OT: PLedge of Allegiance

[digamma]

And stop writing more clearly than the rest of us too.

Seriously, to answer your rhetorical question: it is not that hard.

[sabotai]

No, QS, it's not hard. And you should know better. People don't take kindly to logic 'round here.

[Mac Howard]

As an outsider, I doubt my contribution will be given little credence but I'll give it anyway

Two poiints:

We're talking about a "pledge". This is surely a statement of commitment. It is meaningless if it is insincere.

By including the words "under God" then for a significant proportion of US citizens, those who are atheist or agnostic, then you include a section which they cannnot state with any sincerity. In doing so you introduce an insincerity into the pledge itself.

Introduce insincerity into a pledge and it ceases to be a pledge.

By removing the words, the pledge is no less a pledge to the United States and it can be sincerely said by all US citizens that wish.

The court case I believe was brought by a man who was concerned that his young daughter was effectively required ("effectively" because although she could presumably remain silent, young children do like to conform with their peers) to state the pledge each morning. This man is an atheist and presumably wants his daughter to be the same.

Children believe what they're taught at school. To hear "under God" repeated each morning by all her teachers and fellow school children is surely going to tell the girl that God exists. It is surely telling this girl that her father's beliefs are wrong.

From what I understand of American attitudes to education the school does not have the right to do that. His wish to pass on his "religious", or if you prefer "spiritual", beliefs is being undermined by the school through the use of the pledge as it stands.

His solution - remove the two words is surely better than having the school omit the pledge (can they do that?) for most Americans.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Mac Howard
remove the two words is surely better than having the school omit the pledge (can they do that?) for most Americans.

No, for most Americans, its 'my way or the highway'.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Wow... someone earlier lamented how these discussions get sidetracked from their original focus. Great case in point.

We started by talking about whether the government ought to be in the business of promoting certain religious views.

Now, we have just tossed in a completely separate issue - whether individuals ought to be restrained by the government from exhibiting their individual religious views.


Doesn't anyone else see this as a total red herring? Setting aside the specifics of the given case, it is absolutely, perfectly consistent to say "No - the government shouldn't have that right" and "Yes - the individual should have that right." Is that too hard?

Sorry for stepping out on this discussion (I'm sure I was missed ) - I was at the Yankee game. Damn it.

QS, your point is exactly why there are two portions of the 1st Amendment relevant to the Constitution - the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. Cam's examples fit under each category neatly and are not at all in conflict. Occassionally, the two clauses do come into conflict (tax policy is a good example), but in this discussion the examples are not just red herring, they are being used to confuse the very purposes of the 2 clauses of the Constitution.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by John Galt
In this discussion the examples are not just red herring, they are being used to confuse the very purposes of the 2 clauses of the Constitution.

To which you could add, for nakedly idealogical purposes.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by astralhaze
To which you could add, for nakedly idealogical purposes.

No really, this has nothing to do with ideology. Even the most conversative Constitutional scholar would say Cam's examples present entirely different questions and are unrelated. You don't have to believe me, but that is the way our Constitution is structured.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by John Galt
No really, this has nothing to do with ideology. Even the most conversative Constitutional scholar would say Cam's examples present entirely different questions and are unrelated. You don't have to believe me, but that is the way our Constitution is structured.

No, no, I was agreeing with you. I think they are intentionaly joined for nakedly idealogical reasons

[John Galt]

Originally posted by astralhaze
No, no, I was agreeing with you. I think they are intentionaly joined for nakedly idealogical reasons

I'm dumb - I missed the "could" in your original post.

[HornedFrog Purple]

It seems the problem-solver would be to define religion specifically for the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
It seems the problem-solver would be to define religion specifically for the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

then the debate would be over who gets to define "religion".

[clintl]

We know who that is in practice. The Supreme Court.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by KWhit
I would be interested to hear someone on this board say that they support the phrase "under God" and would also support the phrase if it were changed to "under Allah".

So far I haven't heard that.

And once again, you show yourself to be incapable of separating the arguer from the argument. Congratulations.

This is a discussion on whether religion--any religion--should be in the pledge, not a discussion of whether Americans would get riled up if Allah was used instead of God. If you want to have that discussion, I say again, go start that thread.

If you want to actually have a meaningful and valid discussion here, stick to the main issue.

CR

[Mac Howard]

I think you've missed his point, Chief Rum.

It is true that "under Allah" refers to a specific religion whereas "under God" merely to a belief in God. But, the people who object to "under God" are often atheists and agnostics and the phrase "under God" is as unacceptable a phrase to them as "under Allah" would be to a Christian. It requires them to confirm a belief they do not hold. What the guy is trying to do with this suggestion is to put you in the situation where you would have to repeat words unacceptable to you in order that you can understand the objection of the atheist/agnostic.

To these people, the term "under God" is a direct contradiction of their religious beliefs and renders the pledge insincere and that is not something that should be associated with a pledge - ie a sincere commitment.

By contrast, a pledge without the words "under God" is one that can be sincerely said by all those who wish to regardless of their religious beliefs as was the case prior to 1954.

I suspect that the real objection is not to a pledge without the words but to the REMOVAL of the words which is seen as a victory for atheism but, in fact, is nothing of the sort - it is merely the removal of a flaw introduced in 1954 out of a fear of "godless communism" and a failure to understand that "godless" and "communism" are not synonymous.

[CamEdwards]

Mac,

No one "has to" or is "required" to do anything of the sort. The Pledge is completely optional. While I find your argument to be the most persuasive of those I disagree with, you have to keep that point in mind.

Is the phrase "one nation under God" an establishment of a religion? I just don't see how it can be. The closest it comes is the establishment of monotheism (and I'd argue that it doesn't even do that), and Sabotai's argument aside... there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting that.

[Chief Rum]

No, I got his point, Mac. The fact is, though, that it is irrelevant to this discussion.

He is busy trying to point out hypocrisy in those who disagree with him, but he is ignoring the validity of the arguments for and against the removal of the "under God" (or whichever religious phrase is used) from the Pledge.

He is attacking the people stating the argument, rather than the argument itself. And that is where I feel he illogically errs, and also carries the discussion into a broader field that no longer seeks to answer the question put forth by the original dicsussion.

FWIW, I am not actually a member of the group he is accusing of such hypocrisy. I actually agree that the religious reference should be removed, for reasons I'll state in a second (and which agrees with KWhit's main belief as well, IIRC).

My religious beliefs are ones I would describe at best as "muddled." I was raised Catholic and still occasionally attend Mass, mostly on holidays and for family sacraments. But I have long held to having troubles with belief in an all-knowing God. I don't feel strongly enough to denounce it and proclaim myself a staunch agnostic, but I also don't feel strongly enough in support of the basic idea of religion to argue for religiosity either.

So, in other words, in relation to the sheer meaning of the presence of these religious words, my reaction is "whatever." I am fine with them in. I am fine with them out. I am fine with them as "under Allah", since I a) thnik Allah is pretty much another word for God, b) don't have strong enough religious convictions to care.

My opposition to having the term in there is completely based on my belief that the pure separation of church and state, as envisioned by the American forefathers, is the ideal that works best in the practical world of running a government and ruling a varied people.

So to me in particular, KWhit's attempt to point out hypocrisy among the "under God" supporters is personally irrelevant because I, for one, don't care if it's under Allah or under God, so how does his challenge affect me; and I actually agree that it should be removed, which KWhit's contention all along.

And it is irrelevant against the scope of this discussion, because that discussion centers on whether a religious reference should be included in a state-supported pledge. The "religious" in the above sentence goes no depeer than that. Saying Allah or God makes no difference, as both are religious references, and fall under the umbrella of "religious reference" as it pertains to this discussion.

And, thusly, KWhit's entire point is irrelevant and leading to a new discussion (for which I advised him to start his own thread).

CR

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Chief Rum

He is attacking the people stating the argument, rather than the argument itself.

If anyone has been attacking someone personally, you have been attacking me.


FWIW, I am not actually a member of the group he is accusing of such hypocrisy.

Did I ever say that I was talking to you? If the statement doesn't apply to you, then ignore it.



So, in other words, in relation to the sheer meaning of the presence of these religious words, my reaction is "whatever."
....
So to me in particular, KWhit's attempt to point out hypocrisy among the "under God" supporters is personally irrelevant because I, for one, don't care if it's under Allah or under God, so how does his challenge affect me; ...

Guess what? It doesn't affect you! I don't think I ever said "Hey, Chief, how would YOU feel if it were changed to Allah?"

I am confused why this has rubbed you the wrong way. In pretty much every discussion like this, a hypothetical is thrown out to try make people see the "other side". When Dusty made his comments about white pitchers, many people pointed out that if a white manager said a comparable phrase about black pitchers, he would be fired.

And, thusly, KWhit's entire point is irrelevant and leading to a new discussion (for which I advised him to start his own thread).

No. It's not irrelevant. And thanks for the suggestion to start a new thread. I appreciate you looking out for me like that.

The point is that the folks arguing to keep the phrase in the pledge are the people THAT AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT. I was pointing out that if they didn't agree with the statement in question, they would likely change their minds on the statement being in the pledge. A very valid point that should be brought up.

Of course, I've said this 3 or 4 times, so I'm sure saying it again isn't going to change your mind.

[Butter]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
And, thusly, KWhit's entire point is irrelevant and leading to a new discussion (for which I advised him to start his own thread).

It's nice that you have that opinion. Obviously others in this thread have shown that they believe his point is relevant to this discussion. So, he can post here, he can start his own thread... whatever. But you should quit beatin' that horse. Seriously.

As for whoever said that non-believers are trying to force their non-belief down your throat....

Really? I see and hear the word "God" a lot in connection with government institutions, but rarely do I hear the word "atheism". Just a thought.

[GrantDawg]

I'm a minister, a conservative, and a Republican, but I do think the pledge addition was an overt action to promote the belief in God by the government and therefore should be removed (along with "In God We Trust" on money).

To torque off the other side, I think individuals should have the freedom to discuss/display their individual religion in any forum, whether it is school, courtroom, council hall or congress. You don't stop being religious when you accept a government check.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
I'm a minister, a conservative, and a Republican, but I do think the pledge addition was an overt action to promote the belief in God by the government and therefore should be removed (along with "In God We Trust" on money).

To torque off the other side, I think individuals should have the freedom to discuss/display their individual religion in any forum, whether it is school, courtroom, council hall or congress. You don't stop being religious when you accept a government check.

Agreed on both counts. These are 2 separate issues and should be treated as such.

[sabotai]

"Is the phrase "one nation under God" an establishment of a religion? I just don't see how it can be. The closest it comes is the establishment of monotheism (and I'd argue that it doesn't even do that), and Sabotai's argument aside... there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting that."

Well, I would say there is. But what this boils down to is how we translate the Consitution. You seem to be someone who translates the Consitution 100% literally, considering you keep using the argument "it's not an 'establishment of religion'". Do you also 100% literally translate the 2nd Admendment? (Like you said, you can't have it both ways)

And well said Grant.

[Fritz]

For once I sat down to write a more thought out rebuttal to Quiksand and Co. about why "under God" is not religion. Then a girly called and I closed the browser.

Damn women.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Fritz
Then a girly called

Must have been a wrong number.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by ice4277
Must have been a wrong number.

no a telemarketer

[Dutch]

I personally do not object to the word "God" used by the government. I do object with this continual attack on our history and traditions.

I am comforted by the words "...under God." and "In God We Trust". I like them. When I hear the Pledge of Allegiance or look at a coin, I think first an foremost of America. Religion plays a minor role in that thinking. They should be historical trademarks that should be left untouched.

If we really have such a big problem with religion and government, perhaps we should first start where the situation could be seen as a current direct problem to America's pursuit of hapiness. How about religious lobby's donating money to the US government. Should this be allowed?

I believe most of the Muslim world believes that the US Government supports Israel with massive ammounts of money and oppose Jewish investments in America's governmental opinions on the Middle East. Why do we do that? What's the only tangible reason for pumping billions of dollars into a small desert nation? Isn't it the large donations the US government receives from the Jewish population?

Now, just for the record, I am not an anti-semite. I will argue that "under God" and "In God We Trust" have every right to remain a part of our Government if for no other reason than their respective removal should be the last thing we do in the area of separating Church and State. Seperate Church and State completely, then I will agree to this minor issue of the word God on my coins.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
I'm a minister, a conservative, and a Republican, but I do think the pledge addition was an overt action to promote the belief in God by the government and therefore should be removed (along with "In God We Trust" on money).

To torque off the other side, I think individuals should have the freedom to discuss/display their individual religion in any forum, whether it is school, courtroom, council hall or congress. You don't stop being religious when you accept a government check.

It is scary how much GrantDawg and I see things similarly. (although I just can't bring myself to identify myself as a Republican. I just can't get on board with that party as a whole...) To further expound...

1. I think the pledge is silly to begin with. Why would I pledge allegiance to a FLAG??? My allegiance is to God, my family, my friends, and my countrymen. Also, to me it is more than a little creepy to see children in Government-run schools stand, put their hands over their hearts, and pledge loyalty to said Government. It just feels kinda commie/socialist/Hitler-Youth-ish to me.

2. My understanding (and I haven't studied it, I just remember hearing/reading this somewhere) is that the addition of "under God" was a Red Scare sort of thing, so that the Government could distance ourselves from those God-less Commie Pinko Rooskies, and their agents at work within our borders. (Side note: Don't you miss having an Evil Empire? Remember the good ol' days when even evil aliens spoke with Russian accents??? )

3. Another understanding I have (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that reciting the Pledge IS something required of new citizens. If so, it is against everything our nation stands for to force, for example, a hard-working Hindu refugee to say "under God" to become a citizen.

{side note on the "Allah" discussion. The terms "Allah" and "God" are interchangeable in Islam--just different languages. Technically, if a follower of Christ wanted to say "Allah", it would be no different from saying "Dios"--just another language. For example: "Those who would do violence in the Name of Allah, blaspheme the Name of Allah!"--Dubya, 9/13/2K1. Theologians of Islam, Judaism and Christianity would all say that all three are studying the same person-- whether He is called Allah, Yahweh or God.}

4. With regards to paragraph 2 of G-Dawg's post, I think that is much more in line with what the Founding Fathers had in mind than many current interpretations of the 1st Amendment.

[Chief Rum]

KWhit, you really need to cool off. I am not attacking you personally, but I am glad to see you have no problems attacking me in sucha manner.

I don't feel very strongly about anything here. I am merely pointing out, as a matter of the debating process, that your point has no relevance to the simple question posed throughout this thread, which is, "Does a religious reference belong in the Pledge of Allegiance?"

Note your first point: would like to point out where exactly I am "personally attacking" you besides the perfectly valid statement that you are agruing illogically and irrelevantly? If simply responding to you and not agreeing with you is suddenly a "personal attack", well, I am guessing you'll be "attacked" regularly here at FOFC. Welcome to the world where "not everyone agrees with you."

To your second point: My explanation of my stance on the issue was not a response to any direct accusation by you, and I never said it was. Please, please, point out where I accused you of lumping me in with these others? I was just explaining for those following the discussion just where I stood, because it's a common assumption among the less-thinking inclined at this forum that if one disagrees with another, he must be agreeing with others who disagree with that person. I was merely anticipating a response or contention by others on that before it arose.

I also used that to work in a counter to your argument, irrelevant or not, pointing out that I was an example of a person who doesn't necessarily mind "under God" being in the Pledge, and who also said wouldn't mind "under Allah." This seems counter to your whole argument, but you decided to conveniently ignore that. What a surprise! You argument only calls into question those who support it staying in there, if they don't accept your alternative. But you fail miserable (in fact ignore completely) those people who don't change their tune with your offered up change to the Pledge. And that is why I called it irrelevant--it doesn't handle all possible avenues, only some, and you refuse to counter the others (probably because you can't).

The base discussion involved whether religion--any religion--should be in the pledge. If both terms qualify as "religion" in the pledge, it doesn't matter what flavor of religion they are. They would still be excluded in an argument for a separation of church and state. And while those arguing for religion in the pledge may be biased toward their religion, changing it to another religion merely changes who wants the religious reference in there, and has no bearing on the simple question of whether it should be in there at all.

As to your third point, you once again misunderstand me. This is again a reference to my stating how I stood on the issue, purely for the purpose of establishing where I stood in the spectrum of potential people you are lumping together. I only did so to establish for any reading that I am not a part of that group, and that I am arguing from a non-religious viewpoint. It goes to my own validity as a debater on the topic at hand. One who is ensconced in pushing his religion may not be without bias, but one with little cares for or against religion (as I am) can be a bit more practical. That was the sole purpose of that part of my response.

Somehow, of course, you see this as an accusation that you personally directed this at me, and I never once said that.

As I said before, none of this has rubbed me the wrong way. Frankly, I don't really care. I'm mostly just arguing for the sanctity of the original discussion. I have too often seen these discussions go astray because of irrelevant hypotheticals being thrown out exactly as you have done. I, of course, already explained this at length in previous posts.

Is it so wrong to want to steer the discussion back to the main point, and to ask that side points be conducted in another thread, where they can get the individual attention they likely deserve as well? Apparently, it is. Sorry for wanting to have a rational, logical discussion instead of a haphazard back-and-forht involving ad hominems and irrelevant arguments.

BTW, just because Dusty Baker tosses out a hypothetical, doesn't mean it's okay in all instances or relevant in all discussions. It's not the mere act of introducing one that matters, but what the content of that hyporthetical question is and how it bears on the main question at hand. A question you continue to ignore on its own base, and would prefer to spend your time discrediting the people arguing for it (rather than the argument itself).

I have responded to your fourth point ad nauseum above in this post, so I won't push it further here. But I will say that you're not the only one who has "said something 3-4 times" in this thread. Maybe I am stubborn, yes, but it seems to me you're in no position to talk. At least I respond to your arguments. You merely ignore mine, and continue to attack me instead. Wonderful, you're a great person.

Good bye now.

CR

[Mac Howard]

>No one "has to" or is "required" to do anything of the sort.

A five year old child, standing in school assembly with all her teachers and classmates reciting the pledge, is "required" to do. It may be that no one is holding a gun to her head or twisting her arm but I doubt very much many children would stand there, teeth clenched, refusing to join in.

And if kids recite "under God" each and every school day for the next 15 years then that would be a significant factor in convincing them that God exists in direct contradiction to their atheist parents' beliefs.

I would not dare to argue with any one of you about the American constitution but I would not expect the government of a secular, liberal democracy to undermine the right of parents to pass on their religious beliefs to their children in this way.

[TargetPractice6]

More than once in my high school, I've seen teachers (usually substitutes) get on the case of people who won't stand for/say the pledge.

One instance I remember in particular: A teacher lectured one student who didn't stand for the pledge. She game a speech about how her son was in the armed forces, and she thought it was disrespectful that he wouldn't stand. This really annoyed me. So, in schools some teachers wrongly try to force students to recite the pledge.

The words dpn't bother me, but I can see that to some they might. I don't see any need for them in the pledge, and if it would make more citizens comfortable about it, then why not? The best argument I've seen for keeping 'under God' in the pledge is that it's been there for years.

[Dutch]

{side note on the "Allah" discussion. The terms "Allah" and "God" are interchangeable in Islam--just different languages. Technically, if a follower of Christ wanted to say "Allah", it would be no different from saying "Dios"--just another language. For example: "Those who would do violence in the Name of Allah, blaspheme the Name of Allah!"--Dubya, 9/13/2K1. Theologians of Islam, Judaism and Christianity would all say that all three are studying the same person-- whether He is called Allah, Yahweh or God.}

I'm one of those fanatical Roman Catholics so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think God and Allah and Yahweh or Techtnoctitlan are interchangeable.

I believe that Allah and Yahweh are proper names while Christians believe that God has no name. God is capitalized because of our monotheistic belief and therefore any mention of God is therefore capitalized.

Just my 20 someodd years removed from Sunday school opinion.

[sabotai]

"A five year old child, standing in school assembly with all her teachers and classmates reciting the pledge, is "required" to do. It may be that no one is holding a gun to her head or twisting her arm but I doubt very much many children would stand there, teeth clenched, refusing to join in."

This actually happened to me. But I was in the 3rd grade, so I don't think I was 5. I was a bright kid...but not that bright. I made it a habit of standing, putting my hand over my heart...and not saying the pledge. A trait that's lasted to this day...I'm lazy.

One day the teacher saw me not saying the pledge. Her solution was to make me say the pledge in front of the classroom with all the other kids sitting and watching me. I was pretty pissed off, but not being an 8 year old law student, I didn't know I had a right to refuse. So of course, I did it. And the teacher told me everytime she saw me not saying the pledge, she would make me do that same "and that goes for everyone in the class".

I wonder if that's where I got my horrible fear of public speaking...