[markl]

This could get ugly.

I would understand if this volatile topic got shut down fast, but...

If you haven't heard, a state court ruled the phrase "...under God..." in the U.S. pledge of allegiance unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of church and state. Our politicians (even democrats) are lining up to speechify on the floors of Congress to decry this ruling to show that they're not against mom apple pie and Jesus. They're surely going to overturn this decision.

Where do you stand on this? Do you think children (who are the ones who are co-erced into saying the pledge), really have any idea of what that's all about in the first place? "Indivisible with liberty and justice for all"? Does a 6-year old have any idea what that means? Do they even know what a "pledge" is or what "allegiance" means? No! I think it's a benign but silly tradition. The kind of things conservatives just love to treat like Scripture and always manage to get all militant about.

BTW, "under God" was not in the original pledge but was inserted in the 50's as a reaction against atheistic communism.

Me, I'm not religious. As a kid I had to say the pledge, and I simply bit my tongue every time the class came to the line "under God". No harm, no foul. At the time, I recognized that as an outsider free-thinker I was the freak, not everyone else, and never much paid it any mind.

I'm still that way now, and I hate radical anal-retentive atheists who want to ban Christmas just as much as I loathe Bible thumpers. So basically, I think this whole thing is "much ado about nothing".

Your thoughts?

Mark

 

[Nezer]

I wihd I could have picked two because on one hand it's silly and on the other it is a case of the government shoving a god down our throat.

Now, if it were 'under Grados'...

There's plenty of good americans that do not believe in a god. Forcing that phrase on them seems, well, un-american and a conflict in the division of church and state.

It's not the government's position to tell people what they can and can't believe.

 

[Polygon]

Well, I also think that the whole debate is plain stupid, but I feel they should just leave it alone. I just find it funny that people try to remove God from every facet of their lives; they kick him out of the workplace, school, government, and most any other public place. Then something like September 11th happens and people are asking why God would let something like this happen. I for one believe in God and I feel that religion should be separated from these things, but I feel that if people want to display religious items and pray in school, at work, or wherever they want as long as they aren't imposing it on someone else.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Nezer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Polygon Well, I also think that the whole debate is plain stupid, but I feel they should just leave it alone. I just find it funny that people try to remove God from every facet of their lives; they kick him out of the workplace, school, government, and most any other public place. Then something like September 11th happens and people are asking why God would let something like this happen. I for one believe in God and I feel that religion should be separated from these things, but I feel that if people want to display religious items and pray in school, at work, or wherever they want as long as they aren't imposing it on someone else. Just my thoughts.

I agree when it comes to people putting religious items on thier lockers at school, or in thier cubicle at work. I personally have posted a copy of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path in my cubicle. But when the *government* mandates it, it has crossed a line.

How would you feel if it were 'under Allah' or, better yet, 'under Buddha'?

 

[CaptBubba]

I'm not too bothered by the ruling itself, but what does annoy me is that it ever made it that far. There are doubtless many other, more important, cases that are waiting in like for a court date.

btw, it wasn't the supreme court, it was I think the ninth circuit court of appeals, so it only affects some western states. IIRC.

 

[markl]

"btw, it wasn't the supreme court, it was I think the ninth circuit court of appeals, so it only affects some western states. IIRC."

As noted in my post. That's further reason for this being blown way out of proportion. It's still several steps removed from getting to the Supreme Court. But that hasn't stopped the media and blow-hard politicians from jumping all over this.

markl

 

[Mr.PD]

I am not a religious person. I see nothing wrong with the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. It is not cramming God down anybodys throat. It is a tradition. We need to maintain more traditions.
I see this as another sign that our country is going down the toilet.

 

[dougli]

Let me see if I can manuever around the land mines. Since the United States of America was founded, God has been a part of our national image. Whatever one thinks of America, God and gods, this linkage should remain as part of the American national personality. It is optional on a personal level, as supported by the principle of separation of church and state. But to work to drop it from our national image is to erode America's national identity. Eroding a nation's identity inevitably leads to the weakening of that nation's status in the world arena. And that is simply not a good thing in this volitile modern world. If someone doesn't think this is "one nation under God", then that person doesn't have to say that it is. That, or they can move to a nation that doesn't claim to be.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by dougli Let me see if I can manuever around the land mines. Since the United States of America was founded, God has been a part of our national image. Whatever one thinks of America, God and gods, this linkage should remain as part of the American national personality. It is optional on a personal level, as supported by the principle of separation of church and state. But to work to drop it from our national image is to erode America's national identity. Eroding a nation's identity inevitably leads to the weakening of that nation's status in the world arena. And that is simply not a good thing in this volitile modern world. If someone doesn't think this is "one nation under God", then that person doesn't have to say that it is. That, or they can move to a nation that doesn't claim to be.

Well said! I'm real tired of people infringing upon my rights in the name of their rights. Everyone needs to get the chips off their shoulders.

Seems like there are no absolute right and wrongs any more. All the ultra liberals have morphed everything into relativism. It's right if you can get away with it. That sucks. Look at corporate america. What a mess. All because people threw out absolutes. Creeps me out. What's wrong is wrong.

It's wrong to cheat, lie, and steal. period.
It's wrong to deny people the right to recite the pledge of alegiance to the flag.
It's wrong to deny people the right to pray in school.
It's wrong to deny people freedom of speech to talk about God in a valedictorian address.
What the 9th dist. court of appeals in CA did today was WRONG.

 

[Old Pa]

I think "one nation under God" is pretty generic and neutral; a lot of people can wear this hat. I think the CA Circuit is out of their ass . . . .

 

[freethetree]

i long for freedom from the flag of the united states of america and from the public whom it deceives, manipulates and oppresses, one nation, under capitolism, divisible, with liberty and justice for the top five percent.
-me

Needless to say I dont support the way children are trained to recite the pledge from the moment they begin their mandatory goverment schooling. Sometimes I still stand up and put my hand over my heart in responce to hearing the pledge over the morning announcements at school. Of course this is nothing but a conditioning, I dont really pledge my alliagence to a piece of canvas (or the government it represents, but thats a different conversation). I love my country (the land it resides on) because I choose to. This whole pledge thing is rediculous, you cant instill respect and loyality for a nation by forcing children to recite something they dont even understand, or havent stopped to think about yet. As for the god subject its up to the individual. I refuse to say the entire thing. If the god part makes you uncomfortable, dont say it. Its a bunch of crap that they expect you to say any of it in the first place. The god part doesnt really bother me in particular. I really doubt the governement will change the pledge at this point in time

>>It's wrong to deny people the right to recite the pledge of alegiance to the flag.
It's wrong to deny people the right to pray in school.
It's wrong to deny people freedom of speech to talk about God in a valedictorian address.
What the 9th dist. court of appeals in CA did today was WRONG.

The denial of these rights is just as rediculous as forcing the execution of them.

 

[Wizard77]

After hearing about this issue on NPR on my ride home, I was inclined to agree with the dissenting judge. He was the only dissenting opinion and his reasoning was that the issue was de minimus (don't know if my Latin is right). It basically means he felt the whole issue was of minimal importance and not worthy of judicial review.

I initially agreed with him. As an agnostic, I recited the pledge thousands of times and never felt threatened by the "god" in it. It just didn't matter.

However, I do understand the principle that is being challenged in the case. Many of the immigrants to this country were religiously persecuted. They came here to be free of that. The founding fathers understood well that government tends to get bigger and bigger as time goes by. They delve into many areas (including religion) that they shouldn't. The founders knew that the only way to control that was to strictly separate church and state. So, while the pledge issue seems ridiculous on its face, it involves one of our most important principles.

For those who have faith, consider how you would feel if the pledge implied that there is no god. You would (rightly) be affended by that because it's not what you believe. Similarly, some athiests and others are affended by the statement that we are all under god. They do not believe that. It is best to leave god out of government, period.

In sum, leaving god out of the pledge adheres to the principles of our constitution and is the fairest solution for everyone.

 

[Jeff Guidry]

I'm no constitutional scholar, but the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That could be interpreted to mean that acknowledging a singular God (as in one nation, under God) and assuming we are all under that God (whatever "under" means to you) implies that the law passed by Congress adding the phrase "under God" is a law that respects an establishment of religion.

Personally, I like this ruling. I've got no personal problem with saying one nation, under God, but if we are interpreting the constitution strictly, we must acknowledge that there is some room to argue for this ruling. I like challenging the established notion that we all believe and trust in God. Some of us, however few, don't, and they deserved to be heard and afford constitutional protections that same the rest of us.

 

[fredpb]

It's really quite simple. Who founded the country, and for who? What was their general religion.

USA is basically a christian (note the small "c") country. Founded on that belief, but also allowing any to practice any religion they feel like doing. Within bounds of law.

All were welcomed. But the minority religions eventually started nasty things against the majority. Too bad. The biggest game is the "separation of church and state". This was meant to keep any religion or church from RUNNING the government. Not to keep Manger scenes off a cities' property. The majority religion is being fried and harrassed out of existance. Not nice.

Can you imagine going to some Hindu or Islamic country (oh, it's ok for them to have their own country) starting the old separation of religion and state routine. Can you imagine Israel doing it?

I could go on, but this is one of my pet peeves. Denying the majority their practice of religion is pretty popular in this country. Too bad. The openness of the USA is it's own destruction.

Like the narrow minded saying goes, if you don't like it, leave.

 

[KR...]

The original Pledge of Allegiance never contained the word "God"

The idea for such a pledge probably originated with one of the editors of The Youth's Companion, a magazine for children. By a proclamation from President Benjamin Harrison, the pledge was first used on October 12, 1892 during Columbus Day observances in public schools. The original wording appears 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.

The pledge was amended subsequently by the substitution of the words "the flag of the United States of America" for the phrase "my flag." The newly worded pledge was adopted officially on Flag Day, June 14, 1924.

In 1954, several Christian anti-communists urged a bill to change the pledge to include "God." By joint resolution of Congress the pledge was further amended in 1954 by the addition of the words "under God." This is how the pledge now reads:

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.

I vote for the original Pledge of Allegiance.