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

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Echinda
It is equally astonishing that after being asked numerous times, none of them has ever answered the common question: Would you care if the pledge said "without god" or "under Satan" or some other non-Christian variation on the theme?

Emphasis added. Compare the bold to that in the second quote. The italics are the qualifier.

To be fair one person did answer the question in the first thread (which I can't seem to find, anyone have a link?). They said something to the effect that it wouldn't matter to them, which is a fair answer.

It is funny how the others take out any qualifiers in the question, and then refute the question as not applicable. Verto went as far as to edit the actual quote... and ended up saying in response that you should have said just about the same thing you actually did!

Originally posted by Verto
Wouldn't it be us having to say "under nothing", rather than Satan?

True, "without god" isn't quite the same as "under nothing". When dealing with the idea of a deity, they are very close though.

Is there a reason why the question is so hard to answer?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

And this is precisely the sort of "tyranny of the majority" that the Constitution was designed to prevent. Thank you for proving my point.

Give me a break! People like you want tyranny of the minority.

This isn't a minority wishing to control a majority, this is a majority seeking to oppress a minority, and an attempt to invoke the Constitution that supposedly defends against that.

How is the minority being oppressed exactly? You dont know what real oppression is. You insult those who truly are oppressed.

[Lemmy]

if a non US-citizen wants to become a US-citizen. would he/she be required to say the pledge?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Because the MAJORITY of Americans want them there, and THAT is the basis of American society, not small pressure groups.It is offensive to MOST to remove them, who is being unreasonable, think about it.
Where does it end?

So if the majority of Americans were to want there to be ritual sacrifice in the classroom that would be ok? It's an extreme scenario, but one which your line of reasoning seems to support. One which the constitution refutes as well as common (hopefully) sense.

Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in.

"And this is precisely the sort of "tyranny of the majority" that the Constitution was designed to prevent. Thank you for proving my point." - Jack the Bodiless

It will be used by the will of the majority of Americans, just as all our laws and customs always have.

Anyone now begining to see why minority groups sometimes feel threatened by seemingly small issues which are forced upon them by the majority? It's not the specific issue, but the underlying principle of statements like "Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like" and "It will be used by the will of the Majority of Americans". "It" being classroom time in this case.

I'm not saying that the majority feels the way Chris seems to. But that is the type of mob rule concept that we need to protect ourselves against. Just saying "the majority wants it" and not considering the constitutional limits against such reasoning.

So anyone else have an answer to the question...

What is the purpose of the Pledge, and why should it be retained (in whole or in part) in the classroom?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Give me a break! People like you want tyranny of the minority.

Spoken like a true totalitarian. What you call "tyranny of the minority" is otherwise known as liberty. You do not believe in the freedom of minorities not to conform to the majority?

This isn't a minority wishing to control a majority, this is a majority seeking to oppress a minority, and an attempt to invoke the Constitution that supposedly defends against that.

How is the minority being oppressed exactly? You dont know what real oppression is. You insult those who truly are oppressed.

This is a majority attempting to impose their religion on a minority.

You may not consider this a serious imposition, and neither do I. But that is what it IS, despite all the denials. That is abundantly clear. It is becoming clearer with every additional rant about the power of the majority, about America being a "Christian nation". It is becoming clearer with every stubborn refusal to give up these "insignificant" words that were never in the original pledge.

There is a principle at stake. It is the principle behind the First Amendment: the principle of freeedom from conformity to a state standard of religion. We see that clearly, and so do the fundies. They are determined to get rid of the First Amendment, and that's why they are so fanatical about these "insignificant" words.

The pledge is not the danger. The Christian fanaticism behind it IS.

[Dr Strangelove]

We have a situation here where a parent is putting forth a lawsuit allegedly in the child's interests but against the wishes of the child and the other parent. The custody status of the child is in question. It is not clear that the father had the right to bring this suit in behalf of the child. It would not surprise me if the full court does not put the case on hold until the custody question is settled. Come to think of it, it may have been a judicial lapse for the judge who issued the decision to not have considered the fact of the uncertainty of the child's custody status in the first place.

It certainly appears that the father may have had more in mind here than a legal question of the seperatiopn of church and state. The suit may have been filed largely out of spite against the mother. He also might have considered using it as a springboard to restricting the mother from giving the child religious instruction and there by setting himself up with a means of contesting her custody in the future. It is also possible that he thought that he'd better get the lawsuit in now just in case he lost custody of the child and thereby lost the right to launch the suit.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Spoken like a true totalitarian. What you call "tyranny of the minority" is otherwise known as liberty. You do not believe in the freedom of minorities not to conform to the majority?

Nobody has to conform to anything. Saying the pledge is a choice.

This is a majority attempting to impose their religion on a minority.

In what way is a religion being imposed on anyone? Saying "under God" is not endorsing any religion or forcing anyone to believe anything.

You may not consider this a serious imposition, and neither do I. But that is what it IS, despite all the denials. That is abundantly clear. It is becoming clearer with every additional rant about the power of the majority, about America being a "Christian nation". It is becoming clearer with every stubborn refusal to give up these "insignificant" words that were never in the original pledge.

Which is better? To have most of the people happy with the pledge or only a minority? The answer is obvious.

There is a principle at stake. It is the principle behind the First Amendment: the principle of freeedom from conformity to a state standard of religion.

The first amendment says nothing of the sort. You just added your own spin to it.

[Caligastia]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What law says you have to recite the pledge? How does reciting the pledge "respect an establishment of religion"? Saying "under God" is nondenominational.

Stopping people from saying "under God" is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

case closed.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lemmy
if a non US-citizen wants to become a US-citizen. would he/she be required to say the pledge?

The Oath of Citizenship isn't the same as the Pledge.

The Oath of Citizenship

EDIT: A more reliable linked source now.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

In some cases, INS allows the oath to be taken without the clauses:

"… that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform non-combatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law…"

I wonder if the phrase "so help me God" is also allowed to be dropped/substituted for?

[Lemmy]

Stopping people from saying "under God" is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

nobody is trying to prohibite you from doing that.

thanks for the link Aeson

[Gibsie]

I nominate Caligastia for the "best impression of a brick wall" award.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Spoken like a true totalitarian. What you call "tyranny of the minority" is otherwise known as liberty. You do not believe in the freedom of minorities not to conform to the majority?

Nobody has to conform to anything. Saying the pledge is a choice.

All too often, it is not.

But why are you now talking about a choice of not saying the pledge? Patriotic American atheists WANT to pledge their allegiance to the US in true and proper fashion!

And that's the problem. You are, in effect, saying "It is un-American to be an atheist, but that's OK, I forgive you". It is NOT un-American to be an atheist!

Or it wasn't until 1954, when it became un-American to be an atheist. And most Christians want it to stay that way.

In what way is a religion being imposed on anyone? Saying "under God" is not endorsing any religion or forcing anyone to believe anything.

It is the official pledge of allegiance to the United States of America. Sheesh, why can't you see what that means? To properly pledge allegiance, you must believe in God to be a true, loyal American! THAT is the message, and THAT IS WHY THE PLEDGE WAS CHANGED IN 1954.

Which is better? To have most of the people happy with the pledge or only a minority? The answer is obvious.

Yes, the answer is obvious. Most people hate atheists. Most people want to affirm that atheism is un-American. This is OK with you?

There is a principle at stake. It is the principle behind the First Amendment: the principle of freeedom from conformity to a state standard of religion.

The first amendment says nothing of the sort. You just added your own spin to it.

OK, what do YOU think the First Amendment is for, if it isn't a guarantee of freedom from conformity to a state standard of religion?

While you're at it, what do YOU think that the Pledge of Allegiance is for?

And what do YOU think that the addition of "under God" was for?

And which of the following hypothetical pledges would YOU find acceptable, and why:

1. Under Satan.
2. Under Stalin.
3. Without a God.
4. None of the above.

[Boris Godunov]

Under pants.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Under pants.

We're talking the official wording of the Pledge here... not the most common

[Boris Godunov]

And don't forget:

"With libertines and jugs of wine for Al!"