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?

[cnorman18]

Let me offer, as an alternative, a small olive branch here.

Since you have said on the other thread that you understand where I'm coming from on this issue as well as others, and since it's clear that we are not going to come to agreement on this issue, I propose that we leave it here. (Without prejudice to the other members you're boxing with, of course.)

I disagree with your ideas on this issue, but as I've said elsewhere, I would give my life to defend your right to express them. My objections to some of your tactics and approaches to debate remain as well, but as I've also said elsewhere - hey, this is just an Internet debate. It's not like this conversation is going to have any real impact on public policy. I doubt very much that any Congressmen or Supreme Court justices read this forum, and if any do, it's probably abundantly clear that neither of us are lawyers (!).

I also doubt very much that we're going to resolve this issue, even between (or among) ourselves. I respect your point of view, even as I disagree with it. If you feel the same way, for my money, we can leave this here, agree to disagree, and go on to argue about other things.

Or not. The Second Amendment question, for one, would appear to find us on the same side....

Anyway. Let's move on. Whaddya say?

Or continue. I leave it up to you.

I agree completely, even though I answered your list of questions in respone to the somewhat personal attack of not answering. Respond to that post or not, either is fine with me.

I choose to respond to this one. It would appear that we also disagree on what constitutes an "answer," and I doubt we'll resolve that either.

We've both said all we have to say, we disagree. Any future posts would just be a restatement.

Another point of agreement. I think we've chewed this to powder and gone about as far as we can go.

Often with these threads after everyone has had their say, they just degenerate into personal attacks.

Also agreed. Let us affirm our personal respect for each other and our right to disagree, and leave it there. I apologize for and retract any remarks I made that would indicate the contrary.

I enjoyed the back-and-forth for the most part, anyway. Stimulates thought even when it doesn't lead to agreement.

Peace and God's blessings to you, East.

Charles

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

They aren't required, they can opt out.

Since when? In the past few years, teachers have gotten less strict about the pledge, but particularly when I was young, the pledge was mandatory. You HAD to stand, put your right hand over your heart and say it. Maybe things have changed in the handful of years since I was in elementary school, but in my experience, you could not opt out, and if you could, no one, teachers included, seemed to know about it.

[micatala]

They aren't required, they can opt out.

Since when? In the past few years, teachers have gotten less strict about the pledge, but particularly when I was young, the pledge was mandatory. You HAD to stand, put your right hand over your heart and say it. Maybe things have changed in the handful of years since I was in elementary school, but in my experience, you could not opt out, and if you could, no one, teachers included, seemed to know about it.

It is also worth noting the huge amount of vitriolic blather that went around the blogosphere last summer and fall about Obama not putting his hand over his heart for the National Anthem at some public appearance. Obama was demonized as unpatriotric in many right wing circles because of a few photos floating around the internet. I think we have to acknowledge that the same type of thing, albeit at a less intense level, is possible in some areas regarding the pledge. Some kid will tell his conservative parents that "Bobby didn't say the pledge today in school", and the dad will be out saying how Bobby's parents aren't true Americans.

[Bio-logical]

of all of the posts I have made on this thread, the one I would really like o see would be examples of these so called non-sectarian prayers. I have as yet been unable to find any but if you could post one, or more preferably a few or a source for finding them I would greatly appreciate knowing what you are talking about when you mention them.

[East of Eden]

Let me offer, as an alternative, a small olive branch here.

Since you have said on the other thread that you understand where I'm coming from on this issue as well as others, and since it's clear that we are not going to come to agreement on this issue, I propose that we leave it here. (Without prejudice to the other members you're boxing with, of course.)

I disagree with your ideas on this issue, but as I've said elsewhere, I would give my life to defend your right to express them. My objections to some of your tactics and approaches to debate remain as well, but as I've also said elsewhere - hey, this is just an Internet debate. It's not like this conversation is going to have any real impact on public policy. I doubt very much that any Congressmen or Supreme Court justices read this forum, and if any do, it's probably abundantly clear that neither of us are lawyers (!).

I also doubt very much that we're going to resolve this issue, even between (or among) ourselves. I respect your point of view, even as I disagree with it. If you feel the same way, for my money, we can leave this here, agree to disagree, and go on to argue about other things.

Or not. The Second Amendment question, for one, would appear to find us on the same side....

Anyway. Let's move on. Whaddya say?

Or continue. I leave it up to you.

I agree completely, even though I answered your list of questions in respone to the somewhat personal attack of not answering. Respond to that post or not, either is fine with me.

I choose to respond to this one. It would appear that we also disagree on what constitutes an "answer," and I doubt we'll resolve that either.

We've both said all we have to say, we disagree. Any future posts would just be a restatement.

Another point of agreement. I think we've chewed this to powder and gone about as far as we can go.

Often with these threads after everyone has had their say, they just degenerate into personal attacks.

Also agreed. Let us affirm our personal respect for each other and our right to disagree, and leave it there. I apologize for and retract any remarks I made that would indicate the contrary.

I enjoyed the back-and-forth for the most part, anyway. Stimulates thought even when it doesn't lead to agreement.

Peace and God's blessings to you, East.

Charles

Same to you, Charles.

[East of Eden]

of all of the posts I have made on this thread, the one I would really like o see would be examples of these so called non-sectarian prayers. I have as yet been unable to find any but if you could post one, or more preferably a few or a source for finding them I would greatly appreciate knowing what you are talking about when you mention them.

This in the one involved in the 1962 SCOTUS case:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.

[East of Eden]

I find it interesting that pretty much the entire rest of the US would say "Church and State", but East of Eden has on more than one occassion used the phrase "belief and State". I contend this is a rhetorical tactic designed to avoid the issue of religious belief, as opposed to a belief in general.

While I don't want to extend this thread, I do have to clarify this one. You act as if there were a Constitutionally mandated separation of belief and State, almost like the word 'God' is unconsitutional. There is none, just a mandate that the Federal government not establish a state religion. Nobody here is advocating that be done. You make a huge unjustified leap going from no state church to trying to eliminate religion from the public square. We have freedom OF belief, not freedom FROM belief.

We also don't allow teaching a "belief" that fairies are in the bottom of our gardens.

So are you against school prayer because you don't believe in it or because of the Constitution? Some of us would put your disbelief in God right along with the fairy joke.

I would contend we should base our laws and policies on the here and now, as oppossed to two hundred (or two thousand) year old ideas that don't accurately reflect the present.

If you're saying you don't believe in school prayer because the majority today don't want it, I can respect that. These decisions should be decided locally, and living in a democracy I would have to go along with that if decided by the majority just as you would if the majority wanted it (in my ideal world not intruded upon by bad SCOTUS decisions). What I don't respect is attempts to rewrite history as if the Founders were some kind of agents of the ACLU.

I've asked before, what separates a 'sectarian' prayer from a 'non-sectarian' prayer? Aren't prayers to gods religious by nature, if not definition?

See my example above from the 1962 case.

Could you please offer references for this. I looked through this thread and didn't notice it, and I don't want to assume a link from a different thread is your reference here.

I can't find the video, but it's somewhere on this forum. Here is the lady in question, recently deceased:

ARLENE GOES HOME (1931 - 2008) 4/21/08

(RA) - Arlene Elshinnawy, who worked regularly with Repent America, died suddenly on April 20th to go home to be with the Lord. Arlene was a faithful witness of Jesus Christ who loved to serve and reach out to others with the Gospel. She was a committed voice for the unborn, counseling women outside of abortion clinics, and thereby, helping to save countless babies from being murdered at the hands of abortionists. As one of the Philadelphia 11, Arlene was wrongfully arrested and charged with a "hate crime" in 2004 for attempting to share the Gospel at a homosexual event. As a result, Arlene was featured on various news programs and documentaries, speaking on the dangers of "hate crimes" laws. Those who knew Arlene personally have been deeply impacted by her life of service. She will be missed greatly.

Insist on? What if one of those parents is a known abuser?

Where did that come from? That would be bad. For the record, I'm also against parents who are axe murderers.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 8 Post 77:

I find it interesting that pretty much the entire rest of the US would say "Church and State", but East of Eden has on more than one occassion used the phrase "belief and State". I contend this is a rhetorical tactic designed to avoid the issue of religious belief, as opposed to a belief in general.

While I don't want to extend this thread, I do have to clarify this one. You act as if there were a Constitutionally mandated separation of belief and State...

You're still doing it. LOL

Anyway:

While I don't want to extend this thread, I do have to clarify this one. You act as if there were a Constitutionally mandated separation of belief and State, almost like the word 'God' is unconsitutional. There is none, just a mandate that the Federal government not establish a state religion. Nobody here is advocating that be done. You make a huge unjustified leap going from no state church to trying to eliminate religion from the public square. We have freedom OF belief, not freedom FROM belief.

Ah yes, the old "freedom from belief" canard.

Would that we could all enjoy freedom from folks cramming their "beliefs" into the law books.

Would you accept it if the courts ruled that the atheist position must be read aloud before all school events, or would you still hold folks didn't have "freedom from belief"?

Do you not see a difference here? Would it be right for the schools to open classes with a declaration of the atheist position? Or would you rather such teachings be left to parents and others outside of our publicly funded institutions?

We also don't allow teaching a "belief" that fairies are in the bottom of our gardens.

So are you against school prayer because you don't believe in it or because of the Constitution? Some of us would put your disbelief in God right along with the fairy joke.

Please note the tags to the left under my name. I'm an atheist, I have no god belief. I contend that we should base our laws and policies on the here and now, and not on what folks thought two hundred, or two thousand years ago.

My point was to show that we should not, and tend to do not allow teaching the unprovable in our schools.

If you're saying you don't believe in school prayer because the majority today don't want it, I can respect that.

I'm saying they can't be shown to work, are known to be divisive, and should have no place in an institution that is funded with public money. I further contend there is the potential, and proven historical abuse of religious zealots skirting around, or ignoring the laws in order to push their brand of the unprovable.
If we disallow prayer we disallow the con.

These decisions should be decided locally, and living in a democracy I would have to go along with that if decided by the majority just as you would if the majority wanted it (in my ideal world not intruded upon by bad SCOTUS decisions).

If only the locals could be trusted to keep their unproven <read religious> claims away from a captive audience.

One of my biggest issues here is the fact that many (but not all) theists will use captive audiences to preach, and waste student's time.

What I don't respect is attempts to rewrite history as if the Founders were some kind of agents of the ACLU.

I can dig it. I object more to theists who try to game the system to support unprovable god theories.

I've asked before, what separates a 'sectarian' prayer from a 'non-sectarian' prayer? Aren't prayers to gods religious by nature, if not definition?

See my example above from the 1962 case.

You are good, now you know I gotta pray, if only to myself as I read it

I still see a prayer. I've asked what separates a 'sectarian prayer' from a 'non-sectarian' prayer, given that both are praying to a god that can't be shown to exist.

Could you please offer references for this. I looked through this thread and didn't notice it, and I don't want to assume a link from a different thread is your reference here.

I can't find the video, but it's somewhere on this forum. Here is the lady in question, recently deceased:

ARLENE GOES HOME (1931 - 2008) 4/21/08...

If it's the one I saw, it was from a website that can be reasonably considered to be biased. As we don't have a link to the site here, I will point out the claim is not evidenced beyond your (and my) claim, even if your (or my) claim is a reasonale facsimile or copy.

Insist on? What if one of those parents is a known abuser?

Where did that come from? That would be bad. For the record, I'm also against parents who are axe murderers.

If you notice, I almost always put the reference page and post number at the top of my responses.

From Page 7 Post 70, referencing Page 7 Post 68:

>>>the "Me" here is not joeyknuccione, but included for context<<<
37. Me: "Are you, in fact, for prohibiting proven adulterers, embezzlers, and frauds, e.g., from raising children as well?"

You: "The old trick of digging up the scummiest heterosexual parent examples you can find to try to make gay marriage look attractive."

Me: "The old trick of trying to distract readers from the fact that you're ducking the question. Are you in favor of prohibiting other egregious sinners from raising children, or not? If not, why not?"

No. All parents are sinners, what I do insist on is giving children a mother and a father.

I ask again, would you insist on a parent staying with their child, when that parent is a known abuser?
Or would you insist a single parent must immediately marry in order to comply with your "insistence"?
How far would you carry this "insistence"?

[Artheos]

Now, one might say that school should also be promoting the development of certain values. Things like citizenship, respect for others, an appreciation for diversity, and even basic moral values (like honesty, respect for others property, etc.). One might make the case (and many have certainly attempted to do so) that school prayer supports this kind of mission. I would not disagree with this.

On the other hand, one can support the "values mission" without bringing in a particular form of religion, or religion at all.

I think this may be a core sticking point. In some religions, all of the things you've listed are without value unless they are based on certain spiritual principles and teaching them without including the core doctrines of the respective religion could indeed be coming up against first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By stepping out of the purely objective educational role and into the cultural educational role, public education is going to continue to run afoul of religious concerns. I suspect the tension will continue to increase.

[East of Eden]

Ah yes, the old "freedom from belief" canard.

Like the 'Separation of church and state' canard that isn't in the Constitution?

Would that we could all enjoy freedom from folks cramming their "beliefs" into the law books.

Only atheist beliefs are allowed, huh?

Would you accept it if the courts ruled that the atheist position must be read aloud before all school events, or would you still hold folks didn't have "freedom from belief"?

Do you not see a difference here? Would it be right for the schools to open classes with a declaration of the atheist position? Or would you rather such teachings be left to parents and others outside of our publicly funded institutions?

We essentially have an atheistic (no-God) educational system already, you should be thrilled.

Please note the tags to the left under my name. I'm an atheist, I have no god belief. I contend that we should base our laws and policies on the here and now, and not on what folks thought two hundred, or two thousand years ago.

Your opinion, and not part of the Consitution. The majority of Americans believe God IS part of the here and now.

My point was to show that we should not, and tend to do not allow teaching the unprovable in our schools.

Does your opinion extend to the theory of evolution?

I'm saying they can't be shown to work, are known to be divisive, and should have no place in an institution that is funded with public money. I further contend there is the potential, and proven historical abuse of religious zealots skirting around, or ignoring the laws in order to push their brand of the unprovable.
If we disallow prayer we disallow the con.

OK, again your opinion that I disagree with.

One of my biggest issues here is the fact that many (but not all) theists will use captive audiences to preach, and waste student's time.

That's a separate issue that has nothing to do with a voluntary, non-sectarian prayer.

I can dig it. I object more to theists who try to game the system to support unprovable god theories.

You are good, now you know I gotta pray, if only to myself as I read it

I still see a prayer.

So what?

I've asked what separates a 'sectarian prayer' from a 'non-sectarian' prayer, given that both are praying to a god that can't be shown to exist.

Neither can the idea be shown that He doesn't exist.

If it's the one I saw, it was from a website that can be reasonably considered to be biased. As we don't have a link to the site here, I will point out the claim is not evidenced beyond your (and my) claim, even if your (or my) claim is a reasonale facsimile or copy.

The video I posted before is on this page:

http://www.fighthatecrimes.com/

I ask again, would you insist on a parent staying with their child, when that parent is a known abuser?

No, what does this question have to do with anything?

Or would you insist a single parent must immediately marry in order to comply with your "insistence"?
How far would you carry this "insistence"?

I'll rephrase it, I would prefer a child have a mother and father. The theoretical single parent doesn't care what I, or you, think about anything.