$US and the Pledge of Allegiance

[captfb]

To All,
A fundamental tenet of democracy and free expression within our society is a protection from "state" sponsored religion. We are a nation of differing ideas and religions. Everyone must be represented without fear of consequences or exclusion. Therefore if our government makes people use such terminology it is in effect a violation of that freedom.
Now you may be thinking where does "in god we trust" and "one nation under god come from"? You also may say that our fore-fathers were strict god fearing men. You are right on both fronts. They did use this language because of their beliefs and also because of the verbal habits of the time. This is NOT an allusion to the US as sponsoring the Christian God! It is a mere semantical allusion that over time has generated mistakenly into its own entity.
Our forefathers had the ability to foresee that this massive land would be overrun by radically differing religions and people. That is why there are clauses within our Constitution to protect all of our idea/beliefs from the overwhelming tyranny of state sponsored religion. I am not even opposed to "in god we trust" or any references on the dollar or buildings because "god" can mean so many different things
Now to Mr Newdow, I believe all he was trying to do was verbalize that the government should not be able to require or implement a policy that in effect violates his (in this case his daughters) freedom from state sponsored religion. When you hold your hand on your chest, gaze at the flag and then repeat those words you are in effect saying that you pledge/believe in those things, one of which is god. Being a free society he is only saying that his daughter or anyone else should not be required to do it. That is of course my take on the whole situation. Besides we all know that god is a big computer in the sky!

[draziw]

Originally posted here by captfb
To All,
A fundamental tenet of democracy and free expression within our society is a protection from "state" sponsored religion. We are a nation of differing ideas and religions. Everyone must be represented without fear of consequences or exclusion. Therefore if our government makes people use such terminology it is in effect a violation of that freedom.

IMO, the "spirit" of the law is that the government can not dictate the way in which you worship or creates prejudices upon you based on your religious choices...

Now you may be thinking where does "in god we trust" and "one nation under god come from"? You also may say that our fore-fathers were strict god fearing men. You are right on both fronts. They did use this language because of their beliefs and also because of the verbal habits of the time. This is NOT an allusion to the US as sponsoring the Christian God! It is a mere semantical allusion that over time has generated mistakenly into its own entity.
Our forefathers had the ability to foresee that this massive land would be overrun by radically differing religions and people. That is why there are clauses within our Constitution to protect all of our idea/beliefs from the overwhelming tyranny of state sponsored religion. I am not even opposed to "in god we trust" or any references on the dollar or buildings because "god" can mean so many different things

More to the point, I think the forefathers were blatantly aware of the fact that this country was formed on the soul idea of escaping religious persecution. So, to that end, the ideas and premises expressed in the formation of the country had to clearly spell-out that this country was not about to allow that to happen again.

But, yes... a "god" or "higher power" can be many different things to many people (and is - just look at Christianity versus Budhism or Judaism or whatever else).

Now to Mr Newdow, I believe all he was trying to do was verbalize that the government should not be able to require or implement a policy that in effect violates his (in this case his daughters) freedom from state sponsored religion. When you hold your hand on your chest, gaze at the flag and then repeat those words you are in effect saying that you pledge/believe in those things, one of which is god. Being a free society he is only saying that his daughter or anyone else should not be required to do it. That is of course my take on the whole situation. Besides we all know that god is a big computer in the sky!

HeHe... well, personally I believe a more responsible approach would have been for him to approach the school and say "that's not right for me or my daughter, please don't force that upon her." Now, if the school had forced the child to proceed with the pledge or had in any way singled her out for not continuing with it, that is clearly wrong and it would seem that further sorts of action might be "warranted" at that stage (such as possible legal action against the state/school). But I think as many others have echoed, the way in which he went about obtaining this was, well, overkill...

(though on a certain personal note, I wonder why someone would choose to reside in and be a citizen of a country where they weren't ready to at least adhere to a certain pledge of allegiance. Mind you, I'm not saying this specific pledge but generically, to pledge their faith in what the country was founded/based upon. And again, as others have said... if you don't believe in just that, then why would you choose to live here? I don't get it. Eh... no matter, I guess.)

<sarcasm>
So, I wonder... what with Mr. Newdow do in court when they brought out the Bible and asked him to swear on it, before God and everyone, "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help (him) God."
</sarcasm>

[captfb]

Draziw----
In most states you have the option of stating the truth the whole truth so help me god or just raising your right hand and saying I affirm that what I am to say is the truth the whole or some variation of that. One is not required to swear on a Bible! This page has some interesting information in it.

http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/sohelpme.html

IMO, The question is not the pledge but the religious overtones of said pledge. Also ones patriotism is not contingent on his religious affiliation. Nor is his love of freedom or this country dictated solely by asserting a pledge. One can buy into our social contract without having to call on the almighty. I am not a religious person but would defend our right to discuss/disagree and live freely.

[psychosquee]

captfb, I know that in most (if not all) courtrooms, there is a entire book case dedicated to various books and texts to religious following that a person may swear on if they don't want to use the Christian Bible... I think they even have the book that Satanists use... but I have only one question... what if they worship the sun? Is there a book for that?

[bombayofpigs]

I think the point of this guy suing was not to challenge public schools forcing kids to recite the pledge, but to remove God phrase in the pledge. In my opinion this would be to force his beliefs/opinions on the rest of us who dont see anything wrong with the pledge.

Also, I think that this guy gives a bad name to any other religious/athiest group that is still patriotic. Many people who worship buddah, allah...etc are still fiercely patriotic, and have no problem with the wording of the pledge. For those that do, many simply stand, recite the pledge, and omit the god part "...one nation...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". I dont see a problem with that.

Furthermore, to continue on removing other aspects of american society that include the bible/or God (like money), wouldnt the decision of the Judges that came up with this particular ruling be nullified (after all they swore on a bible to uphold the constitution...etc). This also holds true for the president - guess we can just turn into one big lawless society now. Maybe thats what the guy really wanted anyway...

BBOP.

[jared_c]

ok... i'm going to be the outcast of the group...

First off, the phrase "Under God" was put into the pledge because the president didn't want us to seem like the "Godless Communists". That is a fact. So that right there is saying that we are better than communists because our nation believes in god. That is clearly a religious based statement. Why the country thought that putting a religious based phrase in the pledge of a nation that is all about religious freedom is beyond me. And doesn't make any sense in the first place. I wouldn't have put that in the pledge in the first place.

Second, school is about education. You learn about your country in your history and social studies classes. The practice of pledging your allegiance to a country every single day in a place of education does not make any sense. It doesn't teach you anything, and the students just mumble the words along with the teacher because they are told to. I'm sure that teaches independance. Kinda sounds communist if you ask me. Ironic?

Now to the whole thing about being an athiest and not wanting to say the pledge. After 9/11 i'd hate to be the person to not say the pledge. The kids must have a ball with the outcast of the class that doesn't say the pledge. It is another Columbine in the making. Everyone says if you don't want to say the pledge then don't say it. Yea, if only it was that simple. Did all of you forget what it was like to be different in middle school, and high school. Did all of you forget how cruel kids can be? Athiest or not, if you don't say the pledge especially after 9/11, you must get torn apart by your class mates. Well if you don't want to get picked on, then you better say the pledge whether you want to or not. Doesn't that end up going against everything America is about? Unfortunately it just shows how messed up our country is. Be like everyone else, or be doomed. You choose. Land of the free - as long as you fit in.

What's even sadder is that this could all be avoided if they didn't say the pledge in school everyday in the first place. These kids could care less what the pledge stands for, they don't know what the pledge is about, and it really is meaningless whether these kids say it or not. It would make more sense for us adults that actually have rights in this country to say the pledge everyday instead of these little kids that are bossed around and told what to do in school all day. But how many of us adults say the pledge everyday anyway? Hell, I haven't said the pledge since my last day of high school.

Bottom line... all this over something that we as adults rarely even do, that has nothing to do with school anyway. Besides, it shouldn't be the school trying to make the kids pledge allegiance to the country, it should be the parents. How many of you would make your kids say the pledge every morning if they removed it from school? That's what I thought. Not very many. It's easier to talk patriotic, than act it.

Flame away.

[captfb]

psychosquee ----LOL yes there should be only you would have to wear a flame resistant suit lest you burn yourself on the book or on your sarcasm!

[lord_darkside_x]

For those of us who don't believe in the majority religion, this is an important thing. Not being a Christian, I don't want my loyalty to my country confused with loyalty to a god i don't believe in. (btw I am a diest, not an atheist, so I do believe in a god) I don't want to prevent y'all from worshiping your god(s)(ess)(esses), but at the same time don't make me worship yours.

i do not see how this phrase makes you "worship" God. and like i said before, if you don't agree with it you don't have to say it. i don't say the pledge of allegiance at all for my own reasons, it is your personal choice. i don't disagree with you, i just think that altering it to this degree is unnecessary when all you have to do is omit the phrase.

I think the point of this guy suing was not to challenge public schools forcing kids to recite the pledge, but to remove God phrase in the pledge. In my opinion this would be to force his beliefs/opinions on the rest of us who dont see anything wrong with the pledge.

now... the pledge is not mandatory. if you do not want to say it you do not have to. i don't care what school you go to. they can not force you to say the pledge... that was resolved a long time ago. you have to stand up, but you don't have to speak.

[jcmcb]

Lord -

The point is not whether I have to plege, but that its part of the gov't spondering. Being part of that gov't makes me part and parcell of that worship, however small. I take oaths and pledges seriously, as do many people. To us this is not a minor issue, but an important statement.

To me this isn;t about kids, who could care less about it, but about the message we are sending to each other. We all know that "God" in this case is a by-word for the Christian god, and I for one want to call a spade a spade. If this is going to be a Christian Country, fine, let me know so I can move to Canada... if not then lets leave god in our churches and homes, and keep our GOv't secular!!!

[lord_darkside_x]

i see and completely understand your point... but in order for that to happen then the whole country needs a severe overhall... christmas should no longer be a legal holiday... because even though it has turn overtly commercial it is still the celebration of the christian messiah's birth. money needs to be changed, no more "in God we trust." the buildings in washington need to be changed, many buildings (monuments esp) need to lose the phrases that contain god...

the part i do not understand though is this, as long as our gov't is tolerant and you are free to worship who you want as you want, then why would it matter if our gov't supported a particular religion. most of our presidents (if not all) were christian in some degree of the word (the least they did was believe in god) if our gov't supported the muslim belief, or the hindu belief, i would not be too concerned as long as i am free to worship whom i choose. this may just be a personal thing, i am not sure. i just do not understand because of the way i am.

would you be happier if the phrasing was under a god, or under natures god as it says in the declaration of independence? just curious... not trying to bash you or stir up trouble. i just want to understand your point of view

from the declaration of independence
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "