"Under God, Indivisible . . . . "

[andyfox]

Looks like "under god" stays in the pledge of allegiance.

Congress adopted the pledge as a national patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase "under God" more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold. Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

Perhaps we should change it to "under our god," to set the United States apart from the bad god its current enemies worship.

[Zeno]

We need John Cole maybe, but I looked up some references to the pledge and all had 'God' in the capitalized form -'under God', not 'under god'. I was under the impression that the capitalized form referred specifically to the Christian God (in western culture), as opposed to all the other floating incorporeal gods jetting about the universe. But I may be all mixed up on this. I remember a grammar class long ago that was a stickler about the proper use of 'god' or 'God'. Being a heroin addict at the time, I quickly forget it all. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Perhaps John ‘English God’ (or god) Cole can set me on the straight and narrow. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-Zeno

[Easy E]

the Aryans worship?

Perhaps we should change it to "under our god," to set the United States apart from the bad god its current enemies worship.

[John Cole]

Zeno,

You are correct; use "God" when you are referring to "Him," the Christian God. Do not use "She" or "Her." The Pope will not approve.

And, since you can find no reference to the Pledge in which God is not capitalized, then we know the Pledge specifically refers to Him (not Her). As if we haven't known this all along.

When you were a heroin addict, did you pronounce "heroin" with three syllables or two?

[juanez]

Amemdment I of the Bill of Rights: [ QUOTE ]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[/ QUOTE ]
Those are the exact words as written by our forefathers. Note that " the seperation of church and state" does not appear ANYWHERE in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights at all - not once. Of course it's written all the time by the media and referred to as "The First Amendment", but the media is often willingly wrong while they push their liberal agenda.

Sounds like you are against the word "god" or "God" or any symbol of god or God being uttered, written or displayed by any government institution in any way whatsoever. If I am wrong for making this assumption, I apologize. Believe me, I am no religious zealot by any means.

If you are a true secularist, which law exactly has Congress made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? The Pledge is not a law establishing a religion any more than "In God We Trust" written on a quarter is a law. And please don't try arguing that because the word God is capitalized in the Pledge that that is a law establishing a religion. That would be a rather tourtured argument at best.

Why be so afraid of people believing in God - whether it's a Christian "God" or a Pagan "god"? Most religions preach peace and harmony, yadda, yadda, koombaya. Not such a bad thing really. Secularists should be more TOLERANT of religious folks of all varieties.

Of course I don't want Bush declaring the we all MUST be born again or it's off to the guillotine. I'd be loading my .45 and the shotgun if he announced that in a press conference and would fight to the death against him (whoops...guns are supposed to somehow be inherently evil too) and I'm sure the vast majority of the American public would rebel instantaneoulsy as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this is true, but I'd like to see a few sources (besides MoveOn.org /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

[elwoodblues]

Would you make the same argument if it said "one nation under Allah"?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you make the same argument if it said "one nation under Allah"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet he would but he would also be wearing a turban.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you make the same argument if it said "one nation under Allah"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. According to the Websters New World Dictionary:

Allah: the Muslim name for God.

God: (1) any of various beings being conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship. (2) an image that is worshiped; idol.
(3) a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired.

Note that Christianity is not included in the definition of "god" at all but "Muslim" is included the definition of Allah.

So no, I would not make the same argument if "one nation under Allah" were the pledge, just like I would not make the same argument if "one nation under Jesus Christ" were in the Pledge.

Unless you have redefined this common english language word (which is so fashionable by the libs these days) god can mean any supernatural being, not just the Christian God.

Also FYI...there is no seperate definition for the "capitalized" version of the word god.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you are against the word "god" or "God" or any symbol of god or God being uttered, written or displayed by any government institution in any way whatsoever. If I am wrong for making this assumption, I apologize. Believe me, I am no religious zealot by any means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am. To me, the word God is associated with religion. When the word God is used within the realm of government sponsored or funded instituions, then I think it is a very slippery slop of goverment promoting a particular religion. In this case a relgion that believes in God.

I am not afraid of people who believe in God. But I don't think we should be using a bible for judicial procedures, nor do I think teachers should lead children in pledges containing the word God in public schools. When you and your family are at home, pray the hell out of that bible. Talk about God all you want. Just don't do it on my tax dollar.

[ QUOTE ]
Why be so afraid of people believing in God - whether it's a Christian "God" or a Pagan "god"? Most religions preach peace and harmony, yadda, yadda, koombaya. Not such a bad thing really. Secularists should be more TOLERANT of religious folks of all varieties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Secularist should be tolerant of religious folks??? You are kidding, right? There have been more wars and persecutions in the name of religion than I can count.

Just because God is removed from Gov't institutions, does not mean God does not exist or God is less relevant. It just means people who believe in God, should support that belief on their own time.

If anyone does not think our country is moving towards a Christian oriented goverment, I think they should take their heads out of their bibles.

[elwoodblues]

Note that the constitution does not say that Congress shall make no law establish a religion. It just says religion.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you have redefined this common english language word (which is so fashionable by the libs these days) god can mean any supernatural being, not just the Christian God.


[/ QUOTE ]

I find it ironic which uses of the term "god" you chose to capitalize given that your argument is that capitalization doesn't matter.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
god can mean any supernatural being

[/ QUOTE ]

And why do we mention this supernatural being again in our pledge? And why just one supernatural being, why not multiple supernatural beings?

I forgot, if you fail to mention God, you are unpatriotic which is so fashionable among the Republicans these days.

[elwoodblues]

Just out of curiosity, where in the Constitution is Congress given the power to write a pledge of allegience? I thought conservatives wanted to limit the powers of the government only to those enumerated in the Constitution. Because there is a doubt as to whether the word God refers to a christian god or not, shouldn't small government conservatives want to err on the side of less government power?

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we should change it to "under our god," to set the United States apart from the bad god its current enemies worship.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this to be so funny. I am not sure if you find the God Bless America bumper stickers funny too, but I get a real kick out of them every time I see them. How come you never see God Bless the World bumper stickers? Or God Bless America and Canada? Why just America?

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a very slippery slop of goverment

[/ QUOTE ]
Slippery slop ? I'm wasn't referring to Clinton and Lewinsky here....LOL, just kidding (shameless cheap shot /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

I'm sorry, but exactly which law has been passed by Congress establishing a religion?

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

[ QUOTE ]
Secularist should be tolerant of religious folks??? You are kidding, right? There have been more wars and persecutions in the name of religion than I can count.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one war or persecution made in the name of religion by the US government that has occured by the US government (the county of topic in this thread), ever. Answer: not one, ever.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
exactly which law has been passed by Congress establishing a religion

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an act codifying the pledge of allegience. I'll look it up tomorrow if you are really interested, though I suspect that you aren't.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that the constitution does not say that Congress shall make no law establish a religion. It just says religion.


[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO! It was the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution, and it is the very FIRST Amendment of the Bill of Rights - the VERY FIRST ONE for (G or g)od's sake! Sad...

OK - AGAIN I ask: "Which religion was established by Congress and by which law?"

[ QUOTE ]
I find it ironic which uses of the term "god" you chose to capitalize given that your argument is that capitalization doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

eITHER wAY iS fINE wITH mE. I can care less if the word is capitalized or not. My argument was that Websters New World Dictionary (the foundation for the language that I assume you speak) doesn't make any distinction.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
LMAO! It was the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution, and it is the very FIRST Amendment of the Bill of Rights

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I don't even know how to respond.

The bill of rights is a term used to describe the first 10 amendments to the constution. The bill of rights is part of the Constitution (that's why you'll hear people say that a particular law was held "unconstitutional" because it violated the first amendment.) All of the amendments to the Constitution which haven't been repealed, are just as much a part of the constitution as the very first word of the very first section.

I really don't mean to be rude, but I think I'm done arguing Constitutional issues with you --- it doesn't look like we can even agree what the Constitution is.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
There is an act codifying the pledge of allegience.

[/ QUOTE ]

And which religion does the pledge establish? It has been shown that "god" or "God" does not define any particular religion.

Yet again and verbatim: [ QUOTE ]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no law establishing religion on the books as of 6/14/04 11:19 PM MST.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I see no law establishing religion on the books as of 6/14/04 11:19 PM MST

[/ QUOTE ]

Judging by your post trying to distinguish between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I seriously doubt you would even know which books to look in.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone does not think our country is moving towards a Christian oriented goverment, I think they should take their heads out of their bibles.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a joke right.
Abortion- heading for pro-choice
gay marriage- already being legalized
Not to mention pledges taking out the word "God" and Ten Commandments being taken out of courthouse buildings.
Not exactly the values the Bible teaches.

[Cyrus]

"Websters New World Dictionary [is] the foundation for the language that I assume you speak."

If you are referring to the English language, I must say that this bit of news is highly intriguing. I did not know that about ol' Webster!

John Cole, the word is out.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
And why do we mention this supernatural being again in our pledge? And why just one supernatural being, why not multiple supernatural beings?

[/ QUOTE ]
Man, read the damn definition again. "God" means ANY supernatural being. Any by the way, the majority of Americans beilieve in a "supernatural being" my friend - wise up. I don't have the poll sources on hand - I'm sure you can find them on Googgle somewhere. (you will never hear of this in the liberal press, of course).

[ QUOTE ]
I forgot, if you fail to mention God, you are unpatriotic which is so fashionable among the Republicans these days

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try. Name one quote of a Republican saying someone is unpatriotic if they don't "mention" (g or G)od.

[Cyrus]

"Abortion- heading for pro-choice
gay marriage- already being legalized
Not to mention pledges taking out the word "God" and Ten Commandments being taken out of courthouse buildings.
Not exactly the values the Bible teaches."

Yes, the wording was alittle off. Let me intervene and try to be more precise : Currently, the United States' leadership is mostly composed of Christian fundamentalists who are keen to steer the whole country their way, which is a specific ideological way, while the majority of the population would not agree with that direction.

That's the long and short of it, as far as I'm concerned.

And, in case you are preparing a retort that argues that the majority does actually support abortion bans, no gays, etc, the whole "Christian agenda", I would remind you that, even if it were so, the respect for and the protection of the rights of the minority (any minority of opinion) is the very foundation of the American democracy.

So, the question becomes, is the country moving towards that direction, as far as its leadership is concerned, or the other direction, i.e. towards the "tyranny of the majority"? However you care to define that "majority".

[juanez]

Whoops - fair enough - a semantic f*ck up on my part - typing too fast, not not thinking fast enough, and too much pinot nior /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. Good thing I made my $$ on the tables for the night already....

Still: I have heard no answer as to exactly which law Congress has passed establishing religion.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the wording was alittle off. Let me intervene and try to be more precise : Currently, the United States' leadership is mostly composed of Christian fundamentalists who are keen to steer the whole country their way, which is a specific ideological way, while the majority of the population would not agree with that direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahaaha you make it sound like people are trying to introduce God into the pledge of allegiance when actually people are trying to remove it. The people that want it removed are atheists promoting their agenda. Nice try. BTW I think that the history behind God being in the pledge probably means that it should be removed. I certainly could be convinced otherwise though.

[John Cole]

Webster's New World and The Good News Bible, of course.

[BeerMoney]

DoucheBag,

People like yourself are really the most un-American. Those who think they can inflict their values on others.

[J.R.]

The Supreme Court's Jursidictional Punt (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624)

The Law respecting religion:
"Under California law, "every public elementary school" must begin each day with "appropriate patriotic exercises." Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The statute provides that "[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy" this requirement. Ibid. The Elk Grove Unified School District has implemented the state law by requiring that "[e]ach elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day." This is coupled with the law requiring children to attend school."

The establishment clause applies to the states via the 14th amendment, regardless of Thomas' commentary in his concurrence that the establishment clause does not protect an individual right (which is kinda specious, because one way to view the etablishment clause is the right of every american to be free from his or her govenement's endorsement of religion).



BTW, Supreme Court jurisprudence (see Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577 (1992)) holds that the establishment clause protects from impliicit governmental coercion to particpate in activities that include religious components, even when there is no state law directly respecting the religious component:

"It brushed aside both the fact that the students were not required to attend the graduation, see id., at 586 (asserting that student "attendance and participation in" the graduation ceremony "are in a fair and real sense obligatory"), and the fact that they were not compelled, in any meaningful sense, to participate in the religious component of the graduation ceremony, see id., at 593 ("What matters is that, given our social conventions, a reasonable dissenter in this milieu could believe that the group exercise signified her own participation or approval of it"). The Court surmised that the prayer violated the Establishment Clause because a high school student could--in light of the "peer pressure" to attend graduation and "to stand as a group or, at least, maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction," ibid.--have "a reasonable perception that she is being forced by the State to pray in a manner her conscience will not allow," ibid."



This is part of what O'Conner had to say in her concurrence, and it sounds like your idea:

"The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another." Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 244 (1982). While general acknowledgments of religion need not be viewed by reasonable observers as denigrating the nonreligious, the same cannot be said of instances "where the endorsement is sectarian, in the sense of specifying details upon which men and women who believe in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator and Ruler of the world are known to differ." Weisman, supra, at 641 (Scalia, J., dissenting). As a result, no religious acknowledgment could claim to be an instance of ceremonial deism if it explicitly favored one particular religious belief system over another.

The Pledge complies with this requirement. It does not refer to a nation "under Jesus" or "under Vishnu," but instead acknowledges religion in a general way: a simple reference to a generic "God." Of course, some religions--
Buddhism, for instance--are not based upon a belief in a separate Supreme Being. See Brief for Buddhist Temples, Centers, and Organizations as Amicus Curiae at 15-16. But one would be hard pressed to imagine a brief solemnizing reference to religion that would adequately encompass every religious belief expressed by any citizen of this Nation. The phrase "under God," conceived and added at a time when our national religious diversity was neither as robust nor as well recognized as it is now, represents a tolerable attempt to acknowledge religion and to invoke its solemnizing power without favoring any individual religious sect or belief system."

[sfer]

It's the equivalent of the postgame interviewee (or celebrity award recipient or tragic accident survivor or etc. etc. etc.) who inevitably thanks God for giving him the skill to win. I still wonder why God didn't want the Giants to win the Series in 2002.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
I still wonder why God didn't want the Giants to win the Series in 2002.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even with Bonds pointing up at God after every homerun. You would think God would want the free publicity.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the equivalent of the postgame interviewee (or celebrity award recipient or tragic accident survivor or etc. etc. etc.) who inevitably thanks God for giving him the skill to win. I still wonder why God didn't want the Giants to win the Series in 2002.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does God hate the RedSox?

[J.R.]

I betting the fact that the Giants were playing the Angels had something to do with it.

[sfer]

Walked right into that one. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

President Eisenhower's comment when he added "under God" to the Pledge in 1954:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

A profession of religious faith's transcendence in America's future and a belief that spiritual "weapons" will be our most powerful resource in both peace and in war has no place in our public schools.

[HDPM]

It just boggles my mind that people can say things like this with a straight face. I know they do it all the time and it is run-of-the-mill religiosity, etc..., but it neve ceases to surprise me. You want to think of people as rational human beings, particularly when they have accomplished a lot and have had a lot of responsibility. But they aren't. Oh well. Eisenhower did have an aide to put his underwear on. So maybe I ought not be surprised. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[andyfox]

Well, it was 1954.

[Sloats]

Because the Devil is much more powerful in the ways of chance. People sell their souls to the devil to become famous or sucessful. You never hear about a sucessful person selling their sole to 'God'.





also, about the 'One Nation under Allah'. 'Allah' is the name given to 'God', just as the Christians use 'Jahweh', as others use 'Thor', 'Zeus'... If the government removes all reference to religion, it thus establishes Atheism, which is a religion that believes in no 'god'. And if that happens, then it will be a majority that should be cryin foul.

At some point, people in this country needs to stop pointing out everything that is different about themselves individually from the majority and start focusing on our commonalities that should be binding us together.

[J.R.]

"If the government removes all reference to religion, it thus establishes Atheism,"

You sure you don't mean it supports something like an agnostic perspective. The removal of all references to religion does not deny the existence of a god.

[ericd]

A lot of what was happening then was caused by the fears of McCarthyism. So, how Ike truly felt can not be deduced here.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the Devil is much more powerful in the ways of chance. People sell their souls to the devil to become famous or sucessful. You never hear about a sucessful person selling their sole to 'God'.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
also, about the 'One Nation under Allah'. 'Allah' is the name given to 'God', just as the Christians use 'Jahweh', as others use 'Thor', 'Zeus'... If the government removes all reference to religion, it thus establishes Atheism, which is a religion that believes in no 'god'. And if that happens, then it will be a majority that should be cryin foul.


[/ QUOTE ]

True, the word "God" covers all religions and all beliefs, but taking the word God out of government doesn't exactly establish atheism.


[ QUOTE ]
At some point, people in this country needs to stop pointing out everything that is different about themselves individually from the majority and start focusing on our commonalities that should be binding us together.


[/ QUOTE ]

Amen to that brother, umm... not "amen" that would be uhh... religious.
Who gives a rats ass if the word "God" is used in government, just as long as its not being taught as fact in schools.

[Slacker13]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not afraid of people who believe in God. But I don't think we should be using a bible for judicial procedures, nor do I think teachers should lead children in pledges containing the word God in public schools. When you and your family are at home, pray the hell out of that bible. Talk about God all you want. Just don't do it on my tax dollar.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if the decision was to remove God from all schools what am I suppose to say to my seven year old daughter? How do you suggest I explain it?
I am agnostic, I am completely against organized religion, I am against giving 10% of your income to the church etc...I also agree that religion is the reason there is so much conflict but who am I to deny someone the right to say God? Who am I to tell a 7 year old that they cannot say God? Is it really a bad thing for school children to say God in the pledge?
Tax dollars? Shouldn’t we be more concerned with the Gov’t spending $70 on a $20 wrench? I just think our focus can be directed to other more important issues.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
I also agree that religion is the reason there is so much conflict but who am I to deny someone the right to say God? Who am I to tell a 7 year old that they cannot say God? Is it really a bad thing for school children to say God in the pledge?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to deny anyone from being able to say God in school. I am against authority leading kids in actions involving God or religion. Again, just because you remove God from the pledge does not mean God becomes less relevant. It is just not relevant in state sponsored activity. How you want to teach your kid about that is up to you, but I don't really think all that difficult.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
Who gives a rats ass if the word "God" is used in government, just as long as its not being taught as fact in schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then I argue the Pledge should be changed to "one nation under God (which may or may not exist), indivisible...."

Isn't the mere presence of the word God in the Pledge teaching kids that the existance of God is a fact?

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who gives a rats ass if the word "God" is used in government, just as long as its not being taught as fact in schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then I argue the Pledge should be changed to "one nation under God (which may or may not exist), indivisible...."

Isn't the mere presence of the word God in the Pledge teaching kids that the existance of God is a fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't teach it as fact just by mentioning it IMO. In history class we learned about different religions(how they started, effect on surrounding world). That doesn't mean that the teacher was expressing them all as fact.

[elwoodblues]

but history class doesn't say that our nation is "under" god, thus giving credence to a heirarchy in which god is supreme

[DougBrennan]

I grew up in the 50's, we said the Pledge every day in school, and yet, somehow, I managed to hold onto my totally athiest belief. Kids are easily influenced, that is true, but not by the mindless recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance every day.

I don't think the state has any business sponsoring religion either, but I think a brouhaha over the Pledge of Allegiance is an utter waste of time and money.

The dialogue created is fine, but there are lots more important issues to tend to. Let's see...Iraq and domestic policy come to mind pretty quickly.

Doug

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we should change it to "under our god," to set the United States apart from the bad god its current enemies worship.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just too funny. How about under cow?

[Ray Zee]

the most important issue is to not have the govt. put religous beliefs into our childrens minds or force people to say or worship anything that doesnt agree with them.

[Ray Zee]

when someone can prove that there is a god then we should consider mentioning him. until then he is a fictional character like superman. just because most of the world has evolved scared of the unknown and needed to believe in something beyound, doesnt mean he exists. and why would anyone worship something that says if you dont do it you go to hell. how could that thing be good.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
when someone can prove that there is a god then we should consider mentioning him. until then he is a fictional character like superman. just because most of the world has evolved scared of the unknown and needed to believe in something beyound, doesnt mean he exists. and why would anyone worship something that says if you dont do it you go to hell. how could that thing be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cmon Ray, with this statement you are disagreeing with at LEAST %50 of the world that believes in a higher being. I agree that it shouldn't be taught in schools(other than private schools), but if we took out everything in education that bothered somebody's religion, not much would be taught. I mean, in everything you can inject a religious point of view.

[Slacker13]

I guess I just see it much differently. I would find it more troubling to explain to my daughter why she couldn't say God in school. I am married to a non-practicing Catholic who has put our daughter in Sunday school becuase of family pressure from her side. I, being agnostic said that it was fine as long as the church never asked me for one red cent. I just don't find it enough of an issue that it becomes something that I worry about. Saying "one nation under God" to me is trivial.

[Phear]

--> Cmon Ray, with this statement you are disagreeing with at LEAST %50 of the world that believes in a higher being.

At one point in time at LEAST 50% of the world thought the world was flat. I'm with Ray on this one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm also sure there are more atheists than people think but they are less well known since they don't go door to door telling everyone about it.

[MMMMMM]

Congress ought not to have changed it in 1954. If it were to come up as a brand-new issue today Congress would likely not approve the inclusion.

The government should neither force people to say it nor prevent them from saying it.

Schoolchildren in public schools should neither be required to pray nor forbidden to pray.

Government should make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor preventing the free exercise thereof.

Our current enemies may indeed worship the same God, but they also see fit to force others to do the same or else deny them equal rights. So, it isn't that "our God" is better; it's that our worship (or non-worship) is better, or that our practice or laws are better. (Hopefully that isn't too Manichean for you.)

[Ray Zee]

sundevil,

religon is part of history and the world seems to revolve around it. no one should tell your child not to talk about god in school or anywhere else. but having the school require a student to put their hand on their chest and repeat those words are wrong. if they dont they get ostrasized, and they grow to believe it which is a form of indoctrination of the children with religon.
nothing wrong with teaching about the different religons in class. but wrong to tell them there is a god.
but if a person lives his life around this belief in god then he will not understand easily the other side. just as an athiest doesnt understand why someone would lead a life following that belief.

[Ray Zee]

slacker, why would you let your daughter get indoctrinated in religon just to appease the side of the family. she should make the decision herself after both you and your wife present both sides of the story. if she is too young to decide for herself she shouldnt be going as then she is subject to being brainwashed in things against your beliefs. thats not good.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
I would find it more troubling to explain to my daughter why she couldn't say God in school.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure why you keep bringing this point up.
1. Removing God from the Pledge does not mean your daughter can't say God in school. It just means teachers can no longer force students to recite a pledge with the word God in it.
2. I think it is easier for you to be able to talk to your kid about God then a teacher.

[Cyrus]

"You make it sound like people are trying to introduce God into the pledge of allegiance when actually people are trying to remove it."

And a good thing that is, too! More power to them.

But to dispute, as you do, that the current American leadership are Christian fundamentalists or that they are actively promoting the Christian Right's agenda is ridiculous. Yes, the mention of "God" is, of course, already in the Pledge, nobody said otherwise -- but this looks not to be nearly enough for the Christian Right.

"The people that want it removed are atheists promoting their agenda."

And what is the atheists' "agenda", pray tell? (Pun intended.)

What is the dark, secretive organisation behind that specific plaintiff? The world wants to know.

"I think that the history behind God being in the pledge probably means that it should be removed. I certainly could be convinced otherwise though."

The mention of "God" was introduced in the Pledge in 1954, at the height of the Cold War and McCarty-ism, in order to distinguish America from "God-less communism"!

Choosing to retain that kind of idiotic 1954 mentality and have it shoved to children's minds every morning, only shows how deeply paranoid and insecure the American psyche still is. God help us all.

[Cyrus]

Señor Juanez, I hope that pinot noir /images/graemlins/cool.gif was not so strong as to not allow you to see the point being made : You are challenging people to come up with specific laws passed by Congress that establish or promote a religion - but the Supreme Court has already ruled, and very wisely too, if I may say so, on that one. Congress (and government) does not act by law alone.

Read señor J.R.'s post once again:

Supreme Court jurisprudence holds that the establishment clause protects from implicit governmental coercion to participate in activities that include religious components, even when there is no state law directly respecting the religious component (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=754883&page=0&view=ex panded&sb=6&o=14&vc=1)

[Zeno]

I think one of the issues that no one has brought up is that the pledge is 'School Sponsored' or under the leadership of a teacher, thus coercion, or compelling one to participate, is an important legal issue and may be against the establishment clause in the constitution. The Lawyers can clarify or correct me if I am wrong or off base on this.

And another point, the only type of school prayer that is banned, I think, is a teacher lead pray or some school personnel leading a prayer or at a school function that all are required to attend, thus forcing (compelling) all to participate. A personal prayer by an individual or by student groups that gather for bible study etc is not banned. Students can pray before eating, or taking a test, for example. Again, the Lawyers can correct me if I am wrong on this but I think is right.

The main issue is one of coercion because that in a sense ‘establishes a religion”.

-Zeno

Edit - Well, I see know that the point has been made by others before. And Cyrus emphasized the point also.

[elwoodblues]

Mandatory recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional. A student can always opt out. The question in the recent case was whether even this (teacher-led recitation of the pledge with the ability to opt out) was unconstitutional.

The basic idea behind the anti opt-out argument is that students would be forced to endure peer ridicule if they chose to opt out; thus, it isn't a viable option.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
But to dispute, as you do, that the current American leadership are Christian fundamentalists or that they are actively promoting the Christian Right's agenda is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then tell me what the Christian Right's agenda is and I'll actually go on the record and state what I think instead of you doing it for me.


[ QUOTE ]
And what is the atheists' "agenda", pray tell? (Pun intended.)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's easy just follow ACLU activities which include but is not limited to removing the reference to god from the pledge.



[ QUOTE ]
The mention of "God" was introduced in the Pledge in 1954, at the height of the Cold War and McCarty-ism, in order to distinguish America from "God-less communism"!

Choosing to retain that kind of idiotic 1954 mentality and have it shoved to children's minds every morning, only shows how deeply paranoid and insecure the American psyche still is. God help us all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, you haven't convinced me otherwise that the reference to god should not be removed. You're preaching to the choir. The whole pledge issue is a "tempest in a teapot." This kind of thing indicates to me that there isn't a scintilla of evidence that the U.S. government will actively promote religion anytime soon.

[MMMMMM]

I do feel that the pledge debate is making a rather peripheral issue into a big deal.

When I was a kid I remember sometimes saying the whole pledge, and other times leaving the words "under God" out of it. Nobody coached me on that, it was just what I felt like doing. No doubt many kids today do the same.

[Cyrus]

In other words, both you and Adios agree that the words are not appropriate (some would even say un-American) but for some reason, you don't think it's important enough to bother.

This is about the li'l trifle called Pledge of Allegiance, right? Right.

[adios]

The pledge is a voluntary endeavor, not a mandated one. Therefore it is a trifle. The U.S. government has moved and continues to move towards being more secular rather than more towards promoting religion. You seem to imply the converse is true i.e. that the U.S. government is moving away from secularism.

[MMMMMM]

First of all, I didn't say it's not important enough to bother about.

I do think that the importance of it has been exaggerated, though, since saying it--and those two words especially--is a voluntary matter. Also, the reference to God is minor enough that it is not tantamount to indoctrination or brainwashing. I don't think saying "under God" in a rote manner as part of the pledge really makes kids any more likely to believe in God or not, much less in any particular God or religion.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
And another point, the only type of school prayer that is banned, I think, is a teacher lead pray or some school personnel leading a prayer or at a school function that all are required to attend, thus forcing (compelling) all to participate. A personal prayer by an individual or by student groups that gather for bible study etc is not banned. Students can pray before eating, or taking a test, for example. Again, the Lawyers can correct me if I am wrong on this but I think is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm the first to admit I don't know the "official" school rules. I think the rules may vary from school to school or district to district.
My brother who is headed into his junior year, was told he couldn't have his Bible out in class. It's not like this was English class or anything, it was "Study Hall". He also was told(by a teacher not the principle) that he couldn't wear a certain t-shirt, because it was "inappropriate". It had a picture of two hands with holes in them on the back, and on the front it sayed, "Body Piercing Saved My Life". He never challenged the teacher or went to a higher authority, he just kept wearing the shirt anyway.
There is a meeting once or twice a year that is called "Meet me at the pole". It's a church promoted event, where before school a certain day, a bunch of kids meet at the flagpole and join hands in a big circle to pray. Nobody told the kids they couldn't do it, but it was interupted by other kids who threw rocks at the gathering.(I know this has nothing to do with anything, just helping to show how a lot of Christians are treated in schools. Those kids could very well throw rocks at mentaly retarded kids or kids with handicaps as well.

I don't know if this is how it is everywhere(I went to a Christian school so I don't have any first hand knowledge). Funny thing that at my school we didn't even say the pledge everyday, just once a week at chapel.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
My brother who is headed into his junior year, was told he couldn't have his Bible out in class

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, things like this happen because teachers don't understand the law and think they are doing the right thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Funny thing that at my school we didn't even say the pledge everyday, just once a week at chapel

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kind of ironic --- You only said the pledge at a place that most would associate with prayer.

[J.R.]

The U.S. government has moved and continues to move towards being more secular rather than more towards promoting religion.

Could you provide some examples indicative of this trend.

[adios]

This is all I could find in 15 minutes. I'm sure I could find many more.

1947 Everson v. Board of Education A trailblazer: The Court found school boards' reimbursement of the public transportation costs incurred by parents whose children attended parochial schools constitutional, but Justice Black's statement -- "In the words of Jefferson, the
clause...was intended to erect a `wall of separation between church and State'..." -- was the Court's first major utterance on the meaning of Establishment Clause.

1962 Engel v. Vitale In an 8-1 decision, the Court struck down the New York State Regent's "nondenominational" school prayer, holding that "It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers."

1963 Abingdon School District v. Schempp Building on Engel in another 8-1 decision, the Court struck down Pennsylvania's in-school Bible-reading law as a violation of the First Amendment.

1968 Epperson v. Arkansas The Court ruled that Arkansas had violated the First Amendment, which forbids official religion, with its ban on teaching "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals."

1983 Bob Jones University v. United States The Court rejected two fundamentalist Christian schools' claim, supported by the Reagan Justice Department, that the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty forbade the denial of income tax exemptions to educational and religious institutions that practice racial discrimination. Instead, the Court held that the IRS is empowered to set rules enforcing a "settled public policy" against racial discrimination in education

1985 Wallace v. Jaffree This important church-state separation decision found Alabama's "moment of silence" law, which required public school children to take a moment "for meditation or voluntary prayer," in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

1992 R.A.V. v. Wisconsin An important First Amendment victory. A unanimous Court struck down a local law banning the display, on public or private property, of any symbol "that arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion orgender."

1992 Lee v. Weisman The Court ruled that any officially-sanctionedprayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause.

[J.R.]

Does Supreme Court = US Government? Many would content that the former moderates the latter, and this is evident in the Bob Jones Case. Recent Supreme Curt jurisprudence has interpeted the establishment clause broadly while taking a less expansive view of individual claims to freedom of religion. Both trends indicate what could be seen as a secular approach to constitutional interpretation, but what of the other branches?

That's what I more though you were getting at, as for example the Religious Freedom Restaration Act, Bush's push to allow religious organizations access to federal funds and a general governmental opposition to gay and lesbian rights (most commonly asserted on religious grounds) are somewhat recent examples of non-secular(?), religious efforts by the legislative and executive branches.

[adios]

Somehow I knew you disagreed with me /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
Does Supreme Court = US Government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I should have used a plural i.e. US Governments which includes a lot of government entities.

[ QUOTE ]
Recent Supreme Curt jurisprudence has interpeted the establishment clause broadly while taking a less expansive view of individual claims to freedom of religion. Both trends indicate what could be seen as a secular approach to constitutional interpretation, but what of the other branches?

[/ QUOTE ]

What about them?

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I more though you were getting at, as for example the Religious Freedom Restaration Act, Bush's push to allow religious organizations access to federal funds and a general governmental opposition to gay and lesbian rights (most commonly asserted on religious grounds) are somewhat recent examples of non-secular(?), religious efforts by the legislative and executive branches.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this the act you're referring to?

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcs_rfra.htm)

If so looks like the same old trend to me.
Is Bush introducing a new one?

[J.R.]

Yes, that RFRA. No, Bush is not pushing another form of the RFRA as far as I know. I'm not being political, I believe both major parties are guilty of pandering to religion. The RFRA catered to religion by trying to expand the scope of the free exercise clause in defiance of the supreme court. There appears to me to be a continuous cycle of politicians trying to cater to religion by passing laws or adopting adminstrative policies they think they can get away with, and then the supreme court telling them no.

I just wondered why you said the US government was moving towards a more secular approach. Its my perception that the legislative and executive branches still attempt to involve/support religion to the extent the supreme court lets them get away with it. These branches aren't moving towards secularism IMO, they are pushing the enevelope in the other direction. That's the extent of my point. I was hoping you could point to some evidence indicating why my perceptions might be wrong or based on incomplete information.