How deliciously ironic, given that it was Western materialism that ultimately proved so damaging to communism. I was first struck by this in seventh grade, when I read some interviews of Russian (USSR era) teenagers. To a one, they all said that the only flaw they saw in Americans is that we were far more materialistic than were people in the USSR. In other words, the only critique that inhabitants of the most theoretically arch-materialist state in the world could mount against the USA is that the USA was too materialistic! From that moment, onwards, I knew that Communism was doomed. It had to reject one of its fundamental goals (material prosperity for the masses) in order to protect its victims from consumerism.
I’d bet my Hilfiger underwear that the political consultants on both sides are studying that specific moment of the '88 campaign while putting together their upcoming strategies.
Possible compromise?:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
And to the Republic for which it stands
One nation, many faiths.
Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I don’t think you were accusing him of racism. I think you were equating his logic with that used by racists. The only reason to make that “analogy” is to paint him with the same brush as a racist.
I don’t have a problem with analogies, in general. I have a problem with analogies that are designed solely to appeal to emotion, and not the similarity of circumstances. You don’t get to resort to cheap (and fallacious) appeals to emotion any more than anyone else does.
And to be frank, I think that equating the “suffering” of athiests and agnostics with that suffered by minorities from racism and segregation is pretty insulting to the folks that had to endure slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow laws.
First of all, this isn’t a “free society.” It’s a constitutional republic. We live under the rule of law, which is handed down according to the dictates of the majority through their elected representatives. If you disagree with the majority, but they’re not infringing on your rights, then that’s tough for you. You aren’t “free” to ignore the will of the majority when it has the force of law. It doesn’t matter if they’re right or wrong. It only matters whether the legislation has some rational relation to legitimate governmental interests.
So simply asserting that “the majority wants it that way” is a perfectly fine argument, placing the burden on those opposing the exercise of the majority’s will to show how their rights are being violated.
I’m not outraged; it’s just that one of the reasons I like this board is that people are allowed to call each other out when they make weak arguments.
You don’t hate the SDMB, do you? 
And talk about your disengenuous responses. Once again, you’re acting like he’s wrong simply because he’s in the majority, and will therefore get his way. We know that’s neither relevant nor true. The Constitution requires that we assume that he’s correct because he’s in the majority.
The harm is to the democratic system.
What you seem to be missing is that to the vast majority of Americans (roughly 90%), your opposition to all acknowledgments of divine providence and inspiration – no matter how innocuous – is just as fundamentalist as the members of the Christian right are to you. They want their government to reflect their religion, and you want your government to reflect yours. The only difference is that there are significantly more of them.
Ah, so you are considering Allah to be essentially identical to Satan. I’d not take that step, myself, since I consider them to be rather different. I’ll lay it out in simple terms.
1: “God” is generally considered “The Big Good Guy” ™
2: “Satan” is generally considered “The Big Bad Guy” ™
Therefore, replacing “under God” with “under Satan” is very heavily value laden. It is specifically making the statement that you consider the USA to be utterly and irredeemably evil, forever and ever, no matter what.
However, if we are to believe the pious hypocrisy of those who say that the “God” of “under God” is not automatically imposing the Christian view of things, then there would be no trouble with substituting “under God” with “under Allah”, since Allah, if taken in the generic sense, is also “The Big Good Guy” ™. Thus, there is value equivalence rather than your suggestion of utter value opposition.
Yes, I see your point. Perhaps the timing is poor. Although it shouldn’t matter in the election, since the Democrats wear their religion on their sleeves just as much as the Republicans do, I imagine there are voters who would make such an unwarranted connection, and use it as a reason to vote for Bush.
And I, for one, am getting tired of the phrase ‘activist judges’.
While I’m not Musicat, I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the point at all.
Musicat’s point was that people in favour of the Pledge of Allegiance can always argue that Islam doesn’t have same significance in the history of the United States that Christianity does, just as they can argue that Satanism doesn’t have the same significance as Christianity does. Which in no way makes Allah “essentially identical to Satan”.
You may wish to cool your rhetoric in this instance, as you are starting to make accusations that are way off-base.
Absolutely not. The more you post, the more I think YOU DIDN’T READ THIS HERE POST BY ME.
I don’t feel that those two words constitute a history lesson, but that is claimed by some. And under that claim, it would be appropriate to use only that which fairly represents our country’s history. Satan and Allah do not, because Islam and Satanism are but minor players in our history.
In other words, if you accept the premise that a short U.S. history lesson needs to be inserted in the oath, then you need to find two words that qualify. “Under God” qualifies better than “Under Vishnu.”
The NY Times interprets this as
Sure, the expression “history lesson” is mine, but I don’t see this as a gross distortion of the situation.
This is the second time I’m saying this, so please pay attention: I was not addressing any logical argument; I was addressing his contention that atheists are “what’s wrong with America”. Is that clear now?
When one says that atheists are “what’s wrong with America”, one commits the same fallacy as a person who says black are “what’s wrong with America”, or that gays are “what’s wrong with America”. I used those examples because they are good examples of how people have wrongly blamed minority groups for their perceived downfall of the country. I am not “painting” anyone with any brush. That is your perception.
Well then you shouldn’t have a problem with my analogy, because, as I have explained, the circumstances are quite similar. We have a minority group (atheists) who are making a simple request for the government to respect their rights, to which someone responded that they are “what’s wrong with America”. This is very similar to the situation in the 60s, when blacks (a minority group), made a simple request for government to respect their rights, to which many had the exact same reaction - to blame THEM for “ruining America”. He argues that saying “under God” doesn’t hurt us, but neither did sitting in the back of the bus hurt blacks. There is a greater principle at stake. This may very well conjure up images in your mind of lynchings and police beatings, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.
I made no such equation. Your continuing inability to comprehend that simple fact is astounding.
This is the last time I will explain it, so I guess I’ll leave you to your blatant mischaracterizations, which I’m sure you will continue:
I never said the present situation is equivalent in any was vis a vis the amount of suffering endured by anyone. All I said was that when he says “Atheists are what’s wrong with America”, he is engaging in the same sort of foolishness as ANY person who says X minority group is “what’s wrong with America”. Use any X you wish: Blacks, gays, Jews, Italians, Irish, Muslims - it doesn’t matter. People have been saying that “X” is what’s wrong with America for a long time, and they are always wrong.
I’m sorry you don’t get it. I’m through discussing this now.
That’s completely incorrect. They are infringing on our rights. I know you will immediately start whining, but the only way to explain this is to use the civil rights analogy again: When the white majority passed laws that favored themselves at the expense of the black minority, those laws were eventually struck down. The majority does not necessarily rule, not if it infringes on the rights of the minority. Changing the pledge to “One nation, under white people”, would most certainly get reversed, even if blacks were allowed to opt out of saying it.
I’m sorry you don’t like my analogies, but sometimes you have to use them when people fail to understand a basic concept.
No, it’s not.
Exactly - by going to the Supreme Court and arguing the case.
I have said nothing of the kind.
Utter bullshit. Where did you hear that nonsense?
What garbage! Have I advocated supporting atheism in public schools? I don’t want the government to endorse ANY religion, including mine.
How you can resort to such cheap, underhanded debating tactics, and then have the balls to criticize me, is just beyond words. :rolleyes:
The cynic in me is wondering whether Scalia caved so easily on the recusal issue because he is secretly hoping the remaining justices uphold the 9th circuit, thus handing Bush a strong campaign issue.
Thanks, Orbifold, glad to see someone understands me. 
Well, first, it is voluntary. Not that young kids would understand that, but this case is more a tug-of-war between adults with the kid caught in the middle…
Second, you say that the words do not establish a religion. But don’t they? They at least establish that the Congress recognizes that religious people believe in only one god. There are some religions that beleive in a plurality of gods. Doesn’t the Congress in endorsing “under god” belittle those who believe in multiple gods, whether they recite the pledge or not?
I’m fine with simply ignoring it personally, but I completely understand that it would cause some people to feel grave discomfort.
JOhn.
Sounds good to me, an antheistic Buddhist. It’ll never pass, though.
JOhn.
Good grief. The question of whether a particular act constitutes an establishment of religion, as understood by the federal Constitution, is strictly a question of law. I agree that I said “…in fact…” but I used the word in the sense of “the fact of the matter,” meanign the established correct answer, not in an extra-legal “fact of the universe” sense.
Apparently, my usage was unclear, and I’m happy to have this chance to clarify my remark. As a matter of law, the Supremes have spoken. As a matter of fact, within this great universe, you may feel that it’s an establishment of religion; I disagree. And there is no ultimate arbiter upon which we may rely. Which is why I like sticking to the law.
- Rick
The very fact that some are bothered by the chance to restore the Pledge and remove “under God” seems confirmation enough that “under God” is an imposition of sectarian sentiment. Qualitatively, what do people find offensive about the phrase’s removal? Does it bother you on an intellectual level or a spiritual one?
Suppose that the Pledge existed today as it was written and as half of America learned it – no mention of God anywhere.
Constitutional Lawyer Dopers: what valid arguments might someone try to make today in favor of adding “under God”?
New conspiracy theory:
The Supremes will, in one fell swoop, hand the '04 election to Bush by ruling that “under God” must be removed from the pledge, that “In God we trust” must be removed from the currency, and states must allow gay marriage.
Citizen Newdow’s case under discussion by the United States Supreme Court is definitely high comedy but it is hard to laugh at the humor and irony taking place in those once hallowed halls because it is our own culture that’s gone bananas.
At this very moment the top jurists of the nation are sitting around seriously debating the inclusion of the words “under God” which are only used in a codified pledge that some people like to say aloud to reaffirm their allegiance to the concept and spirit of this republic.
No law says that you have to say this pledge, not even new citizens. No matter, Citizen Newdow and his breed of word police want the term “under God” stricken from this suggested saying. Meanwhile Muslim terrorists everywhere plan atrocities, and punk dictators rattle nukes and missiles , and China threatens the Chinese in Taiwan with destruction. May God help us all.
(You folks who have yet to drink the bad water that has made much of the American people go bonkers, please forgive me as I proceed to make a fool of myself by recounting that which is obviously obvious.)
The human brain is so constructed that it cannot logically conceptualize “something” coming into being from “nothing”, so, in our ignorance, we call that “nothing” God.
As well, we human being’s create new things to which we give names, and everything that we create has a particular purpose. It follows to our little animal brains that we have a purpose in existence that was inherent in our creation and that that purpose was good as was “God”.
Any human being , supreme court judge or hayseed malcontent, who argues against the semantical use of a “god” or “God” in that content, doesn’t know the nature of the English language, and any social manipulating jurist who could construct the inclusion of the simple phrase " under God" in a completely voluntary pledge of allegiance as the establishment of a governmental religion, doesn’t understand the cogent meanings of the carefully considered English words that make up our Constitution.
May God help us.
I heard a real atheist on talk radio this week who pointed out tha Newdow and various other egotistic self appoointed detractors of the nations traditions have a small shred of fear that they just might be wrong about their position with regard to the Diety and are seeking “Validation” of their position from the highest authority available to them, namely The U. S. supreme Court
He will have all revealed to him at Judgement!
This atheist emphasized that he knew to his own satisfaction what his position was and didn’t give a fig as to what the position of others was. No need to dabble in someone elses matters.
BTW Did you take notice of his anger and attitude? Not good.
I am reminded of a story told by comedian David Brenner.
Early in his career, and not yet well-known, he was given a guest spot on the Tonight Show, then taping in New York. The next day, in the subway, he sat down opposite a not too well-dressed man in a raincoat. The man stared at him for about five minutes, then very slowly raised his hand, extended his pointing finger at Brenner, and a tiny smile crept across his face. “Youuuu funnnnneeee,” the man said.
Brenner was delighted that someone had seen his TV appearance and recognized him. “Why, thank you, Sir,” he said. “I’m so glad you liked my act.”
Shortly, the train stopped and a new passenger got on and sat next to David. The raincoated man turned his attention to the new arrival. After five minutes, he slowly raised his hand, extended his pointing finger at the passenger, and a tiny smile crept across his face. "“Youuuu funnnnneeee,” the man said.
Hey, Milum. “Youuuu funnnnneeee.”