Pledge of Allegiance

[tasty]

Since Bondo brought it up in a different thread thought I'd ask about this. The apellate court upheld the ruling prohibiting "under god" from being said in the pledge of allegiance. It appears it will go to the Supreme Court. What do you think the right decision is? Do you think the supreme court will uphold the ruling or strike it down?

I personally think it should be taken out. Even as a person who believes in a monotheistic religion, I do believe that it's unconstitutional. Even if they make the "under god" optional, it is going to be divisive and publicly embarassing to those who choose not to say it. It needs to be taken out completely.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Well, Zait said there was a rumor that it was going to be changed so I told him the news I had heard, but I too think it deserves its own thread (again) so people who don't care about that thread might still see it.  Anyway, this is what I posted there...

"Well, the Federal District Court in San Fran upheld their ruling that it was unconstitutional.? I think a school district in California is taking the matter to the Supreme Court.? It will be a good test to see if the court is biased towards Republican or not.? If they overturn the decision and allow the pledge to return to schools in its present form it will be obvious they are biased to Republican issues and able to ignore violations of the Constitution.

My Comparative Religions professor who has a PhD in Biblical Studies makes a convincing argument that it is unconstitutional.? The part "under God" was added in the 50s to fight the athiest communists that were being persecuted due to McCarthiesm.? It is a violation of the exclusionary clause of the first amendment and thus should be removed from the pledge if the pledge is going to be a school organized activity. "

[kami]

I don't know nothing 'bout your constitution but I do know that church (religion) and state should be separated as far apart as possible, I puke everytime I hear an American president say ?God bless us all?.

[Mr. Lothario]

     Heh. Me, too, Kami. Technically speaking, however, that's not really what the separation of church and state is about. Instead, the separation has to do with the government giving official sanction or preference to one religion over others. The President saying, "God bless America" or similar drivel is toeing the line IMO, but it's not official preference, since it amounts to just the President's opinion, with no legislative backing. Whereas being compelled to say "under God" in the Pledge IS institutionally enforced, and is thus violating the separation of church and state.

[Cow]

if they change the pledge will they change the coins and bills as well?  They say "In God We Trust," religion fucks everything.

[abe]

Jeez,
I don't get why anyone even gives a damn about somthing as trivial as this, when there are actually real problems in the country that people should care about that go virtually unmentioned. Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but wasnt there a supreme court ruling that you didn't have to pledge anything if you did'nt want to? I remember hearing somthing like that once, but i'm not completely sure. So if you don't wan't to pledge thats fine and if you don't believe in g-d thats ok too, but just stfu about it and relax.....nobody is forcing any one. and if it makes you feel better, just replace the word g-d with canada. and if you feel "embarrased" or uncomfortable about what you believe in then thats really nobodys problem but your own. just my opinion.
and for the record, i think the whole idea of "pledging" is somwhat ridiculous. tell me......do 7 year olds REALLY know what theyre talking about when the spout out all that bullshit?
and bondo....you really have a way of twisting everything so that its a liberal vs. conservative/democrat vs. republican thing.....now THAT makes me wanna puke. i'm anything but a republican and so far ive disagreed with you on everything, but one thing.
and kami: why don't we push seperation of church and state to the extreme and bar anyone who has ever been to a church, synagogue or mosque etc. or ever made a public statement about his faith from ever serving in elected office? personally, i have no problem with bush or clinton or any politician saying something like that eventhough i know that they are of a different faith than me. now, if he said somthing like 'one nation under jesus' or 'one nation under shiva' that might be a different story.....but they don't. What makes me puke is when somone like saddam hussein says "inshallah, we shall kill all the heathen americans". that makes me puke too. wow, i sound like im bullemic or somthing.....oh well. later you pukes.
 

[|MP|Buccaneer]

If they overturn the decision and allow the pledge to return to schools in its present form it will be obvious they are biased to Republican issues and able to ignore violations of the Constitution.

I'm sorry, but I'd really like it if some people would stop lumping any disagreement into the "Republican" bucket.  

Especially because both parties support the pledge in the Senate.  Right after the court decision, they past a resolution 99-0 (that's all but one, and he didn't vote) to express support for the pledge.  Here's a little quote for you (article):

In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor just before the resolution vote, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, said he is the only remaining member of Congress who voted for the addition of "under God" on June 7, 1954. He warned the judges who declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional to never come before him because "he'll be blackballed."  

So this is not a party, partasian, liberal or conservative issue.  Don't try to make it into one.


Next, the First Ammendment of the Constitution, and why religion is in there.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Whenever someone talks about this, you can count on someone saying "separation of church and state".  But do they really know where that term came from, and what it means.  Remember, you have to look at what they were thinking when they wrote it.  So look at England, and the Church of England (thanks to Henry VIII).  Church and state were both part of the government.  And that church then could outlaw the worship of other religions.  And that's what made many people come to America in the first place.  Religious freedom.  So it wasn't put there to keep the belief of God out of our Government, or it wouldn't be on our money, or in so much of our official documents, or on the wall in the Supreme Court.  "In God We Trust" is very much a part of our government.

How can this be?  Well, let's look at what the first ammendment really says.  It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"  First key word in that.  LAW.  

So, for the courts to find it unconstitutional, it would have to be part of a law?  right?  It would have to have been signed into a law somewhere.  Was this the case?

In other words, I agree with most of what Abe says again.  I don't think that pledging is ridiculous, especially not for adults (and it is said at some meetings I've attended, for local government.)

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Abe, no violation of the constitution is trivial.

As for the argument that one can just not say under god.  Sure, you can not say it but by not doing so you are made to feel excluded and different because of religion.  This is a problem, especially in a PUBLIC school.  Should they get rid of In God We Trust on the money, yes.  There are many violations of the first amendment that sadly are permitted in the US.

Bucc, does the phrase "Religious Right" mean anything to you.  It isn't a secret that the Christian fundamentalist group is Republican in an overwhelming majority.  So yes, it is a Republican issue more than not.

Also, while the pledge may not be a law, I'm unclear to what it exactly would be considered, it is a thing controlled by the goverment, which is why Congress was who in the 50s added in Under God.  That makes it an act of Congress and thus subject to the same constitution that laws are I would think.  And by having under god, they are establishing a religious preference.  That they added it specifically to battle athiests out of fear of communism shows it was specifically to approve of one religion over another which IS a violation of the first amendment.

Bucc, in the end what it comes down to is, does my professor who has a PhD in religious studies and knows a great deal specifically about whether the pledge is constitution have things right, or should I take your word for it.  I take the one with credibility and a logical reason for it being unconstitutional thank you very much.

[Mr.Mellow]

While I usually hate all this politically correct garbage, I have to agree with Bondo. I remember a muslim kid in elementary school who didn't want to say the pledge, so he got sent to the principle's office. Retarded, huh? Like it or not, around here they make you say it in school. If you don't, they think you're a trouble maker and whatnot. I don't see what's so wrong with removing 2 little words, especially since they weren't even in the pledge originally. If they want a religious reference, they can put "under our creator or creators." Anyways, this is just my opinion, I'm not saying the other side is wrong. I just think it's silly to keep "under God" in the pledge if it can offend so many people. As for "in god we trust" and such on money, I don't really care either way, because I know the government won't take all that money out of circulation and change it just to please the population.

[Jeb]

From what i've read on the case...
its not unconstitutional to have "under god" in the pledge, it was unconstitution for a school to force kids of all religions and beliefs to say the pledge. The pledge did not contain the phrase "under god" untill the 50s untill the government added it in durring the Red Scare.

Thruout history its been the bible thumpers job to preach their morals upon the public. In america the first major social movement that was based off religion was the temperance movement in the 1840s, which eventualy lead to prohibition. From my studies the ideal of morality is used as a major way to control the lower classes in the past. Religion in school has always been a huge issue, but i don't think a trivial issue about a word should be held in the same light as things like creationism vrs darwinism.

I'm an athiest, and i don't care how anyone wants to use a bible privatly, just as long as its not directed towards me.

[jn.loudnotes]

Personally, I'd do away with public recitations of the pledge, with the exception of swearing people in for public office, and the like.

Have you ever listened closely to a group of people saying the pledge of allegiance?  (To do this, you have to stop yourself for just a moment. . .be strong, you can do it!)  It's freakish.  Everyone adopts a sort of monotone in their voice, and it can really be disturbing.  You can almost feel the waves of unconditional acceptance and lack of free thought.  Likewise, groups of people praying freak me out in the same way.

In general, I just hate mass displays of faith.  I've always thought faith should be a very private thing, not something to evangelize, proclaim, or sell.  It's the individual's personal relationship with their god and/or country.

Is anyone else reminded of images of thousands of Nazis making the salute, anytime they hear a group of people all reciting the same words?  I think that's the problem more than what the words actually are.  I just get a visceral feeling of distaste.

[tasty]

I don't think people should be forced to say the pledge at any time. By reserving time to say it in school you are teaching the children values which in my opinion is not the school's job. Children at young ages are very impressionable both intellectually and emotionally. Personally I would think it better to just remove the pledge of allegiance from schools completely.  Sure you can make it optional, but let's face it most kids are pretty much lemmings who will do whatever their classmates or teacher are doing, and once they begin the process the message of the pledge will be internalized.

Also just because the senate supports something 99-0 doesn't make it right. All those senators know that if they didn't support the pledge it would be political death. And just because something is supported by popular opinion doesn't make it right either. Same thing goes for how our government is set up. True, we have statements about God plastered all over DC and our money. Once again, just because something is historical doesn't make it right. Not all Americans trust in God. I do, but I don't think it needs to be printed on our money. If anything, associating God with money or flags cheapens him.

[cookie]

I've been an athiest my whole life... but when i was a kid and had to say the pledge, I didn't think twice about the "under god" part.. hell, I wasn't really paying attention to anything because it was just something to recite...  and for that reason I don't see why it's such a humongous deal all of the sudden. If you don't want to say the under god part, don't, I doubt anyone is listening. Mouth it, it's not like it matters. Anyway, this whole thing to me sounds like something people simply want to make a fuss about. We didn't have a problem with it 30 years ago, why now? Because right now is all about screaming for attention. It really kind of pisses me off that people love dwelling on things all of the sudden. Life isn't perfect.. America isn't a Utopia of equity...  get over it.
now onto the line by line!

Even if they make the "under god" optional, it is going to be divisive and publicly embarassing to those who choose not to say it. It needs to be taken out completely.

Like I said before, who REALLY cares? you say it will be publicly embarassing.. but 1) it's not like you're reciting it to the whole nation and you're going to get hate mail every day after and 2) if this is infringing on SO many people's rights, and so many of these people are going to stop saying under god, wouldn't it just become commonplace anyway?

I puke everytime I hear an American president say ?God bless us all?.

I think abe took care of this one for me. I'd also like to add that even though we have seperation of church and state, which was what this country was founded on, it was also founded on religion and it worms its message into politics occasionally;  there's nothing we can do to stop it, short of acting like fascists.

Bucc, does the phrase "Religious Right" mean anything to you.? It isn't a secret that the Christian fundamentalist group is Republican in an overwhelming majority.? So yes, it is a Republican issue more than not.

No offense, but I'm getting really tired of you seeing things in black and white, democrat or republican terms. You can't classify everything as one type and if not the other, because you're overlooking so much of the detail that lies in gray area. Much of this, my friend, is in gray area. On the same note, I find your statement "If they overturn the decision and allow the pledge to return to schools in its present form it will be obvious they are biased to Republican issues and able to ignore violations of the Constitution" to be repugnant, and empirically denied. It's incredulous to say that the ONLY possible explaination for them not banning the phrase is their bias. Perhaps overturning it violates stare decises, perhaps it would cause backlash, perhaps they have a better alternative... perhaps this issue isn't even worth debating in court because there is already an answer.

as for the rest, gj bucc.. couldn't have put it any better.


 i'm having trouble expressing myself lately.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Once again, I never claim that things are absolute.

This is Yin and Yang, not Black and White.

While there are the two sides and you can name them, each side has a bit of the other in it.  So when I say Republican, it is a generalization and in no way saying it is absolute that all Republicans are this way and that all Democrats aren't.

It isn't a logic puzzle saying if this than that, if that then not this, etc.

I sort of wish I could go back to Elementary which is the time when the pledge was recited daily and when under god came up I'd make sure my voice was heard over the others saying under buddha.  I have a feeling I'd get in trouble for doing that though.  That is the problem is that schools are forcing the classes to say it, even if the kid doesn't get punished specifically for not saying Under God, it is still forcing a religious idea in a public institution which is the type of action the first amendment was specifically put in to prevent.

[cookie]

That is the problem is that schools are forcing the classes to say it

I call bullshit. They may in some way force the students to say the pledge, but I have NEVER heard of a kid getting in trouble because his teacher caught him not saying "under God". Never. Also, you say "schools" as if every school in the nation forces its kids to say the pledge, and more specifically under god.. which I really doubt.

[-SW- Baz]

uhh, it's kinda off-topic as u might say, but i really dont care about the pledge (except that someone just needs somethin better to do) because God dOES exist...read Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica." he gives shitloads of deductive arguments why there has to be a god

plz dont turn this into a flame war if u still disagree, im just stating that his writings are VERY persuasive to a fair mind...

[EUR_Zaitsev]

All Men, Catholic and protestant, jews and gentiles, hindus and budists ARE CREATED EQUAL. This line must be revoked completly. As Bondo or tasty or one of the smart ones like that pointed out if the line is optional open humiliation will occur time and time again.

One Nation, Under Canada

nahh just kidding. I read on CNN news website that it could be revoked in a few days in 9 states, sorry if stated earlier in thread but which 9 states....anyone?

[cookie]

All Men, Catholic and protestant, jews and gentiles, hindus and budists ARE CREATED EQUAL.

what about the women, huh? i'm feeling oppressed already.

also, i'd like to point out that all but one of those religions mentioned have a supreme god. "God" is a universal idea, so nyah. As for buddhists, I doubt they're offended as they are generally open to other opinions and ideas.

pointed out if the line is optional open humiliation will occur time and time again.

I'll reiterate: first, I doubt anyone is going to notice if someone doesn't say one little phrase in a giant mass recital. second, i doubt anyone is going to care if you say "under god" or not in a public school.. you're not in a convent or anything,

[The Ghost of Bondo]

nahh just kidding. I read on CNN news website that it could be revoked in a few days in 9 states, sorry if stated earlier in thread but which 9 states....anyone?

Well, the 9th District states...which I think are Hawai'i, Alaska, California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

[MOD Arschloch]

Well, lets go back to history... first of all this country was founded UNDER the christian religion.  Though, the view of America today is completely different i still believe that if they take the phrase "under God" out then we are taking history out.  That means if we take it out we wont learn the past and might "find" a new piece of land to use and do the same thing.
Another thing, the guy that started this whole "i dont like seeing this phrase in the pledge." is a complete idiot. He has no brains! One, he grew up in high school saying it. Why did he protest now! So i say leave it in. It isnt hard to say,"this COUNTRY was FOUNDED UNDER CHRISTIANITY."