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

[JohnIII]

Originally posted by Lemmy

The beliefs of people are strengthened in adversity if they are sincere. I may retire in Thailand someday. I have no fear of hearing about Buddha night and day.

that's your opinion, and Buddha isn't a god, God supposedly is.

That's a real pet peeve of mine, people assuming that Buddha is the Buddhist version of God.

[Lincoln]

Of course you both missed the point which is, people can learn to get along with others who do not believe as they do without having to change the predominant culture.

[Aeson]

Re: I'll probably make an as$ of myself, but.

Originally posted by DetroitDave
I see no specific affirmation of a specific religion in the words "Under God", or acknowledgment that the US is a theocracy. This is a distinction our wise forefathers made.

The term "God" is a religious term. It's not a specific god, but it is a god. The problem atheists have with the term "God" is that it stands for any god, not just a specific one. I'm agnostic, so I don't have a big problem with the term, but I really don't think the phrase needs to be in there.

Our wise forefathers didn't see the need for a pledge of alliegance either.

They knew that the government should never advocate or establish a specific religion, but also knew the new nation's basis was a common moral framework exemplified by a belief higher than the human condition, whether it be "God", a common purpose, or even a gaseous cloud for that matter- it's a fine distinction, but important.

If the term "God" is ambiguous and doesn't imply a religious context, then why not use a word which isn't offensive to anyone? Better yet, no word at all.

Also, I personally don't see anything in those two words that individuals must "believe in God" to be a "patriot". That's reading an awful lot into two words.

I never said they had to. Just that it is implied.

You mean like "liberty" and "justice" for all? There are a lot of civil right activists and native americans who might disagree with the two words "for all". Perhaps a more sanitized version of "for all" would be more sensitive to their concerns.

Again, it's a question most everyone (supporting 'under God' in the pledge) seems to dodge.

Just because one part of the pledge is offensive to one group doesn't make other parts of the pledge, which are offensive to other groups, justified. If anything it would support the overall notion that the pledge shouldn't be a part of the classroom.

If the official wording of the pledge was 'under Satan' (or under something you find offensive) would you want your children being in a classroom where that pledge was recited?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Of course you both missed the point which is, people can learn to get along with others who do not believe as they do without having to change the predominant culture.

I don't hear anyone in this thread saying we shouldn't get along with people of different culture (or religion).

Our public school system is supposed to be secular in nature. There is no predominant religion with regards to it, and the predominant culture's religion shouldn't apply either. Are you claiming that the pledge is an icon of the predominant religion in this country, and thus shouldn't be changed?

Also I am sure you can note the difference between yourself and a grade school aged child when it comes to religious conviction. You send a 5 year old to Thailand to be raised by Buddhists and they will most likely end up Buddhist themselves. The pledge isn't that persuasive of course, just pointing out why your analogy doesn't seem to fit very well.

[Chris 62]

Atheists have WAY to much free time on their hands, as poly often proves.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Aeson


I don't hear anyone in this thread saying we shouldn't get along with people of different culture (or religion).

Our public school system is supposed to be secular in nature. There is no predominant religion with regards to it, and the predominant culture's religion shouldn't apply either. Are you claiming that the pledge is an icon of the predominant religion in this country, and thus shouldn't be changed?

Also I am sure you can note the difference between yourself and a grade school aged child when it comes to religious conviction. You send a 5 year old to Thailand to be raised by Buddhists and they will most likely end up Buddhist themselves. The pledge isn't that persuasive of course, just pointing out why your analogy doesn't seem to fit very well.

Part of getting along with other cultures or religions (or the lack of a religion) is to respect the history and traditions of a nation even though we may disagree with the purpose behind them. For example there are ceremonies in European nations that make a big deal about religions that much of the population no longer subscribes to. I say to that, so what? What does it hurt to have to hear that? If I visited or lived in China I would not try and change their culture or traditions even though I despise much of their communist system.

My beliefs are firm because they have been tested and opposed -- not kept on a shelf and shielded from opposition. My children can make up their own minds about religion. I would hope that my influence would have some impact on their decision but it is not my choice to make. If they go to a school that forces them to esteem Mao or Lenin then I would do my best to deprogram them when they got home.

I do not understand the attempt by fanatical atheists to overthrow the culture of the United States that is rooted in Christianity or at least in the belief of a generic God. Are their beliefs so fragile that they cannot be maintained if their kids have to hear the words "under God"? Something smells fishy to me.

I do not repeat the pledge at all, with or without the words 'under God' and I don't care if kids say the pledge or not. My point is, what is the big deal with atheists that they cannot tolerate a culture that does not subscribe to their particular doctrines and belief system? It seems that they are trying to force their beliefs on a people while they accuse their opponants of doing the same. There really is another life out there.

[Aeson]

For example there are ceremonies in European nations that make a big deal about religions that much of the population no longer subscribes to. I say to that, so what?

I don't care either, but if it's in the classroom it's out of place. Children are sent to school to learn secular knowlege. In some cases (history being one) that would include information about religious events. There is a purpose served by that knowlege. There is no purpose served by the reference to God in the pledge.

I would also remind you that this is not a very longstanding tradition, and one the country did well enough without before it was implemented. We aren't dealing with something that has shaped our society.

I do not understand the attempt by fanatical atheists to overthrow the culture of the United States that is rooted in Christianity or at least in the belief of a generic God. Are their beliefs so fragile that they cannot be maintained if their kids have to hear the words "under God"? Something smells fishy to me.

You keep broadening 'religious references in school' to 'culture'. American culture can be whatever the people want it to be, that's not what this is all about. Public schools should be secular. There is no need for pledges or oaths dealing with God during classroom time.

I would be saying the same thing you are if dealing with atheists trying to remove the notion of God from American culture. That isn't what this is about though.

People have the right to believe the way they choose. People also have the right to send their children to a publicly funded school which will not try to indoctrinate them with religious ideas or references. These are impressionable minds, dealing with peer pressure enough as it is. We already have classrooms divided over this issue, some children choose not to say the pledge and thus stand out as different. It's just added pressure put on children to conform in a way which serves no purpose.

I do not repeat the pledge at all, with or without the words 'under God' and I don't care if kids say the pledge or not.

Now, if it means so little to you, why defend it? It is offensive to some people, it serves no necessary purpose, why keep it? Tradition just for the sake of tradition makes no sense. In this case, it would only be taken out of the classroom. People are free to say the pledge whenever they want on their own time.

It seems that they are trying to force their beliefs on a people while they accuse their opponants of doing the same. There really is another life out there.

Some try, and they are wrong to do so. Using tradition as an excuse to do so is wrong as well.

Just wondering, but what purpose do you think the pledge serves?

[- Groucho -]

The McCarthy era Congress added the phrase. Clearly not the most tolerant era in US history. Now that the US has retreated from such childish ways, it is time to clean up the childish mess it made of things its wiser forbears left it.

No believer in the separation of church and state can believe that the pledge should declare the nation to be "under God". Those simply aren't compatible beliefs. If the state is separate from any church, the state simply can not be "under God". Descending into a "what are you afraid of? Are ya chicken?" system of argumentation won't work to disguise that flaw in your position, Lincoln.

[Verto]

Separation of Church and State is meant to keep the government from forming a state religion, which is why many people left Europe.

George Washington and others KNEW, or, perhaps for some of you, only BELIEVED, that the United States of America came to pass only because of Divine Intervention. He prayed many times for help in the War of Revolution.

The United States has been, from its birth, been a Christian country.

Look at the Declaration of Independence:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

Is that "Creator" a mention of God?

...the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

There they go again...

Whether you like it or not, America was founded by many religious persons, whose ideals were passed on to many of the documents they made.

What about US currency? "In God We Trust". Was that another example of our foolish forebears who didn't know anything? Are my five dollar bills unconstitutional?

If the people of the United States want that to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance...well, there's always Canada.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I think it shows that they are afraid of something -- maybe there is a God??? God forbid!

Afraid? Yes, afraid. Afraid that their impressionable children will feel that since their school and their teachers and their classmates seem to believe in god, they should too.

There are legitimate fears you know, especially when the government is involved. Don't be afraid, we're here to help.

[tandeetaylor]

I am so sick of this crap about the fact that some of the people who helped form this country were Christians, therefore, this is a Christian nation. I don't think that's really an argument.

We should all be Christians forever because we live in a country that's founding involved Christians.

[Verto]

Like I said, there's always Canada...

[Faboba]

"It's time for god lovers...."

What about satan lovers?

It ought to say "under god and the glorious, unholy prince of darkness", surely. After all don't devil worshipers deserve recognition?

[Jack the Bodiless]

George Washington and others KNEW, or, perhaps for some of you, only BELIEVED, that the United States of America came to pass only because of Divine Intervention. He prayed many times for help in the War of Revolution.

The United States has been, from its birth, been a Christian country.

Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians. It is therefore equally valid to describe the United States as a "Deist country".

What about US currency? "In God We Trust". Was that another example of our foolish forebears who didn't know anything? Are my five dollar bills unconstitutional?

Again, this has nothing to do with "our foolish forebears". The phrase "in God we trust" does not belong on US currency, just as "under God" does not belong in the pledge. The correct motto is "E Pluribus Unum".

Claiming that such things are "historical" and intended by the Founding Fathers is an attempt to rewrite history. It is pure propaganda.

Will there be a Christian "Ministry of Truth" next?

[Tolls]

Isn't "In God We Trust" another addition from the 50's?

In other words it was (again) nothing to do with the forefathers...

The 50s have a lot to answer for..