Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag

[DragonKnight]

Just saw a news article of the Pledge of Allegiance being ruled unconstitutional (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-091405pledge_lat,0,6482326.story?coll=la-home-headlines) . Personally I don't think having the pledge removed is the solution. But despite being Roman Catholic I do not believe in having kids recite "under God" as part of the pledge. Sorry if I don't fit the stereotypical bible-thumper and soap-box preacher. :wink: Well, this is when I decided to take a look at the history and changes of the pledge.

Source (http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html)

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

October 11, 1892

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

June 14, 1923

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.

June 14, 1924

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.

June 14, 1954

The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Personally I say bring it back to the old 1924 version.

[haplesshobo]

The change to the pledge in the 50s was in response to the communist threat, which we viewed as godless and that by affriming our faith in a higher being would differentiate us from the godless communists.

[DragonKnight]

The change to the pledge in the 50s was in response to the communist threat, which we viewed as godless and that by affriming our faith in a higher being would differentiate us from the godless communists.
So it was pretty much a propoganda tactic. Pretty worthless nowadays, don't you think? Time to bring back the 1924 version.

[Yeahman]

It's been more than 50 years. It's a part of the American tradition at this point. The vast majority of Americans grew up with it. There is no quantifiable negative impact on any individual. So let me ask, why remove it? The Constitution does not forbid the mention of God.
Also are you opposed to congressional prayer meetings and chaplins, military chaplins, displays of Roman and Greek gods and Judeo-Christian angels, and reciting "God Bless America" at any government-funded function?

[TB4000]

A lot of atheists are in agreement with it, though some see it as a little too whiny. Depends on where you're coming from, I suppose.

[rice cracker]

So it was pretty much a propoganda tactic. Pretty worthless nowadays, don't you think? Time to bring back the 1924 version.

Agree. It should have been changed back a while ago.

"God bless America, and no one else!"

[SunWuKong]

it was put in during the McCarthy era with anti-communist sentiments in mind. the idea was that communist countries are godless nations. heathens, if you will.

[Yeahman]

So it was pretty much a propoganda tactic. Pretty worthless nowadays, don't you think? Time to bring back the 1924 version.
And the 1924 version is of more worth because?
And the USSR was officially atheistic. Not allegedly.

To remove "under God" is pretty worthless at this point, don't you think? Just keep it.

[shane]

In my unprofessional layman's legal opinion, it fails the Supreme Court's Lemon test.

Does this law serve a bona fide secular purpose?
It no longer serves a secular purpose, but during the height of the Cold War, I think it did. So if you ask this question today, then I'd say the answer is no.

Does this law have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion?
I guess you could argue that this law has no primary effect whatsoever, but otherwise it would be difficult to argue that the law has a primary effect different from advancing belief in one true God.

Does this law excessively entangle government and religion?
I think this is a pretty clear-cut no. Which makes this prong the only one the "under God" law passes.

So it fails 2 of the 3 prongs of the Lemon test. Failing any of the 3 is sufficient to strike down a law or government action. While there are other Establishment Clause tests, this one is generally regarded as the prevailing test. If the pledge recitation is mandatory for students, then it would fail the coercion test as well, but I don't think any school districts actually make the pledge mandatory.

The First Amendment Center's page on the Establishment Clause (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx)

If any Constitutional Law expert wants to shoot down my admittedly amateur analysis, by all means.

[nola]

Just saw a news article of the Pledge of Allegiance being ruled unconstitutional. Personally I don't think having the pledge removed is the solution. But despite being Roman Catholic I do not believe in having kids recite "under God" as part of the pledge.

It seems unconstitutional to have religious bias in our national Pledge of Allegiance. It's obnoxious besides.

[DragonKnight]

It's been more than 50 years. It's a part of the American tradition at this point. The vast majority of Americans grew up with it. There is no quantifiable negative impact on any individual. So let me ask, why remove it? The Constitution does not forbid the mention of God.
Also are you opposed to congressional prayer meetings and chaplins, military chaplins, displays of Roman and Greek gods and Judeo-Christian angels, and reciting "God Bless America" at any government-funded function?
The pledge is an affirmation towards your allegiance to this country. Tradition or not it's been traditional for more than 60 yrs without the mention of god.

Plus, not everyone worships a Jewish/Christian/Muslim monotheistic exclusive god. Should we demand that non-god fearing citizens/residents/immigrants include god as part of their pledge to this country? Forcing them to include in their pledge to this country goes against the very principles that this country was founded on, religious freedom. One god, two gods, a rock, a pantheon of 90 million, or no god...you are including within the pledge the enforcement of Christian belief and principle. Would you rather they lie?

To address your argument on other Christian influence on your list of govermental/military functions, we're focusing on the pledge itself and the changes that lead to it's present form. If you want to deal with the rest of the above you mentioned, start your own thread.

So c'mon, let's focus...the pledge...here. No need to swallow everything whole. We can dissect the lyrics of "God Bless America" somewhere else. :wink:

[Banana]

I think it has less to do with the fact that atheists don't like the phrase "Under God" but rather a blatant display of the close connection between church and state.

[rice cracker]

To remove "under God" is pretty worthless at this point, don't you think? Just keep it.

If it's such a worthless addition, why not go back to the original? Cut the fat, so to speak.

[Yeahman]

Nobody is forced to recite the pledge. The question is whether or not it should even be allowed to be recited voluntarily.

And DragonKnight do you have some sort of crush on me or something? Why the obsession?

I think it has less to do with the fact that atheists don't like the phrase "Under God" but rather a blatant display of the close connection between church and state.
And which church is this?

If it's such a worthless addition, why not go back to the original? Cut the fat, so to speak.
If it's such a worthless addition, why not just keep it? Let it be, so to speak.

[rice cracker]

If it's such a worthless addition, why not just keep it? Let it be, so to speak.

Because it being there causes threads like this.

As an atheist, I would rather not have deity acknowledgement in my supposedly seperated from the church government.

Leaving it in isn't the end of the world, but I guess you would have to be an atheist to understand how it irritates.

[Yeahman]

Because it being there causes threads like this.

As an atheist, I would rather not have deity acknowledgement in my supposedly seperated from the church government.

Leaving it in isn't the end of the world, but I guess you would have to be an atheist to understand how it irritates.
It being removed is what's causing threads like this. There were no threads like this just a few years ago.
As an American who knew no other pledge, I'd rather keep it.
If this irritates, I suggest taking a deep breath and relaxing. Maybe try some yoga. Expressions of non-Christian religions don't upset me. The only way something like this could upset you is if you hold some sort of deep rooted hatred for the concept of God.

[rice cracker]

It being removed is what's causing threads like this. There were no threads like this just a few years ago.
As an American who knew no other pledge, I'd rather keep it.
If this irritates, I suggest taking a deep breath and relaxing. Maybe try some yoga. Expressions of non-Christian religions don't upset me. The only way something like this could upset you is if you hold some sort of deep rooted hatred for the concept of God.

Oh, thank you Dr. Freud. :rolleyes:

As an American who knows there are other versions of the pledge that are more politically correct, I'd rather change it.

[SunWuKong]

Nobody is forced to recite the pledge. The question is whether or not it should even be allowed to be recited voluntarily.

i don't see that as the issue at all. this is how i see it - why can't someone pledge his or her allegiance to the country without pledging it "under God"? that's the real question. it's not whether or not you are forced to pledge the allegiance. you see, the issue concerns those that want to pledge the allegiance.

atheists and anybody who is not Christian should have the right to pledge the allegiance without the act of doing so conflicting with his or her beliefs. but before the pledge was ruled unconstitutional, it was not possible. the only way they could pledge allegiance to the country was to do so "under God". so there's the conflict.

personally it doesn't affect me, but i can definitely see how it's unconstitutional and also how some people will have a problem with it. so i agree with getting rid of the "under God" phrase.

[nola]

It being removed is what's causing threads like this. There were no threads like this just a few years ago.It's been an issue for years for those who think it's discriminatory for the National Pledge of Allegiance to use the word that is reserved a Judeo-Christian god as opposed to Allah, Buddha, the Tao, Higher Power, etc. or to suggest Americans are religious or spiritual at all.

[Irezumi Kiss]

Is it possible to see "under God" in a figurative sense, or will it always be taken as a Christian standpoint?

[Yeahman]

There's no fine for omiting "under God." But now you can be sued in California for keeping it in.

It's been an issue for years for those who think it's discriminatory for the National Pledge of Allegiance to use the word that is reserved a Judeo-Christian god as opposed to Allah, Buddha, the Tao, Higher Power, etc. or to suggest Americans are religious or spiritual at all.
Muslims often use the word "God" too.
Is it discriminatory to teach kids about the Declaration of Independence because it mentions God? Should we edit the DoI too?

Is it possible to see "under God" in a figurative sense, or will it always be taken as a Christian standpoint?
Take it to mean whatever you want. I doubt the vast majority of Americans, even devout Christians, realize that when they sing "God Bless America" that it's actually a prayer. It's just a part of the American tradition like fireworks on the Fourth of July. Only this happens to have religious origins that are still explicit in the phrasing.

[SunWuKong]

There's no fine for omiting "under God." But now you can be sued in California for keeping it in.

i don't know if i agree with that Californian law - Californians are all crazy anyway. :biggrin:

but again, the point is that people who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, or even the Muslim God/Allah, should be able to make the officially sanctioned pledge to the country without it conflicting with their beliefs.

[Yeahman]

OK then Congress can unrecognize it. It was only recognized by Congress in 1942, 50 years after its creation. It can be just another traditional American saying with no official sanction like God Bless America.

[rice cracker]

The "under god" in the pledge of allegiance is not the same as saying "god bless America."

I don't have to say god bless anything, so I don't. But people are certainly free to use the phrase, and they respect my choice not to say it. The same was not true of the pledge.

[SunWuKong]

OK then Congress can unrecognize it.

isn't that basically what happened? it wasn't Congress that did it, but the Judicial Branch.

anybody is still free to include the "under God" phrase in the allegiance. what's been ruled unconstitutional is requiring schoolchildren to make the pledge with the phrase in it.

[rice cracker]

anybody is still free to include the "under God" phrase in the allegiance. what's been ruled unconstitutional is requiring schoolchildren to make the pledge with the phrase in it.

People should be given the flexibility to say what they are comfortable with. I don't care if some Christian attaches no meaning to saying "under god." I care if they tell me I shouldn't mind, because I don't believe in god and saying "under god" in my pledge is like a lie.

Eliminating the phrase from the pledge does not make the Christian (for example) lie.

[Banana]

And which church is this?

That Catholic church and Christian religion.

[AngryABCGirl]

Remove under god. America needs to learn how to keep its government more secular.

[Yeahman]

isn't that basically what happened? it wasn't Congress that did it, but the Judicial Branch.

anybody is still free to include the "under God" phrase in the allegiance. what's been ruled unconstitutional is requiring schoolchildren to make the pledge with the phrase in it.
That was ruled unconstitutional in 1954. The most recent ruling says that school children cannot say it even voluntarily.

I don't have to say god bless anything, so I don't. But people are certainly free to use the phrase, and they respect my choice not to say it. The same was not true of the pledge.
Why not? You are free to say "under God" or not say it.

That Catholic church and Christian religion.
What about the Jews and Muslims?

Remove under god. America needs to learn how to keep its government more secular.
America needs to learn that mentioning religion is not going to kill you or negatively impact you in any way nor was it the intention of the founding fathers.

[rice cracker]

Why not? You are free to say "under God" or not say it.



I know, thanks.

The pledge was taught to us with the words "under god" and the words "under god" are almost always expected when reciting it.

Now my choice to omit that phrase is not so, dare I say it, unpatriotic. It's even validated.

For once I wish that the sensibilities of non-religious people were as respected as the sensibilities of Christians. If the pledge said, "Under no God," I'm sure there'd be a frenzy getting it changed.

[Banana]

It doesn't matter what religion it represents be it Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. The fact of the matter is that once you have the words "Under God" in a pledge that generally everyone is required to repeat, it shows a link between church and state.

And I'm sure if any child would know or want to deviate from what the rest of their classmates are saying. In our school, any deviation than what is "supposed" to be read was punishable by detention.

[SunWuKong]

That was ruled unconstitutional in 1954. The most recent ruling says that school children cannot say it even voluntarily.

um... what...?

to the best of my knowledge this is what happened:

1) 1954 - the "under God" phrase was added to the pledge.
2) 2002 - a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that requiring schoolchildren to recite it was unconstitutional.
3) 2003 - the Supreme Court overturned that ruling based on the fact that the guy who filed the case actually did not have full custody of his daughter, for whom he was filing the case.
4) yesterday - U.S. District Judge ruled that the case can go forward because this time around, the case is being brought by parents who do have full custody of their children.


what amazes me is how many politicians are outraged by this ruling. i mean, strictly legally speaking, it's clearly unconstitutional.

[Yeahman]

It doesn't matter what religion it represents be it Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. The fact of the matter is that once you have the words "Under God" in a pledge that generally everyone is required to repeat, it shows a link between church and state.

And I'm sure if any child would know or want to deviate from what the rest of their classmates are saying. In our school, any deviation than what is "supposed" to be read was punishable by detention.
Nobody is required to say it! Jevohah's Witnesses were sitting silent during the Pledge for decades. If you received detention for not saying it, the teacher can and should be fired.

Links between religion and government are not forbidden! The establishment of a religion, UK style, is forbidden. Thus displays of the Ten Commandments can stay if they are meant as historical or cerimonial displays. They are not permissible if they serve a mostly religious purpose.

The Pledge no longer serves a religious purpose but a cerimonial one. Like being sworn in on a Bible or a singing of "God Bless America" at a football game.

[Faithless]

Saying the pledge of allegiance at school has as much functional value as eating junk food at lunch.

[SunWuKong]

Links between religion and government are not forbidden!

it is when the government is endorsing one particular religion.

[Irezumi Kiss]

Saying the pledge of allegiance at school has as much functional value as eating junk food at lunch.
Maybe seen topically, yes...but when you're a kid and you mindlessly say something over and over and over and over and...

Certain things will stick with you forever. This is how we get controlled. I can recite the Pledge verbatim and I haven't said it for maybe 20 years...I haven't even thought about it until this thread, to be honest.

[Yeahman]

um... what...?

to the best of my knowledge this is what happened:

1) 1954 - the "under God" phrase was added to the pledge.
2) 2002 - a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that requiring schoolchildren to recite it was unconstitutional.
3) 2003 - the Supreme Court overturned that ruling based on the fact that the guy who filed the case actually did not have full custody of his daughter, for whom he was filing the case.
4) yesterday - U.S. District Judge ruled that the case can go forward because this time around, the case is being brought by parents who do have full custody of their children.


what amazes me is how many politicians are outraged by this ruling. i mean, strictly legally speaking, it's clearly unconstitutional.
Nope.

1892 - Pledge written
1923 - "my flag" changed to "the flag of the United States of America"
1953 - West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette rules that nobody can be required to recite the Pledge
1954 - "under God" added
2002 - 9th Circuit Court rules that the Pledge may not be recited in schools even if it is voluntary
2005 - Upholds 2002 ruling

Saying the pledge of allegiance at school has as much functional value as eating junk food at lunch.
Or reading the Gettysberg Address.

[SunWuKong]

2002 - 9th Circuit Court rules that the Pledge may not be recited in schools even if it is voluntary

nope.

here is the exact wording of the conclusion:

In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD's policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause. The judgment of dismissal is vacated with respect to these two claims, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs on this appeal.

it doesn't prevent children from saying the pledge. it prevents teachers to lead the children in the pledge, specifically the pledge with "under God" added, as the "appropriate patriotic exercise" that the California Education Code requires schools to perform.

[doe-sun]

What amazes me is how so many politicians are fighting to keep 'under god' in. The atheist's lawsuit, whatever his name is, brings up a good point. 'Under God' does sound like an endorsement of religion, even if it's voluntary and to be taken lightly. So why are those politicians so determined to ensure that the U.S. government reflects a Christian-based religion?

On the flipside, how would people react if instead of the politicians fighting to keep 'under god' in there, what if they went for 'under allah' instead? 'Under yahweh'?
That atheist would still file the exact same lawsuit.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Saying the pledge of allegiance at school has as much functional value as eating junk food at lunch.

Or less since junk food kept me happy. I said the pledge of allegiance all through grade school and I had no idea what it meant or what it was for til college.

[Yeahman]

it doesn't prevent children from saying the pledge. it prevents teachers to lead the children in the pledge, specifically the pledge with "under God" added, as the "appropriate patriotic exercise" that the California Education Code requires schools to perform.
No student was required to recite the pledge. That was settled 52 years ago. But now it's been decided that it may not be recited with "under God" at all inside the classroom.
I remember in my elementary school the pledge was led by students. Would that be permissible? Not according to the recent ruling.

Before 2002 students had a choice to say all, part, or none of the pledge. Now students are not allowed to say a part of it. That is the effect of the ruling.

[Banana]

It might have been illegal to force students to recite the pledge but how about the social outcome if they don't? Wouldn't it be better to remove something that is trivial at best rather than have students take a social risk by not saying it?

Very few people at the time, including myself, didn't know that it was ok to refuse reciting the pledge.

[DragonKnight]

It might have been illegal to force students to recite the pledge but how about the social outcome if they don't? Wouldn't it be better to remove something that is trivial at best rather than have students take a social risk by not saying it?

Very few people at the time, including myself, didn't know that it was ok to refuse reciting the pledge.
For myself, I didn't know there were different revisions of the pledge until I posted this thread. It just wasn't taught. And in my day, if you refuse to pledge, you were socially ostracized (aka called a 'commie bastard' as some non-Christian kids were called in my day...and no I didn't participate).

Personally I think the solution is simple. Bring back the 1924 revision. It was already established for 60 yrs, it's more PC, and it holds more true to the seperation of church and state. Problem solve. :wink:

...what, no one likes moderation? :tongue:

[Yeahman]

It might have been illegal to force students to recite the pledge but how about the social outcome if they don't? Wouldn't it be better to remove something that is trivial at best rather than have students take a social risk by not saying it?

Very few people at the time, including myself, didn't know that it was ok to refuse reciting the pledge.
Back when the Newdow case was big, I posted an article about a private school that decided to get rid of Mother's Day because it may ostrasize those students who did not have mothers. Do you think that's a good idea? Let's get rid of Father's Day too. And Christmas for obvious reasons. And Columbus Day for the Native Americans who may be insulted. MLK Day for those children who may come from a racist tradition.

[nola]

Separation of church and state...

[Yeahman]

For myself, I didn't know there were different revisions of the pledge until I posted this thread. It just wasn't taught. And in my day, if you refuse to pledge, you were socially ostracized (aka called a 'commie bastard' as some non-Christian kids were called in my day...and no I didn't participate).
In my day the cool kids didn't recite the pledge. If you did recite it you were a kiss-up.

Personally I think the solution is simple. Bring back the 1924 revision. It was already established for 60 yrs, it's more PC, and it holds more true to the seperation of church and state. Problem solve. :wink:
It was established for 30 years which is less than the length of time the 1954 version was established.

...what, no one likes moderation? :tongue:
I'm refrain from arguing for modifying it to say "one nation under Jesus Christ and his one holy Catholic Church." Let's just keep it the way it is? How's that for moderation?

[Banana]

Back when the Newdow case was big, I posted an article about a private school that decided to get rid of Mother's Day because it may ostrasize those students who did not have mothers. Do you think that's a good idea? Let's get rid of Father's Day too. And Christmas for obvious reasons. And Columbus Day for the Native Americans who may be insulted. MLK Day for those children who may come from a racist tradition.

Let's not go overboard. Removing the pledge and Mother's Day is a little different in like what Dragon said, it was socially difficult to not say the pledge. Just because we remove one thing doesn't mean the same fix can be applied to all problems.

[SunWuKong]

No student was required to recite the pledge. That was settled 52 years ago. But now it's been decided that it may not be recited with "under God" at all inside the classroom.
I remember in my elementary school the pledge was led by students. Would that be permissible? Not according to the recent ruling.

Before 2002 students had a choice to say all, part, or none of the pledge. Now students are not allowed to say a part of it. That is the effect of the ruling.

no. again, the decision was against teacher-led pledge of allegiance. the California Education Code requires California schools to perform "appropriate patriotic exercise" everyday. the school in question, probably like many schools, chose the pledge of allegiance, with the wording "under God", as the "appropriate patriotic exercise" to perform. that is what's being banned. that is a violation of the First Amendment, being that public schools are an extension of the government. with the "under God" phrase, it is an endorsement of one particular religion for the school to practice a teacher-led pledge of allegiance everyday.

the ruling does not say that students cannot recite the pledge of allegiance, even with the wording "under God".


check page 28. (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE05EEE79C2A97B688256BE3007FEE32/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement) the wording is specific:
In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD's policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause. The judgment of dismissal is vacated with respect to these two claims, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs on this appeal.

(1) says that adding "under God" to the pledge back in 1954 was unconstitutional.
(2) says that the school's policy of having teacher-led pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional.

it doesn't say anything to prohibit students from saying the pledge in however way they see fit. they can say it with "under God", "under Allah", or "under Bubba". the ruling does not prohibit that.

furthermore, the conclusion was written specifically so that it doesn't apply to a pledge of allegiance that doesn't include the phrase "under God":
EGUSD's policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause.

the newest ruling yesterday by a District Judge basically say that the past ruling (above) is to be upheld, whereas it was originally thrown out by the Supreme Court based on nothing more than the fact that the plaintiff didn't have full custody of his daughter - meaning that the plaintiff never had the right to sue. basically a technicality. this time around, the case is being brought by parents who do have full custody of their children.

[Yeahman]

So you would have no problem with a student-led pledge with "under God"?
And again, which religion does this establish?

[SunWuKong]

So you would have no problem with a student-led pledge with "under God"?
And again, which religion does this establish?

as long as it has nothing to do with the school administration itself. meaning, the school can't set aside a time for students to gather and have the student-led pledge. they'd have to do it on their own time. during recess, before classes start, during lunch, etc etc. the same way that student bible studies have to operate.

to me the more important point here is that people who are not Christians should be able to pledge allegiance to the country without violating his or her beliefs.

[Faithless]

Maybe seen topically, yes...but when you're a kid and you mindlessly say something over and over and over and over and...

Certain things will stick with you forever. This is how we get controlled. I can recite the Pledge verbatim and I haven't said it for maybe 20 years...I haven't even thought about it until this thread, to be honest.
Isn't that weird - we learned to recite the pledge of alegiance like Pavlov's dog learned what switch to go to for his reward. Interesting.

The fact that we can recite the pledge after so many years, probably goes to the same reason that we can recite this cute little phrase in the same meaninglessly same way --

Two all beef patties
Special sauce
Lettuce, cheese
Pickles, onions
On a ...

.
Or less since junk food kept me happy. I said the pledge of allegiance all through grade school and I had no idea what it meant or what it was for til college.
That being the case, we should have all just broke into song --

My country tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died!
Land of the Pilgrim's pride!
From every mountain side,
Let freedom ring!

My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love.
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture fills
Like that above.


Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song.
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.

Our father's God to, Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King!

America.
It's a white man's country
And we reinforce it with their pledges and songs. :frown:

.
Separation of church and state...
Separation of the conformist from the non-conformists.

[SunWuKong]

my co-worker whose wife is from a very devout Catholic family actually suggested that the pledge should be changed back to its very original form. as in the 1892 version.

[haplesshobo]

And I'm sure if any child would know or want to deviate from what the rest of their classmates are saying. In our school, any deviation than what is "supposed" to be read was punishable by detention.

I don't see official punishment like detention to be the problem since you don't have to recite it. However, there's always a situation where one of the kids notices that one of his classmates doesn't recite the part and then announces it to the rest of the classroom.

To have the whole class recite the pledge of allegiance is going to put a lot of pressure on a kid to conform.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I'm refrain from arguing for modifying it to say "one nation under Jesus Christ and his one holy Catholic Church." Let's just keep it the way it is? How's that for moderation?

Well to be fair, leaving it the way it is isn't exactly "moderate" since it's traditional right-wing forces that were responsible for incorporating God into the pledge of allegiance in the first place, and it's currently mostly right-wingers or conservatives, in addition to many Christians of course, that support the retaining of God in the pledge. If accepting the status quo is to be considered moderate and if moderacy is the key, why would moderates need to advocate or lobby for any type of change at all? All in all I understand the argument for God to be left out of the pledge of allegiance but personally I just feel that both sides would do much better to pick more significant battles.

[DragonKnight]

Well to be fair, leaving it the way it is isn't exactly "moderate" since it's traditional right-wing forces that were responsible for incorporating God into the pledge of allegiance in the first place, and it's currently mostly right-wingers or conservatives, in addition to many Christians of course, that support the retaining of God in the pledge. If accepting the status quo is to be considered moderate and if moderacy is the key, why would moderates need to advocate or lobby for any type of change at all? All in all I understand the argument for God to be left out of the pledge of allegiance but personally I just feel that both sides would do much better to pick more significant battles.
I think banning is going too far. Why ban when you can change. Being moderate is in a way, compromising. Meeting things halfway. The versions before the 1954 revision where much more pc. So why not roll back rather than just outright declaring it unconstitutional? :wink:

BTW, I do find this a significant battle as it is a battle that can easily be settled, but isn't due to the stubborness of people who want to stick with so-called "tradition". Besides, traditions do change.

[Banana]

Just found out that the sole reason this atheist wants to remove the words "Under God" from the pledge is doing so not because it connects church and state but rather he doesn't want to feel like the "odd man out" when reciting it.

AKA "The example I gave about a student sticking out like a sore thumb."

[Yeahman]

Isn't that weird - we learned to recite the pledge of alegiance like Pavlov's dog learned what switch to go to for his reward. Interesting.

The fact that we can recite the pledge after so many years, probably goes to the same reason that we can recite this cute little phrase in the same meaninglessly same way --

Two all beef patties
Special sauce
Lettuce, cheese
Pickles, onions
On a ...
Yes, it is firmly established in the American tradition. Much more so than the Big Mac song. I can't think of anything else of similar length that almost every American knows.

BTW, I do find this a significant battle as it is a battle that can easily be settled, but isn't due to the stubborness of people who want to stick with so-called "tradition". Besides, traditions do change.
Traditions should be changed by the people. Not by judges. Congress unanimously approved the "under God" version after the Newdow case.

[SunWuKong]

Traditions should be changed by the people. Not by judges. Congress unanimously approved the "under God" version after the Newdow case.

Congress unanimously approved the "under God" version - and that dictates tradition?

the government, no matter what branch, doesn't dictate tradition at all. you are free to say the pledge with the "under God" phrase in it if you feel that it is a worthy tradition to keep. there is no law or ruling prohibiting that.

and seeing that the pledge of allegiance is something that is sanctioned by the government, it's not simply and only a tradition, is it? it is also political and it involves the government.

[deez nuts]

change it or keep it. it's not gonna make a difference to me.

[Faithless]

Yes, it is firmly established in the American tradition. Much more so than the Big Mac song. I can't think of anything else of similar length that almost every American knows.

And as one famous movie line goes (and white America and their non-white lackies would mouth systematically) --

"Brubaker ... Don't fuck with tradition." :biggrin:

It's a useless tradition. And that's all it is. With all the stuff that kids have to learn about math, social studies, arts, science, history, etc., this little saying is out-of-place with an educational curriculum packed with enough stuff already.

Teacher: All rise.
A few students: Why, I need to get started on my book report on how Harry Truman saved mankind by blowing others?
Teacher: To say the pledge of allegiance, pinko kiddies!

What we have is the conservative religilicious wanting the kiddies to say the pledge for no other reason than to make the kiddies say "god".

Say "god" kiddies. Say god! Say it! Say it! Saaaaaaaaaay iiiiit!" (Saliva spitting out, eyes bugging.)

And the point is not, "what's wrong with saying it" -- it's what sort of bug do you all have up your asses to force the kiddies to say it? What will it do for you? It's not really for the kiddies.

Motherfucking, goodness knows, you can't force them to go to Sunday school or read the bible over-looking-at Spongebob, but sure as hell as you've got the legal avenue in this regard, you are going to make them say "god" somewhere until your ass bleeds bugs. :eek:

[hooligan]

Wait, wait. Ye110, rmember that conversation we were having about you pushing religion on us? Yeah.

[DragonKnight]

Wait, wait. Ye110, rmember that conversation we were having about you pushing religion on us? Yeah.
Sometimes a Sears power drill may be needed for some serious ear cleaning to improve listening abilities.

Traditions should be changed by the people. Not by judges. Congress unanimously approved the "under God" version after the Newdow case.
The same can be said of Presidents...but I digress. :biggrin:

[Yeahman]

Wait, wait. Ye110, rmember that conversation we were having about you pushing religion on us? Yeah.
Stop trying to push your atheism on me!

BTW, almost 90% of Americans want to keep "under God" in. That's more than the percentage of Christians in the US. It just goes to show how out-of-touch many of you here are with most Americans. 90% of the general populartion supports it, yet here I'm the only one.

[DragonKnight]

Stop trying to push your atheism on me!

BTW, almost 90% of Americans want to keep "under God" in. That's more than the percentage of Christians in the US. It just goes to show how out-of-touch many of you here are with most Americans. 90% of the general populartion supports it, yet here I'm the only one.
Please post up the official poll on that. Thanks!

BTW, if 90% of Americans say kill any person using ye110man as their screenname, would agree with them? I know the pledge is not as extreme but I'm guessing if you'd care what is right or wrong (or in this case, unconstitutional) you would like to make some kind of difference.

[SunWuKong]

BTW, almost 90% of Americans want to keep "under God" in. That's more than the percentage of Christians in the US. It just goes to show how out-of-touch many of you here are with most Americans. 90% of the general populartion supports it, yet here I'm the only one.

um. that poll was taken in 2002, right after the 9-11 attack when a number of New Yorkers were even suggesting that we drop a nuclear bomb in that godless nation of Afghanistan. the poll also showed that the majority of Americans believe there would be another terrorist attack on the Fourth of July that year. Bush also had a 70% approval rating back then.

Bush's approval rating is at about 39% right now and there was never a terrorist attack on the Fourth of July in 2002, or for that matter, anytime after 9-11.

[Faithless]

Stop trying to push your atheism on me!

BTW, almost 90% of Americans want to keep "under God" in. That's more than the percentage of Christians in the US. It just goes to show how out-of-touch many of you here are with most Americans. 90% of the general populartion supports it, yet here I'm the only one.
Is this the same 90% (or a portion thereof) that also says the death penalty is legit? And that originally supported Bush's wrong to bomb the invisible WMD's out of Iraq?

Most people probably have the same stake in the debate as people deciding "paper or plastic". :rolleyes:

It if doesn't serve a purpose other than perpetuating a tradition that has absolutely no educational value, why keep it?

OH you you all like to quote stats. Call it necessary Americana. But you push it, in reality, for the same reason the opposition opposes it -- for the likes of you being able to say behind the skirt of justice:

"Say 'god' kiddies."

"Say 'god', then crack open your bibles, er, I mean, whatever your religious book thingies are for bible, er, I mean, religious study time.

"And when you're done with that, kiddies, you can go out for recess and do more bible, er, I mean, religious reading.

"And do forget to signup for bible, er, I mean, religion club after school, too.

"Because, you need god, kiddies. You need him. (Not her, you misguided fools -- him.) We can't force you to learn about HIM at home, although Jehovah's Witness does their best. We can't force you to go to church and learn that abortion is wrong and gays are evil. But as sure as their is a hell, according to us, you will learn to say 'god'.

"In fact, to make it easier for you kiddies, here's what we'll do: When you rise and put your hands to your chests, you don't have say all that other mush.

"Just stand, put your hands to your chests, say 'god', and then sit down." :rolleyes:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

um. that poll was taken in 2002, right after the 9-11 attack when a number of New Yorkers were even suggesting that we drop a nuclear bomb in that godless nation of Afghanistan. the poll also showed that the majority of Americans believe there would be another terrorist attack on the Fourth of July that year. Bush also had a 70% approval rating back then.

Bush's approval rating is at about 39% right now and there was never a terrorist attack on the Fourth of July in 2002, or for that matter, anytime after 9-11.

Well wait, why would an increased sense of patriotism and hostility towards Afghanistan be linked to such a high approval rate of having "God" in their pledge of allegiance (up to 90% was it?), especially if you were an atheist American or didn't believe in God in the first place? Furthermore, I don't really see how if you were so adamant about eliminating "God" from the pledge that you would somehow change your mind on that matter after the 9/11 tragedy. The only people I would think that would do this would be the easily swayed (in which case they wouldn't have been previously against it) or those already leaning towards retaining the concept of God in the pledge. I mean heck, I guess I'm giving Americans too much credit because many of them were probably too ignorant to realize this, but the Islamic extremists that were the targets of our hate (or Muslims in general, unfortunately) believed more in God than many of us.

All in all though, taking the situational circumstances into consideration, it seems more likely to me that the poll was skewed or nonrepresentative than anything else, but if the poll is indeed accurate, it would imply to me that Americans for the most part aren't really bothered by the fact that God is in the pledge of allegiance, although not necessarily in enthusiastic support of it.

BTW, almost 90% of Americans want to keep "under God" in. That's more than the percentage of Christians in the US. It just goes to show how out-of-touch many of you here are with most Americans. 90% of the general populartion supports it, yet here I'm the only one.

Well I think on a forum that advocates political activism and change (in this case with a focus on Asian Americans), the views of participants are not exactly going to be mainstream or pro-status quo, otherwise there would be no need for activism because societal mechanisms automatically uphold mainstream values and interests. So in this sense I wouldn't say people are out of touch simply because they don't see things the same way as the majority. But at the same time, I do believe as I mentioned above that the poll may suggest that most Americans don't really give two shits whether God is in the pledge or not, and that it's not something huge that everyone is lamenting because the evil Christian right-wing fatcats are forcing it on us. I actually know plenty of non-Christians that believe in God or a higher being/power, but are not Christian because they don't believe all the scripture and core ideologies put down God as described in Christian texts and the Bible, so this may explain for the indifference toward this issue. The vast majority of non-Christians, at the very least, simply don't care, and there are many more non-Christians who believe in God that actually lean towards promoting or keeping it. However, the question/debate here is whether or not they should.

[DragonKnight]

Most Americans back in the day didn't give a shit about the morality of slavery or thought all Asians were either Chinese or Japanese, but things do change. :wink:

[SunWuKong]

Well wait, why would an increased sense of patriotism and hostility towards Afghanistan be linked to such a high approval rate of having "God" in their pledge of allegiance (up to 90% was it?), especially if you were an atheist American or didn't believe in God in the first place? Furthermore, I don't really see how if you were so adamant about eliminating "God" from the pledge that you would somehow change your mind on that matter after the 9/11 tragedy. The only people I would think that would do this would be the easily swayed (in which case they wouldn't have been previously against it) or those already leaning towards retaining the concept of God in the pledge. I mean heck, I guess I'm giving Americans too much credit because many of them were probably too ignorant to realize this, but the Islamic extremists that were the targets of our hate (or Muslims in general, unfortunately) believed more in God than many of us.

supposedly, only about 13% of the country is agnostic or atheist. about 82% is Christian, 1% is Jewish. the heightened sense of patriotism and hostility toward Muslim extremists were not causing atheists to suddenly want to keep the "under God" phrase in the pledge. it was causing Christians, Jews, etc etc, and probably some agnostics, to want to keep the phrase in the pledge. and there are also those, like a co-worker of mine, that see the "under God" phrase as part of an American tradition more so than a pledge with a religious significance. the heightened sense of patriotism will definitely make them want to keep the phrase in regardless of religious beliefs.

supposing there isn't as much of a strong support for keeping the "under God" phrase in now, it would be because Christians like myself feel that it shouldn't be part of the pledge.

no matter how much support there is for the "under God" phrase, the process of declaring something as un-constitutional was never meant to be a process of popular support! this is why Supreme Court judges are not elected, and partly why they are given life-time tenure (so they wouldn't be beholden to the Executive and Legislative Branches of the government once they're in office).

[LaiSteve66]

I don't say "under God" when I recite the pledge.

[Yeahman]

no matter how much support there is for the "under God" phrase, the process of declaring something as un-constitutional was never meant to be a process of popular support! this is why Supreme Court judges are not elected, and partly why they are given life-time tenure (so they wouldn't be beholden to the Executive and Legislative Branches of the government once they're in office).
But it is entirely constitutional as we will see when it reaches the Supreme Court.

[SunWuKong]

But it is entirely constitutional as we will see when it reaches the Supreme Court.

well, last time when they overturned the ruling, it was at the urging of George Bush and John Ashcroft. and they overturned it not based on the fact that it was constitutional, but because the plaintiff didn't have full custody of his daughter and they ruled that he could not sue on her behalf.

and i absolutely expect the Supreme Court to once again throw this case out based on a technicality - but that doesn't mean the pledge is constitutional.

[Yeahman]

It was the liberal justices who argued that Newdow did not have standing. The conservative justices dissented and argued that he did have sufficient custody.

[nola]

Most Americans back in the day didn't give a shit about the morality of slavery or thought all Asians were either Chinese or Japanese, but things do change. :wink:Americans and the US government were pro-Nazi movement too until after the Nuremburg Trials when anti-Semitism grew out of fashion. Learned that in race class.

[SunWuKong]

It was the liberal justices who argued that Newdow did not have standing. The conservative justices dissented and argued that he did have sufficient custody.

i fail to see the relevance of that. the point is - the Supreme Court did not rule the pledge as constitutional last time, they only ruled that the plaintiff actually did not have legal standing to sue.

[Faithless]

My first encounter with this "pledge" came from the movie Jesus Camp:

I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag
And to the savior for which it stands.
One Savior crucified, risen, and coming again
With life and liberty for all who believe.

How much do pro-pledge-with-god groups want the current pledge to be like the Christian pledge?

[huangalex]

Equating God is America is like equating white with America. The fact that most Americans are WASPs doesn't define the character of our nation. I don't care so much about the character of religion. I do care that putting God in the pledge of allegiance is basically saying to a little brown or yellow kid, "Your heritage is not welcome here. If you want to be an American, you have to give that up."