Slashdot Mirror

> But isn't lack of religion definable as "a religion"?

>>Good point. So by removing the phrase "under God" we are actually supporting the atheist view of religion. Hmm...

LOL so - by failing to pray before dinner, you're indicating that you're an atheist?

Perhaps by failing to pray for your texas football team (all deserving pious and godly warriors) to be granted supernatural powers so that they could trounce the neighboring team (a bunch of Soddomites)...you are indicating that you're a godless communist? Whereupon in texas it would be expected of all true patriots that they would shoot you on the spot for such an anti-merican declaration of hatred.

Whew, good thing you caught that one in time! Looked like it could have snowballed on ya....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

And particularly ironic, because the author of the pledge was a socialist Baptist minister.

It was the Knights of Columbus who campaigned to have the 'under God' added to the pledge. So, I propose that we, as a nation, petition the Pope to remove that phrase from the pledge rather than bother the Supreme Court about it.

The phrase separation of church and state does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of America's official documents. It does, however, appear in another prominent document, the Constitution of the former Soviet Union: "The church in the USSR is separated from the state from the church." (Article 52).

Looks like you atheists in the U.S. have your constitutions mixed up. This is NOT Soviet Russia.

"MSNBC (Yes I know, I'm too lazy to change my default home page...score one for MS)"

Jeez, what an emberassing confession. I understand lazy, but come on!! What else, are you too lazy to drop your pants when you shit?

That's always been my problem with it. I recall reading that the president was persuaded to promote this by his minister. It's a remnant of frightened, McCarthyist viewpoints that have no other lasting legacy in this country but fear and oppression.

It's the pledge of alliegiance to the country. It's what you say to make it clear that your devotion lies first with your country. By keeping "God" in it we say that you have to be religious to be an American, and if that's truly the case, I'm expatriating tomorrow.

if more than 50% of this country believe in God, it *IS* a country "under God"--even if some citizens don't share the belief

Wh-wh-what? No, my friend, in that case it's a country with some percentage of citizens greater than 50% (but less than 100%) who consider themselves "under god." It's an important distinction. You don't have to agree with Bush (even if more than 50% of everyone does), and you don't have to be "under god".

Freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion. You have no right to not hear God mentioned in everyday life. Get used to it.

You are out of your mind. Yes the fuck it is. It's freedom from any specific religion being endorsed by the state. And I do have a right not to hear god mentioned by the local, state, or federal governments. Don't believe me? Ask the Supreme Court of this fine country.

Newsflash: some religions do not worship the same gods as others, and some worship no god at all. That's all perfectly cool in the US, and no government org or officer has the right to do anything that advocates any one religion. I think you should get used to that, because that is truly the way it is.

Anyone that cannot see the difference between how "under God" affects the godless and slavery affected the blacks is not one that really has anything valid to argue.

And you are short-sighted and weak of mind. "under god" excludes and alienates those who do not believe in god, and at least implicitly gives Xtians (who are already dangerously self-righteous in many cases) justification for government-approved ostracizing of non-Xtians. It's OK to preach your intolerance in your church or at the local street-corner, but keep it the fuck out of government.

There are many ways conscious objectors to these words can resolve this without having to go pissing and moaning to the courts.

Such as?

That said, the question is whether or not kids needs to say the pledge every day (or ever) in school. I think the answer to that is "yes", and therefore, I think we need to have a godless pledge option for those who do want to "promise or affirm" their allegiance to this country, without making them involve a god in which they don't believe. Some may argue that kids don't have to say the pledge, but in practice, that's just not true in many (most? all?) cases.

Why?

Maybe for practical reasons? Well I don't know any European country that does this, and we seem to be OK. We also don't display much fervent patriotism, except on sporting occasions :-) None of that weird flag waving and chanting that ironically the American news media so often associate with "evildoers".

Or maybe for ideological reasons; children ought to be taught, and ought to reaffirm, the principles of their nation. But does reciting the pledge do this? Do all American adults have a good understanding of their constitution and the principles under which America was founded? I doubt it. In fact, it would probably be more productive to have children write their own pledge under supervision and have them read that; at least that way you might make children think a little about the principles that they ramble on about.

Before you state that something is true, try providing explanations that lead to reasons.

That's a fine theory, if not for the fact that that's not the original. The phrase "under God" was added during the 50s as part of McCarthyism's attack on godless communism. So, given that fact, I assume that you will be supporting the return of the Pledge to it's "original" godless version?

Speaking of original "godless" versions of the Pledge of Allegiance, the original version also included what is called the "Bellamy Salute" instead of the current hand over the heart scheme. The bellamy salute was most famously used by the Nazis. Perhaps given the current US government it should be put back in... (Heil Bu$h)

Interesting that these contraversial two words where just an addition to seperate us from those "godless commies", no?

It makes even less sense now, in our current military predicament, to say "Under God." Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all children of Abraham, and all worship the same god.

Suggestion to school kids: Substitute in "Under Allah" or "Under Yahweh" (or whatever that god's name is) and see if anything interesting happens.

I'm sure many others have pointed this out, but the "under God" phrase wasn't in the original Pledge of Allegiance. It was added in the 1950's along with the "In God We Trust" on our coinage, back when we were trying to prove that we were better than the godless Communists over in the USSR.

More important, I question the utility of having kids repeat the Pledge every day. Perhaps it instills patriotism, but patriotism of an unquestioning and unimaginative sort. Personally, I'd rather see kids being taught to love their country, and to pin the bastards in Washington to the wall if they do anything to undermine it. The price of liberty is eternal vigilence and whatnot.

My point is wholly unaffected; you apparently did not read my post. The "original", given the new info I just learned, includes no god reference, so "the original is still the original." I have no problem with that -- let's turn it back to the way it was, before the god nonsense. That wasn't my point, but I'm sorry if my post was unclear.

My point, risking redundancy, was that regardless of what's "original", there must be a "godless" version available for cases where (1) someone has to say the pledge for some reason and (2) that someone doesn't want to refer to god or gods or goddesses or anything similar.

That point stands, regardless of what the original was.

I think it's a matter of timing. Back when the "under God" words were added to the Pledge back in the 50's I would have agreed that it was improper and it should have gone to the courts back then.

I find it offensive that they want to declare it unconstitutional now. Yes, I believe in God. But God is with us regardless of whether or not we have the "under God" words in the Pledge. But at this point removing those words--or ANY words--from the Pledge is like removing a few words from the Star Spangled Banner. Just don't touch it.

I am optimistic the Supreme Court will recognize that the Pledge, in its entirety, is part of our national culture. For better or worse, whatever religious overtones "under God" may have should have been argued nearly half a century ago before it became a part of our culture.

Just like "In God We Trust" on dollar bills. Probably improper, I probably wouldn't have put it there myself, nor does it change my life drastically whether it's there or not. But now that it's there, leave it alone. Don't mess with our culture and traditions.

A nation founded by people seeking to worship God free from persecution.

Nope, the pilgrims came late to the party. Many of the people who came before them were godless heathens. Even some of the founders weren't to fond of all the god sillyness. Ironically, it was those god worshiping Quakers that fought to make our constitution a secular one. They had been persecuted in New York by Peter Stuyvesant, in part for harboring Jews and Muslims when Stuy went on his witchhunt. When his bosses learned of the episode they told him they established the colony to make money and if he couldn't leave his religion at the door they would replace him. If you told Franklin that a pledge of allegiance was now done in public schools he would spin furiously in his grave.

BTW I don't like the pledge in schools, but religion isn't even near the main reason. When I came to this country and was told to "pledge allegiance" I didn't even speak the language. That's even more meaningless than your standard enforced pledge. But it's not that either. We live in a democracy, and a pledge of allegiance has no place in a democracy. This is my country and I have a moral duty to help my countrymen destroy the flag and it's government if it does not follow our wishes. The pledge undermines the teaching of that duty. Teaching our children to rule their government is the most important function of our schools.

It's not the original. The original pledge had no reference to god, as has been said several times already, it was added in the 1950s.

I'm not a pledge expert -- that info came in while I was posting. Thank you for the info.

That's a fine theory, if not for the fact that that's not the original. The phrase "under God" was added during the 50s as part of McCarthyism's attack on godless communism. So, given that fact, I assume that you will be supporting the return of the Pledge to it's "original" godless version?

Again, I didn't know that, and yes, I do absolutely support the return of the pledge to its original godless version. More importantly, though (and this was my original point, and it stands), whether or not the "official" pledge becomes godless or not, there needs to be a godless version available for whatever purposes require a pledge today.

I think we need to have a godless pledge option for those who do want to "promise or affirm" their allegiance to this country, without making them involve a god in which they don't believe. Some may argue that kids don't have to say the pledge, but in practice, that's just not true in many (most? all?) cases.

Frankly, if it isn't genuinely optional, then I think forcing kids to swear allegiance to something is much much worse than the incidental religious phrase.

Not the same. If you the Pledge said "One nation under Jehova" I would be just as upset. "Under God" can refer to just about anything. If people automatically think of a Christian God it's because, correctly, they recognize that the majority of this country is Christian. One could even make the case that it is a statement of fact... if more than 50% of this country believe in God, it *IS* a country "under God"--even if some citizens don't share the belief.

it's about freedom of religion, or lack of for that matter.

Freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion. You have no right to not hear God mentioned in everyday life. Get used to it.

would have been like Abe Lincoln saying "Well, slavery has been around for a long time now, so we better not mess with it. Carry on."

I knew that response would be coming but of course the response is silly. Anyone that cannot see the difference between how "under God" affects the godless and slavery affected the blacks is not one that really has anything valid to argue.

Exactly HOW does saying "under God" harm anyone? At all? Can the godless just say the Pledge and NOT SPEAK those two words if it is so contrary to their beliefs?

There are many ways conscious objectors to these words can resolve this without having to go pissing and moaning to the courts.

the Pledge of Allegiance will (and should always) continue to include the phrase "under god." NO matter what you do, the original is sitll the original

That's a fine theory, if not for the fact that that's not the original. The phrase "under God" was added during the 50s as part of McCarthyism's attack on godless communism. So, given that fact, I assume that you will be supporting the return of the Pledge to it's "original" godless version?

I agree with your point, but I'm afraid it's irrelevant. That is, the Pledge of Allegiance will (and should always) continue to include the phrase "under god." NO matter what you do, the original is sitll the original -- you can't change it. But the point is that no one should be forced to say it that way.

If there are situations where someone must say the pledge, such as when becoming a naturalized citizen, then there should be an alternate, godless version. Not unlike the way "Do you swear before god to tell the truth, the whole truth . . . so help you god" became "Do you promise or affirm . . . . " with no god reference. We need people to take an oath promising not to lie when testifying in court, but we shouldn't make them swear to God for that. In fact, if they don't believe in God, it sort of invalidates the whole schmeal, to some. So, it's proper to provide a godless option.

That said, the question is whether or not kids needs to say the pledge every day (or ever) in school. I think the answer to that is "yes", and therefore, I think we need to have a godless pledge option for those who do want to "promise or affirm" their allegiance to this country, without making them involve a god in which they don't believe. Some may argue that kids don't have to say the pledge, but in practice, that's just not true in many (most? all?) cases.

Tradition is fine if taken in moderation. Now is the time for some moderation. Note that slavery was a firmly-held tradition in the South for a long time; few lament its demise.

I think this whole thing is quite ridiculous(?) honestly.
As I understand, "In God We Trust" was not part of the original pledge and was added sometime in the 50's, sort of a way to spite the 'godless commies' or something to that effect. In this respect I don't see anything wrong with putting it back the way it was before that, but really the whole argument seems pointless to me.
I remember in grade school saying the pledge every morning, and I also remember not getting in trouble for not saying it (at the time I was refusing to say it just trying to be a pain in the ass), and there was no real fuss made.
The thing is, most students from what I remember, just drone through the pledge without really knowing what they are even saying.
If you want to talk about promoting of religion in schools, I think the pledge is a bad example to give, what about all the christmas breaks, coloring pictures of santa, memorizing 'twas the night before christmas, singing silent night, etc. Things may have changed since I was in grade school, but that hasn't been very many years ago (I'm 19) and we were still doing all of those things then.