Should the Pledge of Allegiance Include Under God?

[schwarzchildradius]

why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way.

You would allow local voting on basic American rights? If you started that, each county would end up with an official religion!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way.

Protecting individual rights is a FEDERAL matter and as such it will be decided in federal court.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Obviously that solution sucks.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Obviously that solution sucks.

LMAO!

 

[schwarzchildradius]

You would allow local voting on basic American rights? If you started that, each county would end up with an official religion!

not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same.

 

[Zero]

Can someone explain why forcing religion down other people's throat is so important? And why people need their religion validated by illegal government speech?

 

[jb]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same.

i already know how the people would vote, of course they'd keep it the same. again showing that the minority doesn't matter.

imagine 6 people on a raft in the middle of the ocean, and they run out of food. their only option for survival is to eat one person. everyone except for "frank" votes for frank. frank's vote doesn't matter, and he's forced to live with the minority's decision even if he knows it's wrong.

same here, the minority would get stuck with this even though it goes against all their beliefs.

the simple solution is to take "under god" out. it keeps non-christians happy, and in no way does it conflict with the beliefs of christians. and really, it serves no function today.

i don't see why some people are so obsessed with keeping it in. i'd like to hear from someone, why exactly they HAVE to keep "under god" in the pledge.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by jb


i don't see why some people are so obsessed with keeping it in. i'd like to hear from someone, why exactly they HAVE to keep "under god" in the pledge.

I think people are more obsessed with keeping their right to say it with God in it if they so choose, or at least that would be my concern. As children's rights to exclude the word 'God' is what began this debate, obviously childrens right of speach, and religous freedoms are a concern. This is why I approached the question of enforcement within the public school. If a child wants to say "God" in the pledge of allegience do you suggest she/he be stopped? punished? what?

There's another interesting and perhaps parallel situation evolving with a student claiming their rights are being infringed by being denied the right to use the word "God" http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/may03/143871.asp

The lawsuit, now assigned to the court's Green Bay division, contends that the school district violated Honer's constitutional rights to equal protection, free speech and free expression of religion. It seeks an injunction that the district "cease its discriminatory and unconstitutional policy or practice of censoring students from expressing their religious beliefs in their speeches, songs or performances at graduation exercises."

To me, most important is where is the median? How do you both protect free speach, religious freedom, and freedom from religion? I also think it would be really nice if this battle weren't waged through our children.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same.

That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat


To me, most important is where is the median? How do you both protect free speach, religious freedom, and freedom from religion? I also think it would be really nice if this battle weren't waged through our children.

The 'median' is government maintaining religious neutrality, while people are allowed to have whatever private beliefs they like.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
The 'median' is government maintaining religious neutrality, while people are allowed to have whatever private beliefs they like.

Maybe you should explain what "private beliefs" look like to you, just to be on the same page, if you know what I mean?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Maybe you should explain what "private beliefs" look like to you, just to be on the same page, if you know what I mean?

Everywhere in America, there are churches...you may have noticed them? In these churches, people can privately, with their own time and money, worship whatever, and nearly however, they wish to. They can wear religious symbols in public, there is no government official telling you different. When children are in school, there is nothing telling them that they cannot meet on their time, like lunchtime or before school, to join together in worship.

The only thing that is banned is the government telling you to worship, or how to worship. When the government, or its representatives, is acting in an official manner, religion is off limits, pro and con.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Kat;
I think people are more obsessed with keeping their right to say it with God in it if they so choose, or at least that would be my concern.

Kat,
Does this mean that you would have resisted the insertion of those words into the pledge back in the day it was done?
Think of the shock those poor atheist children may have felt following the insertion of those words into the pledge!

Just as atheists can refrain from saying the words in the current pledge, the religious could also quickly mutter them without missing a beat during the pledge if the words are removed. Now, they might end up needing to mutter those words silently depending on how ‘hard ass’ enforcement was…

 

[kat]

Boulder, I really can't answer that question, I'm not sure how I would have felt or thought about it. My connection with the pledge is on a more emotinal basis, it's one of those "rituals" that I relate to certain experiences in my life. Waiting on the tarmac for my father to return from vietnam probably being the biggest, sometimes the pledge brings tears to my eyes..not because of what it means neccesarily but what it relates to in my memories. So, keeping that in mind...I won't change the way I say it, but I don't feel that others need to tow "my line" either.
On the other hand, to be honest, the concept of pledging to a flag disturbs me, God or no. The whole entrance of the pledge into public schooling, it's intent and the intent behind the 3 changes made are just to...I can't think of the word I'm looking for but I'll settle for "propaganda" for me to be able to say that without the emotional connections I hold..I would be for any pledge at all. In the religous aspect, I don't think the state should enforce children to use religious speak of any sort, nor do I think they should prevent any child from using religuous speak if they so choose because being an open society means sometimes..you have to put up with what other people are saying or doing..even if you disagree.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
In the religous aspect, I don't think the state should enforce children to use religious speak of any sort, nor do I think they should prevent any child from using religuous speak if they so choose because being an open society means sometimes..you have to put up with what other people are saying or doing..even if you disagree.

Well, I'm not going for it...tell those kids to shut up and not be disruptive in the class.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I'm not going for it...tell those kids to shut up and not be disruptive in the class.

If you use the word "shut up" in my kids class you and I will be meeting in the principal or super's office.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I agree with kat on this one. I don't think that the state should have the words officially in there, and I definitely don't think that anyone should be punished for saying it of his/her own volition. Both acts are violations of the first amendment. It's not like reciting the pledge "correctly" or even at all is a mandate, anyway.

I think that I've said on PF before that I don't like the idea of pledges in the first place. I know that I've already mentioned my distaste for indoctrination earlier in this thread.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

i already know how the people would vote, of course they'd keep it the same. again showing that the minority doesn't matter.

That's why it would be up to the COUNTY to decide. Not every hole and hovel in the country is entirely Fundamentalist, you know. The Cities would likely be agnostic. The problem is that the Minority likes to eliminate social mobility among other things from the Majority.

That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment

Russ_waters, you're saying that a VOTE on this issue is a violation of the 1st amendment of the constitution. The alternative? Handed down by the incarnation of God. Jesus Commands you to say "Under God" during the pledge, eh?
Do you read the 1st amendment as an endorsement of a particular monotheistic religion? I suggest you read it again.






_________
"Accept the result of a free election" Mikhail Gorbechev, 1989. The Fall of the Soviet Union to S O L I D A R I T Y

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
That's why it would be up to the COUNTY to decide. Not every hole and hovel in the country is entirely Fundamentalist, you know. The Cities would likely be agnostic. The problem is that the Minority likes to eliminate social mobility among other things from the Majority.

Russ_waters, you're saying that a VOTE on this issue is a violation of the 1st amendment of the constitution. The alternative? Handed down by the incarnation of God. Jesus Commands you to say "Under God" during the pledge, eh?
Do you read the 1st amendment as an endorsement of a particular monotheistic religion? I suggest you read it again.






_________
"Accept the result of a free election" Mikhail Gorbechev, 1989. The Fall of the Soviet Union to S O L I D A R I T Y

I'm saying that a vote is a violation of the 1st Amendment. It is a vote to take away people's rights.

Oh, and your dislike of 'minorities' is showing...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Russ_waters, you're saying that a VOTE on this issue is a violation of the 1st amendment of the constitution. The alternative? Handed down by the incarnation of God. Jesus Commands you to say "Under God" during the pledge, eh? Do you read the 1st amendment as an endorsement of a particular monotheistic religion? I suggest you read it again.

No, shwarz. Since such a law would violate the 1st amendment, as Zero indicated, the alternative to passing an unconstitutional law is clearly a vote to amend the Constitution. Schwarz, I suggest YOU read the 1st amendment again. And while you're at it, read Article V - justification and procedures for amending the constitution.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

All right, didn't mean to cause angst, but I'm pointing out the absurdity of the situation: The Fed requires kids to say "under God" every day, a fact clearly in violation of the 1st amendment, as a promotion of monotheistic religion. Clearly those who worship several gods or no god are forced by the government to profess faith in One god, or else remain silent.
I really don't believe it could be unconstitutional to EXCLUDE religion from public school, as the 1st amendment clearly provides for a SEPARATE church and state, et al.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

happen to have an unabridged dictionary handy:
"Article 1: 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 peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Zero:
Dislike of minorities? I don't dislike minorities at all.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
happen to have an unabridged dictionary handy:
"Article 1: 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 peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Zero:
Dislike of minorities? I don't dislike minorities at all.

Nice edit.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Seriously, I really don't dislike minorities at all. No. Actually, I'm sticking up for a small religious minority by arguing against 'under god.' The thing is, a teacher is representing the government when teaching. It seems like a harmless thing that nobody thinks about while saying, and people should be able to say it if they want to, but not be forced or pressured into saying it if they don't believe in god. What if...
we were forced to change "under god" to "controlled by the benevolent justice of Allah"
there would be something wrong with this? Yup.

My 3rd grade teacher would sometimes go on and on about how Jesus suffered on the cross, and it was very disturbing. That was in public school. We just can't have teachers wasting time trying to convert students to their particular version of theology.