Well, I think James Madison (the “Father of the Constitution”) would certainly agree:
Beware the tyranny of the majority.
I’ve heard a lot of arguments about comparing the PoA with “under God” to a PoA with “under Allah” or “under Zeus” but I think the point is weak because those are minority view.
I feel that “one nation under God” should be equally offensive to monotheists and non-monotheists just has “one nation of white people” should be equally offensive to all races despite the historical “accuracy.”
Isn’t it though. In the Nick thread, it was all about “Nobody has the right to teach anything to my child that I don’t approve of”. Unfortunately, they couldn’t see the problem with that statement then and they still won’t. You just can’t have it both ways.
When I was in 9th grade at a public school I told my homeroom teacher I did not feel saying the Pledge was fair given that I was Atheist.
She told me “I had to say it BY LAW”. I called her bluff and asked what law that was. Her answer to me was a trip to the principles office.
At the principles office he and I went over several arguments. His solution was I could omit “under god” but say the rest. I said this was not an option because for me the entire thing was a confirmation to God and Country. Not saying “under god” would be the equivalent to saying grace at the dinner table but leaving out the “dear lord” part.
I requested to remain seated quietly while the others prayed.
At the end of the meeting it was agreed that I shouldn’t remain in the room while the others said the pledge. So every morning before they said the pledge I was allowed to leave the room and come back when they were done. This agreement lasted for 2 days. At the start of the 3rd day I was sent back to the principles office, this time for disrupting the class.
It seemed my actions sparked conversation. When I headed out into the hall when others were getting ready to say the pledge, two other kids stood up and said “I don’t believe in god either. Can I go to the hall as well?”
The principle figured an easy solution to the entire problem was to simply kick me out of school. Which he did, for two weeks.
I thought I was treated unfairly. I was just a kid who didn’t believe in god and didn’t want to partake in a confirmation to a god. I was punished for my actions and quite literally for my non- belief in a god…
I have to say I haven’t waded though this entire thread yet,… but I’m working on it. If I’m repeating someone, then I’m sorry. Anyway…
I’ve heard several people (on tv and in here) saying if you do not believe in god, just don’t say “under god”. Or say it anyway because you don’t hurt anyone by just saying it.
I have a better idea. We change the pledge to this:
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, where gods do not exist, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”
then the people who believe in god can just omit the line “where gods do not exist”.
Or of course they could just SAY those lines. I’m mean, it’s not hurting anyone right?
In a letter to the editor denouncing this decision yesterday, my local paper published the address of the federal court where this occurred, so that people could write to express their dissatisfaction with the ruling.
I could be mistaken, but isn’t it illegal to try to influence a federal judge? Does writing a letter, or encouraging others to do so, count as such? After all, they’re supposed to rule without regard for public opinion, and simply interpret the law as written.
Dr. J
Gaudere:
No. I never heard back from Lefevre.
Re: The debate
It seems to me that this shouldn’t be such a big issue. Those that beleive in God should be nice to those that don’t and vice versa. That’s the way I try to explain things to my daughter, and I don’t think it’s any truer of grownups.
Religious people shouldn’t be trying to force atheists to pray, and atheists shouldn’t try to stop religious people from praying. But, there’s a whole bunch of it going on, and now that it’s taken out, religious people feel that their right to express their belief in God is being hampered. When it was in atheists felt like their beleifs weren’t being respected.
However, the solution is simple enough that any 8th grader understands it. By the time you are in the 8th grade, you understand that there is no such thing as Santa Claus. If you’re Jewish you know it before.
Most five year old jewish kids don’t go running around telling everybody that there’s no such thing as Santa Claus. Most five year olds don’t go off on the jewish kids in their class trying to make them celebrate Christmas. Most 8th graders don’t go around telling the little kids that Santa Claus is fake.
Because it’s not nice to be intolerant, or go looking for trouble, is it?
So, the thing to do is clearly to make the “Under God,” not be an official part of the Pledge. On the other hand, the people that still wish to say it should be allowed to do so. So, a pause should be allowed in the Pledge where religious folks can optionally address their beleifs.
On the other hand, I think that believing in Santa Claus is a good thing.
Similarly, I have no idea whether or not God exists. My brain says “no,” but my heart says “yes.” I suspect there is no such thing, but I hope there is, and I go to Church, and try to live as if my hopes are correct.
-Scylla
Under God, above flatworms.
From a religious perspective, I’d think telling little kids that Santa is for real would undermine their faith in other unseen beings when said little kids eventually discover that they’ve been had.
Yep. I don’t understand how anyone can say that with a straight face.
There is a widespread belief that throwing salt over your shoulder after spilling it will ward off bad luck. Many people act on this belief. It proves nothing.
Now that your argument has been invalidated, you are simply trying to shift the burden of proof.