Should the Pledge of Allegiance Include Under God?

[jb]

Originally posted by Zero

And, of course, let's be realistic: how will someone be treated if they refuse to stand for the Pledge? What if everyone hears someone omit 'Under God', or fill in their own Deity? Will they be treated just the same? What happens to a kid who inserts 'Under ALLAH'?

there really is a pressure to say it in schools, i.e. teachers will almost order kids to stand.

one of my teachers i believe is buddhist, and i think she still says "under god." maybe she's just so used to it that it doesn't mean anything.

 

[BoulderHead]

Oh, those 'Christian' founders...

Originally posted by kyleb
or, in reference to street layout above the white house, http://www.worldsgreatestband.com/Pictures/pentagram.jpg ?

...were such jokesters!

 

[Zero]

I can't support illegal speech with eth 'out' of "You don't have to say it". That's simply not enough. And, strangely, the reactions of most adults who support 'under God' show exactly why it should be removed.

 

[Nicool003]

So, wait...I'm confused. You say thatthe Pledge is ruined if you don't get to insert a reference to your God in it? That isn't logical at all.

Naw don't put words in my mouth. I was right-talking to you people is like talking to a brick wall...


I am ssaying it isn't the same when it has BEEN that way all our lives and when MANY OF US WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nicool003
Naw don't put words in my mouth. I was right-talking to you people is like talking to a brick wall...


I am ssaying it isn't the same when it has BEEN that way all our lives and when MANY OF US WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY

So,why do you want to keep it that way, even though it is illegal, immoral, and insulting to some of your fellow students? Because change is bad, no matter what?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Nicool003
Naw don't put words in my mouth. I was right-talking to you people is like talking to a brick wall...

I am ssaying it isn't the same when it has BEEN that way all our lives and when MANY OF US WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY

And people have rebutted that point.

 

[Zero]

I wonder, though...is it comforting to feel that the government supports your mythology over others? Is that why people don't mind trampling the rights of others when it comes to religion?

 

[Nicool003]

So,why do you want to keep it that way, even though it is illegal, immoral, and insulting to some of your fellow students? Because change is bad, no matter what?

VERY FEW fellow students. Also there are very few atheists in my grade probably my school too. And also there haven't been any problems at my school or complaining in my school district even. So why even think of changing it for the whole USA when there was one complaint. That's stupid.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by Nicool003
VERY FEW fellow students. Also there are very few atheists in my grade probably my school too. And also there haven't been any problems at my school or complaining in my school district even. So why even think of changing it for the whole USA when there was one complaint. That's stupid.

Oh, if it only tramples on the rights of VERY FEW, then it's OK, I guess... my bad.

Do me a favor. ASK the atheists what they think about it.

Care to place a bet what they will say?

Why don't you hop on over to www.iidb.org and ask the atheists and freethinkers there what THEY think about the pledge...

EDIT: I'm going to drop out of this discussion, because it's only making me mad.

It is NOT -and never will be- OK to write unconstitutional laws and trample over the rights of atheists, even if we are an extreme minority.

EDIT 2: Fixed link

 

[Dissident Dan]

I think that he meant to link to www.iidb.net

And the Constitution's provisions were not meant to only protect large segments of the population.

And it is also part of religious indoctrination, which is just wrong.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nicool003
VERY FEW fellow students. Also there are very few atheists in my grade probably my school too. And also there haven't been any problems at my school or complaining in my school district even. So why even think of changing it for the whole USA when there was one complaint. That's stupid.

I'm with the rest of the crowd here...you don't ignore the law because it only affects a few people. We are only as free as the least free segment of our society.

 

[kyle_soule]

In our school we don't have to participate in the pledge if we do not wish, but in the morning there is a time for those who wish to say it.

I don't think it should be forced, forced patriotism isn't patriotism, it won't do the country any good, but I don't think it should be changed to suit people, just as it shouldn't have been changed in in 1954 to suit their needs. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I think we should leave it, personally.

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
In our school we don't have to participate in the pledge if we do not wish, but in the morning there is a time for those who wish to say it.

I don't think it should be forced, forced patriotism isn't patriotism, it won't do the country any good, but I don't think it should be changed to suit people, just as it shouldn't have been changed in in 1954 to suit their needs. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I think we should leave it, personally.

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.

HUH?

When something is illegal, it is illegal! How is that concept so difficult to understand? Plus, the point is to be inclusive, isn't it? This is why the Constitution sets the government in a role of official neutrality. That way, we shouldn't even have to discuss this sort of thing.

 

[Zero]

Here's an interesting(though still slightly wrong-headed) perspective on the issue:http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15964

 

[Nicool003]

Oh, if it only tramples on the rights of VERY FEW, then it's OK, I guess... my bad.

Do me a favor. ASK the atheists what they think about it.

Care to place a bet what they will say?

Why don't you hop on over to www.iidb.com and ask the atheists and freethinkers there what THEY think about the pledge...

EDIT: I'm going to drop out of this discussion, because it's only making me mad.

It is NOT -and never will be- OK to write unconstitutional laws and trample over the rights of atheists, even if we are an extreme minority.

That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that don't do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)



Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5! and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children don't even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nicool003
That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that don't do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)

Let's take your example a step further: would it be ok for a teacher to lead a reading of teh Bible in class, so long as it wasn't mandatory for kids to participate? And why should students have to choose whether or not to participate? Wouldn't it just be better to leave the religious speech in church, where it belongs?

Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5! and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children don't even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely!

So, now, parents can't raise their children in religious matters without the schools interfering? And, of course, it does really seem that your religious views are the driving force behind your push for teh Constitution to be ignored and subverted.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
In our school we don't have to participate in the pledge if we do not wish, but in the morning there is a time for those who wish to say it.

And those who do not risk scapegoating, and the indoctrination of the nation's youth is in full effect...

I don't think it should be forced, forced patriotism isn't patriotism, it won't do the country any good, but I don't think it should be changed to suit people, just as it shouldn't have been changed in in 1954 to suit their needs. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I think we should leave it, personally.

Who said it's a wrong? Fixing a wrong is a right. The "two wrongs don't make a right" is generally used when referring to retaliation and similar measures. For example, if someone kills your son, it doesn't make it right or fix anything to kill his son. You have completely misused the phrase.

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.

What are you talking about? Court rulings tend to be based on the Constitution. Who is trying to say that the majority is not-christian or in other ways trying to misrepresent a majority?
------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Nicool003_soule
That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that don't do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)

To many people in the now-deceased Aztec civilization, human sacrifice was an important tradition. So that is no excuse.
It is trampling rights because it is divisive and is part of quashing religious freedom. It is not an outright ban on religious freedom, but it does infringe. Also, there is the issue of indoctrination that I have pointed out numerous times.

Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5! and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children don't even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely!

I would say that it is more common, percentage-wise, than a religious person allowing that. When you force children to go to church and recite religious pledges in school, then those children are severely lacking in choice. Nice try to turn it around.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Nicool003
That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that don't do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)



Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5! and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children don't even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely!

Let's sum this up. You say we should continue to deny consititutional rights and full american status to (at least) 1% of the minority because:
1. It was always like this. (It isn't, and this isn't a proper reason)
2. You somehow "know" the other 99% of the population think without even taking a referendum.
3. Atheists are too small a minority.(so you are banking on the irrational mob belief of the rest of the population)

Let's put this in perspective. 1% sounds small, doesn't it? PF has current about 860 members. Let's suppose Greg just arbitarily removed the right to make new posts from 9 of them. That's about 1%. Who cares? Those people don't post often anyways? What if you are one of the 8 people? Well, why should anyone care about you? Minority opinions don't matter, remember...

How many people are these 1%? At least 2.8 Million.
How much taxes do they pay? At least 18 Billion Dollars.
How much do they contribute to national GDP? At least 99 Billion Dollars.
So these people, these millions of people, they are paying billions of dollars into our little theocracy here and in return they are not even considered real citizens? Hell, could we please all go to our nearest government office and have our money back? What do they think we are? Suckers for punishment?

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.

You don't seem to read history. The Downfall of Democracy was always letting the core values of society be overwritten by the whim of the mob. It was always forsaking long term fortunes to pander to momentary feelings. It was always turning the minority into scapegoats, to lose responsibility for your fellow man. It happened in Nazi Germany. It might happen in here.

Americans are a world minority, are they not?

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan

Originally posted by Nicool003_soule
That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that don't do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)

To many people in the now-deceased Aztec civilization, human sacrifice was an important tradition. So that is no excuse.
It is trampling rights because it is divisive and is part of quashing religious freedom. It is not an outright ban on religious freedom, but it does infringe. Also, there is the issue of indoctrination that I have pointed out numerous times.

Hey bud, you could get the names right, it isn't Nicool003_soule

Let me take another position: I SAY CHANGE THE PLEDGE BACK TO ORIGINAL. After giving this thought, unrelated to what you all have said, as you are all insulting and unhelpful due to the slew of insults cast to anybody that has a different point of view, and realized this in fact should be taken back to the original. I decided this not because of the mention of God, that is just a pathetic attempt at an argument, but because, as someone said, it is outdated and doesn't apply anymore. It doesn't seem THAT hard to ignore and not say "under God" during the pledge.

What are you talking about? Court rulings tend to be based on the Constitution. Who is trying to say that the majority is not-christian or in other ways trying to misrepresent a majority?

I didn't mention anything of religion. I don't believe "under God" is even religious. When someone exclames "OH MY GOD" are they really making a reference to their God, calling out to them? Same concept. Don't mistake me, I realize "under God" was intended to be a religious reference before, but I don't believe that holds true anymore.

HUH?

When something is illegal, it is illegal!

Thanks, Zero?

Plus, the point is to be inclusive, isn't it? This is why the Constitution sets the government in a role of official neutrality. That way, we shouldn't even have to discuss this sort of thing.

So, you think any mention of anything that could possibly be religious should be removed? Wouldn't that also remove this country? Was it not founded on the idea of freedom and that also includes freedom of religion without threat? What if the majority wanted "under God" in the pledge? Isn't it the role of the government to listen to the majority and act accordingly? I'm not saying they do, but if they did, the courts would still find it illegal due to a minority raising the issue, and then take it out of the pledge. This is all I was saying...simple enough.

 

[FZ+]

What if the majority wanted "under God" in the pledge?

Then the majority have chosen that the nation is no longer in reality "one country", but a nation of special cases. The pledge is hence apparently self-contradictory.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by FZ+
Then the majority have chosen that the nation is no longer in reality "one country", but a nation of special cases. The pledge is hence apparently self-contradictory.

You are right! Wow...I didn't think of it that way, I apoligize to everyone for arguing when I was so wrong

 

[FZ+]

Wow... You mean I actually won an argument!? Thank you, thank you!

 

[kyleb]

odd how so many people forget the "minority rights" clause on our concept of majority rule.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule




So, you think any mention of anything that could possibly be religious should be removed? Wouldn't that also remove this country? Was it not founded on the idea of freedom and that also includes freedom of religion without threat?

Individuals have rights, the government doesn't. You have the right to your own private expressions of faith. The government has no right to express religious views, even one as simple as saying a higher power exists.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by Nicool003
That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY.

One more post. I'm a glutton for punishment, I guess.

I am paying attention. I'm not ignoring. Your argument doesn't hold water in the real world.

Why?

Here's why:

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/3568704.htm

Here's why:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=10196

Here's why:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3047

Here's why:

http://www.geocities.com/forkidsake/walker.html

Need me to go on?

It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it

Not doing it opens yourself up to ridicule, discipline, and abuse. Think it doesn't happen? It does. I'm speaking from personal experience here.

Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5!

First off, she was 8. Second off, it doesn't matter how old she was.

IT IS ILLEGAL

and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children don't even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely! [/B]

Most of them, yes, actually. Speaking for myself, I know I wouldn't forbid my child to learn about religion. Most atheists have gone through quite a bit of personal growth to come to their conclusions. I don't see how they could think that their children don't deserve the right to go through that same growth. Religion a personal choice, and not my choice to make. It isn't the government's either.

Nicool, I still like you, but you're looking at this issue through rose colored glasses. Standing out opens you up to ridicule. I feel sorry for Newdow's kid too... just for different reasons. I feel sorry for her because she's nine now and has already received death threats from True Christians^TM

 

[LogicalAtheist]

We're all just witnessing the sickness of current society.

Atheism is NOT a minority in any sense.

When one asks a poll "are you an atheist" the result is low.

But when one asks "are you religious" or "do you believe in a god" you get extremely high results.

Those people who say no to are you religious are indeed atheists.

An a-theist is a NOT THEIST.

The numbvers are very high, and much higher in european countries.

Nicool is a person who has emotionality as a mind. I don't see any realistic thought coming from Nicool.

Our country was founded by a group of men who were nearly ALL atheist. There were only 4 or less religious founding fathers.

It was founded on atheist views of a government. and slowly it slips into the slums again.

Don't worry atheists, the resolution of an event is always the truth. And thus the world slowly becomes realistic, and thus atheist.

Everyday the atheist population grows. Breed atheists breed!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist


Nicool is a person who has emotionality as a mind. I don't see any realistic thought coming from Nicool.

Cut the personal comments, chum...

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist

Our country was founded by a group of men who were nearly ALL atheist. There were only 4 or less religious founding fathers.

They were deists, not atheists.

Athiesm is a lack of a god-belief, not lack of a religion.

It was founded on atheist views of a government. and slowly it slips into the slums again.

The country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, which isn't atheistic any more than it is theistic. It is completely neutral with regards to the hereafter.

And I'll second Zero's comment. Personal attacks are totally unneccessary.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

No, it's like I said. They were atheists.

They claimed so in their own written testimonies.

I'm not making personal attacks. If one feels emotionally hurt by truth, I would only say learn to feel emotional about the truth, and you'll never feel hurt.

I didn't say anything about what the country was founded on. I said who it was founded by.

Originally posted by enigma
They were deists, not atheists.

Athiesm is a lack of a god-belief, not lack of a religion.



The country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, which isn't atheistic any more than it is theistic. It is completely neutral with regards to the hereafter.

And I'll second Zero's comment. Personal attacks are totally unneccessary.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
No, it's like I said. They were atheists.

They claimed so in their own written testimonies.

Really? Which ones?

I'd be very interrested to read those testimonies...

 

[Zero]

It doesn't matter who had what religion. The only thing that matters is that officially, this country is neutral towards religion.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Individuals have rights, the government doesn't. You have the right to your own private expressions of faith. The government has no right to express religious views, even one as simple as saying a higher power exists.

This is where I get confused.

President Bush has the right to express religious views, correct? The Government as a whole of individuals has the right to express religious views. But "the Government" has no rights, correct?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

It's like when a station says "the views expressed here are not necessarily the views of the station".

Any person can express their views (meaning under the law). But the organization cannot endorse a particular view over another, again this is under the law.

Bush is a methodist (damn him to hell). But the government isn't thus methodist because he is.

Did you guys know that, those "pamphlets" that were dropped to the people in Iraq we're actually bible quotes and such, written by the leader of the methodist church in USA.

And that bush worked with this leader to specifically design them.

People often don't realize how the present is like the past. Just as other dictators forced systems onto people, bush and this methodist leader attempted to force the methodist church onto the Iraqi people.

Also, the leader of the church took a great deal of his followers over to Iraq once the war was over and all was cleared, to try to conver them. And bush gave millions to build methodist churchs there.

Sick is it not?

Those who think we have a president and not a dictator, learn the past, and make the decisions that were then made to late, NOW, and not when it is again too late!

Either both bush and saddam or presidents, or they are both dictators.

They both were voted on, and more people %-wise wanted saddam than wanted bush.

It's Dictator Bush to you.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
This is where I get confused.

President Bush has the right to express religious views, correct? The Government as a whole of individuals has the right to express religious views. But "the Government" has no rights, correct?

Here's where it gets tricky. Bush is allowed to go to church whenever he likes, believe whatever he wants. However, in his official function as President, he does NOT have to right to claim that his personal views on religion represent the government, or this country.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

separation of religion and government is a fundamental principle of democracy, and for good reason. Organized religion can be very damaging to government, just ask Machivelli.