Federal Court Rules "God" in Pledge Constitutional

[swansont]

We hear all the time from cultural conservatives that the United States was intended to be a Christian nation, because of references to "God" in early documents and the words of the founding fathers. Ironically, it's now established legal precedent that merely saying something like "under God" doesn't count as establishment of religion.

 

Irrelevant? Or hilarious unintended consequence?

 

I was thinking the same thing this morning. "God" shows up in the Declaration as "Nature's God," along with "Creator," and not at all in the Constitution. Now there is a legal decision implying that, because the main purpose of the Declaration is secular, the phrases do not establish religion.

[Phi for All]

Has there ever been a hierarchical argument that the inclusion helps people who answer to an ultimately higher power to pledge allegiance to the flag of our nation? "As long as you understand that my loyalty to the nation is under my loyalty to God, I pledge allegiance." That's the tact I would take if I were arguing to keep it.

 

Which I'm not. Vows like this should be powerful and taken very seriously, especially when they're often taken daily. I think it's a very big deal.

[Sisyphus]

Which I'm not. Vows like this should be powerful and taken very seriously, especially when they're often taken daily. I think it's a very big deal.

 

As an aside, has that been anyone's experience? They made us learn it by rote at age 5 or 6 or whatever, and say it every school day. But I don't think I actually thought about the words I was saying once, at least not while saying them. The whole idea of a daily pledge of allegience would be creepy if it wasn't silly. What does it accomplish, with or without the syllables "under God" included in the rote cadence?

[swansont]

As an aside, has that been anyone's experience? They made us learn it by rote at age 5 or 6 or whatever, and say it every school day. But I don't think I actually thought about the words I was saying once, at least not while saying them. The whole idea of a daily pledge of allegience would be creepy if it wasn't silly. What does it accomplish, with or without the syllables "under God" included in the cadence?

 

I agree, it was pretty meaningless. It's not like they made you cross your heart and hope to die or anything.

[iNow]

We hear all the time from cultural conservatives that the United States was intended to be a Christian nation, because of references to "God" in early documents and the words of the founding fathers.

Just to clarify, the word "god" is not referenced anywhere in our constitution. The closest we come is near the end, where the signatures were added, is a comment that dates the document as, "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." That was pretty common parlance at the time to identify dates.

 

As per the Declaration of Independence, which uses the word "creator," there are two points against that particular position. One - The word creator was not in the draft put forth by Jefferson. It was added after the fact by (likely) Ben Franklin in an attempt to get the rest of the states to sign off on it with less argument (more at the link below). Two - The Declaration of Independence is NOT a governing document. It is not used as the law of our land, but was instead sent to King George III of England to declare we were no longer going to be subject to his reign.

 

 

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion.

 

 

Here's what the original draft of the Declaration of Independence (not a governing document) said, until someone on the committee of five (most likely Franklin) made the change:

 

http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-orddoi.htm

We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness;

 

 

More on the history of this here: http://candst.tripod.com/doitj.htm

 

To sum what is known:

• The original version Jefferson wrote did not contain the word Creator.
  
  
• A copy that John Adams wrote in his own hand did not contain the word creator
  
  
• At some point after Jefferson wrote the original draft and before it was submitted to Congress it was changed to the wording with regards to creator that we know today

[Sisyphus]

Yes, I know. "The year of our lord" is the same as giving the date as AD, just in English and unabbreviated. It is about as meaningful as "Thursday" is to Norse mythology.

[iNow]

Sure sure, when it's conservatives who find support on an issue then they're being mislead by demagogues, but when it's liberals who find support on an issue then they're "finally having a voice".

 

 

(shrug) Okay, it was important to some people. Many things are important to people that the majority doesn't always agree with. That doesn't mean they're being harmed.

 

 

Just because something matters to you, iNow, doesn't mean that something needs to be done about it.

Really, Pangloss... Must you continue with these types of comments? The consistent derision, dismissal, and disrespect in your posts has grown rather appalling.

 

 

YES, something needs to be done about it. It's unconstitutional. End of story.

 

The price of freedom in our country is that we must all remain ever vigilant to these types of transgressions. Your response here that it's just a bunch of trouble makers not doing what they're told and suggesting this is little more than "PC run amok" is reminiscent of your views on same-sex marriage... as if it's somehow wrong to stand up and fight for the principles of equality and separation on which our nation was founded.

 

You're responses here show precisely why it's so hard to respect your authority or arguments in these types of discussions. You continue to do little more than deride and dismiss those who oppose a decision which is clearly untenable, unjustifiable, and unconstitutional.

 

 

 

In addition to what I've already shared above, my stance (and the stance of other thread contributors) on this issue is further supported by the below:

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/11/pledge.of.allegiance/?hpt=T2

The appeals court framed the issue as a dispute over whether was a traditional patriotic exercise or a blatant religious message. The same court in 2002 agreed with Newdow and other atheist parents.

 

In dissent to Thursday's ruling, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the pledge was an overtly religious message.

 

"Carrying out such an indoctrination in a public school classroom unconstitutionally forces many young children either to profess a religious belief antithetical to their personal views or to declare themselves through their silence or nonparticipation to be protesting nonbelievers, thereby subjecting themselves to hostility and ridicule," he wrote.

[Sisyphus]

Really, Pangloss... Must you continue with these types of comments? The consistent derision, dismissal, and disrespect in your posts has grown rather appalling.

 

You're responses here show precisely why it's so hard to respect your authority or arguments in these types of discussions. You continue to do little more than deride and dismiss those who oppose a decision which is clearly untenable, unjustifiable, and unconstitutional.

 

This, ironically, is awfully disrespectful and dismissive. Let's stick to addressing arguments.

[Pangloss]

As an aside, has that been anyone's experience? They made us learn it by rote at age 5 or 6 or whatever, and say it every school day. But I don't think I actually thought about the words I was saying once, at least not while saying them. The whole idea of a daily pledge of allegience would be creepy if it wasn't silly. What does it accomplish, with or without the syllables "under God" included in the rote cadence?

 

I agree, it was pretty meaningless. It's not like they made you cross your heart and hope to die or anything.

 

Exactly! Well-put.

 

 

Yes, I know. "The year of our lord" is the same as giving the date as AD, just in English and unabbreviated. It is about as meaningful as "Thursday" is to Norse mythology.

 

Interesting point.

 

Although I actually think it would be kinda fun to consider a new date structure; one that perhaps reflects the new age of science and technology that we live in. But I don't suppose the idea would be very popular.

 

I think I'll start a thread on that.

[jackson33]

iNow quotes;

The Declaration of Independence is NOT a governing document. It is not used as the law of our land, but was instead sent to King George III of England to declare we were no longer going to be subject to his reign. [/Quote]

 

When the Federal Court of Appeals addresses the Constitutionality of an issue, it will take any evidence presented, primarily from the time of the DoI, the Articles of the Confederation (1st US Constitution), the current Constitution, The Federalist Papers and/or any precedence previously set and current law and basically the current Constitution is such precedence, if it's a true contradiction to anything previous.

 

(First three 'Articles of the Confederacy')

Article I

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

 

Article II

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

 

Article III

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.[/Quote]

 

http://ahp.gatech.edu/confederation_1778.html

 

If there is anything consistent in what led up to our current Constitution, it's the sovereign rights of EACH State and the direct intention of Government involvement promotion or denial of any Religion. For the sake of other current arguments, I'd add the term "their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare".

 

As previously mentioned, if the 9th Circuit, had sided with the Atheist viewpoint, it would have to be advocating one religion over that of another. It could have been just as easily been taken through the legal system,(progressed) by the Jewish Religion who hold the term "God" in the meaning of the "Pledge" might infer a "Jesus" or a Messiah, which they violently reject.

 

 

YES, something needs to be done about it. It's unconstitutional. End of story. [/Quote]

 

Not according to the ruling court, but based on the ruling, IMO I doubt SCOTUS will take hear an appeal. I agree the however..."end of story".

You're responses here show precisely why it's so hard to respect your authority or arguments in these types of discussions. You continue to do little more than deride and dismiss those who oppose a decision which is clearly untenable, unjustifiable, and unconstitutional. [/Quote]

I fail to understand, why agreeing with a decision is an admonishing of anything, other than the arguments made in the proceedings or a personal opinion.

 

In addition to what I've already shared above, my stance (and the stance of other thread contributors) on this issue is further supported by the below: [/Quote]

 

If your arguing here that teaching "patriotism", love of Country or it's culture/traditions is unconstitutional, this IMO is pure unadulterated nonsense. It's more likely, not enough attention is paid to such education and even to become a Citizen, more understanding and acceptance is REQUIRED, than will ever be made on folks born here....It's the right of decent, that make everything else worthwhile.

[Phi for All]

I'm really tired of your one-way street attitude, iNow. Why do you get to call Pangloss a "hypocrite", and then say that his position "disgusts you", then dismiss one of his statements as "nonsense" while calling *him* dismissive? And now when he simply turns your own words back on you, you claim that he's been persecuting you:

 

Really, Pangloss... Must you continue with these types of comments? The consistent derision, dismissal, and disrespect in your posts has grown rather appalling.

 

...

 

You're responses here show precisely why it's so hard to respect your authority or arguments in these types of discussions. You continue to do little more than deride and dismiss those who oppose a decision which is clearly untenable, unjustifiable, and unconstitutional.

Why don't you stop playing to the crowd with indignant outrage? I think it's really two-faced of you to claim that Pangloss poisoned the well after all the crap you've personally attacked him with in this thread. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to demonstrate what a hypocrite really is.

[iNow]

As previously mentioned, if the 9th Circuit, had sided with the Atheist viewpoint, it would have to be advocating one religion over that of another.

Two points here, Jackson.

 

One - Atheism is not a religion. It is not an ideology. It is not a worldview or source of beliefs any more than a lack of belief in Thor, lack of belief in unicorns, or lack of belief in the easter bunny is a religion, worldview, or source of beliefs. Atheism is merely the absence of theism. That's it. Beyond lack of belief in god(s), one cannot accurately infer anything whatsoever or garner any relevant information about a person based on the label atheism alone. When I said earlier in the thread that my "religion" might be considered one where there are no gods in context of our constitution, it was to more clearly illuminate how the addition of the word "god" to our pledge and coinage can be seen in no other way than government giving preferential treatment to one belief system/worldview over others. I magnified this point by also including polytheism in my argument.

 

Two - The 9th Circuit court DID side with the atheist viewpoint on this in the past (or, more precisely, with the viewpoint that "under god" in our pledge makes impossible the governments mandate to be neutral in all matters religious, unless their actions are to specifically support the tenets outlined in the Free Exercise Clause). Even this time around, as already outlined above by Cap'n Refsmmat, this was a ruling specific to California's law on mandatory pledging, not the addition of the words "under god" to the pledge.

 

Specific to their ruling on the words "under god," see below:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

From the 9th circuit hearing:

 

• Decided - the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism"—a fact which (according to the court) the federal government did not dispute. The court also noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase "under God," he also announced "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
  
  
   
  
  
• Judge Alfred Goodwin from the 9th circuit remarked: "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If your <sic> arguing here that teaching "patriotism", love of Country or it's culture/traditions is unconstitutional, this IMO is pure unadulterated nonsense.

I guess it's a good thing that I am making no such argument then, huh?

 

Now, I would be happy to explore with you some of the dangers of patriotism gone too far, of unchecked nationalistic fervor... and how the minds of large masses of people can be more easily controlled by leaders and charlatans when this type of "us/them" sentiment is carried too far or becomes rooted too deeply, but that would be better suited to a different thread... Perhaps one in the Psychology section.

Edited March 16, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

As previously mentioned, if the 9th Circuit, had sided with the Atheist viewpoint, it would have to be advocating one religion over that of another. It could have been just as easily been taken through the legal system,(progressed) by the Jewish Religion who hold the term "God" in the meaning of the "Pledge" might infer a "Jesus" or a Messiah, which they violently reject.

 

The problem isn't one of the "Atheist viewpoint". Atheism isn't a religion, and you can't just lump it in with similar concerns about specific religions and their incompatibility. Indeed the same language that protects atheists from professing a belief in any religion is the same text that protects the religious from being forced to profess disbelief in religion.

 

To go back to the Everson v. Board of Education SCOTUS decision:

 

Neither [Federal or state governments] can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or

force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

 

These people are being forced to profess a belief in religion, namely that God exists and all Americans are in some manner beneath this deity. Vague as that may be, since the law requiring the statement of the pledge is compulsory, I really don't see how this isn't violating the Establishment Clause, at least within the precedent of Everson.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, I'll take a shot at this whole pledge thing:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one secular nation under the Christian God, divided along party lines, with the largest prison population in the world, and justice for all who can afford it."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I agree, it was pretty meaningless. It's not like they made you cross your heart and hope to die or anything.

 

Unfortunately, crossing one's heart and hoping to die seems to be taken more seriously than the pledge these days, at least among children.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[Moontanman]

Well, I'll take a shot at this whole pledge thing:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one secular nation under the Christian God, divided along party lines, with the largest prison population in the world, and justice for all who can afford it."

 

 

Whoa, the truth, it is often, ugly!

Edited March 16, 2010 by Moontanman

[swansont]

Unfortunately, crossing one's heart and hoping to die seems to be taken more seriously than the pledge these days, at least among children.

 

That was my point.

[Moontanman]

I think that what we are told and what we believe as kids has a profound effect on what we do and think as adults. I know that when I say the pledge of allegiance I take it seriously, i always have, it's why the "under god" part bothers me so much. I can bullshit with the best of them but when you take an oath or make a pledge it should be serious, you should do it with no qualms about it, if you can't do that due to someone else wanting you to pledge your self to the authority of god I think you have the right to take exception to it and have it changed. Our government is not supposed to force or coerce you into a position on religion.

 

If this were a theocracy I wouldn't have a leg to stand on but this is not a theocracy, it specifically is not a theocracy. I do wish anyone who wants to pledge them selves to god all the success in the world except for the part of making me do it too. I see enough proselytizing in the country already, the government should not be a part of it. The words were put there as blatant support for a specific religion, they should be removed from it.

[Chriton]

I am English, and myself and most of my friends think that America is becoming more and more Fanatical about their Christian Religion.

Schools refusing to teach Evolution, Pro Life shooting Abortion advocates, Having to believe in a specific God to be accepted in most communities or groups.

We hear more and more of all rescues and survival of accidents are down to Miracles or God did it...You are in danger of becoming like the Fanatical Muslems you are fighiting against.

We do not have a Constitution, if we did We would not accept the word God anywhere in it, it is not relevant in this day and age.

[Phi for All]

Well, I'll take a shot at this whole pledge thing:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one secular nation under the Christian God, divided along party lines, with the largest prison population in the world, and justice for all who can afford it."

Roflcopter.

 

 

Unfortunately, crossing one's heart and hoping to die seems to be taken more seriously than the pledge these days, at least among children.

Perhaps it was the daily drone of the pledge that dampens the significance, I don't know. It's not a very effective way of learning the importance of pledges, vows and your word of honor. I wonder if the divorce rate would go down if couples crossed their hearts and hoped to die before cheating on each other.

 

But if we were trying to put the words "under God" into the pledge today, instead of trying to take them out, I think the unconstitutionality of it would be much clearer to everyone.

[Pangloss]

I think that what we are told and what we believe as kids has a profound effect on what we do and think as adults. I know that when I say the pledge of allegiance I take it seriously, i always have, it's why the "under god" part bothers me so much.

 

Well I admit this is a good point. And I respect the general thrust of your argument in this thread. It's certainly true that what's important to one person is not necessarily the same as what's important to another, and I guess that's both a strength and a weakness in our democracy.

 

It seem to me that part of the problem here is perception -- people feeling cast out because they're surrounded by a group that shares a common value that they're not included on, and they have to listen to them express that common value over and over. That perception may not be entirely real, and it may be missing an important point -- the people surrounding them may not be "trying to convert them". They may simply be expressing themselves freely.

 

So for example let's take a football game in which some of the players are firm believers in an organized religion. To those players, it would seem perfectly normal, and even preferable, to share a common prayer before the game. But that isn't necessarily an example of proselytizing. Part of their religion simply resides in the area of a shared experience -- it's a component in their faith.

 

In this case stopping the officially-lead prayer (but allowing players to group together before the game off to one side, etc) seems like a reasonable compromise, and it is probably the best course of action, because it removes the official aspect of the religious expression and still allows them to continue their shared expression of faith in a manner that's less insulting to non-believers. But it is a reduction -- it's a less powerful event having been taken off the loudspeakers, etc.

 

In the same sense many other liberalizing changes to society have had similar effects. They seem to the left as necessary to level the playing field, and they may well be so. But as with the leveling of any data set, removing lows also means removing highs. This is why I mentioned the example earlier about how politically correct my campus has become. It's become BORING and MUNDANE, because those in charge are so afraid that someone might be offended. That's not to say that many of the restrictions aren't perfectly reasonable and necessary -- obviously you don't want people getting physically hurt, and everybody hates white supremacists, so surely we can leave them out. But why must we also be reduced to mediocrity and boredom? Why can we only get the Dalai Lama as a speaker, but not neo-con founder Richard Perl? Why can we get Nelson Mendala, but not Rush Limbaugh?

 

But hey, perhaps we agree on that, just not that it applies to this case. As I said, I respect your opinion on this and having read this thread I think I understand it better now. It does seem to me that you have a valid point.

[The Bear's Key]

I say the following kindly. Just consider that while you read on, friend.

 

I'm sure some will. I'm offended by a lot of what my government does. But as the court pointed out, they're not required to speak the words. How offended can they really be?

To start, just ask yourself some relevant questions.

• Are kids informed of not having to recite the words?
  
• Do the other kids recognize it's merely a protest vs a religious oath inserted by government?
  
• Will a kid look out of place for exiting class when "The Pledge" begins, or more importantly -- do other kids usually act understanding/respectful in such circumstances?
  

You might think politics hasn't been as involved.

 

Either you're right, or wrong. But let's not go based off assumptions. Though regardless of the evidence, it's something you might have to figure out personally.

 

There's a religious group hated by many conservatives in the area I live -- maybe in Florida also? Jehova's Witnesses. A list of their most offensive crimes: Forbids kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, no war...or death punishments, no celebration of holidays, no worshipping idols (for example the crucifix), no politics -- and the worst thing for a Party dependent on religion for votes is a fast-growing religion whose members refuse to vote.

 

Is the hate for them a coincidence? I used to think so.*

 

Maybe you believe it's just some words, no harm done. But history shows otherwise. What's ironic also, is that history's still occuring in current events -- and still being written today.

 

To the Pledge itself

Central to early challenges were Jehovah's Witnesses, a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power lesser than God. In the 1940 Supreme Court case Minersville School District vs. Gobitis, an 8-1 majority in the Court held that a school district's interest in promoting national unity permitted it to require Witness students to recite the Pledge along with their class mates. Gobitis was an unpopular decision in the press, and it led to

a rash of mob violence and intimidation

against Jehovah's Witnesses;[2] three years later in West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, the Court reversed itself, voting 6-3 to forbid a school from requiring the Pledge.

So, making The Right enemies?

 

Now, I hardly wanna talk to Jehova's Witnesses a-knocking at the door, but shit, they must have liberty to not recite anything.

 

Who saved them? The courts -- "activist" judges. (i.e. the bane of religious trespass into government)

 

 

From one of many historically unstable mixes of government with religion, one instance of abuse for power seemed directed not only against Jehova's Witnesses, but political leaders, social democrats, trade unionists, and dissenting clergy -- i.e. victims in Nazi Germany. So if the link's story is true, the important question is: why?

 

Perhaps because...

 

http://www.holocaust-trc.org/PRJW.htm

Alone of all the groups targeted by the Nazis, the Jehovah's Witnesses were victimized because of what they refused to do. They would not enlist in the army, undertake air raid drills, stop meeting or proselytizing. They would not utter the words "Heil Hitler." Their dissent was irksome, disciplined and systematic. Even in concentration camps, if they signed the following document they could be released

........

Jews had no choice. Jehovah's Witnesses did. As such, they are martyrs in the traditional sense of the term - those prepared to suffer and even to die for the choice of their faith.

Who usually got victimized? Anyone considered a threat, potential blockade, or uncooperative.

 

The main religions weren't victimized as their members played ball. War? Nationalism? Right on!

 

In 2,000+ years people were victimized for not participating in or acknowledging religion. Still happens. But progressive is a new concept and its members have been persecuted in the McCarthy era.

 

McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.

........

The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists.

Yet, how many times the other way around? Can you honestly show me progressives doing abuses like those while in government power?

 

Is your stance vs political correctness more overriding than abuses done to progressives by extremists? If so, good...we'll return to that.

 

So in answer to your question of "How offended can they really be?": It's who's offended that really matters here. When you *seem* unpatriotic for not having participated in glorifying our nation in sync with its corrupters, the backlash sometimes ain't pretty.

 

Take a look at when the Dixie Chicks offended the Right (for being "Politically Incorrect")...

 

http://www.enjoyfrance.com/content/view/422/0

...had to cancel some American tour dates after slow ticket sales and music industry magazine Pollstar reports that shows have been dropped in Republican states such as Oklahoma and Tennessee.

 

The Dixie Chicks faced a backlash in 2003 after singer Natalie Maines said the band were "ashamed" President Bush is from their home state of Texas.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187173,00.html

the tremors in the conservative country music scene were seismic.

.....

Some fans stomped their discs to bits.

 

Maines, 31, Emily Robison, 33, and Martie Maguire, 36, didn't cringe and curtsy.

.....

Maines' vocal intensity counters that of fans whose doting curdled into death threats...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/14/dixie.chicks.reut

Country stations across the United States have pulled the Chicks from playlists

 

If you ask me we spend way too much time these days figuring out who's offended and then going out of our way to address their concerns.

Sure, I'll ask. But instead of that question, I'll ask...

 

Did people really spend loads of time figuring out who's offended, i.e. have you investigated by asking them directly? If not, where have you fetched such a conclusion? Might it be the people you refer to are simply tired of it continuing, and only desire helping bring some peace to lives of the affected -- even if their methods of doing so (or their approach) could use improving? But even so, who are they hurting?

 

Campus functions at the major university where I'm a graduate student are so politically correct that they're tame beyond belief. No partying or gaming or unapproved recreation. Student groups that run the gamut from gay outreach groups to "Women Against Wife-Beaters".

I view it as a breath of fresh air. I've partied a lot, but didn't like it nonstop -- and though it should never be against the rules, it's just as unproductive when college students get so hammered drunk you see a girl topless in the corridor with head between knees, or students playing Beirut so much that little gets accomplished.

 

Anyway, that's how I see the fight against "god" in the Pledge -- PC run amok.

That's almost insulting to the victims who've been persecuted by religious and still experience it today.

 

Political correctness is a lie -- just as the majority of such propaganda tends to be, the accusation in reality is a description of the accuser themselves. Crafty politics.

 

Or don't you consider the avoidance of 1) talking blasphemy, 2) or speaking ill about our great nation, 3) or criticizing soldiers, 4) or taking a risk of creating a highway billboard that proclaims God as a fraud, 5) or etc, as being various instances of Political Correctness?

 

 

The pledge is optional. Nobody is trying to make you acknowledge their god.

Wrong. Examine the context under which they entered God onto money and the Pledge of Allegiance -- it was a result of the McCarthy era. That's what it stands for, and it needs to be removed with that very context as our main reason for doing so.

 

It seem to me that part of the problem here is perception -- people feeling cast out because they're surrounded by a group that shares a common value that they're not included on, and they have to listen to them express that common value over and over.

Nope. Doesn't bother me what their faith is (or how often it's praticed) so long as they don't sneak it upon others.

 

So for example let's take a football game in which some of the players are firm believers in an organized religion. To those players, it would seem perfectly normal, and even preferable, to share a common prayer before the game.

.....

In this case stopping the officially-lead prayer...

We disagree on these very important nuances: students doing a prayer before a game isn't "officially-led". But the coach or school mandating or encouraging it would be. Huge difference.

 

 

 

 

*A previous neighbor used to watch Cops and Law & Order daily, yelling "thug!" at the criminals and "kill 'em!" to the cops, she hated the Post Office and said it's wasteful because it's not privatized, claimed schools are a joke, her Middle East policy would be to carpet-nuke them, anti-abortion, Family Values + Military Service + Faith, if you don't like America get out, smaller government, Clinton-hating, bashing liberal Europe, that minority programs are racist, she only dated whites, etc. The kicker: ironically she's a black lesbian who's feared discrimination against her.

 

Yet even when I noticed that others repeated the same key talking points in different locations -- here and there -- I didn't entirely notice a connection between them. It was just people's "opinions" -- a coincidence. Yet from personal experience, I knew religion's easily bastardized by the powerful, who crafts messages to spread, and demonizes whoever doesn't join.

 

Then 9/11 hit....a couple of years passed....and bang! The conncection struck me with the Obvious Hammer -- full swing. All the people who had repeated the talking points above were suddenly massed in lockstep with Bush policy, and I kicked myself for not paying attention.

 

Just how many others weren't paying attention either?

[iNow]

Examine the context under which they entered God onto money and the Pledge of Allegiance -- it was a result of the McCarthy era. That's what it stands for, and it needs to be removed with that very context as our main reason for doing so.

 

One small correction. You are correct about the addition of "under god" to our pledge taking place during that time, but IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

 

 

However, closer to your point is when "In god we trust" was declared our national motto in 1956... well inline with McCarthy era antics.

 

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States.

 

 

A great exploration here of the history of god on our currency: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

 

 

 

I do appreciate the thrust of your argument, though, and thank you for offering a more historical perspective in response to the "Who cares?" question.

[swansont]

However, closer to your point is when "In god we trust" was declared our national motto in 1956... well inline with McCarthy era antics.

 

And I'm sure dissenters were really motivated to jump up and rock the boat right about then, on issues that are tied in with loyalty, trust and patriotism.

[jackson33]

"Torcaso v. Watkins" (1961)

Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty

 

This decision prohibited the government from using religious faith as one of the criteria for assuming public office. The Court rejected the argument that holding such jobs is a privilege that can be restricted to people of some prescribed religious belief.

 

One of the reasons this case is important is some of the dicta which were attached to the final opinion. The term dicta is a plural and shortening of "obiter dictum," or "said in passing." Such statements are personal opinions of the justice - they are not necessary to the final result and have no legal force.

 

In a dictum footnote attached to this opinion, Justice Black wrote:

Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.

 

This is frequently cited by people on the religious right as that the Supreme Court has declared Secular Humanism to be a religion, but such people are simply unaware of the fact that dicta have no legal force. Ignoring this uncomfortable fact, however, allows them to argue that any hint of Secular Humanism in schools is a violation of the separation of church and state - an ironic argument, since they would be happy to dispense with separation anyway.[/Quote]

 

http://askville.amazon.com/Torcaso-Watkins-1961-Justice-Black-Supreme-Court-wrote-footnote/AnswerDetails.do?requestId=58057495&responseId=58058935

 

iNow; This is the often the cited case, where a non-belief is in itself a belief...Take it however you wish...mine is Agnostic/Atheism are religious beliefs, not ideology. Oppression or observance can be based on ideology...An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things, not the thing itself...

 

There is often some confusion over the difference between religion and ideology. The outcome of a sturdy belief in either religious beliefs or a political ideology can result in the same actions, namely instilling a drive in person to think and behave in a certain way, but when you pulled out a sander and polish off the surface similarities it becomes clear that the foundations below are significantly different.[/Quote]

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/153999/religion_ideology_and_globalization.html?cat=9

 

These people are being forced to profess a belief in religion, namely that God exists and all Americans are in some manner beneath this deity. [/Quote]

 

bascule; No, there is no force involved, today, even if not patriotic the child can just ignore those that are or may also be religious. I happen to believe oaths or pledges are so to speak, displays of emotions for others to observe. Since I live in a Christian Society, I would and do use the term 'under god', though belief in no God, as portrayed in any religion I know of....

 

I am English, and myself and most of my friends think that America is becoming more and more Fanatical about their Christian Religion.[/Quote]

 

 

Chriton; I find this interesting and wonder how this could be the impression. Evangelicals, Southern Baptist or Bible Baptist are and have been on the decline for 30 years or more, with more moderate religions on the increase, excluding the Catholics, if they qualify as radical or fanatical. Agnostics, or the so called non-believers have increased from 4-6% to near 18% in some polls, over those 30 years and our laws have consistently gone opposite, many religious concepts.

 

I do agree, individuals tend to credit some God for their own achievements, but a whole lot more lean on a God, when things aren't going so well. Maybe that's better, than leaning on Government. As for the Fanatical Muslims, I think Americans and probably the British, would prefer they quit blowing themselves up killing their own and others and would not be the kind of God, they could believe in....including moderate Muslims.

[Moontanman]

Chriton; I find this interesting and wonder how this could be the impression. Evangelicals, Southern Baptist or Bible Baptist are and have been on the decline for 30 years or more, with more moderate religions on the increase, excluding the Catholics, if they qualify as radical or fanatical. Agnostics, or the so called non-believers have increased from 4-6% to near 18% in some polls, over those 30 years and our laws have consistently gone opposite, many religious concepts.

 

Jackson, can you back this up with anything other than your own claims?

 

I do agree, individuals tend to credit some God for their own achievements, but a whole lot more lean on a God, when things aren't going so well. Maybe that's better, than leaning on Government. As for the Fanatical Muslims, I think Americans and probably the British, would prefer they quit blowing themselves up killing their own and others and would not be the kind of God, they could believe in....including moderate Muslims.

 

Like thanking god "someone came home safe or not badly injured or if he dies then at least he's in heaven" type thinking?

 

Obviously what seems reasonable to me does not seem reasonable to others, the sad part of this i am willing to support protecting other people from having my views hammered in to their minds but the religious have no qualms about having their views hammered into mine. I don't want atheism to be taught as the "right way" but the constant BS of religion being the "only way" gets very old very quickly. Religion is shoved in our lives from the time I turn on my TV get in my car drive any where, i would have to be blind deaf and dumb to avoid the constant proselytizing.

 

 

Sadly the religious will claim that anything that doesn't give god his due is "proselytizing" Godlessness. So i cannot win when dealing with the religious because they stack the deck against me no matter how reasonable I try to be. Give them and inch they want a mile give them a mile and they want nuclear weapons.

 

Asking that I not be required to pledge to a god at the same time i pledge to my country seems to me to be a reasonable request. Especially since most of the religious can't get any two of three people to agree on just what or who god is.