unless religious hysteria is a valid defense, but I've long accepted the reality of it.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I don't quite see the issue with the "Civil War reminder." I mean, everyone who considered themselves at one time to be part of the Confederation, is now dead. Our country doesn't seem to have a problem with being united. If anything, the South is running this country right now.
I've lived in the South my whole life and am glad that we were united after the Civil War. Even the morons who take up Confederate flags on their garage doors recognize that its history only and don't seem to want to leave the union.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
I wouldn't say everyone in the south considers it history. There are some folks here in South Carolina who would take up arms tomorrow if they could. Sad, isn't it?
--ApostleRadio
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: ....and this country would be a lot saner if everyone understood what you just said.
What makes you think that you have the right to decide what people should find important?
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
Well, even though I will certainly be persecuted and ridiculed for this belief, I'll say this: I like our national anthem. Especially the final verse:
quote:Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved homes and the war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
So I'm fine with replacing the Pledge with singing the National Anthem, as long as they sing the whole thing.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
No, but you implied that you knew what was important, and that everyone is somewhat crazy for not agreeing with you.
-Bok
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Which is, of course, exactly what everyone thinks. That they know what's really important, and anyone who doesn't agree with them doesn't get it.
I think this is why it's so hard to get everyone to agree on even the simplest things.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, even though I will certainly be persecuted and ridiculed for this belief...
Why? No reason you should be.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Chris,
I have a fondness for that verse as well, but I think it is wrong for a national anthem in about 17 different ways.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Oh, I don't think it should be adopted. Just don't see a reason to ridicule anybody for thinking it should.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm trying to sing that verse and I can't do it. I'd have to see it on sheet music, it's just not working for me.
One complaint I have about our national anthem is that it's darn HARD to sing.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I don't think you should be ridiculed for liking the last verse, but...
quote:So I'm fine with replacing the Pledge with singing the National Anthem, as long as they sing the whole thing.
I take this to mean that you object to any form of pledge that does not require the person reciting it to affirm the existance of God. Or at the very least, that you object to any pledge which does not mention God.
Or is there another way to take that statement?
If so, I would ask why you hold this belief. You are no longer opposing taking the words out, but are now insisting that they be there. So, why do you believe the pledge of allegience must have "God" in it?
I can't think of any reason which is not deserving of scorn. But perhaps I am missing one.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: [QB] Okay, imagine a classroom in a public school during homeroom. ...
2) Remain seated, effectively announcing to the class that you have a problem with reciting the pledge. There are two reasons that you could have for not reciting the pledge, either you are an atheist, or you have something against the United States.
Or you're a Jehovah's Witness, in which neither of those two assumptions would apply.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Belle -
If it helps, "Ever", "heaven", and "motto" all become one-syllable words.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ever doesn't. Motto doesn't. Power does.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Nope, didn't help. Not parsing for me at all.
quote:Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation
There are too many syllables in this line...I can't get it to work. Not that it matters, I doubt anybody is going to put me on the spot tomorrow and ask me to sing it but it's just bugging me.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Try pronouncing Power as "Pow'r"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup. Forgot "Power". And should have said re, "ever" and "motto" that you sing them too quickly to be really graceful.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*dances*
I think I got it now!
Whew! I can sleep tonight.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
O-oh! thus be it ev-er, when free men shall stand Be-tween their loved homes and the war's de-so-la-tion! Blest with vic'try and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our mo-tto: "In God is our trust." And the star-spang-u-ul'd ban-ner in tri-u-umph sha-all wave O'er the la-and of the free and the home of the brave!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
O’er . . . . . .Praise the . . . . . . the ram . . . . . . Pow’r parts . . . . . that we . . . . . . . hath watched . . . . .made were . . . . . . and so . . . . . . . . pre gal . . . . . . . .served lant . . . . . . . .us ly . . . . . . . . . a stream . . . . . . na ing . . . . . . . . .tion
Never mind, you already got it. I know how absolutely irritating it is to get something like that stuck in your head and not be able to resolve it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:And should have said re, "ever" and "motto" that you sing them too quickly to be really graceful.
Nope. You draw them out.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
The pledge cannot be required. It is unconstutional to require someone to pledge an allegience when it is something they do not believe is proper, or because they don't agree with the sentiments. Period. I say that as one of Jehovah's Witnesses who didn't say it in numerous schools throughout my life and never had a problem. My son is now in school and when I informed the teacher he wouldn't be saying it, there was also no complaint (though it was requested that he stand respectfully, which I fully support).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
ketchupqueen,
When you come to visit Chicago, you'll have to sing it for me!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Right. Whenever that is.
Any plans to come to L.A.? Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
This land is your land This land is my land
Sorry, it's copywrited.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(This land is my land, it is not your land, I've got a shotgun, and you don't got one, I'll blow your head off, if you don't get off. This land is private property! *giggles* )
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: I believe -- have to go check to make sure -- that the Constitution only requires office holders to swear to the Constitution. There is nothing in it about swearing to God to be inaugurated, to witness in court, or any other public service. That's all been added in by custom or by religious lobbying.
In fact the constitution forbids religious tests for holders of public office.
There was a case just recently where a town held a recall election specifically to throw out a councilman (?) because he didn't say the pledge. Assuming his reason was because the pledge contained "under God," the pledge was used as a religious test. Even if that isn't his reason, it could still be used that way, and thus it's still unconstitutional, even without the first amendment.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
KQ:
As I went walking,I saw a sign there on the sign it said "No Trespassing" But on the other side it didn't say nothing That side was made for you and me!
(Actual lines from the song)
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Actually, twinky, I'm surprised that no one has yet challenged the francophone version of our national anthem. "Il sait porter la croix" and all.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Glenn, the actual line is, "And on the sign it said 'Private Property'."
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Not in "Rise Up Singing."
Pete didn't sing it that way the other day either. Then again, he sang it a whole different way, but I don't remember what he said.
I'm pretty sure Arlo sings it your way, which I like better, actually. But I couldn't remember how it worked so I just copied it out of the book.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, I go by what Woodie Guthrie sings. Because, after all, he wrote the words (although he stole the tune.)
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
Has any one here heard of Red Skelton? If so, has anyone who has heard of Red Skelton seen his pledge of allegience video? It is truly inspiring. And extremely relavant to this debate.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ummm, Woody hasn't sung anything in years. And in all likelihood, he sang it a veriety of different ways. It is a folk song after all.
But Pete was his best friend, and Arlo is his son.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There is such a thing as "recording equipment," you know. And "CDs."
Oh, and that's how the Woodie Guthrie songbook has it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Where did he steal the tune from?
(Never heard that before)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There's an old song the Carter Family sang. Let me see if I can find a MIDI somewhere.
Found a MIDI-- not exactly the way the Carter Family sang it, but close, and you can hear just how close the tune is to "This Land." When the Carter Family sang it, it sounded even closer.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
And yes I've heard (not seen) Red Skelton's take on the Pledge. As far as I can tell it's an admission that a devout Christian can tell that it violates the constitution.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Now I have that song stuck in my head. Thanks.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Hanakah, Ramadan, Roshashana and several other religious holidays are also national holidays. Most of the major religions are covered by a "get the day off work" protection shield.
Are not. At least not in the US. Where in the world did you get that idea? Perhaps those holidays are noted on your desk calendar? That doesn't make them National Holidays.
And I've never heard of the "get the day off work" protection shield.
Next month is chock full of Jewish Holidays. Big important, must-have-the-day-off-from-work days. In my school life and working life, I have never had those days "coming to me". I've had to present letters from my Rabbi, attesting that I didn't invent those holidays myself. I've had to take days off without pay. In one instance, I was told that I couldn't take off those days, no way, no how. I submitted my resignation. The boss caved. When I have gotten those days off without hassle, it was at the generosity of my boss. I am fotunate to have an understanding boss now.
By the way, you know what this thread is missing?
King of Men
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Correction, no, none of those are national holidays, but Christmas and others also aren't, in the way you might think they are.
Christmas is a national holiday yes, but that only applies to mail workers really. National holidays, in other words, getting the day off work automatically, at the federal level only applies to federal employeers. Some states also follow this tradition as well, but there is no law saying that you MUST automatically be given Christmas off.
I think that's something of a myth. Everything is closed on Christmas because such a large portion of the population is Christian, they all agreed to close up shop and not do anything that day, everyone else just got brought along for the ride. So, Christmas doesn't really enjoy any sort of legal protection that any other religion's holiday doesn't. And if you think that it is, then explain why my brother, my father, and I have all had to work 9 out of the 10 recognized national holidays for the last three years?
In theory, a Muslim establishment could remain open on Christmas, and make its Christian employees work, having cause to fire them if they didn't show up. And, if THAT is illegal, it's also illegal for any other religion to have the same protection. There's no ingrained protection for Christian holidays over others.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Christmas is a national holiday yes, but that only applies to mail workers really. National holidays, in other words, getting the day off work automatically, at the federal level only applies to federal employeers.
And almost every other large company, as most large companies follow as a bare minimum the federal government's lead on holidays.
quote: So, Christmas doesn't really enjoy any sort of legal protection that any other religion's holiday doesn't.
Well, no. It enjoys a form of protection that every other smaller religion's holidays don't. But I agree that floating holidays are a much better way to address this issue, anyway.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not legally it doesn't.
Employers can make their employees work whenever they want really, regardless of the holiday. There is no federal mandate forcing them to close down for the day.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
KQ, thanks, I never knew that.
Sorry about the meme.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of companies -do- give paid holiday leave on Federal holidays, and only on Federal holidays. Also, public schools give federal holidays off -- they do not, as a general rule, give Jewish or Muslim holidays off.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What solution do you suggest?
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
What I meant originally was that major companies usually shut down for Christmas as well as the government offices. It wouldn't be as weird if it was only companies that did it-that's their choice- but the fact that the government shuts down for Christmas bugs me. I never get paid for any Jewish holiday(I have to use a sick day) but companies usually pay for Christmas. The government does, too.
sorry, was typing this b4 ambyr's post.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
"What solution do you suggest?"
I think the "floating holiday" idea was good. Give people a choice on the days they want as holidays. Maybe 3 a year? If you shut down for Christmas and people want to get paid let them do some work from home that day? Hmmmm.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
More flexibility.
It not infrequently took me multiple trips to the principal's office, with various notes in hand, to persuade my high school that I had not, in fact, merely ducked out of class for the fun of it on High Holidays and ought, therefore, to be allowed to retake missed tests and the like. It should not be difficult for school officials to note the major holidays of America's top ten or so religions (they do print them on calendars) and rubber stamp absenses for those days as approved.
It's not much of an issue at work, even though HR won't approve any sort of leave for those days, because my immediate supervisor is willing to ignore my absenses in exchange for me taking home some work at other points in the week and putting in some weekend hours -- but it would be nice if this sort of flexibility was actually official company policy, and not something that I feel half-ways guilty for doing.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I can't wait til I have a career. I work just above minimum wage at a business that is open everyday and all requests for holidays off are treated as requests. I've worked Christmas, Easter, Ash Wednesday nearly every year despite requesting time off which I wish to spend with my Christian family.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Heck, EQ, what about "God keep our land". Different countries, different environments, I guess.
It's funny that in our less religious country fewer people have problems with declarations of faith in our anthem. I guess we're too busy getting riled up over the monarchy. You can only get irked with one God-like figure at a time, after all Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:By the way, you know what this thread is missing?
King of Men
To paraphrase Office Space, "Well, I wouldn't exactly say it's been missing him, Tante."
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
Maybe I should have put a smiley when I said I would be persecuted and ridiculed for liking the national anthem. I thought it was fairly obvious that I didn't really think that -- I was merely responding to the string of people who said they didn't like the anthem.
And even if I were persecuted and ridiculed for it, so what? Everyone knows atheists are so delicate of feeling that the mere mention of a deity within their presence causes them such acute discomfort that it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unsual punishment, but I'm not an atheist, so I don't fall to pieces whenever I hear something with which I disagree.
But maybe I'm wrong about atheists. I'm just judging them based on the way they seem to freak out at the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Whatever happened to "sticks and stone can break my bones, but words will never harm me"?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Oh please, of course you understand, you're just more interested in scoring points than actually discussing things.
If it helps:
EricJamesStone: 1 Atheists: 0
Better?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Ah, another phrase that makes me twitch: "Everyone knows..."
"Everyone" does not know. Don't be a condescending doofus.
And not everyone who opposes the words "under God" in the pledge is an atheist. Don't get your persecution complex in a bunch.
As for myself, I do have a problem with the implied endorsement of religion by the state. Not a huge problem, but large enough to be one of the mocked dissenters in high school.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:It not infrequently took me multiple trips to the principal's office, with various notes in hand, to persuade my high school that I had not, in fact, merely ducked out of class for the fun of it on High Holidays and ought, therefore, to be allowed to retake missed tests and the like. It should not be difficult for school officials to note the major holidays of America's top ten or so religions (they do print them on calendars) and rubber stamp absenses for those days as approved.
I'm sorry. At my school growing up, we had kids who missed Jewish and Muslim holidays, and all it took was for their parent to call it in as an excused absence, either before or afterward, or bring a note to the office. One of my best friends in HS was Jewish (Conservative), and the school was very accommodating of him on every occasion that he needed accommodation for. That's the way it should always be.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
One of the reasons I think "under god" shouldn't be in the pledge and "In god we trust" shouldn't be on the money is that I've heard people seriously use these things as examples that it's okay to decrease the separation of church and state and/or for the government to disregard other religions, saying "We're really a christian country anyway, so what does it matter?. See, it's even on the money and in the pledge of allegiance."
(Note: this is not something I've seen here on hatrack, but rather in person and on television.)
I do agree with whoever had earlier said that there are bigger and more important battles to spend your time on, though. I might feel differently if I had a child at school age. Of course, for me the pledge of allegiance was just another pointless daily ritual that school made you do, and I don't think I ever gave the words much thought when I was saying them.
--Enigmatic
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I can say this for my schools: None of them ever made me say the pledge of allegiance. Indeed, none of them ever had anyone say the pledge of allegiance. The only reason I knew there -was- one, growing up, was because it was a crucial bit of the plot in one of my favorite books, In the Year of the Boar and Jackie Robinson.
Given that, I'm always a bit surprised to find out how widespread the recitation is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
EJS -
quote: Whatever happened to "sticks and stone can break my bones, but words will never harm me"?
For someone who was just railing about not wanting to be persecuted, that statement is more than a little ironic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's a pretty strange argument, EJS. Does anyone actually believe that words can never hurt? If you do believe that, then why not support an addition into the Pledge-"...under God or not, as the citizen believes..."?
But somehow I suspect that your response to that would be that atheists (and agnostics) should just lighten up.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:I'm sorry. At my school growing up, we had kids who missed Jewish and Muslim holidays, and all it took was for their parent to call it in as an excused absence, either before or afterward, or bring a note to the office. One of my best friends in HS was Jewish (Conservative), and the school was very accommodating of him on every occasion that he needed accommodation for. That's the way it should always be.
Thanks, kq . It wasn't even so much the hoops to jump through as the "you must be lying" attitude that grated, you know?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Unfortunately, there would be students who tried to take advantage and claimed to be Jewish or Muslim or Christian when they really weren't to take advantage of the situation. So, I can understand the school taking some precautions like requiring written excuses.
For the record, none of the public schools around here are "closed for Christmas." They are on winter break.
And as someone married to a firefighter the idea that people deserve holidays off is laughable to me. If an employer chooses to give people certain days off that's one thing, but no holiday, not even Christmas, has some sort of magical legal protection that means an employer can't make you work or has to pay you for it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I prefer 'America the Beautiful' to 'The Star-Spangled Banner.'
I came into this thread kinda late, but all I can say is finally!
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Its not just atheists and agnostics who want to remove "Under God" from the pledge. I'm a Christian and I don't like it.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Enigmatic--I believe the "Slippery Slope" argument is only justified, is someone is pushing you down the slope. In this case, I think there are plenty of pushers. And I've seen the circular argument--"How can you say "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional when God is mentioned in the Pledge of Alleigance. How can you say the Pledge is unconstitutional when God is seen on our money."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
David Bowles doesn't seem to come around here very much these days, but he had rather a unique point of view on the Pledge:
He thought it was definitely unconstitutional, but that contesting it at this point in our history was a terrible mistake. American atheists are already looked down upon, and fighting tooth and nail over such a trivial issue can only make us look worse and lead, in the short term, to backlash.
At the time I dismissed this as "don't rock the boat"-style thinking from someone who was admittedly an apologist for social conservatism. But I've come to see his point.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dan,
And there is a significant faction trying to prove that the founders never intended for their to be separation of chuch and state.
I won't say it's a "good book," but one well worth reading; "The Myth of Separation" by David Barton helps outline the arguments being used against the first amendment.
I have to add that Barton has been pretty thouroughly debunked as an out and out liar. The book is full of fabricated quotes, out of context quotes, and mis-referenced quotes, all purporting to show that the founders intended the U.S. to be a "Christian country." It shows how far some people will go to push their agenda.
The funny thing is that the "slippery slope" argument is valid, precisely because they use the slippery slope argument that "secularists" are trying to remove god from government.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:But maybe I'm wrong about atheists. I'm just judging them based on the way they seem to freak out at the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Hey Eric,
There's a little convention around here that you might want to adopt. When you express a generalization that you know doesn't hold of everyone in the relevant group, you say "some atheists" or "most atheists."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: At the time I dismissed this as "don't rock the boat"-style thinking from someone who was admittedly an apologist for social conservatism. But I've come to see his point.
It IS "don't rock the boat"-style thinking from someone who's an apologist for social conservatism. That it's also a valid point doesn't alter the first observation. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I've excerpted some of the good bits, but you should read it all.
From Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson in 1943 ( before "Under God" was added):
"To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights that guards the individual's right to speak his own mind left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind."
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," Jackson continued, "it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
And by Eric Zorn:
"Me, I don't want my government trusting in God.
I want it to write laws and create protections for us individually and as a nation as if no supernatural force has us as its special pet or will intervene in cases where government fails. I want my government to trust in reason, in the Constitution (which never mentions God) and in the republican form of government."
To which I heartily agree.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
(
quote:It's funny that in our less religious country fewer people have problems with declarations of faith in our anthem. I guess we're too busy getting riled up over the monarchy. You can only get irked with one God-like figure at a time, after all
I'm the reverse of this. I don't mind the queen, in fact I find her kind of fun, but I don't particuarly really want God in my national anthem.)
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
Oh, come on people. Have you no senses of humor?
I said:
quote:Everyone knows atheists are so delicate of feeling that the mere mention of a deity within their presence causes them such acute discomfort that it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unsual punishment,
Obviously this sentence is untrue. I could not possibly be serious in claiming that saying "God" in front of an atheist violates the Eighth Amendment. (And, yes, Megan, I am fully aware that everyone does not know that.)
And, as I made clear, I did not seriously believe I would be "persecuted and ridiculed" for liking the national anthem, and yet some of you seemed to think I was complaining about persecution.
So, just to be clear, I am not complaining about being persecuted.
What I am complaining about is that some of you (Notice the qualifier there, Destineer) seem unable to distinguish between what can be taken as a serious argument and what cannot.
A few clues:
1. Anything that begins with "Everyone knows" followed by something that is not a truth universally acknowledged, probably should not be taken seriously.
2. Anything that asserts something that the author must know is clearly contrary to fact probably should not be taken seriously.
3. Anything that consists of obvious exaggeration probably should not be taken seriously.
Then again, maybe some of you don't know that separation of church and state issues have nothing to do with the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. I apologize for confusing any of you who are so remarkably uninformed.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Wow.
People give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were trying to have a sincere conversation, and you belittle them.
After this post, EJS, I'm sure that you'll rarely have to worry about people taking you seriously anymore.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
1. Anyone who begins statements with "Everyone knows" followed by something that is not a truth universally acknowledged, probably should not be taken seriously.
2. Anyone who asserts something that the author must know is clearly contrary to fact probably should not be taken seriously.
3. Anyone whose arguments consist of obvious exaggeration probably should not be taken seriously.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I support the use of 'everyone knows' as a form of sarcasm.
Please don't hurt me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As a general rule, I think that sarcasm is counter-productive to a serious discussion.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd suggest putting it in quotes, then. People have, very seriously, expressed just those sentiments here before.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
There are certainly some places where half-serious posting like that is the norm, but in my experience, people tend not to like it on Hatrack. That's all I was saying in the first place.
Obviously I never took EJS to be asserting, in all seriousness, that every single living atheist is deathly offended by the Pledge.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Hatrack is more free of the tendency than most places, but I cringe every time I hear anyone say that "Democrats just want to" and "Republicans are trying to" and "That's what atheists/religionists want."
As soon as you reduce a wide range of opinions into one easily debated (and easily mocked) face, you have stopped all constructive discussion.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Hmm.
Looking back at his previous post, I think it was this phrase that most irked me:
quote:but I'm not an atheist, so I don't fall to pieces whenever I hear something with which I disagree.
Since, as Chris said, people here have very seriously expressed things just like this in the recent past, I assumed that his condescension and smugness were in earnest.
Eric, if you were, in fact, joking, then I apologize for taking you seriously. Rest assured it won't happen again.
Incidentally, about the persecution thing, I think a lot of the reaction coming from some religious conservatives over things like the pledge, etc., come from the perceived "war on Christianity." This is what I was referring to when I mentioned your persecution complex. It had absolutely nothing to do with your avowed feelings on the national anthem. However, if you have no such feelings of persecution, then good for you! You're the man! Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Oh, come on people. Have you no senses of humor?
I said:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Everyone knows atheists are so delicate of feeling that the mere mention of a deity within their presence causes them such acute discomfort that it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unsual punishment, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously this sentence is untrue. I could not possibly be serious in claiming that saying "God" in front of an atheist violates the Eighth Amendment.
I think most people got it was a joke, the problem is, sadly, most people don't like being made fun of (even when the joke's untrue, which actually makes no sense when you think about it.)
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
This thing bothers me because it's one more person trying to use law to force the world to be the way they want it to, even if there is not a majority of people who want it like that. That's what it seems like to me. What is so wrong about a parent telling their child "If you don't believe in God, you can leave the 'under God' part out when you recite it, or stand, but not say the pledge, or whatever the heck you want." To me this whole mess is just one more small group of people who absolutely can't stand to have anything other than the exact thing that THEY want regardless of what everyone else wants. There is no attempt to find middle ground anywhere. Certainly re-writing the pledge would be fine, but I haven't seen an acceptable re-write yet. Or any re-write for that matter.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Certainly re-writing the pledge would be fine, but I haven't seen an acceptable re-write yet. Or any re-write for that matter.
Then you haven't been closely reading this thread. Tom D provided one. I could provide another, but it would be largely what Tom D wrote with maybe somewhat different word choice. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
How about this for a rewrite: "I pledge allegiance...yada yada... One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This thing bothers me because it's one more person trying to use law to force the world to be the way they want it to, even if there is not a majority of people who want it like that. That's what it seems like to me. What is so wrong about a parent telling their child "If you don't believe in God, you can leave the 'under God' part out when you recite it, or stand, but not say the pledge, or whatever the heck you want." To me this whole mess is just one more small group of people who absolutely can't stand to have anything other than the exact thing that THEY want regardless of what everyone else wants. There is no attempt to find middle ground anywhere.
Of course, the exact same thing could have been said in the 50's when God was shoved into government.
I look at it not as an attempt to force my opinions, but as an attempt to redress a previous injustice.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Plus, there's a big difference between forcing your religion on someone and saying that we shouldn't be forcing religion on people. They are not equivilent. Removing "under God" from the pledge is about getting rid of the idea that the pledge isn't for people who aren't Christian. It is changing it to include all the people who are actually part of our nation. If you are against saying that these people are full Americans, Boris, then I can see how this would be forcing you to change. Otherwise, I don't see how it does.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I haven't read every such case, but my understanding is that the SCOTUS puts language into the court's opinion clarifying the difference between outlawing prayer, and outlawing coerced prayer. In general, the public rarely hears the distinction, and only comes to understand that prayer was restricted in some way, not that it is allowed.
In this case, the SCOTUS should rule that the 1954 law is unconstitutional, and offer suggestions as to how schools might address the issue.
My own suggestion is that the words "under God" should be removed from the pledge, but that individuals will not disrupt the flow of the pledge if they simply tack them on at the end:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all (under God)."
Teachers of course have to be reminded of the distinction. It has been pointed out that while the pledge is supposed to be voluntary, teachers are in an authoritative position, and often aren't aware that they are abusing their authority if they demand that all students participate. That needs to be rectified, also.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
> After this post, EJS, I'm sure that you'll > rarely have to worry about people taking you > seriously anymore.
Oh, good. It was keeping me up at night, thinking about the fact that some people on the Hatrack River forum would take me seriously. Now I can rest easy.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Also, KQ and I got off on a tangent on the lyrics to "This land is your land." But that is my preference for a new national anthem.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)