# Reciting Pledge of Allegiance in public schools ruled unconstitutional. Discuss. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644 "2005-09-14T18:31:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/441 "2005-09-26T18:01:49Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Besides, in all honesty I think a good “History of religion in America” course would produce more atheists, agnostics and liberal religionists than fundies; the behavior of the more extreme Christians in this country has not been very nice. Eh, I think that’s a bit facile. It’s easy to pick out 10 examples of Bad Things That Religious Extremism Has Done In America. It’s much less satisfying to pick out 100 examples of Americans being motivated to do good things due to religion, but not necessarily any less important, on the grand scale of things. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/442 "2005-09-27T01:38:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > While these beliefs may be the beliefs of the majority, for me, they are there because they were the beliefs of the founders. They believed that this amazing thing they had carved out of thin air was due in large part to the Creator, Supreme Beiing, Grand Architect, etc. For me this is a patriotic statement. Some say to take the "under God, out. You _can_, but it wouldn’t improve it as a patriotic statement, The way I see it, if these men didn’t believe the way they did, there might not have been a new country. Or it might have had a much shorter run. I’m afraid you are terribly, woefully mistaken. The Founders created this country not under Christian or even theistic ideals or beliefs (even if you wish to insist that most founders were Christians), but rather as a 100% direct adoption of the philosophy and ideals of the (non-theistic) Enlightenment. The Deist “God” of the Enlightenment was not a religious symbol or even really a deity, per se. It was instead a purely abstract “first cause” or “creator” that no longer had any interaction with the universe nor even posessed any existential attributes. It is impossible to understand or even speak credibly about the Founders without understanding the full effect of the Enlightenment on them, the non-theistic nature of the Enlightenment, and that we were founded quite intentionally not as a Christian or theistic state but rather as the first Enlightenment state. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/443 "2005-09-27T01:45:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The founders are irrelevant in a patriotic pledge? Now, they may not be a _necessary_ part of an expression of patriotism, but to say they are irrelevant is a stretch. As far as their failings, we may have, as you say, “advanced far beyond them” in what we practice, but I wouldn’t make the same claim about our ideals. “All men are created equal” is an ideal. The fact that we are more true to that ideal today than we were 200 years ago is a testament to the strength and righteousness of that ideal. Back in 1776 that was a novel statement for a government to make. And also a subtly but undeniably anti-religious statement, at least certainly an anti-Christian statement. For Christians, saved and unsaved people are by no means equal. Hell, in Calvinism and those sects with similar views, people aren’t even _born_ equal! ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/444 "2005-09-27T01:48:28Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > 'Twas civil. Too bad you don’t like having your misinformation described as misinformation. Monty, you were NOT civil to him. You are often uncivil, certainly in my own experience reading your posts. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/445 "2005-09-27T02:05:32Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’ve never seen a credible source for that, although it’s widely claimed to be true on left-wing blogs (about Bush Sr.). Maybe we need a staff report on this one… The sources are in the atheist press and an _amicus curiae_ petition to an important court, by a reporter named Shermer. They appear completely legitimate and credible to me. Unless you want to claim that athiests are prone to be liars, even in important court cases, then there are no compelling grounds to doubt the press report. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/446 "2005-09-27T02:12:02Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Good info thanks. . However isn’t it obvious at this point in our history that it no longer has any meaning like that? > Personally I have no problem with it in or out. My concern is how do we maintain seperation of church and state while still allowing freedom of expression and worship. It just seems a ridiculous extreme to me to be offended by the mere expression of some belief. Where’s the tolerance? The accpetance of our diversity? If atheists are offended by the mention of a God they don’t believe in and believers are offended by the beliefs of atheists and what they percieve as the suppression of their right to express themselves, then where does that leave us? Isn’t it better to promote an understanding and appreciation of our diversity? Why must it always be the minority that has to show “tolerance”? Why can’t the majority show tolerance for the minority, as our Constitution seems to prefer? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/447 "2005-09-27T02:19:42Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > I’m afraid you are terribly, woefully mistaken. The Founders created this country not under Christian or even theistic ideals or beliefs (even if you wish to insist that most founders were Christians), but rather as a 100% direct adoption of the philosophy and ideals of the (non-theistic) Enlightenment. The Deist “God” of the Enlightenment was not a religious symbol or even really a deity, per se. It was instead a purely abstract “first cause” or “creator” that no longer had any interaction with the universe nor even posessed any existential attributes. > > It is impossible to understand or even speak credibly about the Founders without understanding the full effect of the Enlightenment on them, the non-theistic nature of the Enlightenment, and that we were founded quite intentionally not as a Christian or theistic state but rather as the first Enlightenment state. Enlightenment is spiritual, at least the kind of enlightenment most talked about. The kind where one suddenly understands the value of equality, and worthiness of all mankind. The kind that changes the heart and soul of every individual it touches. It is a knowing we are all equal under the Creator. How could one be enlightened without touching a Higher Intelligence? Impossible, I think. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/448 "2005-09-27T02:25:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I think you’re letting this get to you. Look at the sequence of posts: You and **Monty** had your exchange; **John Mace** provided a link to a site that would demonstrate the point of the use of the word “God” by English speking Muslims; later in the early morning, you asked why his post was cryptic; still later in the morning, (but with no intervening posts on the topic), I pointed out that it really was not all that cryptic (at least to the extent that it was clear to me what **John Mace** had intended). > > Hours later, you and **Monty** and **John Mace** re-opened the topic exchanging a number of personal observations (something that neither **John Mace** nor I had _originally_ included). Now that the whole topic has been hashed over, you dig up my much earlier post to claim pile on? > > Take a breath. As you have already noted, it was not that big an issue. > > Having said that, I will now strongly urge the three of you (and any other posters) to drop the topic of rudeness, here. It has been done. That topic is closed. You aren’t being fair here, Tom. New Guy _asked_ why it was 3 rather than 2 religions that speak of “God”. He honestly didn’t know that Muslims also refer to their deity as “God”. It was an honest mistake that was made all the more palatable by the fact that New Guy **asked** to be informed if he was wrong. That’s civil behavior. Next, the frequently uncivil Monty came in and attacked New Guy about his so-called “malarkey”. That was uncivil, and you know it. Then, instead of simply providing a brief correction as New Guy as he had politely requested, John Mace posted nothing but a link. He could have simply informed New Guy of the correct facts, but instead posted nothing but a link which seemed somewhat arch to me. New Guy has behaved more civilly than the others. You should have addressed your criticisms to those attacking New Guy rather than the reverse. Please review the evidence and reconsider. Respectfully, ambushed ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/449 "2005-09-27T02:35:26Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Enlightenment is spiritual, at least the kind of enlightenment most talked about. The kind where one suddenly understands the value of equality, and worthiness of all mankind. The kind that changes the heart and soul of every individual it touches. > > It is a knowing we are all equal under the Creator. How could one be enlightened without touching a Higher Intelligence? Impossible, I think. It really is the height of rudeness to wander into a thread and try to change the meaning of another poster’s words by displaying ignorance of a particular philosophical movement simply for the sake of launching one more bit of witnessing at the readers. If you do not understand the meaning of Enlightenment (capitalized), then you need to hold your posts until you do. If you do know what the Enlightenment (capitalized) was, then you should either attempt to make a coherent argument that its members actually believed in your variety of spirituality or you should refrain from injecting your witnessing into the thread at this point. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/450 "2005-09-27T02:42:57Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Except that that wasn’t an example. That was an analogy. Don’t you see the difference between: > “Well, here are 5 examples of things THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN REAL LIFE, and despite the fact that no one in this thread has endorsed any of them, and despite the fact that they are only superficially similar to the ‘under god’ discussion, I’m going to keep bringing them up and intimating that everyone arguing against ‘under god’ is also arguing for these extreme nutcasey things” > and > “here’s a totally made-up situation which is admittedly silly and ridiculous, but which is designed to boil down a particular part of an issue to its most simple parts”? > > I mean, those are CLEARLY two entirely different types of things, and I have no idea how you can conflate them. You don’t? You called some examples extreme and not really relative to the arguement. I called your analogy extreme and not really relative to the arguement. See the comparison? I was kind of confused why you mentioned extreme examples in responding to me. Have I presented an extreme example to defend leaving “under God” in? > [@](#): > > So, once again, you have two subgroups of people, they have an official song/statement/slogan/pledge/motto, then one of them, the majority, gets “our belief rules!” inserted into the official song/statement/slogan/pledge/motto, and then a few years later, the other subgroup tries to get it removed. Is that: > (a) fair > or > (b) unfair? This is better than the last one but I still don’t think it has any real meaning concerning this discussion. How about this one? There is a single group that makes their decisions by the “majority rules” principle. etc, etc. Isn’t my analogy as close as yours? You would have to establish that your two sub groups have an ethical or moral obligation to defend each others rights. Moving on. > [@](#): > > What’s so difficult about that? _That_, being the thing you will shortly describe as “the trickiest question”? > [@](#): > > Whatever mechanisms we currently have in place to protect the teachers’ right of free speech would continue to operate. If those mechanisms are insufficient, then they are ALREADY insufficient, and that’s a problem that needs to be solved anyhow, but is not directly related to the pledge. (Note, by the way, that this is a tricky issue… I mean, I’d personally say that it’s OK for a teacher to wear a necklace with a cross on it, or other similar small religious symbols, and mention in passing what his or her faith is, but there’s a continuum of activities from that all the way up to outright trying to convert students in class, and there has to be a line somewhere, and reasonable people won’t always agree on where it is. Which is why we have courts.) See, it is tricky. It isn’t easy to draw the lines and you are correct, people won’t agree. > [@](#): > > Very close to 100% precisely my opinion as well :smack: > [@](#): > > The trickiest question for me here is teachers. I assume we both agree that when they’re off duty, teachers should be able, in the privacy of their own homes, to say “under God” while saying the pledge. But should they be able to say it while leading the class? I mean, I suspect you’d agree that it’s OK for teachers to spend their saturday mornings wandering around knocking on doors spreading the gospel, but it is NOT ok for them to do that during class hours, so it’s obviously the case that what teachers can do while operating in their official capacity is more limited than what they can do, in general. Right on the off duty. In school, I think it should be made clear that “Under God” is a voluntary act and everyone has the right to follow their convictions. Then I consider the little tykes and realize that explanation would be lost on them. Then again the words “Under God” would be lost on them too for the most part. It’s really tricky. A kid is having a real life crisis and a sincere concerned teacher feels the need to offer prayer or suggests turning to God for help. The parents who are atheists object. What’s best, right, or fair? The teacher is paid in part by federal money. Does that mean the teacher represents the goverment and is not allowed to pursue their sincere beliefs in this situation? ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/451 "2005-09-27T02:43:23Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Mr Blue Sky found this, in response to my asking the question in General Questions. The source appears to be The Secular Something For Something (not really, but I can’t remember their name) web site, so let’s keep an eye toward their probable bias. It appears to have been part of an interview, almost 20 years ago. That web page is not the source; it was just a re-posting of the original source which was a legitimate, athiest magazine. If I recall correctly, the interview was confirmed by _Free Inquiry_, the Paul Kurtz-edited sister publication of _The Skeptical Inquirer_. Both magazines have Nobel laureates and other highly-respected people on their boards, so there’s good reasons to believe the source is reliable and the interview quotations given are accurate. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/452 "2005-09-27T02:49:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, the Bill of Rights, does, in part, do what you say. But it carves out _specific rights_ to be protected from the will of the majority. If a _particular_ right is not covered in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) it enjoys no such protection. That’s highly debatable, if not outright false. The Ninth Amendment, even though it has not been used by the courts, clearly represents a very strong desire on the part of the drafters to make plain that there ARE other rights enjoyed by the People that are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/453 "2005-09-27T02:51:45Z")
> [@](#): > > You aren’t being fair here, Tom. You will note, I hope, that my post was in direct response to the poster going back, many hours and one full exchange of venom after I had posted, to include me in a charge of piling-on, when my post had been an attempt to clarify **John Mace** ’s post for the purpose of avoiding a pile-on. As for who has or has not been rude, I certainly made no accusation that **New Guy** was rude and I would not: my explicit comment was that everyone quit worrying about it in this thread. While that exchange was more than a bit of a hijack, no one broke any official rules and I am more interested in all posters getting on with this thread and their lives than I am in handing out penalty slips. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/454 "2005-09-27T03:01:22Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Why must it always be the minority that has to show “tolerance”? Why can’t the majority show tolerance for the minority, as our Constitution seems to prefer? Please note that I recommended tolerance and understanding for minority and majority alike. Wouldn’t you say that “Under God” was catering to the majority while trying to find compromise. There have been several proposed amendments that specifically wanted to name Jesus as Lord and were shot down. Wouldn’t you say compromise is a form of tolerance? Are you asking for tolerance from the majority or aquiescing? ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/455 "2005-09-27T03:03:05Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > So what about the dictionary definitions of atheism that definately refer to it as a belief or doctrine? Of course you’re free to decide that your definition of atheism is the only correct one. Given the discussion I would find that to be a hilarious bit of irony. 🙂 Ordinary dictionaries are not to be trusted when it comes to technical philosophic or religious terms. You should know that. Some ordinary dictionaries define the term “atheism” correctly, others don’t. Here’s a source for the correct definitions: there are at least two different definitions:[Definitions of Atheism from Atheism 101](http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_2/ts212n.html) > [@](#): > > Definitions > There are two definitions of “atheism” or “atheist”, and they are enough unalike that a lot of misunderstanding can result when this label is used. An atheist is a person: > > (1) without a belief in God. > > (2) [one] who denies the existence of God The former is not a belief and is not a faith and is not a religion (unlike the latter). Most atheists define themselves as (1), not (2). Those who define themselves using (2) are rare. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/456 "2005-09-27T03:51:25Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Enlightenment is spiritual, at least the kind of enlightenment most talked about. The kind where one suddenly understands the value of equality, and worthiness of all mankind. The kind that changes the heart and soul of every individual it touches. Kindly allow me to aid a bit in your education, lekatt. The Enlightenment was a politico-philosophical movement that, among other things, decried religion and a religious God/Creator. Please read the following:[The Enlightenment](http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html) From that source: > [@](#): > > They [the Enlightened ones] believed that human reason could be used to combat ignorance, superstition, and tyranny and to build a better world. Their principal targets were **religion** (embodied in France [i.e., in the French Enlightenment only] in the Catholic Church) and the domination of society by a hereditary aristocracy. lekatt, my friend, you must admit that you are a strong believer in superstition. Your history of unquestioning defense of the existence of ghosts and visiting aliens and psi and other such anti-rational, anti-scientific claptrap do not do you proud in this respect. You would have been, and it appears you are still, a clear enemy of the Enlightenment. > [@lekatt](#): > > It is a knowing we are all equal under the Creator. How could one be enlightened without touching a Higher Intelligence? Impossible, I think. You should work on your imagination, lekatt. The idea of the equality of humans is generally incompatible with the notion of a God or Higher Intelligence. This is certainly true for Christianity, in which the unsaved are by no means equal to the saved, and unbelievers are by no means equal to believers. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/457 "2005-09-27T03:56:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You will note, I hope, that my post was in direct response to the poster going back, many hours and one full exchange of venom after I had posted, to include me in a charge of piling-on, when my post had been an attempt to clarify **John Mace** ’s post for the purpose of avoiding a pile-on. > > As for who has or has not been rude, I certainly made no accusation that **New Guy** was rude and I would not: my explicit comment was that everyone quit worrying about it in this thread. > > While that exchange was more than a bit of a hijack, no one broke any official rules and I am more interested in all posters getting on with this thread and their lives than I am in handing out penalty slips. Thank you for the explanation. I will comply. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/458 "2005-09-27T04:14:00Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Please note that I recommended tolerance and understanding for minority and majority alike. Wouldn’t you say that “Under God” was catering to the majority while trying to find compromise.? No, I would most assuredly would not. There was absolutely no attempt at any sort of compromise in the history of the “Under God” insertion; it was all about the majority exercising their power to pressure a Congress frightened of being called a communist into doing whatever they wanted. There were no plans to cite Jesus instead of God, so please don’t erect strawmen. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > There have been several proposed amendments that specifically wanted to name Jesus as Lord and were shot down. First, that’s not relevant to our Pledge debate. Second, even though they’re irrelevant, could you provide cites for that claim? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Wouldn’t you say compromise is a form of tolerance? Are you asking for tolerance from the majority or aquiescing? Yes, compromise is a form of tolerance, as long as it is a true compromise. The only valid, fair compromise between people of faith and those without is to remain silent and not push either faith or atheism on the other party. It is no compromise to side entirely with one side. Further, it has to be constitutional, and the UG phrase is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/459 "2005-09-27T04:18:53Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Ordinary dictionaries are not to be trusted when it comes to technical philosophic or religious terms. You should know that. Some ordinary dictionaries define the term “atheism” correctly, others don’t. > > Here’s a source for the correct definitions: there are at least two different definitions:[Definitions of Atheism from Atheism 101](http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_2/ts212n.html) > The former is not a belief and is not a faith and is not a religion (unlike the latter). > > Most atheists define themselves as (1), not (2). Those who define themselves using (2) are rare. appreciated although a bit redundant. **Dio** already pointed this very thing out to me. And I have already noted that most atheist fall into the “lack of belief” catagory. My point was that not all do, which I think is still correct. Any reason you found it nessecary to repeat this info? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/460 "2005-09-27T04:46:38Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > No, I would most assuredly would not. There was absolutely no attempt at any sort of compromise in the history of the “Under God” insertion; it was all about the majority exercising their power to pressure a Congress frightened of being called a communist into doing whatever they wanted. There were no plans to cite Jesus instead of God, so please don’t erect strawmen. I didn’t claim they were planning on inserting Jesus at that moment in history, although there was in fact a movement for a Jesus amendment during that time and it wouldn’t surprise me to discover that “Under God” in the pledge was a fall back position. Please don’t put words in my mouth and then call your words my strawmen. > [@](#): > > First, that’s not relevant to our Pledge debate. Second, even though they’re irrelevant, could you provide cites for that claim? Does that mean you’re not aware of them existing? > [@](#): > > Yes, compromise is a form of tolerance, as long as it is a true compromise. The only valid, fair compromise between people of faith and those without is to remain silent and not push either faith or atheism on the other party. It is no compromise to side entirely with one side. Further, it has to be constitutional, and the UG phrase is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause. History shows it is not so clear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=24)