NationStates Jolt Archive

One primary argument against the pledge, is ridicule which a student will incur by a choice they so make [to not recite the pledge as their rights so sitpulate] Because they will be ridiculed as some argue they are hence coerced into reciting something they do not belive.

If students today were to recite the pledge followed by a pray to [their respective] god [as so protected by their freedom to practice religion], they would be met with equal ridicule as they deviate from the norm. Cannot the same argument be said, that by restricting them from reciting the relgious references you create an enviornment in which students are restricted from expressing their freedom to practice religion from equal ridicule?

Interesting is it not.. how similar arguments using the same styles can yeild such different results from the same amendments ?

Students aren't ridiculed for being silent during the pledge, they're ridiculed for saying the pledge. This would most likely happen less if the pledge didn't have the word god in it, as it wouldn't have the same "conservative christian" association.

My daughter's school says the pledge without "under God" in it. I don't care. There are jehova's witnesses at her school who sit out the pledge. I don't really care about that either.
My daughter learned the pledge from us before the whole "under God" thing happened so she memorized it with the "under God" part and still says that part during school. Her teacher had a conference with me about it working from the angle that my daughter "finishes later than the other students and may feel out of place" so being the good mom I am I sat her down and asked her if she was okay with saying the pledge with the "under God" part and she said sure. I told her she didn't have to say it if it embarassed her and she said "I don't want to be embarrassed about God. So I let her do what she wants. Her teacher isn't happy about it, but I don't really care about that either. If my kid wants to say the pledge with the "under God" part I think she should have the right. It's not like she is trying to make everyone else say it.

I wish I could sing my national anthem (British) but our school system doesn’t like patriotism god dammit most of the people I know don't even know it (nor do I :( )

Hmm. Do UK people get upset about singing the word "God" in their anthem?

One primary argument against the pledge, is ridicule which a student will incur by a choice they so make [to not recite the pledge as their rights so sitpulate] Because they will be ridiculed as some argue they are hence coerced into reciting something they do not belive.

If students today were to recite the pledge followed by a pray to [their respective] god [as so protected by their freedom to practice religion], they would be met with equal ridicule as they deviate from the norm. Cannot the same argument be said, that by restricting them from reciting the relgious references you create an enviornment in which students are restricted from expressing their freedom to practice religion from equal ridicule?

Interesting is it not.. how similar arguments using the same styles can yeild such different results from the same amendments ?
I'm not worried about kids being ridiculed. Kids ridicule each other all the time. I'm worried about tax money, public resources and public employees teaching an article of religious faith to students and then having them repeat it at the start of each day. Parents and clergy should teach their kids religion, not the state.

My daughter's school says the pledge without "under God" in it. I don't care. There are jehova's witnesses at her school who sit out the pledge. I don't really care about that either.
My daughter learned the pledge from us before the whole "under God" thing happened so she memorized it with the "under God" part and still says that part during school. Her teacher had a conference with me about it working from the angle that my daughter "finishes later than the other students and may feel out of place" so being the good mom I am I sat her down and asked her if she was okay with saying the pledge with the "under God" part and she said sure. I told her she didn't have to say it if it embarassed her and she said "I don't want to be embarrassed about God. So I let her do what she wants. Her teacher isn't happy about it, but I don't really care about that either. If my kid wants to say the pledge with the "under God" part I think she should have the right. It's not like she is trying to make everyone else say it.and I wish that more parents did this (talking and explaining their rights/choices/views) then go running to their lawyers.

and I wish that more parents did this (talking and explaining their rights/choices/views) then go running to their lawyers.
yeah my inlaws are athiest. I try to explain to them that just because my kids are being raised in a Christian home doesn't mean that I am going to make them be Christians. I figure God gave them free will to choose who am I to try to take it away. I am trying to teach them to stand up for what the believe in and not look down on others that don't agree. (it is really hard though when she goes to my inlaws and they put me down for being a Christain.)

Hmm. Do UK people get upset about singing the word "God" in their anthem?

nope not the slightest but some people would be ticked off if they had to sing it in school because of the words Queen, Victoria gloria and the phrase God save the Queen which kind of says the Queen needs saving

But in all I would like a new anthem because are one is a bit…well crappy

I'm not worried about kids being ridiculed. Kids ridicule each other all the time. I'm worried about tax money, public resources and public employees teaching an article of religious faith to students and then having them repeat it at the start of each day. Parents and clergy should teach their kids religion, not the state.

thats just it though.. education is a state regulated body... Not by the federal government. The Federal government is restricted to pass laws establishing a religion... but state governments are not if their constitutions allow it. And since the term god in its nature is generic to the three major religions it cannot be said it is supporting any single religion, only making reference to religion in general. AND students are under no obligation to recite it at all or may omit those words as their constitutional rights permit. Where is the breach ?

<Generally it is here where the argument that students are being coerced to say the peldge through ridicule is inserted.. and this is where my original argument will then kick in>

I wish I could sing my national anthem (British) but our school system doesn’t like patriotism god dammit most of the people I know don't even know it (nor do I :( )

i wish i could sing mine(irish) in school.but im a shit singer

Hmm. Do UK people get upset about singing the word "God" in their anthem?

We actually have it in Canada as well, cursed Protestantism (not as bad as the french version, GEEZ that thing's bloody) so I just ammend it to "GodS". That fact that I sing it an octave lower makes it even more obvious :D

thats just it though.. education is a state regulated body... Not by the federal government. The Federal government is restricted to pass laws establishing a religion... but state governments are not if their constitutions allow it. And since the term god in its nature is generic to the three major religions it cannot be said it is supporting any single religion, only making reference to religion in general. AND students are under no obligation to recite it at all or may omit those words as their constitutional rights permit. Where is the breach ?

<Generally it is here where the argument that students are being coerced to say the peldge through ridicule is inserted.. and this is where my original argument will then kick in>
They recieve federal funds and are partially regulated by the federal government. Also even if it endorses three religions, it still contradicts others. It's still promoting beleif in certain religions. I just don't think it's government's job to spend tax money to promote religion. Let people invoke god on their own time and with their own resources.

Hmm. Do UK people get upset about singing the word "God" in their anthem?
Not really...people don't generally get that worked up about religion here.

thats just it though.. education is a state regulated body... Not by the federal government. The Federal government is restricted to pass laws establishing a religion... but state governments are not if their constitutions allow it. And since the term god in its nature is generic to the three major religions it cannot be said it is supporting any single religion, only making reference to religion in general. AND students are under no obligation to recite it at all or may omit those words as their constitutional rights permit. Where is the breach ?




This is completely wrong, though I imagine it is an honest mistake.

The 14th amendment incorporated the bill of rights and extended its protections to state government. States may not establish religion over american citizens or prevent the free excercize of religion by american citizens.

They recieve federal funds and are partially regulated by the federal government. Also even if it endorses three religions, it still contradicts others. It's still promoting beleif in certain religions. I just don't think it's government's job to spend tax money to promote religion. Let people invoke god on their own time and with their own resources.

Seeing that there is no requirement to say the pledge in the first place... I fail to see how tax monies are being spent on this. And Constitutionally speaking (how ever regulated federally; which is rather scarce to begin with) Education is primarly a state run institution. Funds from the federal government do not flow into teacher salaries, however you think that breakdown occurs. Federal funds primarly flow into testing requirements... this is why counties like mine pay astronomical education taxes while those in Alabama pay pennies. Unless i see direct corrlation of funds being filtered to Teacher salaries,a nd then an estimate given for the time that extra phrase "under god" in the pledge factors in... I will find it most hard to accept Federal tax monies being spent on this.

And if this is seriously your argument.. then You must also submit by the same logic we should be calling for Federally standarized education systems. Since my federal taxes (as you state) are flowing to individual state education programs, how can you accept the massive gap between lesser education systems in the mid-west/south vs those on the coasts ? Simple truth is, education no matter what monies are flowing there are not the jurisdiction of the federal government

And might I also add standardizations which exist today under programs like "No Child Left behind" are optional simply because of this reality... Education is a State Affair... not the Federal governments.

Hmm. Do UK people get upset about singing the word "God" in their anthem?


A more important question would be "Does the UK have a constitution which forbids the establishment of religion or the abridgement of its free excercize?"

A more important question would be "Does the UK have a constitution which forbids the establishment of religion or the abridgement of its free excercize?"

Seeing how there is a protestant church of england.. ill go with no

Seeing that there is no requirement to say the pledge in the first place... I fail to see how tax monies are being spent on this. And Constitutionally speaking (how ever regulated federally; which is rather scarce to begin with) Education is primarly a state run institution. Funds from the federal government do not flow into teacher salaries, however you think that breakdown occurs. Federal funds primarly flow into testing requirements... this is why counties like mine pay astronomical education taxes while those in Alabama pay pennies. Unless i see direct corrlation of funds being filtered to Teacher salaries,a nd then an estimate given for the time that extra phrase "under god" in the pledge factors in... I will find it most hard to accept Federal tax monies being spent on this.


Note again that the federal/state dichotomy is false in this case, as per the US Constitution's 14th amendment.

Also, it has been ruled that school is 'inherantly coercive' for children, and the same lines of reasoning which struck down school-led prayer most likely apply to school-led affirmation-of-god.

In the eyes of the law, there is no difference between the pledge saying "under god" and "there is no god." In both cases, the coercive environment abridges the right to free exercize of schoolchildren.

Note again that the federal/state dichotomy is false in this case, as per the US Constitution's 14th amendment.

Also, it has been ruled that school is 'inherantly coercive' for children, and the same lines of reasoning which struck down school-led prayer most likely apply to school-led affirmation-of-god.

In the eyes of the law, there is no difference between the pledge saying "under god" and "there is no god." In both cases, the coercive environment abridges the right to free exercize of schoolchildren.

This is again where my orginal argument will take place. By identifiying this and specifically prohibiting its practice you are coercivly restricting children their constituaional right to practice religion...

And might I add your speculation on what the Supreme courts decision on this might be is just that ... speculation. Many of the Justices have already expressed strong feelings that this particular instance is NOT a violation of the first amendment.. and now with the realignment of the court, we can only further expect this to be concrete. Until the Supreme court rules, it is (with the exception of California) perfectly legal for schools to continue to practice this

One primary argument against the pledge, is ridicule which a student will incur by a choice they so make [to not recite the pledge as their rights so sitpulate] Because they will be ridiculed as some argue they are hence coerced into reciting something they do not belive.

If students today were to recite the pledge followed by a pray to [their respective] god [as so protected by their freedom to practice religion], they would be met with equal ridicule as they deviate from the norm. Cannot the same argument be said, that by restricting them from reciting the relgious references you create an enviornment in which students are restricted from expressing their freedom to practice religion from equal ridicule?

Interesting is it not.. how similar arguments using the same styles can yeild such different results from the same amendments ?

Your premise is faulty. That is not a primary argument against "under God" in the Pledge.

And SCOTUS already held 60 or so years ago the the Pledge cannot be mandatory.

I've explained this to you before.

Seeing that there is no requirement to say the pledge in the first place... I fail to see how tax monies are being spent on this. And Constitutionally speaking (how ever regulated federally; which is rather scarce to begin with) Education is primarly a state run institution. Funds from the federal government do not flow into teacher salaries, however you think that breakdown occurs. Federal funds primarly flow into testing requirements... this is why counties like mine pay astronomical education taxes while those in Alabama pay pennies. Unless i see direct corrlation of funds being filtered to Teacher salaries,a nd then an estimate given for the time that extra phrase "under god" in the pledge factors in... I will find it most hard to accept Federal tax monies being spent on this.

And if this is seriously your argument.. then You must also submit by the same logic we should be calling for Federally standarized education systems. Since my federal taxes (as you state) are flowing to individual state education programs, how can you accept the massive gap between lesser education systems in the mid-west/south vs those on the coasts ? Simple truth is, education no matter what monies are flowing there are not the jurisdiction of the federal government

And might I also add standardizations which exist today under programs like "No Child Left behind" are optional simply because of this reality... Education is a State Affair... not the Federal governments.
Well, the student's are taught the pledge in school, right? The school is publicly funded. The teacher who teaches the pledge is being paid while teaching it. And yes, I would be in favor of a federally standardized educational system for a number of reasons. In part because text book manufacturers water down their coverage of evolution and therefore biology because they don't want to offend the bible belt states and lose out on that money, so science gets left out of science books for all students.

Your premise is faulty. That is not a primary argument against "under God" in the Pledge.

And SCOTUS already held 60 or so years ago the the Pledge cannot be mandatory.

I've explained this to you before.


No where did I state it was mandatory, So your second postion is irrelevant. We are talking about the forces of coersion in one case children being "FORCED" in a way to say it (simply through pressure) where as in the other they are being "FORCED" to deny it (Again through those same pressures)

Well, the student's are taught the pledge in school, right? The school is publicly funded. The teacher who teaches the pledge is being paid while teaching it. And yes, I would be in favor of a federally standardized educational system for a number of reasons. In part because text book manufacturers water down their coverage of evolution and therefore biology because they don't want to offend the bible belt states and lose out on that money, so science gets left out of science books for all students.

Yes schools are publically funded through the state. Teachers do not receive their funds through FEDERAL taxes but through state taxes which are allocated specifically for education. That is why there are school districts.. you live within a district and the education taxes you pay there are allocated to that schools funding. This is why Rich districts have more money to spend on schools then poor ones.

So there is no link to Federal funds going to School teacher wages, and so your FEDERAL taxes are not being spent on this. It is at the States discression on this practice (providing their state constitution permits it)

Seeing that there is no requirement to say the pledge in the first place... I fail to see how tax monies are being spent on this. And Constitutionally speaking (how ever regulated federally; which is rather scarce to begin with) Education is primarly a state run institution. Funds from the federal government do not flow into teacher salaries, however you think that breakdown occurs. Federal funds primarly flow into testing requirements... this is why counties like mine pay astronomical education taxes while those in Alabama pay pennies. Unless i see direct corrlation of funds being filtered to Teacher salaries,a nd then an estimate given for the time that extra phrase "under god" in the pledge factors in... I will find it most hard to accept Federal tax monies being spent on this.

And if this is seriously your argument.. then You must also submit by the same logic we should be calling for Federally standarized education systems. Since my federal taxes (as you state) are flowing to individual state education programs, how can you accept the massive gap between lesser education systems in the mid-west/south vs those on the coasts ? Simple truth is, education no matter what monies are flowing there are not the jurisdiction of the federal government

And might I also add standardizations which exist today under programs like "No Child Left behind" are optional simply because of this reality... Education is a State Affair... not the Federal governments.

Please, please, please get over this false federal/state dichotomy.

I've explained to you that under the 14th Amendment the ban on establishment of religion and guarantee of free exercise of religion applies equally to state and local governments.

You can read about the doctrine of incorporation under the 14th Amendment here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)), here (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm), or here (http://nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23) (NRA).

Note, if it were not for incorporation and your theory was right, a state or local government could ban free speech or newspapers.

Please, please, please get over this false federal/state dichotomy.

I've explained to you that under the 14th Amendment the ban on establishment of religion and guarantee of free exercise of religion applies equally to state and local governments.

You can read about the doctrine of incorporation under the 14th Amendment here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)), here (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm), or here (http://nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23) (NRA).

Note, if it were not for incorporation and your theory was right, a state or local government could ban free speech or newspapers.

Very well.. this may answer one question that I had (something im sure i knew at one point but simply forgot with my poor memory)

So let us move to stage two of the debate shall we. Being that there is no requirement to recite the pledge. Given this, can we say the federal government is impeding the first amendment.... and if you use the argument of coersion.. how then do you deal with the reality that by similarly restricting the words undergod will then have a similar reverse effect on those who actually belive in those words... in that they will be coerced from their freedom to freedom of religion and speech ?

This then becomes an issue of status quoe.. and being a concervative myself.. I feel it more important to maintain the status quoe absent undeniable evidence of coersion or other wanted results... of which are strikingly absent here

Yes schools are publically funded through the state. Teachers do not receive their funds through FEDERAL taxes but through state taxes which are allocated specifically for education. That is why there are school districts.. you live within a district and the education taxes you pay there are allocated to that schools funding. This is why Rich districts have more money to spend on schools then poor ones.

So there is no link to Federal funds going to School teacher wages, and so your FEDERAL taxes are not being spent on this. It is at the States discression on this practice (providing their state constitution permits it)


Why do you keep saying this? It is completely irrelevent to the discussion. There is NO DIFFERENCE, in first amendment terms, between a state government and a federal government funding a school.

You may as well keep repeating "there are 50 states! therefore we cannot ban the pledge! there are 50 states! therefore we cannot ban the pledge! There are 50 states! therefore we cannot ban the pledge!"

I wish I could sing my national anthem (British) but our school system doesn’t like patriotism god dammit most of the people I know don't even know it (nor do I :( )

First verse, which is all that is normally sung, is as follows.

God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and Glorious,
Long to reign over us;
God save the Queen!

The rest of the verses are on it's way in a TG.

nope not the slightest but some people would be ticked off if they had to sing it in school because of the words Queen, Victoria gloria and the phrase God save the Queen which kind of says the Queen needs saving

But in all I would like a new anthem because are one is a bit…well crappy

As you can see from above the words are victorious and glorious. *grins*
Now I have no particular thoughts on whether or not it should be sung in schools or not.

I personally would not, though like I do with prayers on those occasions when people around me have cause to say them (weddings, funerals, etc.), I will stand with them and show respect for others feelings.

We used to have to sing it every morning at the begining of assembly and with the Lords prayer at the end, when I was at school, but that was a loooooooonnnnnnngggggg time ago.
So even though I use niether, I know them off by heart.

I do find it sad though that someone can truthfuly say that they don't know their national anthem, whether they agree with it or not.

After all, how can you make an informed decision about whether or not you want to do something if you don't know what it is in the first place?

Why do you keep saying this? It is completely irrelevent to the discussion. There is NO DIFFERENCE, in first amendment terms, between a state government and a federal government funding a school.

You may as well keep repeating "there are 50 states! therefore we cannot ban the pledge! there are 50 states! therefore we cannot ban the pledge! There are 50 states! therefore we cannot ban the pledge!"

and if you read my last response.. you will have realized ive already accepted that position.. thankyou!

Yes schools are publically funded through the state. Teachers do not receive their funds through FEDERAL taxes but through state taxes which are allocated specifically for education. That is why there are school districts.. you live within a district and the education taxes you pay there are allocated to that schools funding. This is why Rich districts have more money to spend on schools then poor ones.

So there is no link to Federal funds going to School teacher wages, and so your FEDERAL taxes are not being spent on this. It is at the States discression on this practice (providing their state constitution permits it)
Even if it's legal I'm against it. I don't think government should have any role in promoting or discouraging religion.

No where did I state it was mandatory, So your second postion is irrelevant. We are talking about the forces of coersion in one case children being "FORCED" in a way to say it (simply through pressure) where as in the other they are being "FORCED" to deny it (Again through those same pressures)

But you forget about the federal law that defines the official Pledge -- and the 1954 amendment which added "under God" -- and the state and local policies mandating that classes be led in the Pledge.

The issue isn't the Pledge itself -- it is the federally legislated language of "under God."

So your whole argument vanishes into thin air.

Even if it's legal I'm against it. I don't think government should have any role in promoting or discouraging religion.

Give what we have now today as the status quoe however, a change which would remove the term "under god" would act in the same manner as having it in the first place (as these people are stating) in that it will act as a coercive tool to impede the students right to freedom of religion and speech... So in an effort to acheive what some claim in an equal state... we in fact only serve to create an imblanace on the oppoiste spectrum. Until evidence is given showing the magintude of the coersion today... I see little argument to change from the status quoe

Give what we have now today as the status quoe however, a change which would remove the term "under god" would act in the same manner as having it in the first place (as these people are stating) in that it will act as a coercive tool to impede the students right to freedom of religion and speech... So in an effort to acheive what some claim in an equal state... we in fact only serve to create an imblanace on the oppoiste spectrum. Until evidence is given showing the magintude of the coersion today... I see little argument to change from the status quoe
That's simply not true. Students can always pray, read their scriptures, whatever. They just can't rely on the state to promote their point of view.

But you forget about the federal law that defines the official Pledge -- and the 1954 amendment which added "under God" -- and the state and local policies mandating that classes be led in the Pledge.

The issue isn't the Pledge itself -- it is the federally legislated language of "under God."

So your whole argument vanishes into thin air.

That's simply not true. Students can always pray, read their scriptures, whatever. They just can't rely on the state to promote their point of view.


You are assuming the term under god is in place to promote and establish a religion though... specifically for the nation. "Under god" in this case acts only as a testimant to our cultural heritage, much as "in god we trust" acts as in our currency or, "may god save this court" in the opening of the supreme court. So it is not nessearly the language at hand.. but rather the rights that are being infringed upon because of those words... And as I am aruging, whether you keep the words or removing them.... one side will be able to argue infringment on their rights. Given the status Qoue... until some measurable level of that infringment can be made no change should be brought about

That's simply not true. Students can always pray, read their scriptures, whatever. They just can't rely on the state to promote their point of view.

Given that I dont see this statement as the state promoting their views any more then the words the the Supreme court recites at the beginin of every session is promoting a specific religion or point of view... its not a matter of the words themselves.. but how people recieve those words... how it is impact them and their abililty to exercise their rights

One primary argument against the pledge, is ridicule which a student will incur by a choice...

And that was as good as it got....

The whole point is - it has NOTHING to do with ridicule, and a whole lot to do with: A) an educational establishment, and B) peer-group pressure.

The difference between these words "under god" and past court cases which focused on prayer in class rooms differ in that prayer is a specific religious act and can be taken as nothing else, while these words can and are taken as a testiment to our heritage and culture. Otherwise I suspect there would be other cases againts our currency, against the 10 commandments being on the supreme court building, or their opening recitation... against the swearing on a bible in general court etc..

And that was as good as it got....

The whole point is - it has NOTHING to do with ridicule, and a whole lot to do with: A) an educational establishment, and B) peer-group pressure.

im sorry... how do you seperate peer-group pressure and ridicule ? ... my whole point is.. peer group pressure will run both ways. If you remove the term children will be pressured into not saying those words, and so their right to religious freedom and the practice there forth and freedom of speech will be abridged.

and it is not an educational establishment any more then our whole legal system is established on religion simply because the Supreme court at the beginning of every session says "May God Save this Court"

Where is the difference ?

Give what we have now today as the status quoe however, a change which would remove the term "under god" would act in the same manner as having it in the first place (as these people are stating) in that it will act as a coercive tool to impede the students right to freedom of religion and speech...
How does not mentioning religion or lack thereof at all in the pledge impede freedom?

thats just it though.. education is a state regulated body... Not by the federal government. The Federal government is restricted to pass laws establishing a religion... but state governments are not if their constitutions allow it. And since the term god in its nature is generic to the three major religions it cannot be said it is supporting any single religion, only making reference to religion in general. AND students are under no obligation to recite it at all or may omit those words as their constitutional rights permit. Where is the breach ?

<Generally it is here where the argument that students are being coerced to say the peldge through ridicule is inserted.. and this is where my original argument will then kick in>

Ahem... fourteenth amendment. The first amendment applies to all governments in the US.

im sorry... how do you seperate peer-group pressure and ridicule ? ... my whole point is.. peer group pressure will run both ways. If you remove the term children will be pressured into not saying those words, and so their right to religious freedom and the practice there forth and freedom of speech will be abridged.

Peer-pressure doesn't have to have anything to do with ridicule.

The simple fact that, for example, every child around your son/daughter is 'praying' may be enough to convince your child to pray. Nothing to do with mockery... but hardly fair to the one being coerced.

Schools are a special exemption to 'freedom of speech'... since they are an educational establishment. DO you allow Hitler rallies on school-property? No - because children are too impressionable, and you don't bias their education... especially since they are being taught that it is good to 'learn at school'. That kind of queers the pitch as to how they can determine what is valid, or not.

This is again where my orginal argument will take place. By identifiying this and specifically prohibiting its practice you are coercivly restricting children their constituaional right to practice religion...

And might I add your speculation on what the Supreme courts decision on this might be is just that ... speculation. Many of the Justices have already expressed strong feelings that this particular instance is NOT a violation of the first amendment.. and now with the realignment of the court, we can only further expect this to be concrete. Until the Supreme court rules, it is (with the exception of California) perfectly legal for schools to continue to practice this

You don't have a Constitutional right to practice your religion whenever and whereever you like. A child can't stand up in the middle of the teacher teaching and recite the Lord's prayer. The first amendment does not protect their right to do so. It only protects their right to excercise their religious practices on their time or unobtrusively. Do I have right to scream the Lord's prayer in the street when screaming anything else would be disturbing the peace?

In the case of the pledge or praying out loud in class, allowing such activities is subjecting other children to the religious practices of others and thus violating the rights of the children not participating. Your rights end where mine begin. Children in school are not in a position to remove themselves from the situation if they do not want to participate in your relgious practices, nor should they have to, and thus you are violating their rights.

How does not mentioning religion or lack thereof at all in the pledge impede freedom?

because todays status quoe is the use of these words. By not mentioning it.. those students wishing to use the words will be pressured out of using them from faculity and peer pressure. Hence, thier right to practice religion freely and free speech is hindered

You are assuming the term under god is in place to promote and establish a religion though... specifically for the nation. "Under god" in this case acts only as a testimant to our cultural heritage, much as "in god we trust" acts as in our currency or, "may god save this court" in the opening of the supreme court. So it is not nessearly the language at hand.. but rather the rights that are being infringed upon because of those words... And as I am aruging, whether you keep the words or removing them.... one side will be able to argue infringment on their rights. Given the status Qoue... until some measurable level of that infringment can be made no change should be brought about
No, it was specifically added to encourage religion in order to counter atheist communism.

because todays status quoe is the use of these words. By not mentioning it.. those students wishing to use the words will be pressured out of using them from faculity and peer pressure. Hence, thier right to practice religion freely and free speech is hindered
*is confused*
Wait, I thought the point of your thread was that the ridicule argument doesn't make sense because it could support any side?

The difference between these words "under god" and past court cases which focused on prayer in class rooms differ in that prayer is a specific religious act and can be taken as nothing else, while these words can and are taken as a testiment to our heritage and culture. Otherwise I suspect there would be other cases againts our currency, against the 10 commandments being on the supreme court building, or their opening recitation... against the swearing on a bible in general court etc..

Can you do me a favor and educate yourself on the subject before trying to argue about it? You don't appear to be familiar with the ACTUAL text fo the first amendment, the fourteenth amendment, the lemon test (which is the standard by which first amendment breeches are measured) or a lot of other issues relating to this issue and because of it you are making arguments that don't make any sense when held up to the US Constitution or current law.

The 'under God' part was not put there to reference our heritage. It was to point out that our 'Christian' nation was a direct opposite to the dreadful commie atheists. It was put in as an intentional and repeated reminder of the existence of God. Trying to change what it means doesn't change that the entire purpose of putting God on our money and in the pledge was to remind people that God exists. Taking it out of the pledge doesn't suggest God doesn't exist or support atheism. Taking it out of the pledge will only take state sponsored religious training out of our school systems.

You don't have a Constitutional right to practice your religion whenever and whereever you like. A child can't stand up in the middle of the teacher teaching and recite the Lord's prayer. The first amendment does not protect their right to do so. It only protects their right to excercise their religious practices on their time or unobtrusively. Do I have right to scream the Lord's prayer in the street when screaming anything else would be disturbing the peace?

And this is quite incorrect.. in fact the constitution only ensures our religious freedom.. and does not inherently restrict it. Much like Freedom of speech, you can well say what you want when you want so long as it does not create a dangerous enviornment (like shouting fire in a crowded theater). But many libertarians would argue this right is almost unrestricted... so you may well pray in class at any time if you so choose

In the case of the pledge or praying out loud in class, allowing such activities is subjecting other children to the religious practices of others and thus violating the rights of the children not participating. Your rights end where mine begin. Children in school are not in a position to remove themselves from the situation if they do not want to participate in your relgious practices, nor should they have to, and thus you are violating their rights.

Incorrect, since there is no obligation to receite the peldge at all.. there is no direct subjecgation on children which would violate their rights. And if you bring in the issue of coersion or peer pressure.. the road runs both ways.

Can you do me a favor and educate yourself on the subject before trying to argue about it? You don't appear to be familiar with the ACTUAL text fo the first amendment, the fourteenth amendment, the lemon test (which is the standard by which first amendment breeches are measured) or a lot of other issues relating to this issue and because of it you are making arguments that don't make any sense when held up to the US Constitution or current law.

The 'under God' part was not put there to reference our heritage. It was to point out that our 'Christian' nation was a direct opposite to the dreadful commie atheists. It was put in as an intentional and repeated reminder of the existence of God. Trying to change what it means doesn't change that the entire purpose of putting God on our money and in the pledge was to remind people that God exists. Taking it out of the pledge doesn't suggest God doesn't exist or support atheism. Taking it out of the pledge will only take state sponsored religious training out of our school systems.

Thank you... im quite educated on this subject already and dont need you to lecture me on the blatent history... SO, why dont you explain to me the difference between the Supreme courts opening recitation as opposed to Under god in the pledge ? or in god we trust in our currency ? How does one establish religion more then another.

While its ORGINAL INTENT was to differentiate us from the Communists, it also serves today as a testimant to our heritage.. we obviously dont say it to continue to differentiate ourselves from the Soviet Union.. DO WE!

And this is quite incorrect.. in fact the constitution only ensures our religious freedom.. and does not inherently restrict it. Much like Freedom of speech, you can well say what you want when you want so long as it does not create a dangerous enviornment (like shouting fire in a crowded theater). But many libertarians would argue this right is almost unrestricted... so you may well pray in class at any time if you so choose


You CAN pray in class at any time... so long as it is not disrupting to other pupils.


Incorrect, since there is no obligation to receite the peldge at all.. there is no direct subjecgation on children which would violate their rights. And if you bring in the issue of coersion or peer pressure.. the road runs both ways.

Actually - there often is obligation to pledge.... whether it is the simple commenecement of the pledge, or the encouragment of the faculty.

There is cetrtainly the pressure of the classmates.

The road runs both ways how? The religious DO have the right to pray, the patriotic have the right to pledge. SHOULD they be allowed to do so OVER the wishes of their differently-religioned, or non-religioned comrades? Should one faith or political view be allowed to dominate?

The atheist has the right to sit quietly not believing in god, the christian has the right to sit quietly believing in god. Seems equitable enough.

And this is quite incorrect.. in fact the constitution only ensures our religious freedom.. and does not inherently restrict it. Much like Freedom of speech, you can well say what you want when you want so long as it does not create a dangerous enviornment (like shouting fire in a crowded theater). But many libertarians would argue this right is almost unrestricted... so you may well pray in class at any time if you so choose



Incorrect, since there is no obligation to receite the peldge at all.. there is no direct subjecgation on children which would violate their rights. And if you bring in the issue of coersion or peer pressure.. the road runs both ways.

No, but there is an obligation to remain in the room. You may not force me to sit and to listen to you tell me there is a God if I'm a buddhist. You have no such right. It has nothing with me being forced to say it, it has to do with me being forced to hear it. You will not be given time in class to force your religion upon me. For me, I follow the Bible so I don't believe in saying prayers or invoking God out loud or in public. So you can say 'under God' or 'In God We Trust' to me all you like so long as I can scream 'Jesus says you're a hypocrite' every time you do. Now do you see the inherent problem with allowing you to drag religion into the classroom? You're free practice of religion is not inhibited by being asked to keep your interaction with your god inside your head or outside of the classroom.

I can't wait to teach this to my children.

"I pledge my allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, Jesus says people who say under God are hypocrites and are not going to heaven, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

No, but there is an obligation to remain in the room. You may not force me to sit and to listen to you tell me there is a God if I'm a buddhist. You have no such right. It has nothing with me being forced to say it, it has to do with me being forced to hear it. You will not be given time in class to force your religion upon me. For me, I follow the Bible so I don't believe in saying prayers or invoking God out loud or in public. So you can say 'under God' or 'In God We Trust' to me all you like so long as I can scream 'Jesus says you're a hypocrite' every time you do. Now do you see the inherent problem with allowing you to drag religion into the classroom? You're free practice of religion is not inhibited by being asked to keep your interaction with your god inside your head or outside of the classroom.

incorrect again... actually you are fully entitled to leave the room as some kids choose to do due to religious belifs... so again... your position is moot so to speak

Thank you... im quite educated on this subject already and dont need you to lecture me on the blatent history... SO, why dont you explain to me the difference between the Supreme courts opening recitation as opposed to Under god in the pledge ? or in god we trust in our currency ? How does one establish religion more then another.

While its ORGINAL INTENT was to differentiate us from the Communists, it also serves today as a testimant to our heritage.. we obviously dont say it to continue to differentiate ourselves from the Soviet Union.. DO WE!

Amusing. You seem to be trying to redefine the historicity of 'in god we trust'... arguing, effectively, that modern ignorance is somehow equal to a history of heritage....

How about, Teachers stop indoctrinating children in effort to mold them in to fanatical, homosexual, atheistic, communist fundamentalists and recite the damned pledge?

If they do not believe in God, then it should just be words to them. What are they, afraid that whatever they do worship will strike them down for taking God’s name in vane?

How about, Teachers stop indoctrinating children in effort to mold them in to fanatical, homosexual, atheistic, communist fundamentalists and recite the damned pledge?

If they do not believe in God, then it should just be words to them. What are they, afraid that whatever they do worship will strike them down for taking God’s name in vane?
You have these wonderful things called the First Amendment and seperation of church and state, look into them.

You CAN pray in class at any time... so long as it is not disrupting to other pupils.



Actually - there often is obligation to pledge.... whether it is the simple commenecement of the pledge, or the encouragment of the faculty.

There is cetrtainly the pressure of the classmates.

The road runs both ways how? The religious DO have the right to pray, the patriotic have the right to pledge. SHOULD they be allowed to do so OVER the wishes of their differently-religioned, or non-religioned comrades? Should one faith or political view be allowed to dominate?

The atheist has the right to sit quietly not believing in god, the christian has the right to sit quietly believing in god. Seems equitable enough.

No.. they should not have the preference over another.. which is why those students not wanting to partake have the right to either omit words they dont agree with.. not say the pledge at all.. or leave the room. Just as kids who dont belive in evolution may leave the class so long as their faimly suppliments the class with some other form of education which better fits their belifs.

And the road will run both ways if the phrase is removed as the status qou will be broken.. those students beliving in the words will be subject to the same peer pressures as those students not wanting to participate while the words are there... if it is an offense in one case.. so it becomes an offense in the other.

And the road will run both ways if the phrase is removed as the status qou will be broken..
Look, it doesn't matter one iota about 'breaking the status quo' if the status quo is unconstitutional.

Thank you... im quite educated on this subject already and dont need you to lecture me on the blatent history... SO, why dont you explain to me the difference between the Supreme courts opening recitation as opposed to Under god in the pledge ? or in god we trust in our currency ? How does one establish religion more then another.

There is no difference and those practices violate the clause as well. They should be abolished. Where did you see me or anyone else defending those practices. Burn, strawman, burn!

And if you are so educated on this subject then why didn't you know the fourteenth amendment applies the first amendment (and all other rights) to the states? Selective memory? Would you care to explain what the Lemon test is?

While its ORGINAL INTENT was to differentiate us from the Communists, it also serves today as a testimant to our heritage.. we obviously dont say it to continue to differentiate ourselves from the Soviet Union.. DO WE!

The intent is the same as it always was. It was to remind people that God exists and to unite the people of the United States against that God. That intent is counter to the first amendment and to pretend it isn't is simply closing your eyes to the truth.

Slavery is in our heritage as well. Maybe it would be okay if the pledge said, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for with it stands, one nation that thinks them negros aren't people, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." I mean, hey, it's just a testament to our heritage, after all, right?

Amusing. You seem to be trying to redefine the historicity of 'in god we trust'... arguing, effectively, that modern ignorance is somehow equal to a history of heritage....

modern ignorance ? ... ignorance is not seeing the relationship of religion to our heritage... seeing how the nation was founded by religious individuals seeking religious freedoms.

How about, Teachers stop indoctrinating children in effort to mold them in to fanatical, homosexual, atheistic, communist fundamentalists and recite the damned pledge?

If they do not believe in God, then it should just be words to them. What are they, afraid that whatever they do worship will strike them down for taking God’s name in vane?

And, how about Christians being forced to pledge their souls to Satan.... just words, right?

How about Right Wing fanatics stop trying to impose their homophobic, atheist-phobic, progress-phobic insular world-view on others?

incorrect again... actually you are fully entitled to leave the room as some kids choose to do due to religious belifs... so again... your position is moot so to speak

Incorrect. You can't require me to leave a classroom so you can practice your religion. That's obviously in violation of the free excercise of religion clause. My religion requires me to pray privately and to invoke God in the way the pledge does. To watch other people do it is like forcing me to watch other people sacrifice chickens.

Is this issue really that important? Look at it like this: the children who say the Pledge don't really understand what it means. They just know that they say it. I know I never paid attention to the words of the pledge when I was still young enough to be influenced by it. It's recited by rote, with very little comprehension. By the time kids are old enough to understand what the Pledge says and, therefore, either support or take issue with it, they're already of an age where they have their own beliefs through other sources (parents, church, TV, etc.). Those of you arguing for the Status Quo: would taking "under God" out make you question your own beliefs? I don't think so. Those of you that are atheists and against it (I realize that you don't have to be an atheist to be against it, but I'm illustrating a particular group): does keeping "under God" make you believe that there is a God? Even more doubtful than for the other side. The people that normally get REALLY upset with this (not all, but many) are the parents who go crazy over the little things. No matter what happens, do you really think it will affect the children's lives that much?

modern ignorance ? ... ignorance is not seeing the relationship of religion to our heritage... seeing how the nation was founded by religious individuals seeking religious freedoms.
So you should celebrate those people seeking religious freedoms by trampling on the religious freedoms they wanted to secure?

modern ignorance ? ... ignorance is not seeing the relationship of religion to our heritage... seeing how the nation was founded by religious individuals seeking religious freedoms.

But, of course... the religious freedoms that the founders sought, are actually undone in the continuation of this Christian holy-war. It's freedom FROM exactly this kind of thing, that the original pilgrims were seeking.

I wish I could sing my national anthem (British) but our school system doesn’t like patriotism god dammit most of the people I know don't even know it (nor do I :( )

Sing "Rule Britannia" instead.

The intent is the same as it always was. It was to remind people that God exists and to unite the people of the United States against that God. That intent is counter to the first amendment and to pretend it isn't is simply closing your eyes to the truth.

Slavery is in our heritage as well. Maybe it would be okay if the pledge said, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for with it stands, one nation that thinks them negros aren't people, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." I mean, hey, it's just a testament to our heritage, after all, right?

Heritage then means so little ? our nation was born in the ideas of freedom and personal liberties.... since our history, culture, and heritage mean so little.. why not chuck it all out the window. Republicans are in control of everything anyway... I say we dispense with the pleasentries and the PC which liberals so demand... and reform the nation as we see fit. Thats if heritage, history and culture mean so little to you

modern ignorance ? ... ignorance is not seeing the relationship of religion to our heritage... seeing how the nation was founded by religious individuals seeking religious freedoms.

HA!

I say we take up the position of protecting our 'heritage' and the 'status quo'.

SCOTUS: Sorry, we found the laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional, but who are we to buck our heritage and the status quo. So get away from that white girl, negro!

SCOTUS: I'm sorry, we found seperate but equal institutions to unconstitutional, but who are we to buck our heritage and the status quo. So you can't go to a school that actually educates you, negro.

Our 'heritage' is that of a country that mistreated women, 'black' people, 'brown' people, 'red' people, 'yellow' people, atheists, jews, certain types of protestants, the Irish, the Polish, and pretty much everyone who didn't have money. Our heritage of intolerance is not an argument for intolerance no matter how badly you want it to be. Violating the constitution is not excused by the status quo or our heritage. Find me one case where violations of the constitution were okayed by the argument of status quo or our heritage.

Keep spinning. It's a state institution and it's not required haven't worked. Your lies about it's just added to represent our heritage haven't worked. What made up reason are you going to try next? See there is littel thing that rational people do when they have reasons for believing something and find out the error in their reasoning. It's called changing your mind. When you receive evidence that you are in error and you trudge onward anyway, what do we call that?

Hmm. Do UK people get upset about singing the word "God" in their anthem?

Personally, i don't favour anthems, and don't give a toss whether god is in it or not as they don't mean much to me one way or t'other.

HOWEVER...i would feel rather aggressively against any child of mine being made to invite protection from a god (whom i don't believe in and they may not) for our monarch (whom i don't recognise, and they may not).

It's the whole issue of being a subject rather than a citizen that rankles more than the mythical - or not, take your pick - god figure, in my eyes.

Heritage then means so little ? our nation was born in the ideas of freedom and personal liberties.... since our history, culture, and heritage mean so little.. why not chuck it all out the window. Republicans are in control of everything anyway... I say we dispense with the pleasentries and the PC which liberals so demand... and reform the nation as we see fit. Thats if heritage, history and culture mean so little to you

Heritage doesn't mean a damn thing to me. It's an embarassing heritage. The US Constitution that means something to me. That is what protects our freedom and our personal liberties. And the only one trying to violate them is you, with your arguments of heritage.

If you're arguing that heritage trumps the US Constitution why can't you just go out and purchase you 'a fine negro'? Maybe because if heritage and the US Constitution conflict, the Constitution wins. Seriously, is the best argument you can come up with? That if I don't like parts of our heritage that I don't like America? It's a little sorry. Are you even trying?

But, of course... the religious freedoms that the founders sought, are actually undone in the continuation of this Christian holy-war. It's freedom FROM exactly this kind of thing, that the original pilgrims were seeking.

Seriously, is the weakest argument we've ever heard for keeping 'under God' in the pledge or is it just me? You could make the same argument against almost every liberty we've fought for and secured over the history of our nation. If we have any heritage we should be trumpeting it should be that.

It's the whole issue of being a subject rather than a citizen that rankles more than the mythical - or not, take your pick - god figure, in my eyes.
I'm not sure why so many people have the idea that British people are subjects and not citizens, when in reality the vast, vast majority of British people are citizens under the 1981 British Nationality Act.

I'm not sure why so many people have the idea that British people are subjects and not citizens, when in reality the vast, vast majority of British people are citizens under the 1981 British Nationality Act.

I was referring to the anthem, not our legal status. Our anthem celebrates those above, not us. "Long to reign over us" etc. It's a celebration of our past role as subjects.

I was referring to the anthem, not our legal status. Our anthem celebrates those above, not us. "Long to reign over us" etc. It's a celebration of our past role as subjects.
Ah, OK. Well, the anthems shite anyway.

Ah, OK. Well, the anthems shite anyway.

Well, i can't think of one aside from the Marsellaise that isn't, tbh.

Well, i can't think of one aside from the Marsellaise that isn't, tbh.
The Italian one's pretty cool.

The Italian one's pretty cool.

Well, i quite like the welsh one, sounds pretty damn good sung by 72,000 lusty throats in the Millennium Stadium, as we romp to victory in the Six Nations...

Don't understand a word of it though, so it could be fascist nonsense, so i'll pretend i don't.