1954. It also ruined the flow of the pledge.

"One nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Too many commas and pauses. It's awkward. It needs to be revised flow better. :em321:

So the original was:

"One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all (except blacks)"

(and womanly types)

and mehicanos, chicanos.

How about "One nation, under the flying spaghetti monster"? I think that has a nice ring to it.

That would probably offend someone. People say this issue is insignificant, then why not just change it? It's obviously only insignificant to the people who want it to be insignificant.

A city name being based on a religious symbol such as an angel is not the same thing as declaring in a pledge of allegience that the nation is under God. And it's not voluntary... a student who doesn't say the pledge might be alienated, not to mention our country's high emphasis on the controlling "value" of patriotism will make anyone who doesn't want to say the pledge an enemy.

And yes, I would like money to not say "In God we trust". I also don't care that the founders might have been influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs. They weren't saints. Slavery was allowed in the US, many founders defending the "God-given" right to own slaves.

[QUOTE=Jedi Legend]People say this issue is insignificant, then why not just change it? It's obviously only insignificant to the people who want it to be insignificant. [/QUOTE]It is insignificant! Some people see "God", piss themselves and then sue the first thing they see. They don't stop to think that the pledge or text on a money has absolutely no impact on anyone's life. It's just one more of the numerous things you do or see in your life that has no importance to your day to day life and you forget all about it until someone else brings it up. The Pledge and money isn't converting or oppressing anyone. People need to get the **** over the little stuff and just live their lives. These "we can't have God in the pledge!" cases are nothing but frivilous lawsuits that absorb precious court time that could be used to resolve far more important issues and cases.

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]It is insignificant! Some people see "God", piss themselves and then sue the first thing they see. They don't stop to think that the pledge or text on a money has absolutely no impact on anyone's life. It's just one more of the numerous things you do or see in your life that has no importance to your day to day life and you forget all about it until someone else brings it up. The Pledge and money isn't converting or oppressing anyone. People need to get the **** over the little stuff and just live their lives. These "we can't have God in the pledge!" cases are nothing but frivilous lawsuits that absorb precious court time that could be used to resolve far more important issues and cases.[/QUOTE]

Take it out then.

It's insignificant, which means that the worst thing that can happen if we take it out is no one will notice the difference.

But best case scenario you have the following advantages:

-More religious tolerance. People who don't believe in God aren't meant to feel alientated in their own country.
-Less state religious indoctrination which is at the very least a potential threat to religious autonomy
-And to turn your own argument against you... if we eliminate "under God" we also eliminate that possibility for lawsuits that use seperation of Church and State as an argument. Would people be able to sue the government for excluding the words "under God"? Seems that at the very least, law suits like that would clog the court LESS which is still a reason to change it.


Basically... if we eliminate "under God" only good things can happen. So why not do it? There's a reason out there... and it's religious bias. Christianity dominates this country and people are so set on maintaining "values" that they think indoctrination is a noble goal. They say atheists shouldn't be offended from the perspective of the Christian. When an atheist presents a law suit, their values are challenged as being self serving. But who does "under God" serve?

What's that supposed to mean? You're just saying that a civil authority could make the laws.

Better than a non-existent authority.

There are many ways of evaluating "right" and "wrong" without trying to scare people into acting a certain way by threatening eternal damnation. For example, an objectivist believes that there are certain axioms that we should build off of (which eventually lead us to believe that acting in your enlightened self interest is moral). Utilitarianism generally makes more sense from a God-less point of view. Jeremy Bentham called the idea that laws come from nature/God and not from civil authority "nonsense on stilts".

Besides, who else makes the laws? Nature? God? How can we trust a government to correctly interpret God when so many different people intepret holy books in conflicting manners. Slavery was justified by God at one point.

My thoughts, courtesy of Ben Sargent.

Where do you people live where kids are alienated for not saying the pledge of allegiance? I went to half a dozen different elementary schools and no one cared whether you said the pledge or not.

Besides, you get to a point where nobody says (but may mumble) the Pledge, because we just give a **** anymore, because it's been beaten into out head for years.

Haha, nice.

This whole thing reminds me of the kid who got suspended in my German class for not reciting it. So lame.

Kansas.

What about the people that like it? Why should I be denied enjoyment of it?

Frankly, this is just another case of appeasing the minority.

And I wouldn't care if it were taken out. But nothing is that easy. In order to get anything done in the government you have to jump through hoops and play the political games. The proposal to take it out could take months to pass(if it passed at all). That is too much time spent on something so insignificant and is incredibly inefficient and a waste of time for something that doesn't matter. If for some reason the politicians came together and just did a quick act to take it out because they saw it as unnecessary, I'd see nothing wrong with that. But due to the bi-partisan crap in Washington, that will never happen on something so controversial.

But wait Mike, this country is full of immoral atheists who will stop at nothing to deny the rights of others.

Darn, I forgot about that. My bad people, my bad

Oh shut it guys. Your clever little quips on the liberal side aren't funny anymore, and they only serve to show you guys are idiots. I can see where the guy's coming from, but I think it's kind of undue to totally force it out. Besides, if the kids WANT to say it, they can. It's not like the teachers will reprimand them if they DO say it.

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]And I wouldn't care if it were taken out. But nothing is that easy. In order to get anything done in the government you have to jump through hoops and play the political games. The proposal to take it out could take months to pass(if it passed at all). That is too much time spent on something so insignificant and is incredibly inefficient and a waste of time for something that doesn't matter. If for some reason the politicians came together and just did a quick act to take it out because they saw it as unnecessary, I'd see nothing wrong with that. But due to the bi-partisan crap in Washington, that will never happen on something so controversial.[/QUOTE]

Granted, I am sort of thinking of this matter from a simple what should the government do without considering issues such as Bush's capital being at an all time low... (and the fact that it would probably alienate his base and be rejected by the majority of congress).

Of course, that's what activist courts are for. I think court cases such as the one cited in the original post are a step in the right direction.

But all that said...



You're using utiltarian, majority rules calculus for a very self-serving purpose. For one, the fact that you and a majority want something does not make it good overall for a community, even if only affects a minority. Second of all, this is almost exactly my point from before... from a Christian perspective, we must preserve "under God".

I can understand Kieran's point of view in that he just wants this matter to be settled since he feels the very existence of controversial over the issue is problematic in a time when we're facing many other political challenges. But I cannot understand the arguments that have entrenched "under God" so deep that two words can't be removed.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Oh shut it guys. Your clever little quips on the liberal side aren't funny anymore, and they only serve to show you guys are idiots. I can see where the guy's coming from, but I think it's kind of undue to totally force it out. Besides, if the kids WANT to say it, they can. It's not like the teachers will reprimand them if they DO say it.[/QUOTE]


hahaha.

"okay, kids, time for recess!"
"oh, but can't we stay and say the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE miss?"
"NO >:"
"pleeeeeeeaaaaaase?"

I would agree, if the its inclusion dated back more than 1950's.

Having "under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance will not suppress your right to say it (or, at least, you should not be punished for saying it - and the same goes for people who prefer not to say the thing at all). It will not lead to a moral debasement of the United States. It will not lead to the complete and total annihilation of theism in the United States. It's a two-letter phrase that was added to fight the atheist commie Ruskies, not because it was necessarily a part of the U.S. history. It was a cheap attempt to use religion to convince Americans that we were the good guys.



They could. Simply because atheists have no central moral code does not mean they don't have morals. Laws against murder would exist because most people know that killing someone else hurts someone else, and it's fair and good to go to reasonable measures to avoid hurting someone else. This would be (as I am under the impression) a human secularist view. Theists may or may not share the same view, but there will be an added "because God says so" to it. I'm not saying this is bad, but that, if religion did not exist, morals can exist.

Why?

An absurdity that dates from 1776 is no less absurd than one that dates from 1996.

Exactly. Just like the inclusion of it doesn't suppress your right NOT to say it. It's all circular.

Someone answer me this. Just give me ONE good reason why "Under God" needs to be taken out. Just one good reason. And it can't be "it offends someone", because even if you take it out, you'll offend even more people. So that argument cannot apply.

Because not everyone believes in God. It's the same thing as requiring prayer in school. Not everyone has someone to pray to.

The difference is, saying Under God IS influential in one religious way or another. Not saying it...isn't. It's neutral. It's not saying "NOT UNDER GOD", it's not leaning towards atheism, buddhism, shintoism, etc, but saying "under god" is leaning towards judaism/christianity/islam/monotheism.

And? Plenty of other people believe in god

Read my post.

But we're not changing it to "One Nation, Without God" (despite the rather nice ring that does have to it).

A far more creative task would be to think up some alternative to the British national anthem, God Save the Queen.

Haha, nice.

1. From a Christian point of view, it dishonors God. It trivializes the name of God to simply coerce non-Christians into reciting his name, encouraging them to fake reverence. This isn't one nation united by a singular belief in God and to say so cheapens the Christian beliefs, sets up a facade. God doesn't need the government's help, and to think that he does is quite arrogant.

I believe Jesus’ words apply in this situation as well:
“And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly, I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

Matthew 6:5-6

While the pledge is not a prayer, I believe the same principle applies: God is not honored by meaningless recitation of his name in public, nor is it something that he desires.

2. People want "Under God" removed, they don't want to add "God doesn't exist," "Without God," or anything like that. Simply not referring to God doesn't imply discrimination against those with religious beliefs; it doesn't imply anything. So the argument of "plenty of people believe in God" doesn't really apply, because a pledge without any references to God doesn't infringe on their rights or beliefs.

[quote=Jedi Legend]-More religious tolerance. People who don't believe in God aren't meant to feel alientated in their own country.
-Less state religious indoctrination which is at the very least a potential threat to religious autonomy
-And to turn your own argument against you... if we eliminate "under God" we also eliminate that possibility for lawsuits that use seperation of Church and State as an argument. Would people be able to sue the government for excluding the words "under God"? Seems that at the very least, law suits like that would clog the court LESS which is still a reason to change it.[/quote]


It sets the precedent that just because people who don't believe in god are a minority, that the majority is justified in asserting it's religious beliefs into government. The pledge of allegience is a statement that is considered an act of consent and patriotism towards government. In a post-911 United States, the emphasis on patriotism has grown to an extent that those who are seen as not saying the pledge might be considered on the same level with the "Frenchies". Granted, most students wouldn't notice if another student just stood there. But even if a student isn't ostracized by his or her peers, he or she is still meant to feel like an outsider in a country that is supposedly "under God".

The pledge says that our nation is indivisble, and then claims that are nation is "under God". When those words were added in, the country was attempting to equivicate Communists (AKA the enemy) with Atheists. In doing so, it seems to suggest that those who are not under a single god are just as much on the outside as those Communists. This only creates a division where it need not be. The pledge contradicts itself.

We can also throw in good ol' constitutionalism. While separation of Church and state is not directly mentioned in the Constitution, the establishment clause is even broader. At the very least, the spirit of the constitution is pretty clear on the matter. I would defend freedom of religion as a fundamental, absolute right. If a religion becomes considered against a nation, it becomes easier to persecute these people. You can't draw the line, especially when we have students repeating words at a young age in a not-so-subtle attempt to create patriots, little soldiers who love freedom and hate communists.

Please answer these reasons before asking for more... I don't think my opinion is necessarily a reflection of the best policy goal, and I am certainly not going to claim to avoid error in reasoning. But at the same time, I would like to know why you disagree with my claims so that I can better critically evaluate my own position instead of just engaging in partisan polemics back and forth.

Change it to "Shiva." Would you be comfortable saying it?

Good Points. You both (JL and Wuss) answered my question with logical arguments. In response to this though...

"So the argument of "plenty of people believe in God" doesn't really apply, because a pledge without any references to God doesn't infringe on their rights or beliefs."

This is my point exactly though. This is all totally circular. The constitution grants the right for atheists or "non-believers" to not say it, just as much as it gives me the right TO say it. It "infringes" the rights of the non-believers to have the right not to say it, but it also "infringes" on the rights for the Christians or believers TO say it. (I really hope that made sense, but I think you can catch my drift). This just brings up my point that because this is all circular and basically the same argument applies to both sides, that it's not even worth the court deliberating to take it out.

/me gives you both cookies for being presentable

And Wolfy, I'd be perfectly fine with it. Because I know that I don't believe in Shiva, therefore, I won't take offense to it. I know personally that I believe in God. Saying "Under Shiva" will not infringe on my rights, because I have the right not to say it / believe in it.

The only difference is it sets a precedent that it needs to be in there. Don't ask me how a teacher noticed it, but I remember a friend got detention for not saying "Under god" once, because he's athiest (in my old school). Granted, it was only 15 minutes, but being kept after school 15 minutes means you need to find a ride, and/or walk, all because you have a different set of beliefs. It's a big deal when a lot of people in the town live 15-25 minutes away...by CAR.

I think everyone is missing the most important part of this thread....

Ric_Olie misquoted Robin Williams.

That teacher shouldn't have kept the kid after school. That's ridiculous behavior on the teacher's part.

And anyway, what about the rights of American communists?