Federal Court Rules "God" in Pledge Constitutional

[jackson33]

Moon; I really didn't want to get bogged down in statistical references, especially in this case, where polling is the only means to get answers or where the sources may be slanted to an agenda. From research, maybe 6-7 years ago and what little is available today, Evangelicals (Ultra Right) have been on the decline, where non believers have been on the increase and where law is concerned, there are many cases over the years which would not satisfy most any religion.

 

Here is one article;

CIVIL LIBERTIES

Religion Dispatches / By Ronald Aronson

COMMENTS: 344

 

40 Million Nonbelievers in America? The Secret Is Almost Out

 

Secularists have very quietly become one of America’s largest minorities -- how long before they use their power?

 

...Editor Jon Meacham’s story highlights Newsweek’s latest poll results showing that 10% fewer Americans identify as Christian today than twenty years ago. But more importantly, and mentioned only in passing, is the growth among atheists and secularists of all stripes....[/Quote]

 

http://www.alternet.org/rights/139788/40_million_nonbelievers_in_america_the_secret_is_almost_out/

 

Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.

 

Nationally, the “nones” in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. Not all the “nones” are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics, but they make up a pool of potential supporters. [/Quote]

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html

 

Decline in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) – the largest Protestant denomination in the country – was first reported last spring. Baptisms fell for the third straight year in 2007 and total membership dropped for the first time in many years. [/Quote]

 

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090225/largest-christian-groups-report-membership-decline/index.html

 

In this 2009 Article, it claims a drop in Catholics, I suppose possible, but most Latinos are Catholic, representing a large number of new to Country and a comparatively higher birthrate. (Latino's, meaning Whites/Blacks from many Countries with Spanish heritage)

 

In the same token, I believe in the individuals power to control his/her own affairs, I feel many are capable of unknown things. Recently you have seen people jump on RR tracks, saving a person, just ahead of a train or lifting a car off a young person or any number of heroic events. These and hundreds of other events, come from personal conditioning and instinct, in my mind, not some order from, well whatever. On the other hand you see almost daily, where others will stand by while a young girl get kicked in the head or an old guy gets hit by a car, or lay dead on a convenience store floor, while business just goes on as usual. Apparently God, must be particular in who is given the order or courage, which to me is simple conditioning. I'm really getting off topic so....

[Moontanman]

Your links are largely information from sources who strive to convince Christians are under some sort of attack and belief in god needs to be defended, often by sending them money. You can see this grossly slanted "news" every morning on the 700 Club.

[Pangloss]

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

 

I appreciate that.

 

 

# Are kids informed of not having to recite the words?

 

I've no idea, but if they're not being informed of that option then it's wrong, for the same reason that it's wrong to have school-lead prayer in the classroom.

 

 

# Do the other kids recognize it's merely a protest vs a religious oath inserted by government?

 

I don't follow this. Surely they can have whatever reason they like for not saying the Pledge? I guess I'm not understanding your point here.

 

 

# 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?

 

Why would they have to exit the classroom?

 

I've heard people recite the pledge while leaving out the word god. I've seen people stand there any not say anything. I don't think it means anything more than when a medal winner doesn't mouth the words to the national anthem on TV at the Olympics (which I always thought looked kinda stupid anyway).

 

 

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.*

 

I don't know anyone who has told me that they hate Jehova's Witnesses, but it's always been my general impression from the media that the primary cause for people's disparagement of them was the fact that they proselytize door-to-door, which annoys people. Although to be honest I haven't seen that happen in years, and the last preacher I had at my door was, I believe, a Mormon. Go figure.

 

But I don't mean to disparage your concern -- if people hate them just because they won't recite the pledge then they shouldn't do that. There are lots of things that people hate others for -- banning all of them strikes me as going overboard. Wouldn't it make more sense for people to stop hating others over nonsense?

 

And maybe more to the point, won't they just find some other reason to hate the Witnesses?

 

The left can't legislate morality any more than the right can.

 

Interesting post.

[iNow]

I don't know anyone who has told me that they hate Jehova's Witnesses, but it's always been my general impression from the media that the primary cause for people's disparagement of them was the fact that they proselytize door-to-door, which annoys people. Although to be honest I haven't seen that happen in years

I need to move to where you live. I get these guys knocking like clockwork every Saturday morning.

 

Although, I must concede... I kinda like engaging them. It gives me a chance to use the arguments I've honed online via text in a face-to-face conversation where social graces encourage me to be a bit more cordial and muted.

 

I used to just ignore them... not answer the door. Then, one morning they happened to knock while I was composing a particularly biting response to a religious claim in one of these forums. I thought to myself, "If I'm gonna do it via the internet, I may as well do it at my front door, too." So, I answered it and stepped outside with them.

 

I spent the better part of two hours that day dismantling their arguments with a kind smile and the tone of a school teacher, until finally one of them hugged me, told me that I am part of gods plan, and asked if I would mind if they came back. After smiling a bit, and shaking my head in disbelief, I told them, "As long as you approach my home in the spirit of kindness, you will always be welcome." Perhaps that was my biggest mistake. Old Fred and Dave and whatever other new recruit they happen to be escorting that weekend seem to like me now... I'm an enigma to them or something.

 

 

 

But I don't mean to disparage your concern -- if people hate them just because they won't recite the pledge then they shouldn't do that. There are lots of things that people hate others for -- banning all of them strikes me as going overboard.

But, we're not trying to ban things that people hate others for. This is an issue of constitutionality, and our secular governments express mandate to remain neutral on all religious matters, unless their actions are to protect the free exercise of our citizens.

 

 

Wouldn't it make more sense for people to stop hating others over nonsense?

Even better... Wouldn't it make sense to stop hating... period? Evolution, however, has given us hate for good reasons, and that particular emotion will not likely be evaporating from humans any time soon.

 

 

The left can't legislate morality any more than the right can.

But, at least as far as I can see, that's not at all the issue here. Nobody is trying to legislate morality. People are trying to enforce our founding charter... The US constitution explicitly forbids government involvement in religion unless that involvement is in execution of the free exercise clause. Despite that, the government has added the words "under god" to the national pledge, added "in god we trust" to our currency, and made "in god we trust" a national motto, and then when challenged on this has argued that the concept of "god" is not religious.

 

This isn't about legislating morality, nor is it about a bunch of people trying to rock the boat and stir up trouble.

 

This is about people standing up for the ideals on which this nation was founded, and for merely asking that our government not (to borrow words from republicans, conservatives, and fox news contributors on the healthcare issue) "shove their ideology down our throats."

 

What you and others see as relatively innocuous comes across to a man like me no different than if they required children to recite, "one nation, where all females are whores." It disgusts me, and I'm justified in that disgust. The law and the constitution are on my side. It confuses me when I encounter fellow citizens who are not.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I need to move to where you live. I get these guys knocking like clockwork every Saturday morning.

 

Although, I must concede... I kinda like engaging them. It gives me a chance to use the arguments I've honed online via text in a face-to-face conversation where social graces encourage me to be a bit more cordial and muted.

 

I used to just ignore them... not answer the door. Then, one morning they happened to knock while I was composing a particularly biting response to a religious claim in one of these forums. I thought to myself, "If I'm gonna do it via the internet, I may as well do it at my front door, too." So, I answered it and stepped outside with them.

 

I spent the better part of two hours that day dismantling their arguments with a kind smile and the tone of a school teacher, until finally one of them hugged me, told me that I am part of gods plan, and asked if I would mind if they came back. After smiling a bit, and shaking my head in disbelief, I told them, "As long as you approach my home in the spirit of kindness, you will always be welcome." Perhaps that was my biggest mistake. Old Fred and Dave and whatever other new recruit they happen to be escorting that weekend seem to like me now... I'm an enigma to them or something.

 

Good grief. I spent an hour with a Catholic friend on campus arguing with a born-again minister about evolution and Christianity in general. I'm not sure I'd like to repeat that experience every weekend.

 

(Apparently my Catholic friend is "spiritually dead" because he hasn't been born again. I conveniently omitted my lack of religious status in conversation.)

[Mr Skeptic]

What you and others see as relatively innocuous

 

Which they don't; otherwise they would have no problem switching it to satisfy the folks who are upset about it.

[Pangloss]

I need to move to where you live. I get these guys knocking like clockwork every Saturday morning.

 

Ouch.

 

 

But, we're not trying to ban things that people hate others for. This is an issue of constitutionality, and our secular governments express mandate to remain neutral on all religious matters, unless their actions are to protect the free exercise of our citizens.

 

Actually I think TBK was making a broad-based argument in support of what I labeled "political correctness", in addition to his (and your) argument that it should be legalized on the issue of constitutionality (and it was a pretty fine argument, I have to say). But somebody please correct me if I misunderstood that.

 

(That's where the "left legislating moralty too" comment came in, not as a reflection on the constitutionality issue.)

 

 

Which they don't; otherwise they would have no problem switching it to satisfy the folks who are upset about it.

 

I did make an actual argument as to why change shouldn't be an automatic based on individuals getting upset.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=550690&postcount=45

 

The Bear's Key has posted an excellent response to that argument, but it doesn't necessarily refute my point (in fact I suspect both you and he might agree that not every offense warrants a law, even if the law causes no specific harm).

[The Bear's Key]

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.

Thanks. Partial error by me. It did appear on paper money in 1957. Like you said, though, coins had it beforehand.

 

 

# 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?

Why would they have to exit the classroom?

I believe that Jehova's Witnesses' kids leave the classroom during the Pledge. That's an option given kids by schools. I've heard of non-religious kids taking exit in high school, but I'm not certain about in earlier schools.

 

 

I don't know anyone who has told me that they hate Jehova's Witnesses, but it's always been my general impression from the media that the primary cause for people's disparagement of them was the fact that they proselytize door-to-door, which annoys people.

Sure, but I'm mostly referring to specific hates: like Jehova's Witnesses don't celebrate holidays because of their religion. In essence, it's anti-consumerism -- which leaves a bad taste in the mouths of some right-winged capitalism fans, I'd presume.

 

There are lots of things that people hate others for -- banning all of them strikes me as going overboard.

........

And maybe more to the point, won't they just find some other reason to hate the Witnesses?

 

The left can't legislate morality any more than the right can.

I didn't mention the need to ban or legislate anything.

 

Rather, my point is *why* that religion seems so hated on The Right.

 

Jehova's Witness beliefs....

Their kids don't recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

No war.

No death punishments.

No celebration of holidays (so it's anti-consumerism).

No worshipping material idols (for example the crucifix).

No politics (i.e. no voting).

No allegiance to a nation or flag.

 

Looking at the principles above, which main religious and/or political ideology is going to suffer if a religion of those principles were to spread quickly -- and so jeopardize a dependable $$-making enterprise and voter base?

 

It's why I mentioned the hate against the Witnesses seemed like a coincidence at first, but now I think it's the result of propaganda....by those who'd suffer massive political, religious, and $$ losses if Jehova's Witnesses replaced them (i.e. nationally/worldwide) -- as it'd be a religion that's useless for political gains.

 

At first glance you'd think the Amish to be a similar threat, but for a key difference -- they likely won't spread (not much preaching or indoctrination). Another key factor is they do vote.

 

Still, the Amish do have a great quality that's dangerous to preachers of "old justice"...

 

The ability to forgive.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/national/main2059816.shtml

In just about any other community, a deadly school shooting would have brought demands from civic leaders for tighter gun laws and better security, and the victims' loved ones would have lashed out at the gunman's family or threatened to sue.

 

But that's not the Amish way.

 

As they struggle with the slayings of five of their children in a one-room schoolhouse, the Amish in this Lancaster County village are turning the other cheek, urging forgiveness of the killer

Ponder something. In our nation...might a religion that doesn't cater to people's base fears/angers ever grow to the level of the main religions?

 

 

I need to move to where you live. I get these guys knocking like clockwork every Saturday morning.

 

Although, I must concede... I kinda like engaging them.

........

I spent the better part of two hours that day dismantling their arguments with a kind smile

Yeah, I've been tempted to, especially to both Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses knocks on the door, selling their brand of gloom and doom with salvation conveniently on the end of the carrot stick.

 

Even so, I resist -- as in my view, one's faith is sacred/personal. I wouldn't like disturbing theirs.

 

Yet I would challenge any trespass into government, for it'd be a cheating way to spread their ideology via legal means and crafty shenanigans.

 

 

Actually I think TBK was making a broad-based argument in support of what I labeled "political correctness"

Not quite. My actual point was that the Left has been accused of it by others who are even more Politically Correct.

 

As usual with The Right, the accuser is more guilty of the very accusation they're making. i.e. crafty politics.

 

It's a right-wing mantra that the Left is "Politically Correct". There's even a series named The Politically Incorrect Guide.

 

What I ask you to consider is this: if the Right is so against Political Correctness, then we should rarely ever hear protests by them over the following....

 

• Talk of blasphemy (F***ing Christ!).

• Speaking ill about our great nation.

• Criticizing soldiers.

• Bumper sticker or a highway billboard that proclaims God as a fraud.

• Dixie Chicks saying they're ashamed of Bush W residing in Texas.

 

But honestly, is such really the case? No. They'll go bananas when others aren't Politically Correct for their ideological goals.

 

So you should actually read through my last post again -- for I hadn't supported what you labeled as Political Correctness. Rather, I was labeling the entire concept a political sham.

 

A manufactured controversy.

 

Granted, there are silly people who go too far to not offend. But to say it's mostly a habit on the left is just simply untrue.

 

It's liberals who usually make fun of the principles they defend. All in good fun. No supposed political correctness.

 

Family Guy -Black Joke

Brian barks at the black guy

Family Guy black jokes

 

I love that show.

[Pangloss]

I believe that Jehova's Witnesses' kids leave the classroom during the Pledge. That's an option given kids by schools. I've heard of non-religious kids taking exit in high school, but I'm not certain about in earlier schools.

 

Okay, well if the school requires it then I disagree with the school, but if it's their idea then I'm going to fret about the ostracizing potential.

 

 

...

But that's not the Amish way.

 

As they struggle with the slayings of five of their children in a one-room schoolhouse, the Amish in this Lancaster County village are turning the other cheek, urging forgiveness of the killer[/i][/indent]

Ponder something. In our nation...might a religion that doesn't cater to people's base fears/angers ever grow to the level of the main religions?

 

I'm afraid you lost me with all of this, but it's been a long day so maybe it's just me. I have no idea how this relates to my opinion that opponents to the word "God" in the pledge are too concerned over something that's minor in my opinion.

 

 

Not quite. My actual point was that the Left has been accused of it by others who are even more Politically Correct.

 

As usual with The Right, the accuser is more guilty of the very accusation they're making. i.e. crafty politics.

 

I wasn't attempting to represent "the right", I was just presenting my own thoughts.

 

 

So you should actually read through my last post again -- for I hadn't supported what you labeled as Political Correctness. Rather, I was labeling the entire concept a political sham.

 

A manufactured controversy.

 

Okay, but it seemed like a lot of your argument was why it's okay to respond to those who are offended by societal actions. For example:

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

You also mentioned that you felt that my tamed and dumbed-down campus was a "breath of fresh air" to you.

 

So basically what you're trying to clarify with me is that you weren't saying that the flatlining of society, the making-everyone-the-same, the removal of excess, the immediate-response-to-anyone-who-is-even-slightly-offended-by-anything behavior is okay, what you're saying instead is... that it's NOT okay, that it shouldn't be done by either liberals or conservatives?

 

I guess your opinion still has me a bit confused here, sorry. Like I said, long day.

[The Bear's Key]

Okay, well if the school requires it then I disagree with the school, but if it's their idea then I'm going to fret about the ostracizing potential.

The schools did require it back in the day. Now, students can exit when it's time to pledge. However, back when courts first decided on this issue, people got upset and did bad things to the "guilty".

 

 

I'm afraid you lost me with all of this, but it's been a long day so maybe it's just me. I have no idea how this relates to my opinion that opponents to the word "God" in the pledge are too concerned over something that's minor in my opinion.

No prob, grab some rest . About my point....it was a direct reply to your wondering about hatred.

 

 

I wasn't attempting to represent "the right", I was just presenting my own thoughts.

Understood. I just wanted to set a record straight because I constantly hear about the left supposedly being Politically Correct.

 

 

Okay, but it seemed like a lot of your argument was why it's okay to respond to those who are offended by societal actions. For example:

Maybe you believe it's just some words, no harm done. But history shows otherwise.

Do you mean the part I've bolded? What I meant by that is the "under God" in the Pledge.

 

 

You also mentioned that you felt that my tamed and dumbed-down campus was a "breath of fresh air" to you.

No, I meant it's a breath of fresh air for a college where students aren't overly drunk with nonstop parties.

 

 

So basically what you're trying to clarify with me is that you weren't saying that the flatlining of society, the making-everyone-the-same, the removal of excess, the immediate-response-to-anyone-who-is-even-slightly-offended-by-anything behavior is okay, what you're saying instead is... that it's NOT okay, that it shouldn't be done by either liberals or conservatives?

Yes, in a manner. But your descriptive phrases are somewhat overboard/extreme.

 

If your college students got drunk like all the other colleges, then, going by your own words, it'd be that very case of "making-everyone-the-same".

 

My advice -- don't confuse "the removal of excess" with simply a conscientious reduction of it; don't confuse "immediate-response-to-anyone-who-is-even-slightly-offended-by-anything behavior" with a reasonable sense of tact; don't confuse "flatlining of society" with labors for mutual respect; don't confuse "PC" with Apple;* don't confuse "Political Correctness" with being reasonably mindful of a person's culture/background -- if no one did any of those, you could see the result for yourself with a simple test: by removing the moderators and user limits in the Religion and Politics forums.

 

Do you see how a little bit of "PC" -- i.e. tact -- goes a long way?

 

The best motive I can see for attacking tact is a desire for chaos. Not by you, Pangloss -- obviously.

 

 

*Just seeing if you were paying attention

[swansont]

The schools did require it back in the day. Now, students can exit when it's time to pledge. However, back when courts first decided on this issue, people got upset and did bad things to the "guilty".

 

Not just "back in the day," though the "requirement" here was illegal.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022303889.html

 

I was told that the parent is actually an ACLU lawyer, so the apology may not be the end of it.

[The Bear's Key]

Not just "back in the day," though the "requirement" here was illegal.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022303889.html

The mother of a 13-year-old Montgomery County middle school student is demanding an apology from a teacher who had school police escort the youngster from a classroom for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

The unidentified student was mocked by other children in her class

........

The Montgomery school system's student handbook contains a section about "Patriotic Exercises" that reads: "You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate."

In the school's defense, it was the act of a single teacher. But it's clear how easily pressure might be applied on students -- who don't exercise their rights -- by a school's Authority/peers.

 

 

I was told that the parent is actually an ACLU lawyer, so the apology may not be the end of it.

Oh boy more ACLU shenanigans, defending civil liberties -- how dare they?

 

(The ACLU, huh? It reminds me, they're another group hated by the you-know-who)

 

 

The best motive I can see for attacking tact is a desire for chaos.

...and strife.

[Pangloss]

About my point....it was a direct reply to your wondering about hatred.

...

Understood. I just wanted to set a record straight because I constantly hear about the left supposedly being Politically Correct.

 

I gotcha now' date=' thanks.

 

 

Yes, in a manner. But your descriptive phrases are somewhat overboard/extreme.

 

If your college students got drunk like all the other colleges, then, going by your own words, it'd be that very case of "making-everyone-the-same".

 

My advice -- don't confuse "the removal of excess" with simply a conscientious reduction of it; don't confuse "immediate-response-to-anyone-who-is-even-slightly-offended-by-anything behavior" with a reasonable sense of tact; don't confuse "flatlining of society" with labors for mutual respect; don't confuse "PC" with Apple;* don't confuse "Political Correctness" with being reasonably mindful of a person's culture/background -- if no one did any of those, you could see the result for yourself with a simple test: by removing the moderators and user limits in the Religion and Politics forums.

 

Do you see how a little bit of "PC" -- i.e. tact -- goes a long way?

 

The best motive I can see for attacking tact is a desire for chaos. Not by you, Pangloss -- obviously.

 

Okay well I definitely misunderstood you then, so I appreciate the clarification.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying, and I think the world is much better off today for its improved awareness of human suffering, both large and small, and the communications and empathy that come along with "sensitivity".

 

My concern, vis-à-vis "god" in the pledge, is that it's (IMO) a case of being too specifically concerned about one group, not because it's truly suffering, but because it's a minority group that hasn't been listened to on other, perhaps more important issues, in the past (e.g. the problem you mention with students leaving the room).

 

I have not yet seen any reason why my mind needs to change on this issue, e.g. objective evidence of modern suffering due solely to the use of that word in the pledge. Which leads me to the general opinion that removing it is an example of the "flatlining" I mentioned earlier.

 

Your mileage is welcome to vary, of course, and my mind is open to further evidence on the matter.

[iNow]

I have not yet seen any reason why my mind needs to change on this issue, e.g. objective evidence of modern suffering due solely to the use of that word in the pledge. Which leads me to the general opinion that removing it is an example of the "flatlining" I mentioned earlier.

 

Let me ask you, mate...

 

At what point in time did we as a nation lose our way and abandon our core values so profoundly?

Why should one need to first be convinced that modern suffering surpasses some arbitrary subjective threshold before implementing a change of the nature discussed in this thread?

Since when is it not enough to simply argue and fight on principle alone and just "do the right thing" for the citizens of our country?

Since when is it not enough to defend equality for its own sake, even though the inequality appears minor to a few outside observers?

 

 

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

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

 

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

 

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,

and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

 

THEN THEY CAME for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up."

 

 

All we're doing is speaking up, Pangloss. I'm sorry that you won't join the chorus without us demonstrating some amount of suffering and pain that surpasses your arbitrary personal thresholds.

[Phi for All]

All we're doing is speaking up, Pangloss.

You say this like he's trying to shout you down. He's not.

 

I'm sorry that you won't join the chorus

He's talking about the rationality of bandwagon arguments and you want him to "join the chorus"?!

 

without us demonstrating some amount of suffering and pain that surpasses your arbitrary personal thresholds.

You are almost at a professional level when it comes to personal attacks and soapboxing, so subtle they've become. Imo, these attacks cast shame on the bulk of your remarkable posting history.

[ydoaPs]

Apart from the general creepiness of having children recite a loyalty oath, what's wrong with just using the original version vice the one that's really just trying to stick it to the commies?

[Phi for All]

Apart from the general creepiness of having children recite a loyalty oath, what's wrong with just using the original version vice the one that's really just trying to stick it to the commies?

Would this require overturning Public Law 83-396 (the amendment to section 7 of Public Law 77-623), or would it require another public law since it's been ruled constitutional? Again, I think if you were trying to pass PL 83-396 today, it would put the whole thing in a better perspective.

[iNow]

You say this like he's trying to shout you down. He's not.

It was a play on words immediately following the short poem I used to emphasize my point. Please try not to read too much into it.

 

As for him not "shouting us down," that sort of depends. I've already commented on his dismissals and seeing this as a non-issue, but you didn't seem to like it when I did that.

 

 

He's talking about the rationality of bandwagon arguments and you want him to "join the chorus"?!

Again, it was merely a play on words. This is an issue of equality, an issue of constitutionality, and an issue of standing up to protect all citizens of all ideologies and worldviews in this nation. AFAIC, that is a song which we should all be singing together, despite your and his suggestion of problematic bandwagons.

 

 

You are almost at a professional level when it comes to personal attacks and soapboxing, so subtle they've become.

Welcome to the Politics section. I suggest you avoid reading and/or contributing altogether if such strategies and argumentative styles bother you.

[Moontanman]

I guess what bothers me the most is what religion represents, I think this God in the pledge thing is a very good example of why religion cannot be allowed to have free reign.

 

I would be the first to agree that if you want to believe your religion is reality then fine believe it, go to your place of worship, make the walls rattle, invoke your god to do what ever it is he or she wants to do.

 

But in public institutions like government and education do not expect your ideas about god to be accepted as the truth nor should you expect to try and teach everyone else your concept of religion anyplace but your own church.

 

Conversely I can see not asserting the idea of atheism either but to these people anything that disagrees with them is asserting another religion. They talk about free speech and tolerance but it's only of if your speech agrees with them do they tolerate you.

 

The idea of neutrality is not in their mind set, everything is us and them or black and white or right and wrong. there is no room for anyone who does not agree except in a subservient role as people to be converted.

 

Give them an inch they want a mile, give them a mile they want it all. i wish you could just coast along and say to each his own, go your own way, but that attitude plays into the religious plan to control everything and every one.

 

Do what you want in your own church, I'll even put up with all the annoying proselytizing from bill boards to door to door, but leave religion out of places that every one much share. Religion has no place in schools or government. I see the religious proselytizing at the university my son goes to they actually accost people and do their best to stop passers by, they do all sorts of outrageous stunts to get peoples attention, often this is disruptive in the extreme.

 

To me it's sad, if religion is so great why do they have to practically yell it in your ear and slap you in the head with it? If you want religion go to church, there is an awful lot of them, if you want to teach religion as reality, do it in church, stop expecting the government to back you up in your endeavor. God knows you get enough money already and you don't have to account for it or pay taxes on it, what more do you want?

 

The main perversion of religion is the idea that they must convert everyone else, by hook or crook they do everything possible to convert the godless heathens so they can get their money and use them to convert more. God in the pledge is just another example of government supported proselytizing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Welcome to the Politics section. I suggest you avoid reading and/or contributing altogether if such strategies and argumentative styles bother you.

I dunno, I'd much prefer simply removing the troublemakers from the Politics section rather than removing myself. I'm sure Phi feels the same way. Seems reasonable enough to me.

[Pangloss]

Your mileage is welcome to vary, of course, and my mind is open to further evidence on the matter.

 

All we're doing is speaking up, Pangloss. I'm sorry that you won't join the chorus without us demonstrating some amount of suffering and pain that surpasses your arbitrary personal thresholds.

 

Arguments, yes, those I'm interested in. Ridicule, not so much. Do you want to convince me, or do you want to rub tar all over me and then pour feathers over my head?

 

Not that I'd necessarily object to the latter, but I'll probably make you pony up for dinner first.

[Phi for All]

It was a play on words immediately following the short poem I used to emphasize my point. Please try not to read too much into it.

 

As for him not "shouting us down," that sort of depends. I've already commented on his dismissals and seeing this as a non-issue, but you didn't seem to like it when I did that.

I guess I was right to read *something* into it (classic iNow, btw, the pat on the head to demean me and my comment - well done, O King of the Brush-Off). What I didn't like was you commenting on Pangloss' "dismissals" while you get to call his stance "nonsense", after calling him a hypocrite after his first post.

 

Lest we forget.

 

Again, it was merely a play on words. This is an issue of equality, an issue of constitutionality, and an issue of standing up to protect all citizens of all ideologies and worldviews in this nation. AFAIC, that is a song which we should all be singing together, despite your and his suggestion of problematic bandwagons.

But that's what the Bandwagon fallacy is, suggesting that because your opponent doesn't share a view that you and others hold he is wrong because of not being with you. You're stooping to more of your classic tactics by doing anything to win an argument.

 

Welcome to the Politics section. I suggest you avoid reading and/or contributing altogether if such strategies and argumentative styles bother you.

Politics here at SFN is not about browbeating, condescension and ridicule. As much as these arguments obviously mean to you, it's still important that you discuss the issues rationally and fairly, without resorting to derisive, demeaning and debasing tactics. It's really contradictory to condemn Pangloss as a hypocrite while doing your Karl Rove impersonation, iNow.

[iNow]

Arguments, yes, those I'm interested in. Ridicule, not so much. Do you want to convince me, or do you want to rub tar all over me and then pour feathers over my head?

 

Pangloss - I have made my arguments. I did so in nearly every post in this thread. Your response? To call this "PC run amok" and completely dismiss it as a non-issue with practically every post you made.

 

I've explained why this issue matters, I've explained and supported my points with substance and merit, and I've done so passionately (as made obvious by the fact that I now have three staff members doing a meta-discussion about me and my style).

 

After I put forth these points, you proceeded to move the goal posts and suggested we need to demonstrate harm, and that this harm must surpass some arbitrary personal threshold of yours.

 

What more do you need me to argue? Do you need me to cite anecdotal stories about kids getting beaten up for not believing, or bullied for not being religious, or shunned for not saying the pledge? Will psychological harm meet your standard, or is only physical harm important to you? You've already been shown real world examples where kids who don't say the pledge suffer needlessly and yet you still ask for more?

 

Seriously, man... What more do you want? I know this is not what's happening, but what if the pledge asked children to recite, "One nation, where all women are whores?" Would you still need harm demonstrated then before agreeing that the words should be changed, or would you understand immediately why such wording should be changed without delay? I would suggest it's the latter, yet that's not what you do when it involves deities and atheist rejection of them.

 

I don't really suppose I'm going to convince you, and frankly that's not my goal. You mustn't forget that you and I are not the only ones reading these exchanges. When I argue, I argue to convince large masses of people, anyone who should happen to be reading, not just my opponent... and yes, I will often use my opponent to help achieve that end when it suits me.

 

Again, welcome to the Politics section.

[Mr Skeptic]

On a slightly different track, might I suggest we start suggesting adding a "no" to the pledge, ie "one nation under no god". It won't happen of course, but it will stimulate discussion as to why that cannot be allowed.

[Pangloss]

Seriously, man... What more do you want?

 

Objective evidence that people are harmed by the use of the word "god" in the pledge, not including emotional or psychological harm that is derived by the recipient but not intended as such.

 

 

At what point in time did we as a nation lose our way and abandon our core values so profoundly?

 

I agree! Values like "live and let live", and "to each his own", and "no harm no foul".

 

 

Since when is it not enough to defend equality for its own sake, even though the inequality appears minor to a few outside observers?

 

What inequality?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

On a slightly different track, might I suggest we start suggesting adding a "no" to the pledge, ie "one nation under no god". It won't happen of course, but it will stimulate discussion as to why that cannot be allowed.

 

It isn't allowed?