What is your opinion on the troubles America is having with the Pledge of Allegiance - the battle over the words 'Under God' within it? Is it unconstitutional, or should it be there?

I pray, please refresh my memory on this pledge of allegience etc ...

Wow a post by Xaelifer that I can actually understand! I just wanted o mark this memorable occasion! :1eye:

Anyway, for us that are non-american could you please elaborate? I guess it's to do with separating church and state?

Given the founding of the country, I think it reflects on the country's history and should remain as part of the pledge. I also don't think that it is 'unconstitutional'. As far as I remember, on religion the constitution just says (basically) that you are free to practice your own religion without interferrence. It's been a very long time, but the phrase you're referring to is "One nation under God", correct? I don't see the problem. Anyone who does should relax a bit.

Of course, here in Canada we know longer sing "God Save the Queen (King)", despite the fact that the Queen of England is still Canada's head of State (and largest land owner).

An atheist by the name of Michael Newdow sued because his biological daughter (he never married the mother nor had even partial custody of the girl) sued the local public school district for their custom of leading the pledge of allegiance every morning.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Because the words "under God" were added by act of Congress and signed by the president at the time (Was that FDR?), Newdow claims that it is an illegal establishment of religion. Even though his daughter and her mother are church-going people and his daughter has no problem saying the pledge, Newdow alleges that HE is injured because he is not free to send his daughter to a public school that does not inculcate religious beliefs.

The U.S. Bill of Rights says that Congress "shall pass no law regarding the establishment of a religion." Newdow says that this clause is being violated.

Now my two cents:

He's a friggin' idiot.

The establishment clause applies to things like what has happened in England, where the Anglican Church has become the official religion. This is one of the reasons so many people came to America -- to escape the oppression by the English government of anyone who wasn't Anglican.

The establishment clause does not mean that the government will never acknowledge the existence of God. The applicable catch phrase is "Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

The Ninth Circuit, which issued the decision, immediately blocked its own ruling. It is worth noting that the Ninth Circuit is reversed by the Supreme Court on 80% of the cases SCOTUS chooses to review.

Shralp, do you know why "under God" was added in the first place?

It's true that the 'under God' bit was added in the 50s during the whole red scare but I think we should keep it. America is a nation that believes in God. Noet I said a nation not a state. If we are not forcing anyone to say the pledge then I see no reason to remove the 'under God' part. You don't see them recalling money because it says 'in God we trust' do you?

Typist-boy,

I don't know exactly, but it sounds like just a bit of feel-good legislation from the critters back in the day.

FDR (if it was him) on signing it just said a bit about how nice it will be to have children acknowledging the creator in the morning.

"America is a nation that believes in God."

Not completely.

"If we are not forcing anyone to say the pledge then I see no reason to remove the 'under God' part."

Well, it IS the official pledge of the United States, so I think it should respect freedom of religion. (Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Even without "under God", people can still choose to say "under God". This is how I imagine the 'freedom of religion' rule applied here.)

"You don't see them recalling money because it says 'in God we trust' do you?"

True, but each resolution should be determined individually. The same people that think "under God" should be removed might also want "In God we trust" to be removed. They might be taking it one at a time.

Actually, our friend the Atheist TRIED to get "In God We Trust" taken off US currency...his lawyer told him he had a better chance with the pledge.

My view is that if you have a problem with the line, DON'T SAY THAT LINE.

In the US it's majority rule. Since the majority of the US believes in God (over sixty percent and this includes references such as Allah) then majority wins. Less than twenty percent of Americans believe that there is no afterlife at all.

"In the US it's majority rule. Since the majority of the US believes in God (over sixty percent and this includes references such as Allah) then majority wins."

Not exactly. There are still rules that must be followed. Even if 51% of the US population wanted all Chinese-born Americans to be executed, this wish would not be carried out.

I will probably get utterly flamed for this but I think that the whole pledge of allegience is completely silly and a tool to 'brainwash' US citizens. Why force children to swear anything to a nation? Or even make it a demand for new citizens? I dont know how it is in other countries but here in Sweden we most assurdly have no such thing. I would never swear allegience to anything, especially not a nation or goverment. I think the discussion should be about whether to have a nationalistic pledge of allegience that may instill blind faith in the place you live and make you blind for its errors at all. Instead of talking about whether god should be in there or not. If I ever would move to the states and would need citizenship due to legal technicalities I would never swear an oath like that, for it would be a pure and simple lie and one I wouldnt want to give. Oh well I have rambled on but I find the oath dangerously patriotic and very silly.

Uh, no.

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion mean two different things. Freedom of religion means that you are free to practice whatever religion you choose. Freedom from religion means that you are free from the influence/depiction/gov't sanction/whatever of your neighbor's religion.

In short, one applies to what you are free to do. The other applies to those around you.

In fact, the Constitution and its amendments do not even guarantee freedom of religion. It just says that Congress is not allowed to impose a national religion. Individual states can have (and have had) official religions.

Now my two cents:

He's a friggin' idiot.

:lol:

I just gotta say this Shralp. As I read your post, that part just made me laugh. Somehow I found it hilarious. Very... "eloquent" Shralp. Good timing...hehehe...

joacquin: I suppose to a certain degree, a pledge of allegiance is conditioning in way. Try to look at it this way though: the pledge of allegiance (of any nation) is a way of honoring those men and women who have gone before, who gave their talents and lives to establish a lasting legacy for the next generation. It is an affirmation of their deeds and a simple verbal show of gratitude for their accomplishments. Many countries today would not exist if not for the heroism and selflessness of their children throughout history. :)

:hippy:

I actually have been following this issue over at Fox (yep, we get it here on cable ;))and it has really sparked my interest.

I saw the guy that started this whole mess on 'The Pulse' last night. That guy is a dumb a$$! I wanted to reach in to my tv and slap him up side the head! :rolling:

It does sound to me like Mikey Newdow is a fool, but that's not because of his beliefs.

He's a fool because he's jabbing at a Baalor Lord with a stick saying "You're not fair! You're not fair!"

Unfortunately this issue, as Sapiryl has enumerated, is dependant on majority vote, and thus (due to generalities for everybody) won't be won, especially by Newdow. So Mickey Newdow is going to cry himself to sleep for a very long time without accomplishing anything but tears.

I saw Mickey Newdow on a talk show the other day presenting his case to a belligerent old moron who wouldn't let him talk. What I did get out of it is an interesting argument:

Would teachers ever force their young students to put their hands to their hearts and say "one nation, under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?" Or "one nation, under Buddah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?"

Nope, they wouldn't, and Mister Newdow said that "God" presents a Christian theme to religion forced on to children in schools.

Interesting, I thought. So...?

So... he thought there was religious freedom in America, and this is not religious freedom. This is oppression, and his kids shouldn't be forced to say "under God" when he's an atheist.

Unfortunately, the other side of the dime is bigger (huh?). Like ingenious Shralp mentioned,

The U.S. Bill of Rights says that Congress "shall pass no law regarding the establishment of a religion." Newdow says that this clause is being violated.

This is where Newdow's bouncing on a stick between a bath and a lava pool. "God" in the Pledge is most likely supposed to be a universal figure representing all the major dieties of religion, so everyone gets a bite of the infinite cookie. Thus, most people misconcept it, or replace it without changing the letters, for their own personal God, and Newdow's just pissed off that they're doing it.

Not separation of church and state? Sure, it's not, when everyone's practically praying with their hands over their hearts to a God, but that's not the government's fault - it's the people's decision due to their own religious freedom. This is an excellent view of separation of church and state in the fact that everyone can say whatever they want in the place of God, just so long as they keep their allegiance to the State.

Whoooooa, did I say 'everyone'? There's a snag here. What about schoolchildren? I bet that, more than once, a child has been sent to the principal for leaving out "Under God". And I bet that, more than once, a child has been sent to the principal for bringing a Bible to school. Paradox? No, just misunderstanding.

Some teachers are incompetent idiots using their authority as means of undeserved respect.

Is that why "Under God" has to be kept in? Maybe. Who knows. Education is a bend in reality when it comes to religion, but if you want to hear more on that, read my story The Silver Evolution (under Northward in Creativity Surge). That's a quick advertisement because I'd really really like some feedback on it, so email me if you do. Anyway, what was I saying? Oh yes, school.

So why are kids lining up in school auditoriums and saying "One Nation, Under God" when some kids have parents who are atheists or other religions? One reason:

1) "God", to the state in this case, is universal, like I said. Most people don't realize that. Michael Newdow is one of them. So if kids have other religions than ones that believe in the name "God" for a spiritual overlord, understand that it's simply a symbolic word for yours, too. If you're an atheist, well, here's the deal:

The word 'Under' has a few different meanings.

"In or into a position below or beneath something"

"Below some quantity, level, or limit"

"In or into a condition of subection, subordination, or unconsciousness."

"Subject to the authority or guidance of"

"Lower than and overhung, surmounted, or sheltered by"
-a recent Merriam-Webster dictionary

Now, what does this all mean? It means whatever the hell you want it to. That's the good thing about America. Some of these would fit an atheist's few perfectly: try

"In or into a condition of subection, subordination, or unconsciousness to God."
instead of "Under God."

This would be saying that there are different understandings of God, and that America, like it or not, is subjected to them. It doesn't say "God exists and America is led by Him" like Newdow opposes. It doesn't even mention anything about the existence of a God.

By the way, all you who read those definitions should probably pick one that makes the most sense to you, or make one up. Thus, maybe you won't become an unthought Mickey Newdow or misunderstood Uncle Sam.

And if you're an atheist and it bothers you that other people think differently about the meanings of the words "Under" and "God", well, then you're sparring against your only weapon: religious freedom. Everyone can think whatever they want about these things, but the words stay. The words are necessary because they encapsulate within the Pledge religious freedom, in the form of loose guidelines. If you can't understand that you can think they mean whatever you want them to, you are a hypocrite, and your thoughts are useless. The words stay.

It's not a question of consensus. It is a question of the Constitution. The phrase is NOT unconstitutional. Shralp has done a good job explaining the situation.

"Dangerously patriotic?" Like I said in another thread, some of you need to get some respect for your own countries -- or move to ones who do.

But I agree partially with joacqin. I refused to say the pledge of allegiance as a school child. Part of it was just rebelliousness, I think. But I also thought that it was kind of silly for me to be pledging allegiance to a country I really knew very little about. After all, I reasoned, there could be much cooler countries out there. So when the pledge was said, I stood up, faced the flag, and said nothing.

No one ever gave me a hard time about it. I don't think anyone even noticed. Not teachers, not other students, no one. This gives the lie to Newdow's case.

Now, much later in life, I gladly say the pledge of allegiance. I joke about moving to the UK or Russia, but the US would have to do a Hell of a lot of screwing up before I'd contemplate it seriously.

When the Pledge was originally written, all religious references were deilberately omitted by the Christian writer. I'm sure he's rolling in his grave right now.
The phrase was added in the 50's as a knee jerk reaction to the "Godless Commies" during the Cold War, and has no place in the pledge, IMO. I refuse to say "Under God" as does my mother, who is Catholic.
So there's my opinion.

I agree completely, Stefanina.

I instruct my kids to do it that way, as do I.

How foolish is it to imagine that the freedom of religion could be construed in any way that did not include freedom *from* religion? Obviously any mention of God foisted on myself or my children in a public school setting is (a) establishment -- my particular religion rejects any and all deities, and (b) coerced -- I send them to school to learn, and expect them to respect their teachers and authority in general -- except in this case, they must buck the tide and stand up for religious freedom, as the framers of the constitution were so careful to obviate.

It is high time this cold-war induced stupidity be challenged, and I can only hope the court has the courage to make a constitutional and not a political decision.

But does it really matter? I am an atheist and I wouldn't mind saying 'under god'. Why would I mind? It's not hurting me or anyone in any way is it?

Well, no, Vukodlak -- in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. If my saying words abhorrent to me would save the life of a starving child, I would do it gladly.

But as it is...

"Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature.

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson

The United States Supreme Court has struck down so-called voluntary school prayer, posting of the ten commandments in public buildings (where one *need not* look at them, right?) -- even that most insidious and innocent-seeming "moment of silence" in public schools -- as unconstitutional. The court argued that each of these things, by virtue of being imposed on a captive audience of schoolchildren, was coercive. Duh.

But then, if some of these rabid Christians had the native intelligence to reflect that:

"I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor."
-- Thomas Jefferson again

... [edit flame] innumerable crimes would not have been committed in God's name -- crimes that, naturally, make atheists like myself quite on our guard against the invocation of that name.



[This message has been edited by Methylviolet (edited July 14, 2002).]

The answer is "not foolish at all."

Free to practice your religion. Nowhere does it say you're free to practice NO religion.

You're correct in citing Supreme Court precedent. I hold that that decision (as well as others in the muddled Establish Clause case history) is wrong for the reasons mentioned above.

The U.S. Government does not require children to say, or teachers to lead, the pledge of allegiance. Never has.

There is no coercion. There is no establishment. And the 2nd Amendment applies to <b>Congress</b>! Again: Individual states can and have had official religions.

(buzzer sounds) No, I'm sorry that is not correct. The answer is, "very very foolish indeed."

It is not the case that I practice no religion. My religion is atheism.

religion (n) :A PERSONAL SET OR institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes and practices.

Like Christianity and Judaism, my religion is against worshipping false gods. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, my religion includes the capital G one in that group.

If you disagree with the Supreme Court, shralp, to the point that you believe it should overturn three (3) relevant precedent cases in order to consistently uphold this farce of a pledge of allegiance, then I must conclude that you have some burning reason why my children need to say those words. What reason could you possibly have? What good can it do anyone to ask my children to conjoin a pledge of allegiance to their country with a statement of belief in God -- a statement that for them, is not true?

So tell me, shralp: why?

The Christian God is named Jehovah, so in the case of the pledge, the phrase "God" is a universal theme, referring to the God that any religion may have.

Newdow is speaking of freedom of religion, when he is attempting to enforce his, that of atheism, onto his daughter. That sounds to me like a hypocrisy.

There is nothing wrong with that phrase and nothing to be offended over. Historically we are a religious nation. To attempt to remove it because it would be offensive to the atheists would be offensive to everyone else, as they would be upset that the pledge does not recognize the fact that our country is in fact, under God. To forget this, we would be imposing atheism upon the citizens, and this would violate that clause as well.

According to several acts by Congress (don't ask me to cite which ones...if I knew that it would prove once and for all that I don't have a life. And consequently I don't care as to which ones they really are) Atheism is a religion. Kinda funny, really.

If we are going to start "editing" the pledge, why don't we start editing songs and public speech etiquet? Anyone saying, "Oh my God!" would be in violation of someone else's freedom of/from religion. We could strike that (albeit pathetic) song "What if God was one of us?" from Radio play lists and ban Creed from public shows. Heck, even Nirvana is violating freedom laws just with its name.

This may seem like a childish rant but I fail to see the difference. Enlighten me.

Good, good. You have a dictionary. Now look up "religious." You don't (appear to) have religious beliefs. You have irreligious beliefs.

And, once again, no one, including me, is forcing anyone to say the pledge of allegiance. Say it with me now: "Shralp does not say people should be forced to say the pledge of allegiance." There ya go. I knew you could do it.

Dearest Shralp----you just kill me!!!

Now to address the thread.

You see, I believe that it should stay, and that it is not unconstitutional.

You see, our forefathers----those who put themselves in paril and the lives of their loved ones in paril came to America to start a new life. One that was free from the beliefs of the countries they had previously lived in.

One of the biggest reasons most of them came to America was because they wanted the choice to practice whatever religion they deemed God wanted them to practice, not that of which their country deemed they should practice.

It is what this country was founded on, and is part of our history, who we are, and how we came to be. Whether you believe in God or not, you should at least have respect for it, because you would not be able to choose to not practice any religion if our forefathers had not provided you with the freedom to do so.

Atheism is exactly not a religion -- but it is a faith. You can't prove the existence of nothingness any more than you can prove the existence of God. The difference being, of course, that there aren't any religions that require proof on the part of its practitioners...whereas that onus does happen to fall upon the stout-hearted atheist.

In the spectrum of belief systems, therefore, there's nothing more arrogant than an atheist. (You think your five little senses and notoriously fallible human intellect can tell you all *that* about the universe? Find me a scientist, and I'll find someone more than willing to disagree with you.)

But I digress.

Am I off topic?

Well, I'm an athesist and I don't think that I can prove there is a god or 12 gods on Mt. Olimpus or nothingness or a celestial overmind...

And I really couldn't care less. If people want to believe in one or all or nothing of the above that's fine by me. If they want me to say that I live in a nation united 'under god', I will.

Just don't expect me to go out of my way to waste time on ancient and meaningless religious rituals.

This discussion is digressing into a religous definition debate. For those debating about the Pledge being in schools at all, that is another topic entirely. The debate is over whether or not 'under God' should be in it.

I think that the USA's forefathers probably had it right the first time. I haven't looked it up but I am wondering what the original Pledge looked like. Did they just add 'under God' into it or is it different entirely? The line was obviously added to add religon into something associated with the government.

Things can get really complicated if you let them. It seems the issue is getting clouded in here as well. I started getting confused myself until I thought of something so obvious that it shocked me at how simple it was. This is what I came up with and I think everyone should follow my "logical" steps for forming an opinion on this issue.

1) Read the pledge without 'under god' inserted.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
2)Then read it with it inserted.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God,indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Which one makes you think of religon?

Whether or not I 'think' it should be there, I come to the conclusion that it should NOT be there.

[This message has been edited by Slackertoast (edited July 17, 2002).]

I have twpo conflicting opinions on this. First, I think "Well, it doesn't specify which God, it uses the word to denot...deto...dent... (/me feels incredibly stupid)denotate whatever-higher-power-you-choose-to-believe-in so whatäs the point"

BUT....

I, as a nontheistic believer, always nearly have kittens when I am forced, one way or another, to deal with any religiousness including a deity. Thus, if I am supposed to say something, I stay silent. If I am supposed to pray, I keep my head unbowed and my fingers unlaced. In Finland, one must face religion in quite often in everyday life. All schools teach religion ads a compulsory subject. (Or extended philosophy of sorts)

Gah, i am being so incoherent... see what actually sleeping does to me?

What I mean to say is... it shouldn't be there. It may be a generalization, but it still shouldnät be there. Sure, the guy why brought the thing up is a total moron, but, well... Like so many people have already said, if you do not like it, then don't say it!

Freedom OF religion and Freedom FROM religion are definitely separate things. In the US as well as in every other country that has freedom of religion.

Ara
(Spammingbird... I like the word...)

"Shralp does not say people should be forced to say the Pledge of Allegience."

Methylviolet does not say people should be forced to defend their positions in rational debate rather than resort to dismissive nastiness.

But she'd like it if they would.

The American legal system is based on precedent. Here are the some of the relevant opinions in precedent cases regarding the matters at issue, arranged in an easy FAQ format.

Q: Doesn't freedom of religion only apply to official religions, not little things like a mention of God in the Pledge?

A: Justice Rutledge declared in Murray vs. Curlett, 1963: "The [first] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed, or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion."

Q: But atheism isn't a religion, and we are promised only freedom of *religion*, not freedom from religion, right?

A: In 1961, in Torcaso vs. Watkins, Justice Black says: "Neither [state nor federal government] can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence in God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."

Q: But shralp says he won't make Methylviolet's children say the Pledge -- doesn't that mean that it's totally voluntary?

A: In 1987 Justice Stewart, in Engel vs Vitale, expanded on the concept of coercion and the Establishment Clause:
"When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain."

OK! So now that we are clear on the constitutionality of inserting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, I ask again:

Why does shralp want Methylviolet's children to say it?

[edit]
Methylviolet's constitutional rights are really sufficient reason to fight this "under God" thing, but here are some reasons *no one* should say it. http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/whatsafewprayers.html
It is couched in the most inflammatory language possible and is really pretty funny.

[This message has been edited by Methylviolet (edited July 17, 2002).]

Actually, my main thing is that the Pledge was deliberatly written without any religious refereces. So by inserting the phrase "under God" in there, we are deliberatly spitting on this man's work, which is unacceptable, IMO.

*long sigh* Methylviolet, read Shralp's last post again (you even re-wrote it yourself), it goes something like this:

"Shralp does not say people should be forced to say the pledge of allegiance."

So your question, "Why does Shralp want Methylviolet's children to say it?" yields the answer, "He doesn't."

---

In response to your Q & A selection: all your A's suggest that saying the Pledge of Allegiance is a law when in fact it is not. Courts have held that individual students can refrain from saying the pledge.

And speaking of dissmissive nastiness:

"But then, if some of these rabid Christians had the native intelligence to reflect that: ... "

"It is high time this cold-was induced stupidity be challenged, ... "

-and coming from a Fear thread near you-

"Christians...Just saying it sent cold shivers down my back."

I'm sorry (actually, no I'm not) Methylviolet but I have quite an issue with people calling a statement of my religion "stupidity" and that the believers in my religion are "rabid" fanatics. Not only that, but having a fear of Christians is like being afraid of most of the people in the USA! And there's no need to get all dramatic with *shivers* oooooooooooo.

Not only that, but I don't remember reading anyone making rude and completely unnecessary remarks over atheism. I can only imagine what you'd say if I (a Christian, oh my!) made a snide remark about atheists. Which, in case you were wondering - and even if you weren't - I won't do.

"So your question, "Why does Shralp want Methylviolet's children to say it?" yields the answer, "He doesn't.""

Equivocation is a favorite tactic of those who expouse what they cannot defend. I feel a little silly repeating all this, but perhaps spelling out Shralp's equivocation will make it clearer.

Shralp, and several others here, argue that "under God" should stay in the Pledge. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that so-called voluntary religious activity in public schools is, in fact, coercive. Therefore, if the "under God" Pledge is said in my children's public school classroom, my children are being coerced to say it also, which is clearly unconstitutional by precedent. Though Shralp and Sapiryl choose to ignore the fact of this coercion, they yet insist it should continue.

So which side of your mouth shall I listen to? The side which says "under God" should stay in the pledge, or the side that claims no desire to have my children say it?

More Q&A...

"In response to your Q & A selection: all your A's suggest that saying the Pledge of Allegiance is a law when in fact it is not."

Wrong. A practise need not be a law to run afoul of the First Amendment. I have cited the cases so that you can educate yourself, if you wish to.

"I have quite an issue with people calling a statement of my religion "stupidity""

Oh ho! The pledge of allegiance (the addition of "under God" was the stupidity referred to) is a statement of your religion?

"and that the believers in my religion are "rabid" fanatics."

Do you deny that *some* are? Hitler was an atheist, they say -- I sure don't defend *him*.

"Not only that, but having a fear of Christians is like being afraid of most of the people in the USA!"

Yeesh. I was going for funny in the "Fears" post but perhaps overshot into nasty. Though your response was kind of funny.

In short: you disagree with my style, but have nothing to say about the substance. Nothing relevant, that is.

Well, Sapiryl -- I am sorry to have offended you. I hope this reply shows that my remarks were not intended to be as harsh as you apparently found them.

Having "under God" in the Pledge is just so blatantly unconstitutional that I was inclined to think that only a truly rabid Christian -- as opposed to a normal, reasonable Christian -- could support its continuance. But I see that this is not the case. People just don't understand the constitutional issues involved. People view this issue as something that is being taken from them, not as an injustice that is being remedied. People get confused into believing this is a referendum on God Himself. So, OK. But now all of you have the tools to look up for yourselves some of the pertinent legal references, and make an informed decision.

Which is really the point -- not what you think of me or atheists in general, but what you think is most in line with the existing body of constitutional law. That is, what is most constitutional.

The Constitution directs that the courts deliberate without passion or prejudice. Can you?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that so-called voluntary religious activity in public schools is, in fact, coercive. Therefore, if the "under God" Pledge is said in my children's public school classroom, my children are being coerced to say it also, which is clearly unconstitutional by precedent.

I'm curious as to what the reasoning was behind this. Many teachers nowadays tell their pupils that whether they wish to say the pledge or not is their own choice, and none force it upon their students. Unless, perhaps it is different in Sierra Madre than on the East Coast.

People get confused into believing this is a referendum on God Himself.

The phrase "under God" is not a reference to any particular god, nor necessarily even a reference to a god. It is a reference to whatever you believe in. Given your argument, we should have to redesign the money, several of our classic patriotic songs, as well as numerous other integral parts of our society.

The constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The key words there: "free exercise thereof". Are you implying that I am free to practice my religion, except when it interferes with your atheistic beliefs? This sounds like an hypocrisy to me. The Constitution simply states that Congress may not respect any individual religion, which I can't be convinced that the pledge does. If it mentioned any particular God by name, then maybe many of us would agree with you, but it does not.

[This message has been edited by Rastor (edited July 18, 2002).]

This is part os a post from another board that sums up how I feel quite nicely.

Here is a short description of the Pledge and the man, Francis Bellamy (a Baptist
minister who held an important position in the National Education Association), who wrote it in 1892. There is one part I find
particularly interesting, if you will indulge me:

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one
nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew
that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

The important point is: he decided to leave out a phrase ("equality") that he knew everyone didn't agree with (at that time), and instead focused on the ideals that everyone DID agree on. It seems to me that when another phrase everyone doesn't agree with ("under God") was later added, it went against the spirit of the man who created the Pledge. And Bellamy originally prepared the Pledge for a school flag-saluting ceremony; it was intended to help instill patriotism and respect in children. Maybe Bellamy thought the kids back then needed help too. But he saw no need to add any reference to God. Even being a minister, he was interested in instilling patriotism, not religious conviction. The pledge as he wrote it was considered (for 62 years) to be a positive influence on school children. There has been a lot of talk about the Founding Fathers, that we should accept what they gave us and not try to second-guess them. In the same spirit, why can't we stop second-guessing the guy who first gave us the Pledge?

Amen, sister Stefanina. Tell it!

Oh, please, Rastor. The Supreme Court Justice I quoted on the coercive power of the mob explained it far better with fewer words than ever I could do. If you don't understand why it is inappropriate to make my kids stand there while your kids "practise their religion"... perhaps I need to come up with some atheist ritual I could perform in the middle of your church during services.

So basically, children are afraid to express their individuality. I still stand firm with the remainder of my post.

Regardless, whether or not children are forced to say the pledge or not is immaterial. The debate here is whether or not this guy suing is in the right or not. I don't believe he is. What you support is your own business.

[This message has been edited by Rastor (edited July 20, 2002).]

Hmmm. Here I stop reading and I come back to find I'm accused of speaking out of both sides of my mouth. Lovely.

The objection to removing the phrase "under God" is not because I want everyone to be forced to say it -- all are free to leave the school in which your child is supposedly cooerced into acknowledging that there just might be more to the world than is explainable by science.

As I've stated before: the Supreme Court is all over the place with regard to establishment of religion. It is wildly inconsistent, as even the most casual of obsevers can see. Thus, to base your assumptions (about what I "must" think) on Supreme Court precedent is to start from shaky ground and procede rapidly to the ridiculous.

I agree with what Xaelifer said.

[This message has been edited by Frog (edited July 24, 2002).]

Ah, Shralp -- good to see you again. Though you espouse majority views -- and ones I disagree with -- you state them so well that you are a treat to argue with.

:yot: I love this, by the way. I love arguing with intelligent people. Why do people get all touchy? It's fun, fun, fun.

Not to butter you up, or anything, though -- because you are still wrong, wrong, wrong.

You say that the Supreme Court is inconsistent on religion issues. As far as I can tell, it is consistently against any activity even a little religious in the public schools. (If you have a link that will set me straight on this, be my guest.) To any one who reads the sources I cited, regardless of their own views, it must appear that Newdow is quite right that Under God is unconstitutional. People may of course still think it's a positive thing and should stay there -- the Constitution does not dictate Morality, merely law -- but unconstitutional it is.

As you say, however some feel that coercing public schoolchildren "into acknowledging that there just might be more to the world than is explainable by science" is a good thing. I disagree. I myself utterly reject that there could maybe just possibly be *anything* else in the world that cannot be meaningfully analyzed. The prayer link I posted sums up my views there. It is intellectually lazy, and I am not willing to admit defeat yet.

But who cares? My religious beliefs, and your religious beliefs, are irrelevant at school. Or should be. Right? If you *don't* think so, then by all means, send your own kids to a religious schoolL I believe, along with the architects of the country -- Christians almost all -- that religion has no place in public school, and that linking patriotism to religion is especially pernicious.

For once, I'm going to agree with you Methyl, patriotism should not be linked to religion.

Shralp is correct however, the Supreme Court is on both sides of the fence when it comes to the religion issue. I will give an example of this. Back several years ago in Oklahoma, a teacher got sued for teaching only evolution (the scientific principle) and not creationism (the religious principle). The lawsuit was upheld, and it was determined that creationism should be taught in schools. Between that and the examples you cited, it would appear that there are no legal standards for this form of a debate.

There you go again, Methyl, mentioning coercion. I disagree with your use of this word. Children are not forced to agree with any of their instructors at school. They are free to disagree, and in fact, encouraged to do so. They are encouraged to make up their own minds about debates and such after hearing both sides of the argument. This is the proper way of handling such an issue, wouldn't you agree?

What your arguments are lacking is an opinion from a schoolchild. I being one, am glad to add mine.

The pledge is something you learn in 1st grade then not think anything of it. In my school, The pledge is apart of the morning announcements. Everyday, I get up and say it with my classmates and don’t really think anything of it, and neither do they.

As mentioned in Shralp’s first post, the guy’s daughter had no problem saying the pledge in the first place. The same is true for most school children. A friend of mine, who is a Jehovah’s Witness, would not stand up and say the pledge because it goes against her religion. She didn’t care one way or the other. Then her mother found out it was being said, and put up a huge stink about it. The school, being afraid of a law suit, took out the pledge from the announcements. When we made the cross over from middle school to high school, the pledge was said again in the morning announcements, but this time, my friends “forgot” to tell her mother about it.

IMO, I think we should keep the pledge the way it is and still say it in the public school system. The kids don’t care, and they don’t have to say it if they don’t want to.

The way I see America is as a very diverse places. People with many racial, cultural, and traditional origins. Many religions. One nation under God? Which one? What about atheists? Polytheists?

Ahem. I was reading the New Yorker (a highly prestigious and sometimes satirical New York magazine) and there was a hilarious quote in it by Robin Williams, and it went somewhere along the lines of this:

When asked about the "One Nation Under God issue, Robin williams suggested, "Why don't we just say 'One Nation Under Canada? Or maybe 'One Nation Over Mexico? That way, everyone's happy. I found it quite amusing.

I generally just don't say it. Or I alter it to my beliefs. I don't think it's a big deal either way, but if people really care about it that much why not take it out? Is it really hurting anything? After all, it wasn't in there to begin with, as I'm sure has been mentioned. The nation needs to be able to evolve to survive. Religion is no longer a part of government, and so it should be.

Hehe SlimShogun :D
I would go so far as to rephrase Robin Williams:
In or into a condition of subection, subordination, or unconsciousness to Canada

[ August 14, 2002, 13:33: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

One evil thing people say about the pledge is that it grows huge numbers of unreflecting patriots, eager to carry the blessed american way of life even into the most remote corners of the world ... and if they don't want their Pepsi there, they don't mind about dropping the cans there with bombs ... weeeeee! Coke for everyone! :roll: :spin: :heh: Now others say patriotism has never done any harm to everyone :D Should they be wrong? Hah! 100+ million people can't be wrong, right? :holy:

[ August 14, 2002, 12:13: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ragusa, you must be thinking of a different country. Ours doesn't grow unreflecting patriotism because of pledge that some say in school sometimes.

PH33R OUR NATIONAL PRIDE, GERMAN SCUM!

[Edit]
Oh, yay! Violet said I expose majority views! I'm not an extremist anymore! Wheeee!]

[ August 14, 2002, 16:43: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Ha! Thanks Nobleman - we could use an 11th province :p And you'll like our beer. Now, if we can only find 350 million plus skates and hockey sticks....

Ragusa, Its 270 million and counting, bub. You better watch your ass.

[ August 15, 2002, 05:09: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

I refuse to say the pledge they make us say it in school lucky I had a cool teacher so we did not have to say it if we did not want to. But, I do not believe in god as I have expressed many time so I will note say, "one nation under god". I do not think they should get rid of that part though for two reasons.
It's historical.
That pledge sometimes helps people pull through things like the the incedent on Sept. 11.