posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
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*
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
"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!
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
