Inspired by the "Under God" thread

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
I'm not forcing anyone to recite the pledge the way I do, why does someone else think it's necessary to make me conform to the way they feel it should be said?

Then you wouldn't oppose returning to the original pledge. I mean, you could still add "under god" if you wanted.

 

[ErikdaRed]

Nobody is forcing you as an individual to change how you say the pledge. But the argument (that held up in court and hasn't been ruled on again) is that the government placement of under God is establishment. If the children are taught the pledge without the words and a child feels the need to add them they can just finish two words later than all the rest. Or even better, do it out of school altogether.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by ErikdaRed
I was given detention countless times as a child for not saying the pledge.

When was this? Regardless, your parents should have taken it to court, you woulod have won.

Also, the child is required by law to attend school and be forced to listen to/participate in the pledge.

First of all, any child can go to a private school or be homeschooled, one is not "forced" to attned public school.

Second, you cannot use a slash between listen to and participate as they are completely different things.

In my book this amounts to indoctrination of children to God and religion. That would be establishment in mine and the ninth circuit court's view.

I what way does saying hte pledge establish a state religion?

And one day we will get to hear the SC views on the subject (who have already determined that prayer has no place in our schools or school functions).

This is not prayer.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by ErikdaRed
Also, the child is required by law to attend school and be forced to listen to/participate in the pledge. In my book this amounts to indoctrination of children to God and religion.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how pledging allegiance to one's country, and saying "one nation, under God" amounts to the indoctrination of children to God and religion. To read your note, you'd think that those two words -- under God -- are tantamount to joining a cult and having your free will taken away.

Out of curiousity - and you certainly don't have to answer if you don't want to - when you were in school, did you refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the inclusion of the words "under God" or was there more behind it? In other words, were you perfectly willing to pledge your allegiance to the flag and country, but just not the country under God, or did you refuse to pledge allegiance at all? Also ... did you get sent to detention because you refused to say the pledge or did you get sent to detention for the way you refused to say the pledge? We had kids in my class during Viet Nam who refused to say the pledge and did so passively, and then there were the kids who refused more ... actively.

 

[ErikdaRed]

To get the detention I sat in my seat. I refused to say the pledge mostly because I felt it was stupid on many levels. It was simple recitation, there was no explanation of the meaning of the words, it was just something the sheep did to follow the teacher.

As far as the phrase "one nation under God". To me that means that we as a nation follow God. That screams establishment. And by teaching it that way to children they get the view that Christianity is the state religion. The term God in the pledge, and on the money, is not inclusive of all religions as its defenders maintain. Thus I would like to see it removed from our government funded schools, again because of the establishment.

And if the words are so harmless and unreligious why is their removal such a point of contention?

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
With the pledge, children are required to listen to "under (some) god" day in and day out.

GASP! Their little minds will be warped forever!! Imagine if you had to hear things you didn't want to hear once you grew up, got out of school and joined the real world!! The horror!

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by ErikdaRed
To get the detention I sat in my seat. I refused to say the pledge

That's unfortunate. When did this occur? When I was in school, there was a Jehova's Witness that did not recite the pledge, she simply sat in her seat. No one ever bothered her. It is everyone's right to say or not to say it.

 

[ErikdaRed]

It was elementary school, so early 80s. Children don't have the right to free speech in school, that has been clearly decided by the courts. But the bad publicity could probably sway the school to reconsider, but it wasn't worth it.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by ErikdaRed
It was elementary school, so early 80s. Children don't have the right to free speech in school, that has been clearly decided by the courts.

Of course children have the right to free speech in schools. Reasonable restrictions are in place. It has also been clearly decided by the courts that a child cannot be compelled to say the pledge.

But the bad publicity could probably sway the school to reconsider, but it wasn't worth it.

well there you have it. If it wasn't that important to you (or your parents) then you have no one but yourselves to blame.

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by tonyswife
That's unfortunate. When did this occur? When I was in school, there was a Jehova's Witness that did not recite the pledge, she simply sat in her seat. No one ever bothered her. It is everyone's right to say or not to say it.

Generally speaking, people who object to a specific action based on their religious beliefs get WAY more respect than those who object based on a lack thereof.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by tonyswife
GASP! Their little minds will be warped forever!! Imagine if you had to hear things you didn't want to hear once you grew up, got out of school and joined the real world!! The horror!

Then, as others have said, let's change the "under god" to "under Allah." Would you still defend the pledge so ardently?

And, if not, why?

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by MHopkins2
Generally speaking, people who object to a specific action based on their religious beliefs get WAY more respect than those who object based on a lack thereof.

Regardless, the supreme court ruled in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943 that students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge.

I understand what you are saying, but that does not change the fact that had she pushed the issue, she would have won in the end.

 

[MHopkins2]

On topic, theoretically the chaplains are taxpayer funded religion and therefore, not good. BUT, I would never support removing them. They provide a service not otherwise available, there's no coersion (AFAIK) to attend, and if they were removed, that would essentially be penalizing the servicemembers who use the services. I have yet to see anyone provide a reasonable argument that schoolchildren would suffer if "Under God" (or for that matter, the entire Pledge) were removed.

 

[robinb]

Originally posted by ErikdaRed
The difference lies in the fact that children are forced to say the pledge (establishment), where in the military I would assume that they aren't forced to church on Sunday/Friday/Sunset. The chaplan is provided to comfort the soldiers, not to convert them.

Exactly what I think. I have no problem with chaplains in the military. They provide comfort and aid to people who need it.

As an atheist, I do not say "Under God" (nor do I ever sing "God Bless America") and I would have preferred that the Supreme Court didn't wuss out yesterday. My husband and I will encourage our young daughter to omit that part as well when she starts school in the fall, but I am afraid that she will be pressured to say it by her peers or teased. It's too bad that she will have to sit down and shut up because the majority religion has such a stranglehold on society. I guess it's best that she gets used to it early.

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Regardless, the supreme court ruled in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943 that students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge.

I understand what you are saying, but that does not change the fact that had she pushed the issue, she would have won in the end.

I agree with you - I was just addressing your point about the JW "sitting out" and no one seeming to be fazed. Believe me, I've been there and done that - there's a world of difference in people's reactions.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by ErikdaRed
And if the words are so harmless and unreligious why is their removal such a point of contention?

Likewise, if the words are so harmless and unreligious, what harm is there in the words remaining?

I, personally, think of "one nation, under God" as being less about religion and more about being one unified nation, with the only thing above us the heavens. ("Heavens" being used here as a generic, not religious, term.) We are not one nation, under government or one nation, under our President or one nation, under any establishment. And, moreover, we are a nation that was founded based on the pursuit of religious beliefs and freedoms. In my (public) school, not only were we told what the pledge meant and where it came from, we were encouraged to speak it less like a sing-songy poem and more like a true pledge. I still do that. We didn't say, "I pledge allegiance / to the flag / of the United States of America / and to the republic / for which it stands" ... etc. It was more like concrete thoughts. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. / And to the republic for which it stands." Maybe the fact that we all understood what it meant, even in 2nd and 3rd grade, made a difference. I don't know.

You say you thought the pledge was "stupid on many levels", so I'm thinking that the concept of pledging allegiance at all was something you felt was either old-fashioned or archaic or unnecessary. I will say, though, that the kids I knew who didn't say the Pledge -- for whatever reason -- still stood while it was being said, out of habit perhaps, or out of respect. The same way that people stand for the national anthems of other countries. You may have saved yourself a lot of detention if you'd chosen to simply stand with your classmates and respect the history of the Pledge, even if you didn't agree with the act of saying it.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Then, as others have said, let's change the "under god" to "under Allah." Would you still defend the pledge so ardently?

And, if not, why?

I am not a christian or a muslim, I do not take offense at either word.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Then, as others have said, let's change the "under god" to "under Allah." Would you still defend the pledge so ardently?

And, if not, why?

It wouldn't make sense to replace "under God" with "under Allah." Our nation wasn't founded in Islam, it was founded in Christianity. Under God makes sense, in that context. Under Allah doesn't.

If it was arbitrarily changed to "under Allah" for some reason, then I would opt out of those two words, just as many people choose to opt out of "under God." The Pledge, however, would still be something I would defend. Because I DO, personally, pledge my allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. Which is, after all, the meat of the thing.

 

[WDSearcher]

Double post ... sorry!

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Since a few people are so opposed to having "under God" in the pledge because it is, in their opinions, government sponsorship of religion, how does everyone feel about the military chaplaincy?

There are a dozens, if not hundreds, of military chaplains currently serving. Are the people that want "under God" taken out of the pledge and "In God We Trust" taken off the money also in favor of dissolving the military chaplaincy and tearing down all of the military chapels in this country and abroad? If not, what exactly is the difference between the situations?

Sorry I just didn't have time to read all the posts on this thread so if I am repeating anything, I apologize.

I am not a believer in God but I am also not a believer in restricting a believers "right" to have their religious beliefs represented by chaplains in the military. Chaplains "serve" more than only "God" They serve the religious needs of our troops and are a valuable resource for those that believe, and do not neglect those human needs of the non-believers. I was never approached by a chaplain who wanted to convert me in all my years of service.