Justify the Pledge...

[Anguille]

The conversation was about the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in America. You're comparing apples and oranges since those countries do not have the same Constitution that we do.
By the way, it doesn't matter if the founders of this country were 100% christian or jewish or muslim. The nation was created as a secular one where the rights of an athest are equal to those of any other citizen and vice versa. For you to imply that anyone of a minority belief has suck it up and cave in to the majority runs contrary to what the Constitution demands.

Nice series of posts. The Constitution makes it plain as day that the phrase "under God" which was inserted into the Pledge by a bunch of red scare politions in the 50's, renders the Pledge unacceptable as something any citizen should be obligated to recite.

 

[YWN666]

Nice series of posts. The Constitution makes it plain as day that the phrase "under God" which was inserted into the Pledge by a bunch of red scare politions in the 50's, renders the Pledge unacceptable as something any citizen should be obligated to recite.

Thank you. Apparently Cecilie didn't get the memo. Christians do not own this country as many of them would have us believe. Now that we've stood up for our rights, they are whining and claiming christian persecution because we stopped them from bullying us into caving into their selfish demands. Had the founding fathers intended this to be a nation operated for the sole benefit of christians, they would have specifically stated that intention in our Constitution and left no doubt. That was NOT their intention, however.

 

[Anguille]

Thank you. Apparently Cecilie didn't get the memo. Christians do not own this country as many of them would have us believe. Now that we've stood up for our rights, they are whining and claiming christian persecution because we stopped them from bullying us into caving into their selfish demands. Had the founding fathers intended this to be a nation operated for the sole benefit of christians, they would have specifically stated that intention in our Constitution and left no doubt. That was NOT their intention, however.

In all fairness I have to say that there are many Christians and other religious people who are also opposed to the Under God phrase. It's just certain fascist types who have trouble understanding just how unAmerican that phrase is.

 

[YWN666]

In all fairness I have to say that there are many Christians and other religious people who are also opposed to the Under God phrase. It's just certain fascist types who have trouble understanding just how unAmerican that phrase is.

I diodn't mean to smear all christians. That is why I said "many". The "religion in public school" cases brought to the Supreme Court by the ACLU were laregly filed on behalf of christians. They are smart enough to know what happens when you mix religion and government.

 

[Anguille]

Thank you. Apparently Cecilie didn't get the memo. Christians do not own this country as many of them would have us believe. Now that we've stood up for our rights, they are whining and claiming christian persecution because we stopped them from bullying us into caving into their selfish demands. Had the founding fathers intended this to be a nation operated for the sole benefit of christians, they would have specifically stated that intention in our Constitution and left no doubt. That was NOT their intention, however.

Yep, the whiners don't do their cause any favors by claiming persecution.

 

[Anguille]

I diodn't mean to smear all christians. That is why I said "many". The "religion in public school" cases brought to the Supreme Court by the ACLU were laregly filed on behalf of christians. They are smart enough to know what happens when you mix religion and government.

Ooops! Missed that. Reading comprehension not so good today.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're sadly misinformed. There have only been a few dozen Sup Ct cases that specifically prohibited our government from endorsing religion. You've heard of the Supreme Court, haven't you?

I love it when I talk about the text of the Constitution, and some twit responds with, "The Supreme Court says . . ." That basically tells me that the person in question is a leftist dimwit who considers the letter of the law to be simply an annoyance.

When I want to talk about the Supreme Court, you'll know it by my use of the words "Supreme Court". When I'm talking about the actual words of the Constitution, I am not even remotely interested in hearing your mindless diatribes about what a bunch of lawyers in robes had to say.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nice series of posts. The Constitution makes it plain as day that the phrase "under God" which was inserted into the Pledge by a bunch of red scare politions in the 50's, renders the Pledge unacceptable as something any citizen should be obligated to recite.

The Constitution makes it plain what the Pledge of Allegiance is? I didn't know the Constitution even MENTIONED the Pledge, and here you tell me it spells the whole thing out clearly.

Learn something new every day.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thank you. Apparently Cecilie didn't get the memo. Christians do not own this country as many of them would have us believe. Now that we've stood up for our rights, they are whining and claiming christian persecution because we stopped them from bullying us into caving into their selfish demands. Had the founding fathers intended this to be a nation operated for the sole benefit of christians, they would have specifically stated that intention in our Constitution and left no doubt. That was NOT their intention, however.

Yes, I missed the memo informing me that the Constitution specifically addresses the Pledge of Allegiance. Please update me by citing the exact point at which it does so.

No, the Founding Fathers didn't expect the nation to be operated solely for the benefit of Christians. They knew that Christians are expected to be sympathetic and charitable to halfwits and heathens.

 

[José]

"FOUNDING FATHERS THIS, FOUNDING FATHERS THAT..."

What an ignorant, pathetic bunch of super patriotic american clowns!!

Treating a 200 year old political document as a sacred text!!

AMERICAN SECULARISM IS OUTDATED BECAUSE IT ALLOWS RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO EMBARRASS ATHEITS, AGNOSTICS, RELIGIOUS MINORITIES AND CITIZENS WHO JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT RELIGIOUS FAITH WITH BLATANT, OVERT EXPRESSIONS OF RELIGION!!

The american model of secularism needs to be reformed along these lines:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof WITH THE EXCEPTION OF STATE FACILITIES etc..."

 

[Skeptik]

What does "under god" have to do with Christianity? It doesn't say "one nation under Christ", does it?

 

[YWN666]

Yes, I missed the memo informing me that the Constitution specifically addresses the Pledge of Allegiance. Please update me by citing the exact point at which it does so.

I never said it did, wiseass. It also doesn't mention the words "right to privacy" or a number of other concepts that we know are in there. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution a number of times to say that religion and government should not mix. When the pledge case is decided on the merits, I'm sure they will follow that idea as they have been over the past 50 years.

 

[YWN666]

I love it when I talk about the text of the Constitution, and some twit responds with, "The Supreme Court says . . ." That basically tells me that the person in question is a leftist dimwit who considers the letter of the law to be simply an annoyance.

When I want to talk about the Supreme Court, you'll know it by my use of the words "Supreme Court". When I'm talking about the actual words of the Constitution, I am not even remotely interested in hearing your mindless diatribes about what a bunch of lawyers in robes had to say.

Considering that the text of the Constitution can't possibly cover every specific concept, it HAS to be interpreted. Only a misinformed person like yourself wouldn't know that. I'm surprised you haven't yet made that same idiotic comment about it not mentioning the words "separation of church and state".

 

[YWN666]

What does "under god" have to do with Christianity? It doesn't say "one nation under Christ", does it?

It says "under God", not "under a god" and even if it did not mention a specific god, it still disregards atheists.

 

[YWN666]

totse.com | The Strange Origin of the Pledge of Allegiance

The Strange Origin of the Pledge of Allegiance
by John W. Baer

Every class day over 60 million public and parochial school teachers and students in the United States recite the Pledge of Allegiance along with thousands of Americans at official meetings of the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Elks, Masons, American Legion, and others. During the televised bicentennial celebration of the United States Constitution for the school children on September 17, 1987, the children as a group did not recite any part of the Constitution. However, President Reagan did lead the nation's school children in reciting the Pledge. Yet probably not one of them knows the history or original meaning of the Pledge.

In the presidential campaign of 1988, George Bush successfully used the Pledge in his campaign against Mike Dukakis. Ironically, Bush did not seem to know the words of the Pledge until his campaign manager told him to memorize it. The teachers and students in the New England private schools he attended, Greenwich Country Day School and Phillips Andover Academy, did not recite the pledge. By contrast, Dukakis and his mother, a public school teacher, recited the Pledge in the public schools. Yet Bush criticized Dukakis for vetoing a bill in Massachusetts requiring public school teachers but not private school teachers to recite the Pledge. Dukakis vetoed the bill on grounds that it violated the constitutional right of free speech.

How did this Pledge of Allegiance to a flag replace the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights in the affections of many Americans? Among the nations in the world, only the U.S.A. and the Philippines, imitating the U.S.A., have a pledge to their flag. Who institutionalized the Pledge as the cornerstone of American patriotic programs and indoctrination in the public and parochial schools?

In 1892, a socialist named Francis Bellamy created the Pledge of Allegiance for "Youth's Companion," a national family magazine for youth published in Boston. The magazine had the largest national circulation of its day with a circulation around 500,000. Two liberal businessmen, Daniel Ford and James Upham, his nephew, owned "Youth's Companion."

One hundred years ago the American flag was rarely seen in the classroom or in front of the school. Upham changed that. In 1888, the magazine began a campaign to sell American flags to the public schools. By 1892, his magazine had sold American flags to about 26 thousands schools.[1]

In 1891, Upham had the idea of using the celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' discovery of America to promote the use of the flag in the public schools. The same year, the magazine hired Daniel Ford's radical young friend, Baptist minister, Nationalist, and Christian Socialist leader, Francis Bellamy, to help Upham in his public relations work. Bellamy was the first cousin of the famous American socialist, Edward Bellamy. Edward Bellamy's futuristic novel, "Looking Backward," published in 1888, described a utopian Boston in the year 2000. The book spawned an elitist socialist movement in Boston known as "Nationalism," whose members wanted the federal government to nationalize most of the American economy. Francis Bellamy was a member of this movement and a vice president of its auxiliary group, the Society of Christian Socialists.[2] He was a Baptist minister and he lectured and preached on the virtues of socialism and the evils of capitalism. He gave a speech on "Jesus the Socialist" and a series of sermons on "The Socialism of the Primitive Church." In 1891, he was forced to resign from his Boston church, the Bethany Baptist church, because of his socialist activities. He then joined the staff of the "Youth's Companion."[3]

Follow the link for the complete article.

 

[Skeptik]

It says "under God", not "under a god" and even if it did not mention a specific god, it still disregards atheists.

I really don't see any difference between "under god" and "under a god." Neither one mentions any specific god. While it might disregard atheists, it doesn't disregard Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, or any other non Christian religion. It is not a Christian phrase.

In 1892, a socialist named Francis Bellamy created the Pledge of Allegiance for "Youth's Companion," a national family magazine for youth published in Boston. The magazine had the largest national circulation of its day with a circulation around 500,000. Two liberal businessmen, Daniel Ford and James Upham, his nephew, owned "Youth's Companion."

Thanks for that. Next time someone starts to rant about the pledge of allegiance and how American and patriotic it is, and how someone who didn't recite it is liberal and socialistic and so on, I'll bring this one up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I really don't see any difference between "under god" and "under a god." Neither one mentions any specific god. While it might disregard atheists, it doesn't disregard Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, or any other non Christian religion. It is not a Christian phrase.




Thanks for that. Next time someone starts to rant about the pledge of allegiance and how American and patriotic it is, and how someone who didn't recite it is liberal and socialistic and so on, I'll bring this one up.

FYI, the Buddhist religion doesn't have a deity, so if you're going to consider the word "God" exclusionary, then it would exclude them.

Also, "God", when capitalized and used as a proper name, specifically refers to the Judeo-Christian deity, rather than being a generic synonym for "deity". They are the only ones, so far as I know, who use the term as a proper name.

 

[YWN666]

I really don't see any difference between "under god" and "under a god." Neither one mentions any specific god. While it might disregard atheists, it doesn't disregard Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, or any other non Christian religion. It is not a Christian phrase.

When "God" is capitalized, it usually refers to the Christian God.

 

[Skeptik]

When "God" is capitalized, it usually refers to the Christian God.

Not necessarily, at least according to this dictionary:

Main Entry:
1god Listen to the pronunciation of 1god
Pronunciation:
\ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date:
before 12th century

1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality3: a person or thing of supreme value4: a powerful ruler

The bolded part could be Yahweh, or any one of a number of supreme beings worshipped by non Christians.

Of course, it is interpreted as the Christian god by many, anyway. If that's what it really means, then it has no place in the pledge of allegiance of a secular nation like the US.

 

[frazzledgear]

That is nonsense. The absence of religion does NOT equal atheism. The installation manual for my Kenmore dishwasher doesn't mention God once. Does that mean it is an atheist dishwasher???

Our government does NOT demand in any way, shape, or form that god does not exist. It is neutral on the subject and should remain that way.

Your problem is your opinion here is merely your own PERSONAL interpretation of what you think the Constitution SHOULD say. Which is the real nonsense.

The Constitution absolutely does NOT require government to remain neutral about whether God exists. WRONG. Our government has NEVER been "neutral" about that at any time. Which is why it is constitutional for our money to say "In God We Trust" and for the Supreme Court itself to open its business with "God save the United States and this honorable court", for Congress to open with prayers, for numerous state constitutions to specifically acknowledge God or the Creator and even why our Declaration of Independence, which served notice to the world that we were a new nation, that it was a nation that acknowledged our Creator, etc. etc. It requires government to remain neutral BETWEEN the religions only. Not neutral between all religions on one side and atheism or even agnosticism on the other. Those who insist otherwise are just wrong.

The Federalist Papers were written by the founders regarding why each article, certain paragraphs and even the use of certain language was included and their intent by including it -and written by the very people who contributed to and helped draw up the language for that part. (Interesting that schools no longer require reading the Federalist Papers though in order students better understand their own Constitution, isn't it? Maybe they don't because if students read these writings -which were deliberately left by the founders for future generations to better understand their own system of government, they know for a fact it would definitely change the nature of certain debates in this country, huh?)

The founders FIRMLY believed, and had every intention of creating a government that respected, acknowledged and encouraged citizens to have religious beliefs -but unlike most European governments at that time, without a government that forced them to have specific religious beliefs, without a government that punished people for having the "wrong" religious beliefs and without a government that forced people to belong to a certain religion or tried to discourage people from belonging to a specific religion. THAT is what they sought to create and realized the only possible way to fully protect the rights of those with religious beliefs was by protecting all religions. And that in order to have a government forbidden from demanding citizens have certain religious beliefs, it meant a government that could not punish people based on their religious beliefs. Which as a consequence would include people with no religious beliefs at all. The fact that as a consequence those with no religious beliefs at all were also protected, didn't suddenly elevate "no religious beliefs at all" to the status of a religion so that government must remain neutral with all religions on one side -and atheism on the other.

Let's get real here -atheism wasn't on their mind. Which is why it is never mentioned even once in the Constitution. The founders' concern was with preventing the formation of a government that could turn on its own citizens and find loopholes for the religious persecution of those deemed to have the "wrong" religious beliefs. You protect all religions with a government that is forbidden from singling one out over all the others -as they did. Which is NOT the same thing as a government that tries to equally discourage all religious beliefs or squash all religions equally -which is why government is specifically forbidden from doing that as well. If their true intent was not to provide the greatest protections to those with religious beliefs and just have a government that was somehow "neutral" about whether God even existed at all - they would have omitted that part and allowed the possibility of government someday equally banning all religions and all religious beliefs entirely. They specifically and purposely prevented that. The fact the protections for those with religious beliefs also protected atheists from persecution at the same time was merely an unavoidable consequence. Never the primary goal.

People like you are simply demanding that what you WISH was meant in the Constitution and your own preferred interpretation just automatically be adopted right now -only because YOU think that's the way it should be. And everyone else must just fall in line with that. In spite of the very specific language in the Constitution and in spite of the fact the founders left behind very explicit writings regarding the original intent of nearly every single part of the Constitution. As if the Constitution is nothing but a list of suggestions. You want strict adherence to the Constitution when it suits you and demand it not be adhered to when it also suits you. But it isn't a "pick-and-choose" document.

Our Constitution is a CONTRACT between the people and the government THEY agree to live under, specifically defining and detailing HOW they agree to be ruled by that government. Our system is a government of the people, by the people and for the people -which is not merely a catchy but meaningless slogan. It is reality. It is not a contract that can be unilaterally changed by some court or any branch of government -or randomly re-interpreted in a way contradictory to the original intent either. The founders made sure future generations could make any changes to this contract they deemed necessary in order for that contract to continue. Amendments to the Constitution or changing any article in the Constitution can only be done with the consent of the governed. The founders tried to prevent it from being changed on a whim or by a mere popular opinion about an issue that could just as easily reverse again in the future. It requires the approval of the majority in 2/3 of all the states. All in order to prevent a few densely populated states from ramming unwanted changes down the throats of everyone else in the country against their will.

Prayers were routine in schools in this country even before our independence and continued until 1963 when the Supreme Court caved in to an atheist. Routine for well over 200 years and for the entire existence of this country -until just 45 years ago. If prayers in school had been in violation of the establishment clause, surely the founders would have picked up on that and spoken out or written extensively about it. They didn't -for a reason. ALLOWING, even encouraging, prayers in school -is still not government officially choosing a religion. It is simply encouraging and respecting religious beliefs -as the founders intended. (God's revenge on Madeleine Murray O'Hare is the fact that the child she used as the justification for her lawsuit -grew up to be a Christian minister who rejected everything she stood for.)

But with the Pledge, we aren't even talking about prayers in school -but a civic exercise. The Supreme Court already ruled the Pledge MUST be a voluntary exercise in public schools. Even without "under God". It doesn't somehow become LESS voluntary by including "under God" -especially since omitting the phrase is also voluntary. Try telling kids that they don't HAVE to say the Pledge, but if they do they MUST say "under Satan" instead -and you watch how quickly many kids manage to find the resistance to participate. If saying "under God" is something atheists claim to be no less offensive to them, then he/she shouldn't find it any less difficult to resist participating or omitting words they do not wish to repeat.

What these people are REALLY demanding is that other people be FORBIDDEN from choosing to say "under God" if they want. These people understand that if government ORDERED them to pray or ORDERED them to say "under God" in a civic exercise -that it would be a serious violation of their rights. What is no less true however -is that government ORDERING someone NOT to pray or FORBIDDING someone from saying "under God" in a voluntary civic exercise -is absolutely no less serious violation of their rights.