Why is reciting the pledge of allegiance in schools controversial?

[honestrosewater]

One of the senators (don't know who) mentioned this ruling during the Roberts hearings today (after they were done with Roberts). I can't find the transcript anywhere. IIRC, he said something to the effect that the US is built upon the idea of a creator or that the belief that humans were created is part of being an American and this creation is the source of our inalienable rights. I think he also claimed that some 90% of Americans believe in a higher power, which I guess was meant to support his other views.

I felt sick and turned it off soon afterward.

 

[Art]

ehh? The Church of England is protestant, has been since its inception in 1530's (Your country was born post 1530 :-) ) When King Henry split from the Pope and setup his own Chruch... Before that All the UK was ROMAN catholic, ie they believed that the Pope is the head of the Church...

technically all christians are catholics and so protestants are catholics, just not Roman catholics.

 

[Anttech]

technically all christians are catholics and so protestants are catholics, just not Roman catholics...

Ermm.. why? In the current general use of the word we mean Roman Catholic. not "one holy catholic and apostolic Church"

Technically Orthodox churches are catholic... (built on the original church that the apposiles built) However Methodism and Presbyterianism, are not, and thus are not 'catholic' but they are still christian, also LDS is not catholic (its more of a cult imo)

To say "Catholic" we typically mean now-a-days that we recognise the metropolis of Rome (papa, pope) is the Head of the church... Orthodox and prodestants do not see it like this, in Orthodox, the Metropolis of Jeruslem, Constantinople are as equally close to God as the Pope...

 

[Art]

Ermm.. why? In the current general use of the word we mean Roman Catholic. not "one holy catholic and apostolic Church"

Technically Orthodox churches are catholic... (built on the original church that the apposiles built) However Methodism and Presbyterianism, are not, and thus are not 'catholic' but they are still christian, also LDS is not catholic (its more of a cult imo)

To say "Catholic" we typically mean now-a-days that we recognise the metropolis of Rome (papa, pope) is the Head of the church... Orthodox and prodestants do not see it like this, in Orthodox, the Metropolis of Jeruslem, Constantinople are as equally close to God as the Pope...

I'm not disagreeing with you in terms of general usage. I was pointing out that being catholic and church of England is a compatible mixture. Catholic means universal and so technically all christians are part of one 'universal' chuch.

As you point out in latter days some christian offshoots such as presbyterians object to the label principally because they do not like the implied connection to Rome.

 

[Anttech]

ok.. Well I aggree that you 'can' use the term catholic when talking about the church of England.
But I really don't think that you can with Methodism ,Presbyterianism, or Mormonism.. As these Chruchs were NOT formed or a continuation of the orignal Apposile christian church

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Part of the argument among you guys seems to be that saying "under God" is a mere trifle and no-one should care about it. This is a rather egotistical attitude. To say that another person should have the same reaction to you to what amounts to a compulsory religious ceremony is incredibly ignorant.

If one set of people think that the presence or otherwise of those two words is irrelevant, and another set of people take offense at it, the logical solution is to remove them, thus both parties are happy. The decision is wise.

Except, that is, when you introduce the third set of people who specifically want those words there, such as Arnie and the rest of the Republican right-wing Christian [don't do it, El Hombre]... persons [proud of you, kid]. Only from this quarter (or third, or is it half?) is there any actual argument with the decision. The question, then, is: is their argument valid? The answer, of course, is: no. There is no valid justification for forcing children to make a pledge that presupposes the existence of one or any God. Not only is it against both the founding principals of American socoiety and the idea of a separation of church and state, it's simply unethical since it will inevitably force some people to act against their own faith, thus leading to a breach of human rights. Those that oppose the decision do so because they do not value the rights and freedoms of the individual.

 

[Artman]

Except, that is, when you introduce the third set of people who specifically want those words there, such as Arnie and the rest of the Republican right-wing Christian [don't do it, El Hombre]... persons [proud of you, kid]. Only from this quarter (or third, or is it half?) is there any actual argument with the decision. The question, then, is: is their argument valid? The answer, of course, is: no. There is no valid justification for forcing children to make a pledge that presupposes the existence of one or any God. Not only is it against both the founding principals of American socoiety and the idea of a separation of church and state, it's simply unethical since it will inevitably force some people to act against their own faith, thus leading to a breach of human rights. Those that oppose the decision do so because they do not value the rights and freedoms of the individual.

I agree with this.

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.

By forcing a truly religious person to say this pledge without the phrase "under God" is prohibiting their right to the free expression of their faith. For a non-religious person to simply omit the phrase means nothing.

For the most part, the whole pledge thing is past its age. The idea of people doing anything out of duty (as the pledge implies) is long past.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

By forcing a truly religious person to say this pledge without the phrase "under God" is prohibiting their right to the free expression of their faith.

No, it isn't. NOT telling someone to say something in accordance with their religion does not prohibit them from expressing their religious beliefs. If they may not insert, unauthorised, the words into the declaration themselves (I don't know - you tell me), then this is only by the same token that you cannot insert any other, religious or non-religious statement when making the declaration (such as slipping in Eminem lyrics, or something). There are other statements in the declaration that do not have the word "God" in them. Does this absence of that word consitute a prohibition of freedom of religious expression? Then nor does not having the word in the speech at all.

But I agree, the whole thing is rather silly. Do people have the choice NOT to recite?

 

[Anttech]

In the UK we have had this same problem, actually to some extent we still do.. The English/British National anthem is a protestants song...

God save our Queen
God save our holy Queen
God save our Queen
etc etc

Ie it is signifing that the Queen is "holy"

As you can image, this used to piss the welsh, scots, off, for obvious reasons, and also non-prodestants off

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I was under the impression that when the constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", it meant that public money could not be used to support a church. The amendment was necessary because there were cases where people were forced to give financial support to an established church even though they were not members.

If this is correct, then government property should not be used for religious purposes. That would include public schools. The issue is not whether you can express a certain religious view, or even whether you can force it on your children. The issue is whether you can spend public money doing it.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

In the UK we have had this same problem, actually to some extent we still do.. The English/British National anthem is a protestants song...

God save our Queen
God save our holy Queen
God save our Queen
etc etc

Ie it is signifing that the Queen is "holy"

As you can image, this used to piss the welsh, scots, off, for obvious reasons, and also non-prodestants off

There is no obligation in any non-CoE society to sing the national anthem. You need to take Billy Connelly's advice and hum the Archers theme tune in protest!

 

[Art]

In the UK we have had this same problem, actually to some extent we still do.. The English/British National anthem is a protestants song...

God save our Queen
God save our holy Queen
God save our Queen
etc etc

Ie it is signifing that the Queen is "holy"

As you can image, this used to piss the welsh, scots, off, for obvious reasons, and also non-prodestants off

Which is why these days it is more a football anthem than a national anthem.

 

[Anttech]

sung by Ranger fans to piss the celtic fans off...

 

[Astronuc]

The Church of England was Catholic at the time, not Roman Catholic, but Catholic all the same.

It would be more appropriate to say the CoE is part of the catholic church (small c), which means a part of the Christian community. May Christian denominations maintain that they are part of the whole Christian 'body'.

Anyway, the main objection in the colonies (which became United States of America in 1776) was the CoE under the control of the English Monarch, and the fact that CoE could acquire land and tax non-CoE peoples. Many of the signers of the Constitution belonged to other denominations, and several (perhaps many), like Thomas Jefferson, did not have a particular religious affiliation.

Some background.

The English Reformation was initially driven by the dynastic goals of Henry VIII of England, who, in his quest for a queen to bear him a male heir, found it necessary and profitable to replace the Papacy with the English crown. It was not Henry's intention to found a new church. He was well informed enough about history to know that the powers he was claiming were those which had been exercised by European monarchs over the church in their dominions since the time of Constantine, and that what had changed since then had been the growth of papal power. The Act of Supremacy put Henry at the head of the church in 1534, while acts such as the Dissolution of the Monasteries, put huge amounts of church land and property into the hands of the Crown and ultimately into those of the English nobility. These created vested interests which made a powerful material incentive to support a separate Christian church in England, under the rule of the Monarch.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_church#Origins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

BTW, the US and particularly its predecessor (the colonies) were founded as a commercial enterprise, and not on the basis of religion, and certainly not as a Christian nation.

I see the problem of saying "under God" as being one of religious coercion, and a very subtle form of coercion. Sure children do not have to say if they do not believe it, but then they stand out to those who do. My experience then is that some in the 'majority' will harrass the 'minority', and that is unacceptable.

In the 1970's, my classmates and I refused to stand and recite the pledge of allegiance (especially the "under God" part). The school authorities didn't appreciate that, but eventually we forced them to accept the fact that we would not be forced to do something against our beliefs and conscience. Most of us were against the Vietnam War and policies of the Nixon Administration.

 

[Artman]

No, it isn't. NOT telling someone to say something in accordance with their religion does not prohibit them from expressing their religious beliefs.

IMHO The religious belief of many is that God is over everything, and that you are pledging your allegiance to the country as a secondary allegiance not exceeding your allegiance to God. To omit this phrase means that the person who believes in God is forced to declare the country is above God. Omitting the phrase "Under God" does not allow a truly religious person to say the pledge in good faith.

For example, the early Christians were asked to pledge their allegiance to the Roman emperors, or be put death. The question was actually used as a means to test their faith.

 

[Anttech]

For example, the early Christians were asked to pledge their allegiance to the Roman emperors, or be put death

Early Christians also drowned woman, and if they lived they were witches, and if they died they were allowed a christian burrial...

You can't compare 2000 year old philiosphies with modern day ones.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

IMHO The religious belief of many is that God is over everything, and that you are pledging your allegiance to the country as a secondary allegiance not exceeding your allegiance to God. To omit this phrase means that the person who believes in God is forced to declare the country is above God. Omitting the phrase "Under God" does not allow a truly religious person to say the pledge in good faith.

No, I don't agree. The absence of "under God" does not imply "above God" just as me telling a friend I love them without saying "almost as much as my girlfriend" does not suggest I love them more than my girlfriend. The pledge is not to God - it is to the state. So long as the pledge does not explicitly state that allegiance to country supersedes any other, there is no problem.

For example, the early Christians were asked to pledge their allegiance to the Roman emperors, or be put death. The question was actually used as a means to test their faith.

Yes, but allegiance to the flag is not a test of religious faith.

 

[Evo]

I find it offensive because of the entire school environment.

Wealthy white fundamentalist christians driving SUV's and slapping "support the troops" ribbons (made in China) on the back; having prayer breakfasts before school and having class assignments writing letters to the president telling him five nice things about himself; conversations with parents saying they are angry that science will teach their children they evolved from monkeys (wrong), the spelling list this week comprised of exclusively war-like words (comrades, opponents, combat, endure, etc)...

Wow, that's pretty bad. I live in Kansas and it's not even that bad in the schools here. Of course the Kansas School Board was recently touched by the Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage. (just realized that a lot of members probably have no idea what that is in reference to).

 

[Artman]

The word allegiance derives from the Old English word "Liege" or "Lord." When you give your allegiance to something you are basically saying it is your one Lord. Now I don't know about other religions, but the Bible says that God said, "You shall have no other gods before me."

So, how can a Christian say the pledge of Allegiance, in good faith, without going against their beliefs, if you take out the phrase "Under God?"

You can't compare 2000 year old philiosphies with modern day ones.

Sorry, but Christianity is a 2000 year old philosophy.

 

[Gokul43201]

The pledge of allegiance is, to me, the most strikingly communist act commited by Americans.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The word allegiance derives from the Old English word "Liege" or "Lord." When you give your allegiance to something you are basically saying it is your one Lord. Now I don't know about other religions, but the Bible says that God said, "You shall have no other gods before me."

So, how can a Christian say the pledge of Allegiance, in good faith, without going against their beliefs, if you take out the phrase "Under God?"

Again, this isn't a real argument, just semantic silliness. First off, as you pointed out, the "Liege" in question is not God, therefore "allegience" has no explicitly religious connotations. Secondly, the usage of the word in America, which does not have the feudal system, already tells you that your definition is inappropriate. Thirdly, if "allegiance" suggested only ONE thing you can be allied to, the existing pledge is paradoxical, since you cannot pledge allegiance to the flag under God - it's one or the other. This is not a constructive discussion.

 

[sid_galt]

The nation was founded on freedom from Catholicism... not from religion.

The nation was founded on the principle of individual rights. Read the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Artman]

Again, this isn't a real argument, just semantic silliness. First off, as you pointed out, the "Liege" in question is not God, therefore "allegience" has no explicitly religious connotations. Secondly, the usage of the word in America, which does not have the feudal system, already tells you that your definition is inappropriate. Thirdly, if "allegiance" suggested only ONE thing you can be allied to, the existing pledge is paradoxical, since you cannot pledge allegiance to the flag under God - it's one or the other. This is not a constructive discussion.

My purpose is to state a reason for its inclusion, which I believe must be determined in order to decide if it should be omitted. So i did some reserach and found this:

In a message to Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart at the meeting of the Supreme Council in Louisville, August 17,1954, President Eisenhower, in recognition of the initiative of the Knights of Columbus in originating and sponsoring the amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance, said:

"We are particularly thankful to you for your part in the movement to have the words `under God' added to our Pledge of Allegiance. These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded. For the contribution which your organization has made to this cause, we must be genuinely grateful."

In light of this discovery, I'm changing my position on this issue. It seems to have been included as a reminder of God, which has no place in a government sponsered affirmation. I agree it should be removed.
http://www.st-raymond-dublin.org/kc/undergod.shtml

 

[loseyourname]

Come on, Pengwuino, how can you say the nation was founded on the basis of freedom from Catholicism? Maryland was a Catholic colony. Many of the southern colonies were basically Anglican, so it's hard to say the country was founded on the basis of freedom from the Church of England, too. Massachusetts was Puritan, Pennsylvania Quaker, and the other northern colonies various other strands of protestantism or with no religious affiliation at all. Many of the founding fathers were deists, and it is from Deist thinkers of the Enlightenment that our founding ideals derive from. The rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are not Christian ideals. In particular, a good deal of Christian thought (especially of the Augustinian strain) consider the exercise of free will to be the source of evil, and complete submission to God's will (hardly liberty) to be the only path to heaven. Jesus himself implied, if he did not say outright, that we should have no property. I don't see how anyone can claim that the pursuit of happiness was thought to be of any importance to Christians of that era, either.

I know that people will bring up the fact that rights were thought to be bestowed upon us by the creator, but nowhere is it stated that the creator is the Christian God. This is a Deist, or at least non-denominational ideal. Another thing to remember is that there were not many atheists around back in those days. Freedom from religion didn't have to exclude references to God or a creator, because everyone believed in one form of God or another. The nation has since progressed, and not everyone still feels that way. Besides, the whole "under God" phrase was just added to distinguish us from the atheist Soviet Union. It was stupid from the beginning and should never have been there in the first place. If we really wanted to highlight the important differences between the two systems, we should have been pledging allegiance to a country built under capitalist and democratic ideals, not under God. (In jest, of course, because being American does not require one to subscribe to any set of ideals other than the one that says we are free to subscribe to whatever damn ideals we please.)

 

[loseyourname]

In light of this discovery, I'm changing my position on this issue. It seems to have been included as a reminder of God, which has no place in a government sponsered affirmation. I agree it should be removed.
http://www.st-raymond-dublin.org/kc/undergod.shtml

Artman, it was added during the Red Scare of the 50s because communists were officially atheistic.

 

[Astronuc]

In light of this discovery, I'm changing my position on this issue. It seems to have been included as a reminder of God, which has no place in a government sponsered affirmation.

That is exactly the point. Most see it as a religious affirmation.

Just look at Judge Roy Moore who placed a copy of the 10 commandments in the court house. He maintained that the 10 commandments are the basis of US Constution and Law, which is certainly not the case.

Just listen to Senators Brownback and Coburn. IIRC, Coburn was possibly leading Judge Roberts toward stating that the Constitution and US law have their basis in the 10 Commandments. Roberts didn't go their, and it ended up with Coburn making a comment about natural law. Coburn had recited several of the Commandemnts about "Thou shall not . . . ".

There are quite a few people in the US who believe God and prayer must be part of the experience in public education. God and prayer belong in one's home and respective church of one's choice, and not in the public education system.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Jesus himself implied, if he did not say outright, that we should have no property.

Did he? The commie get!

 

[Art]

the bible also says "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" I wonder how wealthy neo-cons marry this with their christian fundamentalism?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

the bible also says "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" I wonder how wealthy neo-cons marry this with their christian fundamentalism?

A pinch of hypocrisy is most efficacious.

 

[SOS2008]

This ruling only adds support to the Republican party's complaint of judicial activism, and furthers the conservatives' argument against such rulings. This ruling lacks common sense, as well as prior precident. It is cutting hairs, and when Roberts and O'conners replacement is confirmed, there will be a backlash. Stupid. Stupid.

I am concerned about this adding fuel to the fringe fire too. The Christians of our nation have always been a majority that has been meddling in the government throughout our history. This is why I do not agree with the ceremonial deism (historical usage) as a test of separation of church and state and protection of individual rights. The fundamentalists in the U.S. not only have grown in number and power, but have become more extreme. To nip this in the bud, it is necessary to roll back all that they have done and enforce the First Amendment.

Those that oppose the decision do so because they do not value the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Agreed--it is not just a matter of our government favoring a specific religious belief, but protection of individual rights versus majority views. Last night Tucker Carlson said it is wrong for the minority to "force their beliefs down the throat of the majority" by removing these two words - Right.

The issue is whether you can spend public money doing it.

That too.

I know that people will bring up the fact that rights were thought to be bestowed upon us by the creator, but nowhere is it stated that the creator is the Christian God. This is a Deist, or at least non-denominational ideal. Another thing to remember is that there were not many atheists around back in those days. Freedom from religion didn't have to exclude references to God or a creator, because everyone believed in one form of God or another. The nation has since progressed, and not everyone still feels that way. Besides, the whole "under God" phrase was just added to distinguish us from the atheist Soviet Union. It was stupid from the beginning and should never have been there in the first place. If we really wanted to highlight the important differences between the two systems, we should have been pledging allegiance to a country built under capitalist and democratic ideals, not under God. (In jest, of course, because being American does not require one to subscribe to any set of ideals other than the one that says we are free to subscribe to whatever damn ideals we please.)

If there were any atheists that admitted they were atheist they would have been burned at the stake as a witch. True that the phrase was added to supposedly distinguish us from the Godless Commies. Those Christians always come up with something, don't they? As Jon stewart said last night, now our enemies are fundamentalists, so perhaps we should change it to: under the true God (or something like that).

Getting back to the majority religious group versus minority religions and equality for all, this is what is likely to cause civil war in Iraq.

 

[kyleb]

ehh? The Church of England is protestant, has been since its inception in 1530's (Your country was born post 1530 :-) ) When King Henry split from the Pope and setup his own Chruch... Before that All the UK was ROMAN catholic, ie they believed that the Pope is the head of the Church...

Yes, it can be considered Protestant in the fact that it rejected Papal athority, but it was still Catholic in much of it's theology and tradition (and in some ways still is). You can read more about this on the Church of England's own website.

 

[Entropy]

the bible also says "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" I wonder how wealthy neo-cons marry this with their christian fundamentalism?

Oh, don't even get me started! Infact, christian (christian as in what Jesus actually said and did, not necissarily what today's church teaches) teaching emphasises on physical as well as political neutrality. Meaning that even being president is sinful, or any political position for that matter. Also, the concept of forcing people to follow biblical rules, like in ancient Israel, was abandoned by the teachings of Jesus.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

wow, one day and already five pages

 

[1123581321]

we live in a democracy right?
then i propose a solution.
Have a nation wide vote on it in 06. if the people don't like "under God" then that's their choice, and whoever doesn't like it has to put up with it. if they do like it, then the minority should have to put up with it. that's about as fair as it gets, because you should not impose the minority's personal feelings on the majorities.

 

[C1ay]

It is unconstitutional...again

No, not again. It was never constitutional in the first place so you should actually have said, "is unconsitutional still".