Slashdot Mirror
Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional
VUSE g-EE-k and entirely too many other people wrote in about an Appeals Court decision holding that the Pledge of Allegiance, as recited in its current form in various public schools (often by law), is unconstitutional. The court's decision (PDF) is available.
I'm filing a suit against all US currency! It's unconstitutional!!!
This is only the Court in the State of California.
This is not a nationwide decision. I'm sure the U.S. Supreme court will strike it down.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d? s: a-- C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E- W++ N o-- K- w--- O- M+ V PS+ P
Before the comments start to get out of hand, I'd like to point out that this will almost certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has pulled this stunt many a time before, only to have it overturned or reverse itself later.
The separation of church and state is one thing (which I agree with)...But the whole concept of the pledge of allegiance smacks of propaganda and indoctrination.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no commie-hippe-whatever. Hell, I don't even use Linux... But forcing kids to pledge their allegiance to flag/country/god/whatever every day just smacks of so much wrongness. Let these ideas stand on their own merits, not be points of indoctrination.
And lastly, I think if anything a forced pledge of allegiance is self-harming in that, due to having to say it each day kids view it as some form of rote punishment. The words behind the pledge are lost because they learn to recite them like robots long before they can really understand the implications of the words. Why do this?
I really really hate the pledge. I'm glad something was done about this.
"One nation under God"...ehhh gag me. And since when has the US actually lived up to "liberty and justice for all?"
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
My 7-year-old daughter, who attends public school in Utah, is always coming home with little sayings and tidbits about Jesus and god. I haven't jumped on the school or her teacher just yet, but I may if it continues.
Thers's nothing wrong with religion, in terms of personal choice. However, children are too young to contemplate the philosophical and metaphysical consequences of a religiouos faith. Hell, even many seemingly intelligent adults can't give a good reason for their faith (or for their denouncement of my lack of it).
I wish religious followers would leave children alone and let informed adults come to them when they reach an age appropraite to do so.
Method of processing duck feet
I believe the US constitution *does not* say anything about "separation of Church and State", but does say that the State will not establish a religion. If you think about it, these are two different concepts, albeit closely related.
...one Nation, under your choice of a single diety, a pantheon of dieties, or no dieties at all, indivisible...
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
Besides, how can a 48-year-old amendment be "The foundation and tradition of our country"? Stop hyperventilating for a moment and re-read the decision. The amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance favors monotheism, the Semitic religions specifically. This is not the end of the world by any means, just a return to the Constitution.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Well, it's not in the Constitution, it isn't how this country was set up (there were established State churches until 1833, and the US was an officially Christian nation until the late 1940s) The whole concept of this republic is that we had no king but Jesus, so that ultimate sovereignty didn't rest with men, so that we could have a limited government.
Under God is just a statement of our political relation to God.
It doesn't mean that the citizenry are going to be forced to go to a particular establishment of religion, like the Southern Baptists or the Unitarians.
The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and the most overturned appeals court in the country.
I would much prefer that our citizens be educated in what's good about America and what's unique about being a citizen so they can fight to keep it a place they should be willing to defend. I'm talking about things like civil rights -- due process, free speech, etc. Our children should be educated in why these things are important even when they're inconvenient (there are a lot of seemingly educated people who don't get this at all).
Again, something that makes America worth the effort is the fact that we don't have to put up with the government telling us what to believe. The Pledge is just hot air, but our *rights*, the ability to exercise those rights and the defense of those rights is critical to our continuing existance as something special and worthwhile. Without those, we're just another despotic country masquerading as a republic. The world has quite enough of those.
Again, some people think this country is special because of symbols like the flag or the pledge or the anthem. Personally, what I love and fear the loss of are the rights which those things represent.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
the utter ridiculousness of the liberalization and political correctness of our "society" has already destroyed the country.
Because we all know how easy it is in grade school & high school to do something that clearly makes you stand out (like refusing to stand and recite the pledge). Especially in the current atmosphere of you must be patriotic or you are a terrorist.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Thanks for your lengthy explanation. I'm European, and I had not ever heard of such a thing. I think I get the context a bit. To be honest, this 'pledge' sounds very conservative and a bit like an old patriotic communist system. I mean, to indoctrinate children on schools with political and religious shit like this - I'm very happy that I've never been drilled like that! One cynic note: Saddam Hussein recently made it compulsory for all Iraqi children to know his nationalist novels..
I think we all understand it. Some people just don't want it. They say these references to God are to trivial to matter, then they refuse to remove them.
State-sponsored pledges of allegiance are propagandistic, and exist to inspire collective feeling. That's not what America is about. It's not the "under God" part that bothers me, but rather the conscious attempt to instill loyalty in the young.
State-sponsored pledges are attempts to form state-sponsored beliefs. The pledge of alleigance is not essentially different from the mandatory pledges of loyalty that are taken by the soldiers of various totalitarian regimes. We decry their pledges as propaganda, yet we require our own.
I would rather see the pledge go by the wayside. The only expression of patriotism that is inspiring to me is one that is genuine and spontaneous.
I can understand you being angry, but the real issue is whether the US ought to support/establish a particular religious belief. The Pledge clearly does. I am a Christian, but I still think that as far as the constitution goes, this is a no-brainer. What could the defense possibly be?
The God part doesn't bother me, it's the fact that children from kindergarten on are generally forced by faculty to recite something that they don't truly grasp the meaning of. It's a form of indoctrination. Not to mention it's kind of hard to justify, since that 'justice' treated blacks as second class citizens until about 40 years ago. Oh, and never mind that whole Native American thing, stealing the land, etc.
What a joke. There's no difference between having a group of children bow down and praise Jesus with rosary beads and making them essentially worship and give their allegiance to a stupid piece of fabric.
If you feel like worshipping a flag do it at home, on your own time. It's one thing to have an individual decide he or she would like to pledge, it's another to MAKE them do it ritualistically every day, with no explanation other than "this is the right thing to do."
Pardon my potential ignorance, but wouldn't this simply cause the 1954 legislation to be struck down, meaning that the Pledge in its old form (i.e. without "under God") could still legally be recited? The case was challenging both (separately) the 1954 legislation and the school district's rule that it must be recited. The district's rule is only unconstitutional IF the law it references is active -- if the 1954 law is struck down, then the district's behavior is not unconstitutional.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I suspect that if the Pledge were changed to remove "under God," this whole issue would go away, at least as far as the courts are concerned.
Odds of that happening are within epsilon of zero. I guarantee you that the Family Values crowd is going to use this to hammer massive invasions of religious liberties down our throats, with Joe Lieberman (yes, the so-called Liberal) leading the way. Rationality and common sense can barely stand up for themselves against either nationalism or religious belief. Against both combined, they're practically criminal offenses.
Finding God in a Dog
and yet you would think that atheists wouldn't care about that "under god" clause because they believe in no higher being.
Hardly. I'm Jewish. Now imagine how I'd feel if "under Jesus" was in the PoA. I don't believe in Jesus as the messiah, but I'd be pissed as hell. Same thing.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Most people in this country are monotheistic, and since majority rules we have "In God we Trust". If you want to be in a Ahtiest country, go to China.
I thought the majority had ruled that there was going to be a separation of the state and the church. (note, I am not an Athiest) I too live in a country (Canada) where the majority is monotheistic yet kids don't have to say prayers (or "In God We Trust"-like plegde) at school anymore. Religion is back where it belongs: at home.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
majority rules
Read the Constitution again. Pre-Amendments, it didn't provide for people to elect senators or the president. The first amendements were added to prevent the majority from taking certain actions detrimental to the rights of minorities. If you want to live in a country where majorities rule, I suggest you move, because the US isn't it.
I like what Eisenhower said. I think it made a lot of sense -- and it is true -- America has grown to be very arrogant over the years, in many ways that i will not be listing here.
... one nation under the principle of tolerance and forgiveness ... ?
At the mean time -- the pledge of allegiance, added with such a phrase, really does put stress on, i am sure, many people's minds. I, for one, dreaded those occations while in middle school. However, what is more worrisome is not necessarily the people who are made to say it when they do not want to -- they can just "watermelon" under their breath after all; it is, rather, the minds of children coaxed into the belief of God that way -- without ever knowing what it is like to be free to choose one's own religion(s).
side note -- this will have some serious consequences -- all of the bills we've got have "in god we trust" written on them. i highly doubt the new rainbow series (discussed before under "Greenbacks no more") will do without them.
But back to the Eisenhower thing. I think it is implemented in the wrong way. His intentions are good, but since then, the phrase has all but lost its meaning, because if it did not, my thread's parent will not be modded to 5:informative. In this vein of thought, i support taking "under God" out of the pledge. put somethig more... abstract in there, if they really wanted (words like "president", "dignity", "humility", "cheeseburgers", etc). maybe run a contest or something, like Maxim's caption contest. Winner gets a chance to go in a ring for a one on one to beat up Bin Laden whenever we capture him (or designate somebody like The Rock, for example. you guys figure it out).
Last piece of ramble: The most demoralizing aspect of this whole ordeal isn't really about what goes into a pledge, whatever. it's rather the fact that we have so little tolerance for eachother. For "land of the free," it is really hard to be "free" now-a-days without somebody complaining that you doing what you wanna do is violating their freedom in some fringe ways. maybe it should read
My life in the land of the rising sun.
That would occur only if this wasn't appealed. Since this has been adjudicated before and found to be perfectly constitutional, it's clearly going to be accepted by the supreme court and slam dunked down this appeals court's throat.
The phrase 'under God' is no more unconstitutional than the prayers that start off the SC, Senate, and House of Representative daily sessions. I doubt that a majority of SC justices have been guilty of unconstitutional action by publicly paid for prayer for so long.
The first thing most Atheists tell you when you meet them is they don't belive in God.
Really? That doesn't accord with the atheists I've met, or what I know about atheist's beliefs. (It's not generally an evangelical belief system.) How do you know - do you take an interview of everyone you meet to find out their religion? Furthermore, I never seen an atheist wear a piece of clothing to proclaim to the world their religion, but I've seen many cross or Star of David necklaces and FROG/WWJD (Fooley rely on God / What would Jesus do) wristbands and other pieces of clothing.
Nonsense. Merely considering the rational consequences of behavior leads to numerous morals -- for instance, it's quite reasonable to believe that allowing the arbitrary seizure of other people's property by force would lead to societal breakdown, anarchy, and factional rule. Permitting arbitrary homicide has similar consequences. And so forth. There's no compelling need to believe in something irrational like deities, aliens, or the animist nature spirits, for that matter.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I'm not sure why you call Lieberman a "so-called Liberal". Nobody calls him that -- he's more or less a religious zealot fascist. Just because he's a Democrat doesn't mean he's a liberal. I'm more or less a liberal, and used to be a Democrat, but when the Democratic National Committee declared something about glorifying God, I determined that they weren't representing my interests particularly well. I re-registered as a different party thereafter, though I won't say which, to try to keep people from making judgments about me based on my political party. :)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Personally, I happen to believe the court is right on this one. A school is a government institution, and government ought not establish religion. Therefore, all religious expression, including study of religious texts (beyond examinations of comparative religions for history and sociology purposes) should be banned from the public school.
It therefore follows that public (re: government-run) schools are not suitable institutions for education, because forces external to educators (and families of students) are restricting freedom of speech and expression. The time has come to do away with the public education system. The education of children, like the feeding of children, should be 100% the responsibility of the parents anyway. Parents who fail to provide an education for their children should be found guilty of neglect. Education funding for impoverished families should be handled via AFDC and charity, rather than through a department of education. Quality control of schools could be handled just like the universities are regulated today, only acredited schools could award valid diplomas.
Under the alternative I'm suggesting, all parents would be able to decide for themselves whether to send their kids to a school that insists on the Pledge or not.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
(a) Because the typical parent lacks the time, energy, will, and training to successfully educate his/her child;
(b) Because your children will live in society and should learn to move in it;
(c) Because schools help us find common values and respect for values not held in common.
Disclaimer: I am a schoolteacher (high school Physics) and you're darn-tooting that I feel my profession and I contribute to the general good.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Why? Because it throws gasoline on the fire of the paranoid delusions of many Christians in this country that they are somehow a persecuted minority squaring off with an evil govenrment committed to state-enforced atheism.
The Pledge of Allegiance has such enormous emotional and social weight behind it, especially post 9/11, that it makes a perfect rallying point for "the lengths to which the atheists will go." This decision is just begging for a major political backlash and reeastablishment of the Christian Right's morality in our national political dialogue.
It will contribute to the alienation of atheists and other non-Christians as "unpatriotic" in a time when that equates to "terrorist enemy" and constitutional protections are weaker than they have been in 60 years.
ARRRGH. What HORRIBLE timing.
Many atheists do not acknowledge a higher being (as you stated) and so being forced to recite an incantation that acknowledges a higher being ("one Nation, under God") goes against that in a rather severe way.
As an athiest, let me say that's exactly it. I am not offended by the idea of God. "God" as a concept and religion plays a significant historical and cultural role in America's (and the world's) history.
However, I certainly resented as a kid having to swear my allegance to a nation which is "under God"-- Some people believe that god exists, but I sure as shit don't.
I remember clearly being very uncomfortable with having to stand up in 7th grade and say those words, especially because I had also been taught that we lived in a country that would never compel people to believe in any particular religion.
For this reason, I also feel the national motto (changed from "e pluribus unum" to "in god we trust") and the practice of saying "so help me god" when taking an oath are also inappropriate.
disease, or dis-ease does not imply a viral or bacterial type infection. Nor does it imply any other illness for which you might go to the hospital and take some pills. It implies simply that there is something within that is causing some kind of problem: physical, mental, or spiritual. Our society suffers from much disease.
the pledge was invented in the 1890s I believe. Originally it did not contain the "under god" part. that was added at the request of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic Fraternal Organization around the 1950s. Before some of you fly off the handle might I suggest reading up on this. One excellent source (you don't even have to read) is www.th-jefferson.org I'm not even going to rant at this point beyond saying that its nice to see that for once we're getting back to the actual constitution as opposed to these phony "traditions". Oaths and pledges have never been a tradition in a country founded by men who detested the very idea of an oath or pledge of allegiance. Its refreshing that in this time when so many of our rights are in jeopardy and the constitution is being contorted to meet the needs of national security that there is a moment of sanity. Ok, so its a little ranty.
-
i'm in california -- but if anyone wants to use the verbiage:
As someone who cares passionately about issues involving the separation of church and state, and a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (au.org), I was overjoyed to see that the 9th District Court today upheld the intentions of the Constitution in declaring the addition of 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance, a pledge many schools force children to say, as unconstitutional.
My joy was quickly soured when I heard reports of the reactionary and nasty resolution passed by the Senate today, chastising the District Court which made the ruling.
I don't know what your personal religious beliefs are, but I hope that you can recognize that making children declare that the United States is a nation under God is an infringement of their free exercise of religion if they are not religious, or do not believe in God. Such an infringement is inherently contrary to the letter and spirit of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
I am incredibly thankful that there exist checks and balances within our government, so that wrongs perpetrated by one branch of the government can be righted by another. As a Democratic Senator in a time of a Republican administration, I am sure you see this value everyday. It was therefore doubly distressing that the resolution passed should have been personal argumentative as well as constitutionally indefensible.
In these days of increasing governmental restriction of personal liberty at the hands of an Executive branch that dreams of a dictatorship, even the most minor victory against improper legislation and decisions should be resoundingly celebrated. That the Senate failed to celebrate this decision is saddening and a reflection that it is easier to go with the majority than to stand for what is right.
Hoping you can convince me that I'm wrong,
Yours, etc.
go get it
Now, I'm a sort of atheist-agnostic myself, certainly not a religious man. And I've always seethed over the way that "...under God..." was crammed into the Pledge of Allegiance during the 50's. So I wouldn't be too displeased to see it go, yet, all the same...
I heard this story in a news item on NPR this afternoon, and a quote from the plaintiff Newdow, the man who filed suit because his daughter had to recite the Pledge in school, caught my attention: he claimed that it "hurt" (his word) his daughter to have to listen to those words. (Note: to _listen_ to them. Not to say them--as has been pointed out in this discussion, it has long been established that a child cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge.)
What the f**k? I mean, this kid, all her life, is going to have to hear expressions of belief that she has been trained not to approve of. (Note, _trained_. She's a second-grader; she's not old enough to have a truly independent opinion on this or anything, except maybe whether she likes broccoli or not.) She's gonna see people wearing crucifixes (and Stars of David, and pentacles, and whatever), she's gonna read and hear and see people talking about God and Jesus and Allah _wherever she goes_. What kind of lesson is it for her to learn, that a federal court has decided that she doesn't even have to _hear_ something she doesn't like, or that her father doesn't like?
I'm reminded of the imbroglio in San Diego a few years ago, when some atheist group or other tried to get the Mt. Soledad cross torn down. I could respect their arguments, and yet still think, "What a bunch of yahoos! It's a cross. There are lots of crosses around. Deal with it."
It's one reason that, even though I don't believe in God, I often can't stand the company of some atheists; they walk through life with a giant chip on their shoulders, ready to jump down the throat of anyone who so much as whispers the G-word.
hyacinthus.
The DOI is really a rant about not wanting to be governed by a King who lives across an Ocean. It is in fact a Declaration Of Independence. So for all of you folks who are worried that its references to Divine this or that will render it Unconstitutional, stop worrying. In truth, it is mere a very nice thing that we have that has no power. It's like a family Heirloom.
The Pledge Of Allegiance is, in fact, a pledge. It probably _is_ unconstitutional to make children recite a Pledge Of Allegiance to anything or anyone. Of course if Saddam Hussien were forcing the children of his counrty to recite a Pledge Of Allegiance we'd all be very forthright in our disdain for such heiniousness.
Personally, I like the Pledge. I don't mind the God part; I simply replaced the phrase, or omitted it when I spoke it in the presense of Sister Mary Verylarge.
Of course the Media (/. included) will sensationalize this story.
If you want a story to sensationalize start talking about Flag Burning. Something every American should DO because we CAN. Nothing speaks of our Freedom more than the ability to BURN our FLAG.
This
I don't care what side you want to take, that is something to think about.
Well, in their defense, small children aren't generally able to grasp the deeper concepts that are involved here, so starting them off with a simple "Like America because it's where we live" message is perfectly fine.
The problem is that so many Americans never seem to rise above this level of sophistication in their thinking about patriotism or what it means to be a US citizen, and they latch onto the symbols rather than the liberties which it represents.
It's sad, really. Consider it a good reason to spend time working on your kids' intellectual development -- read with them, talk to them, encourage them to understand not just what but why.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Now all they gotta do is remove that offensive "In God We Trust" from the money, and I'll be much happier. They're about to redesign the $20 (to add more colour), so hopefully this will happen before that. I'm sure our money will still be ugly, but at least it'll be colourful, and hopefully, diety-free.
How can the Declaration of Independence be unconstitutional when it isn't even a law or an action? It was not even written by our government, it was written by a private group of revolutionists.
qslack.com
R-Iowa:
"This decision is so much out of the mainstream of thinking of Americans and the culture and values that we hold in America, that any Congressman that voted to take it out would be putting his tenure in Congress in jeopardy at the next election," Grassley said.
His quote describes exactly what should NOT happen in today's society. Doesn't anyone do what is right, and not what will get him re-elected? Collectively, we're still operating in the 17th century.
Most folk'll never lose a toe, and then again some folk'll...
It is particularly ironic, since one of the events that drove the first wave of British colonials to the "New World" was the Catholic/Protestant civil wars in England and the resulting requirement of "loyalty oaths."
I guess the theory was that it was okay to require a Pledge of Allegience to a "flag" and to "the Republic for which it stands." That's not the same as requiring a pledge to a specific sovereign. As an American, I still never liked it. I hold the superiority of a system of civil liberty "to be self-evident." If your freedom doesn't sell itself, maybe it isn;t freedom.
I think we have a pretty good system, but like any soceity, we have teetered between liberty and authority. From the J. Edgar Hoover era to Joe McCarthy, we had some very repressive and scary times. The main reason I have hope (and still very much love the system in my country) is that we have a terribly inefficient government. I hear conservatives saying we need efficient government. I disagree. An efficient government is a repressive government. The separation of powers does a pretty good job of bringing our system back into line.
Not that both liberal forces and conservative forces haven't messed with it. From Democrat F.D.Roosevelt attempting to pack the Supreme Court to Republican R.M.Nixon covering up a felony commited to further his reelection, we've had plenty of attempts to tilt the scales, but somehow it comes back.
Right now, I think we are heading into a rough patch. Between the pressure of big money getting legislation passed for wealthy special interests (Hollywood, anyone?) and the understandable but lamentable reverses to liberty and privacy in the name of security following 9/11, we are going to have plenty to wrangle with in the system. That the system will bring us back to equilibrium, however, I am confident.
I think this was a very good decision and almost clears the bad taste in my mouth from the attempts to get a flag burning amendment passed.
Yup. I can't wait to hear what President Al Gore has to say on this.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Hopefully this will be the first step towards several similar changes such as removing "In God We Trust" from our currency and taking bibles out of swearing in ceremonies.
Like much of the Constitution, this is a masterpiece of balance. The establishment clause prevents the creation of a state church, or official government endorsement or imposition of specific religious views; the prohibition clause prevents laws banning certain religions or religious practices. The long, sad history of religious warfare and oppression in Europe is a solid argument that both clauses are needed.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Here's the email I just sent out to quite a few people:
Subject: pledge
(stop reading if you're the type to complain)
I know many will be quite divided on the subject, and many will disagree with my stance (which I believe they have a right to), but I'd just like to state my resounding support for what's just been decided in California.
(from CNN)
"A federal appeals court today ruled the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional 'endorsement of religion' because Congress added the phrase 'under God' in 1954. In its ruling, the court said, 'The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion.'"
As a life-long atheist, it's been a constant struggle to try hard to accept and respect others' beliefs, but I do it. But it often feels like a one-way street. I'm told to "just accept" that we live in a country with "In God We Trust" on our money. I was trained as a kid (as we all were) to recite and respect our pledge of allegiance, even though they "threw in" the bit about someone's god. It seems I'm to be tolerant of others' beliefs, but it's ok for the majority to overlook mine.
I never truly thought I'd see this issue publicly addressed. It's easier to say "just let it be", "don't we have other things to worry about?", or "it's just tradition!"? I'm sure they said similar things when other "traditions" like slavery or women's inability to vote were being complained about.
So, let it be known far and wide - that while I've been trained to be proud to say our pledge of allegiance (to share in that communal idea called patriotism), there's always been this dark secret buried down in the "don't bother worrying about that" department. That it somehow belonged "less" to me because I wasn't "just going along with the program".
I feel more patriotic today.
..Jeff Keegan
p.s. Eisenhower added "under god" to the pledge of allegiance in 1954.
Eisenhower: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
..Jeff Keegan
seven syllables explain TiVo: kee gan dot org slash ti vo
Dooo Daaa Dooo Daaa! Pascal's Wager sing 'dis song oh doo daa daaaaayy!
Inplicit in your posts is the idea that only your belief system contains the key to moral and ethical behaivor. Everybody else must be on a greased slicky slide to Hell. The dilemma you are posing is a form of Pascal's Wager.
The most common form of Pascal's Wager goes thusly: If you believe as I do then will reward you or least refrain from punishing you. If you don't believe as I do then you risk terrible consequences for being wrong. You have nothing lose and everything to gain by converting to my beliefs. It is a false dilemma because we might both be wrong. It may actually be the case that Zeus is pissed as Hades at losing all of his followers and that we all walk around in danger of being used for lightning bolt practice.
The key phrase is "Without a set of morals based on something" "Something" most certainly isn't limited to "be a Judeo Christian or else!!!" That isn't a basis for morality anymore than being conditioned with puke-up drugs strapped down in a movie theater is (Clockwork Orange). Come to think it, the character that saw through it was a hellfire and brimstone pastor. In both cases, the motivation for "good" behaivor is avoiding pain either gagging or hellfire. I've known plenty of ethical atheists and unethical theists (and vice versa to be fair). The more thoughtful theists tend to acknowledge non theists can be ethical or even "moral".
The problem here is an implicit assumption. That assumption is "Only God is fit to decide what is good." If God suddenly decided that it's your moral duty to commit a murder a month would you do it? This is not as silly as it sounds. God is commonly held to be omnipotent. This includes the ability to reverse the meanings of "good" and "evil". If God does not define what is good and evil then those meanings are accessible even to those who are not Judeo Christians. Again, most Christians seem to grok this. I've even sat in sermons that made the point that morality requires the exercise of judgement.
If I shared your viewpoint I could logically conclude that atheists/agnostics are all homicidal libertines who just haven't been caught yet. If you don't believe this then you're engaging in some rather confusing philosophizing. Since atheists are no more murderous or larcenous than anybody else then what do you suggest keeps them in check? I think they'll take some exception to "afraid of getting caught".
I didn't mention this to my witness collegue at work until he started trying to probe my views (and, hence, try to convert me)
I do not have a car sticker promoting my beliefs. I live in an area where most cars have those flaming fish symbols or worse on them.
I have can receive no television channels organised by humanists promoting humanism. This is because there are no such channels. I do receive crystal clear TV channels from Christianists [I know many decent Christians which is why I use the word Christianists to distinguish those fanatical and poisonous individuals who use Christianity as a weapon against those who they do not understand] which promote, endlessly, their view of the world.
And I've never lobbied the government to insist that people be forced to acknowledge the non-existance of God. There is no speech that people must read stating that "In the absense of a God, we trust in ourselves to be wise." But Christianists in the 50s did indeed the same type of act by lobbying, successfully, for the government to try to force every schoolchild, no natter what their beliefs, to acknowledge the existance of a god - to make a statement that implies a god exists.
When atheists run TV channels specifically to promote their view of the world, when atheists lobby Congress to forcably promote atheistic views, when atheists cover themselves and their vehicles in stickers promoting their views, perhaps, perhaps, you might be able to claim, successfully, that atheists are as vocal as fundies.
So far I've seen Christianists attempt to get my taxes into churches. I've seen them attempt to force people to join in organized prayer. I've seen them slice and dice laws to try to get unwarranted and irrelevent references to God in them; and to through the legislative process attempt to have every school display a list of ten statements four of which promote the worship of a god. I've seen the FCC hand over chunks of the broadcasting spectrum to them, a spectrum usually described by the same institution as scarce, usually at the prodding of crackpot Christianist politicians. I've seen Christianists attempt to remove neutral and important subjects such as basic science teachings from school for fear that a rudementary understanding of science might, in some way, undermine their version of "Christian" faith.
And against all of this, I've seen one or two brave individuals stand up against the crowd and say "Enough". Sometimes they're Jewish, sometimes they're Catholic. And occasionally they're atheist. And every time someone stands, the Christianists go on the attack. They'll downright lie about what's being stood up against, they'll promote the idea of a sinister conspiracy by those who'd defend the constitution, they'll accuse, as George HW Bush did, those opposing the forcable support of religion of being unpatriotic, of being "unamerican". And of being extremists.
So be careful who you accuse of being more "vocal". It may be that the voices that sound the loudest are those that are not part of the babble, and the babble is the loudest of all.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
First of all, if everything of this manner that contains any reference to God is to become unconstitutional, as the trend seems to be, shouldn't the Decleration of Independence, which contains the words "God" and "creator", be next on the chopping block? If this is so, do we go back to being a British colony?
A bit more seriously, many may argue that removing the phrase "under God" will fix the whole "establishment of religion" thing. It seems to me, though, that all that is really happening is that one groups of people's way of seeing the world is being thrown out in favor of a different group. What religion really comes down to is how a person views the world. The act of throwing out this phrase simply replaces the worldview of those who believe in a God (statistically the vast majority in this country) with the worldview of those who do not believe in a God. In the end all that is accomplished is a replacement, rather than a removal, of ideals.
...they're just too damned pig headed.
Really though, all but a few atheist that I have ever met has been a bull headed snot. The attitude taken is "I'm right, your stupid, and fuck you all". It's the angry atheist, mad that the world chooses to believe in something that he has no evidence to disprove. Too many times they are so busy attempting to prove a point to actually sit and listen and soak anything in.
Now replace "atheist" and "disprove" to "christian" and "prove". Here let me help you...
Really though, all but a few christian that I have ever met has been a bull headed snot. The attitude taken is "I'm right, your stupid, and fuck you all". It's the angry christian, mad that the world chooses to believe in something that he has no evidence to prove. Too many times they are so busy attempting to prove a point to actually sit and listen and soak anything in.
Both have their "passions" - misguided, single-minded, ignorant to one degree or the other, defiant, and convinced that their way is it.
For myself, for my children, for today I am convinced there is a God. Today I celebrate that belief as a Christian and attempt to bring my fellow Christians back to what we should be. I attempt to get some of my compatriots to use their brain power. Unfortunately many are sufficiently happy to continue to repeat things that someone else taught them (incorrectly), happy to repeat the doctrine and literature put forth by theives, liars, and hypocrits.
I've taught my children as I practice - at school, at work, in public, noone can take God away from you should you choose to believe. Take away the pledge, the money, school prayer, christian literature handed out, crosses, etc - doesn't matter. My son knows that should, he choose to do so, he can pray eyes open mouth shut, no outward sign of prayer - prayer is between he and God and he need not shout or bother others to have a private conversation.
Not one single Christian in the Bible was persecuted after they chased someone down to hand out a tract, or for visitation, or for standing on the corner yelling at people about how they were going to hell if they didn't repent. They all died or got tortued by just being. They chose to believe a certain way, they decided to teach people in the same manner - quietly, politely, humbly. Later Christians created the frenetic "CONVERT EVERYONE" "SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES" movements - the Cruisades, the Spanish Inquisition, Evangelism, etc. Modern Christians in the US know nothing of persecution, they assume that the things they've felt entitled to for so long equate to having the "right" to do as they wish. Many of of the "rights" that some Christians complain about having lost or "might" lose, they never even act upon. Many of the practices taken on by modern Christianity spring from an almost masochistic "PERSECUTE ME" attitude. Almost as if the culture of Christianity needs something to anchor to to say "see we told you, all those evil people want to keep us down".
Many of the atheists I've met come from religiously strict homes. By the time the chld has grown to adulthood they've become disillusioned about what spirituality and belief is supposed to be. Some are sure that the facts that science has provided them is the proof that God doesn't exist. Some simply use the science to hide behind and to mask their anger at a God that has "left them confused" or "betrayed them". Very few are just quietly resolute and attempt to politely, humbly teach their belief.
Just my two cents... FLAME ON!
This is not meant as a flame, but has the possibility occurred to you that the majority does not agree with Libertarianism? I know that I do not. I've never met a single Libertarian willing to concede the possibility, however. As a rule, Libertarians are the most certain people I meet. The Libertarians have a famous "questionnaire" which has questions couched in such a manner that Karl Marx would probably come out a Libertarian.
;-)
I will tell you how I sympathize with Libertarians, however. One of the fundmental beliefs of Libertarianism is a fairly strict Adam Smith economic view coupled with a pretty hardline John Locke view of property. Minimum law, minimum government, minimum taxation, etc. In theory, the modern Republican party espouses the same line. At the same time, Republicans seem to want to pass the most legislation controlling behavior and government exploded in size under the Reagan and Bush adminsitrations. A Libertarian's theoretical alignment with the Republican party doesn't work out that way.
Believe me, I have similar problems with the Democrats.
Oh, and the media didn't exclude your party (at least from the Pres. & V.P. debates). The two parties did. This began when the "debate comission" was set up instead of debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Since that time, debates have become a pathetic joke.
That aside, kudos to you for being active. These things take time. Republicanism took forty years to get anywhere (longer, if you count the rise of abolitionism as the beginning of Republican philosophy), and it took a Civil War to get them established as a permanent political force (the Republican party would probably not have become so thoroughly entrenched in the postwar North had not the South rebelled at the election of a Republican President). You have to make a committment to change that might not even come in your lifetime. The question is are you in it for the life of the nation and the betterment of the future, or are you in it because you want something now?
I'd say you're on the right track. Keep going. No offense, but I hope you don't make it!
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
I think we should expect nothing less than absolute, complete, and without-a-doubt separation of church and state. If you want to leave the door open for someone as intolerant as Falwell to lead his sheep into the New World Order (which should be exceptional at making him boatloads of money), be my guest.
-Dean
Many people are upset that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals has ruled that a California law requiring school children to recite the Pledge Of Allegiance is unconstitutional. It is a law that respects an establishment of religion. Most people who object to the pledge would be happy if the "Under God" line, added in 1954, were removed. When President Eisenhower signed the law adding that line, he wrote, "Millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." This was clearly respecting an establishment of religion, the court ruled. There are other problems with the pledge.
Adding "Under God" was a cold war reaction to the "godless communists" of the former Soviet Union. The pledge forced our children to make a political statement, as well as a religious one.
Here is the biggest problem with the Pledge Of Allegiance: it is a loyalty oath. A free nation should not force anyone to swear a loyalty oath. That is something despots do.
Some religious Americans might also have a problem with the pledge, on the grounds that it constitutes idolatry. Children are made to turn and face a symbol, put their hands over their hearts, and swear an oath to that symbol. To many, this is just as much an act of idolatry as it would be if the symbol were a golden calf.
I support this court ruling. No one should be forced to swear loyalty to a symbol. No one should be forced to swear loyalty in a free nation.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
I agree with most of the social thinking of libertarians, but I'm pretty well convinced that if they ever get any kind of control, we'll all be well and truly fucked. It's not that I don't think that a lot of it is worth a shot, it's just that in reading the writings of libertarian candidates, I don't trust them to make the transition in such a way that it doesn't create serious havoc and hardship.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Yes, I would say you are spouting Libertarian certainty. I fundamentally disagree withe every single one of your positions. I'm even happy to pay my income tax (well, maybe not happy, but I understand that it is good for the economy to have excess savings spent on capital investment, and that sometimes the private sector fails to to this, leading to economic contraction).
I'm not Libertarian at all. I believe that we have "unalienable rights" and that to "secure these rights, governments are instituted among men" and that such governments "derive their just powers from the consent of governed."
I think our instutions are doing just fine at requiring the consent of the governed. I think Libertarians delude themselves that the unpopularity of taxes equals support for the gutting of government. I think they are wrong. Ask anyone "Do you like to pay taxes?" and of course almost everyone will say "No." Ask them if they would rather pay taxes and have public roads, or would they rather all roads were built privately and privately owned and you had to pay a toll to use each separate private road, and they might not say yes. You might, but I would not.
Roads are, in fact, one of the ways we got to the present size of government. Roads were highly in demand, but private enterprise was building very few of them. We talked about third parties? Are you aware that the largest 3rd party movement in 20th century history was the "Good Roads Party?" Yep. The people demanded that government get into the road building business. The construction of such roads has had immense secondary economic effects. You can argue that the roads would have been built eventually. I do not agree, and I have no way to prove such an assertion. But I would contest the notion that the expansion of government was done by "the government" for selfish or nefarious reasons. It was, in each case, responding to the democratic will.
I, for one, believe that it is vital to have a major economic actor that views each citizen equally, rather than in proportion to his wallet (no, I'm not naieve enough to believe that the wallet doesn't still get in there and pervert things a bit).
Perhaps some of the "selfish and shallow" are just not completely ignorant of macroeconomics.
I would argue that your claim "most people are basically Libertarian, but only as far as it benefits them" means that most people are simply not Libertarian. I don't know why Libertarians refuse to see this. This is precisely what I was talking about.
All that said, certainly there is plenty of room for debate about the limits of government power, about what amount of government involvement in the economy is the "right" amount, about which sorts of infrastructure are appropriate government functions. I just plain don't agree with you that the answers are "total, none, and none."
I also think there's plenty of room for talking about how we are and how we should be taxed. I'm very much in favor of moving to fees for service and consumption taxes and away from income taxes and property taxes. I'm also in favor of more spending on roads and education. I'm in favor of subsidies for broadband expansion into rural areas (similar to the rural elctrification act), and other "big government, tax and spend" programs.
And I don't mind paying taxes to do it.
There is an element of coercion with children
that is not the same for adult Congrescritters.
Considered harmful.
I serve proudly in the US military.
...(except the Persian Gulf -- I was too young by about 3 years).
So did I, for a decade. We have at least that much in common.
Our first difference. I served in the Persian Gulf.
That flag is a symbol of what we've fought for since 1776.
True enough. However, note the word symbol in that sentence.
When you burn it you spit in our faces and stomp on our graves.
Our first major difference. When you burn the flag, you destroy by fire a piece of muli-hued fabric. Nothing less, nothing more.
Fuckers like you piss me off. You have no comprehension of what freedom means. Yeah, you're free to burn an american flag -- but only because people like me are willing to die to protect that freedom. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd? Maybe just a bit insulting to us?
Dumbasses like you piss me off. You, and everyone like you who seem unable to distinguish between a symbol and the real liberty and freedom which that symbol represents.
Ban the burning of the flag today. Ban the burning of the Bible tomorrow. Ban the burning of the Koran next week. Then let's ban the burning of the Book of Mormon, Scientology's various copyrighted works, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy and Ellen G. White and Edgar Cayce and the Bab and Karl Marx and Martin Luther King Jr. and John F.Kennedy.
I say that those who are offended easily deserve to be offended.
That's my motto, but it still pisses me off to hear dumbasses like you spout.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
but I won't say a pledge of allegience to it, period. Why? Because the oath I took was to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, not the flag, not the current government, not whatever social-political-economic structure holds sway at the time, none of it. It's the Constitution that IS the USA. I own and operate a very nice, large, US flag myself. I just don't worship it. I also agree with the court decision to excise the "under God" phrase.
Now play this through your logic machine. The USA is unique in that it is based on a set of principles expressed inthe Declaration of Independence and subsequently codified in the Constitution. In fact, the USA IS the Constitution, and vice versa. Everything else is---or should be---subordinate to that main fact. Anything that isn't, then, is a threat to the Constitution. Any threat to the Constitution is by definition a threat to the USA.
Got that? Good. Now go play most laws, regulations, and court decisions of the past and present century through that filter. No, I won't work it out for you---think!
Ah, he begins to rant. Long road trip today, sleep-deprivation, and plain pissy bad temper.
Non serviam,
Thumper
-----
I'm too damn tired to sig or sign.
Judeo-Christian? There is no such thing. Christianity comes from almost purely pagan sources. Christmas and Easter are pagan. Christians don't observe any jewish days, not the sabbath, not even passover. If calling something Judeo-Christian is legit, why not Judeo-Christo-Islamic? Islam also claims jewish ancestry and the jewish God. Why doesn't anyone say Judeo-Christo-Islamic?
How ya like dat?
When I was in junior high I actually thought about what I was reciting, and decided that I wasn't in a position to ally with the US. I might, or might not, but I was W-A-A-A-A-Y to young to make committments like that, and I knew it. Then it hit me that millions of 5 year olds have been reciting empty syllables, and that put me off even more. Look, a pledge has to be understood, or it's a farce. Few kindergarteners have the vocabulary to grok the Pledge. None are mature enough to make a promise like that in a meaningful way. And the mass indoctrination element of the practice, without discussion or explanation, is an ugly technique used for generally ugly purposes throughout history. The fact that it's the US, rather than the North Korean commies, or the Iraqi government, doesn't make it less creepy. We're doing the exact same thing those creepy governments do/did. Indoctrination.
Now that I'm an adult, yeah, I'm ready to commit to supporting my country. I don't ally with the flag (a symbol is not the thing it represents), but I do with the Republic (what's left of it). I signed up for Selective Service, ready to go. I sing the national anthem at baseball games (from the audience). We've got a cool country. In many ways the best in history. In some respects, about average.
I think what makes this place worth caring about is not just from the perspective of the accident that I was born here (when knuckleheads chant, "USA!USA!" it strikes me they would be singing "Deutschland Uber Alles" in another time and place). It's that people who weren't born here can be naturalized and belong, and participate fully in political life. (Apart from the statistically unlikely election to office of president/vp). Japan and Germany are admirable countries, but they don't offer a universally accessible vision. They offer the world a lot, but not a chance at citizenship.
I'm aware that the INS is awful, and that the US is, and has been, hostile to immigrants. But those who do make it through the stupid hurdles can belong. Holland strikes me as about the most civilized country in the world, with a sensible and humane government, but I don't know anything about its immigration policies.
I had to speak with the principal who decreed I just had to stay seated and quiet during the recitation. Seemed and seems reasonable.
Last time I checked majority rules buddy.
Majority rules - Tyranny of the majority
Democracy - Majority rules with respect for the rights of the minority.
Too bad we have too much of the former and not nearly enough of the latter.
John Stuart Mills
Dude - you do not understand the H1-B visa issue (the fact that you didn't spell it right is also a pretty clear indication that you have not studied it in depth). H1-B visas are all about using government power to manipulate the labor market in favor of the big corps.
Here is why: H1-B visas effectively indenture their holders to their employers. The law as written requires that employers pay a prevailing wage, but there is little to no enforcement mechanism and plenty of loopholes if enforcement ever actually is attempted.
Despite H1-B being designated a non-immigrant visa most holders use it as stepping stone for a Green card because, unlike other non-immigrant visas, you are allowed to hold an H1-B while your application for a green card is in process. Those applications often take 3-4 years and are solely the domain of the employer - the green card applicant has no standing in the process - which is just messed up right there.
Thus any H1-B holder who wants a green card (and that is at least 95% of them) must not leave their current employer for fear of having to restart their green card application process from scratch. Thus, as an employee becomes more experienced and familiar with a company's processes and systems (and thus more valuable as an employee) there is less and less incentive for the H1-B holder to seek a better paying job because they would be throwing away years spend in the application process if they were to find new, better paying, employment.
That all makes for one messed up labor market, and one that is far, far from the ideals of a free market system. And don't think this situation is an accident. The megalocorps who are the employers of the majority of H1-B holders knew exactly what they were doing when they lobbied for this set of rules regarding H1-B and green cards.
Many people who oppose H1-B are also protectionist in general. But the people who do have a strong belief in the free market understand that the sword cuts two ways -- possibly hurting their own economic prospects but at the same time enabling more efficient production the stuff they consume. These people, with true libertarian beliefs are just as much opposed to the H1-B visa program as they are in favor of totally open borders without any government-imposted restrictionon on the flow of labor.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Most people in the USA are Christians, too, and since majority rules, we're outlawing Judaism and Islam next week!
Or not. The U.S. Bill of Rights acknowledges certain rights of the individual that cannot be taken away by any government under any circumstances -- further, the Declaration of Independence proclaims that when a government denies these rights, the people have the right to overthrow it. From the Declaration:
In other words, I don't care how many people vote that you'll become a Methodist, or be forbidden to own firearms, or that the book you wrote should be banned. The will of the majority is not sufficient to deprive you of these rights. In fact you are inseparable from these rights: You cannot be deprived of them, period.
If you want to live in a country where the government thinks it can deprive you of your unalienable rights, go to China. (Of course, this is a separate issue from the question of whether an atheist has an unalienable right not to hear other people recite the words "under God" in a public space; I can buy the argument that says no one should be required to endorse a religion, but I think we're off the deep end here.)
> In its ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress that inserted the phrase "under God" after the phrase "one nation" in the pledge. <
It is disappointing that so many of the TV news accounts this evening ignore the 1954 amendment, and falsely state that the pledge has contained the "Under God" wording for more than a century.
I have always been uncomfortable -- at least since the seventh grade -- saying those two words. More recently, as someone educated in the law (yes, I am a lawyer) and as someone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, I do not believe that our Constitution places our country "under God" but expressly separates church and state. There were earlier cases prohibiting schools from compelling students to recite the pledge or salute the flag if it conflicted with their religious beliefs (for example, some religious groups refuse to salute the flag because they view the flag as a "graven image" (false idol) prohibited by the Second Commandment).
This case, like the school prayer cases, revolved around the implied endorsement, pressure, and stigma involved when the pledge and its "under God" language are recited in public classrooms.
To be honest, I've never understood why anyone thinks it is appropriate to demand that school children (many of them non-citizens), pledge allegiance to the "flag," as this helps reinforce the belief that if someone is waving the flag, we must blindly follow them, and criticizing the flag-waver is somehow "un-American." Even in this "revolutionary" ruling, the court did not prohibit schools from having a flag-salute ceremony that includes reciting a "pledge of allegiance to the flag" without the "under God" language.
Unfortunately, there is little doubt among legal scholars, or in my mind, that an "en banc" panel of the 9th Circuit will reverse this ruling, or if they do not, then the U.S. Supreme Court will gladly reverse it. As my former Constitutional Law professor (Boalt Hall's Jesse Choper) said in several TV interviews today, the Supreme Court will certainly view this language as "too small" to be worth ruling invalid -- oddly enough, arguably consistent with the Court's repeated hints that in order for Congress to prohibit flag-burning, it must first decide if the flag will be the "one thing" that they will prohibit desecrating (and Congressmen have too many sacred cows that they won't sacrifice to that trivial issue).
The most disappointing thing about the "person on the street" interviews I saw on the news today, is that the questions posed by the newspersons were about "making it illegal for children to recite the pledge of allegiance," which is not what the ruling said. Why can't people understand the difference between censoring people who want to recite the pledge without state compulsion (free speech) and the state compelling someone to say something that they do not believe, in direct contradiction to the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the first amendment -- or regulating people's beliefs or speech (which is what Congress was really trying to do in 1954, to oppose the "Godless communists" and reinforce the widespread belief that you must believe in "the One God" to be a "real" American)?
Note that I have no objection that members of my local Rotary Club recite the pledge (including the "under God" language) and one of our members is asked to say a prayer each week -- I can respect the decision of the majority of a private club's members on these points, though that when we recited the pledge during a visit by two dozen guests from our Mexican "sister city," some of our guests were visibly uncomfortable. (For a year or more, our Rotary Club had a humorous running debate about how long the pause should be before "under God.") Some weeks, the prayer is expressly Christian, once it was explicitly Muslim, most weeks it is quite generic, and occasionally, it is a non-religious statement or "thought.")
On another list, someone wrote:
> The founders of this country -- or whoever -- were quite right not to include that phrase in the "Pledge of Allegiance" originally. <
The reference to "the founders" jarred me, because I had thought the Pledge of Allegiance was created after the civil war (hence the "indivisible" language).
Apparently, we were both wrong: according to "A Short History of the Pledge of Allegiance" ( http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.ht m ), the pledge was written (apparently by a Socialist, no less) in 1892. Of course, that's just what someone said on a web page. See also http://www.google.com/search?q=+history+%22pledge+ of+allegiance%22+under+God+indivisible
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
Wow, did you even read KnightNavro said before you took the quotes out of context? Here's the originals, with emphasis:
Or the kid who "hates Jesus Christ"* (because he chooses not to praise the same god) in a small school on the Bible belt
Now, it's clear(to me, at least), that the kid simply chose not to praise God, and the "good christian children" around him decided that meant he hated Jesus, God, and everything else that was good and decent - in other words, ran to unwarrented conclusions. It seems he was doing just what you described yourself as doing in the Catholic church - "just stand respectfully". How would you like it if you were sitting in your Catholic church, someone noticed you weren't praying to the Virgin Mary, and everyone got on your case about "hating Jesus and the Virgin Mary"?
As for the part about growing up in Littleton, I'm guessing that you weren't there for the fateful year when the name became synonymos with tragedy. By all accounts, the religeous ferver has increased tremendously since then, and I wouldn't be suprised if someone was singled out for not being Christian(and loudly proclaiming it).
... the United States would still be a British territory. The ability to change the way the laws of a country are an intrinsic part of democracy, especially in cases like this where the change is simply undoing a past wrong.
Not being an american and therefore used to it, I have to say the whole idea of pledges to the state and flags in the classroom rather scary. It seems rather like some form of indoctrination to me
Surely its the right of a citizen born in a country to disagree with its government or political system and therfore not wish to pledge allegiance to it (while still loving the country just not the people in charge).
A government/state should earn its citizens respect and allegiance through good government, not by trying to brainwash them as a child.
The first problem is why say this at all? Why make it a semi-compulsory ritual to begin with?
Kids say this pledge literally thousands of times throughout their life to the point that it becomes a meaningless string of phonemes. The Pledge reminds me of listening to fellow Catholics recite the Profession of Faith on Sundays when I was a kid. So repetitious was it that no one even consciously knew what it was they were saying anymore. You could tell by the emotionless drone; it made the several parishes I was a part of sound like some religious cult under deep mind control. (In reality of course it was a bunch of people trying to stay awake).
Its not just the "under God" part I object to. It's the whole thing.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
Well, what if immoral, sadistic acts are being committed under the name of that flag? The Klan flies that flag. The flag was on the uniforms of soldiers during the My Lai massacre. I don't think that the flag is evil, but it certainly is subjective and few can agree on what the flag means. Flags, like bumper stickers, are blunt objects that can mean a multiplicity of things to different people. If you're talking about the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so forth, well, yes, I have a personal allegiance to those moral and political principles. If you're talking about our corrupt Congress and increasingly spooky President and what he's doing supposedly in my name and yours as the figurehead of our Republic, then no. Americans in particular seem to have a weird fetish for these kinds of symbols, and it is something which seriously distracts from the very real principles we ought to be talking about.
And to the Republic for which it stands.
Someone pointed out that the the flag represents the Republic. Well, if so, then this is redundant. Strike the "pledge allegiance to the flag" part and just pledge allegiance to the Republic. But even this is problematic. What if you feel the Republic is corrupt? I often do (I often believe as a nation we do many good things, but it is certainly a mixed bag). I have no issue with the "as written" principles this country was founded on, nor even honest business and capitalism, but that this Republic honestly represents these principles consistently is more than questionable.
One Nation
Well, I believe that we are one nation, and that nations can and should be diverse and built around broad principles of civic morality. Tolerance, freedom, and standing up both for your own rights and those of your neighbor. Others may be into sedition. I don't know. I prefer to connect myself to the world and others in the contexts of honesty and mutually beneficial community, but I respect the rights of those who don't and want to live up a mountain in Montana somewhere.
Under God,
I don't think God has anything to do with it. For example, I seem to remember a passage in the Bible about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. We are a capitalist country, and frankly, I have no problem with the honest, productive accumulation of wealth through honest trade and productivity. But depending on which part of the Bible you conveniently choose to follow today, it's questionable that God has anything to do with this. As an agnostic myself, I am not offended at all by other people saying this pledge (or praying silently to themselves in public places - even government buildings, or putting up Christmas trees in parks), but why must it be institutionalized in this instance? It's not a matter of having a problem with the Pledge of Allegiance, it is the problem of forcing others to say it as well. That strikes me as very, very, unAmerican. I've said the Pledge thousands of times, and saying Under God doesn't freak me out, but it is wholly unnecessary. Those who support the compulsory pledge, should they consider themselves quote-unquote Real Americans, ought to have no objection to this being purged in a nation supposedly founded on freedom of - and from - religion. I don't understand psychologically what makes it so important to compel others to swear allegiance to their particular God. It sounds rather...Taliban...to me. Or suggests a kind of self-doubt and paranoia allayed only by consensus, the assuredness of hearing many others pledge allegiance to a God you have some kind of doubt about. I don't understand the motivation here.
Indivisible Well thank God this nation divides when our government is perpetrating one atrocity for another, whether it be slavery, institutionalized racism, immoral, meddling wars abroad, or blatant Nixonesque authoritarianism. Unity is only a value when it is attached to a kind of tolerance and moral consensus, not when compelled through the kind of propaganda we're dealing with right now where our own congress is afraid to do anything other than indulge any authoritarian whim our President has. Division, however much it lulls us out of our stupor and worries us enough that we can't be satisfied drooling at stupid sitcoms at night, is healthy. Division is cultural, moral, and political dissonance; it insists that we weigh our actions and values as a nation. What good is unity if it is under the auspices of jingoism, groupthink, and collectivism? Division ought not be a permanent state but I'm really thankful that people are willing to stand up and say, "I will not support this; not even in the context that we are both countrymen and this is being done in our collective name." How often did our founding fathers make statements about how a revolution every so often is a healthy thing? We ought to be able to sustain reasonable differences and remain united, but there must be a limit to this. Otherwise, there is nothing worthwhile about our freedom, or our Republic.
With liberty, and justice, for all
Well with tongue in cheek, it's kind of fun to say this line with a heavy dose of irony. As noble as this sentiment is - and it is perhaps, in its honest, untarnished form, the most noble part of the Pledge of Allegiance, it...well...doesn't apparently apply to many classes of people including foreigners, pot smokers, hackers on trumped-up charges, anyone serving a draconian mandatory minimum sentence for a petty crime, dozens of political criminals from the Nixon years still in jail and denied new hearings, trials, or parole. People in internment camps. And so on.
The justice part doesn't apply much to the wealthiest and most powerful who buy their way out of justice and wind up serving sentences at federal country clubs. Celebrities also don't seem to go to jail very often for the things the rest of us do. Victims of right-wing regimes we've propped up in the past are excluded here, obviously. And so on and so forth. The point is, if anyone should be forced to take this pledge, it is our *leaders* and people in the justice system. Justice applies not only to the poor and downtrodden who often get screwed by the System because they don't have the money to hire a decent lawyer, but also to the rich and powerful who rarely pay for their crimes.
I don't think anyone should be forced or compelled to take any pledge. It ought not be part of any compulsory institution like our public education system (itself arguably a huge waste of time and money). But if there must be a pledge, it should be something more along lines of:
I pledge to be honest, to criticize my government when commits crimes or supports those who do. I pledge to uphold and fight for the values enshrined in our Constitution. I pledge to protest and throw my own weight against the eternally grinding gears of authoritarianism wherever I may find them. I pledge to respect and protect the values, practices, and expression of those who are different from me, even though I may find them objectionable, provided that those practices do not infringe on the freedom of others. I pledge to question authority, recognizing its legitimacy only when it serves the rational values of of liberty and justice. I pledge honesty, honor, respect, and civility in ordinary discourse and human interaction (This of course would be problematic among most Usenet users, but that's a different rant.) I pledge loyalty only to principles, and not the symbols, individuals, and collectives by which those principles are corrupted. I stand in opposition to hypocrisy, dishonesty, and the use of violence except as a last resort in legitimate retaliation or self-defense to solve disputes.
To me, this is a far more American pledge.
I have read much of this with interest, and i can't help thinking that this is a step in the right direction for the US. Lat me explain. Many Brits, myself included, are a little confused by the passion with which Americans approach patriotism. Am I the only one who thinks it a little scary that very young children are swearing an oath to a country? Or a God? Any God for that matter. There was an interesting comment posted earlier in this discussion, something to the tune of "...in the current political climate you are either a patriot, or a terrorist..." Think about that, we now have Americans too afraid to stand out, in a country that makes children swear an oath to a political body they have little comprehension of. No offence intended, I'm just saying be careful, and perhaps for once the courts have got it right.
Kinda like how slaverly was part of the fabric of society in the South way back when? The argument that we should continue to do something today becuase it is what we did yesterday is totally lacking in thought, logic, or progress.
I don't accept it as part of my culture and it is obvious, through the fact that this is in the courts at all, that someone else doesn't accept it as part of their culture. You are not everyone.
Enough is enough. I am so tired of the "politically correct" bullshit that I could throw up. When will it be enough?? What do you want? Do you want a communistic style of society? Do you want to live where there is NO freedom of speech, just to be sure no one is upset? The fact is this nation is a nation under God. With 96% of the nation falling into that category, it is ludicrous to think otherwise. I for one am glad I live in America, with its religious overtures. I don't attend church, haven't for over a decade. But I am not in the least bit upset about any of this. There are FAR MORE THINGS TO BE WORRIED AND UPSET ABOUT then this. How about CEO's making 100's of millions of dollars, while we have a whole class of folks working everyday with no medical insurance, how about the fact so many corporations have moved plants that used to employ Americans, to other countries to avoid paying decent wages, insurance, and social security taxes?
Indeed, you cry pales in comparison to real problems that exist.
This morning I saw the press secretary talking about how ridiculous this ruling is. He gave examples of many other ways that we currently violate the constitution as if two (or multiple) wrongs make a right. It's just sad to see a nation adopt of the most despised properties of another nation that it is at "war" with.
I really would like to suggest that if people don't like the constitution because it doesn't allow for a government sanctioned religion that they move to a country that allows that: like Afghanistan or something. Maybe they'll be fortunate enough to find a country with a sanctioned religion that corresponds exactly to their narrow beliefs.
mbbac
Although I agree with many of my Christian sistren and brethren that there is a lot of hostility in certain areas of the government towards our faith, it is a self-reinforcing cycle. Christians feel persecuted and start flexing their muscle to change things. Their opponents feel that Christians are shutting them out and react.
I personally hate any sort of equation of "American" with "Christian". It cheapens both terms.
Almost every man in my entire extended family has served in the military, in just about every military action since WW1 (except the Persian Gulf -- I was too young by about 3 years). That flag is a symbol of what we've fought for since 1776. When you burn it you spit in our faces and stomp on our graves.
I think you need to ask those men in your family exactly WHAT they were fighting for. What they should have been fighting for is our freedom of expression, and that expression includes burning the flag if you see fit.
When you burn our flag, you revile the very "freedom" that you profess to value so highly.
Nope, just the opposite in fact; you are *exercising* that freedom.
My dear uneducated friend.. the key words in the phrase here are "Church" & "State". The laws say nothing about "GOD" & "State" or "Religion" & "State". The Foundation of that law was to see that no ONE religion was to have undue influence on the United States Government; as was the major problem with the "CHURCH" of England. Thus leading to the rebellion of the colonists and the foundation of the country that gives people the right to spout their opinions whether or not they know what they're talking about...