"Should public schools be forbidden to requires students to read “books with religious themes?”
Of course not - but including a book with a religious theme in a class and discussing it isn’t the same as endorsing the religion, is it? If I teach a literature course and require the students to read The Book of Job and write a paper on it, am I endorsing the Jewish or Christian religion over any other? Not unless I follow up the assignment with a lecture on how the Jewish and Christian religion is the " right" religion.
If the Supremes wish to show that they’re not incapacited blunderers, they will surely rule against the administration here. The admin’s assertion that the words are not religious is a lie as it is the religious nature of those words to which they are attached. Let’s just say I’m no longer suprised by anything any member of the Church of Nine says in an effort to force his religion on anyone.
Because there are some religious people who are convinced there’s a diabolical plot by the government and cultural elites in this county to marginalize them and persecute them.
On the other side, there are some nonreligious people who think there’s a diabolical plot to include religion everywhere in public and private life, with the ultimate goal of marginalizing and persecuting them.
So the wheel spins, around and around, with the paranoid and intolerant leading the way, both sides assuming the worst of their opponent, neither side willing to trust the other enough to find common ground.
Saying “under God” is religious.
Saying “there are no gods” is anti-religious.
Just leaving any mention of gods out entirely is completely neutral and is, of course, what should be done.
As for this crap over the Pledge, it is my opinion that the people bringing this lawsuit to have the Pledge removed from schools are doing FAR more damage to their own kids and the rest of society than they can possibly imagine. This whole notion of a separation of church and state, while a good principle in that every single religious state out there (where the religious leaders effectively run things) is backasswards and a danger to the planet, is allowed to have far too much play with the insurgents and revolutionaries in this country. The people who use that argument, again in my opinion, are part of a small but vocal minority (with the help of a LOT of greedy selfish freaking lawyers) who really do want to see our government overthrown and replaced with pure communism or nothing at all.
My prediction is that if the Supreme Court does get involved, they will rule that since the Pledge of Allegiance does not endorse any given religion, but only recognizes God (the same God who is at the top of many religions including Judaism and all it’s derivatives i.e. Christianity and Islam), that it does not violate this crackpot church/state separation ideal.
So the “religious” right shouldn’t be offended if it is left out – but they would be. Wonder why.
Of course it is a religious statement! Why was it added? (I was one of the elementary school kids reciting it at the time.) Would it be a religious statement is “Allah” were substituted?
An excellent point! God’s greatness does not rise or fall on being included in the U.S. Pledge of Alledgiance. She tends to be a woman, however. Welcome to SDMB!
I was a high school teacher and, as such, was never “required” to lead the Pledge. If I had been an elementary school teacher and a principle had required me to lead my classroom in the Pledge, I would have fought it from that angle. I suspect other teachers might also.
I don’t think Scalia would have recused himself if he didn’t have a pretty good feel for how the decision is going to go. But that is just my bias against him. I do not trust him.
Wow, Isabelle a bit of a rant, no? What the hell as the introduction of revolutionary communism and/or overthrow of your government got to do with removing the Pledge? There are belief systems that postulate many gods (Hindi) or no god (Buddism), quite simply why should anyone be pressured to mouth words they do not believe in, or that could actually offend them? A danger to the planet? Whoar, where does that come from???
Remove the stupid Pledge reference to god would be my call.
Oh and in case Dogface tells me to keep my face out of this…
Well, you would only have a point if we tried to lecture you whilst simultaneously defending the fact that Catholics are specifically excluded from the monarchial succession. I don’t. I know of nobody that does.
IIRC though the law only prevents Catholics or heirs marrying Catholics from the succession. There is nothing to prevent Prince Charles professing another or no faith and taking up the throne, although I agree it would be daft. All it would probably do is finally separate the functions of head of state and head of the church which is pretty much all agreed would be a very good thing for the UK. Charles is more a new age tree hugger than a Christian anyway from all his seems to say.
On the subject of the National Anthem, “God Save the King (/Queen)” is only a tradition. It has never actually been officially made our National Anthem, not by Act of Parliament or by Royal Proclamation. I know of no events that I am likely to attend or be invited to where you would be under pressure to actually sing it (as opposed to standing silently to show respect, as I do for the US Anthem before a ballgame) so the issue is not comparable to your repeating the pledge in schools in my view.
Bullshit. The phrase endorses monotheism. The phrase necessarily excludes polythestic, pantheistic and non-theistic models as well as agnostics and atheists who are just as American and have the same rights as any monotheist. The only possible legal interpretation of this is that the phrase violates the establishment clause. The government has no right to mandate that the populace recognize the existence of any deity.
BTW, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from inserting “under God” into the Pledge when you say it, just don’t try to force me or my child to say it.
Oh, yeah, the ruling in Bush v. Gore was sooooooooooo well-reasoned that almost 300 Constitutional Law experts of all political stripes denounced it as a partisan joke, and even the majority opinion insisted it not be used to establish precedent. Lots of confident, well-defended arguments in there, you bet. :rolleyes:
[/hijack]
“Do not be angry with me if I tell you the truth.”
–Socrates
Oh boy. This is the sort of “thinking” that got the words “under God” into the pledge in the first place. Just because I am not religious does not make me a communist. Or even a socialist.
But you said it was a good thing in principle earlier in your post. In what way does “in principle” differ from being an “ideal”?
No, lissener wasn’t. lissener compared being asked if he had a girlfriend with being forced to say grace and the Pledge, which he said “felt coerced.” He used it in the context of why he would like to see the words “under God” removed from the Pledge. Why else would he bring it up? This is a discussion about 1st Amendment principles, not socially awkward moments.
I’m not trying to pick on you, but CyberPundit has already addressed this:
Nobody is forcing you or your child to say it. The Pledge has been voluntary for a long time. And thank goodness for that.
OK Isabelle you have me there. As and when Judgement Day actually arrives I will look pretty stupid and do all the grovelling I can to redeem myself from my error. It may be to late but I’ll just have to cross my fingers and hope he is a loving Godl. Me and a few billion other non-Christians in the queue…
Until that day I’ll operate on the basis of my judgement.
Honestly, quoting religious texts at us as anything other than evidence of your personal belief system (which nobody has attacked or doubted) is a waste of time. It is not independent evidence.
Compulsory worship–how sweet. Regardless, that Holey Man hasn’t yet been elected to office, so whatever judgement days are attributed to him are irrelevant to this discussion.
I came to know the Lord as a teenager, some 33 years ago. So I’m not speaking as a nonbeliever who wants to trash Christianity; I’m speaking as someone who became a Christian in answer to God’s call.
We agree that God is all-powerful. If He chose, He could make every human being pledge allegiance to Him fifty times a day. As you’ve probably noticed, this hasn’t happened. Maybe God wants to give His creatures the full freedom to accept or reject Him, extending to the level of being able to freely accept or reject the notion of His existence. I believe He does this, so that when we choose to love Him back, we do so freely and joyfully.
At any rate, there’s nothing in Scripture suggesting that this freedom is some sort of oversight - that we should compel people to acknowledge God, whether they want to or not. God’s quite capable of doing so if He wants, and He hasn’t; should we jump in and correct His ‘mistake’, with all that that entails? (Including Oolon Colluphid’s blockbuster philosophical trilogy?) I think that’s a big mistake.
And yet Christians still keep trying to make every knee bow, and every tongue confess, to what they see as the truth about God, willing or no.
Maybe it’s time to give it a rest. Our God is big enough that He shouldn’t need government assistance in His outreach efforts.
That simply equates to, “the government is free to push belief in God, and you’re free to reject it.” What seems reasonable to me, especially in light of recent interpretation of the Establishment Clause, is that the government shouldn’t be regarded as free to push either belief or unbelief in God.
I’ve got to agree with that.
But on the flip side, the ability of religious zealots to turn even relatively innocuous religious phrases into a club to beat people over the head with cannot be exaggerated. In several states, laws have been passed to post “In God We Trust” all over schools and whatnot. Since it’s the national motto, how can anyone object? But the message they’re pushing to schoolkids, through governmental heavyhandedness, is clear: you’d better trust God.
ISTM that no ceremonial-deist phrase is exempt from such use. Accordingly, I reject the validity of ceremonial deism as a workable concept. God doesn’t need to be on the currency and coinage, in the Pledge, or anywhere else that can be reasonably construed as a governmental endorsement. Where God needs to be is in the hearts of those who believe in Him.
