Baculus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I think instead of coercion, forcing the child to say the pledge, we should educate them enough so that they at least would WANT to say the pledge. Because, of course, reciting the Pledge does not guarantee how a kid may view this nation, in a certain sense, if it is mere lip service. I wonder how many of our soldiers who have fought in Iraq were poor "pledge sayers"? I would guess a lot of them, and yet, they served. At some point, some of you guys on the right, you are going to have your kids exposed to religious ideas that you don't approve of, in public school, because the door is left open. Not all teachers are christians. Our school district has a large number of muslim teachers. Do you want them leading your child in prayer? I realize that's not the same thing as the pledge, but that's what you guys want. You think that everyone is christian and if there's prayer in school, it's christian prayer. You couldn't be further from the truth. My feeling is that prayer should be allowed in school, but as prayer groups, not necessarily forced in the classroom. This is partially to respect all parties involved. Folks have to remember that separation of Church and State is partially to protect religion from being infringed upon unjustly by the State. But, as you demonstrated, most adults learn to "skate" through moments which really doesn't suite them, and they deal with it without a fuss. And kids are the same way as well. But I guess there is the realization that, for some folks, having "God" in the Pledge is to demonstrate that this is a Christian nation, and such a demonstration has to be more evident in the classroom, government building, courtroom, etc. And that is where the larger conflict lies, with this issue being a skirmish, especially in the Constitutional nature of the conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 But it's not Code, that's what the 4th ruled.http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/08/pledge-recital-ruling-4th-circuit.php Essentially they state that requiring the pledge does not "establish" a religion. By saying, "one nation under God", it is establishing religion, you take that line out, which BTW, wasn't originally in the pledge, and it's just a nationalist poem that is supposed to make the kids have a sense of pride in their country. I don't agree that it's NOT establishing religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 By saying, "one nation under God", it is establishing religion, you take that line out, which BTW, wasn't originally in the pledge, and it's just a nationalist poem that is supposed to make the kids have a sense of pride in their country. I don't agree that it's NOT establishing religion. You may not agree, but that's the ruling of the Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 My feeling is that prayer should be allowed in school, but as prayer groups, not necessarily forced in the classroom. This is partially to respect all parties involved. Folks have to remember that separation of Church and State is partially to protect religion from being infringed upon unjustly by the State. But, as you demonstrated, most adults learn to "skate" through moments which really doesn't suite them, and they deal with it without a fuss. And kids are the same way as well. But I guess there is the realization that, for some folks, having "God" in the Pledge is to demonstrate that this is a Christian nation, and such a demonstration has to be more evident in the classroom, government building, courtroom, etc. And that is where the larger conflict lies, with this issue being a skirmish, especially in the Constitutional nature of the conflict. I would have NO problem with prayer in schools as you have suggested. My problem is that the right thinks we have a national religion and we don't. This country was founded on freedom of religion or the freedom to NOT have a religion. It's hypocritical for the "majority" to expect that everyone else fall in line. Didn't the Pilgrims leave England to escape religious persecution? If you want prayer in school, leave it up to the individual students to use that time as they see fit. Don't have a teacher lead the class in prayer etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 You may not agree, but that's the ruling of the Court. Exactly, I think the judges are nuts for coming to the conclusion that they have come to. Again, I don't feel strongly enough about it to start a lawsuit or anything, but how is that NOT establishing religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Who's "God" does "God" refer, it certainly doesn't say "one nation under the Christian God"... it does not refer to my "god" as I don't believe in one The person who wrote the pledge was a Baptist minister and he purposely left out the word God, but congress had it inserted during the Red scare ''I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 By saying, "one nation under God", it is establishing religion, you take that line out, which BTW, wasn't originally in the pledge, and it's just a nationalist poem that is supposed to make the kids have a sense of pride in their country. I don't agree that it's NOT establishing religion. Yep, the goal was for children to put their allegiance to the federal/central government first before their allegiance to their families and local communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLadyRaven Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 The 4th Cicuit Court of Appeals ruled in August that State Law CAN force a child to cite the pledge.This Judge is ruling on an issue upon which a Federal Court has already decided. For the 4th district sure but too bad that the 9th is not the 4th district. As for Under God wasnt that added in the 1950s to distinguish the US from the Atheist Soviet Union? Now that the Soviet Union is gone why is the phrase still there. Makes me no difference I say it but dont mean it. Its kinda like apologizing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I have always found it amusing how so many conservatives defend the pledge of allegiance.The original author of the pledge was a socialist. Me too lucky, me too. And the original ipledge didn't have the "under God" in it either - that portion was added in my the McCarthy-ites to "identify" the pinkos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I have always found it amusing how so many conservatives defend the pledge of allegiance.The original author of the pledge was a socialist. Which is why some see it as a symbol of Statism. After all, you are swearing allegiance to the "United States of America," which is the federal corporate entity in Washington, D.C. That may sound crazy, but it is true upon further thought, and does smack a little of socialist statism. This article discuss this issue and is an interesting read; it also talks about the roots of the Pledge (and, as someone mentioned, its author was a socialist.): http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4937 A small bit from the article: "Why is it, then, that so many American schoolchildren are required to swear allegiance to the flag and the Republic “for which it stands” rather than the Constitution? Millions of children start each school day with the Pledge of Allegiance: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Wouldn’t we be much safer as a Republic if the children learned to respect the Constitution? If we were to place the flag in the hierarchy above, it would follow the Republic. The flag is a symbol of the Republic. It seems odd to pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic while ignoring both the Declaration and the Constitution. " By itself, its socialist roots does not make it evil, per se (I do not consider myself a socialist, BTW), but we do have to always remember the history of things, and have to be aware of what direction we are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Yep, the goal was for children to put their allegiance to the federal/central government first before their allegiance to their families and local communities. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Also - wasn't there a court case about 20-30 years ago that excluded children of a certain religion (I think the children were Hare Krishnas - sp?) from having to say the pledge because it violated their religious beliefs (swearing allegeance to a flag - rather than God himself)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 "Why is it, then, that so many American schoolchildren are required to swear allegiance to the flag and the Republic “for which it stands” rather than the Constitution? Millions of children start each school day with the Pledge of Allegiance: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Wouldn’t we be much safer as a Republic if the children learned to respect the Constitution? If we were to place the flag in the hierarchy above, it would follow the Republic. The flag is a symbol of the Republic. It seems odd to pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic while ignoring both the Declaration and the Constitution. " Wow, excellent info, that gives me an entirely different perspective on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I have always found it amusing how so many conservatives defend the pledge of allegiance.The original author of the pledge was a socialist.I doubt that most people know Francis Bellamy wrote the original pledge. It seems most people, in my experience anyway, defending the "under god" portion think that is how it was originally worded. Under God was added to the pledge in 1954, I think the Kinghts of Columbus were behind the change but I can't remember for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Here is another article (an opinion piece from Lew Rockwell) that discusses this issue of the Pledge: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy16.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I dont care either way about the Pledge itself, I do, however, care about the fight between those who believe and those who dont believe that "Seperation of Church and State" exists in the Constitution or was MEANT to be enforced by the Founding Fathers. The Pledge is simply a battle-ground for the debate. Why, when and how the words "Under God" were included is inconsequential IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Here is another article (an opinion piece from Lew Rockwell) that discusses this issue of the Pledge:http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy16.html Awesome read, I'd like to hear some views on that from the socialists, er, I mean conservatives.... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I dont care either way about the Pledge itself, I do, however, care about the fight between those who believe and those who dont believe that "Seperation of Church and State" exists in the Constitution or was MEANT to be enforced by the Founding Fathers.The Pledge is simply a battle-ground for the debate. Why, when and how the words "Under God" were included is inconsequential IMO. I agree with you, but why do you think it's OK to have the "under God" portion in the pledge (or to have it be mandatory). Wasn't this country founded due to the belief that we all should be free to have or not have what ever religion we want? And considering the founding fathers didn't write the pledge, nor would agree with it (see links that Bacculus has provided), why is it even necessary, and as a conservative, why do you agree with it when it is clearly socialist material? (no offense intended in any of this, just asking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I agree with you, but why do you think it's OK to have the "under God" portion in the pledge (or to have it be mandatory). Wasn't this country founded due to the belief that we all should be free to have or not have what ever religion we want? And considering the founding fathers didn't write the pledge, nor would agree with it (see links that Bacculus has provided), why is it even necessary, and as a conservative, why do you agree with it when it is clearly socialist material? (no offense intended in any of this, just asking) Because I dont think that saying "under God" establishes religion, much less a specific religion. The Founding Fathers did create Congress, and those same Founding Fathers sat in the Congress (some of them) and created rules. One of which is to open the sessions with a prayer. That as well, does not establish religion. What the Founding Fathers feared was not Religion in the Govt. They feared Govt in Religion. And I guess we could rack this up as another non-conservative stance I keep. File it away with the Death Penalty, Abortion, Drugs...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Because I dont think that saying "under God" establishes religion, much less a specific religion.The Founding Fathers did create Congress, and those same Founding Fathers sat in the Congress (some of them) and created rules. One of which is to open the sessions with a prayer. That as well, does not establish religion. What the Founding Fathers feared was not Religion in the Govt. They feared Govt in Religion. And I guess we could rack this up as another non-conservative stance I keep. File it away with the Death Penalty, Abortion, Drugs...... Of course it establishes religion, what else does "god" represent? I agree that it does not represent a specific religion however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 It references religion, but it does not establish it. Let me explain, even those who think there is a Sepration of Church and State somewhere, they'd have to admit that the Founding Fathers did not want a Govt complete void of all religous images, references, symbols, and words. They feared the Govt taking over a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 It references religion, but it does not establish it. Not following you here, you are pledging allegiance to one nation under god, if that's not establishing a connection to religion, i"m not sure what does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 The 4th Cicuit Court of Appeals ruled in August that State Law CAN force a child to cite the pledge.This Judge is ruling on an issue upon which a Federal Court has already decided. 4th Circuit is not binding on courts outside that circuit. 9th Circuit is binding on courts in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 We have to be aware that, in some ways, the Pledge is the battle between the corporate body of the "United States of America." whch is the federal district in Washington D.C., and the constitutional United (or "united") States of America. One has to really examine this difference to understand why so many actions of that entity, the United States of America, is considered by some to be operating in an unconstitutional manner, and has been for quite some time. For example, the multiple violations of the 10th amendment, the 14th and 16th amendments, etc. This may seem like a strange argument, but one has to read further on the subject to understand what I am stating. Especially in regards to common law vs. the maritime law being used by the United States of America, which is why it is able to exercise its jurisdiction in some cases (and why you see the gold fringed flag in our courtrooms indicating an admiralty Court). This is what James Madison had to say about the subjet: "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, ****ized form of illegitimate government." Just an aside and a tangent. :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVskinsfan Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Interesting topic, I remember saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" in school. But, I don't remember anybody being forced into saying it. How did they force you into saying the "Pledge of Allegiance". Take away your lunch ticket or your recess? :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.