The Pledge of Alligiance and "In God we trust"

[The Mad Hatter]

Did you just ignore it because it didn't agree with your personal views, or could you not be bothered to read all

I ignored it all right. I ignored it because only a fool would think that is all we would have to do. An old elementary school of mine had a giant plaque with "In God we trust." Our local post office has a statue in front of the building with "In God we trust" engraved on it. Get real if you think changing a few plates is all our money would go to fix.

 

[Crimson King]

Personally, I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are going the promotion of religion by making those statues. I don't like the fact my tax dollars HAVE a promotion of religion, at all. Thomas Jefferson added a separation between Church and State for protection of both the state from falling victim to the affairs and power abuses of the church, and from the church from being a commodity of the state.

 

[lonejedi]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, verbatim.)

Just considering the first clause, I would argue that considering the time of authorship and the legal nature of the wording of the bill of rights, the word "respecting" should be read as "pertaining to." This semantic distinction, and if I recall correctly, a few supreme court rulings, make it perfectly clear that this effectively means that no official religion should be established nor any religion, or the lack thereof, be regarded over another, or the lack thereof, in terms of legal decisions.

First off, "I would argue" is a very bad usage of words, when refering to something that is said in the constitution. If you're going to lay claim to how bad the government is breaking this rule, but you are only "arguing" the meaning of the phrase, then your credibility goes down. That phrase could be interpreted in many ways. But let's say that what you are saying right, they mean, the government shall not make laws that favor one religion.

So let's look at history here. So Medicore has brought up that the phrases "in God we trust" and "Under God" were only added in the 50's. But what about every other monument, historical location and building that has the word's God in it. Here's just to name a few.

In God we Trust is right over the Speaker of the House
God is mentioned all over Washington D.C. and that was way before Eisenhower ever became president.
The Liberty Bell has a Bible Verse right on it.
Each State Constituition mentions God in it
The Birth Certificates mention God
The Presidents swear on the Bible, saying so Help me God, a tradition, started by our first president I believe.

So if constituition did mean it when wrote that phrase, then why did they go on and continue to contradict themselves in every move they made. Most of the times God is mentioned above, came at an early age of our Nation, not 40 years ago.

So if you want to get rid of the word God, might as well just either tear down all national monuments, or censor them out.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm (I realise this is a Christian Website, but it had some info that I needed)

 

[Mediocre]

Does anybody dispute that the government of the United States is violating the constitution? I haven't seen anybody disputing that.

And you people think that the government should continue violating the constitution? Because it would cost some money (surely less than $20 million, chickenfeed when you consider what the government spends in a year - $2.8 trillion in 2007)? Sorry, but if the government's breaking the law, having to spend money is not a legitimate reason to ignore it.

So let's look at history here. So Medicore has brought up that the phrases "in God we trust" and "Under God" were only added in the 50's. But what about every other monument, historical location and building that has the word's God in it. Here's just to name a few.

In God we Trust is right over the Speaker of the House
God is mentioned all over Washington D.C. and that was way before Eisenhower ever became president.
The Liberty Bell has a Bible Verse right on it.
Each State Constituition mentions God in it
The Birth Certificates mention God
The Presidents swear on the Bible, saying so Help me God, a tradition, started by our first president I believe.

So if constituition did mean it when wrote that phrase, then why did they go on and continue to contradict themselves in every move they made. Most of the times God is mentioned above, came at an early age of our Nation, not 40 years ago.

What's your point? All you're proving is that the law wasn't enforced, not that it was lawful.

By the way, where are you getting that birth certificate information from? The site you linked to mentions the Declaration of Independence, which it calls "our nations birth certificate". I see nothing about actual birth certificates having the word God on them.

So if you want to get rid of the word God, might as well just either tear down all national monuments, or censor them out.

Well, if you feel the need to go that far, be my guest. Personally, I feel that those monuments (and the God mentioned on them) generally have some historical importance that might be lost if we censored them.

Just as I would not be against a federally funded museum hosting a work that makes mention of God, I would not be against the US government supporting a national monument that makes mention of God. I see that less as a promotion of religion and more as an acknowledgment of that religion was in this nation's past.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm (I realise this is a Christian Website, but it had some info that I needed)

Well, I don't think you'll dispute that this source is incredibly biased. I don't really feel like verifying everything it says on there, so I won't dispute any of the facts it lists, but I'm sure it is presenting those facts in a very one sided way.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

So you would rather offend multiple people (not just atheist are against the "In god we trust" bit) than go through the extra work of secularizing all things?

Of course I don't want to offend anyone. This is from an earlier post of mine,

and even though I see it as a waste of time and money, I suppose it is the right thing to do.

I agree that it should be changed, I was simply replying to snex's remark about the cost to change it. I was arguing cost, not whether we should or shouldn't. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

I also agree that tax money should not go to anything that is related to religion i.e. Indiana's "In God We Trust" license plates.

 

[Kalypso]

Well, first it's blatantly Christian. Anyone saying otherwise is pretty much in denial...

The pledge is a long-standing piece of Americana. It's important to our history. Know what else is important to our history? Christianity. It has an enormous impact on our history, whether or not you follow it (I don't, I'm actually quite against religion in general). From a historical standpoint, Christianity is important.

To try and remove some words from the Pledge is, to me, to symbolically try and remove Christianities influence from history. History is, of course, determined by the person with the pen.

I believe they should absolutely stay in the pledge. Not due to any Pro-Christian reasons, but rather pro-history reasons. If an atheist is offended, they can choose to not speak the words. No one is forced to recite the pledge. Anyone offended at the mention of the word 'God' is just looking for attention, it's not an offensive word.

edit- This post doesn't explain my point nearly as well as my next post 2 down, however I don't like deleting things so I'll leave this here, just know if you disagree with or don't understand this post, check the one 2 posts down before flaming.

 

[blazedaces]

Well, first it's blatantly Christian. Anyone saying otherwise is pretty much in denial...

The pledge is a long-standing piece of Americana. It's important to our history. Know what else is important to our history? Christianity. It has an enormous impact on our history, whether or not you follow it (I don't, I'm actually quite against religion in general). From a historical standpoint, Christianity is important.

To try and remove some words from the Pledge is, to me, to symbolically try and remove Christianities influence from history. History is, of course, determined by the person with the pen.

I believe they should absolutely stay in the pledge. Not due to any Pro-Christian reasons, but rather pro-history reasons. If an atheist is offended, they can choose to not speak the words. No one is forced to recite the pledge. Anyone offended at the mention of the word 'God' is just looking for attention, it's not an offensive word.

Did you read even one post beforehand?

Here's what wikipedia has to say about the pledge, I highlighted certain portions:

History
The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular children's magazine Youth's Companion by socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on September 7, 1892. The owners of Youth's Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign. It was marketed as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas and was first published on the following day.
Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, and was seen by some as a call for national unity and wholeness after the divisive Civil War. The pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be stated in 15 seconds. He had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided they were too controversial since many people still opposed equal rights for women and blacks. Bellamy said that the purpose of the pledge was to teach obedience to the state as a virtue.[citation needed]
After a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison, [highlight]the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892[/highlight] during Columbus Day observances. The form adopted the word "to" before "the Republic."
Students reciting the pledge on Flag Day in 1899
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference called for the words my Flag to be changed to the Flag of the United States of America. The reason given was to ensure that immigrants knew to which flag reference was being made. The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on December 28, 1945.
In 1940 the Supreme Court, in deciding the case of Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to recite the Pledge, even Jehovah's Witnesses like the Gobitases (whose name was misspelled as 'Gobitis' in the court case), who considered the flag salute to be idolatry. In the wake of this ruling, there was a rash of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah's Witnesses. In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that "compulsory unification of opinion" violated the First Amendment.
Before World War II, the Pledge would begin with the right hand over the heart during the phrase "I pledge allegiance". The arm was then extended toward the Flag at the phrase "to the Flag", and it remained outstretched during the rest of the pledge, with the palm facing upward, as if to lift the flag.
An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It also ended with the arm outstretched and the palm upwards, but began with the right hand outstretched, palm facing downward. However, during World War II the outstretched arm became identified with Nazism and Fascism, and the custom was changed: today the Pledge is said from beginning to end with the right hand over the heart.
The Knights of Columbus in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity. Appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, the Knights felt that the words "under God" which were from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address were most appropriate to add to the Pledge. In New York City on April 22, 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend their recitation of Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words "under God" after the words "one nation." In the following two years, the idea spread throughout Knights of Columbus organizations nationwide. On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution upon the recommendation of its President, Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter. This campaign led to several official attempts to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus’ policy for the entire nation. [highlight]These attempts failed.[/highlight]
[edit] Addition of the words "under God"
Though the Knights of Columbus tried, they were unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the United States government to amend the pledge. Bills were introduced as early as 1953, when Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution at the suggestion of a correspondent. It was a Presbyterian minister who made the difference in 1954 by preaching a sermon about Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The minister was George MacPherson Docherty, a native of Scotland who was called to succeed Peter Marshall as pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church near the White House, where, in 1863, the same year as the address, Lincoln attended and even rented a pew. After Lincoln’s death, the pew that he rented became something of a national monument. It became customary for later United States presidents to attend services at the church and sit in the Lincoln pew on the Sunday closest to Lincoln’s birthday (February 12) each year.
George MacPherson Docherty by Fred Lang
As Lincoln Sunday (February 7, 1954) approached, Rev. Docherty knew not only that President Dwight Eisenhower was to be in attendance, but that it was more than just an annual ritual for him; while President, Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian. Docherty's sermon focused on the Gettysburg Address, drawing its title from the address, "A New Birth of Freedom."
Docherty’s message began with a comparison of the United States to ancient Sparta. Docherty noted that a traveler to ancient Sparta was amazed by the fact that the Spartans’ national might was not to be found in their walls, their shields, or their weapons, but in their spirit. Likewise, said Docherty, the might of the United States should not be thought of as emanating from their newly developed Atomic weapons, but in their spirit, the "American way of life". In the remainder of the sermon Docherty sought to define as succinctly as possible the essence of the American spirit and way of life. To do so, Docherty appealed to those two words in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. According to Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation "under God." Docherty took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.
After the service concluded, Docherty had opportunity to converse with Eisenhower about the substance of the sermon. The President expressed his enthusiastic concurrence with Docherty’s view, and the very next day, Eisenhower had the wheels turning in Congress to incorporate Docherty’s suggestion into law. On February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. On Lincoln’s birthday, four days later, Oakman made the following speech on the floor of the House:
Rev. Dr. George Docherty (left) and President Eisenhower (second from left) on the morning of February 7, 1954 at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church; the morning Eisenhower was convinced that the pledge needed to be amended
Last Sunday, the President of the United States and his family occupied the pew where Abraham Lincoln worshipped. The pastor, the Reverend George M. Docherty, suggested the change in our Pledge of Allegiance that I have offered [as a bill]. Dr. Docherty delivered a wise sermon. He said that as a native of Scotland come to these shores he could appreciate the pledge as something more than a hollow verse taught to children for memory. I would like to quote from his words. He said, 'there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life.' Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Docherty hit the nail square on the head.
Senator Homer Ferguson, in his report to the Congress on March 10, 1954, said, "The introduction of this joint resolution was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped." This time Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and [highlight]Eisenhower opted to sign the bill into law on Flag Day (June 14, 1954).[/highlight] The fact that Eisenhower clearly had Docherty’s rationale in mind as he initiated and consummated this measure is apparent in a letter he wrote in August, 1954. Paraphrasing Docherty’s sermon, Eisenhower said
These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.
Docherty’s sermon was published by Harper & Bros. in New York in 1958 and President Eisenhower took the opportunity to write to Dr. Docherty with gratitude for the opportunity to once again read the fateful sermon. On Flag Day, June 14, 1954, Congress passed the legislation adding the phrase "under God" to the Pledge.
Harold Dudley (1896-1970) was a poet, author, and founder of the Washington Pilgrimage, later known as Religious Heritage of America. The organization actively promoted the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States. Dudley was instrumental in lobbying Congress to add "under God" to the official text of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Seriously, I know this is just wikipedia, but it's a lot more research then some of you decided to undergo before speaking about the matter...

-blazed

 

[Kalypso]

Did you read even one post beforehand?

Here's what wikipedia has to say about the pledge, I highlighted certain portions:


Seriously, I know this is just wikipedia, but it's a lot more research then some of you decided to undergo before speaking about the matter...

-blazed

You misunderstand me. I never said the pledge has been around since the formation of the US. I know it has recent origins. However, if the pledge was written ten years ago by fundamentalist Muslims, that's nothing to do with my point. It's something we've been reciting for years, it stands for many things relating to the formation and history of the country (Regardless of when it was written or adopted, and by who).

And again, even if none of that was true, my point wasn't even at its core dealing with the pledge itself, it's with the struggle between Atheists and Christians. Everyone wants to hold the pen of history and change the past to better suit their means in the present. This happens... so much it doesn't even need to be debated. In the case of the pledge, an argument to completely remove the words 'In God We Trust' from Money, or any mentions of God from documents, the pledge, or anything else is an attempt by Atheists at control. The only reason to insist on changing, instead of tolerating or ignoring it, is you want to impose your views on other people. Common sense.

That's really not that complicated. Everyone wants control and power. However, in this case, I favor the truth/history over either sides opinion. The pledge was written a certain way, it should stay that way. Removing the words 'God' from everything is ridiculous, and a vye at power. I don't care whether the pledge is faded out. I don't care whether they institute a new pledge fully re-written, without mention of god. What I do care about is people trying to change something for their own political/religious beliefs, instead of a just cause to do so.

No one is influenced by 'God' in the pledge or on money. Atheists can simply ignore it, no one forces them to say it. It doesn't matter. The only reason it's an issue is that Atheism is vying for political power, which I disagree with.

And I have been Atheist for some... 9 years? You misunderstand my point entirely.

 

[Mediocre]

Christianity. It has an enormous impact on our history, whether or not you follow it (I don't, I'm actually quite against religion in general). From a historical standpoint, Christianity is important.

To try and remove some words from the Pledge is, to me, to symbolically try and remove Christianities influence from history. History is, of course, determined by the person with the pen.

Nuh-uh.

I want the words, "under God" removed from the pledge because they're illegal, buddy. I don't understand how I'm symbolically trying to "remove Christianities influence from history". First of all, that's impossible, because the influence is ****ing huge. I doubt it will be diminished at all by the removal of "under God" from the pledge.

It's something we've been reciting for years, it stands for many things relating to the formation and history of the country (Regardless of when it was written or adopted, and by who).

You know, simply wanting to maintain the status quo isn't something you should base a decision on. And how the hell is it related to the "formation and history of the country", anyway? America was founded as a secular nation, so the words "under God" really have no relation to the formation of the USA.

And again, even if none of that was true, my point wasn't even at its core dealing with the pledge itself, it's with the struggle between Atheists and Christians. Everyone wants to hold the pen of history and change the past to better suit their means in the present. This happens... so much it doesn't even need to be debated.

I don't want to change the past. I'm not asking anybody to go and remove any mention of Christianity from the textbooks.

I want to change the present. I don't know how removing those words from the Pledge would do anything to change the impact Christianity has had on this nation, or make people think Christianity had less impact than it did. The impact is too great for the US government to erase, even if they wanted to.

In the case of the pledge, an argument to completely remove the words 'In God We Trust' from Money, or any mentions of God from documents, the pledge, or anything else is an attempt by Atheists at control. The only reason to insist on changing, instead of tolerating or ignoring it, is you want to impose your views on other people. Common sense.

Wait, what?

The atheists are the ones trying to impose our views on other people? How can the lack of the words "under God" impose anything? It was the Christians who were trying to impose their views on other people. Specifically, they were trying to promote religion in an effort to counter the "godless" communists. They, not us are the ones trying to impose their beliefs on other people.

Really, your statement is just ridiculous.

That's really not that complicated. Everyone wants control and power. However, in this case, I favor the truth/history over either sides opinion. The pledge was written a certain way, it should stay that way. Removing the words 'God' from everything is ridiculous, and a vye at power. I don't care whether the pledge is faded out. I don't care whether they institute a new pledge fully re-written, without mention of god. What I do care about is people trying to change something for their own political/religious beliefs, instead of a just cause to do so.

Then you should be all for removing "under God" from the Pledge.

* 1892:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."​

* 1892 to 1923:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."​

* 1923 to 1954:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."​

* 1954 to Present:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."​

Please, do a little research before you make claims about something you know nothing about. "Under God" and "In God We Trust" were added during the Red Scare because the people in the government wanted to spread Christian capitalism in order to combat the godless communism of Russia and other nations.

No one is influenced by 'God' in the pledge or on money. Atheists can simply ignore it, no one forces them to say it. It doesn't matter. The only reason it's an issue is that Atheism is vying for political power, which I disagree with.

You're right, nobody is influenced by the "God" in the pledge or on the money. You're right, atheists can ignore it.

But it matters. Every time the government prints a bill, it's breaking the law. Every time a teacher leads the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school, the government is breaking the law.

Atheism is not vying for political power. Atheists are vying for equality. Christians are vying for political power, but they don't have to bother anymore, because it seems like they've already won.

 

[snex]

if you want to hear about the christian influence on america, read about it in history class. dont force children to assert the truth of christianity. come one people, common sense!

one doesnt have to assert the truthhood of christianity to realize its impact on history, and indoctrinating children into asserting its truthhood is even worse.

sheesh do you people even think?

 

[blazedaces]

You misunderstand me. I never said the pledge has been around since the formation of the US. I know it has recent origins. However, if the pledge was written ten years ago by fundamentalist Muslims, that's nothing to do with my point. It's something we've been reciting for years, it stands for many things relating to the formation and history of the country (Regardless of when it was written or adopted, and by who).

And again, even if none of that was true, my point wasn't even at its core dealing with the pledge itself, it's with the struggle between Atheists and Christians. Everyone wants to hold the pen of history and change the past to better suit their means in the present. This happens... so much it doesn't even need to be debated. In the case of the pledge, an argument to completely remove the words 'In God We Trust' from Money, or any mentions of God from documents, the pledge, or anything else is an attempt by Atheists at control. The only reason to insist on changing, instead of tolerating or ignoring it, is you want to impose your views on other people. Common sense.

That's really not that complicated. Everyone wants control and power. However, in this case, I favor the truth/history over either sides opinion. The pledge was written a certain way, it should stay that way. Removing the words 'God' from everything is ridiculous, and a vye at power. I don't care whether the pledge is faded out. I don't care whether they institute a new pledge fully re-written, without mention of god. What I do care about is people trying to change something for their own political/religious beliefs, instead of a just cause to do so.

No one is influenced by 'God' in the pledge or on money. Atheists can simply ignore it, no one forces them to say it. It doesn't matter. The only reason it's an issue is that Atheism is vying for political power, which I disagree with.

And I have been Atheist for some... 9 years? You misunderstand my point entirely.

I'm not going to repost the entire thing again. You for some reason saw highlighted sections and decided the rest was not meant to be read.

There exist an entire section called "addition of the words 'under god'"!

How is adding the words under god 50 years ago any different then removing them now? If you were true to your word, that all you think is that this is a tradition and changing it (despite how it's absolutely not old enough to be a tradition in my eyes) would be ... untraditional (ya, doing that is just wrong) then you would be just as outraged that "under god" was ever inserted into the pledge in the first place.

I believe you're simply using it as another excuse for an argument to fuel your own agenda, whatever that may be ... *rolls eyes*

And lastly, I honestly believe if it was really completely about Christianity there would be a reference to it, but in the 1900's there were already many religions here and I don't think they wanted to insult all of them in the United States. Under god meant then and it means now "under god", not "under the christian god"...

-blazed

 

[snex]

ironically, the original pledge (the god-free one) was written by a baptist minister, who deliberately left reference to god out of it even after he was criticized for it!

we need to understand the difference between educating children about the influence of christianity on history and indoctrinating them into christianity. when we read the iliad in literature class, we are reading it for its literary significance. teachers arent leading the class in saying america is one nation under zeus. i fully support reading the bible in literature class - you simply cannot understand classical (and thereby modern) literature without understanding the bible. but there is an enormous difference in reading the bible for its literary content and having the teacher say that the stories are literally true historical events.

there is also a similar enormous difference between pointing out how the reformation influenced the enlightenment and stating that the god of the reformed protestants specifically helped america form and now watches over it.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

if you want to hear about the christian influence on america, read about it in history class. dont force children to assert the truth of christianity. come one people, common sense!

Talk about common sense. No one is forced to say the plegde. I don't know about you, I'm sure no one EVER forced you to say it.

one doesnt have to assert the truthhood of christianity to realize its impact on history, and indoctrinating children into asserting its truthhood is even worse.

The Pledge does not indorctrinate children into religion. Do you really think that the government is brainwashing children into believing in God by saying the pledge. That is pure ludacrous.


What about what is in the Declaration of Independence? It makes a clear mention of a God. "We are endowed by our creator with certain inaliable rights."

Kalypso- I don't think atheits are vying for political power. Like what Medi said, just equality.

 

[snex]

Talk about common sense. No one is forced to say the plegde. I don't know about you, I'm sure no one EVER forced you to say it.

not physically forced, no. but emotional blackmail on defenseless children is still forcing them. when the teacher stands up and starts leading the class, you follow along or suffer the isolation of being an outsider. even if you dont get harassed about this (which you almost certainly will), you still suffer feeling like an outsider. you still have to sit there and listen to a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL state that america is a nation under HIS god.

The Pledge does not indorctrinate children into religion. Do you really think that the government is brainwashing children into believing in God by saying the pledge. That is pure ludacrous.

whats ludicrous is that this doesnt outrage anybody who does not believe in the same god as the teacher leading the classroom. even if i were a christian, i am paying for my child to go to school to learn facts, not recite mindless garbage and learn about religion. if i want my child to learn about jesus, i take him to church. we ALL pay taxes for schools, therefore they must be religiously neutral.

What about what is in the Declaration of Independence? It makes a clear mention of a God. "We are endowed by our creator with certain inaliable rights."

the declaration of independence has never been an official document of the united states. it was written in 1776, 11 years before the united states existed. the first amendment to the constitution (which is an official document) clearly states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or of prohibiting the free exercise thereof. the fourteenth amendment further guarantees this right to all citizens by prohibiting individual states from contradicting it.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

not recite mindless garbage and learn about religion. if i want my child to learn about jesus, i take him to church.

The Pledge of Allegiance is mindless garbage that teaches children about jesus? I can't believe that. Are you really serious. Explain to me how the Pledge of Allegiance teaches kids about Jesus. I never learned about him reciting the Pledge. And I certainly don't see how it is "mindless garbage." Can someone back me up here?

not physically forced, no. but emotional blackmail on defenseless children is still forcing them. when the teacher stands up and starts leading the class, you follow along or suffer the isolation of being an outsider. even if you dont get harassed about this (which you almost certainly will), you still suffer feeling like an outsider. you still have to sit there and listen to a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL state that america is a nation under HIS god.

I remeber when I was in 1st grade, we had a girl in our class that didn't stand up for the pledge. She said that she didn't because of something her parents believed in. No one in the class made fun of her, or treated her any differently. Not saying the pledge will definetly NOT cause children to "suffer the isolation of being an outsider." I think you are taking this a little to far. I don't see how not saying the pledge causes any "suffering" at all. I don't think you know what "suffer" means.

When did teachers become GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?

 

[snex]

The Pledge of Allegiance is mindless garbage that teaches children about jesus? I can't believe that. Are you really serious. Explain to me how the Pledge of Allegiance teaches kids about Jesus. I never learned about him reciting the Pledge. And I certainly don't see how it is "mindless garbage." Can someone back me up here?

what do you think "one nation under god" means?

I remeber when I was in 1st grade, we had a girl in our class that didn't stand up for the pledge. She said that she didn't because of something her parents believed in. No one in the class made fun of her, or treated her any differently. Not saying the pledge will definetly NOT cause children to "suffer the isolation of being an outsider." I think you are taking this a little to far. I don't see how not saying the pledge causes any "suffering" at all. I don't think you know what "suffer" means.

i dont think you know what its like at all to have adults leading children in some activity when you personally do not believe in doing that activity. i dont think you know what its like to have your own government that is supposed to represent your interests completely ignoring them and telling you to sit down and shut up if you dont want to participate.

When did teachers become GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?

if you have to ask this question, then you shouldnt even be in this debate.

 

[Mediocre]

The Pledge of Allegiance is mindless garbage that teaches children about jesus? I can't believe that. Are you really serious. Explain to me how the Pledge of Allegiance teaches kids about Jesus. I never learned about him reciting the Pledge. And I certainly don't see how it is "mindless garbage." Can someone back me up here?

It's definitely mindless, and arguably garbage, but I agree with you that there is no mention of Jesus in the pledge.

However, the "God" that is mentioned is clearly the Christian God, and He relates to Jesus pretty closely, I'd say.

When did teachers become GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?

Ever since they started being payed by the government.

I'd have thought that was obvious.

 

[Kalypso]

I believe you're simply using it as another excuse for an argument to fuel your own agenda, whatever that may be ... *rolls eyes*

....I'm Atheist....

Talk about common sense. No one is forced to say the plegde. I don't know about you, I'm sure no one EVER forced you to say it. The Pledge does not indorctrinate children into religion. Do you really think that the government is brainwashing children into believing in God by saying the pledge. That is pure ludacrous. What about what is in the Declaration of Independence? It makes a clear mention of a God. "We are endowed by our creator with certain inaliable rights."

This

Kalypso- I don't think atheits are vying for political power. Like what Medi said, just equality.

There isn't an inequality. More Christian people have power in government but I'd guess that state of mind and political agendas trump their religious beliefs when it comes to passing legislation, and something else that's very important to keep in mind is how ****ing vast religious beliefs range.

Christian does not imply anything politically. There are so many different kinds of Christians, and SO MANY people who identify themselves as Christians but don't have it influencing their political beliefs that you can't really discuss a 'Christian Agenda.' Maybe a fundamentalist Christian agenda, but they aren't the ones in power. Regardless of the political topic at hand, both sides will always try to use religion to justify their argument.

I see the whole thing as some people being butt-hurt over something that doesn't matter, and trying to make changes to society as a whole as a way of inflicting their beliefs on other people OR people who are too focused on a minor matter that doesn't really warrant attention. Political activism for Atheism, or people who care too much about something that doesn't matter. Just like people who try to ban profanity and violence in media. Same thing. Personal agenda, trying to push it on other people. I don't believe in that, at all, to me this falls under the 'Not broken, don't fix it, don't load the dice in your favor' kind of situation.

And it's really, really not illegal. If you think it's illegal due to separation of church and state you have a very poor understanding of those words. While the word 'God' was surely originally intended or interpreted, by most, as a Christian entity, today that's not the case, the word God is more symbolic.

Also, please no one make the stupid 'To atheists their god might be a rock' arguments... please...

not physically forced, no. but emotional blackmail on defenseless children is still forcing them. when the teacher stands up and starts leading the class, you follow along or suffer the isolation of being an outsider. even if you dont get harassed about this (which you almost certainly will), you still suffer feeling like an outsider. you still have to sit there and listen to a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL state that america is a nation under HIS god.

I disagree with this, but don't really have the urge to argue it. As a kid I almost never said the pledge, about half my class didn't most of the time simply out of laziness and apathy, no one really felt like an outsider. Even if everyone was doing it but me, the other kids aren't thinking 'man, why isn't he saying the pledge? flag burner,' they're thinking 'this is stupid, why do they make us say this, only two hours until lunch.'

whats ludicrous is that this doesnt outrage anybody who does not believe in the same god as the teacher leading the classroom. even if i were a christian, i am paying for my child to go to school to learn facts, not recite mindless garbage and learn about religion. if i want my child to learn about jesus, i take him to church. we ALL pay taxes for schools, therefore they must be religiously neutral.

You really equate 'one nation... under god...' with learning about religion?

Dude are you serious?

And further, there is a difference between religious conversion and religious education. I wholeheartedly believe that everyone needs to learn the facts and history of all major world religions, and the influences that led them to do what they did. I really wish high school had a religious history class. You'd learn A LOT more about the world in that kind of class than in 9/10ths of the classes I took in high school. Religious education helps you understand the way the world works, it's very different from attempted religious conversion.

Ignorance about religion, Islam in particular really hurts our nation and leads to bigotry. It's much easier to hate something you don't understand.

One Nation Under God =/= Accept Jesus as your personal Savior

 

[Mediocre]

....I'm Atheist....

This

There isn't an inequality. More Christian people have power in government but I'd guess that state of mind and political agendas trump their religious beliefs when it comes to passing legislation, and something else that's very important to keep in mind is how ****ing vast religious beliefs range.

Christian does not imply anything politically. There are so many different kinds of Christians, and SO MANY people who identify themselves as Christians but don't have it influencing their political beliefs that you can't really discuss a 'Christian Agenda.' Maybe a fundamentalist Christian agenda, but they aren't the ones in power. Regardless of the political topic at hand, both sides will always try to use religion to justify their argument.

I see the whole thing as some people being butt-hurt over something that doesn't matter, and trying to make changes to society as a whole as a way of inflicting their beliefs on other people. Just like people who try to ban profanity and violence in media. Same thing. Personal agenda, trying to push it on other people. I don't believe in that, at all, to me this falls under the 'Not broken, don't fix it, don't load the dice in your favor' kind of situation.

And it's really, really not illegal. If you think it's illegal due to separation of church and state you have a very poor understanding of those words. While the word 'God' was surely originally intended or interpreted, by most, as a Christian entity, today that's not the case, the word God is more symbolic. .

Jesus ****ing Christ.

Please, stop stating your same ill-informed opinions over and over again like a broken record. Back them up with some facts, kay? Or at the very least, read and respond to more than one post.

I ****ing give you the facts, the ****ing historical information that is absolutely necessary to understanding this issue, and you just skip over my entire post. Why? Is it because you didn't like what I was saying? Or could you just not be bothered to read it?

If you're going to continue arguing without doing any research or even bothering to read the posts made my other debaters in response to your own, I'm certainly not voting for your inclusion in the Debate Hall. You seem intelligent enough that if you actually put any effort into doing something other than simply stating your opinion, your posts might engender some decent debate.

As is, though, you're not posting anything worth responding to, and certainly not anything worth responding to twice because you choose to ignore my response the first time.

 

[snex]

claiming that our nation is "under god" is a violation of the first amendment. how you can deny this is beyond me. it clearly favors theism over atheism, and monotheism over polytheism. given its historical context, it favors judeo-christianity over other religions.

you might think it is just a minor quibble, but in fact it is not. atheists are the most hated minority in this country, and there is absolutely no public outcry over this whatsoever. and the reason for all of this is *because* people like you let theists walk all over you on matters like this. one could argue that giving black people their own water fountains was a minor thing too, or making them sit at the back of the bus. i mean who cares? its just water. its just a bus. they should be happy they get anything at all right?

BULL****. i refuse to sit down and shut up and accept anything less than full equality. you can sit there and pretend it doesnt matter, but that will not change society's opinion about atheism any more than it has in the last 200 years.

 

[Kalypso]

Jesus ****ing Christ.

Please, stop stating your same ill-informed opinions over and over again like a broken record. Back them up with some facts, kay? Or at the very least, read and respond to more than one post.

I ****ing give you the facts, the ****ing historical information that is absolutely necessary to understanding this issue, and you just skip over my entire post. Why? Is it because you didn't like what I was saying? Or could you just not be bothered to read it?

If you're going to continue arguing without doing any research or even bothering to read the posts made my other debaters in response to your own, I'm certainly not voting for your inclusion in the Debate Hall. You seem intelligent enough that if you actually put any effort into doing something other than simply stating your opinion, your posts might engender some decent debate.

As is, though, you're not posting anything worth responding to, and certainly not anything worth responding to twice because you choose to ignore my response the first time.

I read your post, and it has nothing to do with the legality of your argument. You re-illustrated what I already know about the origins of the pledge, and opposed my views on the matter, but you didn't say anything about the legality of 'God' being in the pledge and on money.

Separation of Church and State is typically interpreted 'The government cannot condone or support any religion over other religions, nor try to influence its people religiously.' The pledge does not violate this. YOU AGREE it doesn't influence anyone. YOU AGREED it's not even referencing a specific religion. Therefore, IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

The only way it can is if it references a specific religion or tries to influence people religiously, which it DOES NOT. Stop yelling at me, acting like I'm just ignorantly blasting my own gospel, and take a step back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seperation_of_church_and_state

In the United States, the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax dollars in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally, and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices not be restricted by the government. The effect, of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions, while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy, has been termed the "separation of church and state."

There are automatic entanglements between the institutions, inasmuch as religious institutions, and their adherents, are a part of civil society.[2] Moreover, private religious practices can sometimes come into conflict with broad legislation not intending to target any particular religious minority. Each of these complicate the idea of true separation.

Beliefs on the proper relationship between religion and government cover a wide spectrum, ranging between one end featuring complete secularization of government, and theocracy, in which the two are unified under one central leadership. Along this line, a number of distinctions and issues are raised. Perhaps the most primary is the division between the two distinct ideas of government secularization and church independence.[3]

There is no correlation between 'One nation under god' and any specific religion, nor any influince on people religiously, so it is not illegal. It's too vague, too symbolic to violate the clause.

claiming that our nation is "under god" is a violation of the first amendment. how you can deny this is beyond me. it clearly favors theism over atheism, and monotheism over polytheism. given its historical context, it favors judeo-christianity over other religions.

Not to the point where it influences anyone or does anything worth fighting against. It's a footnote of an issue in the larger spectrum of religion. And again, the word god, in its context, is largely symbolic. There is NO MENTION of a specific god, no other religious reference in the pledge or money. Without such context it isn't any threat.

 

[Kalypso]

You know they're teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design in some schools right?

THAT is what you need to be fighting. That is DIRECTLY influencing people, for one religion, in school. It's a greivous breach of the SCS. That's what attention needs to be drawn to. Not 'One nation under god.' That's not influential, and it really just doesn't matter.

atheists are the most hated minority in this country

Oh come on, we both know that's not true. I've never in my life been oppressed for being atheist in ANY WAY. Don't even go there dude.

. and the reason for all of this is *because* people like you let theists walk all over you on matters like this. one could argue that giving black people their own water fountains was a minor thing too, or making them sit at the back of the bus. i mean who cares? its just water. its just a bus. they should be happy they get anything at all right?

BULL****. i refuse to sit down and shut up and accept anything less than full equality. you can sit there and pretend it doesnt matter, but that will not change society's opinion about atheism any more than it has in the last 200 years.

Alright, WHOA. WHOA. Take a ****ing step back, WOW.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Mountains out of molehills.

If you are really going to even equate Atheism to the long-standing oppression of black people in America, you better get some evidence, NOW. Do people get fired for being atheist? Is anyone oppressed? Are opportunities lost? Are their liberties infringed upon?

I have never experienced any of this, and you sound militant, for no reason. I'm just calling BS on this 'Atheistic Oppression' until you get some freakin evidence, because I've never experienced it. I have every right a Christian would have. I can do anything they can do. except go to heaven.


Mediocre- Explain why 'One nation under god' violates the Separation of Church and State, because I don't think it does, and apparently politicians agree with be since it's still there.

SNEX- Explain how atheists are being oppressed.

 

[snex]

you wanna bet its true? http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rel...ewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

its irrelevant if it doesnt mention a specific god. gods are a religious concept. the government cannot take any position on them at all. you simply do not understand the first amendment.

 

[Kalypso]

you wanna bet its true? http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rel...ewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

its irrelevant if it doesnt mention a specific god. gods are a religious concept. the government cannot take any position on them at all. you simply do not understand the first amendment.

You know that the establishment clause isn't even specifically stated right? It's an interpretation by the Supreme Court...

If you just look at what the first amendment says, it's 100% legal for the pledge to say one nation under god. If you take the establishment clause into consideration, from the PoV I stated above, it's still legal.

The farthest you could POSSIBLY push this is to say that it's a government-supported vague reference to religion. Can anyone explain why it'd be more than that?

If that's the case, why is it worth the effort? Again, I'll say that it's not influincing anyone, and that it doesn't matter. Mountains out of molehills.

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rel...ewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

....a telephone survey of 2000 people, interpreted?

In case you're not aware of how those work, there's a very high chance that the survey was biased. Those things aren't reliable, and when they are, they are conducted by major survey companies, the kind who get political polls pre-election. Not the university of michegan. Aside from the obvious problems of an extremely small sample size, the probability of bias, and it's being conducted by some grad students, this is a SOCIAL survey. It has no government involvement. For us to be oppressed, we'd have to have some sort of legislation against us. Is there any? No.

Especially if you're going to compare atheist oppression to that of blacks, you're going to need a great deal more than a faulty phone survey.

SNEX, I'd concede this argument right now, here's why-

1) There is no government oppression of Atheists. There has been legislation passed against every other minority group that has come to America, and there is currently legislation being passed against Mexicans. You cannot possibly think we have it worse than any of these other groups, much less all.

2) There is no way for you to be oppressed in the workplace for being atheist. Boss can't ask about it, and certainly can't take action against you for it. There have been MASSIVE problems for minorities with jobs. We aren't included in this.

3) We... aren't oppressed... at all... in any way. The farthest it goes is some people don't like us for our beliefs. There is always someone who will hate you for your beliefs, that's part of having a belief. I can't think of a single instance in life when I've experienced problems for my religious beliefs. It's not there. Maybe some people in your life don't like you for it, but you aren't being denied liberties or work, and if you are, you can sue for it. For A LOT of money.

 

[snex]

you are clearly uneducated on the matter.

first of all, an official position on the existence of god or gods does violate the establishment clause.

second of all, that survey does not have any major methodological flaws as determined by scientists working in the field.

thirdly, several state constitutions specifically deny the right of atheists to serve in a government position or testify in court. if that isnt discrimination then i dunno what is. many people have been fired or harrassed at their workplaces for being openly atheist. it is trivially easy to find these cases on the web. notable atheists like richard dawkins or sam harris are CONSTANTLY receiving death threats for their outspoken atheism.

you just think you can ignore the problem, but that will only ensure that it gets worse.

 

[lonejedi]

you are clearly uneducated on the matter.

first of all, an official position on the existence of god or gods does violate the establishment clause.

second of all, that survey does not have any major methodological flaws as determined by scientists working in the field.

thirdly, several state constitutions specifically deny the right of atheists to serve in a government position or testify in court. if that isnt discrimination then i dunno what is. many people have been fired or harrassed at their workplaces for being openly atheist. it is trivially easy to find these cases on the web. notable atheists like richard dawkins or sam harris are CONSTANTLY receiving death threats for their outspoken atheism.

you just think you can ignore the problem, but that will only ensure that it gets worse.

You went into a small minority by naming a few athiests who are getting persecuted for what they believe. Welcome to America. How many christians are persecuted verbally by people who believe differently, or Jews, or Muslims, or any religious group for that matter. If anything, when big Christian leaders make a mistake, that would normally be fine to other groups, the media pounces on it. Don't give me this sob story about how athiests are mocked. It's life, everyone has been discriminated at one point in time, and one study phoning a group of 2000, isn't going to prove anything.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

if you have to ask this question, then you shouldnt even be in this debate.

Lets see.... I know, I'll look up what a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IS. That sounds like a good idea.


1. An elective public office in the executive or legislative branch of the United States Government,

2. An office in the executive or judicial branch of the U.S. Government, appointment to which was made by the President,

3. A position in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the U.S. Government—
a. Which is listed in Schedule C of Rule VI of the Civil Service Rules, or
b. The compensation for which is at least equal to the lowest rate prescribed for GS-16 of the General Schedule under 5 U.S.C. 5332,

4. A position under either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, held by an individual who receives gross annual pay of at least $15,000 (including expense allowances for which no accounting need be made),

5. An elective or appointive public office in any branch of the government of any state, possession of the United States, or any subdivision of the foregoing, or the District of Columbia, held by an individual who re*ceives gross annual pay of at least $20,000, or

6. A position as personal or executive assis*tant or secretary to any individual already described.

Hmm.... You know I didn't see teacher in that list, kinda funny dontcha think? If you don't know what a government official is, then maybe you shouldn't be in this debate. I guess I did have to ask that question, huh?

Ever since they started being payed by the government.

I'd have thought that was obvious.

Medi- My dad is in the military, and the government pays him. Does that make him a government official too?

official- a person appointed or elected to an office or charged with certain duties. Teachers ARE NOT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. I'd have thought that was obvious.

Kalypso- Even though I understand what you are trying to do, you are wrong. You have to look at this from another point of view, say a Muslims. They know that under God is not refering to their God, Allah. It would say under Allah if it was. That makes it religously biased, therefore wrong.

However I do agree that there are more important things like what is taught in our schools, I had a COLLEGE biology teacher that blatantly said that she thought there was no proof for macro evolution and that she didn't beleive in it. I was stunned to say the least.

Snex/Medi- I still don't see how the Pledge is "garbage." Maybe you could explain it a bit more.

Snex- If there are cases of people getting fired for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, then those people should go to court cause they could get a ****load of money. What states have the laws about atheists not being able to hold public office or testify in court?

edit-
Kalypso- I know they are the same God, but the fact that they use a different name makes a difference. Maybe it was a bad example, but you get my point. Just pretend that I used a religion that beleives in a different God, or how about no God at all. Wait, they already have been fighting for that one. Maybe the atheists are not suffering, but that doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

 

[Kalypso]

You went into a small minority by naming a few athiests who are getting persecuted for what they believe. Welcome to America. How many christians are persecuted verbally by people who believe differently, or Jews, or Muslims, or any religious group for that matter. If anything, when big Christian leaders make a mistake, that would normally be fine to other groups, the media pounces on it. Don't give me this sob story about how athiests are mocked. It's life, everyone has been discriminated at one point in time, and one study phoning a group of 2000, isn't going to prove anything.

My thoughts exactly. Atheists do not have some big problem with oppression.

There is no legislation against Atheists, and everything legally is in their favor. A minor social bias that you are blowing out of proportion is not the same thing as the long-term oppression of blacks.

Kalypso- Even though I understand what you are trying to do, you are wrong. You have to look at this from another point of view, say a Muslims. They know that under God is not refering to their God, Allah. It would say under Allah if it was. That makes it religously biased, therefore wrong.

....

(Allah and the Christian God are the same god....)

....

(Although the Qur'an is based off of the words of Muhammad, Jesus is the most directly quoted prophet in the Qur'an)

The differences between religions are much more trivial than people realize, this is why I'd like to see some higher-level religious education in the public school system. Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Jews don't believe that Jesus was the messiah, Muslims don't believe that Jesus was the messiah, and further that Muhammad was the last prophet of god. They all worship the same god, stem from the same beliefs, have a great deal of the same ideas regarding death, morality and such.

Zoroastrianism (Ahura Mazda) (Debatable) => Judaism (Yahweh) => Christianity /Islam (Allah)

Same god, although it goes by different names.

Religions currently practiced are really divided into three groups, Basic, Eastern and Western. Western religions are those who worship the Judaic god (Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Baha'i, etc). Eastern would be the Hindu-class religions, the Chinese religions which are more philosophies than religions, Japanese Shinto and others. Basic religions are religions who are Animistic, such as Native Americans or Native Africans. Then, of course, there are non-religious beliefs, such as Atheism.

A western-religion member wouldn't be offended with 'One Nation Under God' for religious reasons, because they have a god.

A member of a basic religion wouldn't either, because almost every basic religion has a creator god, and the ones that don't have an omnipotent spirit. They too, are fine with the statement 'one nation under god' because they too are under a god.

Now we have Eastern religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism.

Shinto has a leader-god, the sun god. Buddhism and Confucianism have more in common with philosophy than religion, although have some religious practices. Neither acknowledge nor deny the existence of god. It's common for Japanese of some periods to be Buddhist, Confucian and Shinto at the same time. So what we have left is Hinduism.

Hinduism doesn't worship a god, but they do have a defining order to the universe. Since 'one nation under god' is ambiguous and symbolic, it can easily refer to this order.

...and that leaves us with Atheism/Agnosticism, which is where we started. One nation under god isn't offensive to other religions, it's 'offensive' to some atheists, who feel that the use of the term god is condemning atheism.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

They too, are fine with the statement 'one nation under god' because they too are under a god.

You can't speak for other people, especially people of different religious beliefs than you. You have no right, or basis for fact. You don't know if these people of different religions are "ok" with under God.

Hindu's believe in many Gods, not a God. Under God is not ambiguous enough to cover the many Gods that Hindu's worship. It doesn't matter how try and change the meaning, Under God is singular, not plural, and cannot refer to the Hindu "order" as you call it.

it's 'offensive' to some atheists

You anwsered you own problem here. It is offensive. Period. That is as far as I should have to go. But I know that won't satisfy you.

Okay, lets say that instead of under God or in God we trust, it was under Allah, or in Allah we trust. It is the same God so Americans wouldn't mind that right? WRONG. The wording means a lot and you see why this is wrong. If it offends people of different religions then it shouldn't be government supported, as pertaining to religion in govt.

 

[Mediocre]

I read your post, and it has nothing to do with the legality of your argument. You re-illustrated what I already know about the origins of the pledge, and opposed my views on the matter, but you didn't say anything about the legality of 'God' being in the pledge and on money.

Separation of Church and State is typically interpreted 'The government cannot condone or support any religion over other religions, nor try to influence its people religiously.' The pledge does not violate this. YOU AGREE it doesn't influence anyone. YOU AGREED it's not even referencing a specific religion. Therefore, IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.[...]

There is no correlation between 'One nation under god' and any specific religion, nor any influince on people religiously, so it is not illegal. It's too vague, too symbolic to violate the clause.

Huh. And you accuse other people of not understanding the first amendment?

Read your own source:

or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally

I'd say this definitely favors "religion generally."

I read your post, and it has nothing to do with the legality of your argument. You re-illustrated what I already know about the origins of the pledge, and opposed my views on the matter, but you didn't say anything about the legality of 'God' being in the pledge and on money.

If you already knew that "under God" was added to the Pledge after the fact, by your own logic you ought to be against it for that reason alone.

You went into a small minority by naming a few athiests who are getting persecuted for what they believe. Welcome to America. How many christians are persecuted verbally by people who believe differently, or Jews, or Muslims, or any religious group for that matter. If anything, when big Christian leaders make a mistake, that would normally be fine to other groups, the media pounces on it. Don't give me this sob story about how athiests are mocked. It's life, everyone has been discriminated at one point in time, and one study phoning a group of 2000, isn't going to prove anything.

So, your attitude towards discrimination is, "hey, get over it"? Sorry, I don't buy it. Sure, discrimination is a fact of life, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our power to eliminate it.

I've got to admit, though, I've never felt like I've ever been persecuted for being an atheist. I have gotten a few nasty comments, but I've never been denied a job or anything. Of course, I tend not to tell everybody I meet that I'm an atheist, so the issue usually doesn't come up. I think that for most atheists, it's really not a big deal.

Lets see.... I know, I'll look up what a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IS. That sounds like a good idea.

[...]

3. A position in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the U.S. Government—
a. Which is listed in Schedule C of Rule VI of the Civil Service Rules, or
b. The compensation for which is at least equal to the lowest rate prescribed for GS-16 of the General Schedule under 5 U.S.C. 5332,

[...]

Hmm.... You know I didn't see teacher in that list, kinda funny dontcha think? If you don't know what a government official is, then maybe you shouldn't be in this debate. I guess I did have to ask that question, huh?

Obviously you weren't looking hard enough.

See that "Schedule C of Rule VI of the Civil Service Rules" that they mention? Well, I looked them up. Turns out that they vary from state to state, and you didn't link to your source so I'm not sure what state your source applies to.

But go here. Scroll down to number eight. Of course, that applies only to Louisiana, but I'd bet that there are similar laws in all the other 49 states. I'm not going to bother looking up each state individually, but you can if you've got the time.

Until then, I think my and snex's points stand. Teachers are government officials.

official- a person appointed or elected to an office or charged with certain duties. Teachers ARE NOT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. I'd have thought that was obvious.

lol.

Snex/Medi- I still don't see how the Pledge is "garbage." Maybe you could explain it a bit more.

I'm not a big fan of blind nationalism.

...and that leaves us with Atheism/Agnosticism, which is where we started. One nation under god isn't offensive to other religions, it's 'offensive' to some atheists, who feel that the use of the term god is condemning atheism.

You're sidestepping polytheists.

The" leader god" you mention in your post is obviously not what the phrase in the Pledge or on our money is referencing. For one, the word "God" is capitalized, which it would not be in a polytheistic religion, even those with a "leader god." Secondly, the original intent of the words "under God" in the pledge is obviously to promote Christianity.

No matter how you wriggle, it's the Christian God they're talking about.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

My link:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/foundations/article/0,,id=136956,00.html

I don't think you read it properly. It only classifies schedule C rule VI, it doesnt count rule VIII. So you see, teachers are not government officials. Just because the government pays you, doesnt mean you are an official. You have to be appointed or elected.

* people elected or appointed to administer a government
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

teachers don't administer, or help administer a government.

 

[Kalypso]

I'd say this definitely favors "religion generally."

The useage is very symbolic, as I've said many times in this thread, and I don't think that it really does, the way the pledge is used nowadays. You can't just associate God with the Christian God in the meaning.

If you already knew that "under God" was added to the Pledge after the fact, by your own logic you ought to be against it for that reason alone.

What I think about under god being added and what I think about it still being there today are very different topics. I don't think it should have been added. But for identical reasons, I don't think it should be removed. It's religious activism, whether for Atheism or Christianity. I don't think it's worth the attention, nor worth changing, nor is there any substantial reason to change it.

You anwsered you own problem here. It is offensive. Period. That is as far as I should have to go. But I know that won't satisfy you.

Of course it doesn't satisfy me, because that is absolute ludacris. EVERYTHING IS OFFENSIVE TO SOMEONE. Being offensive is NOT a reason for government intervention. There is nothing in the world that doesn't offend someone.

Example-

Under god offends you
It is removed
That offends Christians

What the **** are you accomplishing? See why I think this topic is not worth changing, and a waste of time?

Okay, lets say that instead of under God or in God we trust, it was under Allah, or in Allah we trust. It is the same God so Americans wouldn't mind that right? WRONG. The wording means a lot and you see why this is wrong. If it offends people of different religions then it shouldn't be government supported, as pertaining to religion in govt.

Wrong

God = Allah, Yahweh, Christian God, Ahura Mazda, etc. It is a general term for any of them, and also includes a great deal of symbolic ideologies, secular ideas, and ambiguities. It is not a specific term.

Allah = Specific term for the Islamic god, referring to the Islamic faith.

See the difference?

You're sidestepping polytheists.

The" leader god" you mention in your post is obviously not what the phrase in the Pledge or on our money is referencing. For one, the word "God" is capitalized, which it would not be in a polytheistic religion, even those with a "leader god." Secondly, the original intent of the words "under God" in the pledge is obviously to promote Christianity.

No matter how you wriggle, it's the Christian God they're talking about.

If you are referring to like... Greek/Roman mythology, that is not practiced today, the polytheistic religions practicing today I addressed. The fact that 'god' is a vague, symbolic term protects it from problems involved with specifics.

Also, Greeks/Romans, while believing in many Gods, tended to only actively worship one, or one above all others, depending on location.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Rule VI: (6) One person holding a confidential position and one principal assistant or deputy to any officer, board, commission or authority mentioned in (1), (2), (3), or (4), above, except the State Department of Civil Service.

(1) Elected officials and person appointed to fill vacancies in elective offices.

(2) The head of each principal executive department appointed by the Governor.

(3) Registrars of voters.

(4) Members of State boards, authorities, and commissions.

(5) One private Secretary to the president of each college or university.

No teachers, because rule 8 doesn't apply to Government officials.

 

[Crimson King]

I work for my college, which is a state financed facility. I AM a government employee.

You seem confused and thing government employees are only those elected. But the Supreme Court is appointed. Does that mean they aren't government officials?

The UNITED STATES Post Office is a government run institution and all it's employees ARE employees of the state (paid with tax dollars); they apply for their jobs.

 

[Kalypso]

I think the real point to be made is whether or not much stock is put in what a government employee not related to politics has to say in relation to the governments position.

I'm sure there are plenty of government employees who hate the government for example.

I don't care either way, but that's a point to be made.

/vanish

 

[Mediocre]

The useage is very symbolic, as I've said many times in this thread, and I don't think that it really does, the way the pledge is used nowadays. You can't just associate God with the Christian God in the meaning.

You keep saying it's symbolic, but you never explain what you think it symbolizes.

And I'm not associating "God with the Christian God in the meaning" (never mind the original intent of the words "under God"). I'm saying that mentioning God in the pledge is favoring "religion generally," not that it is favoring Christianity in particular. However, even favoring religion over lack of religion is against the law, and that's stated quite explicitly in the First Amendment. I'm really not sure how you can argue that it's not.



Sargent Peach, I'll concede the point. You're probably in the right on this one. Sorry for loling at you.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Oh, Mediocre. You don't know how much respect I have for you. That really made my day, literally. It is rare to find someone intelligent enough to debate with, and it is even rarer to find someone who is that and has the guts to admit when they are wrong and apologize too.

Really, you just went way up in my book man. I apologize for the rudeness in my earlier posts.

 

[Crimson King]

My bad. I misspoke. Teachers are government EMPLOYEES, along with myself and Postal workers. As government employees we have to follow the same laws as officials, we are paid by tax dollars, and TEACHERS cannot lead prayer.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Ohh... I see. I didn't know that you had to obey the same rules as officials. This is now making a lot more sense.

 

[Crimson King]

It's pretty logical. If a teacher is paid by TAX dollars which is set-up in the constitution, then logically they should be held accountable for it.