I know we've been over this before. Heck, I've started threads about this before. I don't know if any good can come of another thread about this, but I just can't help it. So it's another Pledge of Allegiance thread.
Yesterday as I was driving home I caught the end of a news clip about the Supreme Court's decision in the Elk Grove School District v. Newdow case. As I was driving, I became increasingly uncomfortable, to the point that I could actually feel physical pain in my chest. Not because of the decision itself, but because of the issue. I don't know why I care so much about being an American and maybe I should just try to become more apathetic, but I can't help my reactions whenever this issue comes up. I tense up, my heart starts beating faster, and a little voice inside me starts screaming "Why don't they want me?!" I know I'm being dramatic. I can't seem to help it.
I just don't understand. I don't understand any of it. I don't understand why a statement of patriotism has to be tied up with a statement of faith. I don't understand what benefit people get from it that is worth me having to feel this way.
I've heard the argument from idolatry, and I don't understand it. How is affirming allegiance to a worldy government the same as worshipping a false idol? Does putting "under God" in the Pledge make the flag a Christian symbol?
I've heard the argument that this is a Christian country, and I don't understand it. What does that mean? If this is a Christian country, what does that mean about all of the people who are born here, who live here, and who die here who are not Christian? What does it mean about me? Why is it important that our institution of government associate itself with Christianity? What would the negative effects be if the government took no stance at all with respect to religion? Not that it took the stance that there is no God, but if it left it completely up to each person to decide for himself? Why would that be a bad thing?
I've heard the argument that the Pledge is not mandatory and that I need not say all of the words, and I don't understand it. Why should I have to declare my patriotism in a different way from anyone else? Why should I have to choose between my principles and protecting my children from ridicule?
I love my country. I do my part. I pay my taxes, I serve my jury duty, I vote, I go to work every day, I help other people when I can. Why shouldn't I be entitled to feel as much an American as anyone else?
I just don't understand.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote: Having regard for the existence and future of our Homeland,
Which recovered, in 1989, the possibility of a sovereign and democratic determination of its fate,
We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic,
Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty,
As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources,
Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good - Poland,
Beholden to our ancestors for their labours, their struggle for independence achieved at great sacrifice, for our culture rooted in the Christian heritage of the Nation and in universal human values,
Recalling the best traditions of the First and the Second Republic,
Obliged to bequeath to future generations all that is valuable from our over one thousand years' heritage,
Bound in community with our compatriots dispersed throughout the world,
Aware of the need for cooperation with all countries for the good of the Human Family,
Mindful of the bitter experiences of the times when fundamental freedoms and human rights were violated in our Homeland,
Desiring to guarantee the rights of the citizens for all time, and to ensure diligence and efficiency in the work of public bodies,
Recognizing our responsibility before God or our own consciences,
Hereby establish this Constitution of the Republic of Poland . . .
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How does the phrase "under God" make the pledge Christian? If it were "under Jesus" I could understand that complaint. Maybe I'm just ignorant, because I haven't been around for those other threads.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Saxy, I'm sorry.
I don't really care either way about the pledge - the words weren't inserted until the Red Scare in the 50's, but it's not mandatory and it means a great deal to many people.
But I love the SC's decision, because I completely agree with its reasoning - the guy didn't have any right to bring the suit in the first place. That was the decision of the custodial parent, and he wasn't it. It's a wretched situation when the courts have to pick a parent to be the final say, but situations arise that demand it and the court picked the mother. From all the accounts I've read, he sounds like an utter prick.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I honestly don't get it either. I personally don't believe that a person should need to stamp the label of their religion on everything around them. I think it's a sign of childishness, actually — the ability to live a religious life while also interacting normally with the world outside that religion seems like a part of maturity to me. It's a child that has to grab everything and shout "mine!" and it's a dog that has to piss on every lightpost
I'm happy belonging to a minority religion whose beliefs are not borne out by the larger society I belong to. I actually think my faith works BETTER that way. The more you get large groups of Mormons together thinking the same way without being tempered by reactions from the outside world, the weirder they get.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
mph- because, as stated by those creating and backing the legislation that put the phrase into the pledge, it would affirm our status as a christian nation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow. The Polish preamble is WEIRD. Did they miss any constituencies? *grin*
----
Seriously, though, yeah, it sucks that the American government is full of God. It waxes and wanes depending on how many foxholes we're busy digging, though.
(BTW, kat, I predicted back when this case first popped up that the Supremes would use that excuse to bury the case -- mainly because they're way too scared to actually rule on this one.)
[ June 15, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm with the majority here, I really don't see why the pledge of alliegence needs 'God' in it (though it bugs me way more that kids are forced to say it than that our pledge has it), but also the SC was right in this case, the father had no right to bring the suit (though of course I defer to someone with greater legal experience than me... *cough*Dag*cough* ).
Hobbes Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:If this is a Christian country, what does that mean about all of the people who are born here, who live here, and who die here who are not Christian?
Well, duh! it means one thing, and one thing only: YOU ARE ALL GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!
No, it doesn't.
You have to sneak around, and hide your disbelief. You have to go around looking like a true Christian, instead of the blaspheming unbeliever you truly are in your black, withered heart.
Like I do! Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
gah, i've never understood why not using "under god" in the pledge is considered ignoring our roots or ignoring god. i think it's just making th pledge what it's supposed to be about - allegiance to a country and the ideals of freedom that the country was formed under.
i just don't like the idea of making decisions for people concerning spirituality. and i've never bought the argument that "you don't have to say it" because it makes you an outsider and i thought the whole point was to promote unity.
i pissed off a lot of people at church before, but i've always been under the impression that if you want to show god respect you should worry more about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked than saying his name to a flag.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:BTW, kat, I predicted back when this case first popped up that the Supremes would use that excuse to bury the case -- mainly because they're way too scared to actually rule on this one.
Actually, given abortion cases, Brown, and a host of others, I sincerely doubt any of them are afraid of ruling on this. I'd bet at least half of them can't wait to rule on it.
Nor is this just an "excuse." It's actually a very important judicial doctrine that only people with standing can bring a case, and that the Supreme Court not make judgements absent a valid case and controversy.
Face it, the Supreme Court has nearly unlimited theoretical power. The checks on it are largely the psychological restraint placed on theoretical responses by the political branches and the people.
The cases and controversies requirement, besides being mandated by the Constitution itself, is one means for the judiciary to be sure a constitutional issue is ready for the anti-majoritarian resolution the court brings to it.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I sincerely doubt any of them are afraid of ruling on this."
Oh, I don't. Because this is one of those cases where the only correct ruling is the unpopular one, and this court isn't known for its guts OR its respect for law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:this court isn't known for its guts OR its respect for law
You mean it's not known for respect for the law as you and certain others would interpret it.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, do you disagree with their decision, then? Do you think they should have allowed non-custodial parents a final veto over the child's life? That would be a disaster.
I didn't think that they would sidestep making a final decision on it, but I did think from the beginning that this was the most elaborate revenge plan on an ex ever dreamt up. This guy is not someone ANYONE with a sense of humor or shred of sympathy for the kid and her mom would want to represent them.
I respect his right to not want anything to do with God. I'm not impressed with what he's replaced that with. He has a child with a woman with whom he is on such bad terms with that he'd spend years in the courts strutting like a rooster and using his daughter to further his own agenda rather than come to an arrangement with the mom and do what's best for his family. And never married or not, and still with her or not, if he has a daughter, then she and her mother are part of his family.
[ June 15, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh, I don't. Because this is one of those cases where the only correct ruling is the unpopular one, and this court isn't known for its guts OR its respect for law.
In fact, this statement is self-contradictory. If they don't have "respect for law" (whatever the hell that means), then why would they be afraid of making the "incorrect" decision (again, whatever the hell that means)?
Dagonee
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
((saxy))
you are not alone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
kat, I don't think Newdow's doing this to get back at his ex-wife; by all accounts, he's been obsessed with separating religion from government for years, and his family has been at most a lever for him to use to achieve that goal. He's a pretty odious guy, yeah, and he is -- like so many people who wind up bringing cases before the court -- definitely not the person we'd like to see bringing a case of this importance. *shrug* That said, I find it highly unlikely that this was the court's primary concern.
-----
"If they don't have 'respect for law' (whatever the hell that means), then why would they be afraid of making the 'incorrect' decision"
Perhaps because -- and this is just my gut feeling -- the court would probably split on that decision along strictly partisan lines, and they don't want to go down that road again.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That said, I find it highly unlikely that this was the court's primary concern.
No, their primary concern was respect for the Constitution and the principles of judicial review.
quote:Perhaps because -- and this is just my gut feeling -- the court would probably split on that decision along strictly partisan lines, and they don't want to go down that road again.
I don't think this court fears splitting on partisan lines on any case. The stakes are far less high than many cases they've split on partisan lines.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Didn't he argue his side of the case himself?
Suddenly in my head, Newdow, Scalia, and the Supremes are singing What Is This Feeling?
--
quote:That said, I find it highly unlikely that this was the court's primary concern.
Why? Because it doesn't fit your theory for it to be?
[ June 15, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, because it would suggest that this court has something resembling a scruple left to share among the nine of 'em.
This is a possibility that, sadly, cannot be said to fit the available facts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Could you be more specific? That seems more of the same gloomy assertion.
[ June 15, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nah. It's a different gloomy assertion. Basically, looking at almost every prominent case decided by this court over the last six years, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a single decision that seems unmotivated by politics and rooted in sound law. They seem to do okay on the minor jobs, but I can't help feeling like they consistently fumble the big ones.
C'mon; you saw the way they completely blew that partial-birth abortion one, right? And dollars to donuts, they did it deliberately.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: It's a child that has to grab everything and shout "mine!" and it's a dog that has to piss on every lightpost
That was great Geoff.
Kat, about the SC's ruling, I couldn't be happier myself. The man had a point, but the reasoning he went about changing it was all wrong.
I myself don't mind "Under God" in the pledge because I believe in God. A lot of people don't, and I don't believe they should be FORCED to say it, and they never were. I haven't heard anybody EVER complain about the pledge, and I got my high school diploma from the Elk Grove School District a year ago. I have been there since kindergarten, and I have never witnessed the any of the crap this guy is spewing.
My personal opinion on Michael Newdow: He's a prick who has issues with churches. He's not out there trying to get "under God" clipped from the pledge because he feels it's his duty. I think somebody in some church pissed him off (a lot of people are pissed off by chuches), and this is his way of saying, "Hah! I'll show you!"
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"it would suggest that this court has something resembling a scruple left to share among the nine of 'em."
Though I disagree with the minority addendum of three Justices, the Court was being extremely scupulous and far-seeing with this particular decision. They were much wiser than I in catching the most important factor in this case as it wended its way through the legal system.
"Hard cases make for bad Law." And a finding for the plaintiff in this case would have set the precedent that a non-custodial parent has the right to use the federal courts to overrule decisions by the custodial parent. With such a precedent, the courts would soon be overrun by non-custodial parents trying to prevent the custodial parent from eg providing ballet lessons for their children because "dancing is the work of Satan". Giving legal standing to the non-custodial parent's desire to enforce his/her beliefs would create a HUGE mess of hard cases with the high potential of creating bad Law through the appeals process.
[ June 15, 2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
The pledge is not required...nor are you required to listen to it. Having under God in the pledge makes sense...while this is not a Christian country....nor is it based on any one religion...as that would be unconstitutional; it is based on the existence of a God. Even our money says in God we trust. The pledge is no different from that.
As for the people who don't believe in God...they can't do anything about the money but they can leave the words under God out of the pledge if they would like. As for the questions saying why should they have to? You could also ask why the majority should change they way we say the pledge simply because it offends a small minority of people. Yes the minority should be protected...and if people were required to say that pledge I would be against it. However the minority should never rule the majority. They should not have the power the change how we say the pledge, simply because it offends them.
As for Tom's comment, the fact that they rejected the father's right to bring the case forward is more important than you might think. If they were to make a ruling either way on the Father's case others would use that ruling to give noncustodial parents more power in future. They made the right choice. This way the case can (and will) come to the court again but with a different party, one who has the right to bring the case forward. When the case finally is heard there can be no other issues involved...it must be completely clean. The fact that Scalia had to recuse himself this time was also problematic as well, next time they won't have that worry.
(edit) I see aspectre beat me to this last comment...but it is still true...and could have led to those types of problems mentioned in the future (edit)
[ June 15, 2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
This doesn't "simply offend me." It hurts me. It causes me actual emotional pain and physical discomfort.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, because it would suggest that this court has something resembling a scruple left to share among the nine of 'em.
This is a possibility that, sadly, cannot be said to fit the available facts.
This would involve a long, detailed analysis, but you'd be hard-pressed to prove this point.
Dagonee Edit: And Saxon, that's pretty much what the Court's abortion jurisprudence does to me, so I feel for you.
[ June 15, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: The fact that Scalia had to recuse himself this time was also problematic as well, next time they won't have that worry.
Ahh, you think he'll automatically recuse himself next time? I mean, his feelings on the case are known. It's not like he hasn't already made up his mind.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: The pledge is not required...nor are you required to listen to it. The pledge is not required...nor are you required to listen to it.
That would surprise me. I don't think they let the kids with objections out of class, do they? Everyone has to stand and those with objections are supposed to stand there respectfully. Or did I imagine that?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:t is based on the existence of a God. Even our money says in God we trust. The pledge is no different from that.
You'd have a hard time proving the first, and most people would probably say they'd like to change the second part as well as the pledge.
Hobbes Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ahh, you think he'll automatically recuse himself next time? I mean, his feelings on the case are known. It's not like he hasn't already made up his mind.
Nope - many justices have known opinions about particular issues. It's pre-judgment on a particular case that is potentially problematic.
Dagonee
[ June 15, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Lupus - the problem with your reasoning is that for 62 years the words "under God" weren't in the pledge. They were stuck in there by Congress in 1954 (coincidentally 50 years ago this year) to separate us from "godless communists."
"In God We Trust" was added to our coinage in response to pleas from devout people during the Civil War, and the motto first appeared in 1864. It appeared sporadically until 1938 when all money was struck with that motto. In 1956 (also in the midst of Cold War hysteria) "In God We Trust" was declared our national slogan. Before 1956, our motto was E Pluribus Unum, "One from many." Entirely secular, it spoke of our varied nature and beginnings and the strength we held in unity. After 1956 our slogan bestowed our success to a deity that not all of us believed in.
I am not bothered by anyone else's religion or their public display of it. I have no desire to see God removed from all instances of public or political discourse, and I would fight to the end before allowing even a word of the Constitution or Bill of Rights changed.
But before 1954, all Americans could say the Pledge without leaving any words out. After 1954, that was no longer true.
I am not trying to take anyone's God away from them. But how dare anyone tell me to just leave some words out or leave the room if I want to proclaim my patriotism honestly. The original sentiments were changed by a grass roots campaign, I really don't see where anyone can complain just because a grass roots campaign works to change them back.
That said, the guy was a moron and any attempt to change the Pledge by judicial fiat would create more backlash than this country needs right now. I have no desire to see a religious war begin over something like this.
But don't for a minute think that because I don't stand up and demand the Pledge be changed by force that I'm at all happy about it.
[ June 15, 2004, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
if you want to show god respect you should worry more about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked than saying his name to a flag.
Porce, I love you. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Chris, that's pretty much my attitude here. It probably should be changed, but by vote not by judicial decision.
Of course, I'm likely to keep adding the words under God, just because that's how I said it 2160 times in school.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:if you want to show god respect you should worry more about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked than saying his name to a flag.
I agree with this sentiment. But we shouldn't pretend the two options are mutually exclusive.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Everyone has to stand and those with objections are supposed to stand there respectfully.
When I was in school, the Jehova's Witnesses in the class did not even stand for the pledge, IIRC.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Did you skip a grade, Dag?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nope - 2160 is 12 times 180. We didn't have it in Kindergarten (it was private).
Dagonee
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I see. We said it in kindergarten.
And Porter is correct, you are not required to stand.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:How does the phrase "under God" make the pledge Christian? If it were "under Jesus" I could understand that complaint.
If you say "God" without a prefix like "a God" or "Roman God" then it's a reference to the Judeo-Christian God. That's simply the way the English language works: adjectives and articles are for exceptions, and unqualified nouns and pronouns assume the default. If you doubt this, just ask one of the kids who recites it every day whom "God" refers to.
As far as I know, the Pledge is not any more officially recognized than "God Bless America" or other cultural artifacts of the time. The bitter irony of indoctrinating little kids with it needs to end, though -- here we're trying to prove we're better than the godless commie heathens, but the solution we come up with has them swear oaths to an "indivisible" nation-state. Disturbing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I see. We said it in kindergarten.
I'm amazed you did the math to notice the discrepency.
Heck, I'm amazed I did the math to post it.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, Dag, old habits die hard. Of course, I am one who likes having the reference to God there, so I would be motivated to keep saying it. In fact, now that I think of it, if it were officially changed, many people probably keep inserting the reference to God. There would still exist that "division" in the way it is said, the lack of unity. And of course it would be unconstitutional to *force* anyone not to say it just as it is unconstitutional to *force* anyone to use the reference to God.
But I understand that having it there is not fair to a large number of people, and I can't think of a rational reason why it should stay. But a lot of people have trouble being rational about their religious beliefs and understanding others' points of view. This is such an emotional/sentimental issue and many have trouble separating thought and emotion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I would much prefer if it had never been added. Actually removing it is going to affect many people the same way having it in there affects Saxon, but if it had never been in there, this wouldn't be an issue.
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
For part of my school life (ancient history), the pledge was compulsory. At that time of my life I had many problems with the pledge, although not with the "God" part of it - but I understand the objections of others. While it was required, I ended up just moving my lips without actually saying anything.
Finally, in high school, word came out that the pledge was no longer mandatory - you didn't have to recite, stand or salute.
I chose to stand for the pledge and still do, reasoning I would do that for ceremonies and flags relating to other countries as well - so I could stand for this flag out of respect for others.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
everyone was required to stand for the pledge in my schools. i attended a forum where students voiced dissension over this.
i do not think "well they don't have to say god" and "they can leave the room" are just or community-building suggestions. the last thing we need in schools and in this country is more reasons to segregate and ostracize people. kids that believe in god will feel crappy that their friends don't want to stand with them, and kids that don't believe in god get to feel crappy about leaving their CLASSROOM because someone decided we should appoint spiritual beliefs for all americans. that's crap. i think many cultures and beliefs should be celebrated and respected in this country, but not in such a way that we practice exclusion and create more outcasts. and what if a kid doesn't know what he believes? gah. i never said the pledge in high school. i always stood and i always observed the moment of silence because i believe in the struggle for peace, for understanding, for liberty, and i honor the sacrifices that have been made so i can choose to stand for the things i believe. but i did not like the idea of forcing a generalized religious notion on people that are standing unified as a people that want freedom and justice for all, not christmas presents.
saxy, i am not sure what you meant in reference to my first post. i don't think i was insinuating what you may have thought i was insinuating. but maybe this post cleared things up if there was a misunderstanding.
(edit: the dissension was not just for "god" in the pledge, but was from kids that rather hated america. i told them i felt like they should be allowed to choose if they wanted to stand or not, but i would stand because i cherish their right to complain, and so i could still disagree with certain parts of our government but still be a participant. i was essentially standing for their right not to stand the principal actually really respected the way i expressed myself and i think we decided that no one had to stand, but everyone had to observe the moment of silence, but it was their choice what to do with it. as long as they were, well, silent.)
[ June 15, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I would much prefer if it had never been added. Actually removing it is going to affect many people the same way having it in there affects Saxon, but if it had never been in there, this wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah, they had no idea what a mess they were causing in 1954. Did they?
What I find interesting is how few people realize how recent an addition it was and the circumstances. Without that knowledge, they feel like someone is trying to take away a long and cherished tradition held since the birth of the nation.
Most people don't realize either how recent our modern-day celebration of Thanksgiving is either. I know I didn't until I researched it.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
porce, I didn't say anything regarding your first post. If I were to say something about it, I would say that I appreciate your viewpoint.
--------------------------
quote:Actually removing it is going to affect many people the same way having it in there affects Saxon
I've heard this before, but I don't understand it. Not to say that it wouldn't happen, but I just wouldn't understand it if it did. If the wording was changed to "under no god" or "under Allah" or something, I could understand other people feeling the way I do now. But I don't understand how anyone could feel left out or unwanted if there were no statement at all. For me it's not so much the fact that I do or don't have to say the words. It's the fact that having the words in there and, even more, having so many people who would fight to keep them in there, says to me in very loud tones that America doesn't care about me, doesn't want me. I just don't understand how the lack of a statement would cause that feeling in anyone. But then, feelings don't always make sense.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not the lack of a statement that would cause the feeling - hence my preference for never having put it in there.
It's the fact that someone is taking the effort to remove it that would have that effect.
Dagonee
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I guess I can see that.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Exactly. Even though it was added late, any attempt to remove it now will inevitably be seen as an attack on God and an example of the growing immorality of America.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Saxon, I think that religious people would feel under attack if the words were to be removed. It seems that any time something has to do with God, people become almost rabid in order to defend it. I agree that taking the words out would be great, but I don't think it's going to happen.
That said, I do understand somewhat of how you feel. I'm an agnostic, so I always just kind of ignore that part of the pledge. I'm in the minority, and I know it, and I guess I've just always figured that's the way it's going to be. People connect God with personal feelings, so anytime people like us want something removed others tend to view it as a personal attack.
space opera
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Under allah means under god... as a jew, i wouldnt mind saying that either. But truth be told, it was written by a person who believes in god, to be said by people who believe in god. The idolotry argument, to me - holds no water, and I think that has already been established. Can it be proclaimed unconstitutional? I dunno, its just a pledge, thought i guess no one should have to say it. Say you believe in god, but your "religion" is to hate and spite him - you really wouldnt want to say this pledge. All i have to say is that the pledge doesnt REALLY hurt anyone, and those who make a big stink about it are doing it to pick a fight; its something that is pretty trivial IMHO.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I hope that the next time this question comes up through the courts, it is brought in the Tenth Circuit. Then it might be heard by Michael McConnell, the nation's leading expert on the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. In fact, the best thing would be if he wrote the opinion. Then, when whichever side won appealed to the Supreme Court, they would already have the best possible analysis of the issues to work with. They would really need to go out of their way to screw it up, then.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Judge McConnell was my lawyer when my case against UVa went to the Supreme Court. Very cool guy.
Dagonee
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
While I realize that the singular version of data is not anecdote, in high school, I was in a similar situation to sndrake--that is, the pledge was treated as compulsory. I did a bit of research, found out that it actually wasn't, and from that point on, refused to say it to make a point. Part of the reason stemmed from my being a relatively liberal teen growing up in the Bible belt; I did it to make a point to my classmates who were continually telling me I was going to hell because I wanted to grow up and vote Democrat. I got a little bit of harassment from them at first (nothing out of the ordinary, though--the whole "You're going to hell" bit pretty much continued throughout high school; the pledge was just another aspect of that to them), but after a while, they just rolled their eyes and considered it another "Megan-ism."
To me, it's the indoctrination of it that I find disturbing. There seems to be (at least where I grew up) the sense of, "You must think like this and be a good little patriot, or else you're EVIL." I didn't actually know that the current incarnation of the pledge arose during the McCarthy era, but I can't say I'm surprised.
The association between patriotism and religion seems to be the sticking point, and on this, I agree with Chris Bridges. You CAN support your country without a grounding in religion.
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
quote: All i have to say is that the pledge doesnt REALLY hurt anyone, and those who make a big stink about it are doing it to pick a fight; its something that is pretty trivial IMHO.
Armoth, did you even TRY to understand the other point of view? Can you look beyond how you feel on the issue and see that other people don't agree? It might be trivial to you, but that doesn't mean it's trivial to everyone else. Your opinion saddens me, really. I can see other viewpoints. Why can't you?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:All i have to say is that the pledge doesnt REALLY hurt anyone, and those who make a big stink about it are doing it to pick a fight; its something that is pretty trivial IMHO.
You know, I'm usually pretty polite, and I know that by saying what I'm about to say I am probably playing into your hands, but how dare you tell me that my pain is trivial? Seriously, how can you come into a thread where I'm spilling my guts, I'm talking about things that actually affect me and matter to me and cause me to get pain in my chest, how can you come into a thread like that and just tell me that I'm picking a fight?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Saxon75,
I'm sorry. For anyone's information, that was a carefully chosen statement. I'm not 'sorry that you feel that way', because it takes no imagination whatever for me to empathize. The country belongs equally (on the individual level, if not population-wise) to atheists as it does people of faith.
I don't think patriotism benefits from belief in God, because excepting a few religions, there isn't any that has as part of its beliefs citizenship in one nation or another. Almost universally-and especially for America, which is primarily Christian-the amount God and Jesus care about patriotism vs. how we treat our neighbors (that's everyone) is almost negligible, I believe.
That said, I don't think most Americans who support keeping God in the pledge even think about the pain and ostracization you feel when hearing it. I guess (not that it's much comfort) hurt caused from ignorance is better than hurt caused by malice or other intent.
quote:I've heard the argument from idolatry, and I don't understand it.
Actually, I haven't ever heard that argument before-and I think those that make it are really kidding themselves. The Pledge was around before the 1950s (I forget its birthday), and I really doubt that most people who said it before then were swearing allegiance above God to America.
quote:'ve heard the argument that this is a Christian country, and I don't understand it.
That's an argument I've heard before, and I think those who make it-without qualifiers-are stupid, because the truth is so obviously contradictory. The USA is a nation populated more by Christians than by any other religion, but that does not a Christian nation make.
quote:Why should I have to declare my patriotism in a different way from anyone else?
While I feel where you're coming from, this question begs a question. Isn't each individual entitled to feel patriotic in the way, with the framework, most appropriate to that person? I (who doesn't think any child in public school should recite the Pledge, either as a requirement or as part of the regular school day structure) could just as easily ask you: why shouldn't I be free to add in two words that most accurately express my patriotism?
quote:Why should I have to choose between my principles and protecting my children from ridicule?
This, though, is my biggest problem with the whole Pledge issue, aside from being offended at being asked to state my allegiance to anything, particularly in a place where I didn't have a choice in attending. Kids that don't believe in God (which are, I realize, a very small minority-I don't think that matters) or don't believe they should say the Pledge for whatever reason are thus seperated from the majority of kids who do. It's another way of making kids different. I don't like that, period, especially as I said before, in a place where they are required to be.
God does not, I believe, give a rat's posterior about people pledging allegiance to a 200+ year old nation, far from stainless, in public schools. Certainly not as compared to the other priorities. Peoples of faith should worry, I think, about that unlocked fifth-floor window after they've deadbolted the front door.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Edit: This is in response to Saxon referencing Amroth's post.
It did seem pretty over the top.
The real divisiveness of this issue stems from the fact that the gut reaction of both sides is unfathomable to the other. It requires a real attempt to put yourself in the other's shoes to understand it.
Just as saxon couldn't understand why it would upset people to have it removed, most people who want it can't get past, "Well, if you don't believe in God, then it doesn't mean anything. So what's the big deal?"
The difference on this thread is that Saxon is attempting to understand the other view.
I do think there are people out there who complain about this more from a penchant for trouble-making than from a core belief. Just as there ARE people who do want to invoke the "You don't belong" feelings by keeping it in there. Both are minorities, I think.
And when a thread starts with a personal explanation of why the phrase hurts someone, it's kind of rude to dismiss it as troublemaking without even directly addressing the well thought out lead post.
Dagonee
[ June 15, 2004, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Amroth, you're an idiot. Don't let the door hit your backside on the way out, `mano .
------
That said, the man who brought this case is a bit of a hypocrite, from my understanding. If memory serves, he is a divorced father without custody who does not visit his daughter (who is a Christian herself, I think). The absentee-father in question, however, has been a militant atheist for awhile and i think has a book deal cooking.
So while I think the man has a point, the manner in which he makes it is distasteful.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
From Geoff (1st page)
quote: The more you get large groups of Mormons together thinking the same way without being tempered by reactions from the outside world, the weirder they get.
How true.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't believe that religion has a place in the politics, leadership and nationality of any nation, yet everyone who proclaims a open-minded free state seems to do it, and there is a battle everywhere, but not a great enough one to make a difference.
The English national anthem, for example: "God save out gracious queen, long live our noble queen, God save the queen."
The Canadian national anthem is the same, though of course, could never mention the queen: "...God keep our land, glorious and free..." (French version mentions a cross)
Of the largely-English speaking nations (don't eat me, I said largely!), only Australia's anthem is free from religious influence.
There has always been controversy surrounding these inclusions in self-proclaimed tolerant nations, that, nevertheless, still claim the use of "God", referring to the Christian God, in their anthems or pledges. The Canadian anthem I can put up with (although a simple 'we' replacing the 'God' wouldn't do any harm), but if there's any anthem that's out of date it's the British one which needs a major overhaul. It probably would have already had one, if British schoolchildren had to drone it off every morning like Americans and Canadians do.
I agree with saxon: If a country wants to call itself free, tolerant, and open it should start by dropping referances that a great number of citizens no longer appreciate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't believe that religion has a place in the politics, leadership and nationality of any nation
This is the sentiment that scares people. Many religious people cannot imagine making an important decision without consulting their values which are informed by their religion. To take this statement literally, most religious people would have to remain entirely outside politics. It's part of the core misunderstanding I spoke of earlier.
Dagonee
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
"The Star-Spangled Banner" doesn't have any references to God. At least, not in the first verse. I don't know any of the subsequent verses.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Another thing: though I would love to claim that my objections are altruistic or philosophically based, they are not. I just want to feel like I belong. That's not a bad thing, I think, but it is certainly selfish. I do want that for other people too, but the root of it is still selfish.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: So while I think the man has a point, the manner in which he makes it is distasteful.
Exactly, that's what I said. Posted by BlueJacsFan (Member # 6590) on :
I'm somewhat torn on this issue. My gut reaction is that I don't want to see such a change made. Part of that is because, for me, it has always been there. 1954 was a good bit before I was born. On the other hand, I can see the point of view of those who don't like having it there.
I was always taught that one of the primary foundations for America was a freedom of religion. If the people in this country are supposed to be allowed to choose any (or no) religion, why should we force them to acknowledge God in our pledge of allegiance? That doesn't really make sense to me.
Nor does it make sense to require students to recite the pledge in their classroom. How many college towns do we have in the US where some segment of the student population are from a foreign country? How many of them have brought their families with them, and therefore have children attending classes in American schools? Why should a Chinese child be required to recite a pledge to the country they're only visiting?
Even though I am a Christian, I can see that the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. However, even in my own church, that's probably not the majority opinion. It also doesn't mean that my personal preference would necessarily be to make the change.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Dagonee:"Judge McConnell was my lawyer when my case against UVa went to the Supreme Court. Very cool guy."
No kidding? What was the case called? It's probably discussed in my textbook.
The textbook was written by McConnell, who also taught the class. An entire semester on Religion and the First Amendment, taught by the one person in the country who knows the subject best. It was an amazing experience.
And I agree. Very cool guy. I wouldn't mind asking him his take on this issue. I tend to think he would uphold the Pledge as it now stands, but then I catch myself, because his thinking on these issues isn't as cut-and-dried as that. He might surprise me. He would certainly make me think.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It was in this case that I found out the importance of being the first-listed plaintiff. No one remembers the et als.
Dagonee Edit: I'm sure it's discussed - very big precedent.
[ June 15, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: "The Star-Spangled Banner" doesn't have any references to God. At least, not in the first verse. I don't know any of the subsequent verses.
The last verse:
O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation; Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd 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!
The way I see it, atheism and agnosticism are far more common today than they were back when these references were begun. When they were begun it was just "assumed" that everyone believed in God. I wonder what sorts of percentages didn't?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: That would surprise me. I don't think they let the kids with objections out of class, do they? Everyone has to stand and those with objections are supposed to stand there respectfully. Or did I imagine that?
In the past many schools required it...now they can't.
quote:Lupus - the problem with your reasoning is that for 62 years the words "under God" weren't in the pledge. They were stuck in there by Congress in 1954 (coincidentally 50 years ago this year) to separate us from "godless communists."
I don't see how this affects the reasoning. The majority chooses to have this in the pledge...the fact that it was not in the pledge 50 years ago does not seem to be relevant. That actually was not the only change by the way...it used to be "my flag" not "the flag" in the pledge as well.
The fact of the matter is if people wish to say under God, who are you to say they don't have that right? If you don't believe in God, then don't say under God. There is nothing magical about the pledge that prevents you from saying it however you wish. If the government forced you to say the pledge, or even forced you to say under God when you wished to say the pledge, then you would have a point. You are free to say the pledge however you want.
IF the majority of Americans decide sometime in the future that they wish to change the pledge again, then that would be their right. Of course as several people have said, it would not be the place of the courts...it would be the place of people to make this change. Just as the pledge was changed 50 years ago, it could be officially changed again. However, the current majority of Americans today support having "under God" left in the pledge...and I would imagine that many would continue to say it that way even if the courts had tried to stop them. I know I would have done that when I was in school.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
The original song that Francis Scott Key stole as the tune for The Star Spangled Banner was full of religious references:
quote: To Anacreon in heaven where he sat in full glee, A few sons of harmony sent a petition, That he their inspirer and patron would be, When this answer arrived from the jolly old Grecian: Voice, fiddle aud flute, no longer be mute, I'll lend you my name and inspire you to boot! And besides I'll instruct you like me to entwine The myrtle of Venus and Bacchus's vine.
The news through Olympus immediately flew, When old Thunder pretended to give himself airs, If these mortals are suffered their scheme to pursue, The devil a goddess will stay above stairs, Hark! already they cry, in transports of joy, A fig for Parnassus, to Rowley's we'll fly, And there my good fellows, we'll learn to entwine The myrtle of Venus and Bacchus's vine.
The yellow-haired god, and his nine fusty maids, To the hill of old Lud will incontinent flee, Idalia will boast but of tenantless shades, And the biforked hill a mere desert will be, My thunder, no fear on't, will soon do its errand, And, damn me I'll swinge the ringleaders, I warrant I'll trim the young dogs, for thus daring to twine The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine.
Apollo rose up and said, "Prythee ne'er quarrel, Good king of the gods, with my votaries below Your thunder is useless - then showing his laurel, Cried, Sic evitabile fulmen, you know! Then over each head my laurels I'll spread, So my sons from your crackers no mischief shall dread Whilst snug in their club-room, they jovially twine The myrtle of Venus and Bacchus's vine.
Copyright expired on this one.
*No Greek Gods harmed in the making of this post*
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Lupus, that's precisely why the Bill of Rights protects the minority against the majority.
-Bok
EDIT: I would add that the "under God" clause is LAW. It's not just some poem that most people like. Even if no one recited it, the fact that it is a law that is pretty clearly unconstitutional, makes it a big deal.
[ June 15, 2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
You're dodging the real question. Why should we have minors -- who cannot enter into contracts -- pledging an oath to an "indivisible" nation-state? You don't see the irony in such a measure being used to oppose Red Scare fascism?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
How is the Pledge law? If it is, what does that law ask of us?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:The fact of the matter is if people wish to say under God, who are you to say they don't have that right? If you don't believe in God, then don't say under God. There is nothing magical about the pledge that prevents you from saying it however you wish. If the government forced you to say the pledge, or even forced you to say under God when you wished to say the pledge, then you would have a point. You are free to say the pledge however you want.
I'm not saying they don't have that right. They do have that right. However someone chooses to alter it for themselves, though, there is an official wording. Your argument works just as well against leaving the wording in as it does against taking it out. If my feelings are invalid because I can easily refrain from saying that part, then the feelings of someone who wants that line are also invalid, for if the line were removed, they are free to say it anyway.
But if the goal is inclusion (and for me it is--I want to feel included), then when I hear "You are free to say the pledge however you want" in spite of the official wording, it sounds a lot like "You are free to move to a different country." It sounds a lot like "You are free to keep being an outsider," which sounds a lot like "I don't want to include you."
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
And please note: I'm not even talking about whether it's Constitutional, or what the right way to change it would be. I'm just trying to explain how I feel and understand how other people feel.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Lupus, that's precisely why the Bill of Rights protects the minority against the majority.
That is exactly why I said I would be against forcing people to say the pledge. That would be the majority trampling the rights of the minority.
However, the Bill of rights does NOT give the minority the right to rule the majority. If the majority wants the phrase "under God" in their pledge, then that is their right...and the minority should not be able to prevent their right.
If congress passed a law saying that everyone must say the pledge, or that any people who wish to say the pledge must leave in the "under God" part, that that would not be constitutional. However it is currently a choice. The majority wishes the "official" pledge to have the words "under God" in them, and wishes the right to say that pledge. The minority still has the right to refuse to say that pledge, or to simply refuse to say under God if they so choose.
[ June 15, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: But if the goal is inclusion (and for me it is--I want to feel included), then when I hear "You are free to say the pledge however you want" in spite of the official wording, it sounds a lot like "You are free to move to a different country." It sounds a lot like "You are free to keep being an outsider," which sounds a lot like "I don't want to include you."
Now that is something I can understand.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:How is the Pledge law? If it is, what does that law ask of us?
In response to your question, Nick, the Pledge of Allegiance is codified in Section 7 of Public Law 94-344, more commonly known as the Federal Flag Code. The purpose of the Flag Code is probably best described by it's original title: "Joint resolution to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America."
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The law, amended in 1954 to add the "under God" clause, is that the official, state-snctioned pledge of allegiance is:
"I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
So anything that deviates from this form is not an official pledge.
I doubt there's any legal penalties for failure to say pledge, but if we ever get another Red Scare type situation, it could be used as part of loyalty agreements, with the failure being at least disqualification from an employment opportunity.
Not likely, but so long as it is the law, it can be used by however the majority sees fit.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
From the Flag Code:
"SEC. 8 Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable; and any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in proclamation."
Interesting irony, this. Talk about a minority being able to dictate to the majority!
-Bok
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: But if the goal is inclusion (and for me it is--I want to feel included), then when I hear "You are free to say the pledge however you want" in spite of the official wording, it sounds a lot like "You are free to move to a different country."
Firstly, you are free to move to a different country. I am not saying that to be a jackass, but because I feel it is an important right. If a person does not like the way their country is run...they MUST have a right to flee. This is actually why I am a fan of states rights...to give the states the right to fluctuate to some degree so people who believe in the general beliefs of the USA have some choices when it comes to the details...but of course that is for another topic.
Secondly...in the case of the pledge I don't think people who don't want to say it that way should be forced to leave. That of course would violate your freedom of religion. You cannot tell a group of people they must profess their belief in God if they wish to live here. However...you also should not be able to tell a group of Americans that they CAN'T profess their belief in God in their pledge. If the majority of Americans believe in God, and feel that God is an important part of our country, than that should be their right.
You say inclusion is important...but what is this inclusion? Is it forced conformity...denying that there are differences between people? Settling to the lowest common denominator so no one feels "different." There will always be people who will be offended. It is hopeless to run our lives in an effort to never offend. Yes if you refuse to say "under God" you will be different. In all honesty, I doubt many will notice if you simply leave out that phrase...I would not have noticed if a classmate neglected to say it. Of course if you refuse to stand, or leave the room people will notice...but Jehovah’s Witnesses have had to deal with that for years...though not because of the reference to God, but because of the entire pledge. Should the entire pledge be banned to avoid offending them?
Everyone is a minority in something...should the majority conform to the minority in all situations? Should I be banned from driving to school because some people can't afford a car? Should I be banned from playing tennis because some don't have athletic skill and feel left out? Should people be banned from mentioning sex in school because I feel that premarital sex is immoral? No. These are all cases that were important when I was in high school...and all things where people were different. People will never be the same and as long as there are differences there will be minorities. You are a minority, I am a minority. While you cannot trample the rights of the minority, you have to be equally careful not to destroy the rights of the majority.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:You say inclusion is important...but what is this inclusion? Is it forced conformity...denying that there are differences between people?
No. Inclusion is saying, "You can feel like a part of this country, like a real American, even though you're not just like everybody else."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The Pledge without "under God" is not exclusionary, people of any or no religious belief can say it without amendment or change and mean it. The Pledge with "under God" is exclusionary, and must be amended by some people to say it with honesty.
I agree that the majority has decided which one to use. That does not, in my eyes, make it right, fair, or just. No matter that I personally can choose to make whatever modifications to the Pledge I like when I recite it, the default and official Pledge should strive to include as many Americans as possible. That is, to me, one of the principles the country was supposed to have been founded on.
The Pledge, as it is now, is exclusionary. That isn't American at all.
[ June 15, 2004, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Oh, and Bok and saxon, I didn't mean that question argumentatively, I was honestly curious as to what makes it law. Just wanted to clear that up. Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: No. Inclusion is saying, "You can feel like a part of this country, like a real American, even though you're not just like everybody else."
Is forcing the majority to pretend not to believe as they do really inclusion, or is it simply fantasy
quote:The Pledge without "under God" is not exclusionary, people of any or no religious belief can say it without amendment or change and mean it.
Why is it not exclusionary...simply because it conforms to your beliefs? Do those who still cannot say it such as Jehovah’s Witnesses not count? Or is it ok to exclude some groups but not others? What about those who feel that a pledge to a nation squashes individualism...should they still have to listen to the pledge, or can you exclude them as well?
NOTHING is all inclusive. You can ban the pledge completely, but that would exclude those who are patriotic and wish to express their devotion to their nation. When people take away the rights of the majority to make one minority group feel all warm and fuzzy, they are simply deluding themselves. They are not truly making things more inclusive...they are simply satisfying the loudest minority while ignoring all of the others. Sure it may look good if you don’t stop to think about it, but it is not inclusion it is simply the illusion of inclusion at the expense of the majority.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:The fact of the matter is if people wish to say under God, who are you to say they don't have that right? If you don't believe in God, then don't say under God. There is nothing magical about the pledge that prevents you from saying it however you wish.
everyone has a right to freedom of expression, but it is state-sanctioned public school curriculum to teach young children the pledge of allegiance and have them memorize and recite it in its entirety. like chris said, the official pledge is exclusionary. if it were not the official pledge that we teach to all children enrolled in puhblic school indiscriminately then maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal. why do we want to insist on separating our children based on religious belief at school??
oh sure, let them sit down during the pledge or leave the classroom - then we can have all the black children sit in the back row and all the asian children can be taught in the hallways.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
The constitutions of all 50 states as well as the federal constitution would need to be re-written (not amended, re-written) to remove references to God, the Supreme Ruler, the Creator, Providence, etc. Should we do that too?
Granted, the PoA is far more widely known than the various constitutions, but still -- if we're gonna get rid of 1 reference to God, then we should get rid of all of them, don't you think?
Actually, I'm still in the "who cares" camp. Take it out, leave it in -- doesn't matter to me. Actually, if anything, I think the constitutions should be re-written before worrying about the PoA. I mean -- it's a slogan. Not an official government document -- just a patriotic slogan, written for a newspaper column. People liked it. It caught on. So what? But then you have the official, written "this is how the government works" statements, and they all mention God. Which should we really be focusing our efforts on? Should we be looking at any of it? Does it really matter?
I don't think so. Other than to make this post, I just don't feel worked up about it at all.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: You can ban the pledge completely, but that would exclude those who are patriotic and wish to express their devotion to their nation.
Um... as far as I know there isn't any law that says a person can't say the pledge all they want on their own time. Do you think there should be teacher-led prayer in schools, too?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Is forcing the majority to pretend not to believe as they do really inclusion, or is it simply fantasy
Forcing the majority to pretend not to believe would not be inclusion. It would be exclusion. However, simply removing the declaration of faith is not the same as adding a declaration of no faith. Saying nothing about a subject does not mean anything one way or another about a person's beliefs. That is why removing those words would not be exclusionary.
You may be correct that it is impossible to be truly all-inclusive. But if it is possible to include a greater number of people while not excluding any one who was already included, that seems better than simply continuing to exclude anyone who was already not included.
I don't understand your statement about "taking away the rights of the majority." What rights would be taken away?
[Edit: wrong word]
[ June 15, 2004, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Something occurs to me. And it is obviously based on exactly how you interpret the wording of the pledge. The way it is worded ("I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.") leaves some room for interpretation. By saying "one nation" prior to "under God", it seems to me that the idea of a nation unified under the belief of God. Which is, I think, one of the reasons this makes people so uncomfortable.
Now, I said it's open to interpretation. You could argue, for instance, that you are pledging allegiance under God. However, I don't really think this fits all that well gramatically for one, with indivisible obviously referring to the one nation, it would seem to follow that the under God bit would also refer back to the one nation.
My personal opinion is that it should be removed. Having it in there only serves to alienate some folks, whereas not having it in there wouldn't even occur to anyone if it had never been there. I agree with Dag in saying that it should never have been put in in the first place.
This may well be my first and last post in this thread, as I don't stick around enough to keep up with everything.
*edit to fix formatting*
[ June 15, 2004, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Happy Camper ]
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i would be totally fine if they stopped having kids recite the pledge every morning at school.
and saxon, if your post was a parade i would wear yellow.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I like having it there, and would likely continue saying it if it were removed -- even though I did not say it every day in most of the schools I attended. (Ironically, this was because they were religious private schools.)
However, I see the point that saxon and others are making -- and I don't think I really did before the first time you brought this up, saxy. So I say, take it out of the official wording, but allow people to say it if they wish. Including public officials and anyone who chooses to do so at a public event.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I was at a Republican rally in Kissimmee FL (don't ask...I was helping out a friend...)
anyway, this was just after the guy had won his case in the CA court. Someone in the crowd shouted out that we should start the rally with a reciting of the pledge of Allegiance. When it came to the "under God" part, they shouted it.
I thought then, and I still think so today, that the conservative movement in this country has decided that the outward expression of religiousity (not actual faith, mind you), is somehow important to the American political process. And perhaps it is. It's hard to gainsay their success in recent elections.
But I think that Dog is absolutely correct. It is a sign of immaturity and not faith. It is three-year-olds saying "mine" to everything they put their hands on.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Of the largely-English speaking nations (don't eat me, I said largely!), only Australia's anthem is free from religious influence.
True. Though it does include the verse For those who've come across the sea, we've boundless plains to share which we demonstrate by locking up refugees and boat people in the middle of the desert for years...
[/derail]
Saxon, I can understand your issue with the pledge as it is. From my point of veiw I find a pledge a foreign concept (unpatriotic lot, us aussies) but I would find a religous one in a secular nation untenable.
That said, I can see how the removal of the words would cause issues - and probably be jumped upon and beat up into a big issue.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
One of the good things that has come out of this is that more people now know that the pledge is not mandatory.
That said, I have observed 4 teachers in the last two years who insist that their students stand and say the pledge. "Stand up Johnny, we have to say the pledge." More appalling, it appears that it has become common for schools to announce it over the loudspeaker. One principal specifically requires students in the hall to "stop whatever you are doing and join us in reciting the pledge."
In no case that I have observed has the pledge been optional to the students. Only in one case have I heard a teacher say that if a parent is a JW, the student may leave the classroom, but then, I haven't seen any JW children. And I have never (in my life) heard a teacher tell the class in general that the pledge is optional.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
There is one reference to "lord" in the constitution, but within the context of "year of our Lord". I think most people would leave this in as a cultural artifact of a different time; it isn't as big a deal, since people aren't exhorted to recite the [EDIT: NOT pledge, constitution] every day in their most formative years.
-Bok
[ June 16, 2004, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Well, seeing The Year Of Our Lord is a translation of A.D. - the unit of time we still use - removing that would be kind of ridiculous. It's not a remnant of something that doesn't still exist - we still use that form of reckoning the years.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There's also the option -- which seems to becoming more and more popular, in my experience -- of referring to the current calendar as C.E. (Common Era).
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Im sorry if I offended you - I just meant that this should be put in perspective. No one is dying here, or losing, or gaining anything. I believe that in life, one should pick and choose their fights, and while i dont think the words should have been put in, in the first place - it seems to me a trivial matter. Let me emphasize: it seems TO ME a trivial matter. And yes, i DARE express MY opinion, not forcing it on you, but im expressing my own opinion. Im not telling you your points arent valid, im just telling you that before you are too hurt over this, put it in perspective - in the long run, it shouldnt be such a big deal. Once again: MY OPINION it really wasnt meant as an attack on anyone
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, sorry Nick. I totally missed that b/c I was replying to Mike post. My bad
------------
Lupus,
quote:The pledge is not required...nor are you required to listen to it. Having under God in the pledge makes sense...while this is not a Christian country....nor is it based on any one religion...as that would be unconstitutional; it is based on the existence of a God. Even our money says in God we trust. The pledge is no different from that.
The Pledge is not in fact required by law. But the execution is a lot different in public schools, as little as five years ago as witnessed by me in a public school.
'Not required' isn't carte blanche for things in public schools. A teacher could ask for a volunteer for an opening prayer in the classroom, and say, "No one is required to participate ('but please remain silent' would probably be said); I'm only asking for a volunteer." And it would be, essentially, the same thing. Rightfully this is not permitted either.
And it shouldn't be on our money, either. I'm sure God is thrilled to have His name stamped on money.
You and I are adults, and so things like required and voluntary are different for you and I. We're mature enough and independant enough not to take a shot to the ego or anything if we say, "No thanks," to things like that. In elementary school, it's different.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It just occurred to me. Which do you think God loves more? People saying the Pledge with His name in it because they have to? Or saying it with His name in it because they want to?
Just another round in "Questions I know the answer to."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Teshi,
quote:I don't believe that religion has a place in the politics, leadership and nationality of any nation, yet everyone who proclaims a open-minded free state seems to do it, and there is a battle everywhere, but not a great enough one to make a difference.
Why? I think religion does have a place in the politics and leadership of a nation, if that nation has a single religious person in it. In the sense that not everyone arrives at the same cherished virtues the same way, I think religious people should respect that good people come from everywhere, areligous (or different religious) people should realize the same thing.
I don't think this is the same thing as promoting a state religion.
quote:I agree with saxon: If a country wants to call itself free, tolerant, and open it should start by dropping referances that a great number of citizens no longer appreciate.
Are you saying, then, that no political leader should mention God or make decisions partially or completely due to their religion? Of course, you're gearing this primarily towards Christian politicans-with good reason, since America is primarily Christian-but I mean of any religion or philosophy. I'm not talking about thigns like Pledges or currency, either.
A nation can be free, tolerant, and open and still have religious leaders. Something to consider: several of the most murderous and bloody dictatorships in history (recent history) have been avowedly atheist.
J4
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Armoth, this is a trivial issue, and ought to be easily resolved. The fact that it hasn't been so easy to resolve, in the face of basic logic, hints that it is an aspect of a larger, less trivial, argument going on in our nation.
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lupus,
quote:I don't see how this affects the reasoning. The majority chooses to have this in the pledge...the fact that it was not in the pledge 50 years ago does not seem to be relevant. That actually was not the only change by the way...it used to be "my flag" not "the flag" in the pledge as well.
We are not a direct democracy. Saying, "...the majority chooses..." is insufficient. And it should be noted that what the majority tolerated in the 1950s is not, universally, what we should tolerate today. McCarthy had lots of supporters.
quote:There is nothing magical about the pledge that prevents you from saying it however you wish.
It's different for kids. The Pledge should not start out from the assumption that people are going to be believing in God. Saxon75 is not trying to stop other people from professing their belief in God. He is trying to untie the knot connecting good patriotism to belief in God.
The two are often, though not necessarily, connected.
quote:If the majority wants the phrase "under God" in their pledge, then that is their right...and the minority should not be able to prevent their right.
That is their ultimate right, and in this Republic we have a means by which they can do so. They amend the Constitution. There are many things in the USA which cannot be given or taken just by a vote.
quote:The minority still has the right to refuse to say that pledge, or to simply refuse to say under God if they so choose.
It's been said repeatedly. It's different for kids. It's another way of making kids different from one another in a deeply personal way in a place they have to go.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Could we take a moment and separate some issues?
I am for restoring the Pledge to its pre-Under God status. I feel that as the offical pledge we should strive to make it as inclusive as possible, even if perfect inclusivity is unattainable.
I am for restoring the national motto to "E Pluribus Unum." I feel it represents the goals and spirit of our country better than "In God We Trust," which simply isn't true for everybody. I don't particularly care if "In God We Trust" stays on our money, though.
I am against the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools and public buildings if it's the only moral code posted. Post the Ten Commandments along with the Bill of Rights, Hammurabi's Code, Napoleon's Code, and the other moral rules that have guided us. I don't want to ignore a moral structure that many, if not most of us were raised on. I just don't want to raise one over the others. This is why I have no problem with the frieze in the Supreme Court that includes Moses and the commandments along with the other sources of law. That's part of our history and should never be ignored. But I am dead set against such displays as the Ten Commandments monument at the courthouse because it suggests that our courts will follow those rules over our secular ones, and the first four are wholly religious.
The removal of religious references in oaths of office, beginnings of political meetings, oaths in court, etc, I leave to the majority to decide. They do not bother me and do not, to my eyes, lessen those who do not believe.
The removal of religious references in our national constitution I would fight against with every breath in my body. I don't want any words in our Constitution changed because that would make it easier to keep changing them. Amend the Constitution if you must and enough agree, but don't ever change it.
I don't mind if kids pray in school, I don't care if they bring in Bibles or other religious references, I don't mind student-run after school religious groups. I do mind if prayer is led by faculty or if any indication is given that the school favors one religion over another.
I'm not advocating the removal of all religious reference. I'm advocating removing it in places that would suggest that areligious Americans are "also" Americans. It shouldn't be a question and shouldn't be handled by omission or modifiers.
Try this, to get the impact I feel.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for whites."
It's valid, the majority of people in the U.S. are (or were until recently) white, and the majority should be able to decide what the pledge should be. If you're not white, well, you can just leave that part out or refuse to say it. That would be just as good, wouldn't it? It's not like the pledge is suggesting that non-whites shouldn't have liberty or justice, after all. You're all Americans too, honest.
[ June 16, 2004, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Off-Topic: Actually, Chris, America is still about 70% Caucasian. I only mention it because it was a big surprise to me when I larned it offa pbs.org
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Which do you think God loves more? People saying the Pledge with His name in it because they have to? Or saying it with His name in it because they want to?
My opinion? I don't think the Lord cares about the rote words that come out of our mouths. For people for whom the words "Under God" means something, I think it is valuable and means something for them - God is fine.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Caucasian, yes. But the definition of "white" changes with every generation. 100 years ago Italians certainly weren't. 70 years ago Jews weren't. The date when Guatemalans are raced the same way as Brits despite sharing a demographic category is still a few years in the future.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
You don't think the Lord cares about people swearing "so help me God" in courtrooms despite Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12, etc.?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Saxon75: I like your initial post in this thread and I agree with you. I don't think that "under G-d" belongs in the pledge. However, I agree with Chris' earlier observation that it would probably be under to remove it now, even though some of us think it should be removed.
Chris, I also agree with what you said about "In G-d we trust, and I agree that the Ten Commandments shouldn't be posted in public buildings.
quote:Well, seeing The Year Of Our Lord is a translation of A.D.
Yes, Dave, and because it is a strictly Christian reference, I have, with rivka, seen C.E. Common Era, and B.C.E. Before the Common Era used instead.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: But before 1954, all Americans could say the Pledge without leaving any words out. After 1954, that was no longer true.
Jehovah's Witnesses have already been mentioned as not standing respectfully. But they don't say it even with the "under God". I wouldn't say it without the "under God".
Was "one nation under God" added or just "under God"?
quote:You don't see the irony in such a measure being used to oppose Red Scare fascism?
This is why my family wouldn't say it without the "under God", and why the "under God" was added when it was.
In the state uf Utah, at least, parents have the right to give permission for their children to not say the pledge.
And I think this (The Supreme Court) is the same court that refused to hear the LDS Church plaza issue - Letting the lower court ruling that the property they paid $8 millon for is still public property stand. We all get some pain in this life. I guess it's the flip side of democracy.
[ June 16, 2004, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wonder how observant JWs are treated in public schools by the other kids? I'm betting it ain't well.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Not just Utah, thankfully. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I wouldn't say it without the 'under God.'"
Why? Do you not feel any allegiance to this country?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
pooka, just "under God". Due to that dastardly special interest group, the Knights of Columbus (among others), who wanted to show that the US was different than the "godless communists"... Of course, rather than use the more true idea of plurality the US allows, Congress just chose the recommendation of an overtly Christian group.
-Bok
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
There were other changes. IIRC, "my flag" -> "the flag of the U.S.A."
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Tom, do you think having children memorize their oath to nationalism before their times tables is something that should inspire allegiance?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Tom, because my allegiance to this country comes after my allegiance to God. Were it not so, there would be no higher morality than the letter of the law or "following orders". To love this country sometimes requires disobeying it in the interest of a greater sense of right, even if not "God". Thinking of Thoreau and civil disobedience here.
Of course, the pledge doesn't acknowledge my placement of my family before the country in my hierarchy of values. I even love myself more than my country. Not to say I wouldn't sacrifice myself for it, just that doing so would have to serve some higher purpose of right in my mind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, naturally; I've always felt that requiring young children, from the moment they're old enough to be educated, to recognize and serve their puppet masters is one of the primary duties of public education. But, like pooka, I would be uncomfortable if we didn't also acknowledge that these puppet masters, when all was said and done, ultimately work for an invisible guy with a beard.
No, seriously, I think the pledge itself is a blinkered idea, and I think "under God" only blinkers it more. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'd be okay with kids memorizing the preamble of the constitution. I don't even know it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
See, the preamble would be good. Heck, I'd love to hear 'em recite the Bill of Rights every morning.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Bill of rights would break up nicely two a day for each day of the week.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I know the words to the preamble, but only if I sing it.
I miss "Schoolhouse Rock"...
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Richard, I think that change happened before the "under God" amending.
-Bok
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
The Schoolhouse Rock version of the Preamble is incomplete, and I was horrendously embarrassed due to that fact. Just sayin'.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
The Preamble is nice & all but it doesn't say anything. "We the People...for these reasons...establish this Constitution." Article I could be "justification of the right to supreme dictatorship" without contradiction.
I recommend the Declaration. Motives, methods, and action all in one piece.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You do kinda have to shove "oftheUnitedStates" in there to keep it accurate and not lose the rhythm, but it is catchy...
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
In seven-teen-eighty-seven I'm told Our founding fathers all sat down And wrote a book of pri-in-ciples that's Known the wo-orld a-round...
::walks away singing::
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The Declaration of Independence is a beautiful document that should be known and cherished by every American.
The preamble to the Constitution is just not going to inspire anyone as a stand-alone statement. It says:
quote:We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It sort of begs for the reader to keep going and read the document, neh?
And what do you do if you actually read the articles of the Constitution? It's not something you can just recite and get anything much out of: The Judicial Branch, The Legislative Branch, etc.
The Bill of Rights is okay, but besides establishing rights, they are Amendments to the Constitution. In fact, they are compromises designed specifically to garner enough votes to ensure ratification in specific states. So, even those, in absence of understanding the history of the various state's concerns, are kind of tough to really use as teaching aids for little citizens.
But, to be honest, pledging allegiance to a flag is worse. National pride is all well and good, but there are better ways to teach children to value their citizenship and feel good about their country than having them pledging their loyalty to a symbol of the Republic, etc.
And, really, people usually recite the pledge with the same voice they use for The Lord's prayer or other rote parts of Sunday services.
I drone the drone, of the drone,... and drone, drone, drone drone drone, One drone, under drone, in drone, with drone...
It's an empty thing that, I think, teaches the outward signs of conformity without ever instilling any real feeling in the person doing the reciting.
It should be dropped and instead we should spend some time teaching our kids why this is a great place to live.
And, one hopes, it actually is a great place to live for the people you are trying to teach.
Because if it isn't, you don't just build up indifference, you build up cynical loathing by making people pledge to something that doesn't work for them.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I do not believe the pledge should be recited in schools. I started saying it because I did not know any better, and was not really listening to the words, being five or six at the time. Luckily I feel little obligation to keep promises I did not know I was making, but what about someone who is more honest than I am? It is wrong to trick young children into pledging allegiance to anything. It makes me uncomfortable to hear adults reciting the pledge, knowing what this country has done and is doing.
So I guess in a very weird way, I am glad about this ruling if it means less people will be making promises that should never be made.
edit: added missing word.
[ June 16, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Danzig ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I drone the drone, of the drone,... and drone, drone, drone drone drone, One drone, under drone, in drone, with drone...
Very true, and the point is made in inimitable Bob style. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* That's exactly what I meant about suspecting the Lord not caring if the words are in there or not. If the eight-year-old saying the words barely pays attention to them, I doubt anyone else is going to be overinvested.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)