posted
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).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.?
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
I wonder how observant JWs are treated in public schools by the other kids? I'm betting it ain't well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Tom, do you think having children memorize their oath to nationalism before their times tables is something that should inspire allegiance?
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, the preamble would be good. Heck, I'd love to hear 'em recite the Bill of Rights every morning.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Schoolhouse Rock version of the Preamble is incomplete, and I was horrendously embarrassed due to that fact. Just sayin'.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do kinda have to shove "oftheUnitedStates" in there to keep it accurate and not lose the rhythm, but it is catchy...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
*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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
