The Pledge

[AndysDaddy]

A case before the US supreme court seeks to declare the reciting of the Pledge of Alegience in public schools to be unconstitutional. See this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=7&u=/latimests/20040325/ts_latimes/justicesdebategodinpledge)

Now, ignoring for the moment the technicality that will probably get the nine (actually eight in this case) off the hook, isn't this a no-brainer? Technically it is in violation based on just about every recent court ruling on similar subjects.

My wishy-washy take is that I don't find "under god" to be offensive or very indoctinating, but I don't find it to be particularly neccessary or desirable, either. We seemed to get along just fine without it for the first 62 years of its existance.

[Rushmore]

The separation of church and state is an integral tenet in the ostensible functioning of this nation. It is there for a reason, and we all know what the reason is: to avoid the first slide into the slippery slope toward theocracy.

So why even MENTION God in any government-sanctioned or funded institution?

Why must our Born-again fundamentalist president insist on discussing his beliefs? Why must John Kerry and Howard Dean both have mid-campaign epiphanies regarding their spiritual ties to Judaism? Why did Madeline Albright's blockbuster disclosure about being Jewish have to become a story?

Why are we all so eager to embrace the greatness of our country, exhibited in the brilliance of such doctrine as the aforementioned separation, yet are all too feeble of principle to adopt the mentality necessary to abide by it?

God is a private matter in this country. The necessity to maintain this privacy in no way infringes upon one's right to exercise their right to worship freely.

All things being equal, let's just keep God out of the public government equation.

[Zeno]

I attended a very small country school sunk into the wet forests of Western Oregon. During the first (Year of our Lord, 1959) and second grade (we move and I attended a different school after second grade) we always said the Pledge of Allegiance at school and a prayer before eating lunch.

We always stood up next to our desks, stared at the flag in the corner of the room, placed the right hand over the heart, and said the pledge at the start of each day. It was a formality required by the adults and I do not recall every thinking much about it. In the First Grade one day, a kid named Billy, that was always over excited, wet his pants while saying the Pledge. I noticed this as his place in the row was close to me, and after we all finished our ritual chore and sat down; I raised my hand. The teacher says ' what is it now, Gary' (I was a trouble maker right from the get go). I said ' Billy wet his pants during the Pledge of Allegiance'. For some reason I thought that this was an important fact and that it should be broadcast to everyone in the room. Billy said ' I DID NOT.' The teacher asked Billy to stand up, and sure enough, his pants were soaked in the crotch and all the way down to his knees. The teacher then sent Billy home (many of the kids walked to school) and told him to change his pants.

This is the only thing I can ever remember about the Pledge of Allegiance to this day, even though I am certain that I recited the damn thing a million times or more. I assure everyone that this is a true story; I would never lie about anything as important as the Pledge of Allegiance.

-Zeno

[J.R.]

What happens to the dollar bill after if this case goes the way of prayer in schools?

[AndysDaddy]

This point seems to frequently follow the pledge issue. And I agree it is basically the same point. So my feeling is the same - it doesn't belong there, but it is just "background noise" and doesn't have any real meaning today, so I don't much care.

In a Yahoo! column Maggie Gallagher says that god plays an integral part of the foundation of our country/society, since without one there would be no source of what we call basic human rights other than the state.

I would counter that a supreme being, or higher power is not a prerequsite for rights that extend beyond the state. I have (or should have) these rights simply because I exist. To be sure, we charge the state with defining and enforcing those rights, but so what? In our country who is the state? It is us. Theorectically if we are unhappy with the way the state defines or enforces our rights we have the power to alter the State.

Anyway, enough rambling from me on this issue. Now if you want to talk about the current effort to convert our society into a Theocracy, there's an issue worth getting upset about... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[J.R.]

I agree with you, I was just demonstrating how legal pragmatism might eschew the idealogically correct argument that separation of church and state means no religious symbols or idealogies in state seals, pledges, doscuments, prerequisites to holding office, etc. in favor of the jurisdictional "punt" the supreme court is likely to take on this issue.

[bdypdx]

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Yet, in 1954 - fueled by the Cold War and blinded by McCarthyism - Congress violated its oath. After sixty-two secular years, the Pledge - first introduced by a private magazine in 1892 - was changed.

Here's the original, which is more than ok by me:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all."

go figure...

[John Cole]

Zeno,

I went to a Catholic school, first grade 1959. We, too, said the Pledge every day. Flag in the corner, hand over heart. But, I'm still trying to figure out what "extra munction" is, and that is all I remember.

I guess it's a good thing little Billy peed his pants--sort of. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

John

[bdypdx]

Maybe wrong, but I think this is factual...

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/bellamy_f/bellamy_f.html

http://archive.aclu.org/news/move/pledgeorigin.html

A Baptist/socialist came up with the thing....???

Oh, in the deep south, "they" forced us children to both pray and say the pledge. Fortunately I don't live in the deep south any longer.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I only said the pledge in grades 1-5, I think, I can't really remember, but I do remember not thinking anything about the pledge or what it or the words meant. I mean, kids are really the only people that say this and they don't give a [censored] what it says.

this whole debate/controversy is absurd in my opinion.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if you want to talk about the current effort to convert our society into a Theocracy, there's an issue worth getting upset about...

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your concern (see my post at bottom of thread), but let's face it--this country is moving further and further from being under any real threat of becoming a theocracy. The census projections should tell you that.

There are many influences in this country. Some notable influences are anything but Christian.

[crash]

One could try to distinguish "In God We Trust" on money from the pledge in a couple ways.

1. Making someone stand up and say "under god" seems much more (something--coercive, invasive, whatever) than requiring someone to use money with something printed on it.

2. If you don't say the pledge, you can be singled out/picked on in a way that doesn't happen if you disagree with the words on the money.

[andyfox]

As close to Mark Twain as anything you've written. And you know I mean that as a compliment.

Wonderful stuff!

[andyfox]

You, me, and Zeno are all about the same age. I too remember staying the pledge, hand over heart (had to be the right hand, which I remember disliking, being left-handed). And we sang a religious song in assembly, "Bless This House." This was a public school, P.S. 174 in Forest Hills, New York

[ACPlayer]

Under God was added in the 50's pushed by the Knights of Columbus. In fact currency that predates that does not have the words "in god we trust" on it either. I have bills in my possession from that period. That happened at the same time.

[andyfox]

Anybody find the idea of a pledge of allegiance repugnant with or without "under god?"

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody find the idea of a pledge of allegiance repugnant with or without "under god?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what repugant means, but I will say no.
Kids should definitely have respect for our country. The pledge is a good way to start that at an early age. Whether or not latter on in life you disagree with the country, you should still be proud to be American..... which is the best fuckin country in the world, bar none!!!

[thylacine]

How can the (new) pledge of allegiance promote respect for the country when the (new) pledge of allegiance explicitly endorses treason?

[ThaSaltCracka]

explain please

[thylacine]

I think it is time that society recognized that Christian Supremacists are profoundly evil people.

[thylacine]

Perhaps you should think about it a bit. It's completely obvious. What's there not to understand?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is time that society recognized that Christian Supremacists are profoundly evil people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain this to

[thylacine]

Perhaps you should think about it a bit. It's completely obvious. What's there not to understand?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should think about it a bit. It's completely obvious. What's there not to understand?

[/ QUOTE ]
no I don't understand how it promotes treason

[ThaSaltCracka]

do you just make statements and not back them up by any proof or insight, please explain, drive by attacks and phrases don't fly on here.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody find the idea of a pledge of allegiance repugnant with or without "under god?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that a pledge is unnecessary. As my funny experience and story illustrates, the pledge becomes a more or less meaningless ritual that we did that had no real hold over our minds. John's 'extra munction' is also an illustration of this fact. Words that are repeatedly mouthed as a formality lose their value and meaning and the ability to inspire and command respect. In fact, after a while the forced ritual may have the opposite effect and instill contempt instead of respect.

There are, I believe, better ways to instill respect and inspiration in young minds than having them say a Pledge to a Flag. For example, read, learn, and discuss famous speeches, works, poems, letters or other types of inspirational and timeless works about America, that Americans (or others) have produce in abundance. And this should be done when the young can grasp what the meaning of the work is, at least partially. This would be much better than an unending ritual that serves, at best, a marginal purpose.

-Zeno

PS Thank you for the compliment about the story. Best thing anyone could have said.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, after a while the forced ritual may have the opposite effect and instill contempt instead of respect.


[/ QUOTE ]
no offense, but this doesn't aply to little kids.... they have no idea what they are saying so I agree with this:
[ QUOTE ]
the pledge becomes a more or less meaningless ritual that we did that had no real hold over our minds

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, read, learn, and discuss famous speeches, works, poems, letters or other types of inspirational and timeless works about America, that Americans (or others) have produce in abundance. And this should be done when the young can grasp what the meaning of the work is, at least partially.

[/ QUOTE ]
Like I said earlier, kids don't relate to this. For some reason kids don't really start to pay attention to government, politics, or national history/pride, until they are out of high school.... maybe that is the problem.

[Zeno]

I think that some of this does apply to kids. Especially when they can look back at a later date and fully realize what was going on.

In addition, do not discount the perception of young minds; they can pick up on many subtle things while still very young. We learned and discussed the preamble to the constitution in the fifth grade, along with the Gettysburg address. This is something that I still remember with pride and I learned to have a great deal of respect for American institutions and ideas - and it meant much more to me than reciting a pledge to a flag.

And I think that many young people in High School do learn about government, history, civic duty etc. They may not appreciate it until later but the seeds are there.

-Zeno

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
And I think that many young people in High School do learn about government, history, civic duty etc. They may not appreciate it until later but the seeds are there.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah I would agree, you know what stretch that back all the way to 1st grade man, I mean the seed is there, but most people learn(atleast in relation to religion, politics, government) from their parents not from school. The seed is there, but it does not gestate until they enter or experience the real world. What I mean by that is working for themselves(rent, bills, ie) or experiening situations which really represent U.S. events... ie( friends in the military). I mean I don't think I had more than a passing interest in politics/goverment until I was 20( I an now 22 BTW).

People could have opinions, but they really don't know what they are talking about(passionately) until they experience some of the things I have listed.

[andyfox]

Repugnant means distasteful or objectionable.

I'm questioning whether respect for our country is compatible with a forced pledge of allegiance.

I am glad to see that the word "fuckin" gets past the censors here, though. Great fuckin word. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I am glad to see that the word "fuckin" gets past the censors here, though. Great fuckin word.

[/ QUOTE ]
me too /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I'm questioning whether respect for our country is compatible with a forced pledge of allegiance.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see a problem with "forcing" kids to pledge an allegence to the United States, I mean starting early to get kids in America(which have more allegiances to video games and pizza at a young age) seems fine to me. There is nothing wrong with "forcing" kids to like the best country in the world(IMO), especially when you grow up in that country.

But the more important part of this is that I don't think kids really realize what they are saying or what it means until much later in life. I mean we all know how rebelious we were as teenagers and young adults. That is when you start to question things, so I will reiterate my earlier statment that the pledge of allegience really doesn't mean much to kids, but if it does anything it tells them to love or respect their country. and IMO, there is nothing wrong with that.

[adios]

I found this historical account of the Pledge of Allegiance to be sort of interesting. Note that the words "under God" were not added to it until 1954, 60+ years after it was originally drafted.

Pledge of Allegiance Historical Account (http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html)

Apologies if this has already been brought up since I didn't read all of the posts in this thread.

[thylacine]

Anyone who wants to think clearly about these issues should ask themselves: what is Al Qaeda and the Taliban's position on Church/State separation.

Church/State separation is an essential ingredient of Democracy, and it is treasonously unpatriotic to in any way undermine Church/State separation.

Phrases such as `under god', `in god we trust' or `god bless America' are treasonously unpatriotic because they undermine Church/State separation and they effectively endorse the viewpoints and activities of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. There is barely any difference between Christian Supremacists and Muslim Supremacists.

The (new) pledge of allegiance with the words `under god' forcibly inserted, instills in children a treasonously unpatriotic attitude towards their country.

[J.R.]

The argument is that by reciting the pledge, even though no student can be required to recite along, is
1) a governmental endorsement of religion,
2) results in tacit dicrimination (kid stands out as an outsider), and
3) indoctrinates the child in religion when the parent chooses to be atheist or agnostic, thus violating the implied consitutional right to privacy and/or right to family.

I agre with what you say, but the hair splitting gets really thin if you say no "God" in pledge but "God" on currency is OK.

[jstnrgrs]

I don't think I'd like to pledge allegance to a country that is not "under God". After all, how long could such a country last?

[jdl22]

Quite long since god doesn't exist.









I don't fully believe the above statement, I'm actually an agnostic so it depends on my mood. I made it to make a point. While it was certainly neither extreme nor harmful I don't understand how those of any religious faith make statements like this when you don't actually know that god exists you merely believe it. Seems odd to state something as if it's a fact when it's only a belief.

[jdl22]

Where in Oregon did you go to school? I grew up in Sutherlin (near Roseburg) and went to the University of Oregon in Eugene.

On political issues such as this it's an interesting state. Eugene, Salem and Portland are very liberal, the rest of the state is super conservative. Growing up in a conservative area then living in Eugene for 5 years was interesting. Only problem was that I got into too many arguments when I went back home which is still an issue.

Good story on the kid pissing his pants by the way.

[Lazymeatball]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who wants to think clearly about these issues should ask themselves: what is Al Qaeda and the Taliban's position on Church/State separation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see what bearing this question has on the topic at hand. If we were discussing the morality of theft, would you ask what the Taliban's view on theft was? I think you would agree with the Taliban that theft is wrong and should be punished. The Taliban is not the epitome of all evil, it was a brutal regime but that doesn not mean that whatever they believe in is wrong.

ps. Yes I believe the taliban is wrong and evil and over all not very nice. I certainly disagree with the Taliban's version of a church run state.

If you believe all references to god in government are treasonous, does this include the Declaration of Independence?

Where in the Constitution is Seperation of Church and State mentioned? (a sincere question, I'd like to see it if it's in there)

[Zeno]

I also attended the U of O and received a BS degree. The small elementary school I attended was in the tiny 'town' of Noti, west of Eugene. The school was shut down a few years ago, not enough students.

Sounds like we grew up in the same 'neighborhood'. I left Oregon, like many people do, to find work and to further my education.

-Zeno

[bernie]

You do realize that on the back of our $1 bill there is a very non-religious symbol/saying/slogan that counteracts the 'in god we trust' saying? In fact, i think it predates when the 'in god we trust' was put on there.

Many just focus on the 'in god we trust'. There are many interesting things represented on our money if you look hard enough.

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think the god referred to on the dollar is referring more to the god of capitalism, if there is one.
Ya know what I mean?

[thylacine]

You are way away from getting it. Both Muslim Supremacist organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as Christian Supremacist organizations such as the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition, are vehemently opposed to Church/State separation. It is not some obscure side issue for them. It is the very essence of their being and one of the dominant reasons for their existence. Nothing could be more relevant.

Sayyid Quth, who has been called the philosopher of Al Qaeda believes `the truly dangerous element in American life ... lay in America's separation of Church and State'. It is the number one reason for Al Qaeda's hatred of America. But Christian Supremacist organizations such as the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition hate America for exactly the same reason!

Those who fly planes into buildings and those who want to Godomize (i.e. forcibly insert gods into) every aspect of American life, have almost EXACTLY THE SAME motivations and ideologies. And it is completely obvious that these people are treasonously unpatriotic.

History lesson: The formation of the USA was heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. Separation of Church and State is a key element of this way of thinking. That is why both Muslim Supremacists and Christian Supremacists have explicitly condmened the Enlightenment and the ideal of Church/State separation that the Enlightenment fully embraced.

[HDPM]

Yeah, I have always been just a little uncomfortable with it. And I am a patriotic enough person I think. I like our country and don't approve of treason and such. But standing there saluting and reciting the words written by a socialist and amended by the Knights of Columbus is a little bizarre. I have never much enjoyed collective brainwashing activities like Boy Scouts (no, I was never dumb enough to join) school field trips, religion, etc.... The POA falls in this category of unwholesome activities, but is a minor irritant in the scheme of things that I don't care all that much about. Nobody I know ever wet themselves over it at any rate. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[andyfox]

I'm not quite sure what it is that rankles about the POA. Perhaps it's this: when we recited it, without quite realizing what we were saying, as schoolchildren, we (meaning Americans in general) were much more ignorant of the dark side of our past (and present). We were much more willing to believe that we truly were one nation, under god, invidivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We learned different after the 1950s. The words just seem less meaningful now.


I do agree that it is, or should be, a minor irritant. Better we should make the words ring truer.

[thylacine]

I can see many people seeing it as merely a minor irritant, but I certainly don't see it that way --- maybe I would in it's original form. But with the insertion of religion it is a serious violation of Church/State separation as I have spelled out in other posts. The religious insertion completely changes everything.

And even if kids aren't paying much attention, the (new) pledge can still instill in their minds some very dangerous and anti-democratic concepts: namely the (new) pledge (unlike the original one) promotes the bizarre and irrational idea that being patriotic goes hand-in-hand with being religious, or even religious-Supremacist. But many American unquestioninghly believe such bizarre and irrational ideas, and the (new) pledge is one source of these un-American beliefs.

[jdl22]

On another note, why are we pledging allegiance to the flag? This is the strangest thing I've heard of. The flag doesn't tell us what to do. It doesn't command our loyalty. We don't depend on the flag for advice. The flag has never asked what it could do for our country. The flag didn't stop any hijackers. Hell most of our flags are made in China. Only things the flag seems to do well are blow in the wind and make the fox news people even more obnoxious.

Not that the flag doesn't look good. There's a lot going on there. The blend of color is quite nice, and the stars and stripes keep it busy. Mighty impressive at night with a light shining on/through it. Only flag I've seen in the world that is more visibly appealing is the Hawaiian flag. Similar design with red white and blue stripes and the union jack in the corner where the stars are on the US flag. Quite nice actually.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

the "under god" is so very clearly a violation of the separation of church and state it's pathetic. How this lawsuit didn't get going the instant they added that line is beyond me. And how it remains in the pledge is also beyond me. It's CRYSTAL FKING CLEAR.

But don't worry, I am sure the pope approves of it's being there.

al

[thylacine]

Yes "CRYSTAL FKING CLEAR" is a good way of putting it. But don't get your hopes up. This is the institution that gave us "separate but equal" and "stop counting votes"

[J.R.]

I have no idea what you are talking about, not do I see how "In God We Trust" can be counteracted. Perhaps it can be contradicted if the bill is internally inconsistent, but that still doesn't change the fact that the one dollar bill contains an endorsement of our government's trust in a religious entity, regardless of what else might be on the oen dollar bill.

In addition, The Latin above the pyramid, ANNUIT COEPTIS, is translated to mean "God has favored our undertaking." Some argue it is more accurate to read this as "He has favored our undertaking", but it is generally recognized to refer to God.

[bernie]

The latin saying below the pyramid is what i was referring to.

b

[J.R.]

"Novus Ordo Seclorum" means roughly, "a new order of the ages", and refers to the date found in roman numerals at the bottom of the pyramid, which is the date of the declaration of independence, 1776 (MDCCLXXVI). I am not sure how that counteracts or even contradicts "In God We Trust"?

[bernie]

The word 'seclorum' and be translated many different ways. There is actually quite a debate on this as one of the meanings is 'secular'. Which would render it somewhat antireligious or at least counteractive to 'in god we trust'.

btw...What does a pyramid have anything to do with the US? Interesting speculative background on that too.

b