So, if the Pledge of Allegiance were amended to read “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation without God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”, but Christian kids were permitted to refrain from saying it, that would not constitute “ramming atheism” down anyone’s throat, and simply removing the words “without God” would be ramming theism down everyone’s throat?
Moderator’s Note: And let’s cool down the personal attacks. Grendel72, you were wrong to resort to name-calling, and you’ve admitted it and apologized for it, which is good; so let’s everyone keep it civil from here on out.
Speaking of ignorant people, who is requiring anybody to say the POA? Not the athiests daughter in California, who acknowledged that his daughter was not required to say the pledge in school.
Show me where schoolkids are required to recite the POA, and you may get a sympathetic nod from me. But since it is voluntary participation in its recital, there is no valid point in banning it (as the 9th CC would have it) from recital in classrooms.
Stop the fucking ad hominem attacks, and try to actually defend your position. Show me where is it required that kids recite the POA. Show me how this athiests daughters was ‘damaged’ by others saying it. Show me a valid point of view. Or do you not actually have one, other then childish glee at ‘sticking it to’ the religious?
Brutus wrote:
Huh. I’ll be darned. Brutus is right.
Students were not required to recite the Pledge in California public schools.
In fact, the very article linked to by the OP says: “The case was brought by a California man who objected to his daughter being compelled to listen to her second-grade classmates recite the pledge.” [emphasis mine]
This means the California law that got struck down as Unconstitutional was not in the realm of “forcing religion down schoolkids’ throats”, it was in the same realm as “voluntary school prayer.” (Which, it should be noted, has also been ruled Unconstitutional.)
So, again, there would be no problem with an act of Congress officially changing the PoA to read “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation without God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”, so long as Christians weren’t actually required to say it, and any attempt at amending this hypothetical anti-God pledge would be an attempt at imposing Christianity on atheists?
In fact, the man that wrote the real pledge was removed from his post as a clergyman because he was a socialist. As a result he did not hold a very high opinion of the church(I believe he was a baptist, not sure though). When the phrase “under god” was added in 1954, he was long dead, but one of his decendents(either his daughter or granddaughter) was quoted as saying he would have been quite angry about it. I’ll look for a cite on that, I just heard it on the news this afternoon.
So what? She can’t be compelled to listen to a school-sanctioned prayer, either. Nor can the teacher be required to lead the class in reciting the pledge. And most especially, the federal government cannot enact a law endorsing religion as the basis of the nation.
Here’s one:
I agree. But the fact is, there is no church in America that is powerful enough to threaten this separation. Most christians would not agree with everything their church said, in fact many christians do not even go to church. Separation of church and state IS a very good thing, but there is no church powerful enough to control government anyway. Consider the power of churches throughout history and this becomes obvious.
What I am trying to say is that separation of church and state, while a good thing, is not much of an issue. What we are usually talking about is separation of religion and state, and this is certainly not what the constitution proposes. Allowing people to send their kids to a religious school with government money has nothing to do with “church and state” unless there is a specific church-run school that is using its power so that it is the only religious private school option. If someone wants to pray in school it has nothing to do with “church and state” unless kids are only allowed to pray for the god of a specific church which used its power to get such status.
The reason “under god” is bad is that it does conceivably give advantages to particular churches; not all religions have only one god, or even a god at all. And, of course, because it is state sponsored rather than being something the people who say it thought up for themselves.
But I still think there is a huge difference between “separation of church and state” and “separation of religion and state”, with the latter conflicting with freedom of religion.
This pledge brouhaha is eerily reminiscent of Lord of the Flies. The role of Jack will be played by the politicians and news media. The majority of the public will join Jack’s gang and get whipped into a frenzy of “KILL THE PIG!!! KILL THE PIG!!!” (Note the uncanny similarity between this irrational chant and the “Christian love” that many people left on that atheist guy’s answering machine.) The roles of Ralph, Piggy, and Simon will be played by those (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics) who dare to think for themselves.
I just hope the soldier guy arrives on the shore before the lynch mob’s “righteous indignation” tramples the love of freedom out of every living being.
While the pledge was mandatory in CA, you are correct that participation wasn’t. You heve read accounts in this very thread of the peer pressure brought to bear on non-conformists in this situation.
Can you not see the difference between “one nation indivisible” and “one nation under God”? Adding those two words undermined the rest of the pledge, they were only added as a way to tell some people “this isn’t your country”. You can’t call something indivisible after you just divided it, you can’t claim “and justice for all” after excluding some.
I take no joy in “sticking it to the religious”. I know that the majority of religious people aren’t jerks, although I sometimes wish they were as loud as the hateful minority.
I remember reciting the pledge many, many times in my elementary school days. It was something my class did. And it didn’t affect me in any meaningful way. I didn’t develop an appreciation for religious living any more than I understood why a colored strip of cloth was so important.
So the idea that removing the words “under God” is somehow going to damage these kids’ faith (never mind the fact that the Cold War is over; hence, the purpose for that being there in the first place no longer exists) is ludicrous. And anyone with an ounce of sense knows this.
That said…I’m desperately, desperately hoping that the Superme Court holds firm on this and doesn’t concede ANYTHING. Ever since the appointment of John Ashcroft, the fundies have been running wild, and no one seems to want to do anything to check them. In my book, any group having unlimited reign is a travesty, let alone something so utterly detrimental to our freedoms. Take a stand, ignore the pleas of the ignorant, and enforce the damn law as it is written. It would be a minor victory, but I’d be very happy for it nonetheless.
Just wanted to add that the “this is a democracy so the majority should rule” argument really bothers me. Isn’t that missing the point that the Constitution protects the minority from the majority?
Exactly right. If we wanted a pure democracy, we wouldn’t need any Constitution at all. A Constitutional democracy is a limited democracy, that says we value majority rule only up to up to a certain point, and beyond that point we won’t allow the will of the majority to intrude on the rights of the minority. The end result is that the cases where those boundaries are set tend to be those espousing unpopular views. Popular viewpoints don’t need the protection of a Bill of Rights.
-
For those who decry the “Politically Correct” deletion of “under God,” you have to note that the two words were originally INCLUDED because of Political Correctness. Many religious poeple including fundementalists, Quakers, etc. were offended by the Pledge (and refused to give it) because it is IDOLATRY, worshipping a false (not God) idol. Congress thought it would ameliorate these people if the Pledge included the wishy-washy “Well, I love the flag and our country, but not as much as God” clause.
-
Grade school children cannot possibly understand the Pledge.
I think I was about ten before I realised that the Pledge had nothing to do with witches. (“For Witches stand.”) Recitation of the Pledge is just blind brain-washing. Is there no way to instil a love of country than to force them to recite oaths they can’t possibly fathom? Perhaps forcing 2nd graders to memorize and recite the Tax Code will instil financial responsibility. -
Making Flag Burning illegal made Flag Burning an effective way to piss people of so you could get jailed “unjustly.” Making the Pledge compulsory just makes it something for people to protest.
Re: the Founding Fathers
Some people think we should read the Founding Fathers’ minds to know how to interpret the Constitution. Perhaps Antonin Scalia should construct a big Ouija Board so all Supreme Court cases could be settled. Others say the Constitution is a “living document” and however each generation interprets it should be the Law.
I come down in the middle. I think the real spirit of the Constitution should be followed, but the will of the FFs might not express that. The FFs gave us instructions with many contradictions, starting with the Decleration with God all over the place and the Constitution with Him nowhere. If that isn’t proof that the FFs didn’t have quarrels between themselves and are not a unified voice, I don’t know what is.
Sometimes we, in a modern light, can see where the Fathers THEMSELVES have erred. Their interpretation of their words ssays one thing, OUR interpretation says another. Nowhere is this clearer than when Jefferson talks about how “All Men are created equal.” All men, it seems to him, except the Men who are PROPERTY (including his own SON). We see it as all AMERICANS are created equal, even those who aren’t free. Or MEN.
Sometimes we have to hold the FFs feet to the fire. Say said, maybe intended, one thing we know that the true meaning of their words implies something broader, even if they didn’t intend it.
“Establishment” is such a thing. Perhaps some, if not all, of the FFs intended America to be a Christian nation. But the full meaning of their words means that it is NOT. Just as we know now that equality means that everyone, including who we intend to marginalize, is equal. Freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion.
And, of course, second graders’ religious beliefs aren’t being violated by the Pledge. It’s the rights of parents. The right of Parents to indoctrinate their kids over the State.
Hmmm.
Let’s look at it like this.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Now. How was the phrase under God added to the Pledge in 1954?
By an act of Congress.
Seems to me that unless you try to argue that acts of Congress are not really laws at all–which for all I know may well be a legally valid argument–this does seem to violate the letter of the amendment.
Why don’t we all just use Calvin’s pledge?
“I pledge allegiance, to Queen Fragg, and her mighty state of hysteria.”
The whole point of bringing the case to court is so that it can be determined if the atheist’s daughter is damaged by others in her class saying “under God” in the pledge. Her father thinks she is, the school and the state think she isn’t. The ruling, by force of law, validates one of two positions: the damage exists or the damage does not exist.
Now, if you read the ruling, you’ll see that the panel of judges’ point of view is that damage was done. They agreed with the atheist’s father. His point of view has been validated. Now, is the reasoning behind the judges’ decision sound? I think it is, you think it isn’t.
So, my position is that I concur with the reasoning given in the ruling. Would you like to offer any valid criticism of the reasoning in the ruling? You may choose to continue to just loudly proclaim that I couldn’t defend myself against you, but that’s a hollow rhetorical victory if you never actually attack me.
-fh
Several posts have made the argument that children are not forced to say “under God” if they recite the pledge. But why should the religious form be the standard? Why should those who object to the added words have to subvert, (in the opinion of the true believers) every day, the will of the Congress as enacted into LAW and be made to feel like the outsider?
By the same argument, if “under God” is removed, then those who like it can say it without objection. It is my firm belief that there are some on this board and elsewhere, whose political power is beyond their numbers, not only want to loudly proclaim their holiness, but also to use the power of the government to force others to join them.
You know, that’s a damned good point. Some of the same people who spent time bitching about Nickelodeon pre-empting the right to teach their kids values in the thread about that show on gay parents, are now defending the idea that other people’s children should be taught that a God exists at school, possibly in violation of the parents’ wishes. Now that’s hypocrisy.