Pledge of Allegiance - Under or not Under God [Archive]

PunkRawker677

28th June 2002, 07:06

Alright, i'd like to hear the perspective of even the capitalist's and right wingers on this board concerning this matter. I'd rather not turn this into a religous debate, so just drop it..

Is it right to put it the words Under God into the pledge of allegiance.
Is this instilling religous belief into school children?
Is this violating the seperation of Church and State?
Is this really necessary, considering the original pledge did not have those two words that seem to drive everyone nuts?

I personally see this as a petty matter and something that doesnt deserve as much attention as its getting. There are more important matters at hand. Being an athiest, i could care less wether the pledge has under god in it or not.

What do you think?

Pythagoras

28th June 2002, 14:06

>>Alright, i'd like to hear the perspective of even the capitalist's and right wingers on this board concerning this matter. I'd rather not turn this into a religous debate, so just drop it..

Ok.

>>Is it right to put it the words Under God into the pledge of allegiance.

Yes it is right to put the words Under God in the Pledge of Allegience. The overwhelming majortiy of Americans want to keep it that way.

>>Is this instilling religous belief into school children?

No, because no one is forcing children to say the Pledge or say specifically those words.

>>Is this violating the seperation of Church and State?

No, because those two words do not establish a state religion. God could be referring to anything.

>>Is this really necessary, considering the original pledge did not have those two words that seem to drive everyone nuts?

Actually I do not think it is driving everyone nuts. A resolution just passed the Senate condemning the decision 99-0. A resolution passed the House also condeming the decision in 416-3. There is a solid majority of the public behind it. Only a few intolerent bigotted politically correct fascists want to impose their viewpoint on society. I am an atheist btw. The stupid two words Under God do not bother me in anyway whatsoever.

>>I personally see this as a petty matter and something that doesnt deserve as much attention as its getting. There are more important matters at hand. Being an athiest, i could care less wether the pledge has under god in it or not. What do you think?

Yes I agree. That is pretty much my opinion.

Michael De Panama

28th June 2002, 18:35

"God" could mean anything? This I didn't know. See, I've always thought the name had a clear-cut definition. I guess the rest of the pledge could mean anything too. "The United States of America" could be referring to Yugoslavia or something.

Perhaps it isn't going out of its way to promote one particular religion, but it is promoting monotheism, and this simply isn't an appropriate responsibility for a government and an official pledge of alliegance.

In eighth grade I was forced to recite the pledge in public school every day. My teacher just asked me, "Is there any religious reason why you aren't reciting the pledge?". I said, "No, I just don't have alliegance to this country". She forced me to do it anyway, telling me, "Well, you'd better recite the pledge loudly then, or I'm kicking you out of my classroom!! You should be THANKFULL for your FREEDOM!!" Oh, the irony. I actually got In-School-Suspension a few times for not saying it. I'm still pissed off at myself for giving in even slightly. I should have just said, "Fine, kick me out. You're an English teacher. If this is your definition of 'freedom', then I don't want to hear another word of your lessons, because you obviously don't understand the English language."

This, of course, was totally illegal, and I could have juiced the school system out of so much money if my mother didn't support the teacher's decision on every little thing and took legal action.

But, yeah, I think the "Under God" is wrong, and gives right-wing Christians the idea that this country was formed around one religious ideology, and not under the desire for religious freedom.

(Edited by Michael De Panama at 6:36 pm on June 28, 2002)

Capitalist Imperial

28th June 2002, 18:51

I'm not really religious, but I think the pledge is OK, the courts are splitting hairs on this one.

Capitalist Imperial

28th June 2002, 18:54

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 6:35 pm on June 28, 2002
"God" could mean anything? This I didn't know. See, I've always thought the name had a clear-cut definition. I guess the rest of the pledge could mean anything too. "The United States of America" could be referring to Yugoslavia or something.

Actually, I don't think it is a clear cut definition. God is an english word that can represent not only the christian lord but any deity from any number of belief systems.

Xvall

28th June 2002, 18:56

I know what you mean Panama! I got detention! Then I got beat up by some other kids for not being patriotic!

Lardlad95

28th June 2002, 19:07

Micheal De PAnama I feel so sorry for you, I wasn't forced to recite it, I just had to write why I wouldn't. Mainly in my statement I bad motuhed the US, Capitalism, and Bush.

bUt they should leave the pledge as it is just not force the children to say it

red senator

28th June 2002, 19:12

This guy at my school got in-school-suspension for not having his hand directly over the right side of his chest (he had in the center of his chest, which is, in fact, where the heart is), so pulling some shit like not saying the pledge or making a smart-ass remark about it would reallyt get you in some shit.

I myself just stand up and say the parts I want to (I leave out the shit like "under god").

Michael De Panama

28th June 2002, 19:32

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 6:54 pm on June 28, 2002
Actually, I don't think it is a clear cut definition. God is an english word that can represent not only the christian lord but any deity from any number of belief systems.

No no no, "god" is an english word, "God" is a very specific name. If the pledge said, "Under a god", then you would be correct, and the meaning would be more subjective. But the pledge is specifically referring to THE "God".

Red Senator, you've definitely got me beat on that one. Where do you live? Utah?

(Edited by Michael De Panama at 7:33 pm on June 28, 2002)

Capitalist Imperial

28th June 2002, 19:33

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 7:07 pm on June 28, 2002
Micheal De PAnama I feel so sorry for you, I wasn't forced to recite it, I just had to write why I wouldn't. Mainly in my statement I bad motuhed the US, Capitalism, and Bush.

bUt they should leave the pledge as it is just not force the children to say it

I don't think you should have to recite the pledge if you don't want too, but why are you people here if yo hate it so much? It just seems so hypocritcal! Do you paln to leave the US when you are able? Be honest!!

Capitalist Imperial

28th June 2002, 19:36

Michael De Panama

28th June 2002, 19:39

Because this is the best country in the world. That's what you wanted to hear, right? It's true. Of course, this is at the expense of the rest of the world, which is why I choose not to give it my alleigance. That's capitalism for you.

guerrillaradio

28th June 2002, 19:44

CI - your understanding is somewhat basic. Just cos one does not like something, does not mean they have to leave it. Considering the fact that the vast majority of people on this board are hoping to instigate some kinda political or at least social change in their lifetimes, it would be more useful and practical of them to remain in the USA.

God encompasses many terms, and Dermy and I agreed in Theory a while back (now that was a good debate). However, it seems unjust that the assumption is made that to be American is to be theist. Maybe I'm missing something, not being an expert on the pledge or consitutions or nothing...

Capitalist Imperial

28th June 2002, 19:45

An honest answer, I appreciate it

Michael De Panama

28th June 2002, 19:54

If there's a problem, do you run away from it cowardly or do you try to fix it? It all depends on the kind of person you are.

guerrillaradio

28th June 2002, 20:01

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 7:54 pm on June 28, 2002
If there's a problem, do you run away from it cowardly or do you try to fix it? It all depends on the kind of person you are.

Hmm...be careful. That could be construed as anti-immigrationist...

Michael De Panama

28th June 2002, 20:08

Well, I am an immigrant.

guerrillaradio

28th June 2002, 20:12

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 8:08 pm on June 28, 2002
Well, I am an immigrant.

Hypocrite ;)

Capitalist Imperial

28th June 2002, 20:19

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 7:54 pm on June 28, 2002
If there's a problem, do you run away from it cowardly or do you try to fix it? It all depends on the kind of person you are.

Well, it depends on who percieves it as a problem. This forum represents a small, misguided few. Most Americans are for the most part happy with the system. We saw a problem 200 years ago with an oppressive government that controls all facets of ones life without representation of the individual or opportunity to rise from meager beginnings into success, and we fixed it. If your political ideology differs, there are a few 1st world nations with socialist regimes. The USA is not a problem, so it needs no fixing.

Power1

28th June 2002, 23:45

If you don't like the pledge don't say it but don't criticise people who do. You people may be working for change in America and Europe but what chance do you have?

Everybody hates commies in Europe and USA and communism has been defeated they get no votes in elections. We just need to rid ourselves of communism in China, Cuba and North Korea and then we will finally be free of the menace.

If there is going to be change it will be in the shape of the far right, look at how well they are doing in Europe. If they get in communism is double dead as it will be banned by the government.

Nickademus

29th June 2002, 01:27

i have a couple of things to say (surprise surprise surprise).

first of all, michael de panama is correct....."under god", "under the god" and "under a god" all have different meanings. and what about people who believe in a god AND a goddess (such as myself -- but wait i'm not american). There is a definate assumption in the "under God" and it is a definate reference to the christian god.....don't agree with me, do your history.

second, power1, the chance we have is in making the movement group. and judging by the number of people approximately my age and just under at the g8 protests just yesterday, i say the movement is growing...strongly. i doubt the final answer will come about in my lifetime, but i can help make the movement stronger and i can be a part of the revolution of the mind

and many people HAVE to say the pledge of allegiance. (i could be wrong but i think you have to say it and know it to become an american citizen if you're not born there). its akin to being forced to swear on the bible in a courtroom...or should that still be the case?

I think the court made a good ruling, However, there is no way the USSC will uphold the decision. i wish they would, but they wont

Pythagoras

29th June 2002, 02:31

>>"God" could mean anything? This I didn't know. See, I've always thought the name had a clear-cut definition.

Yes God could be referring to anything. Of course if Jesus Christ was mentioned here it would be different.

>> guess the rest of the pledge could mean anything too. "The United States of America" could be referring to Yugoslavia or something.

This is irrelevant.

>>Perhaps it isn't going out of its way to promote one particular religion, but it is promoting monotheism, and this simply isn't an appropriate responsibility for a government and an official pledge of alliegance.

Sorry I disagree. Its not like you even have to say the phrase if you choose not too.

>>In eighth grade I was forced to recite the pledge in public school every day.

Personally I think children should say the pledge.

>> My teacher just asked me, "Is there any religious reason why you aren't reciting the pledge?". I said, "No, I just don't have alliegance to this country".

Go figure.

>>She forced me to do it anyway, telling me, "Well, you'd better recite the pledge loudly then, or I'm kicking you out of my classroom!! You should be THANKFULL for your FREEDOM!!" Oh, the irony. I actually got In-School-Suspension a few times for not saying it. I'm still pissed off at myself for giving in even slightly. I should have just said, "Fine, kick me out. You're an English teacher. If this is your definition of 'freedom', then I don't want to hear another word of your lessons, because you obviously don't understand the English language."

Hey at least you were not sent to the gulag or shot dead!

>> This, of course, was totally illegal, and I could have juiced the school system out of so much money if my mother didn't support the teacher's decision on every little thing and took legal action.

Since when did you care about America’s laws or America in the first place?

>>But, yeah, I think the "Under God" is wrong, and gives right-wing Christians the idea that this country was formed around one religious ideology, and not under the desire for religious freedom

LOL the majority of the Founding Fathers were not Christians but Deists. Like I said, God could be referring to anything.

Nickademus

29th June 2002, 02:41

Quote: from Pythagoras on 2:31 am on June 29, 2002
>>"God" could mean anything? This I didn't know. See, I've always thought the name had a clear-cut definition.

Yes God could be referring to anything. Of course if Jesus Christ was mentioned here it would be different.

ever heard of context because it sure as hell has one specific meaning in the context of the pledge

>> guess the rest of the pledge could mean anything too. "The United States of America" could be referring to Yugoslavia or something.

This is irrelevant.[/b][/quote]

no its not, it shows how the argument is fallable

>>Perhaps it isn't going out of its way to promote one particular religion, but it is promoting monotheism, and this simply isn't an appropriate responsibility for a government and an official pledge of alliegance.

Sorry I disagree. Its not like you even have to say the phrase if you choose not too.
[/b][/quote]
well obviously some people DO have to say it

>>In eighth grade I was forced to recite the pledge in public school every day.

Personally I think children should say the pledge.

care to explain why? i personally don't think children should be FORCED to say the pledge. Why the hell should they be forced to accept american authority? why can't they question patriotism and blind faith etc?

>> My teacher just asked me, "Is there any religious reason why you aren't reciting the pledge?". I said, "No, I just don't have alliegance to this country".

Go figure.

>>She forced me to do it anyway, telling me, "Well, you'd better recite the pledge loudly then, or I'm kicking you out of my classroom!! You should be THANKFULL for your FREEDOM!!" Oh, the irony. I actually got In-School-Suspension a few times for not saying it. I'm still pissed off at myself for giving in even slightly. I should have just said, "Fine, kick me out. You're an English teacher. If this is your definition of 'freedom', then I don't want to hear another word of your lessons, because you obviously don't understand the English language."

Hey at least you were not sent to the gulag or shot dead!

just because the punishment isn't the worst imaginable doesn't justify the punishment of a hUMAN RIGHT

>> This, of course, was totally illegal, and I could have juiced the school system out of so much money if my mother didn't support the teacher's decision on every little thing and took legal action.

Since when did you care about America’s laws or America in the first place? [

When the hell did he ever say he didn't care about america's laws?

(Edited by Nickademus at 2:45 am on June 29, 2002)

(Edited by Nickademus at 2:46 am on June 29, 2002)

Apache

29th June 2002, 10:36

Is it right to put it the words Under God into the pledge of allegiance.
The US Congress thought so, that is why they added it in 1954
Is this instilling religious belief into school children?
I hope so
Is this violating the separation of Church and State?
No I don't think so. Besides, NO WHERE in the constitution does it say there is to be a separation of church and state. It only says that the government can not establish a religion.
Is this really necessary, considering the original pledge did not have those two words that seem to drive everyone nuts?
The real reason was to differentiate between The USA and the "godless communists".
It also drives most of the Atheists nuts. I think that is looked at as a side benefit. :)

Nickademus

29th June 2002, 14:11

Quote: from Apache on 10:36 am on June 29, 2002
Is it right to put it the words Under God into the pledge of allegiance.
The US Congress thought so, that is why they added it in 1954
Is this instilling religious belief into school children?
I hope so
Is this violating the separation of Church and State?
No I don't think so. Besides, NO WHERE in the constitution does it say there is to be a separation of church and state. It only says that the government can not establish a religion.
Is this really necessary, considering the original pledge did not have those two words that seem to drive everyone nuts?
The real reason was to differentiate between The USA and the "godless communists".
It also drives most of the Atheists nuts. I think that is looked at as a side benefit. :)

wow and because it was done in 1954 everything is ok......because nothing ever changes....... hell by that logic slavery was ok because it was done in the past.......burning witches was ok because it was part of law.....

you might want to rethink that lack of logic there apache

(Edited by Nickademus at 2:13 pm on June 29, 2002)

Stormin Norman

29th June 2002, 14:41

Did anyone expect anything different from the 9th Circuit. They are the most overturned court in the nation, and have become somewhat of a running joke. More funny than the Florida Supreme Court.
I am an atheist, but I find the ruling to be lacking any sound judgement. Having the words in the Pledge of Allegiance is hardly a law which establishes a state religion. The decision also ignores historical fact. The Declaration of Independence refers to God given rights. The U.S. Constitution reads 'In the year of our lord'. Supreme court sessions open with a reference to God. Many states in the Union where founded by Christians. Many of the laws written are mirrored by the Christian moral equivalent, for example, thalt shalt not steal, murder, ect.. The fact remains that these kids had the right to get up and walk away, and they still have the right to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in any school if they want. The right of the individual to pray in schools is protected by the first amendment. There is a difference when the administration starts broadcasting prayer over the intercom, but the pledge hardly counts as prayer.

Stormin Norman

29th June 2002, 14:51

How do you guys feel about flag burning?

Personally, I would never burn a flag, unless the congress passed a law prohibiting the burning of the flag. In effect the congress will have passed a law that violates the 1st amendment and reduces the symbolic meaning of the flag to nothing. Many vetrans have died in order to protect my right to burn a flag and such a law would disrespect the memory of anyone who fought to protect the freedoms that this country enjoys.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 2:53 am on June 30, 2002)

RedCeltic

29th June 2002, 16:25

Many vetrans have died in order to protect my right to burn a flag and such a law would disrespect the memory of anyone who fought to protect the freedoms that this country enjoys.

This is something I have said many times as I'm a veteran of the United States Navy and consider burning the flag as a right. Also, I wouldn't burn the flag myself.. I agree with what Socialist Norman M. Thomas had said on that issue, "If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it."

As for the subject of "Under God" in the pledge, its something I think shouldn't have been put there in the first place.

However, contesting it now has really come at a bad time when so many people are feeling ultra patriotic.

Nickademus

29th June 2002, 17:06

i'm in general in agreement with RC.

i'm not certain how i feel about burning flags. i'll get back to you on that.

Stormin Norman

29th June 2002, 17:11

Congress did act a little surrepticiously when they put the words in, but in no way was it unconstitution. That is the issue, which 2 of 3 members on a panel of about 28 judges ruled on. These were liberal activist judges. The 9th circuit court is the most liberal in the U.S. and has been overturned many times. The full court will reconviene on the subject. When this happens the other 25 judges will overturn the courts previous desicion. If that doesn't happen the Supreme Court will overturn the lower court's ruling. Precedent for such a ruling by the Supreme court does exist, as they have denied a challenge brought by the same plaintiff. The earlier suit was in regards to the fact that "In God We Trust" appears on our money. That is why the complaint was brought to the 9th circuit. The Supreme Court would have denied him again, so he took the same type of argument to that district in order to obtain a quick victory. In effect, the issue is kept alive.

Nickademus

29th June 2002, 17:19

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 5:11 pm on June 29, 2002
Congress did act a little surrepticiously when they put the words in, but in no way was it unconstitution. That is the issue, which 2 of 3 members on a panel of about 28 judges ruled on. These were liberal activist judges. The 9th circuit court is the most liberal in the U.S. and has been overturned many times. The full court will reconviene on the subject. When this happens the other 25 judges will overturn the courts previous desicion. If that doesn't happen the Supreme Court will overturn the lower court's ruling. Precedent for such a ruling by the Supreme court does exist, as they have denied a challenge brought by the same plaintiff. The earlier suit was in regards to the fact that "In God We Trust" appears on our money. That is why the complaint was brought to the 9th circuit. The Supreme Court would have denied him again, so he took the same type of argument to that district in order to obtain a quick victory. In effect, the issue is kept alive.

well if the issue is kept alive there is a need for it. and i must say liberal judges are few and far between, especialy ones who are progressive. however, i agree that the supreme court will overturn the ruling...without hesitation.

but if this issue, or similar issues, keep arising, it is a hint to the government....do something about it before the courts .
it happens all the time. that's why i have a job with department of justice....we have to make change before the courts do and give the gov't a deadline

Stormin Norman

29th June 2002, 17:22

What kinds of changes? Deadlines for what?

Nickademus

30th June 2002, 13:40

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 5:22 pm on June 29, 2002
What kinds of changes? Deadlines for what?

as i already mentioned, me telling you what kind of changes i'm working on will get me fired. i work in the human rights policy department. and i can tell you that these changes will help poor people. but trust me, if they were changes that would support people like you rather than those who really need it, i wouldn't be working there anymore.

and what deadlines? the date the courts give us to make the change. they do it all the time.

(Edited by Nickademus at 1:41 pm on June 30, 2002)

Michael De Panama

30th June 2002, 19:23

Sorry I disagree. Its not like you even have to say the phrase if you choose not too.

And then you completely contradict yourself by saying...

Personally I think children should say the pledge.

Good job.

Hey at least you were not sent to the gulag or shot dead!

Your point? You are comparing your American system to the Soviet system which was much more oppressive. Do you think I support the Soviet Union? Do you think I would have rather lived under Stalin's regime? Stop assuming that you know my political views. I am in favor of complete democracy, not your capitalist plutocracy, and not Soviet fascism.

As much of a Marxist as I am, I'd rather have capitalism than Stalinism, proletarian fascism. Had you have been here about a month ago, this would have been obvious.

Since when did you care about America’s laws or America in the first place?

When the hell did I say I didn't care about America's laws?

Michael De Panama

30th June 2002, 19:29

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 2:51 pm on June 29, 2002
How do you guys feel about flag burning?

Personally, I would never burn a flag, unless the congress passed a law prohibiting the burning of the flag. In effect the congress will have passed a law that violates the 1st amendment and reduces the symbolic meaning of the flag to nothing. Many vetrans have died in order to protect my right to burn a flag and such a law would disrespect the memory of anyone who fought to protect the freedoms that this country enjoys.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 2:53 am on June 30, 2002)

Burning pieces of cloth makes me cry like a little girl. It should be outlawed at once! First Ammendment? We don't need that bullshit. After all, we're protecting our country! And the First Ammendment is certainly not as important to our country as pieces of cloth.

marxistdisciple

30th June 2002, 23:09

lol I'm not american, but I spent a day in a high school with some of my friends up in Maine. At the start of the day, they all stood there, hand on their heart stating the pledge of aligience. and I just stood there feeling stupid, wondering whether I should be pledging aligience to the UK, or the United states of Europe or something.
It struck me as odd, why this statement even existed. After all, this sort of indoctrinated statement hardly makes people instantly more patriotic or, even religious.

I think religion should be kept out of anything to do with the state, america is nation of immigrants....they all have different religions. Keep "god" away from money, money is nothing to do religion. Keep "god" away from schools. Whoever this presumptive god is, he is nothing to do with education either. Let people choose whether they state the pledge of aligience.

Some people talk of soviet flag aligience etc. I have witnessed blind patriotism, just as foolish as that in the United States. People who lost all ability to work through reasonable arguments because they believed the USA was the be all and end all. Someone should take their heads out of their asses gentleman.

I tried to argue with normally peace loving americans, about exactly how bombing afghanistan would stop a minority group of terrorists. They seemed more intent on revenge, and took the presumtion I automatically supported terrorism by saying this. I wondered how bombing a country helped capture one man hidden somewhere in the most desolate, isolated terrain on earth. Still no one has answered that one either. Patriotism is a dumb, blind and blinkered way at ignoring the rest of the world, and anything that increases it is silly.

Stormin Norman

30th June 2002, 23:40

In response to:

'I tried to argue with normally peace loving americans, about exactly how bombing afghanistan would stop a minority group of terrorists. They seemed more intent on revenge, and took the presumtion I automatically supported terrorism by saying this.'

That is a ridiculous charge. Revenge would have been nuking the top three countries who are state sponsors of terrorism, or blindly invading the entire list of the usual suspects. What we have in Afganistan is as measured of a response as you can get. Although we Americans are not fully aware to what extent this war on terror is being prosecuted, to me it seems too timid. I have been critical of the current administration for moving so slow, as we are being asked to keep vigilant, possibily suffering more attacks in the future. We should be marching into Bagdad right now regardless of whether Hussien relieves himself from power. ONce we own Iraq we can put pressure on the Iran from both sides and make the Saudis rethink the worldview a little.