Recently, I believe a court in California passed a ruling stating that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court overruled their decision. So, I’m curious, how do you other American dopers feel about it?
Personally, I’ve had to say it everyday from Kindergarted through my senior year in High School, and it never really bothered me. I never really thought about it, to be honest, it just became routine. We’d stand, act like we were saying it when the teacher was looking, then sit down. Personally, I don’t see what the big stink is about, and why so many people are feeling like they’re having certain ideals “shoved down their throats.”
The big focus is, of course, the statement “One nation, under God.” Of course, some nutjob out there has to start screaming “Separation of Church and State” in order to attack this, but come on, is this really an example of a “Nationally inforced relgion”? I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that what the whole statement in the Constitution is all about? The prevention of an established American Church headed up by the President and regulated by the government. That’s what I was always taught. Sure, the Pledge was written with a protestant mindset, but the phrase niether states which ideal of “God” it talks about, nor that by making this statemtent, one is pledging themselves to a set religion.
So, what are your views? Is it really something to get all pissed about and really gum up the court systems pushing for a re-write, or is this another example of people having too much free time on their hands?
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the decision. It may be struck down by the full Court of Appeals, or by the Supreme Court, but no one has overruled the decision for now.
Really, would it kill you to open a newspaper or visit a news web site?
No:
News flash: There are patriotic Americans who don’t believe in any ideal of God.
The OP concerned feelings on the pledge. For that I keep going back to Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. In that play Romeo wants to pledge his love for Juliet and Juliet stops him saying that if it takes a pledge to keep him feeling that way, his feeling must not be very strong for her in the first place.
I pretty much have the same feelings for the Pledge of Allegiance. If a person has to pledge his love for this country out loud every day, does he carry the loyalty in his heart? Or is he just paying lip service? And by making children say the dogeral of the Pledge every day of their academic careers, do we help them love and buy into the country any more than if we did not have them begin their day this way?
I am, for the record, a devout agnostic and avowed secular humanist.
I think that “which God” is not the only issue with regard to the First Amendment, but that establishment of a requirement to adhere to any, as opposed to no, religion, would violate it as well. I would therefore agree that asking children to pledge that their nation is subordinate to the will of any God [or god, for that matter] is in violation of the amendment.
HOWEVER – I think that cases such as these are fairly ridiculous, and serve merely to foster ill-will and belligerence between the religious and non-religious. I think that any agnostic/atheist is obliged to recognize that the substantial majority of people in this nation have some sort of religious beliefs, and a narrower majority take their theism quite seriously (regardless of how well they might actually adhere to the doctrines they profess). Recently there have been several court fights around the country over the display of 10 Commandments plaques in courthouses. Near where I live (Philadelphia), an intermediate court ruling against the plaque resulted in the plaque being covered with an elaborate aluminum shroud (at a taxpayer cost of thousands of dollars) pending appeal of the case. Stridently demanding that religious references be purged from public view just seems unneighborly and inflammatory to me, and treating religious material like some sort of toxic waste surely does little to promote understanding. Cases like these are the equivalent of running out and threatening to sue when if your neighbor sets up a lawn chair astride the property line, or keeping their kids’ ball when it bounces over.
There’s another level of silliness to this controversy – namely its treatment of the Pledge of Allegiance as if it was some sort of federal law. In fact, the recitation of the pledge is a policy implemented at the level of the states or local school boards. The text of the Pledge was affirmed by Congressional vote, but so are things like congratulations to jr. high soccer teams every day Congress is in session. There’s no reason that any teacher in the country couldn’t lead his or her students this morning in a Pledge of Allegiance that omitted the “under God” reference, or that added any language that the teacher saw fit. Any different language that referenced religion in some fashion would presumably have to be litigated as a separate case. The only reason for this particular court fight to grind on is that both sides think there is political hay to be made from it.
The contention that this ruling will somehow also ban “America the Beautiful” from being sung in schools also seems like an absurd assumption, as merely singing a song hardly has the same overtones of “government establishment” that recitation of a pledge does. I recall songs we sang in grade school that referenced Bonnie Prince Charlie. Did singing them mean I was being forced to declare myself a Jacobite?
With all the significant school church/state issues that there are to address (teaching evolution/“intelligent design” comes to mind), this seems like an enormous waste of effort. There may be some truth to the political philosophy that any accommodation is a sign of weakness, but I believe that picking trivial fights serves merely to hinder respectful coexistence, as well as to help rally militants to cause more trouble down the line.
Umbriel, I too consider myself a devout agnostic and avowed secular humanist. And I generally agree with all of your points, up to your stated sense of how trivial the matter is. While you give the plaintiffs a “thumbs down” I give them a “thumbs up”. My feeling is that while I personally may find the issue trivial and go through life in America surrounded by references in the predominant culture espousing Christian viewpoints, our pluralistic society contains many who come from backgrounds that are not Christian (or pluralistic). These citizens can and may find the issue to be less trivial. In defense of the rights of these citizens I agree that we should eliminate the “under God” language from our pledge of allegiance.
History, both long past (Catholic Church in Europe) and recent (Muslim/Taliban) give us ample reason to desire a separation of church and state. While this case may seem like tinkering around the edges I say tinker away, lads!
My opinion is if you don’t want to say the pledge of allegiance, then don’t say it. If you don’t like the “Under God” part then skip it. No one can be forced to say it. But there are many people who want to say it, so why take that away from them?
It’s completely frivolous so that someone could get their 15 minutes of fame. Too much time on their hands and not enough brains to find something useful to do about it. Either that or what he was really going for was to get rid of pledge altogether using this angle. If he’s unhappy with the government, then he should take his kids out of the government’s school.
I’ve seen people go through 12 years of catholic school and come out an athiest, and seen non-religious people ‘find god’ and do a 180. I’m sure that saying “under god” once a day for a couple of years is what did it too… :rolleyes:
Thanks for the clarrification. That particular info I didn’t know full well, but didn’t really seem critical to the point on my OP. But thanks for clarrifying it anyway.
Now, although I didn’t know about the courts and whatnot, I am fully aware of this. My question is, for these people, is it really that big a deal? And if so, why?
I was raised Catholic, and although I don’t really follow that anymore, it may have some influence on me that I don’t find it offensive. I just see the Pledge as something that’s been written and said for so long, it’s become just another stapple in our history. Kind of like “In God we trust” on our money (something people have also been trying to have taken away for years). I don’t find either statement a means to force me back to Church, and I honestly don’t think of them much at all. So the fact some people get so irate and angry and offended by these things that no one really could care less about makes me curious. Ask any grade schooler which they find more annoying about saying the Pledge of allegience: It’s reference to God, or the fact they have to stand up for the thirty seconds it takes to say it. Everyone I know was always bothered by the latter.
There’s a distinction between schoolchildren and adults. While you may feel confident enough to stand (or sit) silently at a ballgame while others are saying the Pledge or singing any of a variety of patriotic songs that refer to God, the situation of a child at school is different. You are anonymous; he/she is not. You are there voluntarily; he/she is not. You are an adult and should have the confidence and self-direction that enables you to choose how to express yourself (even in opposition to a crowd); he/she may not. It’s just harder to be a kid and go against what every other kid is doing. The choice is either to “fit in” and go along with saying something you don’t believe in, or to “stand out” and be conspicuously silent.
I’m just listing this as a factor that doesn’t seem to have been included in a lot of the comments above (suggesting that the pledge should be allowed, while atheists/polytheists should just opt out). I haven’t read the court’s opinion yet, so I won’t take a final stand yet, but I think the argument that’s being made is far from “ridiculous” or just for attention/“too much time” on the hands of the plaintiffs.
On another note–
Was this an intentional reference to the Tinker case? Just checking, because it sort of relates (student expression in public schools). Pulling kids out of public schools is not always an option, of course, for financial reasons. You can’t just tell minority-viewpoint kids (whether they’re opposed to the Vietnam war, or atheists, or whatever) to love it or leave it. When the state government takes upon itself the running of public schools, the burden is on it to provide a safe and open forum. When the local government forbids political protest, or enters the gray area of establishing religion (as it may be doing in this Pledge case), we need to take the plaintiffs a lot more seriously.
I’d have to agree.
And since it was changed to add “under God” in 1954 during the Cold War to differentiate us from the godless communists, we are not really changing it, but returning it to its original form.
Does a child not have every right to be exposed to all different view points? By taking out Every reference to God, we are not giving our children a full range of options. It is my opinion that a child has every right to choose how he or she believes and a parent should only guide them. If the child goes a different way then the parent thats fine.
Besides, In school, part of the science lessons tell us that we come from monkeys which alot of people don’t agree with. And the last time I checked they are still looking for that missing link. Does that mean that it should not be tought, or said in schools? I don’t think so. Just because you don’t agree with something, or it makes you a little uncomfy doesn’t mean everyone should have to get rid of it. This ain’t Burger King, you don’t get it your way.
What are we teaching our children when we do this? Their is going to be a time in your life when you come across something that you don’t like and their will be nothing you can do about it. What would someone do when they are all grown up and this is the first time they have had to deal and mommy and daddy aren’t there to help them?
I agree with the court, the “under God” stuff is not appropriate and is offensive to people (like me) who believe differently. It’s too bad there’s such a big fuss about it, but instead of blaming the guy who brought the lawsuit, you should blame all the religious fanatics who think the world is going to come to an end if the Pledge of Allegiance gets changed.
Religion does not belong in public schools, FunLvnCriminal. Period. Yes, it makes me “uncomfy”. I might be in the minority, but I deserve an opportunity to attend school and not have to worry about being bombarded with messages that I don’t agree with and shouldn’t have to deal with in a secular school. I have enough problems with those messages in the rest of my life.
I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this ruling yet. The student atheist communities I’m in contact with are rejoicing. A large number hold beliefs that the pledge should not be said for other reasons besides religion (I fall into this category, more or less). I’m glad the situation has been brought into the public eye. Maybe I won’t feel quite as alone now, maybe other students will quit calling me a communist. But I worry about the potential consequences here with all of the magically appearing superpatriots.
The people phoning in the local radio stations here are rabid, screaming fanatics - they have grabbed onto this issue as if it were the last vestige of Mom, America and Apple Pie.
As Fibonacci pointed out, “under God” was not even put into the pledge prior to 1954, and the good 'ol USA had even won a couple a wars by then without the phrase.
I personally think the whole argument is stupid - there are so many more important things to worry about.
But if proving your flagpole is bigger than mine is that important, fine - leave the phrase in and let kids know (as if any of them care anyway) that they don’t HAVE to say “under God” if they choose not to.
I don’t understand what you mean here, could you elaborate? It seems to me that the phrase “under God” in this country is strongly Judeo/Christian/Islamic-centric. If someone really wants to expose children to all options, shouldn’t we have a rotating series of pledges honoring God, Vishnu, Buddha, Noone and Og?
I think we should stop leading all those pigeons to poor Queen Fragg, that’s what I think. The last thing the woman needs is a bunch of flying rats on her hands when she’s already in a mighty state of hysteria.
Oh, you mean the grown-up version? Oh, well…
I don’t like the PoA in any form. Kids should be taught to think critically in school, not recite formulae when they may or may not understand the words, and almost certainly don’t understand the full implications. Moreover, I don’t think anybody owes allegiance to a country by virtue of having been born there; it’s a choice that means nothing unless it’s made voluntarily. That said, I don’t know whether I’m more grateful for the court decision or more saddened that many of our elected officials, including the President, have already condemned it. It’s disheartening to be told, once again, that we nonreligious folks don’t really count as Americans. I think the decision should stand, but probably won’t.
That’s all. Not up in arms, not really surprised, just sad.
By that argument, why don’t we have the government take a religious-neutral position (by deleting the phrase “under God” from the federal flag code), and letting all the devout believers insert whatever dietiy they want to bless the country with? Nobody’s stopping them from doing that.
If you like the “under God” part, then add it. Just don’t make the government encourage everyone else to.
What a pleasure to come here and find thoughtful minds, as opposed to those folks calling up talk shows and all those senatorial and representative sheep lining up to shout their disbelief of this “stupid” and “ridiculous” ruling on the part of a court which has apparently read the Constitution (the sheep have clearly not done so). It’s nice to find people who understand that the issue is not one of which god but one of no god and not one of choices but of not browbeating small children, and who remember that the pledge didn’t always have god in it.
Now if we could just get some money without having to trust god.