Can't sue over God in pledge

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
I don't care if you are sucka cocky whatever! this has been the way since the begining, and now you have a problem with it?
When has Buddha ever been part of the pledge? never! Why change it now?

'under god' has been part of the pledge since the beginning?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
'under god' has been part of the pledge since the beginning?

I think since the 1950's, maybe 40's. It was added.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
I think since the 1950's, maybe 40's. It was added.

It was added in the early 50's, under petitioin by the knights of columbus, as a 'red herring' excuse to defeat 'the godlessness of communism'. An extremely effective, albeit a thoroughly false, argument.

 

[KLSuddeth]

It would be ignorant to change the pledge - ignorant.

I sorta see the point of the supposition, but still....

 

[KLSuddeth]

wish I had the time right now to fully get into this but we're on our way out. I read some wonderfully interesting things in one of my theology classes (few years ago of course) that would be applicable here.

BUT.....

DK has to go to work and drop me off to get my car so I can go to the new house to work - blah

damn

oh well.

Will try later tonite

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
The point I am making is that has been the way! Do you wish to see it changed?

I'd like to see the gathering influence of organized religious groups removed from the political power of our country.

My opinion is that from the founding days, it was understood by the founding fathers that each individual would be allowed to support his/her faith in a personal manner, not have it dictated and supervised by an organized group, church, or some other body of self appointed individuals that are vulnerable to corruption and willing to use 'the word of god' as a tool to intimidate the populace.

Our founding documents state clearly that the country was founded on individual spirituality, not the organized religious movement that people are trying to force onto us now.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
As it should be. I don't care who an individual seeks for religous guidance that's there business. But now we should change the pledge to appease who?

I agree. The pledge should stay as it has been. Children have always been allowed to say or not say it in school. They can skip the 'under God'. They can skip the whole pledge, if there is a problem with 'oaths', which is a whole seperate issue.

While the founders worked hard to protect the minority rights, they were well aware that there could also be tyranny from those quarters.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
I read some where about a school looking to make children learn the muslim ways, if we are not looking to appease then what is it all about? The American way is slowly going down the tubes because of the society of appeaser we now have amongst us.

California has had a couple of these incidents since 9/11. Parents get enraged when their kids come home and tell about their day.

They are not 'teaching religion' in the public school, but 'culture' and 'diversity awarness'. Funny, Islam has been covered with Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism ever since I can remember. Never in school do the 'celebrations' of such get taught. But that has been going on with Islam.

Not good.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I'd like to see the gathering influence of organized religious groups removed from the political power of our country.

My opinion is that from the founding days, it was understood by the founding fathers that each individual would be allowed to support his/her faith in a personal manner, not have it dictated and supervised by an organized group, church, or some other body of self appointed individuals that are vulnerable to corruption and willing to use 'the word of god' as a tool to intimidate the populace.

Our founding documents state clearly that the country was founded on individual spirituality, not the organized religious movement that people are trying to force onto us now.

Perhaps the phrase "under God" is meant to include Buddha and one must widen thier scope. If you are athiest and are "offended" by the phrase "under God" you should take a peek at how many things the govt does that fly directly in the face of Christianity. Then you may get an idea of what the word "offended" really means to other people. The spiritual groups have the freedom to organize as written in the constitution do they not? I believe it to be a reactionary organization to years of amoral laws,decisions and actions. I don't think these groups are demanding a thoecracy as much as they are protesting the attempt to eradicate Christianity and it's place in history as well as our daily lives if one so chooses.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
As it should be. I don't care who an individual seeks for religous guidance that's there business. But now we should change the pledge to appease who?

the pledge was changed in the 50's to appease a religious organization intent on forcing a religious organization on the public. Changing it back would not be appeasing anyone, it would be restoring the original intent of the pledge.

 

[acludem]

All you have to do is leave the religious reference out of what was written (by a Baptist minister, no less) as an entirely secular oath in the late 19th century and no one has to be appeased. The Pledge for 60 years was recited without "Under God". As I earlier noted, that was added by the Eisenhower administration in the mid-1950s, so "Under God" has been in less time than it has been out.

Remove "Under God" and make the oath a secular one as it was originally inteded by the author.

acludem

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Understood! but my point is why change it now? it is about appeasing the group's that don't want it.

Your point is valid, acludem uses your reference as an excuse, and then basically shows why it's about appeasement with the baptist minister remark! Well if it's a problem because a baptist wrote it and this person doe's not care for a baptist and want's it changed, what would you call it?

several groups may desire the same thing, for different reasons, and while some are less valid than others, it doesn't make it less desirable because it falls in line with the wishes of a certain group.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
A group that wishes to change the current status of the pledge be it Muslims, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever would be called appeasment in my book! I am not a baptist and yet I grew up with the plege, however I am not seeking to have it reworded becuase it does not fit my religion! That's my story and I am sticking to it!:funnyface

well, all in all, the pledge was reworded to fit into a religion so we appeased already. my opinion.

I guess some people would just as soon stay wrong rather than give an opposing group a measure of victory. : :cof:

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Well I will stay wrong then, and when the eventuality of what really is happening here comes to light, and your kids are pledging
allah or a great big buddha in the classroom call it a measure of victory then!

you think that if the pledge was changed back to its original wording, that we'd later be pledging allegiance to buddha?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
You know exactly what I am suggesting unless you have missed my earlier posts on this thread. Like I stated earlier, there are some school's that were trying to make Muslim religion standards.

I see what you mean. Thats why my argument has always been to go back to what the founding fathers started. Keeping religion a personal individual thing. If its kept in that regard only, then others have no argument about theirs.

You and me alike grew up with this pledge, did you protest it during your time in school?

No, but during the years that this was done I didn't know any of its history. I was given the words to memorize and that was that. Now that I've learned the history, I see it as more of an indoctrination into a particular religious belief and I see that as being wrong also.

Overall it is of my opinion that the pledge has come under fire for the simple reason that there are many foreigners objecting that it is of not their religion, fine go to a mosque or equivalent to your beliefs, or send your children to a school equivalent to the religion. But they don't want that because it will cost them more money,but hell, let's Just make America find another way to support their ways!

I stipulate what I said above. take religion out of the group scenario and they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[acludem]

My point was that a man of the cloth wrote the pledge and specifically did not include the words "Under God" in it. His daughter campaigned against the change when it was proposed in Congress - she said her father would've been furious about it.

You all completely missed my point - "Under God" was put in originally as an appeasement to the anti-communists in the 1950s. Communism is all but dead now so we no longer need to appease this group - restore the original, secular Pledge of Allegience.

acludem