This seems timely and while we have discussed related issues, the matter has never formally come up.

My thoughts are that I never wanted this to come before the supreme court, because I can see only bad things coming from it. If the court rules in favor of keeping the phrase, we have indelibly (at least unless they reverse themselves--not bloody likely) added G-d where religion has no business.

On the other hand, if it is struck down (which would be the correct thing to do) we are looking at the very real possibility of a constitutional amendment. I dislike that option more than I dislike the court upholding it.

The third possibility is, of course, a tie or a dismissal. These have the same consequences as above, depending on exactly how its worded (IANAL, but I believe a tie would go to the lower court--which declared it unconstitutional--while I believe a dismissal would remove that decision but only delay the inevitable before someone with better grounds challenges again).


Ellen Goodman has made some excellent points on the subject.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/28/why_make_such_a_big_deal_of_two_little_words/

mk im in the middle on this one. I think everybody should have the choice to say it or not say it. I personally dont say the pledge for two reasons
1. I dont like that god was brought into it. I think it should be Seperation of Church and State. Some people could be offended by haveing to say that.

2. I dont feel comfortable saying it. Im not proud of how my country has been ran lately and i dont agree with the wars etc. Thus i opt out not to say it because i do not pledge to a country that endorses violence.Nor do i pledge to a country that is being ran by an idiot.

The Supreme Court should rule that The Pledge of Allegiance is stupid anyway and just abolish the whole thing.


Presumably, couldn't schoolchildren who have the brainpower to memorize the entire Pledge also remember that they've already pledged allegiance without having to remind themselves by reciting the whole thing in its entirety every freaking day?

Why do American children have to pledge allegiance to their country, "under God" or otherwise? It seems a little paranoid to me. It sorta makes me think that your Powers That Be look upon schools as "Training grounds for Good Little Americans", which I find worrying. i've never been asked to pledge allegiance to anything in my life. (Unless you count signing the Official Secrets Act)

Slightly off topic - Do you guys have the option of taking a purely secular Affirmation in court, rather than the traditional 'swear on the Bible' malarkey? I know it's a side issue, but it points to a certain mentality here. We can... (which is just as well, or the last time I was called to give evidence, i would have been unable in all good conscience to do so).

Do students even still say the Pledge of Allegiance? I don't remember when, but I know we just stopped saying it in school. I think that the best way to solve this problem is by removing it from public schools. It doesn't fit anymore. The whole pledge thing is kind of creepy if you think about it. It's a little too Adolf Hitlerish for me. However, I'm afraid that it will go so far that children who actually want to say "under God" will be forbidden, because that is where our country is going, and I think that is very sad. There has to be something in the middle.

I actually had to write an essay for school about this. Most kids in their essays believed that "under God" should stay in the pledge. Personally, I don't think it should be in the pledge. Some people say that if you don't like it, don't say it. I think that is absolute BS because the pledge is supposed to represent ALL Americans. If some people don't feel comfortable saying it, something is obviously wrong with it.

I don't know why Truman decided to add "under God" to the pledge in the first place...

The Supreme Court should rule that The Pledge of Allegiance is stupid anyway and just abolish the whole thing.


Presumably, couldn't schoolchildren who have the brainpower to memorize the entire Pledge also remember that they've already pledged allegiance without having to remind themselves by reciting the whole thing in its entirety every freaking day?

I wholeheartedly agree. First of all, the Pledge was written by a socialist and written during the time (1892) that the Prussian model of education had been adopted finally in all 50 states. The practice of standing at attention and reciting those same monotonous jingoistic words every day is part of a system that promotes conformity over individuality.

From http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Gee/gee8.html:
By 1889, U.S. Commissioner of Education William Torrey Harris was assuring railroad magnate Collis Huntington that American schools were “scientifically designed” to prevent “over-education” from occurring. In 1896, John Dewey at the University of Chicago said “independent, self-reliant people were a counter-productive anachronism in the collective society of the future.” Dewey went on to assert that, in modern society, “people would be defined by their associations – not by their own individual accomplishments.”

Such was a long leap toward state socialism, a vision that runs counter to the traditional American purpose – to prepare the individual to be self-reliant. The underlying premise of Prussian schooling, and therefore that of the American system, is that the government is the true parent of all children, i.e., the State is sovereign over the family.

And the movement to add "under God" to the Pledge stemmed from the Cold War. Since the USSR and Marxism were atheistic, the movement wanted to have the US declared a religious nation. This movement couldn't understand that selcularism and atheism were not the same animal. And how ironic that a pledge written by a socialist was crammed down kids' throats in the name of anti-socialism!

Now those most adamant toward keeping the Pledge as is give the argument that the US has a "Judeo-Christian" foundation (as if the two religions are not different), but there's another thread for that.

Whether two words remain in the Pledge is only important if it raises the bigger question of whether or not to continue this--as my link confirms--counterproductive and anti-individual compulsory education system.

About 90 percent of Americans want to keep the phrase "under God" in school All that the "majority rules" mentality achieves is to crush all minorities and anyone who is different. historically, 90% of americans don't know what they are doing. the point of the constitution is to protect the rights of anyone against the ignorance of everyone. this is only a case between following the constitution, giving the majority what they want.

All that the "majority rules" mentality achieves is to crush all minorities and anyone who is different. historically, 90% of americans don't know what they are doing. the point of the constitution is to protect the rights of anyone against the ignorance of everyone. this is only a case between following the constitution, giving the majority what they want.
Hence why Democracy devolves into mob rule.

All that the "majority rules" mentality achieves is to crush all minorities and anyone who is different. historically, 90% of americans don't know what they are doing. the point of the constitution is to protect the rights of anyone against the ignorance of everyone. this is only a case between following the constitution, giving the majority what they want.

But that is what our form of government is loosely based upon - majority rules. In fact I find it alarming that, say, 10% of the country, could dictate to the other 90%. There are no grounds for that reversal.

All that the "majority rules" mentality achieves is to crush all minorities and anyone who is different. historically, 90% of americans don't know what they are doing. the point of the constitution is to protect the rights of anyone against the ignorance of everyone. this is only a case between following the constitution, giving the majority what they want.

I dont hear you complaining about the fact that neo-nazis arent getting elected because they cant get enough votes. How about that majority, eh? ;)

That argument kind of reminds me of what Louis Veuillot once wrote.

"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom, because that is according to your principals; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom, because that is according to my principals."

You wouldnt complain about a majority mentality if the majority did what you wanted it to, would you? How many times have I heard people arguing for homosexual marriages and arguing "look how many Americans support it!" You cant have it both ways. If the Supreme Court does something that you dont like, you say that it is a couple of old men trying to subvert the will of the majority. If the Supreme Court does something you like, than glory be! the courts have defended the minorities from the big bad majority. Such is the nature of the American brand of Republic.

But that is what our form of government is loosely based upon - majority rules. In fact I find it alarming that, say, 10% of the country, could dictate to the other 90%. There are no grounds for that reversal.

I find it rather comforting, actually, that the majority cannot strip the minority of rights or otherwise force their beliefs.

That 10% isn't dictating to the other 90%, they are just protecting themselves from that 90%. Slight difference.

I find it rather comforting, actually, that the majority cannot strip the minority of rights or otherwise force their beliefs.

That 10% isn't dictating to the other 90%, they are just protecting themselves from that 90%. Slight difference.Well how do you suppose that those 90% feel about having their rights denied for them by the minority? That's backwards logic. No matter how you spin it, it is the minority telling the majority how it will be for them.

Coach, Lly, you're going to have to start talking in specifics if the rest of us are to follow you.

Well how do you suppose that those 90% feel about having their rights denied for them by the minority?

Oh, poor me, those nasty atheists took away my right to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Coach, Lly, you're going to have to start talking in specifics if the rest of us are to follow you.I think that MQ's example is a good one. I know that there are situations in which a mob mentality isn't conducive - I am not an absolutist nor an advocate for totalitarianism - however, I believe that in most cases, the majority should rule.

Oh, poor me, those nasty atheists took away my right to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?Well I was speaking on a larger scale than that, but to your point - it is no different that the atheists saying "That nasty Christians.... making me say 'under God' in the pledge", which, by the way, there are not REQUIRED nor COMPELLED to do.

However, a ruling that abolishes the "word" from the pledge completely removes that right. Therefore, without a ruling in favor of, say the atheists, that group still has the right to not say the pledge or that part of the pledge. However, it the court removes this phrase by law, those who wish to have the right to say it will have that denied. As it stands presently, both sides have the right to say it or not.

Well how do you suppose that those 90% feel about having their rights denied for them by the minority? That's backwards logic. No matter how you spin it, it is the minority telling the majority how it will be for them.

Oh really.

Let's play the rights game.

It is called the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

None. Not yours, not mine. Not the majority's, not the minority's.

The majority's rights are no more "being denied" than mine are by its removal. It is like saying that the removal of the 10 commandments from an alabama court room was a violation of the rights of the majority.

Bullshit. It was a protection of the rights of the minority. By having that there it was violating their rights. Please, enlighten me as to which right, guaranteed by the constitution, is being denied to the majority?

The first? Nope. You can exercise your beliefs in the manner of your choosing. Nothing has changed except that the phrase has been stricken from government.

"Majority rules" devolves into a mobocracy where the rights of the few get trampled by the opinion of the many. Mathematically sound and we've seen examples of it in our own history where such has been overruled by the Supreme Court. If you want a further example, look at the current one.

Why don't you just post what you are really thinking... this thread and this argument are really a anti-Christian debate, wrapped up in "rights" debate.

...'under God' in the pledge", which, by the way, there are not REQUIRED nor COMPELLED to do.

However, a ruling that abolishes the "word" from the pledge completely removes that right. Therefore, without a ruling in favor of, say the atheists, that group still has the right to not say the pledge or that part of the pledge. However, it the court removes this phrase by law, those who wish to have the right to say it will have that denied. As it stands presently, both sides have the right to say it or not.

What would happen if a kid said "under Satan" instead of "under God" in the Pledge?

What would happen if a kid said "under Satan" instead of "under God" in the Pledge?I say put the whole thing to a vote; it the majority wants "Under Satan", I'd live with it, just as I do when other votes don't go my way. It's the "price" of living in this country.

I rule when it comes to sparking up a debate.... :D

I dont hear you complaining about the fact that neo-nazis arent getting elected because they cant get enough votes. How about that majority, eh? ;)
i think you meant to post this in an election thread? we are talking about religion in schools here...

it's not that the minority should get their way; the point is that in school, no religion should have it's way. this way no one's constitutional rights are violated.

since you added to your post i will add to mine too :p
You wouldnt complain about a majority mentality if the majority did what you wanted it to, would you? How many times have I heard people arguing for homosexual marriages and arguing "look how many Americans support it!" probaby never since the majority of americans oppose gay marriage.

You cant have it both ways. If the Supreme Court does something that you dont like, you say that it is a couple of old men trying to subvert the will of the majority. If the Supreme Court does something you like, than glory be! the courts have defended the minorities from the big bad majority. Such is the nature of the American brand of Republic. really? i said all that? nope.

Well I was speaking on a larger scale than that, but to your point - it is no different that the atheists saying "That nasty Christians.... making me say 'under God' in the pledge", which, by the way, there are not REQUIRED nor COMPELLED to do.


This argument has been struck down time and time again in the court. The idea that "you aren't compelled, therefore it is okay" has never proven to be true in practice or as a matter of law.

I should also mention that, last I checked, you were compelled to say it to become a naturalized citizen.


However, a ruling that abolishes the "word" from the pledge completely removes that right. Therefore, without a ruling in favor of, say the atheists, that group still has the right to not say the pledge or that part of the pledge. However, it the court removes this phrase by law, those who wish to have the right to say it will have that denied. As it stands presently, both sides have the right to say it or not.

Read the Establishment clause. Not some nebulous concept of rights, but what it actually says. It is pretty clear that those words should have never been added in the first place, but their absence is allowable. The phrase also doesn't apply to the supreme court who is specifically authorized to overturn decisions that Congress makes which are unconstitutional (which this one happens to be).


Why don't you just post what you are really thinking... this thread and this argument are really a anti-Christian debate, wrapped up in "rights" debate.

Nope. I am far from anti-Christian. I am anti-shoving-your-religion-down-my-throat and I am pro-establishment-clause. it wouldn't matter if it said "in Coyote we trust" I would still be opposed to it.

Well I was speaking on a larger scale than that, but to your point - it is no different that the atheists saying "That nasty Christians.... making me say 'under God' in the pledge", which, by the way, there are not REQUIRED or COMPELLED to do. However, a ruling that abolishes the "word" from the pledge completely removes that right. Therefore, without a ruling in favor of, say the atheists, that group still has the right to not say the pledge or that part of the pledge. However, it the court removes this phrase by law, those who wish to have the right to say it will have that denied.

Does taking the words out force a statement of atheism upon believers? No, it just makes the Pledge a religiously neutral statement (which was its original state).

Does leaving the words in force a statement of belief upon atheists? Yes, you are forcing them to say a phrase which is quite contrary to their beliefs.

They are CLEARLY not equivalent to me. The only way it would be comparable would be if the guy wanted to change the words to "One nation, there is no God," in which case that would be contrary to the beliefs of Christians/Jews/Muslims/Zoroastrians/et cetera.

And don't tell me people aren't required to say "under God" when they recite the Pledge, millions of schoolchildren are forced to say it in its entirety every day and can be disciplined if they refuse. Isn't reciting the Pledge in its entirety also a requirement to become a naturalized citizen?

And don't tell me people aren't required to say "under God" when they recite the Pledge, millions of schoolchildren are forced to say it in its entirety every day and can be disciplined if they refuse. Isn't reciting the Pledge in its entirety also a requirement to become a naturalized citizen?The former is patently untrue; the latter is true I am pretty sure.


On another note... I am not going to post anymore in this thread . I learned a long time ago that you can't ever argue politics or religion and this thread's got both going; I get far too worked up over either topic to stay level headed. I'll save my battles for "hills worth dying on"; i.e., ones I can actually do something about. :)

The former is patently untrue;

Guess my elementary school has some explaining to do then...

Just in case you decide to come back: ;)
I say put the whole thing to a vote; it the majority wants "Under Satan", I'd live with it, just as I do when other votes don't go my way. It's the "price" of living in this country.
But, in that case, would you say "Satan", "God", or nothing during the Pledge?

And don't tell me people aren't required to say "under God" when they recite the Pledge, millions of schoolchildren are forced to say it in its entirety every day and can be disciplined if they refuse. Isn't reciting the Pledge in its entirety also a requirement to become a naturalized citizen?

I was never forced to say the pledge in its entirety. Ever. There were even a few kids in my class who were conscientious objectors (or their parents were - there are some Christian religions in which you can't pledge allegiance to anything but God - even and esp. the government) and they didn't have to stand during the Pledge OR recite it, much less say under God. But the option was always open to us.

And even if you have to recite the Pledge to become an american citizen, there are many other things that are WAY unconstitutional, like you have to know how to read English to become a citizen. This is horribly unjust because the US never had an official language, and we were thisclose to making our official language GERMAN in the beginning. But it keeps millions of americans from the right of citizenship anyway. So there for injustice. /offtopicrant

I was never forced to say the pledge in its entirety. Ever. There were even a few kids in my class who were conscientious objectors (or their parents were - there are some Christian religions in which you can't pledge allegiance to anything but God - even and esp. the government) and they didn't have to stand during the Pledge OR recite it, much less say under God. But the option was always open to us.
Those kinds of Christians have my respect.

And even if you have to recite the Pledge to become an american citizen, there are many other things that are WAY unconstitutional, like you have to know how to read English to become a citizen. This is horribly unjust because the US never had an official language, and we were thisclose to making our official language GERMAN in the beginning. But it keeps millions of americans from the right of citizenship anyway. So there for injustice. /offtopicrant

Actually it was during the mid-to-late-1800s that the number of German speakers rivaled the number of English speakers (especially in the north), but your point remains valid.

Nope. I am far from anti-Christian. I am anti-shoving-your-religion-down-my-throat and I am pro-establishment-clause. it wouldn't matter if it said "in Coyote we trust" I would still be opposed to it.

How can you classify something as "your religion" when the pledge does not specify a religion? It seems everyone who is classifying the inclusion of the words "under God" fail to take in the political climate of the time it was added.

The phrase was added in 1954 when the US was in the midst of anti-communism hysteria. The main focal point for which was the USSR where the state was put above personal rights, including those of religious freedom. By inluding the phrase "under God" the pledge establishes the state as an entity which is secondary to its citizens religious beliefs. This doesn't create a de facto religious belief for the nation, it only establishes spirituality as a greater force than patriotism.

As for the arguements of God having *no* place in Government, and those who would argue that "under God" would not fit with the founding father's ideals I suggest they take a close look at where the US first established itself (emphasis mine):

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

for that matter, are you going to reprint all the money because it says in God we trust? An ideal is an ideal, no matter what the cost, eh?

Oh joy, a political agenda.

How can you classify something as "your religion" when the pledge does not specify a religion? It seems everyone who is classifying the inclusion of the words "under God" fail to take in the political climate of the time it was added.


The people who put those words into the pledge were clearly specifying a religion or group of religions.

Further, it very clearly excludes the atheists and some groups of polytheists and pantheists. To quote the legislative records "...the dependence of our people and our Government upon ... the Creator ... [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism." (emphasis mine)

Eisenhower was even more explicit:

"From this day forward, the *millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every *village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to *the Almighty."

"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."

Finally, the political climate at the time is irrelevant to whether its inclusion at the time was consitutional or whether its continued presence can be considered constitutional.


By inluding the phrase "under God" the pledge establishes the state as an entity which is secondary to its citizens religious beliefs. This doesn't create a de facto religious belief for the nation, it only establishes spirituality as a greater force than patriotism.

This is kind of like saying "prayer in school isn't about religion." Come again?


As for the arguements of God having *no* place in Government, and those who would argue that "under God" would not fit with the founding father's ideals I suggest they take a close look at where the US first established itself (emphasis mine):


:rolleyes:


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.

"[A]n establishment of religion" would include Theism and particularly any reference to a singular creator. "America's founders deliberately made no reference to God or religion in the Constitution except to forbid religious tests for office" -- David Greenberg, Professor of History and Political Science at Yale.

I should also mention that the declaration holds no legal weight whatsoever and makes an extremely poor argument for religious content in government. But you knew that already, right?

Again quoting David Greenberg: " The only intellectually honest course is to forbid the public-school recital of the religious version of the oath."

for that matter, are you going to reprint all the money because it says in God we trust? An ideal is an ideal, no matter what the cost, eh?

What cost would that be, exactly? The cost of redesigning our currency? Oh horror, we already do that every few decades anyways, just take it out the next time it gets revised.

Yeesh.

"[A]n establishment of religion" would include Theism and particularly any reference to a singular creator. "America's founders deliberately made no reference to God or religion in the Constitution except to forbid religious tests for office" -- David Greenberg, Professor of History and Political Science at Yale.

Again quoting David Greenberg: " The only intellectually honest course is to forbid the public-school recital of the religious version of the oath."

bows to David Greenberg because he is the politics god of the world... :rolleyes: and fears for her religious freedom, sure that one day they'll tell her it's illegal to utter the word God in public...



What cost would that be, exactly? The cost of redesigning our currency? Oh horror, we already do that every few decades anyways, just take it out the next time it gets revised.

Yeesh.

So you'd support that move?

Sorry I mistook you for someone interested in a honest, mature conversation on the subject.

As made obvious by things like

Oh joy, a political agenda.

and

This is kind of like saying "prayer in school isn't about religion." Come again?

and

:rolleyes:

and

Yeesh.

I was wrong. <last line removed, sorry for putting words into someone else's mouth>

bows to David Greenberg because he is the politics god of the world... :rolleyes: and fears for her religious freedom, sure that one day they'll tell her it's illegal to utter the word God in public...


Try it again without the straw man.


So you'd support that move?

Of course.

Try it again without the straw man.

straw? straw man? I'm confused...

I should also mention that, last I checked, you were compelled to say it to become a naturalized citizen.

Just for accuracy's sake, you are not required to take recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" to become a naturalized citizen. You are required to take the "Oath of Allegiance" which is:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

And before the "so help me God" is brought up you might want to read this first:

Alteration of form of oath; affirmation in lieu of oath. In those cases in which a petitioner or applicant for naturalization is exempt from taking the oath prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section in its entirety, the inapplicable clauses shall be deleted and the oath shall be taken in such altered form. When a petitioner or applicant for naturalization, by reason of religious training and belief (or individual interpretation thereof), or for other reasons of good conscience, cannot take the oath prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section with the words ``on oath'' and ``so help me God'' included, the words ``and solemnly affirm'' shall be substituted for the words ``on oath,'' the words ``so help me God'' shall be deleted, and the oath shall be taken in such modified form. Any reference to `oath of allegiance' in this chapter is understood to mean equally `affirmation of allegiance' as described in this paragraph.

straw? straw man? I'm confused...
A straw man is where you attack a weaker or exaggerated form of an argument. It is somewhere between there and a slippery slope.

No one wants to strike the word from public places, what is being advocated is the removal of it from the Pledge of Allegiance, which is recited in many schools. In your church, among your friends, at a neighborhood association meeting, at a barbecue you can say whatever you like--what I object to is its presence in a so-called "pledge of allegiance," a government creed, and the linking of patriotism and faith by government.

As it was put in Everson v. Board of Education "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." Engle v. Vitale also applies.

ok say we take out "under god' of the pledge... what about courts? above the Judge there is a sign that says in god we trust. Its freakin everywhere. You change one you change them all. But then a christian would say You are not discriminating against their religion. I dont think there is a fair median anywhere. Its a battle that will never be won with these "older" genertations in higher authority. That is what i believe anyway. Our generations are so much different that the ones in office now. I think there will be some major changes when our generations step up. I think we see more open mindedly (is that a word lol) than these older ones do, they are closed minded. ok slaughter me now.
EDIT: i completely skipped that part, dont know why i didnt see it

ok say we take out "under god' of the pledge.. what about all the money in the US that says... in god we trust. and what about courts? above the Judge there is a sign that says in god we trust. You change one you change them all. But then a christian would say You are not discriminating against their religion. I dont think there is a fair median anywhere. Its a battle that will never be won with these "older" genertations in higher authority. That is what i believe anyway. Our generations are so much different that the ones in office now. I think there will be some major changes when our generations step up. I think we see more open mindedly (is that a word lol) than these older ones do, they are closed minded. ok slaughter me now.
Llyw covered the money question. I'm sure similar actions could be taken in regard to govt. signs, plaques, etc.

To me (and I am very much afraid of this), our world is one big slippery slope. We could one day be forbidden to even say God. We could be forced out of our churches if this continues. They could find some clause somewhere and warp it until it says that we are not permitted to have churches because just walking by it and knowing it is a place of worship might infringe on someone's religious freedom. This is not a philsophical argument for me. It is a reality.

I still don't understand why you have the pledge in the first place, compulsory, religious or otherwise.

To me, a school is a seat of learning. Information should be passed out to students... Sure, there should be some sort of code of behaviour, but in an enlightened society, that would just be the Law of the Land.

Leave religion and moral direction in the hands of the parents and the children themselves. The only time a school, in my humble opinion, should involve itself with the behaviour of a child is when that behaviour is offensive to the law... that includes shouting and swearing, hitting people, setting fire to things, theft, you get the idea.

For all other matters, it's none of the school's business. The idea of a pledge of allegiance, religious or otherwise, is paranoid nonsense. It's a sort of moral blackmail and if it were imposed in the UK, would directly infringe ones Human Rights as defined by Article 9, paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights...

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
If I were forced to reaffirm my support for my country on a daily basis, I'd pretty soon grow to resent it and some fairly Orwellian thoughts would start swimming around in my little head...

Don't say stuff like that. Big Brother is listening.

Just for accuracy's sake, you are not required to take recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" to become a naturalized citizen. You are required to take the "Oath of Allegiance" which is:

[stuff]

And before the "so help me God" is brought up you might want to read this first:

[other stuff]



If that is the case, then this whole thing is totally irrelevent and I don't care anymore. I never actually did care in the first place, really.

I still don't understand why you have the pledge in the first place, compulsory, religious or otherwise.

To me, a school is a seat of learning. Information should be passed out to students... Sure, there should be some sort of code of behaviour, but in an enlightened society, that would just be the Law of the Land.

Leave religion and moral direction in the hands of the parents and the children themselves. The only time a school, in my humble opinion, should involve itself with the behaviour of a child is when that behaviour is offensive to the law... that includes shouting and swearing, hitting people, setting fire to things, theft, you get the idea.

For all other matters, it's none of the school's business. The idea of a pledge of allegiance, religious or otherwise, is paranoid nonsense. It's a sort of moral blackmail and if it were imposed in the UK, would directly infringe ones Human Rights as defined by Article 9, paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights...


If I were forced to reaffirm my support for my country on a daily basis, I'd pretty soon grow to resent it and some fairly Orwellian thoughts would start swimming around in my little head...

Hey Head, your odium to the this idea has no real merit. This country was founded by those who left the mother land and decided that those laws were not what they wanted to follow. Why would they fight for freedom and then inject idiologies from which they fought to escape? Moral blackmail is a buzz cliche' that sounds good but when you look at the true meaning, it means nothing. We pledge because we honor and love what we have. We don't pledge because we are made to. That is the entire basis of being able to pledge. Pledge if you want to but don't try and remove it from the life of those who choose to pledge. As far as "Under God." it refers to the faith of an individual (whatever that may be) and their ability to practice a religion. Not the ability for those who don't want religion to have a point of arguement. Those who don't believe should keep to themselves and not try to remove what a majority of the population holds to be the "law of the land." I see your point as to not have it in school but it has been there since the dawning of our country. Why change it because some people are offended. Consider yourself lucky to be offended. Imagine yourself in a society that told you what/who to worship and when to pray and who to bow down to. We have nothing of the sort. We have a seat of learing that allows learning. The more people take from that by ridiculing the system then the more that the system will not teach. And as for your affirmation being forced on a daily basis, that is the exact opposite of the intentions of the pledge of alliegence. You pledge "For which it stands." It stands for your ability to have a choice. Why remove that choice. If you don't want to then don't but don't remove it all together for those who do. Where has their choice gone? You should wake up and be thankful of having the ability to make that pledge if you want to and not have to worry about someone else making it for you.

theMetalRepublican

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

So couldn't a teacher, in community with others, "manifest his religion or belief" in "teaching, practice, and observance" by saying the pledge if he (or she) so chooses? Or am I way off base? Honestly, I don't think kids are really forced to say the pledge in schools. Even in the deep south. God knows we weren't.

The pledge case is fundamentally flawed. The little girl says she is a Christian. This is the case of a noncustodial parent not wanting the school to make his daughter believe that "her daddy is wrong" when in fact if she is a Christian she already thinks he's wrong! The little girl is not being forced to say the Pledge against her will OR her custodian's will, but against her NONCUSTODIAL parent's will, and nothing proves that she's being compelled. However I recognize that we're not debating the case itself but the concept behind it.

When and why did it become public schools job to enforce loyalty to the country and god? Yes you can opt not to say the pledge, but no one should be made to feel like the odd one out.

Sangreal, the rights in your quote do not apply to public school. people do have all those freedoms, but they do not have the right to exercise them infront of children who's parents sent them to school to learn the curriculum.

So couldn't a teacher, in community with others, "manifest his religion or belief" in "teaching, practice, and observance" by saying the pledge if he (or she) so chooses?

And what about my rights, again? You seem to be speaking one sided here. Also, there is slight difference between public school and private schooling.. one being that all parents have given consent to religious affirmations. Hence, why public education shouldn't.

MetalRepublican - you missed the whole point of my post... I agree that your predecessors left Britain because they didn't like the laws here... and when they formed their own country (eventually, along with people from umpteen other coutries too) they made their own laws, which you now live by. I never said otherwise.

What you then went on to do was to introduce an oath of allegiance in your schools, treating every pupil like they were on the stand in a court, or in the army, or somesuch.

I have never been asked to swear allegiance to my country. Trust me, I'm as patriotic as the next bloke, but I don't see the need to proclaim that fact in public every day. Trying to MAKE me proclaim my patriotism daily will (more than likely) make me question my loyalty to the government... because I'd have to ask myself what kind of unstable, paranoid administration needs to have its citizens make such a proclamation with such startling regularity.

As for being glad that I have the opportunity to pledge my allegiance to someone... Not to be offensive, but that's a load of nonsense. I have my allegiances. It is MINE to know how deeply they run and to whom. Having someone else verbalise the way I feel about my country and then expecting me to use their words as if they were my own is offensive to me, pointless and ultimately (for reasons I've given above) self defeating.

And the fact that it isn't compulsory really isn't the issue - say only one kid in a school felt strongly enough to say the pledge every day - everybody else opted out because they either didn't agree with it or didn't see the value of it. That one kid, standing up every morning, hand on heart, affirming his allegiance alone amongst a crowd of his peers, would pretty soon be labelled a major wierdo. You know it's true.

So the reverse is true also. The kids may not have to say it.. but they have to say it. You know what I mean... peer pressure's a bitch.

should it be compulsory? no. but it should be permitted. The real question is, is it compulsory now? I know it's not where I am from.

MetalRepublican - you missed the whole point of my post... I agree that your predecessors left Britain because they didn't like the laws here... and when they formed their own country (eventually, along with people from umpteen other coutries too) they made their own laws, which you now live by. I never said otherwise.

What you then went on to do was to introduce an oath of allegiance in your schools, treating every pupil like they were on the stand in a court, or in the army, or somesuch.

I have never been asked to swear allegiance to my country. Trust me, I'm as patriotic as the next bloke, but I don't see the need to proclaim that fact in public every day. Trying to MAKE me proclaim my patriotism daily will (more than likely) make me question my loyalty to the government... because I'd have to ask myself what kind of unstable, paranoid administration needs to have its citizens make such a proclamation with such startling regularity.

As for being glad that I have the opportunity to pledge my allegiance to someone... Not to be offensive, but that's a load of nonsense. I have my allegiances. It is MINE to know how deeply they run and to whom. Having someone else verbalise the way I feel about my country and then expecting me to use their words as if they were my own is offensive to me, pointless and ultimately (for reasons I've given above) self defeating.

And the fact that it isn't compulsory really isn't the issue - say only one kid in a school felt strongly enough to say the pledge every day - everybody else opted out because they either didn't agree with it or didn't see the value of it. That one kid, standing up every morning, hand on heart, affirming his allegiance alone amongst a crowd of his peers, would pretty soon be labelled a major wierdo. You know it's true.

So the reverse is true also. The kids may not have to say it.. but they have to say it. You know what I mean... peer pressure's a bitch.

Hello Head- I am taking it that you are from Australia. By the use of bloke. All I am saying is that you and I live in a Country that gives us the freedom to be expressive in whatever fashion we see fit. This country was founded on the inherit worth of an individual and to start removing, from society, what has been the norm for hundreds of years is to weaken the structual foundation that was built by millions of individuals who accepted the law of the land. I partly agree with what you are saying but if we were to always look out for the other guy then who is looking out for the one who will have to then change. You can't give to someone without taking from another. People who don't want to say the pledge has that right not to. Do not take it away from those who choose to. Having a child pledge to the flag is not a bad thing. It builds trust, loyality and honor by teaching them to respect the foundation in which they live. Under the laws of a country that is very liberal when it comes to what a society is allowed to do. Sure there are other ways of building those traits but why condemn a paticiluar way. We are not forcing anyone to say the pledge. Sure if you were made to do something against your will then it would create friction and cause distance between that person and the government. Allowing for the pledge to be said in classroom isn't making anyone say it. Sit in your chair until it is over. No one will judge you. If they do then that person has no real clue as to what the pledge means.

thanks for the stimulating conversation.

MtMR

Some schools have a policy that allows students to not recite the pledge, but forces them to stand during the pledge. For those of you who want the pledge to remain as is, do you find this acceptable?

Some schools have a policy that allows students to not recite the pledge, but forces them to stand during the pledge. For those of you who want the pledge to remain as is, do you find this acceptable?

Why stand if you are not going to recite it. Just sit and wait until it is over. Hell, have an area that everyone can gather around and recite it together if the idea of the pledge offends someone. Just don't take it from the schools. It isn't about religion. It is about your country and your freedom to choose. Say it or not. That's the great thing about it.
MtMR

no I don't think they should have to stand. but they should be allowed to stand and not say it if they want to, just so they don't look out of place.

Some schools have a policy that allows students to not recite the pledge, but forces them to stand during the pledge. For those of you who want the pledge to remain as is, do you find this acceptable?

Certainly, saying the pledge was not mandatory when I was in high school (16+ years ago). But I do feel a minimum of standing to show respect for the flag, even if you do not wish to pledge allegiance to it, should be a minimum. If someone can't do that much, let them find another country that they can respect.

Certainly, saying the pledge was not mandatory when I was in high school (16+ years ago). But I do feel a minimum of standing to show respect for the flag, even if you do not wish to pledge allegiance to it, should be a minimum. If someone can't do that much, let them find another country that they can respect.
We're talking about children here. They can't just up and move out of the country.

For any reason that a family might disagree with the public school system, sure, these kids could home school (or seek private schooling), but I fear the home schooling movement may be in trouble. It's being actively destroyed in California.

For any reason that a family might disagree with the public school system, sure, these kids could home school (or seek private schooling), but I fear the home schooling movement may be in trouble. It's being actively destroyed in California.

Home schooling is an option, but it's not viable for everyone. Not everyone can afford it. The state has an obligation to make the school environment one that is safe and conducive to learning for EVERYONE, even those kids whose families might not believe in the pledge. For these reasons, the idea that these kids and their families should just seek education elsewhere is, however well intended, completely unconstitutional because it is tantamount to discrimination, religious, ideological, or otherwise. This is similar to the issue of vaccinations. The state would LOVE to require all of its students to be vaccinated for health reasons. However (and not everybody knows this) it is required by law that parents be able to exempt their children from shots based on ethical, moral, or religious beliefs that prevent them from being able to. The government can't say "just go somewhere else." It is their job to BE the somewhere else.

Oh, and please note, everything (except the environment) is being destroyed in CA.

If someone can't do that much, let them find another country that they can respect.

Unfortunately there are none...

Certainly, saying the pledge was not mandatory when I was in high school (16+ years ago). But I do feel a minimum of standing to show respect for the flag, even if you do not wish to pledge allegiance to it, should be a minimum. If someone can't do that much, let them find another country that they can respect.


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.

It is their right. Period.

EDIT: c.f., West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette:

" It is now a commonplace that censorship or suppression of expression of opinion is tolerated by our Constitution only when the expression presents a clear and present danger of action of a kind the State is empowered to prevent and punish."

Oh, and please note, everything (except the environment) is being destroyed in CA.

Funny, if The Big One is happening right now, I sure didn't notice it. Care to provide examples?

stop posting in red, retard

Fact checking time!

They did not "rule against Newdow" they said that Newdow didn't have sufficient custody to pursue this case. Big difference.

Ok...since i haven't posted here yet, and there was another thread opened about it, i'll just repost that post here:

Well, when I was in school, we were reciting it since kindergarden. I don't mind saying or hearing, but I think the "Under God," needs to be taken out, to make is less religious, and more of a goverment issue.

I don't think that saying the pledge itself is a bad thing, just the whole "Under God" thing I have an issue with. I never recited it, because I'm not Christian, and you know what? We are not "One Nation, Under God" to a lot of people.

Once again this is the socialist, secular humanist religion pushing their agenda on everybody else. If you don't want to say the pledge, don't say it. If you don't want to say "under God" don't say it. However, this is an important part of our history, and we don't need revisionists taking more of our founding principles (yes, I know the pledge wasn't enacted until the late 1800's, but it is still based on our founding fathers' principles and ideals) out of our schools. I'm sick and tired of it, and I'm not going to put up with it anymore.

We can still have the pledge, I think it is good to make an alliagence to this country. But the original pledge didn't have the words "Under God" in them, and I think it makes it more neutral not to have them. That way it is purly a goverment pledge.

"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." -- President Eisenhower's statement regarding adding "Under God" to the Pledge

Religious faith is an important part of our heritage, and kids today do not understand that because any semblance "religious faith" (read: Christianity) have been removed from our schools. It's part of the systematic persecution of the Christian faith throughout the public sphere. Thousands of men died so that they could have religious freedom, not freedom from religion. Those men who died during the Revolutionary war are probably rolling in their graves.

In our schools, kids are taught that Pilgrims were "people who made long trips" and that the first Thanksgiving was a day to give thanks to the Indians rather than what it really was about: the Pilgrims giving thanks to the God of the Bible.

Anyway, I'll stop my tirade...This is a debate for another topic, which I will soon be posting.

[/tirade]

Well, that's fine, but it puts down all those kids who are NOT Christian. How do you think they feel, when to them it seems that Christianity is better (when it is not, they are all equal, or should be at least). I agree, there should be spirituality in schools, but this goes with the same thing as reading a prayer over the announcements, it is basically forcing a belief on children. Why is neurality a problem? It doesn't offend those who aren't Christian, or those who are Christian.

Well, that's fine, but it puts down all those kids who are NOT Christian. How do you think they feel, when to them it seems that Christianity is better (when it is not, they are all equal, or should be at least). I agree, there should be spirituality in schools, but this goes with the same thing as reading a prayer over the announcements, it is basically forcing a belief on children. Why is neurality a problem? It doesn't offend those who aren't Christian, or those who are Christian.
The problem is that it's not "neutrality". It's the systematic persecution of Christians, and it goes far beyond this issue. Nobody is forcing anybody to say the pledge, and nobody is forcing anybody to say "under God," so how can this be forcing a belief on children?

Persecution of Christians? It is not persecuting anyone. Christians don't run the world, there are many more religions in this country, and world and we should be celebrating the diversity of the religions, not just one of them. All in All, we are not one nation under God, that would basically mean that every single person in this nation follows God, but that's not the case.

A few years ago, Dr. Paul Vitz, then professor of psychology at New York University, worked with a committee that examined sixty social studies and history textbooks used in public schools across the United States. The committee was amazed to find that almost every reference to the Christian influence of early America was systematically removed. Their conclusion: the writers of the commonly used textbooks exhibited paranoia of the Christian religion and intentionally censored Christianity's positive role in American history.

Furthermore, you state that we are not a nation "under God". Well, the Supreme Court begs to differ. In an 1892 case the Court said, "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. [It is] impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

Yes, Christianity had a large role in this nation's history...but times are changing, and being a member of another religion is not bad anymore. We are in a new stage in history when there are so many religions in this country, you really can't document all of them. So again, we are not One Nation Under God, anymore.

Yes, Christianity had a large role in this nation's history...but times are changing, and being a member of another religion is not bad anymore. We are in a new stage in history when there are so many religions in this country, you really can't document all of them. So again, we are not One Nation Under God, anymore.

Um, when was it ever "bad" to be a member of another religion? Our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom, was it not? Freedom of religion. Nevertheless, our country is founded firmly in the beliefs of Christianity, and to ignore that is unfair to our kids, and unfair to our country.

You simply can't rewrite history because you don't like what is contained in it.

A few years ago, Dr. Paul Vitz, then professor of psychology at New York University, worked with a committee that examined sixty social studies and history textbooks used in public schools across the United States. The committee was amazed to find that almost every reference to the Christian influence of early America was systematically removed. Their conclusion: the writers of the commonly used textbooks exhibited paranoia of the Christian religion and intentionally censored Christianity's positive role in American history.

Isnt that a completly different thing? I mean history is fact. You cant change it and mentioning the fact that christians founded the USA as you know it cant be seen as predudiced surely? Its fact. whether or not the american pledge should involve the God is a "here and now" issue, I mean opinions on it arent fact. Unlike history.


Furthermore, you state that we are not a nation "under God". Well, the Supreme Court begs to differ. In an 1892 case the Court said, "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. [It is] impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

Im not an american and dont live there, but I personally think that the pledge should remain un-changed because it is a christian majority and society. I dont think that it offends other religions, they shouldnt have to worship anyone they dont want to but you cant expect the majority of the country to bow to the wishes of the minority. You wouldnt go to a muslim country and expect them to sell christmas cards.

I didn't mean bad, but don't ignore the fact that if you were a Muslim, or Jew, you had a harder time in this country, then if you were a Christian.

No, you can't rewrite history, but what if you were a Hindu child, and while in school you were making a pledge saying that you are one nation under God, everyday. Well, since you are Hindu, you do'nt believe in the same God, so wouldn't you get confused, and feel inferior to the other children around you?


Im not an american and dont live there, but I personally think that the pledge should remain un-changed because it is a christian majority and society. I dont think that it offends other religions, they shouldnt have to worship anyone they dont want to but you cant expect the majority of the country to bow to the wishes of the minority. You wouldnt go to a muslim country and expect them to sell christmas cards.

I agree with you on that, though.

I didn't mean bad, but don't ignore the fact that if you were a Muslim, or Jew, you had a harder time in this country, then if you were a Christian.


Well yes maybe, but then that is a hardship of being in a minority that I dont think they could really avoid. History should definatly be taught from a neutral perspective.


No, you can't rewrite history, but what if you were a Hindu child, and while in school you were making a pledge saying that you are one nation under God, everyday. Well, since you are Hindu, you do'nt believe in the same God, so wouldn't you get confused, and feel inferior to the other children around you?


It may confuse the very young (if they even pay attention to what they are saying at a young age) but I think it is the parents (guardian, whatever) to look after the childs religious belifes. If the child feels inferior or left out then that is un-fourtunate, and I certainly would never condone the other children picking on this hypothetical hindu child but I dont see how that could be resonably avoided without going to extreme measures that make things worse.

I didn't mean bad, but don't ignore the fact that if you were a Muslim, or Jew, you had a harder time in this country, then if you were a Christian.

No, you can't rewrite history, but what if you were a Hindu child, and while in school you were making a pledge saying that you are one nation under God, everyday. Well, since you are Hindu, you do'nt believe in the same God, so wouldn't you get confused, and feel inferior to the other children around you?

I agree with you on that, though.
Here is what children in California are being taught:

"From the beginning you and your classmates will become Muslims," choosing a Muslim name, dressing up as Arabs, reciting lines from a Muslim prayer such as "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful," (the court document changed "Allah" to "God" but the actual handout says "Allah") making group banners that state the words, "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate," requires students to give up something, (lunch, television, candy) in demonstration of fasting for Ramadan, requires students to volunteer community service in conformance with Muslim requirements .

Also included is a "pilgrimage to Mecca" game with dice and "Wisdom" cards such as: "The Qu'ran...is God's third revelation that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad" or "The Holy Qu'ran is God's word as revealed to Prophet Muhammad through the Archangel Gabriel" without any qualifying language such as "Muslims believe." To get the answer "right" one had to answer that this was "true."

Students were required to write an essay with the instruction, "BE CAREFUL HERE — if you do not have something positive to say, don't say anything!" thus supporting Islam.
Tell me what would happen if you substituted Allah for God, Qu'ran for Bible, and Muhammad for Isaiah or Paul, and Muslim for Christian?

Well yes maybe, but then that is a hardship of being in a minority that I dont think they could really avoid. History should definatly be taught from a neutral perspective.

Yes, they were the minority, and it is unfortunate. And I def. agree that history should be taught at a neutral prespective. (at least in Public Schools)


It may confuse the very young (if they even pay attention to what they are saying at a young age) but I think it is the parents (guardian, whatever) to look after the childs religious belifes. If the child feels inferior or left out then that is un-fourtunate, and I certainly would never condone the other children picking on this hypothetical hindu child but I dont see how that could be resonably avoided without going to extreme measures that make things worse.

And I also agree, I guess at a young age, they don't really know what they are saying. But the Christian religion is slowly declining in this country (at least with the last stastics I read), and eventually there may be more of another religion on top, but until then, I know nothing will happen with the Pledge.

Tell me what would happen if you substituted Allah for God, Qu'ran for Bible, and Muhammad for Isaiah or Paul, and Muslim for Christian?

I think you know as well as anyone else that if a minority is seen to be picked on there is no end of fuss. If the majority is being discriminated against then it is ignored. I hate that.

Here is what children in California are being taught:
"From the beginning you and your classmates will become Muslims," choosing a Muslim name, dressing up as Arabs, reciting lines from a Muslim prayer such as "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful," (the court document changed "Allah" to "God" but the actual handout says "Allah") making group banners that state the words, "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate," requires students to give up something, (lunch, television, candy) in demonstration of fasting for Ramadan, requires students to volunteer community service in conformance with Muslim requirements .

Also included is a "pilgrimage to Mecca" game with dice and "Wisdom" cards such as: "The Qu'ran...is God's third revelation that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad" or "The Holy Qu'ran is God's word as revealed to Prophet Muhammad through the Archangel Gabriel" without any qualifying language such as "Muslims believe." To get the answer "right" one had to answer that this was "true."

Students were required to write an essay with the instruction, "BE CAREFUL HERE — if you do not have something positive to say, don't say anything!" thus supporting Islam.

Tell me what would happen if you substituted Allah for God, Qu'ran for Bible, and Muhammad for Isaiah or Paul, and Muslim for Christian?

Well, is this at all schools? Or just one school? Unless it is a private Muslim school, that should not be taught. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion, who knows what it will be like in this country many years from now.

Well, is this at all schools? Or just one school? Unless it is a private Muslim school, that should not be taught. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion, who knows what it will be like in this country many years from now.

This is being taught in PUBLIC SCHOOLS in California.

History definitely should be taught in a neutral manner, but this does NOT mean that any reference to Christianity or the beliefs of our founding fathers should be selectively omitted from textbooks.

Anyway, this is a debate for another thread. I'll be posting one shortly.

This is being taught in PUBLIC SCHOOLS in California.


I dont understand. Why is this being taught in public schools?

I dont understand. Why is this being taught in public schools?

That's the point. Why is it being taught in public schools? The worst part about it is that it has been upheld in court. Students were flunked because they refused to participate. They filed suit against the school, and a federal judge actually upheld the school's position.

That's the point. Why is it being taught in public schools? The worst part about it is that it has been upheld in court. Students were flunked because they refused to participate. They filed suit against the school, and a federal judge actually upheld the school's position.


I agree this is just plain wrong. Do you happen to know what reason the judge gave for his ruleing? As in the words he used? Because that is just ludacrous. I would refuse to send my child to a school that was indulging in that practice.

This is being taught in PUBLIC SCHOOLS in California.

History definitely should be taught in a neutral manner, but this does NOT mean that any reference to Christianity or the beliefs of our founding fathers should be selectively omitted from textbooks.

Anyway, this is a debate for another thread. I'll be posting one shortly.

Yes, I have a problem with that. I don't think any religion should be taught in school, it is against the Constitution. And I think they are allowed to reference to Christianity in school, just not teach it.

Blitz, an article about it:
http://www.bushcountry.org/news/columnists/jshroder/c_100104_jshroder_california_schools_islam.htm

Blitz, an article about it:
http://www.bushcountry.org/news/columnists/jshroder/c_100104_jshroder_california_schools_islam.htm

WTF!!! It is examples like this that single handedly makes all americans look like idiots, a steriotype that alot of the Uk hate you for. Shame, I've met some very level headed americans that contradict this, one reason I hate steriotypes.

I also wish that (like most christians) people claiming to understand Islam would actually read the quran. That article made no sense.

In America, we teach tolerance of everybody.

(as long as you are not a Christian)

In America, we teach tolerance of everybody.

(as long as you are not a Christian)

That isnt just an American policy. Unfourtunatly it is the case over here too. The police ignore cases about ethnics commiting raceal hatred crimes against whites and christians, because not ignoring it apparantly makes them themselves racist. Such is the crap we know as PC.

I have to say though, that one of the main things that turned me away from Christianity is the arrogance of so many Christians, with the belief that they are always right, and that if you don't worship their god, you are going to hell. The majority of this nation is Christian, in the end of it all, they do have the upper end of the decisions here. In history, the minority has always wanted to be heard, I want to be heard, I want those damn sterotypes about Paganism out of the media and minds of the people, but that isn't going to happen unless we speak up.

That isnt just an American policy. Unfourtunatly it is the case over here too. The police ignore cases about ethnics commiting raceal hatred crimes against whites and christians, because not ignoring it apparantly makes them themselves racist. Such is the crap we know as PC.

You and I actually agree on something? :D

Sadly, the example I gave is not an isolated incident. Kids have been suspended and/or expelled for bringing Bibles to school, wearing crosses, etc, etc. The list goes on and on, and could fill a book.

You and I actually agree on something? :D

Sadly, the example I gave is not an isolated incident. Kids have been suspended and/or expelled for bringing Bibles to school, wearing crosses, etc, etc. The list goes on and on, and could fill a book.

Well that is messed up. Kids should be allowed to wear crosses and bring Bibles, it isn't offending anyone (unless they intend to offend anyone). People at my school wore their crosses and stuff, I wore my Pentagram, or Ankh, and we never had a problem.

I have to say though, that one of the main things that turned me away from Christianity is the arrogance of so many Christians, with the belief that they are always right, and that if you don't worship their god, you are going to hell. The majority of this nation is Christian, in the end of it all, they do have the upper end of the decisions here. In history, the minority has always wanted to be heard, I want to be heard, I want those damn sterotypes about Paganism out of the media and minds of the people, but that isn't going to happen unless we speak up.

There is a difference between wanting fairness and wanting equality. Equality suggests that you are equal, and majorities and minorites arent equal, nor should they be. They should both have the right to worship as they please free from persecution, and should have no fewer legal rights, but expecting the majory to put you first at the expense of themselves? I know you werent saying that they should but alot of people get confused about what equality is. Alot of christians are arrogant yes, but is it any less arogant to expect them to bow to the minority?

You and I actually agree on something? :D

Sadly, the example I gave is not an isolated incident. Kids have been suspended and/or expelled for bringing Bibles to school, wearing crosses, etc, etc. The list goes on and on, and could fill a book.

Once again (shock horror) we agree.

One wierd point I feel is that in Wales now children are not allowed to ware head scarves in a religious context (at least it was proposed anyway) in order to make them less prone to bullying for being different. Who the hell makes this kind of desigion anyway?

Sorry to just jump in on this thread...I did read through it a while ago, but one subject bought up by ToB recently has made me want to post so I can know more.

I think that the author of that article ToB gave comes across as rather Anti-Islam (Evidence-"Satan is after your children. " and "We have hundreds of years of history to prove that Islam is FAR from peaceful".), but I agree with some of the contents of it. I think acting as any religion for a day is a bad idea...and I'd love to know why this school adopted such ridiculous teaching methods. You said this wasnt just an isolated incident either..Any other articles on these incidents ToB?

Sadly, the example I gave is not an isolated incident. Kids have been suspended and/or expelled for bringing Bibles to school, wearing crosses, etc, etc. The list goes on and on, and could fill a book.

Now that is ridiculous. Unless those children were intending to harm anyone with any of the items ( :rolleyes: ) punishing someone for having such items is just stupid. I heard of one incident a while ago where children were told to remove their headscarves in school. I think that could be the same incident that Blitz is talking about? ( I have a fish memory )

There is a difference between wanting fairness and wanting equality. Equality suggests that you are equal, and majorities and minorites arent equal, nor should they be. They should both have the right to worship as they please free from persecution, and should have no fewer legal rights, but expecting the majory to put you first at the expense of themselves? I know you werent saying that they should but alot of people get confused about what equality is. Alot of christians are arrogant yes, but is it any less arogant to expect them to bow to the minority?

Not if it is simply asking for respect. I ask NO one to bow down to anyone, but at least respect that religion and preach what it really is. Christianity as a religion...is great, but so many of its followers don't make it seem so.

Not if it is simply asking for respect. I ask NO one to bow down to anyone, but at least respect that religion and preach what it really is. Christianity as a religion...is great, but so many of its followers don't make it seem so.

Please dont mis-understand me. I wasnt stateing that minorites didnt deserve respect, I am one (Theist of undersided belife) and I respest others. Alot of christians are idiots. But then there are alot of them to take into account. There are far more american idiots out there than british ones, but that is only (I am NOT being predudiced here) because there are far more americans, IE 9/10 people are idiots, then 9/10 americans is a bigger number than 9/10 british people.

My point: It isnt fair to say that many christians make there religion seem bad, the same goes for every religion, only with christians there are more than some others.

Not if it is simply asking for respect. I ask NO one to bow down to anyone, but at least respect that religion and preach what it really is. Christianity as a religion...is great, but so many of its followers don't make it seem so.
Many Pagans do the same disservice to their own religion. Every religion has its bad elements. So I don't know what you were trying to say here, except to continue your disrespect for a specific choice of religion.

As to the Pledge, we can't separate our nation from its origins. Students should have the perfect right to abstain from saying it, or substitute whatever words they want (one nation, under the goddess, or under Allah, or whatever), but I think that the Pledge is really a statement of the foundation of our country's morals - which was Biblical. And, as I'm sure everybody has already said, "under God" in the Pledge is no different than "In God We Trust" on currency. And nobody said it was necessarily even the Christian God. In fact, we know that some of the founders were merely deists. So I don't see what the big deal is, as long as students aren't forced to recite the Pledge. And it's a damned sight better than what the humanists are forcing on anti-evolutionary creationists (of which I am not one) by forcing them to take tests and answer questions about a theory they don't believe is correct and one that directly conflicts with their religious beliefs by espousing one they don't share.

<3 Mary

Please dont mis-understand me. I wasnt stateing that minorites didnt deserve respect, I am one (Theist of undersided belife) and I respest others. Alot of christians are idiots. But then there are alot of them to take into account. There are far more american idiots out there than british ones, but that is only (I am NOT being predudiced here) because there are far more americans, IE 9/10 people are idiots, then 9/10 americans is a bigger number than 9/10 british people.

My point: It isnt fair to say that many christians make there religion seem bad, the same goes for every religion, only with christians there are more than some others.

True, true. But what I meant about Christians making their religion seem bad...it is with every religion. Terrorests have destroyed what Islam is viewed as. As a religion, Islam is very peaceful (and most Islams would tell you this), but most people don't see it that way. You can't judge a religion by its followers, but sometimes, you can't help it.

True, true. But what I meant about Christians making their religion seem bad...it is with every religion. Terrorests have destroyed what Islam is viewed as. As a religion, Islam is very peaceful (and most Islams would tell you this), but most people don't see it that way. You can't judge a religion by its followers, but sometimes, you can't help it.
God forbid that I ever judge paganism by some of its followers. A religion should be judged by its true beliefs, as represented by its sacred texts or central value statements, not as represented by its followers. How did we get on this subject again? I thought we were debating the wording of the Pledge?

True, true. But what I meant about Christians making their religion seem bad...it is with every religion. Terrorests have destroyed what Islam is viewed as. As a religion, Islam is very peaceful (and most follwers of Islam would tell you this), but most people don't see it that way. You can't judge a religion by its followers, but sometimes, you can't help it.

Actually Im not sure that Islam is that peacful, Muhammed said that it must be spread by the sword I belive, correct me if Im wrong. But anyway, true, most people dont see it that way. I personally think they should, but thats only an opinion. You cant really take what you see as what you get, the only pagean I have ever met in person didnt have a clue about it and was only saying he was a pagean as a statement of uniqueness, but if I was to assume that about all of you I would be closed minded (Im not having a dig at you here), I think people look at christianity and see only the bad examples such as the crusades and fanaticals. The same with everything really.


Edit-----> I just read SangReal's post and realised I am completly off topic, sorry. This is my last post here unless I see somthing to reply too.

God forbid that I ever judge paganism by some of its followers. A religion should be judged by its true beliefs, as represented by its sacred texts or central value statements, not as represented by its followers. How did we get on this subject again? I thought we were debating the wording of the Pledge?


Thank you, and same goes for you. I respect every religion out there, just because I don't follow it, doesn't mean I don't respect it as a religion.

I don't know, I somehow worked it into one of my posts. That question (do you judge a religion by its followers?) was asked in another forum I was in, and I found it an interesting question. So back to the pledge, I guess in this situation, I don't really care anymore, because I don't need to say the pledge right now. And I know if equality is ever achieved, it will be a while, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

And I know if equality is ever achieved, it will be a while, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

I cant help but be sceptical (is that right?) here, until we somehow all agree on a religion I dont think that is going to happen. If only.

I cant help but be sceptical (is that right?) here, until we somehow all agree on a religion I dont think that is going to happen. If only.

lol, I was hopeful, ;). If not equality, respect? Tolerance? Again, that will probably never happen either.

lol, I was hopeful, ;). If not equality, respect? Tolerance? Again, that will probably never happen either.

I agree with having tolerance for other religions, and having the option to substitute your chosen Deity in the pledge. From my experience, we said the pledge every day in High School, and I substituted Goddess sometimes (Yes, I am a pagan, and yes, and with almost 10 years in it, I know what I'm talking about :o)). I am not saying that we should take the country away from its roots (have to make a joke though, Robin Williams: "The puritans were so uptight that even the English kicked them out."), but you could just look at it more abstractly: Don't think of saying God as in it having to be the Christian God, but more of the Higher Power of your religion. Or you can choose to omit it, which i did sometimes in my rebellious high school teen angst. But the rest of the Pledge is very respectable, and should be said loudly and proudly by every American. Everyone saw how all races and creeds rallied together after 9/11, and this is what our nation is built upon: a unity of cultures that stands together, indivisible (although some bad apples seem to ruin it for the rest of us sometimes).

<<puts his 2 cents in the coffee can>>

I am not saying that we should take the country away from its roots

I may be wrong, I thought that most of the forefathers were deist, atheist and agnostic?

If the Pledge case is such a big deal then why isn't the whole time being based on A.D./B.C. of Jesus?

Maybe it's just a stupid question....

I may be wrong, I thought that most of the forefathers were deist, atheist and agnostic?

If the Pledge case is such a big deal then why isn't the whole time being based on A.D./B.C. of Jesus?

Maybe it's just a stupid question....

Most of the forefathers were deists. I think that "under God" should be removed from the pledge, because it's only purpose in the pledge was to seperate us from the Soviets. That reason no longer exists, so there is no need to keep the "under God". That's my two cents.

I was definatly very uncomfortable when God was brought up in this case. Personally, I think religion and politics shouldn't mix, because this was supposed to be a place for religious freedom. There are people here who aren't Christian, don't they know?

And, as for the "under God" part, whenever we have to start saying the pledge in school, me and my friend Liz will always say "Under God..." and then slowly list all the other Gods, just to piss my teacher off. Besides, I heard my mom say that there's nothing about how you say it, and it's certainly not meant to offend anyone, it's just making sure no one is offended. But somehow I think the only person who would be offended is me.

I have thought about what would do if I went to court and had to swear on the bible...I would refuse to do it, because I don't believe in God. I would swear to tell the truth though, promise to tell the truth.

What makes it so different about swearing on a book? Do they think that because you have put your hand on the bible and swore to tell the truth that you automatically will? Why can't a person promise to tell the truth, instead of swearing on a stupid book alot of people would consider garbage?

I have thought about what would do if I went to court and had to swear on the bible...I would refuse to do it, because I don't believe in God. I would swear to tell the truth though, promise to tell the truth.

What makes it so different about swearing on a book? Do they think that because you have put your hand on the bible and swore to tell the truth that you automatically will? Why can't a person promise to tell the truth, instead of swearing on a stupid book alot of people would consider garbage?

It really is a bunch of crap, isn't it? I don't have a religion either, so I would most likely do the same thing. We had a faux court case in school at the beginning to the year, and I was very grateful we got to swear on the alminac, lol!

I have thought about what would do if I went to court and had to swear on the bible...I would refuse to do it, because I don't believe in God. I would swear to tell the truth though, promise to tell the truth.

What makes it so different about swearing on a book? Do they think that because you have put your hand on the bible and swore to tell the truth that you automatically will? Why can't a person promise to tell the truth, instead of swearing on a stupid book alot of people would consider garbage?

Please tell me you know at least so much about our legal system that you know you can simply swear sans the Bible?

Obviously not. Oops! :eek:

Resurrected debate because:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance;_ylt=AnBOWGkqOCatyL.6b3ldAFt7 OyAi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

School pledge once again ruled unconstitutional in California. And a restraining order against the pledge goes into effect immediately.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

Looks like a new showdown with the Supreme Court... assuming the decision's affirmed again.

--

I think I understand their point. If the school pledge said "One Nation, Under the Great Green Spider Diety, with liberty and justice for all" and my kids didn't believe in the green spider diety, why should they be forced to pledge or listen to it?

School pledge once again ruled unconstitutional in California. And a restraining order against the pledge goes into effect immediately.


why can't people just NOT say it. I mean, in HS the pledge came over the loud speaker every day. I did not put my hand over my heart or recite it, but stood there in respect.

Isn't a violation on someone else's rights to prohibit the saying of the pledge?

it has nothing to do with God. it has to do with people who expect their beliefs to encroach on others. If you do not want to say "Under God", or even recite the pledge, fine. Don't do it. but don't prohibit other people from demonstrating their love of the country and god.

Again, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. next thing you know, they are going to stop using money because it says "In God We Trust." If you are an athiest, then you are your own god. plain and simple.

I want to change the National anthem.:rolleyes: i disagree with us being the "home of the brave". It offends me, we are not brave, and I should not be forced to say it at the start of a baseball game or any other event.

to me, what i just said is as ridiculous as trying to prevent people from saying the pledge.

why can't people just NOT say it. I mean, in HS the pledge came over the loud speaker every day. I did not put my hand over my heart or recite it, but stood there in respect.

Isn't a violation on someone else's rights to prohibit the saying of the pledge? it has nothing to do with God. it has to do with people who expect their beliefs to encroach on others. If you do not want to say "Under God", or even recite the pledge, fine. Don't do it. but don't prohibit other people from demonstrating their love of the country and god. The goal of public school's education is to study certain core subjects: Grammar / English, Math, Science, and perhaps Art. And, The class cirriculum does not factor in a Pledge of Allegiance to begin with. But to make up for that, the powers that be instructed all those in public school to recite and / or stand for the pledge... A pledge that includes the words of the dominating religion of the day.

An individual can say the pledge on his / her own terms if he / she chooses. But to mandate it in a public school, funded by public tax dollars and enforce people to say "under God" when the children present are potentially (list in no particular order) Wiccan, Pagan, Bhuddist, Hindu, Native American, practice African tribal ritual, Athiest, or any other belief not mentioned in the list above is an exclusionary practice. One that should be prohibited under the separation of church and state.

Now some may argue that people can merely replace the words "under God" with the faith they practice. I believe that's a risky move that invites further issues to pop-up... child level discussion about religion that may lead to hurt feelings if one child says the other is going to hell because that other doesn't believe in a particular form of Chrisitanity.

So the best solution, I see, is to just remove the artifical mandate in the education system.

Again, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. next thing you know, they are going to stop using money because it says "In God We Trust." If you are an athiest, then you are your own god. plain and simple. for further details about that subject, try www.godoffmoney.com

This is a discussion about the pledge case, not God off Money.

I want to change the National anthem.:rolleyes: i disagree with us being the "home of the brave". It offends me, we are not brave, and I should not be forced to say it at the start of a baseball game or any other event.
to me, what i just said is as ridiculous as trying to prevent people from saying the pledge. O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?The National Anthem's first verse never mentions the word "God"... the central argument in the pledge case, and doesn't seem to be a fair comparison. Apples and Oranges.

I want to change the National anthem. i disagree with us being the "home of the brave". It offends me, we are not brave, and I should not be forced to say it at the start of a baseball game or any other event.
to me, what i just said is as ridiculous as trying to prevent people from saying the pledge.
I kind of agree, i suppose, but... then again- lets just make it ALL true and say that America was really stolen from natives and later built on the labor of African American slaves. When it comes to 'changing the pledge', i dont think anyone can decide on where a line should be drawn- whether it be your "home of the brave." or the mention of "under God". So I dont think the pledge will ever officially change. Itll just be your own personal changes.

This is a general idea- not limited to this case- but I think its funny that something is vulnerable for controversy or legal action if even one person is offended and "doesnt wanna hear it." Please. That excuse is tiring. I truly wonder, when people say they are "offended" by the mention of God, if they really ARE offended. I mean- are they seriously disturbed, bothered, shaken up, and insulted that the terrible word has assaulted their unwilling ears? Guess it doesnt matter, so thats rhetorical. As far as I know, you arent -forced- to say the pledge. But I guess if your virgin ears are just held captive and bombarded by the words "under God", you're in the right to sue for it.

I believe that's a risky move that invites further issues to pop-up... child level discussion about religion that may lead to hurt feelings if one child says the other is going to hell because that other doesn't believe in a particular form of Chrisitanity.
I dont think its just based around child level. Maybe its more prominent, but... either way, its going to happen- say the pledge or not- replace "under God" or not- there will sometimes be 'hurt feelings' or party vs. party deal whenever it comes to religion. In my opinion, there really is no "lessening the blow", either, when it comes to this. Regardless, you join the religion/doctrine you join because you beleive its right. To religion A, there may be no hell. To religion B, there might be. If religion B were to insult religion A and say "You're going to hell for not saying "Under God!"", I dont think any damage is done. Why? Religion A has no hell. In a religious debate/quarrel, both are wrong and both are right (or neither in both cases). From children to adults, itll always be this way. Sure, issues will come up, as in any case (from children to adults), but I dont think they'll be so harmful or blown outta proportion to take it legally and make up a whole new problem. Replacing "under God" is a personal choice and there need not be big issues about it.

Just the way most people use "man/guys" to describe people in general ("Hey you guys" or "You guys")- the pledge has under God because that particular religion (Christianity) seems to be the mainstream in America, and most popular. So change it for yourself, if you like. I stand by that suggestion.

Though, for my own education, Miles, what issues would you suspect to pop-up should kids of different religions replace "under God" with "under [other deity]"?

Some points:

* The line should not be removed because it is offensive, it should be removed because it comes dangerously close to establishing a state religion to include in an officially sanctioned "pledge of allegiance" a reference that was clearly inserted to refer to the Christian Deity (see my previous posts in this thread). Whether someone finds it "offensive" or "an inaccurate representation" is totally and wholly irrelevant.

* The ability to abstain is completely irrelevant. See Engel v Vitale:


There can be no doubt that New York's state prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the Regents' prayer. The respondents' argument to the contrary, which is largely based upon the contention that the Regents' prayer is "non-denominational" and the fact that the program, as modified and approved by state courts, does not require all pupils to recite the prayer but permits those who wish to do so to remain silent or be excused from the room, ignores the essential nature of the program's constitutional defects. Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Emphasis mine.

Yet another situation where political sensitivity is on the rise in this country.

Though, for my own education, Miles, what issues would you suspect to pop-up should kids of different religions replace "under God" with "under [other deity]"?

Example 1. One boy says "under Krishna" next to another (a child from an Evangelical Christian family). The other boy goes home and ask his parents who Krishna is, and his parents states his classmate worships Satan because it's a god outside of God... and the family does a brief internet survey and gets an immediate unresearched misunderstanding where Krishna = the Dark one. The boy, then, is sent back to school to 'save' his classmate at all cost.

Somebody could change with "Buddha", "Great Spirit", "Gods and Goddesses" ore even say "No God" and it have a similar outcome later on.

Example 2. Somebody says "Allah" and his classmates start stereotyping him as a terrorist.

Example 3. Other combinations from peoples and faiths across the world that interact differently / unexpectedly when the pledge is mandatorily recited with the words "Under God" in it.

Someone please stick a fork in my eye. please.

Yet another situation where political sensitivity is on the rise in this country.
I don't ever remember this being an issue at all when I was in school. Which really wasnt that long ago at all.

Someone please stick a fork in my eye. please.


I don't ever remember this being an issue at all when I was in school. Which really wasnt that long ago at all.

It's because we *might* hurt somebody's feelings if we make them say God (nevermind that the majority of the public doesn't have an issue with it).

I don't ever remember this being an issue at all when I was in school. Which really wasnt that long ago at all.

Argumentum Ad antiquitatem (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20antiquitatem)? :confused:

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy.

It's because we *might* hurt somebody's feelings if we make them say God (nevermind that the majority of the public doesn't have an issue with it).
Ding! Ding!

God forbid we *offend* anyone.

Ding! Ding!

God forbid we *offend* anyone.