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 12 Post 120

I won't be silenced so easily. As this relates to the OP I contend it is theists putting words in my mouth far more than they are "silencing me".

Want to answer my question of what would stop you, or me, from being silenced absent the Bill of Rights authored by those obsolete Founders?

Do you not understand the OP?

I am debating against folks making claims in my regard, not folks "silencing" me. I will not be drawn into this strawman.

Do you feign ignorance of this point, or are you seriously this far from understanding?

Don't flatter yourself, your points aren't as clear as you seem to think.

Obviously not, when you keep asking about what will silence me, when I'm concerned about folks putting words (unprovable claims) in my mouth.

If the constitution called for a separation of religion and the Fed. gov't., you would have a point.

That is the entire point of this OP. I am debating against folks using the government to make unverifiable, divisive claims in my regard.

It is my contention that whatever the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or our vaunted Founders thought, we should not include religious notions within a government context.

OK, let me explain this as clearly as I can. You tried to denigrate religion in general because of some crazed Muslims. I pointed out that is like denigrating the political process because Stalin grossly abused it.

And yet we lose soldiers on an almost daily basis, simply because someone else thinks their god is bigger than another's.

My point is that we are indeed fighting against one form of religious oppression while allowing another. Admittedly a few words in a pledge are not of the same order, but they are neverless an inflicting of religion onto and into government.

84% of Americans disagree with you, and would probably call you the divisive one.

Either way, divisiveness has entered into the Pledge of Allegiance.

You mean like the government proclamation that said 'We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.....'? By your logic such mentions of God is establishing a religion.

I asked you before and you dodged the question:

God is a religious issue, right?

[East of Eden]

That is the entire point of this OP. I am debating against folks using the government to make unverifiable, divisive claims in my regard.

Obama makes unverifiable, divisive claims in my regard all the time. What should I do?

And yet we lose soldiers on an almost daily basis, simply because someone else thinks their god is bigger than another's.

Your attempted dig at religion falls down when the fact is brought up that 100,000,000 were killed last century by people who DIDN'T believe in God.

My point is that we are indeed fighting against one form of religious oppression while allowing another. Admittedly a few words in a pledge are not of the same order, but they are neverless an inflicting of religion onto and into government.

Yawn. So what?

I asked you before and you dodged the question:

God is a religious issue, right?

I tend to ignore irrelevant questions, but to answer this one, yes. So what?

[micatala]

We also need to acknowledge the role of judicial interpretation. The language of the First Amendment has not changed, but its application has changed mostly due to changes in society that end up being reflected in Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court often does what the elites want, i.e. Dred Scott, Plesssy vs. Ferguson, and the case removing prayer from schools.

Was the decision in Brown versus Board of Education also elitist?

But this is a digression. Labeling SCOTUS as elites does not change the fact they are fulfilling their acknowledged role. Of course not everyone is going to agree with their decisions. Certainly Governor George Wallace and many other southerners did not agree with the Brown decision. I don't see the point in labeling the court with pejoratives just because you disagree with some of their decisions.

I think East of Eden is correct that the attitudes of at least some of the founders were different regarding state church relations. However, East of Eden should remember that the explicit intent of the constitution, as reflected in its very words, were that negro slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person. In addition, the founders did not have as their "original intent" to allow women to vote.

I hope East of Eden will understand that I feel free to completely dismiss his arguments based on the intent or attitudes of the founders unless he acknowledges these other intents and attitudes and explains why it is OK for us to differ from the founders on these issues but not on the separation of church and state issue.

We had consitutional amendments to change the slave and woman voting issues. Go ahead and try a similar amendment against any government entity ever refering to anything religious, but don't pretend the Pledge equates to the establishment of a church.

Your point on constitutional amendments is well taken. My point is that the original intent of the founders can subsequently be found to be in error. I would agree that amending the constitution is one appropriate way to do this. I am also of the view the action by SCOTUS is another appropriate way. Those who disagree with SCOTUS then have the opportunity to attempt to amend the constitution to change the basis on which the SCOTUS reached their decision.

I also would agree that including "under God" in the pledge does not equate to the establishment of a church. However, I do think concerns about making a pledge including those words mandatory, for example in a school setting, are entirely understandable.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 13 Post 122

That is the entire point of this OP. I am debating against folks using the government to make unverifiable, divisive claims in my regard.

Obama makes unverifiable, divisive claims in my regard all the time. What should I do?

Start a new OP?

Notice the topic of the OP is the Pledge of Allegiance. Your continuing effort to derail the thread into side issues indicates to me you don't wish to address the topic of the OP.

And yet we lose soldiers on an almost daily basis, simply because someone else thinks their god is bigger than another's.

Your attempted dig at religion falls down when the fact is brought up that 100,000,000 were killed last century by people who DIDN'T believe in God.

Do you disagree that we are at war with some religious folks?

"Last century" means little to me in the here and now.

My point is that we are indeed fighting against one form of religious oppression while allowing another. Admittedly a few words in a pledge are not of the same order, but they are neverless an inflicting of religion onto and into government.

Yawn. So what?

So let's dance. - Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack

I take it you yawn as a stress relief, and are unable to rebut my claim.

I ask again, do you feign misunderstanding of the OP?

I asked you before and you dodged the question:

God is a religious issue, right?

I tend to ignore irrelevant questions, but to answer this one, yes. So what?

So what?

I take it then you have absolutely no understanding of the OP.

I ask you to reread the OP, and then ask yourself what God, religion, and the Pledge of Allegiance have to do with this discussion.

[micatala]

Alright, I guess I am as guilty of anyone of not actually addressing the OP yet (I think)

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge?

It really isn',t necessary. It was put in during the anti-commie hysteria of the McCarthy era. The same era gave us witch hunts, black lists, and other abuses. Given the pedigree, maybe we should ditch it.

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?

We have been arguing to some extent whether the term really is or should be considered divisive. Certainly I accept joeyknuccione and others take it as such. While I still consider the alleged harm being done by its inclusion to be at a pretty low level, I would certainly not be opposed to removing it. Let's go back to the "traditional" pre-1950's pledge.

After all. Why allow those Russkies to influence what our pledge should be, especially now that we're (sorta anyway) friends?


In fact, now that we are more focused on the Muslims, maybe we should change it to "under Yahweh", just so no one gets confused that we are talking about Allah.




Now, more seriously, having said all that I do think the larger First Amendment issues are important. Perhaps these should go in another thread.

[scottlittlefield17]

This is not going to over big with many I know. I don't believe Christians should recite the pledge of allegiance. Christ said that his Kingdom was not of this world. If you aren't a Christian than that means nothing to you.

[Coyotero]

This is not going to over big with many I know. I don't believe Christians should recite the pledge of allegiance. Christ said that his Kingdom was not of this world. If you aren't a Christian than that means nothing to you.

Do you believe that faith in God excludes patriotism?

[scottlittlefield17]

In a word, yes. However we should support our country in prayer and by being good lawbreaking citizens, as long it does not against the Bible. (We shall obey God rather than man.)

[East of Eden]

Notice the topic of the OP is the Pledge of Allegiance. Your continuing effort to derail the thread into side issues indicates to me you don't wish to address the topic of the OP.

Gee, I thought I've make it clear I disagree with your OP premise.

Do you disagree that we are at war with some religious folks?

What does THAT have to do with the OP?

"Last century" means little to me in the here and now.

Funny your side routinely has no problem bringing up alleged Christian misdeeds from centuries ago every other thread.

I ask again, do you feign misunderstanding of the OP?

When you can come up with an alternate pledge agreed upon by 100% of 300,000,000 Americans, let me know. Until then, the current one is good enough for me.

[MagusYanam]

This is not going to over big with many I know. I don't believe Christians should recite the pledge of allegiance. Christ said that his Kingdom was not of this world. If you aren't a Christian than that means nothing to you.

Well... yeah, Christ did say his kingdom was not of this world. But isn't it our calling (subversive though it may be) to transform the world so that God's will may be done on earth as it is in heaven?

In a word, yes. However we should support our country in prayer and by being good lawbreaking citizens, as long it does not against the Bible.

Um... you mean 'law-abiding', right?

As it stands re: the Pledge of Allegiance, many of us radical-Reformed consider the pledge to be an oath, and therefore against Jesus' command in the Gospel of Matthew to 'let your word be “yes, yes� or “no, no�' (5:37). As such, you'd never get one that everyone agreed to. That said, I'm not sure the Pledge counts as an oath... if it were one, it would be fairly silly. What would an oath to the flag mean, anyway?