"One Nation, Under God"

[SimpleMind]

Every morning I am told, in a PUBIC SCHOOL, to stand up and say that I live in a country under a God in which I do not believe. I find it offensive, and definitely toeing the line between Church and state.
For debate: Should "under God"be kept in the Pledge, and why do you think it was added in the first place in the 1950s?

[JoeyKnothead]

Hello Beto,

"Religious freedom" isn't "freedom of religion". I thought this was clear by now. Everyone has a right to have a pledge that symbolizes their patriotism without violating their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Some people have multiple gods, some have none, and right now they don't have the right to feel as patriotic as the others.

Everyone has a right to have a pledge that symbolizes their patriotism without violating their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Really??

According to whom??? In what counry?? This is flawed at several levels.

--The idea that all men are created equal would indicate that they should not have to declare an allegiance to a god, which is what the pledge is implying

This would mean the Radical Muslims have a pledge, but they can "ethically lie" to infidels -Christians and Jews-- according to the Koran, so that would be a problem. The Jews would have a Pledge, and the Neo-Nazis would have a Pledge, and the atheists, and the Christians, and the Hindu's, and the Mormons, and on it goes. How much time would it take to say twenty pledges, and would that be enough.

--The pledge, without the 'under god' would make no statement as to anyone's religion.

More importantly, it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution or Declaration of Independence that everyone has that right.

--Everyone should have the right to religion or no religion as they see fit, if the constitution doesn't agree with this then it is wrong.

I respect your opinion to think that however, as well as your right to not believe in God,and anything else.

--But you seem not to respect how the current pledge tramples the rights of those who disagree with you

You seem to keep dodging the question and throwing out red herrings. What are three to six of these liberties and priviledges you say you are being denied??

--To me the most important right we all have is to freely go about our religiousness or lack of religion. But to place a religious reference in a pledge to the nation I find insulting to all

I mentioned eight to ten of the most fundamental rights/benefits that people from all over the world come to the US for, or that sets the US apart from most every other country in the world.

--Indeed, we are a great nation. But when the government works to oppress one individuals liberties, it oppresses them all.

You seem so bitter and angry at Christians, or that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I understand you don't believe in those. Just don't say the pledge, or just say you don't agree with it.

--It has nothing to do with hatred of xians, it has everything to do with a pledge that can unite us all, and not exlude people.

Nor is that selfish, to simply say that if you are offended then don't say the pledge. That, my friend is your right. If I am offended by something, whether the adult book store across from the daycare, or the chain retailer that exploits illegal aliens, I can either not participate, or I can actively demonstrate, or boycott, or organize a petition, or contact your local congressman or woman. It is no more selfish than it is selfish to say that if I don't like Halloween, don't celebrate it. If you celebrate Halloween, and I prefer to celebrate Martin Luther day, fine, it doesn't have anything to do with either of us being selfish.

--It is not that simple. Bookstores, retailers, etc. are not the government. We are exercising our displeasure in these and other forums. Why do you hate the Great Pumpkin?

As I mentioned earlier, the jehovah's witnesses cult group doesn't say the pledge, but it doesn't keep them from voting, or owning businesses or practicing their freedom of religion.

--Just because you don't share their beliefs is no reason to call jehovah's witnesses a cult. Isn't a cult defined by an overarching dedication to an individual? Okay, who's gonna mention his name...?

By your same logic, it is selfish to say that if someone doesn't want to put on a shirt, they can't be served in a restaurant, or if they aren't willing to have their photo taken, then they can't get a driver's license. It is not selfish, it is the reality that liberties and rights come with responsibilities and conditions. If you don't like the club rules, don't join the club, or buy the club and change the rules.

--I totally agree, and we who oppose religion's influence on government are growing in number

Most atheists I know realize that Christians and atheists alike have principles, and that sometimes it means making a choice between convenience and principle. Unfortunately, many who claim to be Christians sacrifice these principles for convenience and entertainment.

--but the principle of church-state separation is too important to ignore.


Regards,

SA

[JoeyKnothead]

Every morning I am told, in a PUBIC SCHOOL, to stand up and say that I live in a country under a God in which I do not believe. I find it offensive, and definitely toeing the line between Church and state.
For debate: Should "under God"be kept in the Pledge, and why do you think it was added in the first place in the 1950s?
quote]

Greetings, SM,

I think I understand what you mean but I am not sure.

I hear you saying that you object to the pledge because of the fact that
1.) You don't believe in God, and
2.) You think that acknowledging the Christian heritage of our nation is toeing the line between church and state.??


I need to apologizet to Beto. I came across too strong. I think we are deadlocked. He said it is not his country, so I don't know if he means he lives somewhere else or that he is not a US Citizen.

I respect your right to believe in God or not believe in God. The amazing thing about the constitution is that while the writers clearly acknowledged one God, - not Shiva- or Vishnu, or Allah -- they clearly wanted to make sure that religious liberty was protected.


The point was not to take all religion out of the government-- but rather to not have the government impose a specific religion to be the state church, like the Anglican Church in England, which they rejected, and was why many of the first pilgrims came- to flee religious persecution in Europe.

I think we agree that religious freedom means that the Muslim and the Buddhist and the Christian, and the atheist, and the Jehovah's Witness can practice their religion and all have the same basic liberties, to vote, to buy/own property, to get a driver's license, to have the same access to public education, or to attend a private school of their religious beliefs, or to home school, to run for public office, to keep and bear arms, and so on.

My point about Beto before, possibly not living in the US is that he claims that those who don't say the pledge are denied liberties. Maybe being in the Boy scouts, because they believe in God, but it doesn't keep one from voting, or joining the military or being patriotic, or being proud of America nor has he even given us any examples of these rights that are denied.

If you don't agree with the pledge because of the phrase about one nation under God, by all means don't say the pledge. It isn't like if you refuse, you will put on some list and then denied entrance to a liberal university, or there will be a red flag by your SAT scores.

As you have seen by now, students get teased because of the brand of shoes they wear, K-Mart jeans, or some off-brand, and to say that this is what happens to Jehovah's witnesses who also don't say the pledge is well, really, really a moot point. What about kids who play in the band.???

Have you ever heard any jokes about band geeks???
What about just plain nerds? kids who dress funny, or whose parents are poor?
What about dumb jocks??? Have you ever heard of anyone being teased or "labeled" because they were the star of the football team but were in remedial math.???
What about a Christian girl or guy who is in the university and gets heckled publicly by the professor because they refuse to believe frog to professor Darwinian Evolution. Do you think the student who refuses to say the pledge has it any worse than that?

I seriously doubt whether Goat or Beto or Achilles or Confused are really too concerned about what others think regarding their deep beliefs. Most of the intelligent atheists I know are pretty secure in their atheism... Some aren't and they end up becoming Christians. hehehe. The case can be made for the Christians as well. Some of them end up becoming atheists or Jews.

Here's another way to look at it. So, say some one gives you some grief about not "being patriotic". Ask them what being patriotic means. Tons of people of all different walks of life have left countries, and their families and culture to come to America because no other country offers more religious freedom along with so many other benefits and opportunities, lower taxes, great education, good medical care, opportunities to start a business, etc, other than Canada.

So ask yourself..."What's the worst that will happen if you don't say the pledge?" You may have someone say you're an atheist or Jehovah's witness. So, aren't you that already.

Then ask yourself the alternative??? What other country could I live in that is atheist/communist, and are the benefits of living there worth more than all the opportunities and advantages of living in the states.

So the part about "Under God" was added in the 50's to counter against the atheism of the Cold War and Russia. The bottom line is that the constutition doesn't say anything about separation of church and state, but you still have religious liberty to practice whatever religion you want. Say the pledge if the peer pressure is too great. If if isn't, then don't say the pledge.

If you were a Christian, then I would say you were lying to pledge something you don't believe. No offense intended, but to an atheist, they don't believe the Bible anyway, so they already don't accept the Bible as their final authority, right.

Lastly, I would like to remind you that saying the pledge is not saying reciting the Apostles' Creed, nor does it mean that I am saying reciting the Five Points of Calvinism-- if it did, I wouldn't recite the pledge either. You are not saying that you are an Evangelical Christian who believes in the Trinity, and the Calendar Day Creation. It isn't saying that you accept Christ as the only saviour for your sins, it is simply acknowledging that our country was founded on the Judeo-Christian God. It doesn't even mean that the US is a Christian nation today. If it said that explicitly, I wouldn't agree with that, and therefore, I wouldn't say the pledge.

When it's all said and done, you may likely still get more ridicule from people for the kind of glasses you wear, or your brand of jeans than not saying the pledge. [That says something about our priorities]

Cordially,


Salt Agent.

Regardless of who's god this nation was founded on, it is still oppressive to insist on a pledge that implies an allegiance to any god. Xians are bad about 'founded on .....' We live in today, and today it should be apparent to all that this is clearly an attempt to establish a religious pretext for allegiance to the nation.

[JoeyKnothead]

One of the beneficial things about representative constitutional governments, is that there are measures taken to avoid the tyranny of the majority. These measures in the USA start with the Bill of Rights, the first so many amendments to the Constitution, and in Canada the Bill of Rights and Freedoms. In each, we have agreed to abide by a system that says even if the majority is in favour of a particular policy, it will be considered unconstitutional if it violates the rights of others.

But "under God", prayers before Congress, worship services in government buildings, etc. do not violate the rights of others, so it is not a tyranny of the majority. In fact, no one is harmed by any of these things, so long as participation is voluntary.

--I beg to differ. Placing 'under god' in the pledge forces me to not say it, therefore my right to pledge allegiance is prohibited. Prayers before congress are a waste of my tax dollars. 'Pray on your time, but work on mine'.

One of the key points of liberty is that you are free to do as you want until it harms someone else. As no one is harmed by religious activity, it is no violation of liberty. You are free to participate or to ignore it.

--We are all harmed, religious expressions within a government setting will imply that brand of religion over others.

In a secular government, no members of the government will be required to participate in the religious rites not of their own choosing. In a pluralistic government, as you describe, if someone decides that there should be religious rites in the House, all members rights to their own freedom of religion will be violated. So, to me, the government that respects each person's religious rights and freedoms is the secular one.

This past summer, a Hindu prayed before the US Congress. Not a single member of Congress is Hindu, and not a single member of Congress complained that their rights were being violated. If non-Hindu's rights are not violated by a Hindu prayer, I have difficulty believing that non-Christian's rights are violated by Christian prayer.

--How many was it again that got up and walked out? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but that was a terrible thing to do.

I can't read a secularist's mind, but this is what I assume they are thinking when they see a prayer in Congress: "Oh, that's just awful! Others might not believe what that person is praying, therefore we must stop it!"

--Someone once told me that perception is the truth. I have no problem with a member of congress praying, but when it can be perceived as a sanctioned event, then I think it is firstly a waste of taxpayer dollars, and secondly and endorsement of religion.

Whereas when I see a Hindu prayer, a Jewish prayer, etc., what goes through my mind is, "Have at it, brother! What a wonderful country this is when all religious views are allowed at the table."

--But government should be about the people's business, not their religion.

In a secular government, all religion is suppressed by law from the government. In a pluralistic government, all religion is invited.

--I may be confused, but if you mean that government says let's just do the people's work, and let them pray, then I agree. If you mean to say it would ban religion in public then I disagree.