Pledge of Allegiance, `Under God' Backed at U.S. Supreme Court

[rodbarnett]

March 24 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled they have few concerns about the practice of asking public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase ``under God.''

The justices, hearing arguments in Washington on perhaps the highest-profile case of their 2003-04 term, aimed a barrage of questions at Michael Newdow, a California atheist who says daily recitations of the pledge at his daughter's school interferes with his right to teach her his beliefs.

Several justices questioned Newdow's contention that the pledge, with its reference to ``one nation, under God,'' is akin to a prayer and thereby violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

``You may disagree that it's 'under God.' You may disagree that it's `liberty and justice for all,''' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said, referring to another part of the pledge. ``That doesn't make it a prayer.''

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=atYRSfJC_lgM&refer=us

[BOHICA06]

1. High profile ....

Low Impact .... wasted dollars, air, and time.

I think the pledge works either way, but it don't put any bread on the table.

[President Jesus]

97. Ken Starr campaign contributions (2000-2004)

Oh, you're gonna love this list of contributions Ken and his wife have made:

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?zip=22102&st=VA&contributor=Starr

Wouldn't this public list pretty much kill any chance he would have of getting a federal judicial appointment?

[Heyo]

2. Good....

It's not required for kids to say the pledge if they don't want to (the way it should be)... I say leave it the way it is....

Heyo

[David__77]

4. I think the original pledge is more appropriate to the US.

The current one is not inclusive enough of the people of the country. We should not proceed from "Judeo-Christian" precepts in governing, but rather the general welfare, including people of various faiths. Why exclude polytheists or atheists?

[a_random_joel]

7. BZZZZ... Wrong answer.

It is called implied coercion.

Question 1: Does the burden lie on the minority to accomodate the majority, or does the burden lie on everyone to be treated with equity?

Question 2: Do children pick out differences with each other such as, clothing, corrective lenses, athletic performance, ethnic, economic or religious background? Do such differences lead to intimidation, harrasment or occasional assault?

Question 3: Are you required to reveal your religious affiliation at your workplace? If someone forced you to do so, would you be OK with that?

Question 4: Which words from the Pledge are more important... "Under God" or "For All?"

[Free_Thinking1]

41. Do you mean "wrong answer"

Or "not my answer". How about being a little bit more open to others opinions?

[a_random_joel]

56. No, I meant WRONG ANSWER. I stand by my words.

The post claims:

It's not required for kids to say the pledge if they don't want to

This is technically true, but the poster does not acknowledge the coercion component. Therefore, not telling the whole story. Which makes his response fallacious.

[LiberalFighter]

42. Also...

children are not in the position to know that they can challenge something like this.

Also... children are are more intimidated.

[Just Me]

45. I do agree with your "implied coercion" position.

Frankly, the form of coercion is even more than "implied" when any child or adult refuses to "play that game". The "coercion" becomes quite hostile in the form of verbal persecution.

Bottom line is this: if "faith" is God-made,...then, religious or spiritual orientations need not ever be forced by man. I hold my own individual "faith" which I know will not necessary be accepted by any religious body. My government should be completely open, within the confines of the rule of law, to me and everyone else.

[a_random_joel]

9. When you say "leave it the way it is"...

Are you referring to the edited version we now have which was edited in 1954 by Congress at the bequest of the Catholic Knights of Columbus in response to the Red Scare...


Or are you referring to its original form, written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy.. who DID NOT have the words Under God in the PLedge, even though he was a minister?

[kysrsoze]

I think this is a good stopping point

If this is outlawed, then we start to see other wasteful efforts like removing "In God We Trust" from all currency and removal of the word "God" from the Declaration of Independence. This really means nothing either way.

Now, when we start doing things like trying to put monuments to the ten commandments on government property, I think that is an infringement on religious rights.

[WitchWay]

62. Wasteful Efforts that mean "nothing either way"?

It sure fucking mean something to those who are not of the Judeo-Christian persuassion. It sure IS INFRINGEMENT ON RELIGIOUS RIGHTS if you are not a Christian, or even if you ARE a Christian. Do you think that this country should force people into the Judeo-Christian faith-systems? Should it MANDATE that schoolkids become Christians? Or should it make them ACT like Christians and talk like Christains just because of MAJORITY rule?

The pledge is totally, absolutely disgusting to me with the under God phrase in it. First, it is PRAYER TO A STATE -- so even CHRISTIANS ought to be deeply offended that it is basically FLAG WORSHIP...or idolizing a false idol. you put your hand over your heart and make a pledge to a flag. that's fascist and nationalistic. I would think many people would simply find that blasphemous, including Christians.

You know -- not all Americans want their kids to say that they are "under" some monolithic, patriarchical God-Figure who lords over the state govenment. There's simply no need for the pledge in school. Kids should learn that in a democracy they control their country, not that they are hapless, helpless, underlings to some Patriarchical state. I would never let or make a child pledge allegiance to PATRIARCHICAL RULE!

Also, they don't need to say those ironic "liberty and justice for all lines" when the way things are - that's just total, complete bullshit. So, why should kids be FORCED TO LIE?

[CO Liberal]

75. I Say Put It Back The Way It Was

"Under God" wasn't added until 1954. Take it out.

[Roaming]

138. OK, using your logic, the Civil Rights Amendment was not added

until 1964. Take it out. /sarcasm

[ashling]

131. Maybe where you went to school

I recall taking the first half of a Geometry class so that other students could be encouraged to preach to me on why I was going to hell. Religion is cramed down students throats so many ways that it is not funny!

[leesa]

137. Right...and I want to say thanks to the Supreme Court for defending

my right to be free from religion.

[onehandle]

3. If they rule against the atheist...

...Karl will be a very angry thug.

[librechik]

5. why don't they just say it's not an official pledge

so the government has no jurisdiction? Or if not, declare it an official document and require everyone to pledge fealty to the empire and God on a daily basis?

[TahitiNut]

111. 36 USC 172

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/36/chapters/10/sections/section_172.html

[LisaM]

6. The current one is a McCarthy-era kneejerk reaction

Here we go, back to the 50's.

Of course, if we are really to turn the clock back, why don't we make it so that corporations pay 30% of all taxes in this country, as they did then? Their share has shrunk to 7%.

[texastoast]

27. Love your thinking

Now, those really were, in that particular way, the good old days.

[fryguy]

8. why not...

one Nation, under Canada....?

[a_random_joel]

10. Redundant statement

Canada is a Nation.

One Nation, under another Nation?

Help me out here...

[BiggJawn]

14. Look at the atlas...

We sit "under" Canada...

[a_random_joel]

20. My eagerness to pounce on potential freeper types...

caused me to jump the gun and launch a pre-emptive unilateral stike on a phantom threat.

The Bushies have taught me well...

[nolabels]

31. My compass works perfect, it points the north is down

I willing to bet the penguins like their place at the top of world just fine :D

[Yavin4]

52. Not the Americans in Alaska

One nation under Canada, except for Alaskans.

[fryguy]

16. Sarcasm.....

Damn I hate having to explain jokes....

Think geographic relationships:

"I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Canada (or "over Mexico"), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."


btw - thanks for enlightening me to Canada's nationhood

[a_random_joel]

19. My bad

We have a lot of freeper types prowling here. I took your post out of context. I thought you meant it as caving in to Left pressure(aka One Nation under France). I admit basing part of my judgment on your low post count; I was wrong.

[fryguy]

22. No worries

(By the way, what's a "freeper")

[Mithras61]

24. freeper = Free Republic denizen

Free Republic = notoriously rabid right wingnut hangout

[nolabels]

43. There is a dictionary if you need one

Here is a link to bookmark for you, cheers

NEED HELP: The DU Slang Dictionary is back..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=450719

[yardwork]

73. Welcome to DU, fryguy!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

49. Don't forget above Mexico.

[Kolesar]

11. Why didn't Newdow get an experienced attorney?

I know he is an attorney, but why did he not hire someone experienced with procedure in the Supreme Court? That is commonly done for supreme court cases. Now we're sunk--when will this ever come up again?

[fryguy]

17. vanity v. victory

I suppose the prospect of arguing in front of the Court cloudy his judgment in doing what might be best for the claim as a whole.

[DinahMoeHum]

40. "He who represents himself has a fool for a client"

n/t

:evilfrown:

[Almost_there]

55. Exactly...

I am sure that he did an admirable job, but, this is arguing before essentially the ruling body of the United States Constitution. There are lawyers who spend their whole lives training for their 5 minutes of oral arguments (was it 5 or more in this case?) and they get trounced on.

On the CNN recap, they said that the judges really hammered him on his comparing the Pledge to a forced prayer. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/24/scotus.pledge/index.html

I don't think this has a snowball's chance of passing, but, he did make good and valid points, and he put up a good fight. I think he would have been better served having an ACLU seasoned SCOTUS lawyer doing the argument, but, Pride goeth before the fall. Plus, I think he likes his 15 minutes of fame...

~Almost

[PassingFair]

133. I'm a totally "outed" atheist who supports Newdow...

but I'll be glad if he doesn't win. My children know that they have the option to opt out of the pledge and I'll go to bat for them if there are any repercussions.
Newdow is 100% right. The pledge should be re-amended to its original form, that being said, I don't think the timing is right for this.
Not when ALL senate and house members hastily toed up to the altar of the supernatural to proclaim "under gawd" in their most self-righteous postures in the rotunda after the original court decision came down. A public smackdown of gawd will send the true believers flocking to dubya. Ick.
I remember growing up in the 70's, my Catholic neighbors were the most liberal and politically active folks on the block. My girlfriend's all marched with their mothers almost every weekend, whilst my quietly protestant family stayed home and read the papers. The repuke takeover of the catholic church makes me want to vomit.

We should be challenging "faith-based initiatives" now, not the pledge.

[yardwork]

74. What was he thinking anyway?

Can't he count? This is the Court that made * king. Did he seriously think that he would prevail with the Scalia Court?

[lazarus]

113. So just give up?

Don't even bother? Is that what you're saying?

We should all just give up even trying, because we're all doomed?

[Mississippi Liberal]

114. Actually, this isn't "the Scalia Court."

Fat Tony recused himself after he got caught giving his opinion of the case in a speech to a conservative group. Not only is he not voting, but if the case goes 4-4, the 9th Circuit is affirmed.

[terisel]

12. The "under god" insertion divided nation and indivisible

Think about it---if we were still saying saying "one nation indivisible..."

I think the USA starting coming apart again after "nation indivisible" was separated. For one thing, the internal religious wars and people trying to push their personal view of God on other people seem to have increased.

"under god" was added as an outgrowth of hatred of soviet communism in ther 1950s and its forcing of its beliefs on people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries.

Now we have a country where some people keep trying to force their personal beliefs on the rest of us.

[Bandit]

18. A very good point. ~ It does seem to be quite devisive

We are certainly no longer one nation indivisible and God seems to be a contributing factor. We are probably more divided now than any other time other than the civil war era. Maybe if God could just stay in his own house (church) we may all learn to get along again. "Oh Lord, Please protect me from your followers"

[GoddessOfGuinness]

13. What bullshit.

"Under God" wasn't written into the pledge until the McCarthy Era, when right-wing fundies wanted to equate Atheism with Communism.

It had nothing to do with God; and the reasons behind including those words establish beyond doubt that this nation is far from being "under God".

Not only is it insulting to those who firmly believe in NO god; it's
outrageously blasphemous. :grr:

[BiggJawn]

15. McCarthy's thugs thought Commies could not say "god"...

I dunno, like their tongues would fall out of their heads or something?

"We'll make it 'One nation, Under GAWD', then you can tell when you have Commies in the room because their mouths will cramp-up or bleed or something and they won't be able to say 'GAWD'...."

[texastoast]

26. It was custom long before the 50s

My father-in-law (84 years old) said "under God" when he started first grade. It was "officially" adopted under McCarthyism.

[Almost_there]

57. Heard that too...

I did hear that, I haven't found a link to it yet. Plus, the first Pledge if I recall (again, no link, sorry... I'll find it and edit) was really to help sell Flags or something (could be a rumor), and was quite a bit sorter than it is today.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html

~Almost

[starroute]

91. Not where I was

It definitely wasn't there when I started Kindergarden. It still hadn't made it into the autograph books we got when I graduated from elementary school in 1957. And we kids were all very aware that "under God" had just kind of been stuck in arbitrarily, because it broke up the nice, symmetrical sing-song rhythm in which we were used to reciting it:

I pledge allegience . . . . . . 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

I suppose it's possible that parochial schools might have been adding an "under God" earlier out of fear of seeming to swear allegience to a purely secular institution. But it certainly can't have been common practice.

[texastoast]

108. Where are you from?

My father-in-law is from Texas. So it might have been a local custom back in 1928 to say "under God," but he did not attend a parochial school. Nor did I. Here, it has done for a very long time.

[texastoast]

21. This drives me $#%ing crazy

I'm a witness. Started elementary school in 1961. I went to school where it was 95% white and about 99.99% Christian.

We did have a Jewish kid who attended our school. She never said the pledge and always sat down for it. We other kids noticed, but no one ever said anything to her. The teacher just explained it away as "it's against her religion." "Oh," we said. "Okay."

I don't get it. No progress here whatsoever. Is anyone really forced to say the pledge? Are there places where it is mandatory to say it?

:wtf:

[a_random_joel]

58. You don't get it?! It's called implied coercion!

You are lucky that at your school the Jewish child was not ridiculed for her marks. In other parts of the country quite the opposite is true.

Have you ever been witness to a child being harassed becasue they wore glasses, did not have the best clothes, or looked different?

Why should the child to have to reveal a difference?

Who the hell is anyone to tell anyone else, especially a child to reveal their personal beliefs! Especially at the potential risk of harassment or ridicule.

Unbelievable.

[texastoast]

119. Gentler World

What do you mean by "marks"?

Yes, I have witnessed snot-nosed boys making fun of my glasses and skinny legs. It was a difference I couldn't conceal.

Funny how kids are so much more tolerant than adults.

IMHO, progress is made when we accept, reveal, and love through our differences. The cultural ideology that "difference is bad" is what needs to be changed.

A homogenized, sterile society of PC grunting because we can no longer talk for fear of hurting someone's feelings I think is pretty harassing. Yes, sensitivity is important, but does a cushioned enviroment make you strong for the long run?

I am amazed that Texas is more tolerant. I take that back. Texas used to be more tolerant, apparently.

[Just Me]

60. Personally, if I did something different,...I was emotionally stoned,..

,...and I believe your experience is rare because,...I have known way, way too many people who advance another experience. Face it, we are rarely ever embraced for being "unique". To the contrary, we are condemned for failing to "fall in line". If you believe anything else, apparently,...you were "in line". I don't mean my message to be demeaning statement about you, personally. I simply take a stand for all those who have been subjected to intolerance.

[texastoast]

121. Buck up there!

Surely you have outgrown that by now. Worry about what people think when they pay your bills. But, yes, you have to take the consequences.

Anthropologically speaking, "falling in line" is a leftover survival behavior when we couldn't survive without the group. The collective consciousness can be changed to celebrate differences, but it is a life-long job that we won't finish. But a satisfying pursuit.

Keep standing up to bullies. You make a big difference.

[mbperrin]

67. Yes, the Texas Education Agency requires the Pledge of

Allegiance to the US flag, the Texas Pledge to the Texas flag, and a moment of silence in every Texas classroom each morning, effective this school year.

[texastoast]

120. So now it is official

I wonder if the pledge police are watching whether or not you say the pledge or whether you skip "under God."

*&$% pledge police!!

Dang, I didn't know we had a Texas pledge. I guess I'll have to ask my kiddo what the words are.

I would like the moment of silence part. Time enough to swallow my gum or pass a note.

Rebel, rebel!! and do it locally.

[daleo]

77. You may not have the same memories of this as the Jewish child

Nothing personal, but the child involved may have been harassed and you were simply unaware.

[texastoast]

122. Doubtful

Everyone liked her. Her brother was a babe, an athlete, and very popular. And it was a fairly small school. I would have known in the 12 years I went to school with her.

Frankly, most of us didn't even know what being Jewish meant. Or Catholic or Methodist. Mostly, kids complained about having to sit still in church.

The fundies have brought about these new prejudices. Real Christians are tolerant.

[jobycom]

23. Geeze, I hope he can do better than that

If Newdow is placing a lot of emphasis on the idea that this is a forced prayer, he might as well go home. He needs to stick to the main point: the government requires students to pledge that there is a god. That's establishing a religion.

I'd love to see that phrase struck from the pledge. It would make me feel more like a full citizen, and less like an inconvenience to a government that feels no compunction against breaking its laws when it wants to.

[lucky777]

25. I felt very uncomfortable sitting down during the pledge

as a schoolkid. It was terrible -- I had to justify being neutral toward religion while the school was PRO religion. Later my parents said I could stand but not say the words 'under God.'

As a person directly involved and affected, let me tell you -- It is extremely coercive to force a kid to pledge to God with one hand over the heart.

The gov has no business pushing religion -- and "God" is religion. I felt disgusted at being forced to acknowledge some imaginary fairy in the sky which was completely at odds with the science that I had been taught at an early age.

It is not a 'general word' that has no religious content -- if so, then why would you care if we took it out?

To the person who said it is not coercive -- you are wrong.

[texastoast]

29. We've come a long way . . .

Getting away from "living and let live," eh?

[hang a left]

28. I can't get the link to work for the article but...........

The justices usually don't tip there hand when hearing arguments and asking questions. They do always play devil's advocate do they not. 2000 notwithstanding. They decided to hear the case. So maybe just maybe we should wait till they rule.

[OhioArtist]

30. BS

``You may disagree that it's 'under God.' You may disagree that it's `liberty and justice for all,''' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said, referring to another part of the pledge. ``That doesn't make it a prayer.''

HUH? Has Rehnquist lost the ability to reason, or did he ever have it?

In this case 'under God' is invoking God, thus it is a prayer. It asserts that the ultimate authority is God and not the people, which is in stark contrast with the principles this country was founded upon.

The argument that this is not mandatory is simply diversionary. Tell me how many schools set aside time each morning for the Pledge and how many don't? Yes, you can sit down and decide not to recite it if you so choose, but how many children truly understand what they are saying. IMO itt is simply an attempt to force conformity and limit critical thought.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

38. Yes. It forces one to recognize something unproven (faith)

it compels one to acknowledge a Being whose existence cannot be proven. It forces an act of faith on you.

[Almost_there]

59. Technically, it's not a "prayer" as defined...

A prayer is defined as:

1. communication with God or other being: a spoken or unspoken communication with God, a deity, or a saint. It may express praise, thanksgiving, confession or a request for something such as help or somebody’s wellbeing.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/prayer.html

So, using "under God" doesn't fit the typical description of a prayer. "In God we Trust" isn't a prayer as much as it is an anachonysm, back to when Church was held in Independance Hall, and even today, Congressional sessions are started with a prayer.

I honestly think that it isn't an attempt to stifle "critical thought", if anything, perhaps as it has here, encouraged thought.

The children are not forced to say any part of the pledge, and they can surely be absent from the room during the pledge, as I believe was the case here. Don't say it, don't hear it, don't deal with it. I just don't see it as this overpowering "Believe in MY God or you shall be smoted with Fire from the depths of Hell!"

~Almost

[a_random_joel]

65. You ignored me in another thread. Let's see you do the same here.

The prayer argument is a straw man.

If prayer is limited to expressing praise, thanksgiving, confession or a request. Then would having children stating a pledge "Under Lucifer" be OK, because it is not considered a prayer?

Further, the acknowledgement of a monotheistic deity, whatever the name, smashes the line separating church and state. It denies the rights of those who do not believe in such a being, or those who believe in multiple beings, or those who revere their monotheistic being SO MUCH that the generic term God borders on blasphemy. How does this become your choice to make for them?

Which words are more important in the Pledge - "Under God" or "FOR ALL?"

[Almost_there]

87. Wow. Someone's bitter...

OK, sorry I didn't wait around with baited breath for your oh so enlightened response on the other thread. I have a job and don't chill out here all day waiting for your reply, oh great and mighty one.

Chill out dude. Seriously, you'll live longer if you love and relax.

By bringing the "Under Lucifer" comment in, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove other than "let's be as ridiculous in a slippery slope argument as possible". Its akin to some repuke saying "Let's make make death for anyone that is covicted of ATTEMPTED murder next, since they MEANT to kill, they just screwed up." I just don't get your comment. Maybe I'm not smart enough.

I guess next we'll have Billy Graham, the Pope and Jerry Falwell running the show in Washington, and in lieu of taxes, we'll rename them Tithes and send them in to be prayed over.

I disagree with you on the monotheistic diety "smashing the line seperating Church and State". It's much more complex than that. The constitution is essentially in place to A)Outline our freedoms, and B)protect the minority from the will of the majority. I just disagree that the line under God actually discriminates against someone.

I don't see how using the term "Under God" in a VOLUNTARY Pledge to the Flag of this nation. We are not a theocracy, we are a democracy, and you do not have to recite the pledge, nor hear it if you so choose. However, stating that reciting "under God" is blasphemous is ridiculous as well.

I would ask you to describe the rights that are being infringed upon. Life? Liberty? Pursuit of Happiness? You DO NOT have to recite the pledge. Unlike other countries of today and yesterday, you do not have to swear allegiance to the King or to any God in order to participate. But, again, let's not be so disingenuous with the seperation of Church and State. Let's look at the historical background of Jefferson's letter, and what it was meant for then, and how it has come to be today. Let's not ascribe traits to Jefferson, Franklin, and others that didn't exist. Even as a Deist, Jefferson would acknowledge that God had a hand in creating the Universe, and ultimately humankind as we know it, since it is an offset of the creation of the Universe, right?


I simply disagree with you on what principals form the First Amendment, why they were installed, and what impact it has upon congress. I guess we should DEMAND a refund on the money paid to a Congressional Pastor (for travel etc), right?

And as far as the more important term in the Pledge? How about the entire Pledge? I don't pick and choose my favorite parts of the constitution, focus on those and abandon the others. But, what gives us the "with liberty and justice for all"? Why, the rebuplic that the Flag represents! The United States does!

Sorry if I am not here for your enlightened lambasting of me, I am sure I will enjoy it when it comes. But please, take on my comments, not me. OK?

~Almost

[a_random_joel]

92. Nope. Not bitter at all. Just ensuring that...

those who might not be familiar with all the facts become a little bit more familiar with them before they spout off.

I claim neither greatness or mightiness. I simply claimed reasoned examination and critical thought. Which is all I expect of you as well.

I too, have a job. I completely understand your lack of response in light of this. Forgive my eager state... this is an issue that if you were unable to discern, is a sore spot with me.

The Lucifer comment was not a slippery slope argument. I can see how you might perceive it as such. Rather, I was objecting to your denial that Under God constitutes a prayer based on your, erm... EnCarta definition. Frankly, that is not good enough, friend. If I deem a religious reference as a prayer, that is MY call, not yours... certainly not EnCarta's. The Lucifer remark was merely a substitution designed to highlight this fact.

As for the Constitution, I agree with you in your premise that it is
in place to A)Outline our freedoms, and B)protect the minority from the will of the majority

Which is exactly my position in this matter. Freedom OF religion also include Freedom FROM religion. The Establishment Clause is the guarantor. Tyranny of the Majority is exactly why the term "Under God" in the Pledge is unconstitutional. The minority is being forced to wither comply with the statement or reveal a difference which they should not be forced to reveal.

If you cannot see this as a potentially coercive arrangement for the minority, then I am afraid, and I say this with all due respect, that perhaps you are not familiar enough with past and present events to make a sound judgment.

As for the ridiculousness of the blasphemy argument... is there a reason that Muslims use the word Allah? Is there a reason orthodox Jews use a substitution for God's name? Are you familiar with the Commandment which orders one not to invoke God's name in vein? Are you familiar with the fact that there are polytheistic faiths that would consider acknowledgment of a monotheistic being as ,indeed, blasphemous? Who are you to judge what another man deems blasphemous?

The rights being infringed upon are simple. The Bill of Rights is expanded beyond Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. I have already addressed the purpose of the 1st Amendment, so to do so here would be redundant. I do not have to recite the Pledge? The Pledge is a mandated statement. The entire class is forced to recite it. You are correct in stating that a child may refuse if they wish. However this forces them to reveal a difference among their peers. Which is a violation of that child's rights. Further harm may be enacted upon this child because to the noted difference. But perhaps you can tell me which rights are being violated if we DO take out the phrase "Under God?"

I apologize for my overzealousness, as I said, this is a passionate issue for me. I will do my best, and I hope I have done so in this post to dispute the message, and not lambaste the messenger.

Thanks for your reply.

[Almost_there]

99. Why not just take it out...

Well, I too apologize if I spouted off, I know that religion is one of the "political third rails"... it powers the train, but, touch it and you're dead. ;-)

As far as taking it out, I think that the simple "why not just take it out" is a very good point, and one that is hard to argue against. Truly. In a secular society, why not just take it out? The government is supposed to not endorse nor establish any religion, nor stop any religion from being created or practiced (I think we can agree as long as the religion falls within a common acceptable definition of religion, cult worship such as Charles Manson aren't religions per se).

So, why not just take it out? It certainly wouldn't hurt anyone, right? Why not just change the coins and bills to drop "In God We Trust"? And I don't buy the stupid "Well, it would cost so much to redo the mint!!" That's total crap. They've done multiple makeovers of quarters and nickles in the past years and are still doing them, the new $20's abound, so, that's a disingenuous comment by the righties.

So, the only comment I have on why not take it out is because it is part of what has made this country what it is. Without the struggle for religious freedom, the desire to be able to practice whatever religion they wanted that drove the first people to step foot into Massachussets Bay is something we can't just ignore. You don't have to believe in God to believe in the dream of America.

It is the freedom to dream, the freedom to believe in anything or nothing that makes this country what it is today, but, it is also I think turning our backs on the past of what drove the people who founded this country to deny that at least THEY felt inspired by a being they call God. Whose God? Anyone's God. Does leaving an "s" off the end offend polytheists? Perhaps it does. Are they being persecuted for saying "one nation under Gods"? Not the last time I checked. Are Atheists or agnostics being forced to say the pledge at all? Nope.

Are we "worshipping" a piece of cloth? No. Not at all. You are pledging allegiance to the flag AND to the Republic for which it stands. Is that republic perfect? Hell no! Is it a place where some people are "more equal than others"? We've all seen it or read about it. Is it the ideology of the framework that makes it unfair to some, and fairer to others? I don't think so. I think it is people that twist it to their advantage, to take things out of context, to use snippets of this and that in order to further their message of hate, seperation, and discrimination. But, does that make the apple rotten to the core? No.

I do believe in God, but, will I ever try to convince someone else that my God is better than theirs? Or that Atheists are just misguided? I certainly hope not.

So, do I arguing to keep "under God" in the pledge have a harder case when it comes to "who does it hurt to remove it?". Yes, much harder. I believe that this country was founded upon religious tolerance as one of many touchstones, and in keeping with that, I don't think it hurts anyone to leave it in.

Sorry if I have done a weak job in defending my own point, but, I feel that without tireless passion, a desire for freedom, political and religious, and with some divine inspiration, be it real or perceived, this country may still be a small colony of Great Britain.

~Almost

PS. Sorry if I too get emotional, I try to leave most of my emotions at the door, so to speak, reading crap on CNN and Faux news makes me foam at the mouth like the CEO in The Silent Movie, if you've ever seen it... I lose it after reading so many lies, and it sometimes carries over.

[Sentath]

102. Exactly! (but the other way around)

"So, the only comment I have on why not take it out is because it is part of what has made this country what it is. Without the struggle for religious freedom, the desire to be able to practice whatever religion they wanted that drove the first people to step foot into Massachusetts Bay is something we can't just ignore. You don't have to believe in God to believe in the dream of America."

So .. if I don't have to believe in G-d, and I'm free to practice whatever religion (including the lack thereof?) I want; then why are you in favor of me being coerced to demean your deity by speaking "His name" derisively?

[Almost_there]

105. But you're NOT being forced...

The whole point is that you are not being forced to listen nor to speak the name of G-d (using the Hebrew belief that the diety's name cannot be written). I just view it as silly to ignore why this country was founded, the beliefs that they held, and the reasons that they had for creating the framework of what makes the United States the United States.

Let's call it simply a greater power. The arguments that the founding people were inspired by a greater power, one that they believed was helping to guide them or at least inspire them, much as we look to MLK, Harvey Milk, Malcolm, JFK, and others for inspiration, they looked to G-d and the Bible. Are we supposed to turn our backs on that? Perhaps we should take President's images off of money altogether, since that is certainly idolotry and is forcing you to see brazen images of Presidents you may or may not agree with. Hell, in the South I have met people who would love nothing more than to congratulate John Wilkes Booth, and wish he had done the job a few years earlier, who look up to Nathan Bedford Forrest as an icon.. an idol.. a pseudo g-d? Should we accomidate their beliefs to remove Lincoln because they disagree that he was a great man and a President? They may EASILY argue that it is idolotry and worship to have his image on currency.

I'm don't think it is impeding on anyone's rights to A) Not have to say the pledge or the phrase "under God", or B) to not even have to listen to it and have the constituitional right to leave the room. Both are options. Personally, I am a Christian, born a Catholic, and do I go to Church every Sunday? Nope. Not at all. But, I also acknowledge that the "founding fathers" believed that they were divinely inspired to create this country, and I don't see irreprable harm in keeping the words under God or In God We Trust or God Bless America in use today.

The one thing that seems to be getting overlooked is freedom of speech. You don't have to agree with what I am saying, but, you don't have to listen, you don't have to speak, and that's what makes this country what it is.

~Almost

[a_random_joel]

112. Thanks again for your clarifications.

I hear you and understand where you are coming from.

Freedom from religious persecution is indeed an important component of American philosophy and history.

But in fact, if you examine closely... it is this that is the core component of my objections. Religious freedom is exactly what drives my argument.

Polytheistic grammar supplements aside, again, we are asking certain minorities to alter their behavior to accomodate the majority. This is unacceptable.

To remove Under God, changes absolutely nothing. The faithful are free to congregate at the appropriate place for religious discussions or practice... be it their Church, home or the Mall for that matter. Those whose faith is so strong require their children to be involved more with faith at school have many options at their disposal from parochial school to supplemental education such as Sunday or Hebrew school. Does the Atheist, polytheist, non-Christian(I include Jews and Muslims here), or even those who may be faithful but simply do not think public school to be the appropriate place have such luxuries when confronted by a mandated statement, that by its nature is divisive and contradicts the very foundation of the Pledge itself?

Think of it this way... What if Congress mandated a similar pledge to be recited in the workplace? Or, what if Congress mandated that before all religious gatherings, the priest had to read a brief statement saying that the existence of God was questionable? Or, what if in 50 years, another religion becomes dominant in the majority, and the Congress, due to extreme public pressure, edited the current Pledge to include a different statement that ran contrary to Christian beliefs? What would you think of protecting the minority then?

The bottom line, for me at least, is this: Removal of Under God harms absolutely NO ONE. Leaving it in has, in the very least, the POTENTIAL, to harm several segements of society. Considering that
those segments happen to be the most innocent and defenseless among us...

Peace to you.

[TahitiNut]

110. In making a distinction about "prayer," the USSC biases the argument.

An atheist can make no such distinction. To an atheist, there's no such thing as a "prayer" -- a distinction which is a de jure presumption for the existence of a "God" in the first place. To an atheist, one might as well be saying "under the Tooth Fairy" since it's the coerced acknowledgement that such an entity exists in the first place that's at issue.

In focusing on the presumed distinction between a "prayer" and a mere oath, the USSC is embedding within its argument the presumption that God exists. In doing so, it's assuming the conclusion in its argument -- a clear fallacy.

[sangh0]

123. Not exactly

I could be wrong, but I believe it was Newdow who claimed the Pledge is a prayer. The Justices were only responding to that argument.

And atheists do recognize the existence of prayers. They don't believe in their efficacy, but they know that prayers, like religions, exist. Just as I know that voodoo dolls exist.

[TahitiNut]

126. No, it was first O'Connor and then Kennedy ...

... who stated that the USSC's decision in Lee v. Wiseman regarding coercion was, as a substantive distinction, regarding a "prayer." (In Lee v. Wiseman the USSC found that a prayer during a public school graduation ceremony was unconstitutional in that attendees were under coercion to comply with a religious observance during a public school graduation ceremony.)

It's my opinion that making such a distinction imposes upon the plaintiff an acknowledgment of the very issue that the plaintiff is litigating: the a priori existence of the very audience for a 'prayer' (i.e. God). An atheist can personally recognize no substantive distinction between the various forms of religious observances, such observances themselves being premised on the more basic notion that a God exists.


It's just a little bit like asking whether a vegan could possibly be a Roman Catholic since, by fundamental dogma, the Eucharist is actually (i.e. by transubstantiation) Christ's body. If it is (which a Catholic must believe) then the sacrament of communion would violate vegan ethics. If the Catholic doesn't accept this (dogma) as a matter of faith, then they're obliged to not take communion. (These are a couple of the philosophical Catch-22's with religion in the context of other ethical/legal constructs.)


See ... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/national/25STEX.html?&ei=5062&en=d49e434609ae57a6&partner=GOOGLE&ex=1080882000&pagewanted=print&position=

[WitchWay]

64. But even without the Under God

Yep..the under God does make it prayer...

BUT

even WITHOUT the under God in it (the pledge itself)-- it is basically the worship of the Flag (because you have your hand over your heart, you stand, it's ritualistic, its a "pledge")...

A PLEDGE is a form of prayer -- and kids shouldn't be forced to pledge to anything in the school system. The school system should not be forcing a child to have loyalties and make these sort of oaths and pledges. Even for Christians, they should be offended at the MANDATORY flag (false idol) worship.

[scarface2004]

32. god can go to hell!

he s a right wing wacko...screw him!!

[LeftyChristian]

36. Ahhh to feel so welcome

while having a different belief system than what appears to be the majority on this site. I'm so glad that it's only the right that is so intolerant and hate filled. </SARCASM>

[GOPBasher]

44. Hey, you are welcome!

Please don't mind the few nutcases who think it is okay to be predjudiced against Christians. They really are the small minority around here.

By the way, I think all Christians should be liberals, because Jesus was a liberal.

Welcome to DU! :bounce:

[chimpymustgo]

46. Let's change it to: one nation, under Allah...

Feel any differently?

[LeftyChristian]

50. If it were changed

to 'under Allah' would that then allow me to have carte blanche on trashing muslim beliefs, because I don't believe them? Seems to be the sentiment shared on this thread about Christians.

If it were changed to 'under Allah', I would do as atheists do today...I wouldn't say it. For the record. Judge Moore was wrong to put the ten commandments in a public building and it wouldn't do a thing to my faith if 'under God' was removed from money and the pledge.

It is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

[Maat]

53. That's incorrect.

Read Rob Boston's "Why the Religious Right is Wrong." Read Jefferson's letters to Adams, and Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. He makes it very clear that he meant freedom from religion, because if the government promotes religion at all, it is promoting a religion, the Judeo-Christian type. Jefferson was a Deist and believed that Jesus was a Master Teacher -- he wanted a complete wall of separation between Church and State. I regard the phrase 'under God' as offensive because it honors McCarthyism, basically. I would prefer it out; the government is violating the law -- it is promoting religion.

[LeftyChristian]

61. The Constitution disagrees

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)

Other Jefferson Quotes
"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:320
"The constitutional freedom of religion the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

In respect to the government not endorsing a religion...agreed. Our government should be free FROM religion.

As far as fellow DUers bashing Christians and endorsing freedom FROM religion in all of aspects of life, that is wrong, unless we are misunderstanding each other. I am free to worship my God, no matter if others believe that it is foolish or not. I personally should not have my beliefs attacked and made fun of no matter what building or website I am visiting.

How short sighted and bigoted it is to lump all Christians in with all of the fundies.

[salin]

66. the phrase before the one you bold

is the one that resonates with this progressive Christian:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

When states propose to put the ten commandments in all classrooms in public schools to solve "discipline problems" (as was proposed a few years back in Louisiana) - it is claimed that b/c the commandments are to two religions it is not the same as pushing a particular religion. But the school is an arm of the state - putting the commandments all over the place would most certainly be construed as moving towards "establishment of religion". And as a policy person I would add - what a silly policy and expense - that would not change discipline problems as it wouldn't address any of the myriad of issues that often lead to discipline problems.

I can certainly understand where requiring the pledge to be said (as happens) with the words Under God could be construed as the government 'sanctioning' (or establishing?) a religion. When the religious right pushes the "freedom of religion" line.. but then sets a high bar on supporting only candidates who will legislate according to Christianity - what they are pushing for is in direct conflict with the constitution.

The sentiments you see expressed here (on this thread), I believe are more a reaction of many people (non christians and christians) who view the work from the religious right as moving more and more aggressively towards attempting to legislate their brand of christianity upon us all - and thus stories that even border on that theme, tend to witness folks pentup frustrations (ala stories of exing out evolution statewide from textbooks, etc.)

[LeftyChristian]

78. ?

I agree with your first two paragraphs. I have repeatedly said that government should be free from religion, but does that give non-Christians the right to belittle Christians?

The last paragraph seems to be giving those indiviuals a free pass to bash ALL Christians because they are frustrated with a few.

[salin]

106. The latter

is the context through which, in particular conversations, I read the comments to which you are bristling. For the most part, I have found that folks most often distinguish between the two (the radical religious right, and the rest of us) - but when inflamed due to the next aggressive action to reform our government (at the local, state or federal level), the rhetoric by those who feel most targeted by the radical religious right gets more inflamed. I understand it in that context, try to remind folks to distinguish, but work hard not to play the line that I find particularly offensive that gets used by the radical religious right (and finds its way into our local paper on a regular basis) of some form of religious persecution (or its soft form... "Christian bashing".

Sometimes some empathy from our end, goes a long way towards refinding agreement and commonality. You and I haven't been told by a sitting President that athesists shouldn't have the right to vote (said by George H. W. Bush.) We haven't been under assualt in the same way by the Falwell's and Robertson's who twelve years ago were marginalized by who today are given great voice and impact due to the politicization of the pulpits of those affiliated with the radical religious right. I tend to understand folks reacting strongly when they have been assualted over and over again in a way that is not, imo, anywhere as close to the periodic bashing that happens here, that I view as being more venting than anything else.

But the radical religious right pushes the "Christians are being persecuted" line again and again and point to not getting their legislative way as a sign of this. This is historically inaccurate, and it is historonically manipulative of well-intended but poorly informed followers (e.g., those in the politicized churches who are told weekly that political discipleship/membership is akin to aligning with God or with Satan.) Persecution means threat of loss of property, ability to earn a living, jail and at its height the loss of life. The Pogroms in Russian and parts of eastern Europe, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and to an extent the wiping out of more than a third of its population by the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot - THOSE are examples of persecution. Not being able to keep the Ten Commandments in a Court Room (which is most certainly symbolically the merging of Church and State) - even when a compromise solution has been reached in many states (allow the ten commandments to be displayed in conjunction with other historical documents) ... this is NOT religious persecution. We should not allow our sensitivies at perceived bashing (or as I view it - generalizing out from the reactions to the aggressive moves from the radical religious right) move us into using similar "persecution" language. Calls for civility - completely fair. Calls for distinguishing between those Christians who mean to change our political system and those who do not - completely fair.

To enter these conversations - especially when the bashing is occuring - from a perspective of understanding from where the emotions originate (out of true fear/concern for the power being amassed by the radical religious right - especially out of this white house and this DOJ) - with perspective and understanding about the origins of the anger (which I believe are legitimate)... rather than defensively allow one to converse and move the conversation past that anger - and back to points of empathy - for one another. Sorry, but you and I have not been as aggressively targeted and under assualt.

The call for OUR understanding and taking the conversation back to distinguishing between the radical religious right and the rest of Christians just doesn't take that much work.

To instead dwell in the "I, the oppressed" due to the perceived bashing - which frankly is nothing compared to the assualts from the religious radical right, does more to keep us divided on the left - because we can not understand the anger/rhetoric and reachout beyond it, than does the bashing - which is sort of a "sticks and stones" thing compared to the power of John Ashcroft, of state legislators, and the vast political movement that includes members of the Supreme Court.

This is not permission for bashing - I often weigh in on the calls to seperate out the TARGET of the anger, but it is a call for a little empathy on our side. A little walking in the shoes of those who are daily targeted by assualts from the radical religious right. And to bridge conversation from that perspective and to understand, and heck even validate, the space from which the anger (frustration, and often fear) originates as a point of understanding from which one moves forward in the conversations.

[termo]

115. religions try to impose moral laws.

and not only to their community.

I wasn't free to have a beer sunday morning in a dallas' pub!

the law is for everyone, and should not be dictated by religious ideas of a part of the population.

[LeftyChristian]

128. You're kidding right?

I want to drive 100mph through a school zone. I can't believe parents of school children would force their morality on me. </SARCASM>

I'm sure pedophiles also have a beef with age of consent laws also.

[WildClarySage]

89. What the hell

does that phrase mean? I mean, seriously, are you saying that you're free to worship any god/s/ess/esses any way you want but you must choose something? If freedom of religion doesn't mean that you have the freedom to have your choice to opt out of it all respected, then that's not really freedom at all.

And I'm really upset at the idea that children are being forced/coerced to pledge to anything at all. They're MINORS! Minors don't get to make binding pledges. It's a developmental issue! Even Columbia House recognizes this, fer cryin' out loud.

[LeftyChristian]

127. Your choice

Just like I have the choice to listen to people or not, you have the choice to choose a religion or not. Your choice is "no religion".

[TahitiNut]

109. So freedom OF speech doesn't mean freedom FROM speech either?

Thus, you could be coerced into listening to anything the government regarded as "mainstream"? (Well, you'd be "allowed" to ignore it, I suppose.) :eyes:

[LeftyChristian]

129. Nope

You don't have the right to silence someone, but you do have the right to walk away and not listen to what is being said.

If it was freedom FROM speech, you would be taking the speaker's right away.

[Almost_there]

54. Under Allah? Why are we speaking in two languages?

Uh... last time I checked, Allah is actually "God", just in Farsi. So, how about Dios? Dieu? Gott? Deus? Seriously, Allah is NOT God in English, that's actually pretty ignorant. It's like saying Osama bin Laden. There is no "U" in Middle Eastern language, it SOUNDS like Osama, but, its Usama.

So, getting back to your point, which is I guess that we should have the Pledge in multiple languages! Excellent! I'm all for it. Translate away.

Just seem ego centric to make someone recite all of the pledge in English, then toss in their transaltion for God. Let them say the whole thing in their native tongue.

~Almost

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyChristian]

76. So...

Since Christians are a majority it is OK to make fun of all of us? Nowhere in any of my posts have I said that Christians are a minority or that I am oppressed.

What gives anyone the right to make fun of another, especially if the only reason is that they do not believe the same things?

Do tell what socio-ecomomic advantages I enjoy? and they are extensive.

[yardwork]

81. Well, I haven't seen any posts on this thread that make fun of Christians.

Disagreeing with someone or something does not constitute ridicule.

Ridicule is usually reserved for * here. And the Freepers.

[LeftyChristian]

85. ?

"an imaginary fairy" post 25

"God can go to hell" the original post I replied to.

When your basic core of beliefs is the butt of a joke, then it is ridicule.

[yardwork]

93. I can't speak for those posters but I don't think they intended ridicule.

I think they are really ANGRY. They flat-out don't agree that anyone should be required to say "under God." They don't agree that anyone should have to pledge allegiance to a flag.

They aren't making fun of you or your beliefs, I think. They are angry that the law is forcing your beliefs onto them.

I don't think that any disrespect to you personally is intended, and I don't think many on this thread find it a laughing matter.

It is a very serious matter to someone who feels coerced or intimidated by the beliefs of others that have been made into the rule of law.

[starroute]

96. Atheists have to struggle just to be taken seriously

Remember the phrase, "There are no atheists in foxholes"? That's been the general -- and highly contemptuous -- attitude of our society. The complete line of argument isn't usually made explicit, but I think it goes something like this:

1. God exists.
2. We all know God exists.
3. Atheists know it too. They just want to deny it because they're angry at their parents or looking for attention or something silly like that. But if you can back then into a corner, they'll admit it.
4. Because everyone, including atheists, knows in their hearts that God exists, it's just frivolous self-indulgence to object to public acknowledgements of God.
5. The more that atheists deny the existence of God, the more they reveal themselves to be childish and self-deluded, and the more justified everyone else is in simply ignoring their protestations.

I can understand that the existence of sincere atheists might present a philosophical problem to theists. And I recognize that it might be easier for theists to take expressions of non-belief as personal insults, rather than as a cause for re-evaluating the bases of their own faith. But the real situation is that it's the theists who hold the dominant position, while the atheists are constantly getting the message, "You don't really exist. What you think is irrelevant, and besides, you're starting to annoy me. Get lost, kid, or I'll sic Tony Scalia on you."

(For my own part, I'm happiest if I can freak out both theists and atheists simultaneously. Or as Dylan once wrote, "If my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine. But it's alright, Ma, it's life, and life only.")

[KTM]

88. Of course we have that right

Its called freedom of speech. Should I so desire, I have the right to make fun of you and your beliefs all day long. You have the right to believe your religious teachings. I have the right to think you are a fool.

When the basic core of your beliefs is the butt of a joke, you are not being ridiculed - your beliefs are. You should support my right to disagree with your beliefs - even ridicule them - as much as I support your right to believe them freely.

[LeftyChristian]

107. Responsibility

I also have the right to stand outside your house at 3am and read the phone book through a bull horn. Doesn't make it right. What have you accomplished by making fun of and trashing Christian beliefs other than driving the wedge deeper?

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

I fully support your right to free speech, but when it is thrown around irresponsibly and only meant to disrespect others...you reap what you sow. That goes for the religious right as well.

[KTM]

134. No you dont

That would be classifed as "Disturbing the Peace." It would also constitue a violation of many communities noise ordinances.

What is irresponsible about standing up for MY beliefs ? What is irresponsible about challenging those who would claim ours is a nation founded on Christian beliefs ? What is irresponsible about challenging an ingrained mindset ?

I think many things, many practices and beliefs are harmful. I wont go so far as to try to prevent you from holding them, but I will raise a voice to challenge them. Growing up in the South, most of my childhood friends were indoctrinated into the church at too early of an age to form their own beliefs. Many of them now simply cannot fathom any other possibility, and rail against many things I hold dear based on their religious teachings.

The wedge SHOULD be driven deeper, IMHO.

[LeftyChristian]

141. Where

in the first amendment does it address volume of speech or time that speech can occur? Most if not all of the noise ordanances are violations of first amendment rights. Noone has challenged them in the courts.

To answer all of your questions. What do you hope to accomplish by trying to tear down what others believe?

It sounds like you are transferring your anger at your friends to ALL Christians.

Then keep driving the wedge deeper. Good luck with that.

[LeftyChristian]

82. You are right!

Christians really have no right to whine about being a "minority" who are horribly mistreated and persecuted in this country. That's just an unbelievable statement that shows a very superficial concept of oppression.

It is an unbelievable statement, sorry, but I never said it or implied it.

Just because someone is not a minority does not give anyone the right to have fun at their expense.

[yardwork]

79. I welcome you to DU!

If you think this is bad, check out the Freepers. The other day they were saying that the Vietcong should have killed John McCain.

[callous taoboy]

33. I'm a teacher

and when I say the pledge, I always have fun mumbling, "One nation, engorged, with liberty and justice for a few."

[xchrom]

34. scuse me?

would you mumble that again?

[Dead_Parrot]

35. One nation, under George

Look upon my wars, ye mighty, and despair....

edit: There's bound to be someone in Canada called Bob. If you look at a map, you're underneath him. So just say "One nation, under Bob" - perfectly accurate, and no-one will notice....

:D

[Az]

37. Sickening

NPR Reporting on this case just mentioned that when Newdow told the judges that no atheist could be elected to office the crowd burst into applause. Sickening. Too angry to talk right now.

[a_random_joel]

68. IMPORTANT: Here's a quote from Poppy that emphasizes what you say...

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

This about says it all.

[yardwork]

83. That is VERY scary.

Matched up with monkey-boys comments about gays and lesbians, a pattern is starting to emerge....

[KTM]

86. I believe it was supportive applause

That is, from the way it was described on telly I was left with the impression they were cheering for Newdow's bold statement, not for the fact that Atheists effectively cant be elected to Congress.


-meant to be a reply to 37, not 68 -

[boobooday]

39. One nation, indivisible

Was the original wording.

Sticking in an endorsement of the Christian god just made the indivisible divisible.

If you don't believe in God, you aren't a loyal American. That is the message I get from "under God."

Keep the pledge, take out the added on God pledge.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[a_random_joel]

69. That is an excellent point!!!

Never thought of it that way, and I have staunchly argued this issue from many angles.

You rock!

[Roaming]

116. What about the statements of God on our currency?

What about the way the Supreme Court is opened each session, with a statement about God? And doesn't Congress do the same. God is most certainly ingrained in our government, and it goes back to the foundation...

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

47. how about... One Nation, Underground

[Malva Zebrina]

48. why do people think ti is OK to pray to a piece of cloth?

[markus]

101. Why don't the pentacles keep their evil spirits away?

eom

[daleo]

51. By making people say this pledge who don't believe in it

Aren't believers forcing people to tell lies (bear false witness) and to take the name of the Lord in vain? Isn't counseling others to sin a sin itself? I am curious as to what the theological reasoning is.

[WitchWay]

72. Yes

Yes...and as the previous poster mention (and I believe)

1) worshipping the piece of cloth (Flag) would be idolatry and worship of a false god - blasphemy

2) saying "liberty and justice for all" is an OUTRIGHT lie. So, its coercing little kids to lie.

Also, the pledge of allegiance is simply nationalism. It's just that everyone is so used to it, they accpet it without critical thought.

[yardwork]

84. I agree with you.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."

Nobody should have to pledge allegiance to a flag. The Supreme Court (a saner, earlier version) has already judged that it is constitutional to burn the flag. If the flag is not protected from desecration, how can we be required to pledge our allegiance to it?

I don't particularly like flags. They remind me of nationalism, which usually leads to wars.

The whole thing is coercive and based on lousy logic. Unfortunately, this particular Supreme Court is not going to agree. It was a waste of time to bring it up right now.

Now that I've thoroughly pissed off everybody on all sides of the issue....

[Tansy_Gold]

94. When I was in high school in the 60s, a teacher demonstrated

the power of symbolism by dropping a white cotton handkerchief on the floor and standing on it. Everyone kind of looked around and wondered what the heck THAT was supposed to mean.

Then the teacher took the little flag off the wall, dropped it on the floor, and stood on it. WHOA, NELLY! The gasps of horror were audible; you'd have thought King Kong just walked into the classroom.

The flag remains a very powerful symbol for many people, including those who are too young to understand all the rationality and irrationality surrounding it.

Which leads to an argument I haven't heard in this discussion -- if, as some of the justices opined today, the words "under God" in the pledge are so watered down as to be virtually meaningless, isn't it blasphemous to speak the name of God in so casual and cavalier a way? And therefore, wouldn't it be more devout to leave the words out and thus allow them to be spoken only in the most reverent and respectful manner?

The point being, of course, that the justices KNOW those two words remain VERY POWERFUL, especially in conjunction with the flag, which is essentially a totally SECULAR symbol rather than a religious one, and when combined they create a symbol and a symbolic utterance that are very coercive and very defining of who is and who isn't behaving appropriately. Oh, is little Nathan not standing for the Pledge? If called upon to recite it by herself, does little Nawal stumble over those two important words or mumble them indistinctly?

Oh, yes, the rightwing zealots will tell us, it's only two words, nothing meaningful at all. A watered-down thing, not really a prayer and therefore we who don't take those words seriously shouldn't concern ourselves.

Okay, then, you effing zealots -- not meaning anyone here on DU, but effing zealots in general -- why not just drop your passionate defense of those two watered down words? You can't have it both ways. Either they are watered down and shouldn't mean anything if they're taken out, or they aren't watered down and are really a prayer and have no place in the secular pledge. Either way, they don't belong there.


Tansy Gold, who knows perfectly well that not all christians are zealots, that not all muslims are zealots, that not all jews are zealots, that not all pagans are zealots, that not all buddhists are zealots, but that virtually all burzhnipianites ARE zealots, and she wants them forbidden to teach in public schools.

[Beaker]

63. i have to agree with george carlin-

NOTHING has fucked up this planet and it's inhabitants more than religion.

"under god" has no place in the pledge,

and

"in god we trust" has no place on our currency.

oh to live in an enlightened age- i wonder if anyone ever will?

[sangh0]

124. I don't

I'd say "NOTHING has fucked up this planet and it's inhabitants more than it's inhabitants"

[9215]

136. Another thing Carlin said, brilliant and funny as hell

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

-- George Carlin

[mbperrin]

70. I am perfectly willing to follow the founders on this one

and say exactly the same pledge which George Washington and Thomas Jefferson said every day. That is, none at all.

[Yemp4734]

80. If it is true

as I read on CNN that some public office holders MUST say the pledge as IS then I have MAJOR problems. I as an atheist then could not hold office with out acknowledging some god. (yes, I realize the bigots wouldn't vote for an atheist anyway)

I understand it is optional per supreme court ruling to say in school. Still, I very much believe the peer pressure argument to be valid. I also realize that some teachers choose not to comply (or are not aware of) supreme court judgement in the matter, and tell students to do it anyway.

As far the rest of the "pledge"... it is not very respectable. I do NOT believe we have "liberty and justice" for all in this nation, and I am NEVER going to say we do unless we do. Get back to me when the 1st amendment, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th are respected, when gays are not second class citizens, and a host of other things. Then I'll think about it.

[Almost_there]

90. Excellent points...

You are absolutely correct that we don't have perfect "liberty and justice" in this country. But, we have to work from within to change it, and I think actually progress has been made on almost all of the amendments you listed. Think back 150 years, when Slavery was still a boiling point, 50 years with seperate water fountains, 80 years when women couldn't vote, search and seizure is up and down depending on who's in office, and I think we can all agree we are at a low point for the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th.

I haven't heard about "must" say the pledge anywhere, I can't find it on CNN, link if you have one.. I understand the peer argument, but, the provision is there not to do it, and its like voting, do it and be counted, or don't and lose your voice.

I just think it will lose because the SCOTUS has already ruled that it is voluntary to say, and if you aren't forced to say it, if the option exists to do without, then their view is little harm is done.

~Almost

[lostnfound]

95. This issue will cost us votes in the election.

Backlash against the godless liberals.

I could care less about the wording..but I do care about the distraction and about the votes.

[GOPBasher]

103. That's so true.

That's what I keep thinking. It's ticking me off. With all due respect to those who feel sincerely about this, I really think it's a major distraction from more important issues. And the overwhelming majority of the public will not agree that's it's a horrible thing to say, "Under God" in the pledge, so it will, as you said, cost us votes.

[Disturbed]

98. God

The pledge itself is Nationalism. "Under God" is religion. I feel that the pledge should be abolished.

Why does the word god imply Chrisitanity? Jews and Muslims worship a god but not Jesus Christ?

Do Jews, Muslims and Christians agree that the god that they worship is the same one for all three groups?

[Beaker]

100. who said it implies christianity specifically?

it implies god-based religion.

that's a no-no, governmentally speaking

[Cat Atomic]

104. This is such a fucking insult.

Honestly. The fact that the established political parties in this country routinely trot out this sort of meaningless bullshit is a direct insult to our intelligence.

We even call them wedge issues openly. Everyone knows what they are. They're designed to create rifts in the populace that wouldn't exist otherwise. That's how the small minority manages to maintain power.

It's fucking insulting. I refuse to pay attention to this sort of shit in an election year. I tell everyone I know that they should ignore it, too.

[redqueen]

118. God bless you for having your priorities straight!

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

But truly - keep on helping others close to you to more clearly see the diff. btw. what's important and what's a distraction, :yourock:

[polazarus]

117. I suggest next we

go to the supremes and ask that all the crosses in the national cemetaries be removed because of the cemetary is owned and operated by the federal government.

on Edit. I personally think there are more important issues than this. We have homeless, hungry, and people with out medical care to deal with. We have babies getting thrown in dumpsters, people shooting each other because they have a blue or red scarf on thier heads. Today I am going to go to the store and if I see someone needing help I am going to help them. I will give the guy in the parking lot that is collecting soda cans some money as well. I challenge you guys to do the same. Be a good human today.

[pacifictiger]

125. the thing that really troubles

me about leaving the phrase in, is how it will be used by the fervent religious right intent on creating a theocracy. I drove past a church run school today and they had a big banner hung from the building "one nation under god."

Too bad the intent of "one nation indivisible" will inevitably be so diluted.

[Roaming]

139. The concept that our government will ever become a theocracy is

far-fetched, to say the least. We are a democracy, and if anything we have become more of a democracy over the years. Starting out as a nation of almost 100% white protestants, we've evolved and developed tolerance for different racial / ethnic groups, religions, sexual orientation, etc. Even with its many faults, there is no other country in the world that is more free than the United States, no place in the world where anyone with a specific faith can feel more comfortable practicing their religion, no where else where a person's rights are so highly regarded and defended. No, we are not perfect, but there is no other nation that comes close.

Look at places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc. THOSE are true theocracies.

[Zhade]

140. Maybe so, but that doesn't stop some people with power from trying.

I suggest Googling "Rushdoony" and "voting machines" for an eye-opener. Or check out http://www.yuricareport.com for some interesting - and disturbing - info on Dominionists/Christian Reconstructionists.

These are powerful people working for a theocratic America.

[The Animator]

130. ... and to the Republicans, who make me stand...

No Senator McArthy, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Democratic Party. Yes sir, I make sure to watch Fox news every night. No I have never forgotten to say my prayers before meals or bedtime. No, sir, I would never question the actions of our government. Our government is blessed by God himself, and I would never question God. Yes sir, I know that anyone who doubts the sincerity and wisdom of our countries leadership is to be consider an enemy combatant.

Is the Guantanamo "happy camp" big enough to hold every Democrat in the US?

[leesa]

132. What a stupid immature waste of time, money and energy.

We have serious problems in this country, fools, one of them is the credibility of the Supreme Court, and time is wasted on this nonsense!

[9215]

135. For what the Founding Fathers said go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1288172#1288281