“Yes, I’d like a Big Mac, Diet Coke and a Pledge of Allegiance, hold the God.”
“Would you like to SuperGod that order? If we don’t ask, you don’t pay!”
Under what circumstances do you typically say the pledge at home?
Don’t you think it’s interesting that the people in the 1950s who added the phrase “under God” were apparently not confident enough that the words “with liberty and justice for all” would distinguish the US from the USSR?
Maybe they took a look at the situation of African Americans, decided that the “liberty and justice for all” bit might not quite cut the mustard as a description of America, and figured that the only way to make the distinction with Russia was by using religion.
This thread just horrifies me.
Why are some relgious people so unsure of their faith that they must insist that the government back them up on it?
How can pledging one’s loyalty to one’s country be a godless act to a person of faith?
To insist that your government step in and codify the linguistic technicalities of your faith is the CREATE a Big Brother government: it’s utterly, utterly antithetical to the concept of democracy.
Why do you need a Big Brother? further, why does your religious timidity require the government to be MY Big Brother?
OK, if “under God” had never been included in the Pledge & it was just proposed, I’d see it as unnecessary. However, it’s been there all my life. I think the argument against its Constitutionality is erroneous. Plus, the organizations & people championing its removal are the sort I disagree with politically in most other areas.
Essentially, this country was founded on a ceremonial Theism, in both the Declaration and the Constitution (which contains two religious-cultural references, slight tho they be). One can be an American & a patriot & still be an atheist but America was founded within a Western Theistic cultural context & I oppose any attempts to “cleanse” that.
This is not an argument. To be more specific, it is not a valid or substantial argument. There are/were many things that were around for lifetimes, but were horrible, dispicable or even just merely questionable things. Longevity does not equate with “correct”.
Again, incorrect. The religious-cultural references were both in the Declaration, which is not a legal document, and holds no influence over the United States of America. The only references to religion in the Constitution (the 1st Amendment and the religious test clause in Article VI) are further attempts to separate anything remotely religous from public affairs.
But if you consider the “under God” clause of the Pledge, or any public sector acknowledgements of Deity as horrible or despicable, I absolutely disagree-
I may acknowledge them being questionable but still not inappropriate.
No, I’m not incorrect. There are indeed two subtle religio-cultural references in the Constitution which indicate its presence in a Christianized culture.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 and Article VII. See what I mean?
Of course, I totally disagree that the First Amendment had any such intent (I’ll concede that about the religious test clause, tho it did not strike down those imposed by the states). The First Amendment was designed both to protect the free exercise of religion and to prevent the national government from establishing an official religion/church. Many of the Founders & Framers did indeed speak against the U.S. being an officially Christian country, just as many- and indeed often the same men spoke of the U.S. as being under God & the culture as being immersed in Biblical teaching.
That is not the point he was making. He was making the point that something being the status quo for your lifetime is irrelevant, because the status quo is morally neutral: good things are status quo, bad things are status quo, so those things need to be judged on their own merit, not merely because they are status quo. Status quo has no legal or moral meaning: something can be status quo because of a biological imperative, or simply because of cultural stagnation. So this "OK, if “under God” had never been included in the Pledge & it was just proposed, I’d see it as unnecessary. However, it’s been there all my life. "–is not a valid argument.
An aside, FriarTed, I keep checking this thread to see how you’d react to my post above. I’d honestly like you try to explain why it’s necessary for YOUR religion to have a government impose it on another person.
Never said anything of the sort. I just said an appeal to longevity is a terrible argument.
What are you talking about?
Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 states the following:
“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
Nothing there.
Article VII simply uses the convention of stating “in the Year of our Lord”. Just as people for centuries have used “AD” or “anno domino” (meaning “in the year of our Lord”). You have NO argument here, try something substantial.
I’ve seen this argument twice in the last 24 hours, and it still isn’t correct. The 1st Amendment doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law establishing a religion”, it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Please learn the difference between the two.
Culture and government are two, entirely different things.
Munch- Yipes, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 tho you will dismiss it as you did with Article VII as being insignificant to the debate.
Regarding the rest, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
lissener- You asked “why it’s necessary for YOUR religion to have a government impose it on another person”?
Actually, it’s not. In my religion, God is a generic title which can apply to any deity in any religion or even to someone’s highest value. My religion prays in the name of YHWH God and His Son/Incarnation Jesus Christ. If I were King of America G this is what I would have taught in public schools- the original text of the Pledge, the revised “under God” text of the Pledge, and the freedom to say or not say the Pledge with or without the “under God” clause. I would not enforce the Pledge in either form. Michael Newdow’s attempt to censor the words “under God” (and any public sector acknowledgement of God) is what smacks of Big-Brotherism.
Btw, why is it that the vast majority of liberal Democrats in Congress even thought the 9th District Court ruling against “under God” was outrageous?
I thought it was totally great to see Hillary Clinton among the “under God” Pledgers, Has she joined the Vast Right-Wing Christian Big Brother Conspiracy?
If you agree that it’s questionable, then why do you think it’s appropriate? If you acknowledge that it is at least possible that governement acknowledgements of god might be construed as a violation of seperation of church and state, then why not err on the side of caution and do away with them?
Nobody is saying that the acknowledgements are horrible and despicable, its just that they’re inappropriate in a secular society. They are divisive and exlusionary. If they were removed, then nobody is excluded. So why not remove them?
Article I, Section 2, Clause 2:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Not sure what you’re getting at here.
Article VII:
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, <signatures follow>(emphasis mine)
That’s just the way dates are represented. “Year of our Lord” has fallen out of favor, with A.D. taking over. A.D. means year of our lord in latin. It’s not a religious invocation. The whole hours/minutes/seconds scheme we use was invented by the Babylonians. Are we invoking Babylonian gods by using it?
Your comment does illustrate a point that the pro-pledge crowd seems to have missed. Yes, christianity is a big part of American history and western culture in general. Nobody is trying to delete any and all references to it. All we’re asking is that governement entities not make religious invocations as they are inappropriate in a secular society.
What, “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)”? You’re equating “Sunday” with “religion”? That seems a bit of a stretch. But if you want to make it a significant portion of the debate, then try making an actual argument for it. Tell me how it fits into an argument of “the Constitution affirms and adopts a religious doctrine or specific set of values”. Until then, you’re just making noise.
You disagree that culture and religion are different things?
Because it would have been political suicide to vote against that bill. Nothing more, nothing less.
Nobody is attempting to censor anything. The only issue is that a secular government should not be making religious invocations of any sort, even vague Deistic references. How you could construe that as “Big-Brotherism” is beyond me.
The fact that we have schoolchildren reciting a loyalty oath every morning is what smacks of Big-Brotherism.
Huh? Since when is this a liberal issue? I’m a conservative and I don’t think schoolchildren should say the pledge at all, much less with “under God” in it.
I hate to resort to a cliche, but freedom OF religion included freedom FROM religion. Separation means separation. Your personal belief in a god, which differs from mine (and others’) personal belief that there is no god, does not deserve preferential treatment by OUR shared government. To insist that your beliefs be backed by OUR government is antiAmerican in its BigBrotherness. Newdow pointing out the unconstitutional nature of unseparated church/state situations, like the Pledge, and bringing it to the Supreme Court for their decision, is about as far from BigBrotherness as you can get.
Nothing like an election year. It’s a safe issue, like a flagburning amendment. They know it’ll never happen, so they can look good to their smallminded constituent by pretending to back it.
The founding fathers ideas’ of good and proper government was not so much that “all men are ceremonial thesists” but that that that “all men are created equal” under the law. And as a bonus the First Amendment reflected that they didn’t much care for a government that played favorites and injected itself into people’s beliefs.
But that’s precisely the kind of intrusion that “under god” represents because it suggests a government-approved default or presumed belief and presents it to school children as normal. Hey, little kid, your government says the way to be a good American is to say “under god.”
Kinda creepy that.
Before the Red-baiting days of the 1950s, kids recited a neutral pledge. No mention of Satan in there to offend Christians. No mention of God to offend atheists, etc, etc. No one groups’ beliefs were exalted at the expense of another’s. The government played fair and kept its nose out of the people’s religious business.
But that changed. A subset of Americans gained a favored position and over time a ferocious sense of entitlement – hence the present debate now that that has been challeneged.
A matter of perspective, I guess. I see the return to the earlier, neutral pledge as a reaffirmation of the ideals of our Constitution: equality under the law, freedom of religion. Conversely, the original addition of “under god” seems like a fairly obvious (and successful) attempt to exalt the religious values of a subset of Americans at the expense of the civic values specifically granted out in the Bill of Rights.
So what is wrong with my proposal?
teach the kids the Pledge in both forms, with or without “under God”, and that they are free to say either version or not say it at all.
At home as a parent? Nothing. As a teacher? Lots.
You’re correct that school administrators wouldn’t have the right to reprimand your children if they recite the “under God” version at public school. However, if doing so disrupts class, the administration has every right to have them desist, and to punish them if they don’t.
You still haven’t answered my question: why is in necessary for your personal religion to be part of government institutions, like public schools?
Isn’t it a parent’s choice, what to teach their children about religion? Don’t you want that to be your choice?
Why is it OK for you to remove that choice from parents who believe differently from you?
Why is it OK with you for a stranger, paid by the government, to teach other parents’ children about such a personal thing as faith?
Here’s a better idea – have the schools teach the kids the pledge without “Under God.” Let the parents teach their kids any version of the pledge they dang well want to. Then let the students say whatever version they want, as long as they’re not disrupting the other kids.
(Though my superior solution 
would be to remove “Under God” and replace it with a three-second pause. Then everyone can individually pledge to whatever deity, philosophy, or Great Old Ones they want to)
I did answer your Q- you just don’t like my answer.
My personal religion is Christianity. God is a generic word. My personal religion would center on YHWH/Jesus or maybe “Father God” or “Eternal Father”.
It is the parents choice. My proposal to let students know their choices about saying the Pledge throws the issue open. Why does that threaten you?
I kinda like Rjung’s proposal. It’s not my favorite but I wouldn’t get too riled up about it. Not as much as the ACLU would (“A MOMENT OF SILENCE?!?!?! Horrors!”)
Then why is it capitalized?