NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Americans know this quite well. First, a little history lesson.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular children's magazine Youth's Companion by socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on September 7, 1892. The owners of Youth's Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign. It was marketed as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas and was first published on the following day.

Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It was seen by some Brightonians as a call for national unity and wholeness after the divisive Civil War. Bellamy had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided they were too controversial since many people still opposed equal rights for women and African Americans.

After a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison, the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892 during Columbus Day observances. The form adopted inserted the word "to" before "the Republic", a minor matter of grammar.

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference called for the words my Flag to be changed to the Flag of the United States of America. The reason given was to ensure that immigrants knew to which flag reference was being made. The United States Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on June 22, 1942.

So far so good, right? The Pledge, as it is intended, is a way of giving one's allegiance to the United States. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is this:

Though the Knights of Columbus tried, they were unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the United States government to amend the pledge. It was a Presbyterian minister who made the difference by preaching a sermon about the words Lincoln uttered in central Pennsylvania in 1863. The minister was George MacPherson Docherty, a native of Scotland who was called to succeed Peter Marshall as pastor of the church where, in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln attended and even rented a pew. The church was the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church located just a couple of blocks from the White House. After Lincoln’s death, the pew that he rented became somewhat of a national monument. In honor of this holy site, it became customary for later United States presidents to attend the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church and sit in the Lincoln pew on the Sunday closest to Lincoln’s birthday (February 12th) each year.

When Lincoln Sunday approached in February 1954, Rev. Docherty was fully aware that President Eisenhower was to be in attendance. But attendance at a Presbyterian church was more than just an annual ritual for Eisenhower. While President, Eisenhower was baptized a Presbyterian. In the spirit of the person being commemorated on this special Sunday, Docherty opted to make Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address the focus of his sermon. The title of the message was also lifted out of the Gettysburg Address, "A New Birth of Freedom." It was delivered on February 7, 1954, while President and Mrs. Eisenhower were occupying the Lincoln pew and a posse of Federal agents were occupying adjacent pews.

Docherty’s message began with a comparison of the United States to ancient Sparta. Docherty noted that a traveler to ancient Sparta was amazed by the fact that the Spartans’ national might was not to be found in their walls, their shields, or their weapons, but in their spirit. Likewise, said Docherty, the might of the United States should not be thought of as emanating from their newly developed Atomic weapons, but in their spirit, the "American way of life." In the remainder of the sermon Docherty sought to define as succinctly as possible the essence of the American spirit and way of life. To do so, Docherty appealed to those two words in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. According to Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation "under God." He took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.

After the service concluded, Rev. Docherty had opportunity to converse with President Eisenhower about the substance of the sermon. The President expressed his enthusiastic concurrence with Docherty’s view, and the very next day, Eisenhower had the wheels turning in Congress to incorporate Docherty’s suggestion into law. On February 8, 1954, Representative Charles Oakman (R-Mich), introduced a bill to that effect. On Lincoln’s birthday four days later, Rep. Charles Oakman made the following speech on the floor of the House:

Last Sunday, the President of the United States and his family occupied the pew where Abraham Lincoln worshipped. The pastor, the Reverend George M. Docherty, suggested the change in our Pledge of Allegiance that I have offered [as a bill].
Dr. Docherty delivered a wise sermon. He said that as a native of Scotland come to these shores he could appreciate the pledge as something more than a hollow verse taught to children for memory. I would like to quote from his words. He said:

…there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life…

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Docherty hit the nail square on the head.''

Senator Homer Ferguson, in his report to the Congress, March 10, 1954, said that "the introduction of this joint resolution was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped." This time Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower opted to sign the bill into law appropriately on Flag Day (June 14, 1954). The fact that Eisenhower clearly had Docherty’s rationale in mind as he initiated and consummated this measure is apparent in a letter he wrote in August, 1954. Paraphrasing Docherty’s sermon, Eisenhower said:

These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.

Though it is often contested, this country was founded to be a place for freedom of all sorts, including religious practices. Adding the term "Under God" to the pledge violates such a freedom. First off, the capital letter in the word God is a clear indication that it favors monotheistic religions over polytheistic religions. Any argument against this is feeble at best and naive and unsupported at worst. Secondly, as is obvious, the United States is predominatly Christian, so most likely, God is defined as Jehovah, and though one might argue it applies to YHWH and Allah as well, it clearly does not, as one sees from the bit of history. By inserting these words into the pledge, it forces those reciting it to act as though they are Christians, when many most surely are not. I find this highly offensive, especially as I am an athiest and do not subscribe to any faith. (Why is another matter entirely.) I would appreciate being able to pledge my allegiance to my country without simultaneously pledging allegiance to the Christian God, thank you. (Of course, as I see it as pledging allegiance to the current administration, I do not say it at all at the moment, but that is beside the point.)

So, I feel that the words should be removed. They were not part of the original pledge, are not part of its original message, and carry an unnecessary weight. As it is, schoolchildren across the country are saying it each and every day without truly knowing what it means. I would like for them not to be forced to be religious if they are not.

As such, I ask you, the people of Nationstates General: Should we remove the words "Under God" from the pledge, and why or why not?

As such, I ask you, the people of Nationstates General: Should we remove the words "Under God" from the pledge, and why or why not?
What you said.

Remove the words "under God" and also stop making children say it. Is it moral for me to make a five year pledge to give me half his salery when she grows up? No it's not. Should we hold the five year old to that pledge? No we shouldn't. So why make children recite a pledge they're not going to understand and we can't ethically hold them to?

Personally I thought you should strike the pledge all together. I'd MUCH rather have:

I pledge allegance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the repubic which it created. One nation, from many; with liberty and justice for all.

I know I'm gonna get yelled at by the usual crowd, but I have always wondered why pledge to the flag when that document is far more important than cloth with stars and stripes on it.

Especially as everyone from the President, to the Congress, to the men and women in uniform take an oath to defend said document, not the flag.

Nor the Bible.

Personally I thought you should strike the pledge all together. I'd MUCH rather have:

I pledge allegance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the repubic which it created. One nation, from many; with liberty and justice for all.

I know I'm gonna get yelled at by the usual crowd, but I have always wondered why pledge to the flag when that document is far more important than cloth with stars and stripes on it.

Especially as everyone from the President, to the Congress, to the men and women in uniform take an oath to defend said document, not the flag.

Nor the Bible.
Certainly reasonable enough, but let us take one step at a time. This is controversial enough as it is, and baby steps are necessitated if we are to make any sort of progress.

I know I'm gonna get yelled at by the usual crowd, but I have always wondered why pledge to the flag when that document is far more important than cloth with stars and stripes on it.Because the flag represents the constitution and the republic and any ideals that come with it. It's a symbol.
Which is why some people have such a problem with a mere piece of cloth being burned and stepped on..

I pledge allegance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the repubic which it created. One nation, from many; with liberty and justice for all.

How about this: I promise to try to make America a better place.

I think everyone could get behind that.

Because the flag represents the constitution and the republic and any ideals that come with it. It's a symbol.
Which is why some people have such a problem with a mere piece of cloth being burned and stepped on..
Does it though? Sometimes it seems that the flag has taken on a life beyond the Constitution and the laws of the nation embeded in it.

Look at the motion to have an amendment to prevent that flag burning because some people are unhappy that the very document that the flag is supposed to represent allows such burnings.

How about this: I promise to try to make America a better place.

I think everyone could get behind that.
*Pulls out a chair and a bag of taiyaki, and waits for the first smart a$$ed reply to that*
Taiyaki?

The problem I always had with this is I thought one of the points of the constitution was the seperation of church and state but whoever is president always seems to spend a large amount of time invoking god's name.

Personally I thought you should strike the pledge all together. I'd MUCH rather have:

I pledge allegance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the repubic which it created. One nation, from many; with liberty and justice for all.

I know I'm gonna get yelled at by the usual crowd, but I have always wondered why pledge to the flag when that document is far more important than cloth with stars and stripes on it.

Especially as everyone from the President, to the Congress, to the men and women in uniform take an oath to defend said document, not the flag.

Nor the Bible.Good post. *bows twice*

A little more on the topic, if i may, can be found here:

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

So far so good, right? The Pledge, as it is intended, is a way of giving one's allegiance to the United States. I have no problem with that.

I do actually. I never really liked the idea of "pledging ones allegiance" to the state. It kinda makes me feel like...goosestepping...y'know...? It's not a pleasant sight to see a teacher making 5 year olds stand at attention, like good little lemmings.

Plus, I don't even see the point of pledging to the flag. I know it's a symbol...but I have never been one to look at symbolism. To me it is just a peice of cloth that happens to represent the colors of our nation. It belongs to the people, not to the state, and the people can do as they wish with it.

Yet another reason why Eisenhower confuses me. The man could be so prophetic with this warning of the military-industrial machine and that the US should not support a country that cannot support itself without US aid (Lebanon, but a good warning for Vietnam that was ignored), and yet he could do stupid shit like this.

I do actually. I never really liked the idea of "pledging ones allegiance" to the state. It kinda makes me feel like...goosestepping...y'know...?

Plus, I don't even see the point of pledging to the flag. I know it's a symbol...but I have never been one to look at symbolism. To me it is just a peice of cloth that happens to represent the colors of our nation. It belongs to the people, not to the state, and the people can do as they wish with it.
There's a difference between pledging one's allegiance to the state and being nationalistic. One can do the former without being the latter. I'll admit that's not often the case, but the pledge is voluntary anyway. Yes, even in schools. Thing is, they often don't tell the kids that.

The problem I always had with this is I thought one of the points of the constitution was the seperation of church and state but whoever is president always seems to spend a large amount of time invoking god's name.
Some more than others ... :(

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." —Shrubya to a group of Amish, Lancaster, PA, July 9, 2004
( :mad: )

There's a difference between pledging one's allegiance to the state and being nationalistic. One can do the former without being the latter. I'll admit that's not often the case, but the pledge is voluntary anyway. Yes, even in schools. Thing is, they often don't tell the kids that.

I know it's voluntary, but some of the teachers that my mom has told me about MAKE their kids stand and recite.

It may be voluntary...but in my (oft loony) mind, it just eminates bad vibes. Plus, I've never seen the reason behind pledging to a peice of dyed cloth (don't start with me on symbolism).

but the pledge is voluntary anyway. Yes, even in schools. Thing is, they often don't tell the kids that.If you don't pledge, you are probably a terrorist. ;)

There is no favoring of one religion over another in that statement, and its completely optional to say it...

If you don't pledge, you are probably a terrorist. ;)

Or a Communist (Which is why it was introduced, anyway). Or possibly some combination of the two.

I know it's voluntary, but some of the teachers that my mom has told me about MAKE their kids stand and recite.

It may be voluntary...but in my (oft loony) mind, it just eminates bad vibes. Plus, I've never seen the reason behind pledging to a peice of dyed cloth (don't start with me on symbolism).
Symbolism is why it is done, though. =/

And I've seen that forcing before. Oftentimes it is from teachers who are dogmatic and nationalistic idiots. I've had it happen to me once. I was sent to the principal's office for refusing to do it. Fortunately, the principal was on my side. Could have been very ugly otherwise.

There is no favoring of one religion over another in that statement, and its completely optional to say it...'Optional' is a relative term, since there may well be social repercussions (If nothing else people might look at you funny)
And while it doesn't favour one monotheistic religion over the other, it does favour religion over non-religion, and monotheistic religion ofver polytheistic.

There is no favoring of one religion over another in that statement, and its completely optional to say it...
No? Please read what I quoted again, and by all means continue to look into the subject. It is clear, despite feeble arguments to the contrary, that it is meant to portray the Christian God, and as such favors Christianity.

So was the interjection in '52 or '53?
BTW, f*ck McCarthy.

There is no favoring of one religion over another in that statement, and its completely optional to say it...

There shouldn't be any religion in the statement, and to say it's voluntary is...well, naive really. Seriously, it was some whacky anti-Communist thing from the 50's. Time to let it go. Reagan won the war, didn't you hear?

So was the interjection in '52 or '53?
BTW, f*ck McCarthy.
1954, actually.

I would have started this thread later today were it not for the fact that I have been completely unable to sleep tonight and I've got work in two hours.

1954, actually.
Ah, thanks. *bows*

I would have started this thread later today were it not for the fact that I have been completely unable to sleep tonight and I've got work in two hours.
I gotta get up in four, so i guess i can relate.
I'm probably just gonna go sleep now anyway. Nightie.

Am I right in thinking that American children have to recite the pledge each day at school?

Personally I thought you should strike the pledge all together. I'd MUCH rather have:

I pledge allegance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the repubic which it created. One nation, from many; with liberty and justice for all.

I know I'm gonna get yelled at by the usual crowd, but I have always wondered why pledge to the flag when that document is far more important than cloth with stars and stripes on it.

Especially as everyone from the President, to the Congress, to the men and women in uniform take an oath to defend said document, not the flag.

Nor the Bible.

Thanks but with people ripping the Constitution apart daily I think that leaves way too much grey in it. The flag represents us as a nation regardless of whether we agree on the meaning of the words in the Constitution. Under God is fine with me, it was founded as and still is a nation under God. I realize it was added later, but it does not change that the US was in part founded as a haven from religious persecution...not a haven from religion but one from religious persecution, there is a difference. It is voluntary to say it, if you don't like it don't say it.

Thanks but with people ripping the Constitution apart daily I think that leaves way too much grey in it. The flag represents us as a nation regardless of whether we agree on the meaning of the words in the Constitution. Under God is fine with me, it was founded as and still is a nation under God. I realize it was added later, but it does not change that the US was in part founded as a haven from religious persecution...not a have from religion but one from religious persecution, there is a difference. It is voluntary to say it, if you don't like don't say it.

Huh. So that First Amendment is just there for laughs, huh? Oh, and I dare you to go into a US school and see if it's voluntary. I believe they recite it every day before class.

My vote went in the wrong category, I was trying vote for keeping the words. my reason is found in Red Skellton's "Pledge of Allegiance" monolouge.....no time for this, have to eat then go to final.

Am I right in thinking that American children have to recite the pledge each day at school?

That somewhat depends on the state. In practice he answer is yes though; being the only child not saying the pledge while teachers and classmates look angrily at you is not something many children will do - especially since theunderstanding and devotion to the underlying principles is probably not that strong to begin with in a child.

There is no favoring of one religion over another in that statement, and its completely optional to say it...

It obviously favours Islam over polytheistic Hinduism.

That somewhat depends on the state. In practice he answer is yes though; being the only child not saying the pledge while teachers and classmates look angrily at you is not something many children will do - especially since theunderstanding and devotion to the underlying principles is probably not that strong to begin with in a child.

OK, thanks.

Huh. So that First Amendment is just there for laughs, huh? Oh, and I dare you to go into a US school and see if it's voluntary. I believe they recite it every day before class.

The Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the first amendment in any form or fashion. Your belief that a student has to recite it is wrong, they most certainly do not have to recite it, nor do they have to stand while it is being said.

Am I right in thinking that American children have to recite the pledge each day at school?
Actually, no. SCOTUS ruled that children do not have to recite the pledge. They also cannot be compelled to stand, but can be asked to sit quietly and respectfully.

In practice though... yeah, it's hard to explain why you're not, though I had a classmate who would not due to religious conviction.

Thanks but with people ripping the Constitution apart daily I think that leaves way too much grey in it. The flag represents us as a nation regardless of whether we agree on the meaning of the words in the Constitution. Under God is fine with me, it was founded as and still is a nation under God. I realize it was added later, but it does not change that the US was in part founded as a haven from religious persecution...not a haven from religion but one from religious persecution, there is a difference. It is voluntary to say it, if you don't like it don't say it.
Oh? Since when?

I don't seem to recall the United States being founded on either the Christian religion nor was it meant as a haven from religious persucution.

However we may disagree on the meaning of the words, it is still the document that binds us together, gives us our laws and government, and is what makes us, well, us.

Aye, it's true that oftentimes you will be glared at, and possibly even insulted by some of the kids who have been brainwashed by far-right(American definition) parents. Usually teachers won't stop that either. It's sickening, almost, but not something we should try to address right now. As I said, we take it one step at a time. Let's remove "Under God" from it before deciding its use.

Wait, do people even say the pledge anymore? :confused:

Remove the words "under God" and also stop making children say it. Is it moral for me to make a five year pledge to give me half his salery when she grows up? No it's not. Should we hold the five year old to that pledge? No we shouldn't. So why make children recite a pledge they're not going to understand and we can't ethically hold them to?
I don't know about you, but where I am from nobody is ever "forced" to say it, not even children.

When my child was briefly in school (1 semester) they told her that they didn't say the "under God" and tried to stop her from saying it because she might "offend an atheist", I told the teacher that I agree that they shouldn't "have" to say the under God, but she should have the freedom to say it if she wants. It might offend someone, but hey, you know what? I don't care.

In America you don't have the "right not to be offended".


Now, as far as taking "under God" out of the official pledge, I don't care either way, really. I lean to the side of taking it out, and taking "In God we trust" off the money and all that. Not because I am anti-Christian, but because I am pro-freedom. I don't see how it's against the establishment clause, but hey, if it's keeping some people awake at night.... whatever.

Alternatively, instead of removing the 'under God' bit, we could diversify it a bit. Everyone can get to choose under who or what they want the nation to be.

"One nation under Bahma Vishnu and Shiva"
"One nation under the sun"
"One nation under Eris"
"One nation under water"
"One nation under my supreme rule"
etc

Well, I haven't read any posts, however;

I'm not American and im avowedly atheist to the point I think organised religion should be abolished. However this would be a case of political correctness gone awry. If people wish to live in a society, I wholeheartedly believe they should accept all aspects of that society. Aside from which, what difference does removing it make?

I think the under god part ought be removed. It was added in the 50s and frankly breaks the entire rythm of the pledge. Always thought it was odd how it's just sorta tacked on.

As a non-American.. I don't care either way :). Whatever makes you guys happier, heh.

Though I said yes, I think there are far more important issues with this country that need to be dealt with.
Furthermore, the negative backlash that would come from legislation proposing this would be tremendous and completely not worth the removal of two words that only marginally affect the opinions of American children, 90% of whom are indoctrinated with Christian tripe anyway.

Retaining the "under god" addition is clearly unconstitutional. Also unethical.

No secular purpose is served, the school environment is inherantly coercive, it abridges free exercize.

All this is made worse because it targets children, who are especially vulnerable.

Keep it just for spite. :D

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I dont think anyone should be forced to say it but If you remove Under God it should be law for public school students to say.

If you remove under god it should be a requirment by law to say the rest of the pledge. If not... no consequences for not.

I say we should change the pledge to "One nation under the Flying Spaghetti Monster" instead. Or maybe "One nation under Thor" or "One nation under Chuck Norris".

What about an "Not American: Not any of my business" option.

Perhaps if you want to move to a Red State, you have to swear under God, and a Blue State, you don't.

However, it seems mad that kids have to be indoctrinated with religion at school, especially in what claims to be a secular state. It's little wonder that there's all this polarisation over drugs/same sex marrage/abortion in the US which is the natural result of mixing religion and enforcement of moral values with the state.

And swearing a pledge every day is what one would expect in an underground cult, not a school, and discourages freedom of thought, necessary in a vibrant democracy.

But then, what satisfies a corrupt, morally decadent and liberal society like Britain may not satisfy the US, I suppose. :p . I expect that things won't change, because of the afforementioned mix of religious values and the state.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I dont think anyone should be forced to say it but If you remove Under God it should be law for public school students to say.

If you remove under god it should be a requirment by law to say the rest of the pledge. If not... no consequences for not.

Why should it become law? Why should people have to swear allegiance to theirt country? It is, after all, a free and democratic country, not a dictatorship.

Why should it become law? Why should people have to swear allegiance to theirt country? It is, after all, a free and democratic country, not a dictatorship.


If you use a public service then you should pledge your allegiance hence your use of public service should be denied.


IF thier is no allegiance to your country then thier is no country.
THIER IS NO COUNTRY IF NOONE IS LOYAL TO IT.
If you wish to be a citizen and vote it is only logical that you should pledge do defend that nation AND NO OTHER NATION.

Either you are for this country or another you pick. Anyone who isnt loyal to thier country is loyal to another hence thier existence in this country cannot be counted on in times of war and become liabilities.

Either you revive intermant during times of war or force someone to say the pledge of allegiance without the god part.

If you use a public service then you should pledge your allegiance hence your use of public service should be denied.

I pledge allegiance to the bus company, and the route to work for which it stands...

I pledge allegiance to the bus company, and the route to work for which it stands...


lol ..... :confused: god ive been typing too long :headbang:

Yea the pledge again....

Time to bring up John Leland again ;)

One of the great Baptist leaders of the 1700s, John Leland, wrote that the fondness of magistrates "to foster Christianity has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did." As a follower of a God who is Almighty, let me affirm that we who trust in His almighty authority need neither the endorsement nor support of any worldly government, but only the freedom and protection by a government to compete in the open market of ideas. That is all we ask.

Yea the pledge again....

Time to bring up John Leland again ;)

One of the great Baptist leaders of the 1700s, John Leland, wrote that the fondness of magistrates "to foster Christianity has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did." As a follower of a God who is Almighty, let me affirm that we who trust in His almighty authority need neither the endorsement nor support of any worldly government, but only the freedom and protection by a government to compete in the open market of ideas. That is all we ask.

Early or late 1700's ...,. It matters. Either its about the british anglican church or US gov in later years

If you use a public service then you should pledge your allegiance hence your use of public service should be denied.


IF thier is no allegiance to your country then thier is no country.
THIER IS NO COUNTRY IF NOONE IS LOYAL TO IT.
If you wish to be a citizen and vote it is only logical that you should pledge do defend that nation AND NO OTHER NATION.

Either you are for this country or another you pick. Anyone who isnt loyal to thier country is loyal to another hence thier existence in this country cannot be counted on in times of war and become liabilities.

Either you revive intermant during times of war or force someone to say the pledge of allegiance without the god part.
Lol a few false dichodomies in there

The problem I always had with this is I thought one of the points of the constitution was the seperation of church and state but whoever is president always seems to spend a large amount of time invoking god's name.

Actually, the phrase "seperation of church and state" doesn't even appear in the US constitution.

Actually, the phrase "seperation of church and state" doesn't even appear in the US constitution.
And that maters how?

It is the title given to a section of the constitution

Titles don’t have to be the exact same as the text they represent

Or do you have some sort of problem understanding what section that title represents?

Actually, the phrase "seperation of church and state" doesn't even appear in the US constitution.

"Congress shall not enact a law respecting an establishment of religion... nor prevent the free exercise thereof"

Note that the only agency forbidden from acting in the first ammendment is the Congress. I always wondered if the authors of the constitution deliberately made reference to just "Congress" as opposed to saying "Government". Since 6 of the original 13 colonies had established churches and according to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Established_church#Former_state_churches_in_British_North_America

Not all of those established churches were dis-established in 1776.

Am I right in thinking that American children have to recite the pledge each day at school?

My niece says the pledge to the US and the pledge to Michigan. I didn't even know there was a Michigan pledge until she told me that.

Early or late 1700's ...,. It matters. Either its about the british anglican church or US gov in later years

John Leland (1754-1841) was a Baptist preacher who wrote extensively about the relationship between religion and government. He influenced both Jefferson and Madison.

One of my favorites which has relevance today was:

"Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it . Let honesty, talents and quick dispatch, characterize the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . ."

excerpt from "July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802". The Writings of John Leland , Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times New York (1969) pp.260-270)

Why you Americans even have a pledge boggles my mind.

And if I ever do get American citizenship, I will devoutly refuse to take such a pledge.

In fact, I refuse to ever be forced to take any pledge. If I really want to, then I will do it myself. The only one I have taken is one that seemed fairly nice - basically some ten lines swearing that you will be a kind and helpful person.

and I wanted to take that pledge. Plus, I was never forced to take.

The peer pressure that I saw in an american high school to take the pledge was disheartening.

well on the one hand its stupid and discriminates against a lot of people, but on the other hand he does live in the sky

well on the one hand its stupid and discriminates against a lot of people, but on the other hand he does live in the sky

Not if you're a satanist or you believe in the nordic mythology :p

I think segregated polls are gay. No this is not a hyjack attempt, I am posting this because the poll is segregated.

Also, I do thing that the words "under god" should be removed, as well as changing the motto to Out of many, one. (thats the oold motto in english. lets rember that we are in the 21st century, and for that reason have the motto an official language, not a dead one.)

I just replace God with Noodle. It really should just be left blank. One nation under (person, place or thing).

well on the one hand its stupid and discriminates against a lot of people, but on the other hand he does live in the sky
Only in the pathetic... i mean, abrahamic faiths. If your a satanist then no. if your "pagan" then no, if your atheist, then no.

Why you Americans even have a pledge boggles my mind.

And if I ever do get American citizenship, I will devoutly refuse to take such a pledge.

In fact, I refuse to ever be forced to take any pledge. If I really want to, then I will do it myself. The only one I have taken is one that seemed fairly nice - basically some ten lines swearing that you will be a kind and helpful person.

and I wanted to take that pledge. Plus, I was never forced to take.

The peer pressure that I saw in an american high school to take the pledge was disheartening.
I find it completely ridiculous that they have a pledge/national anthem (which one depends on the nation) at the beggining of school. Nothing to do with the text of it, just that I think trying to force people to be patriotic is stupid, tyrannical, and a waste of time.

"Congress shall not enact a law respecting an establishment of religion... nor prevent the free exercise thereof"

Note that the only agency forbidden from acting in the first ammendment is the Congress. I always wondered if the authors of the constitution deliberately made reference to just "Congress" as opposed to saying "Government". Since 6 of the original 13 colonies had established churches and according to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Established_church#Former_state_churches_in_British_North_America

Not all of those established churches were dis-established in 1776.


Correct, although the ban on state (texas, alabama, etc) sponsored religions was incorporated as a result of the 14th amendment.

Nonetheless, the modern concept of "seperation of chruch and state" isn't even remotely related to a ban on established religions as proved by the fact that it wasn't invented until the 1950's, well after the founders were done writing the constitution.

Well of course if you believe in god then do so, but Atheists, agnostics and other believers should not be forced to swallow unprescribed medicine. If the pledge was to be "under 'the President's name here'" then maybe that would be more effective.

Well of course if you believe in god then do so, but Atheists, agnostics and other believers should not be forced to swallow unprescribed medicine. If the pledge was to be "under 'the President's name here'" then maybe that would be more effective.

1)No one is actually required to say the pledge.
2)How many athiests do you know who would pledge alligence to Bush?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.




What's that have to do with anything?

"Congress shall not enact a law respecting an establishment of religion... nor prevent the free exercise thereof"

Note that the only agency forbidden from acting in the first ammendment is the Congress. I always wondered if the authors of the constitution deliberately made reference to just "Congress" as opposed to saying "Government". Since 6 of the original 13 colonies had established churches and according to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Established_church#Former_state_churches_in_British_North_America

Not all of those established churches were dis-established in 1776.

I would hope that not all of those established churses were dis-established in 1776. It would be quite a feat for the Bill of Rights to have authority in 1776 when it wasn't ratified until 1791.

Although the colonies declared independance in 1776, the government of the United States as we know it didn't really get formed until the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, and even then it took 4 years to get the Constitution and the Bill of Rights figured out. Before that the country was under the Articles of Confederation, being run by the Continental Congress and all that (historical tidbit, George Washington, first "President of the United States" didn't take office until 1789, between 1777 and 1789 the Continental Congress was run by a series of men, the first being John Hanson, Washington it's true was the first man to hold the position as President of the US, however it is inappropriate to say he was the nation's first political leader, he was, I believe, the 6th).

And while you're learning about US history, learn about the 14th amendment and incorporation. The 1st amendment in its creation did not apply to the states. It does now.

I find it completely ridiculous that they have a pledge/national anthem (which one depends on the nation) at the beggining of school. Nothing to do with the text of it, just that I think trying to force people to be patriotic is stupid, tyrannical, and a waste of time.

Yeah, I think pretty much the same.

Still, I abhor nationalism (thus, incl. patriotism as it means blind faith) and wouldn't subscribe to it either.

The Constitution mentions that man has a "Creator" with a capital "C", yet I hear no one saying that the Constitution should be amended because it violates its own establishment clause. Since the founding of this country, the existence of an ambiguous higher power has been referenced in various legal documents to convey a sense of a greater purpose in our government, and doing so in no way violates the right of anyone to practice his or her religion or mandates through law the principles of any certain religion. That being said...

...There was no necessary reason to add the words "Under God" in the pledge, but nevertheless, doing so does not constitute a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause for the same reasons mentioned above. Some may not like having such wording exist in the pledge of a country that (theoretically) favors secularism in governing, but nevertheless, to call it a violation of the first amendment is ridiculous.

The Constitution mentions that man has a "Creator" with a capital "C", yet I hear no one saying that the Constitution should be amended because it violates its own establishment clause. Since the founding of this country, the existence of an ambiguous higher power has been referenced in various legal documents to convey a sense of a greater purpose in our government, and doing so in no way violates the right of anyone to practice his or her religion or mandates through law the principles of any certain religion. That being said...


*buzzer sound*

Thank you for playing. The Constitution has no reference of Creator or God.

The Declaration of Independence mentions "their Creator" and Nature's God.


...There was no necessary reason to add the words "Under God" in the pledge, but nevertheless, doing so does not constitute a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause for the same reasons mentioned above. Some may not like having such wording exist in the pledge of a country that (theoretically) favors secularism in governing, but nevertheless, to call it a violation of the first amendment is ridiculous.

Actually it does as it speaks of the Christian God which is an endorsement of one Religion.

I don't honestly care. I always replace it with "Under Bob" anyway...as Bob rules!

Nonetheless, the modern concept of "seperation of chruch and state" isn't even remotely related to a ban on established religions as proved by the fact that it wasn't invented until the 1950's, well after the founders were done writing the constitution.
President Jefferson was alive and in office in the 1950's?!

Damn my history books were way off! I thought he was the third president of the United States.

Correct, although the ban on state (texas, alabama, etc) sponsored religions was incorporated as a result of the 14th amendment.

Nonetheless, the modern concept of "seperation of chruch and state" isn't even remotely related to a ban on established religions as proved by the fact that it wasn't invented until the 1950's, well after the founders were done writing the constitution.

Hmmmmmm?

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"
-- James Madison

Madison lived until the 1950's?

I don't object simply to the words "Under God," for they are a recognition of America's Christian heritage. But I will concede that they are moderately unConstitutional (though since you don't have to say it, it's not so bad) -- it's not like warantless wiretapping.

But the larger problem is the public schools themselves. I am for the separation of school and state as the founders originally intended. The inherent problem with a government school is that it gives you a certain set of values, and these values will always violate someone's first amendment rights. You teach Creation, and it offends non-Christians. You teach Evolution, and it offends anti-evolution Christians. You teach about God, it offends atheists, and you don't teach about God, and it offends Christian religions that require God and education to be inseparable. We don't have to pretend that these are not blatant first amendment violations.

If we simply separated school from state, you could have your Christian schools and your secular schools (privately funded) separate from each other to avoid the conflicts associated with state/federal-supported education.

Of course, the taxes will make it hard to privately fund schools. So I say, abolish the income tax -- the Founders specifically did not intend for it. ;)

Here is an idea, Who gives a f uck?


I do not beleive in god but I could care less.

The Constitution mentions that man has a "Creator" with a capital "C"

Please find me the word "creator" (capital c or otherwise) in the Constitution of the United States. Please, find it for me. It isn't there, I gaurentee you.

Oh, you mean that whole line "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator etc etc"?

Yeah...that's the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution....before you make claims, do get your facts right, k?

I don't honestly care. I always replace it with "Under Bob" anyway...as Bob rules!

Why would you want to be under Bob? Well? If that floats your boat, I guess it's ok.

Carry on.

*buzzer sound*

Thank you for playing. The Constitution has no reference of Creator or God.



Actually there is exactly ONE reference to "god". In the beginning, specifically the words "In the Year of Our Lord Seventeen Hundred and Eighty Nine"

That, however, is it.

Why must we pledge allegiance anyway? I haven't said it since 2003 or so and I haven't stood either as required by NJ law, but a court struck that down...yet it is still said in the student handbook thing.

Actually there is exactly ONE reference to "god". In the beginning, specifically the words "In the Year of Our Lord Seventeen Hundred and Eighty Nine"

That, however, is it.

That's true. I tend to ignore it so I wasn't thinking about that. ;)

it was founded as and still is a nation under God.
Do you need some links and literature to clarify your error here?
I'll just direct you to the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams and ratified by the Congress of the United States - Article XI.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).

Here ya go! Don't take it too hard! (Leave room in there for future arguments! ;) )

I just replace God with Noodle. It really should just be left blank. One nation under (person, place or thing).
One nation under ~

...FSM? ;)

What's that have to do with anything?
Actually, according to the bible, even THAT's not true:

KJ:

4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

I don't honestly care. I always replace it with "Under Bob" anyway...as Bob rules!
Slack upon thee. *bows*

A little bit o' 'frop and lit ...
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classictales/RealStory.html

One nation under ~

...FSM? ;)
One nation under a groove.

One nation under a groove.
Or, as the Repubs have provided, "a rut".
Or, "the surface of the quicksand."
Or, "the thumb of despotism, fascism, cronyism, and corporate ownership."
:(

Why not bring back slavery and take the vote away from women while we are at it?;)

Why not bring back slavery and take the vote away from women while we are at it?;)
Has God complained about a lack of representation in Government?

How about instead of striking the pledge, or even a single sentance from the pledge you let people act of their own accord?

If you don't want to say "One nation under God" fine, omit it from your personal pledge, stop interfering with other people's ideals.

If you don't want to say the pledge than that is easily solved, don't say the pledge.

Now I personally don't say the pledge because I am not a fan of how the government is being run, and I have various issues concerning that, one of them is censorship.

Don't infringe upon other people's ideals, don't make others suffer because you don't like how something is run.

I think this is a rather inane non-issue and the poor fools who are promoting it and supporting it are playing into the hands of their political enemies. The Republicans would love for the Democrats to include this in their platform for 2008 along with homosexual marriage and buy one get one free abortions.

On a purely philisophical level I personally don't care one way or another. It clearly does not violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment for those who use the english language in their interpretation.

Of course the activist 9th circuit court of appeal's opinion has nothing to do with the law or truth or reality (if I'm not mistaken they reversed themselves on their declaring it unconstitutional).

It is merely a symbolic statement made "official" by congress. So if it's important to you then vote for congress people who will draft and support legislation to do so (good luck!).

As for the courts, "lame duck" president Bush just recently put two conservatives onto the bench (ensuring that Dubya will continue to haunt many of his detractors for a good chunk of the rest of their lives) including a new Chief...so good luck with that too. :p

Of course the activist 9th circuit court of appeal's

And right about there is where interest is lost in an otherwise unimpressive.

The problem I always had with this is I thought one of the points of the constitution was the seperation of church and state

It's actually not "one of the points" of the constitution.

In the 1st amendment to the constitution there is the establishment clause which prohibits the congress from establishing a state religion.

The verbage of a short, symbolic, non-binding statement of patriotism using the word "God" is hardly an example of the government establishing a state religion.

There may be valid arguments against haveing the word in there, but the constitution is not one of them which leaves the elected representatives of congress as the only valid recourse in altering the pledge.


but whoever is president always seems to spend a large amount of time invoking god's name.

The president is a free person who has every right to talk about his religion as much or as little as he chooses. If it's a big enough deal to enough people in enough states then they can get a president who promises not to invoke God.

In reality it's not that big a deal to many people, and on the contrary a belief in God makes a candidate more popular to more people in the United States.

'Optional' is a relative term, since there may well be social repercussions (If nothing else people might look at you funny)


And of cousre that violates the 6th amendment's protection against unpopularity. :D

The verbage of a short, symbolic, non-binding statement of patriotism using the word "God" is hardly an example of the government establishing a state religion.

Been in court lately?
Ever heard of Roy Moore?

And right about there is where interest is lost in an otherwise unimpressive.

Wow, I kept your interest into the third of five paragraphs! This is great for my self esteem issues.

Sweet! Thanks bro! :cool:

Wow, I kept your interest into the third of five paragraphs! This is great for my self esteem issues.

Sweet! Thanks bro! :cool:
Hey, i'm here for y-hey, look at that! Flying dead bird!

Been in court lately?
Ever heard of Roy Moore?

No and, um, no. Well actually I did have a ticket for a moving violation a bit over a year ago that I went to court for but apparently the judge I had wasn't handling establishment clause cases that day. That's probably a good thing really, I mean it took half my day up as it was. :p

I'm all for keeping under god in the pledge, as well as in god we trust on the money, etc.

However:

Repeal legislation on statutory rape. Children can choose whether or not they want to have sex.

Repeal age-based legislation on tobacco. Children can choose to, or not to, smoke tobacco.

Repeal age-based legislation on alcohol. Children can choose whether or not to drink.

Repeal age-based legislation on mandatory school attendance. Children can choose whether or not they want to go to school.

Repeal age-based legislation in places where you can't buy video games at a certain age.

Repeal age-based legislation on pornography. Children can choose to watch pornography as they wish.

Repeal age-based legislation on marriage. Children can choose to get married.

Repeal age-based legislation on gun ownership. Children can choose to be gun owners or not.

If all these things get passed, then I will accept these constant oblique references to god in a childs every day life, sponsored by the government.

Because the flag represents the constitution and the republic and any ideals that come with it. It's a symbol.
Which is why some people have such a problem with a mere piece of cloth being burned and stepped on..

the map is not the territory

No and, um, no. Well actually I did have a ticket for a moving violation a bit over a year ago that I went to court for but apparently the judge I had wasn't handling establishment clause cases that day. That's probably a good thing really, I mean it took half my day up as it was. :p
Court - swearing on the bible.
ACTIVIST Judge Roy Moore, Alabama - Ten Commandments issue. So are you really up on this?

The Pledge was not written with "Under God" in it. Fix it back to the way it used to be.

The problem I always had with this is I thought one of the points of the constitution was the seperation of church and state but whoever is president always seems to spend a large amount of time invoking god's name.

yes, and since the president is really hardly more than any regular citizen, and since the president is not the supreme overlord of the state, how does this actually impact the 'seperation of Church and state' policy

fyi, 'seperation...' means completely, and solely that one religious dogma cannot control the nation, it has nothing to do with any pledge (especially when made of free-will), or even public education- I once was told by a fellow high school student that i wasnt allowed to have a Bible in school (as I was holding it) because of seperation of church and state.... yeah I laughed at her

The Pledge was not written with "Under God" in it. Fix it back to the way it used to be.
Agreed.

fyi, 'seperation...' means completely, and solely that one religious dogma cannot control the nation, it has nothing to do with any pledge (especially when made of free-will)

Of course it does. Suppose you went to a school where every day started with the teachers saying "we praise the Gods of Olympus and hope they are willing to guide us". Joining this pledge (officially) is voluntary; but you will not be given opportunity to say a little pledge in favour of YOUR deity.
Do these actions deny you the right to have another religion ? No.
Do these actions favour certain religions over others ? Hell, yes.

or even public education- I once was told by a fellow high school student that i wasnt allowed to have a Bible in school (as I was holding it) because of seperation of church and state.... yeah I laughed at her

And rightfully so.

the map is not the territory

Nope, just symbolic.

Get a map of the US. Write "I'm going to bomb here" over new york. Send it to the white house.

Are they going to rush to throw the map into the ocean, so you don't bomb the piece of paper?

Of course it does. Suppose you went to a school where every day started with the teachers saying "we praise the Gods of Olympus and hope they are willing to guide us". Joining this pledge (officially) is voluntary; but you will not be given opportunity to say a little pledge in favour of YOUR deity.
Do these actions deny you the right to have another religion ? No.
Do these actions favour certain religions over others ? Hell, yes.



And rightfully so.


A slight misunderstnd (that I anticipated, but was too lazy to do away with immediately) I don't think that teachers should have the right to pray for their class (notably younger classes, as was the famous case), as of course, even a prayer that wouldnt offend me might offend anotehr (to accede to your point) but people are gysterical when it comes to any religious notion, and the campus' of public schools, I have attended Bible Studies for students, at the metnion of which people have asked if that was legal... I was like... 'it wouldn't be how?' by the same token not everyone believes in evolution, which may invade theri religious beliefs (and lets not argue over the merits of evolution, I am merely poiunting out it is still a theory that is rejected by many), I dont actually despise it so much, call it acculteration form being a History major, I have learned to 'deal with it', but that is an issue that would need 'fixing'

ps, real sorry if my thoughts are disjointed, I dont work so well in posts, and such

ps, real sorry if my thoughts are disjointed, I dont work so well in posts, and such
Accent-u-8 da + !

A slight misunderstnd (that I anticipated, but was too lazy to do away with immediately) I don't think that teachers should have the right to pray for their class (notably younger classes, as was the famous case), as of course, even a prayer that wouldnt offend me might offend anotehr (to accede to your point) but people are gysterical when it comes to any religious notion, and the campus' of public schools, I have attended Bible Studies for students, at the metnion of which people have asked if that was legal... I was like... 'it wouldn't be how?' by the same token not everyone believes in evolution, which may invade theri religious beliefs (and lets not argue over the merits of evolution, I am merely poiunting out it is still a theory that is rejected by many), I dont actually despise it so much, call it acculteration form being a History major, I have learned to 'deal with it', but that is an issue that would need 'fixing'

ps, real sorry if my thoughts are disjointed, I dont work so well in posts, and such

Your post before this one makes two assumptions:

1. That the constitution and bill of rights should be taken to the strict intent of the word, despite the words of the founding fathers, etc, about seperating the church and the state.

2. That children have the ability to choose. We don't let them choose to have sex with people over 18, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, own guns, do drugs, etc. We just let them choose whether or not to say a pledge, when just about everyone else does, and they know little to nothing about religion?

Your post before this one makes two assumptions:

1. That the constitution and bill of rights should be taken to the strict intent of the word, despite the words of the founding fathers, etc, about seperating the church and the state.

2. That children have the ability to choose. We don't let them choose to have sex with people over 18, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, own guns, do drugs, etc. We just let them choose whether or not to say a pledge, when just about everyone else does, and they know little to nothing about religion?

indeed, well, the founding fatehrs also established the freedoms of this nation as endowed by 'their Creator' who is this 'Creator' if not a deity?

and of course we do not let them do those things you mentioned legally, because they are considered to not have enough perspective, and all of thos actions can be (and frequently are) life altering, is saying the pledge of allegiance when you are five life altering? does it destroy your brain? does a five year old even realise that 'under God' is even anything out of th ordinary? do five year olds who say the pledge have a higher rate of being indoctrinated into sick cults (free will religious beliefscannot be considered harmful, or detrimental in a general sense) no, now as for, say seventeen year olds, who still cannot do these otehr things legally, can absolutely make a reasonable choice not to say the pledge, and yet they dont get scorned (I have had soem in my 'homeroom' in high school) so my assumptions dont really seem to hinder my argument a whole lot....

indeed, well, the founding fatehrs also established the freedoms of this nation as endowed by 'their Creator' who is this 'Creator' if not a deity?
Buuu! Wrong document, but thank you for playing. You'd think that if they really wanted to enshrine such a notion, they would have actually written Him into the document that created the actual nation and set forth the rules by which we live.

Funnily enough, the Constitution mentions nothing about God, or a Creator.

Buuu! Wrong document, but thank you for playing. You'd think that if they really wanted to enshrine such a notion, they would have actually written Him into the document that created the actual nation and set forth the rules by which we live.

Funnily enough, the Constitution mentions nothing about God, or a Creator.

yet it is there, in writing by the founding fathers, and I never intimated the 'Constitution' did I... way to jump at it though, now please, a real criticism of my point please

yet it is there, in writing by the founding fathers, and I never intimated the 'Constitution' did I... way to jump at it though, now please, a real criticism of my point please
Try again.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10920697&postcount=75

And when you're done, read the site here carefully:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10922716&postcount=86

yet it is there, in writing by the founding fathers, and I never intimated the 'Constitution' did I... way to jump at it though, now please, a real criticism of my point please
You talk to ME about jumping the gun when you seem to have confused just what the DI did vs the Constitution. Your lack of understanding is... frightning at best.

But, fine, we'll tackle the second point (If I can understand it). You stated that there is no problem in having 5 year olds stating the pledge due to their lack of understanding as it leaves no lasting harm, correct?

But that is exactly why the phrase is wrong. Leaving aside the arguments for an against the existance of God, and if or not the Christian God is represented in the pledge, it should be noted that at 5 years of age, and until around the start of junior high school, children have little devloped moral sense. What is wrong is wrong because someone in athority says so, what is right is right also because someone in athority says so. When athority comes into conflict, i.e. the teachers say you MUST say God, parents say you must NOT say God, a child is lible to feel extream stress and discomfort due to the waring athority figures and their own inability to actually reach a moral decision at that stage (See Piaget). Further more, children until around early twenties are very much aware of anything that causes them to stand out. Being unique tends to also cause stress. It is not enough that no one actually says anythingm children, especially teens, readily invent such whisperings.

So saying it does no harm to just sit there is false, it can and does.

yet it is there, in writing by the founding fathers, and I never intimated the 'Constitution' did I... way to jump at it though, now please, a real criticism of my point please

Try again.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10920697&postcount=75

And when you're done, read the site here carefully:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10922716&postcount=86

Nice hit, Straughn.

Nice hit, Straughn.
Thanks! It helps for a person to take seriously any link presented, even if it is one of Il Ruffino's. :eek:

Thanks! It helps for a person to take seriously any link presented, even if it is one of Il Ruffino's. :eek:

So, how does it work? If Der Teut wants to hide it, can he go back and edit his post?

indeed, well, the founding fatehrs also established the freedoms of this nation as endowed by 'their Creator' who is this 'Creator' if not a deity?

and of course we do not let them do those things you mentioned legally, because they are considered to not have enough perspective, and all of thos actions can be (and frequently are) life altering, is saying the pledge of allegiance when you are five life altering? does it destroy your brain? does a five year old even realise that 'under God' is even anything out of th ordinary? do five year olds who say the pledge have a higher rate of being indoctrinated into sick cults (free will religious beliefscannot be considered harmful, or detrimental in a general sense) no, now as for, say seventeen year olds, who still cannot do these otehr things legally, can absolutely make a reasonable choice not to say the pledge, and yet they dont get scorned (I have had soem in my 'homeroom' in high school) so my assumptions dont really seem to hinder my argument a whole lot....

Nature? Its ambivilent, as something did create you, whether or not you believe its a deity. I don't think anybody believes they just appeared on the floor one day.

does a five year old even realise that 'under God' is even anything out of th ordinary?

Thats the freaking point. Children are growing up with an implied existance of god. Not from their parents, or elsewhere, but from the government, the pledge. It took me till about 6th grade to realize god was a load of hooey, but just because I never even considered the possibility that god didn't exist. My parents weren't particularly religious, its just that nobody ever questioned it until that far in my life.

If a child doesn't have the perspective to choose to drink or have sex underage, why do they have the perspective to pledge allegiance to a country, or a god of any sort? I would think the first two are much more physical, and would be more easily percieved, if anything.

So, how does it work? If Der Teut wants to hide it, can he go back and edit his post?
In theory.
Or one of the mods can get out their little Men In Black "standard issue neuralyzer.", and .... wait, what was i saying?

In theory.
Or one of the mods can get out their little Men In Black "standard issue neuralyzer.", and .... wait, what was i saying?

Why would the mods be complicit in helping him hide his foot in his mouth?

Why would the mods be complicit in helping him hide his foot in his mouth?
I usually respond with questions to other questions out of antagonism, but i have to ask -
why do the mods keep messing with Drunk Commies Deleted's threads?

I guess they're like the greek or roman mods.
*fears golden shower* :eek:

I usually respond with questions to other questions out of antagonism, but i have to ask -
why do the mods keep messing with Drunk Commies Deleted's threads?

I guess they're like the greek or roman mods.
*fears golden shower* :eek:

See, now I have to go wash myself in a fruitless effort to get clean of your maddening imagery.

Cock.

See, now I have to go wash myself in a fruitless effort to get clean of your maddening imagery.

Cock.
Need i lay my healin' hands upon thee? :D
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cartoon/392.gif

What are you naysayers going to do? change the national Anthem next? And the whole while, pretending to put everything the way it supposedly was before? Excuse me, ONE of the National Motto's has been In God we Trust for how many years before the Pledge of Allegiance was ever even written in any language, an you all want to pretend like removing God from it would remove the references to God from our other documents as well? How silly. "E Pluribus Unum" was first, but "In God is our trust." Which was added after the war of 1812, the nation barely yet crawling yet, and then, during the Civil War era, 1864, the words were shortened to "In God We Trust" so that they would better fit on coins...

AS to the National Anthem though, let's see what it says about God....


First Verse
Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say, does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Second Verse
On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream;
'Tis the Star-Spangled Banner, O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Third Verse
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.


Fourth Verse
Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto, "In God is our trust"
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Like it or not, but to try and remove all of the Under God type of references from all of the State mottos and history of the United States, both during and before it's creation, would he a injustice to the actual history as it happened.

(blabbity blaboo ...) he a injustice to the actual history as it happened.What?

As is, remember what shanty the anthem was lifted from. Perhaps you should keep that in mind, seeing as how it's right in line with every other insincere plagiarism that exists part-and-parcel with "christianity". Keep up the good examples.

voted; not american, yes

However, after reflection, i think it should remain...
What should go is the assumption that God = Christianity as practised in the US (or elsewhere)

following the logic through though, it would seem that there are many varying religions, or sub-types, within the states and they all subscribe to the pledge of allegiance...

in effect then my point is moot

but i wasted ten minutes of work time to post so Woot!:)

yet it is there, in writing by the founding fathers, and I never intimated the 'Constitution' did I... way to jump at it though, now please, a real criticism of my point please

Fine, here's a real criticism.

The Declaration of Independance is not the supreme law of the land. The United States Constitution is. It doesn't matter what the Declaration of Independance says, it has no legal authority over this country.

It could have said we found this nation under pink flying elephants, but the Constitution, the final, binding LAW of this country makes no reference to pink flying elephants, thus it doesn't matter.

Court - swearing on the bible.

This is optional, you don't have to swear on the bible.

ACTIVIST Judge Roy Moore, Alabama - Ten Commandments issue. So are you really up on this?

Well yea, put it in context. I know who you are talking about. I don't find the posting of the 10 commendments to be a violation of anything. The people have control of the government.

Look, our culture wasn't just shat into existance (though it may seem like it from time to time)...we have a history and a culture. The 10 commendments and the bible, like it or not, are part of that history and culture. So it is traditional to swear on the bible in court.

I don't have a problem with it and I wouldn't have a problem getting rid of the practice. It's just tradition and it's not required.

And the 10 commendments actually is part of the historical roots of our legal system which is a descendant of english common law.

Now obviously some of the items in the 10 commandments have no place in our laws - for example adultery or false idols or any of that stuff...but it has historical and cultural significance.

I don't feel that putting up a statue of the 10 commandments violates the establishment clause, but obviously a court thought so.

Oh, and I don't know of any evidence as to wheter or not Moore is an activist judge but placeing a statue in his court room is no activist IMO (although his refusal to follow court orders to remove it may be criminal).

An activist judge is someone who makes a ruling on their own beliefs rather then on the law. Judge Moore made no ruling on the 10 commendments statue, he just refused to follow a court rulling...again, perhaps he's a minor criminal but not necessarily an activist judge.

no matter what happens im still going to say in with "one nation under god"

What does the 14th ammendment have do to with religion and government?
Reading the 14th ammendment I see:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

An obvious reference to discrimination against black Americans, since the very same year the 14th ammendment was proposed (1866) Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and didn't want the Supreme Court to have the power to overturn the CRA 1866, so they encoded it into the Constitution.

no matter what happens im still going to say in with "one nation under god"

Don't worry. It will never be removed.

Don't worry. It will never be removed.

Ignoring for the fact that for a time it had been.

Don't worry. It will never be removed.

Never say never. The Pledge was written without it......

Now that I think about it, that should be removed. In a sense, it violates the right to not be religious (I am religious, but that's beside the point). It also nullifies the separation of church and state.

As such, I ask you, the people of Nationstates General: Should we remove the words "Under God" from the pledge, and why or why not?To be honest, I have a bigger problem with pretending that "Liberty and justice" is actually afforded "to all". I usually just shut my mouth when that part comes up.

This is optional, you don't have to swear on the bible.

Perhaps i could swear on The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and just as per-haps, i wouldn't be found in contempt of court, hmmm?

Well yea, put it in context. I know who you are talking about. I don't find the posting of the 10 commendments to be a violation of anything. The people have control of the government.

Look, our culture wasn't just shat into existance (though it may seem like it from time to time)...we have a history and a culture. The 10 commendments and the bible, like it or not, are part of that history and culture. So it is traditional to swear on the bible in court.Go back even further and consider The Code of Hannurabi.

I don't have a problem with it and I wouldn't have a problem getting rid of the practice. It's just tradition and it's not required.

And the 10 commendments actually is part of the historical roots of our legal system which is a descendant of english common law.

Now obviously some of the items in the 10 commandments have no place in our laws - for example adultery or false idols or any of that stuff...but it has historical and cultural significance.

I don't feel that putting up a statue of the 10 commandments violates the establishment clause, but obviously a court thought so.
No argument there - well thought out.

Oh, and I don't know of any evidence as to wheter or not Moore is an activist judge but placeing a statue in his court room is no activist IMO (although his refusal to follow court orders to remove it may be criminal).

An activist judge is someone who makes a ruling on their own beliefs rather then on the law. Judge Moore made no ruling on the 10 commendments statue, he just refused to follow a court rulling...again, perhaps he's a minor criminal but not necessarily an activist judge.
The activist part would be all of his supplementary actions surrounding this particular incident in U.S. history.

"O Canada" needs to be changed too:

O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

I'm sorry, but if God does exist, I think he has bigger problems than worrying about keeping Canada glorious and free. I am being serious.

Americans know this quite well. First, a little history lesson.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance:



So far so good, right? The Pledge, as it is intended, is a way of giving one's allegiance to the United States. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is this:



Though it is often contested, this country was founded to be a place for freedom of all sorts, including religious practices. Adding the term "Under God" to the pledge violates such a freedom. First off, the capital letter in the word God is a clear indication that it favors monotheistic religions over polytheistic religions. Any argument against this is feeble at best and naive and unsupported at worst. Secondly, as is obvious, the United States is predominatly Christian, so most likely, God is defined as Jehovah, and though one might argue it applies to YHWH and Allah as well, it clearly does not, as one sees from the bit of history. By inserting these words into the pledge, it forces those reciting it to act as though they are Christians, when many most surely are not. I find this highly offensive, especially as I am an athiest and do not subscribe to any faith. (Why is another matter entirely.) I would appreciate being able to pledge my allegiance to my country without simultaneously pledging allegiance to the Christian God, thank you. (Of course, as I see it as pledging allegiance to the current administration, I do not say it at all at the moment, but that is beside the point.)

So, I feel that the words should be removed. They were not part of the original pledge, are not part of its original message, and carry an unnecessary weight. As it is, schoolchildren across the country are saying it each and every day without truly knowing what it means. I would like for them not to be forced to be religious if they are not.

As such, I ask you, the people of Nationstates General: Should we remove the words "Under God" from the pledge, and why or why not?Who gives a damn. It's tradition. What's next, the Brits remove God from "God Save the Queen!"?

Who gives a damn. It's tradition. What's next, the Brits remove God from "God Save the Queen!"?
Perhaps they should remove the Queen. I imagine that line of thought would meet some interesting new light in that case.

"O Canada" needs to be changed too:

O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

I'm sorry, but if God does exist, I think he has bigger problems than worrying about keeping Canada glorious and free. I am being serious.
I don't think so. Read the bible, where it talks about the war between the two great nations, Gog and Magog.
Magog - Quebec. :eek:
Favoured land. Too bad a lot of the prophecy fans haven't figured that one out yet.
By proxy, Michael Moore becomes a prophet (for bringing word of said favoured land to us heathen U.S.ians).

Who gives a damn. It's tradition. What's next, the Brits remove God from "God Save the Queen!"?

What's the length of time needed to be called tradition?

Do you really care? It's not like it says "Under Christ" or anything. It doesn't mean a damn thing in terms of freedom.

Do you really care? It's not like it says "Under Christ" or anything. It doesn't mean a damn thing in terms of freedom.
Figuratively, it means the exact opposite of freedom. It means fealty to an invisible, unprovable, psychologically infantile farce.

Who gives a damn. It's tradition. What's next, the Brits remove God from "God Save the Queen!"?
It was created in the last century ... I dont think it is THAT much of a tradition (at least not as much as what you are comparing it too) we can start a new tradition of following our constitution