On The Pledge Of Allegience

[JoeyKnothead]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 10:

I pretty much agree with your entire post, but since this is a debate site, I will debate this issue in that spirit. I do consider the subject important, but also realize there are bigger fish to fry.
>quote mining for brevity<

...It's all pro forma, and those who protest merely call attention to it.

Isn't that one of the goals of protesting?

I think we non-Christians ought to pick our battles more carefully. Banning gay marriage on religious grounds is important; what's printed on the nickel isn't. What if I think Jefferson isn't worthy of respect because he was a slaveowner? What do I do, use stacks of pennies instead? Give me a break. Everything doesn't have to be of hugely political, ideological, or religious significance.

Where I consider the government violating the Constitution, isn't it my civic duty to protest?

I'm not saying this issue should or may rise to the level of importance others place on it, but again, the Constitution and all.

Personally, I savor the irony of our putting "In God We Trust" on the thing we really DO trust in. Maybe that's just the American way of indicating that money is our god.

That does crack me up.

[cnorman18]

From Page 1 Post 10:

I pretty much agree with your entire post, but since this is a debate site, I will debate this issue in that spirit. I do consider the subject important, but also realize there are bigger fish to fry.

>quote mining for brevity<

...It's all pro forma, and those who protest merely call attention to it.

Isn't that one of the goals of protesting?

Sure, but if it's about something that doesn't matter much, why would you want to do that?

Consider this; a few years ago, there arose a huge movement among Christians against the supposedly "politically correct" phrase "Happy Holidays." It's true that a couple of chain stores instructed their employees to say that instead of "Merry Christmas," which was stupid; but it became a cause celebre, and talk radio was thick with references to the "War on Christmas."

What idiocy. What began as a rather silly and precious concern about not offending non-Christians provoked a militant reaction that snowballed into a major controversy.

I'm a Jew; and though I can't speak for Muslims or Buddhists or whoever here, I've never been offended by being wished a "Merry Christmas," nor has any Jew I've ever met. That would be stupid - being offended by a pleasant and friendly wish? - as well as incredibly thin-skinned, which few Jews who have grown up in an overwhelmingly Gentile society are.

But some well-meaning people thought it would be nice to recognize the fact that not everyone is a Christian. Instant conspiracy! Now, when my star of David is visible, I am occasionally wished a "Merry Christmas!" in an unmistakably hostile and belligerent manner, as if I am being challenged to object. What was once a nice, harmless phrase that no one thought about much has become, sometimes, something ugly and divisive, and some people assume that I, as a Jew, have a problem with their celebrating their own holiday. It's ridiculous and saddening.

For the record, my usual reply to a hostile "Merry Christmas!" is a smile and "Thank you! And a Merry Christmas to you, too!" I refuse to allow this nonsense to spoil a season that ought to be warm and pleasant for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, and once was.

Why give the militant fundamentalists something else to rally around and gleefully insist on explicitly ramming down everyone's throats? Laugh it off. It doesn't %*!! matter if nobody's conscious of it.

If they make you stand up and swear allegiance to the flag under God by yourself in front of a judge or a crowd or whatever, make an issue of it. But if you're one of 1200 people at a high-school graduation - who cares? Just skip those words.

I think we non-Christians ought to pick our battles more carefully. Banning gay marriage on religious grounds is important; what's printed on the nickel isn't. What if I think Jefferson isn't worthy of respect because he was a slaveowner? What do I do, use stacks of pennies instead? Give me a break. Everything doesn't have to be of hugely political, ideological, or religious significance.

Where I consider the government violating the Constitution, isn't it my civic duty to protest?

See above. When it matters, you should. Where it doesn't, why make it matter?

I'm not saying this issue should or may rise to the level of importance others place on it, but again, the Constitution and all.

One of the problems with the take-no-prisoners, no-compromise-ever approach is it makes you look petty and small-minded and as doctrinaire and arrogant and uncompromising as the opposition, and it hardens resistance.

That's why the ERA didn't pass. It wasn't all that radical; but when you had nutcases running around insisting on unisex bathrooms and unisex showers in your daughter's high school gym class and insisting on wackiness like "personhole covers" - swear to God - people thought the whole issue was coming from extremists, and it went down in flames.

Make a big deal about what's written on nickels, and fewer people will listen when you're trying to stop them from forcing your kid to pray to Jesus in his math class. Guaranteed.

Sometimes tactics have to trump principle if you want to win the big battles.

Personally, I savor the irony of our putting "In God We Trust" on the thing we really DO trust in. Maybe that's just the American way of indicating that money is our god.

That does crack me up.

One of the problems in American politics in recent years is that we've all lost our sense of humor. Our own jokes that make fun of our opposition are acceptable and all in fun; but any jokes that the opposition makes about us are serious, deadly insults that threaten our freedoms. Examples; Wanda Sykes and "shoot Pelosi twice." Phooey. Biiig deal, both ways.

Just write in an "L." "In Gold We Trust" - that works.

I'm OK with it reading "God," of course; but I'm not kidding myself that that was about YHWH, either.

Sometimes I just don't get this. Yes, we're surrounded by Christians. That's the way it is. That affects my life, really, in very few ways. So some of them say stuff that offends me; so I ignore them. I figure there'll never be an effective law against stupid.

When they really do want to control my life in a substantive way, I find that the law generally prevents that. I don't go looking for reasons to get upset.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 2 Post 12:

That's why I 'preciate you so much. You have a way of analyzing an issue, and pointing out the various "angles".

I see now how "going after" the OP's issue, one could very well cause more harm than good. As you alluded to before, perhaps this is not the "fight" this atheist should engage in.

Just write in an "L." "In Gold We Trust" - that works.

LOL Perhaps it was a typo in the original that got us where we are now.

You're a good guy my friend, and I hope many others gain access to your wisdom.

[Cathar1950]

It is a little like name dropping.
I find it odd that they want to make some treatment of the flag a sacrilege which is usually reserved for sacred things.
Are we pledging allegiance to a flag, kinsmen or my country or a concept? If I pledge allegiance to the flag what becomes of my allegiance to my country or better yet our constitution?
What if some worship the flag?

I could see where it might bother atheists or unbelievers and those that might worship the rather nondescript God which most likely we can assume it is the Hebrew Yahweh or maybe El, the Christian tribune god, Christ, or Allah in the popular mind.
Maybe it is the AA's "higher power", so seem to think that is non-religious. I always wondered how a powerless person gives themselves over to a "higher power". But that is another supposedly secular use.
But I suppose our symbols and words can or don't mean anything or nothing and it seems a odd thing to pledge allegiance to. Does it make every atheist or non-believer a liar or their words meaningless?
Of course their is always the Bible Believer that takes a metaphor like "The Word of God" and insist it is their collection of writings and make all kinds of claims about how it should be interpreted literally when it confirms their beliefs and interpreted other when is disconfirms. This practice and ritual of interpretaion seems to be arbitrary as it is self confirming and their reinterpretation where content and context are largely ignored.

[Goat]

It is a little like name dropping.
I find it odd that they want to make some treatment of the flag a sacrilege which is usually reserved for sacred things.
Are we pledging allegiance to a flag, kinsmen or my country or a concept? If I pledge allegiance to the flag what becomes of my allegiance to my country or better yet our constitution?
What if some worship the flag?

I could see where it might bother atheists or unbelievers and those that might worship the rather nondescript God which most likely we can assume it is the Hebrew Yahweh or maybe El, the Christian tribune god, Christ, or Allah in the popular mind.
Maybe it is the AA's "higher power", so seem to think that is non-religious. I always wondered how a powerless person gives themselves over to a "higher power". But that is another supposedly secular use.
But I suppose our symbols and words can or don't mean anything or nothing and it seems a odd thing to pledge allegiance to. Does it make every atheist or non-believer a liar or their words meaningless?
Of course their is always the Bible Believer that takes a metaphor like "The Word of God" and insist it is their collection of writings and make all kinds of claims about how it should be interpreted literally when it confirms their beliefs and interpreted other when is disconfirms. This practice and ritual of interpretaion seems to be arbitrary as it is self confirming and their reinterpretation where content and context are largely ignored.

I always found it amusing, since the 'pledge to the flag' and the assumption of the God being the Christian god makes the flag an Idol... and it violates the very principles of the Christians who recite it.

[East of Eden]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

• I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads:

• I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

No doubt that the specter of godless communism has much to do with this change. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles believed that the United States should oppose communism not because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime but because its leaders were atheists. Eisenhower inaugurated the Washington prayer breakfast. Congress created a prayer room in the Capitol. In 1955, Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956 it replaced the nation's official motto, "E Pluribus Unum" with this religious phrase.

Clearly, the intent of these measures were to reverse the secularism established in the Constitution. According to speeches in the House, the hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the Creator [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism." In signing the bill on June 14, 1954, Flag Day, Eisenhower openly acknowledged the fact that from then on, "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

The phrase 'Under God' is consistent with our Founder's view that rights are given to us by our Creator, which we loan to politicians.

Where did the Constitution establish secularism? There is no such thing as separation of state and belief in the Constitution.

[Gonzo]

Has this been addressed?

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm

[McCulloch]

The phrase 'Under God' is consistent with our Founder's view that rights are given to us by our Creator, which we loan to politicians.

Many of the Founders were Deists rather than Christians. Their reference to a creator was quite a bit broader in scope and meaning than the concept of God.

Where did the Constitution establish secularism? There is no such thing as separation of state and belief in the Constitution.

In 1962, the Supreme Court extended their understanding of the establishment clause to the issue of prayer and religious readings in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court determined it unconstitutional by a vote of 6-1 for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other official school settings such as assemblies or programs, including even non-sectarian teacher-led prayers. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country," was part of the prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision. The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."

Currently, the Supreme Court applies a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test".

1. The legislature must have adopted the law with a neutral or non-religious purpose.
2. The statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. The statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

As far as I understand US Constitutional law, the Supreme Court is still the official interpreter of what the Constitution means.

[East of Eden]

The phrase 'Under God' is consistent with our Founder's view that rights are given to us by our Creator, which we loan to politicians.

Many of the Founders were Deists rather than Christians. Their reference to a creator was quite a bit broader in scope and meaning than the concept of God.

Where did the Constitution establish secularism? There is no such thing as separation of state and belief in the Constitution.

In 1962, the Supreme Court extended their understanding of the establishment clause to the issue of prayer and religious readings in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court determined it unconstitutional by a vote of 6-1 for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other official school settings such as assemblies or programs, including even non-sectarian teacher-led prayers. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country," was part of the prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision. The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."

Currently, the Supreme Court applies a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test".

1. The legislature must have adopted the law with a neutral or non-religious purpose.
2. The statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. The statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

As far as I understand US Constitutional law, the Supreme Court is still the official interpreter of what the Constitution means.

Yes, I'm aware of that decision, thank you. It was wrongly decided, and violates test #2 by inhibiting religion. As Justice Stewart noted in his dissent, how is it that school prayer is unconstitutional but not when done by Congress, the Supreme Court, not to mention government paid military chaplains?

[McCulloch]

Yes, I'm aware of that decision, thank you. It was wrongly decided, and violates test #2 by inhibiting religion.

Religion is not inhibited by this decision. The propagation and promotion of religion by state paid officials in state run institutions is inhibited.

As Justice Stewart noted in his dissent, how is it that school prayer is unconstitutional but not when done by Congress, the Supreme Court, not to mention government paid military chaplains?

We've still got a ways to go. I believe that overt the state support for religions in the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and the military should be withdrawn.