New twist to pledge case. Little girl wanted to say 'under God'. Dad used her.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Over another?
Not believing in God is not a religion.

Technically I said belief systems. And you assuming that not believing in God is not a religion is false.

The term God, rather than Gods, denotes monotheism. All polytheistic religions are thus 'cut out' from official wording. Buddhists do not believe in a God, yet it qualifies as a religion.

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/b...ude_to_god.htm

"Buddhism as a Non-Theistic Religion

Buddhism is unique amongst the religions of the world because it does not have any place for God in its soteriology. Indeed most Asian religions (with the possible exception of some extremely devotional forms of Hinduism) are essentially non-theistic, in that God does not occupy the central place that is accorded to him in monotheistic religious traditions. But Buddhism goes beyond most of these other religions in that it is positively anti-theistic because the very notion of God conflicts with some principles which are fundamental to the Buddhist view of the world and the role of humans in it (see section "The God-Concept and Buddhist Principles" below)."

It's a matter of degree.
Would you say that killing is the same as saying two words?

Depends on the words and what is being killed.

But yes, killing is different. I offered a non-murder circumstance of ritual for you to compare (the crayon sacrifice to an idol). Do you think classroom time should be devoted to this practice if the majority of people believe in that tradition?

Worring about "offical' words to an unoffical pledge seems somewhat od, doesn't it?

Then why do you worry about keeping official wording as it is? Why did congress worry enough about it to insert that phrase into the Pledge?

Atheism is not a belief system, it is NOT a religion.

Atheism is a belief system, I am sorry. It is a personal one in most cases, but a belief that there is no God is a belief. In my case I am agnostic, which is about as far as you can get from a belief system (no clear belief when dealing with God), but there are many things I still believe in.

Atheism is also not the only belief system which is non-theistic.

They need only say the pledge without the words.
Either way, one side will be disatisfied, there is no middle ground here.

There is middle ground.

Extremes: 'under God', and at the other end of the spectrum 'under Satan' (satanist viewpoint). With of course everyone inbetween having their own view about what should be said.

Middle Ground: treating everyone equally by either not officially recognizing any particular belief system, or recognizing them all. The second being just about impossible to implement (and would result in a rather volumous Pledge). The first being extremely easy to implement.

I disagree, by removing it you are forcing me to say that god plays no part, something that the theist side refuses to accept.

You can still say 'under God'. Your view would just no longer be favored in the official wording. Just as nobody elses view would be favored in offcial wording.

It already is that way, the court ruling eliminated the freedom to say "under god" in several states, and therefore infringed the first amendment.

And that is not what I am proposing here am I? I agree that a court disallowing the phrase 'under God' is wrong. My quarrel is with the official wording of the Pledge, and shouldn't be confused with the Court's quarrel.

That is obvious, usage of common sense.
If you go through life taking everything literally, you would live in a very strage world.

I take text on a forum literally, barring the presence of a smiley of some sort or other qualifier to the statement. I'm sorry, but there just is no way for me to accurately divine what your statements were 'really' staying without you properly qualifying them.

They most certainly ARE NOT.
Recieving funding and being part of the government are two VERY different matters.

Could I start up a religion and receive government funding for it?

Again, they are not part of the government.
Teachers are not government employees, public schools are staffed and funded on the state and city level, NOT the federal government level.

I don't think I ever said federal government specifically did I? Please point it out if I did. Sorry if my lack of qualifiers is causing confusion in this matter. My usage of the term 'government' is encompassing local, state, and federal in this case.

Would it be alright to have a state or local government religion? Just not federal?

Prohibiting freedom of religious expression is not evenhanded.

How is allowing everyone equal opportunity to state their beliefs not evenhanded?

By prohibiting "under god", you are violating the first amendment rights of theists.

Well, if you continue to think that I am trying to prohibit the phrase 'under God', then just know I agree with you in most of your argument, even though you are refuting a non-existant argument of mine. My argument is not to disallow the phrase.

[- Groucho -]

Roland: My kid is required by state law to attend kindergarten. While at kindergarten she was taught the pledge and then instructed to recite it, including the phrase "under god". Not reciting it would require a five year old to confront an authority figure over a fairly esoteric point about her right not to say "under god". She didn't. Was she compelled to say "under god"? It sounds like it to me. Was that establishment of religion? It is part of the curriculum to teach the pledge. So it sounds like it to me.

Chris62: It seems you think my five year old daughter should be required to tell her teacher that she doesn't want to say "under god" as part of the pledge.

Leaving aside that I think that only a person who couldn't give a **** for my beliefs would think that is a reasonable hurdle to place in front of a five year old, here is my problem: I want my daughter, when she is old enough to make up her own mind, to decide if she wants to be a monotheist, polytheist, atheist, deist or what have you.

I don't want her to go to a school where the rituals of the school contain the underlying assumption of a god's existence (be it Christian, Bhuddist or whateverist). By the same token, I don't want her to go to a school that has rituals that imply that a god doesn't exist.

I want the school and the teachers to be neutral territory. I want them to be silent on the issue. And right now, they aren't and they aren't because they are following the State mandated curriculum. That is wrong.

PS: a person who thinks that "majority rules" was one of the principles the US was founded on shouldn't be lecturing others about their supposed lack of sophistication on constitutional issues.

Lincoln: Where do you stand on teaching creationism in schools? Do you believe it should be given equal time with evolution? If so, how do you reconcile that with your position in this thread?

[Lincoln]

No.

[- Groucho -]

No, you don't believe creationism should be taught in schools?

or,

No, don't make me examine the consistency of my own beliefs?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by drake
All of this argument over 2 simple words. What a joke

2 words. Can you think of 2 words that you wouldn't want children saying in an officially lead oath in public school?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Echinda
No, you don't believe creationism should be taught in schools?

or,

No, don't make me examine the consistency of my own beliefs?

I am not a part of the conservative Christian political movement. I agree with James Madison that state support of religion weakens both the state and the church. I think that science classes should teach science. Let the students assemble the facts however they want without a leaning toward any theory.

[- Groucho -]

I agree with you 100%, Lincoln.

For the same reasons, "under God" shouldn't be part of the pledge.

[Lincoln]

I don't care if it is in it or not.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Well, the Founding Fathers didn't put God on the money. Nor did they put it in the Presidential oath. Nor did they put it anywhere in the Constitution. Or the pledge.

But it keeps creeping in regardless.

I missed one: the official motto, changed from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God we trust" in 1956.

In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash gives the whole story of the gradual Christian fundamentalist subversion of America and undermining of the First Amendment.

It's time to stop the rot.

[Xeones]

the point of the case still stands. church and state are supposed to be separate in america, and they are not. i just hope i live long enough to see it ...

[Ramo]

Roland, there are requirements that teachers pressure children into reciting the pledge at the school level, at the local level, and the state level in many circumstances.

Regarding Constitutionality issues, "under God" violates the establishment clause. Mind you, the courts have ruled school prayers to be unconstitutional, even if they are voluntary (school game prayers, for instance). There is no reasonable distinction between a standard prayer and "under God" in the Pledge.

Of course, the whole idea of loyalty oaths, is a much more unsettling idea than the relatively trivial addition of "under God."

[Roland]

Echinda:

"My kid is required by state law to attend kindergarten."

What kind of strange law is that ?

"While at kindergarten she was taught the pledge and then instructed to recite it, including the phrase "under god"."

I see the problem, but unless this is state mandated it is up to parents to object, and/or take their children to a "neutral" Kindergarten. If there is no way out as you seem to indicate it is state compulsion.

Ramo:

"Roland, there are requirements that teachers pressure children into reciting the pledge at the school level, at the local level, and the state level in many circumstances."

If you can show that it is not possible to get illegal pressure out, then I'd say the only effective way of protecting state neutrality is to do away with the add-on.

"Mind you, the courts have ruled school prayers to be unconstitutional, even if they are voluntary (school game prayers, for instance)."

I find this odd. I ignore prayer session just as I ignore national anthems.

"Of course, the whole idea of loyalty oaths, is a much more unsettling idea than the relatively trivial addition of "under God.""

IMO it's a load of braindead crap, but not every load of braindead crap is unconstitutional.

[Jack the Bodiless]

With regard to the "little girl wants to say the pledge" argument, Alonzo Fyfe on Internet Infidels has come up with what I think is a very good point:

If Mr. Newdow was a Jew, and the government had his daughter reciting anti-semitic rituals in school, the fact that his daughter was eager to engage in those rituals adds to, rather than subtracts from, Mr. Newdow's right to complain that the rituals were being performed.

Even if the inclusion of "under God" is NOT eventually deemed unconstitutional, Newdow has a legitimate grievance, and something has to be done to stop those who seek to teach the children of atheists a pledge which excludes their own parents from consideration as "patriotic Americans". It is slander.

And, as the pledge originally began as a (deliberately secular) chant for schoolchildren, the result will be pledge which cannot be used for the specific purpose for which Bellamy wrote it.

[Chris 62]

I was going to let this go, however....

Originally posted by Echinda
Chris62: It seems you think my five year old daughter should be required to tell her teacher that she doesn't want to say "under god" as part of the pledge.

I accept it of my 5 year old son, who starts preschool this fall.
Don't even attempt that line of argument, if a parent is prepared, it's not an issue.

Leaving aside that I think that only a person who couldn't give a **** for my beliefs would think that is a reasonable hurdle to place in front of a five year old, here is my problem: I want my daughter, when she is old enough to make up her own mind, to decide if she wants to be a monotheist, polytheist, atheist, deist or what have you.

And I want my son to grow up in the same atmosphere of religious freedom I grew up in, free of pandantic people attempting to save the world from the very possibility of hearing those dreaded words, "under god".

I don't want her to go to a school where the rituals of the school contain the underlying assumption of a god's existence (be it Christian, Bhuddist or whateverist). By the same token, I don't want her to go to a school that has rituals that imply that a god doesn't exist.

Who does?
It's all about freedom of choice.
However, I'll be damened before I let the anti-god squad continue it's mindless campaign against the very foundation of American society.
You don't want to believe, fine with me.
You think you will prohibt me and mine from same?
NO WAY.

I want the school and the teachers to be neutral territory. I want them to be silent on the issue. And right now, they aren't and they aren't because they are following the State mandated curriculum. That is wrong.

Very simple solution.
Say the pledge as is, the teacher says first:
"Class those of you who so chose, do not have to say the pledge or the words under god, talk to your parents about what that means".
Simple and direct, without "big brother" trying to control every piece of society, which is now bordering on the absurd.

PS: a person who thinks that "majority rules" was one of the principles the US was founded on shouldn't be lecturing others about their supposed lack of sophistication on constitutional issues.

If you really believe that, your an idiot.
The Constitution is basewd on democracy, which is the will of the people, which in turn means the rule of the majority.
Your hung up on a petty fear that the rights of man will be trampled because of the phraseology, which I made clear was never the case, as the law is always in force.
If you don't understand that EVERYTHING we do is based on the principle of majority rule, then quite frankly, you know nothing.
It seems quite a lot of you are extremely politically correct to be so blind as to object to the idea of majority rule.
How is a jury trail decided?
By majority of the jurers.
How is an election decided?
The winner is those with the majority
(Presidential election is an exception due to the crazy electorical college, but that also is decided based on majority rule).
How does Congress pass a new law?
By vote of the majority.
That is the American way, sorry if you never made the conection of Democracy=Majority rule.
Your the second person to try and pull this PC crap in this thread.
If you can't grasp western society that's your problem, and you shouldn't be debating about things that are indeed decided by democracy (WHICH IS THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY,ALWAYS WAS, ALWAYS WILL BE).

[Jack the Bodiless]

The United States of America is not a democracy.

It is a republic.