This doesn’t really have any bearing on this debate, but I thought I’d mention some of the details of the Supreme Court case that decided that nobody could be required to say the pledge. It was brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses on First Amendment grounds. I don’t remember all the facts off hand but it’s something like their religion forbids allegance to anything but God. So forcing their kids to say the pledge was forcing them to go against their religious doctrine.
It’s not the words, it’s the principle. And it’s not just any principle, it’s one of the principles that this country was founded on. Why can’t you understand that?
I “added Jews” to the illustration only to make a point that if you include certain groups and exclude others, you can always put together a majority of the world’s religions. But such groups may have very little in common and have no reason to be combined other than to make a list.
No matter how much you or your cited Muslims may want to be included as part of Christianity, that is not how most of the world sees it. Granted, there are similarities (both have an Abrahamic heritage and a middle-eastern geographic source) but there are vast differences (Islam recognizes Christ as only a prophet, Christianity worships him as a true god). Calling Islam a Christian religion doesn’t make it such.
I grew up in a protestant environment. I can feel comfortable in almost any protestant church; I know the lingo, I have sung the hymns, I have talked the talk and walked the walk. Even a Catholic service wouldn’t be a stretch. But I’m sure I would be totally lost if invited to a Muslim worship service, even if in English; almost nothing would seem familiar. These religions are worlds apart.
No matter how you may define “god” or in what language, if you examine the historical record, you will find that the insertion of the phase in the Pledge originated, not in the Islamic or Hindu community, but the Christian (actually Catholic, K of C) one. I haven’t been able to find any reference from that time that intended it to encompass a greater group than the Judeo-Christian one; if you have such a reference, I would like to see it (seriously).
This has been addressed by me and others in earlier posts. I have heard nothing new to change my opinion, just some noisy posters. In brief, the current Pledge is a government-sponsored oath. It includes a reference to a particular religious concept not universal. It represents the official government position. It is encouraged to be recited daily by impressionable children precisely to indoctrinate them in the party line and effectively makes anyone who objects into second-class citizens. It is a classic case of the tyranny of the majority. And it’s un-American.
You need to pledge allegiance to reading comprehension.
Who the bloody hell said that Islam wants to be considered Christian, other than you? ‘Judeo-Christian’ does not refer to only Christians. It refers to all ‘Abrahamic’ faiths. And when you add those up, it’s over 50% of the worlds population, negating your earlier stupid comment.
So, no more ‘specific religion’, huh?
How the living hell does not saying the PoA turn you into a second-class citizen? Specifics, please. No vague hand-waving hysterics.
No. ‘Tyranny of the majority’ would be the attacks on religious folks during the strict-atheist period of the Soviet Union. Putting an optional phrase in an optional oath does not constitute ‘tyranny’ by any reasonable standard.
Heh, another one. That makes what, 4 or 5 leftists on this board crying ‘un-American’. Well, I’ll grant that you are an expert on things ‘un-American’, even if you don’t have a clue about religion.
I honestly don’t understand why people don’t get this.
People who want the ‘under God’ to stay say “it’s just a couple of words, you don’t have to say them if you don’t want to”.
What if the Pledge had “one Nation, under Zeus”, or “one Nation, under Allah”, or “one Nation, under the Devil”, etc?
Would you then be of the opinion that “it’s just a couple of words, you don’t have to say them if you don’t want to”? Or would you try to change the Pledge?
You may reply “but the majority of Americans worship God, not Zeus or the Devil”. But, as noted above, if the Pledge mentioned a deity you don’t worship, **you ** would find that objectionable. So, the “it’s just a couple of words” argument fails, no matter how many Americans actually worship the deity mentioned in the Pledge.
Now, if we agree that it’s not “just a couple of words”, we can start debating the real issues, such as whether it is OK to piss off or alienate a minority of Americans, in order to satisfy some desires of the majority.
And not just piss them off or alienate them on any random issue, but on the issue of religion, which is important to people, and which the government should stay out of.
Well, here’s a conservative saying that the pledge is un-American. But this is not a liberal v. conservative issue. And even though liberals can be incredible ignorant and intolerant at times, I don’t think it’s fair for you to imply that they’re all un-American.
But the PoA already mentions a deity that I don’t worship. I’m an atheist; The very concept of ‘religion’ is a bit silly to me. But I recognize that this is not the case with the vast majority of Americans. And the ‘it’s just a couple of words’ argument holds much water. If those couple of words cause you such massive torment, don’t say them. It’s so amazingly simple, yet so many would rather piss, moan, and go to the USC over it. Amazing.
Max, you need to keep up on current events. There has been a bit of a spate of ‘un-American’ calling by resident leftists lately. Extremely ironic, given the source, but there you have it.
Let me give an extreme example, just to test what you’re claiming.
If the Pledge had “one nation, under God, let’s go kill everyone in the Middle East, and poison all the people in Africa, …”
Would you still think those are “just words”, or that it is highly unbecoming of the State to ‘ask’ students to pledge such a thing, even if you weren’t forced to say it?
You might shout “strawman”, but I’m just pointing out that “it’s just a couple of words” does not hold. It matters *what words * those “couple of words” are.
And to many people, it is highly unbecoming of the State to ‘ask’ students to pledge “under God”.
Actually, I might shout “Pointless!”. Golly, what if the PoA told students to rob liquor stores and stick silverware in electric outlets!?
But alas, it does not. “…under God” are the words in question. Given the religious makeup of this country, it is unreasonable to expect those 2 words to be “…under Amon-Ra” or some other deity. And those two words are not “…kill puppies!” or some other depravity, they are …under God, and hence, just words.
So those few should impose their will on the many? How about those few just don’t say those two words, and recognize that life does indeed go on?
So, if it’s “kill puppies”, it’s not just words, but if it’s “under God”, it’s just words.
i.e. if it’s something that bothers you, it’s not just words. If it’s something that doesn’t bother you, it’s just words.
Let’s be consistent: it’s never “just words”. It matters what those words are.
They are not imposing their will. They are trying to impose the general principle that the state should have nothing to do with religion.
Given the sorry state of many countries where religion and the state mix, I would say this is a pretty good principle.
In general, life does indeed go on. But it also “did go on” when slavery was in place. I’m not saying ‘under God’ is equivalent to slavery, but just that, just because ‘life goes on’, is no reason not to fix problems in society.
Well, play strawman all you want. You’ll have an easier time of making a point when you focus on the actual words in question.
If you didn’t mean to equate ‘under God’ to slavery, then why bring it up? Regardless, to see an optional ‘under God’ in an optional PoA as a ‘problem in society’ is absurd. It may be a problem in the minds of a relatively few people with much time on their hands, but that doesn’t make it a societal issue.
Note that this is from CAIN, Council on American-Islamic Relations, hardly a neutral body, and it is a proposal, not a statement of fact.
I find it hard to include Islam in my definition of Judeo-Christianity. But we have several highly-regarded religious scholars on SDMB and it would be nice to hear from some of them, since, as Brutus so politely puts it, I “don’t have a clue about religion.” Zev, you out there?
Let me see if I can sum up Brutus’ points as I understand them.[ol][li]The word “God” is used in the Pledge because the dominant USA religion is Christian, which worships a deity called “God” rather than “Krishna.” And the dominant USA language is English, which uses “God” to describe that deity rather than “Allah.”[*]The government does not rigidly require recitation of the entire Pledge, and those who object to parts of it may abstain from saying them.[/ol]Am I close?[/li]
Who you callin’ a leftist? Hunh? Them’s fightin’ words, Son.
See, I knew you’d bring up the strawman attack <insert psychic icon here>
Let me clarify for the 10th time. Maybe we’ll make some progress this time.
I was making the point that words in the Pledge are not ‘just words’, and that it matters what the words are. You seem to object to “kill puppies” in the Pledge, but you consider “under God” as “just words”. How can you not see how illogical this is?
I am not saying that “kill puppies” and “under God” are equally bad. I am saying that if we push the words in the Plesdge to extremes they cease to be “just words” for you, which proves that the only reason “under God” are “just words” for you is that you don’t object to them. But that’s just you.
Calling the words in the Pledge “just words” based on your sense of what is objectionable is illogical because that means everyone will have a different set of what things qualify as “just words”. The only logical conclusion is that we cannot treat them as “just words”
In the next post from you I expect: "Yes, you were right, now I see it. I was wrong in thinking that ‘under God’ are ‘just words’ "
(probability of this happening 10^-1000)
Yes, you were right, now I see it. I was wrong in thinking that ‘under God’ are ‘just words’. Furthermore, though it is only in this late hour that I see the error of my ways, I will dedicate my life to the advancement of glorious scientific state Socialiam.
Come now, comrade Polerius. Set aside your teaching of the proper dialectic, and join me in a rousing chorus of Internationale’
Debout! les damnés de la terre!
Debout! les forçats de la faim!
…
