I love her sooooo much!

[perks]

She's standing over there in the corner. I used to talk to her every morning, my heart filled with pride. I stood, bonded with all the others who loved her. She made me understand what loyalty, bravery and purity are. She's rich with history, her fabric woven with threads of spiritual freedom. Now I know that I can burn her and I can't pledge her. In light of certain events, when this country needs to stay strong and indivisible, why are we divided on pledging our loyalty to her and each other?

 

[LukkyKnight]

We're not - we're divided over the consitutionality of a phrase which was inserted in 1954 expressly to invoke the God which Eisenhower favored.

Discussing religion is always fraught with danger. Discussions of the sort which lawyers love are bound to get intense. It's a dangerous combination, but in the final analysis it's not about patriotism - or admitting/pledging it - in this case.

 

[sunstruck]

Ok, I haven't had a chance to go to BBC.com yet. Did they declare the entire pledge unconstitutional or just that phrase. I mean, it wasn't there before, can't we just take it out again?

 

[CarolineOh]

Isn't there a contradiction between the pledge's call for a nation "indivisible" and inserting the phrase "under God", which is inherently divisive in a nation that claims to honor religious diversity?

 

[JazzManJim]

why are we divided on pledging our loyalty to her and each other?

We're not divided. A few folks here or there who comprise a small and very nasty minority have decided that to hear the word "God" in public scalds their ears like sunlight does a vampire and they must run shrieking to their nearest courthouse to excise said horrible word from ever being uttered in public again.

The fact, eloquently expressed in the dissenting opinion, is that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge is not a statement of religion but a factual historical allusion to the principles on which the country was founded and, as such, have no current religious significance whatsoever.

The thing that irks the hell out of me was that the athiest father in question wasn't challenging whether or not his daughter would be forced to recite the Pledge, but whether or not she had to hear it. He said that to stand there silently forced her to make a religious choice.

Utter bullshit on its face.


I swear to God - no wait - I mean, I swear to Some Undetermined Authority that religion has become exactly like smoking these days. You don't dare do either of them in public.

 

[sunstruck]

Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

The fact, eloquently expressed in the dissenting opinion, is that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge is not a statement of religion but a factual historical allusion to the principles on which the country was founded and, as such, have no current religious significance whatsoever.

Then why wasn't it used before 1954?

The fact is that there are a lot of people in this country that don't believe in God. I am not one of them, but I'm not going to force my beliefs on anyone else.

I think that a pledge of allegence to this country should be just that, a pledge to the country, and it should not disclude anyone who is part of this country.

 

[CarolineOh]

Re: Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

Then why wasn't it used before 1954?

The fact is that there are a lot of people in this country that don't believe in God. I am not one of them, but I'm not going to force my beliefs on anyone else.

I think that a pledge of allegence to this country should be just that, a pledge to the country, and it should not disclude anyone who is part of this country.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

Then why wasn't it used before 1954?

The fact is that there are a lot of people in this country that don't believe in God. I am not one of them, but I'm not going to force my beliefs on anyone else.

I think that a pledge of allegence to this country should be just that, a pledge to the country, and it should not disclude anyone who is part of this country.

It was correctly added because Congress felt it important to distinguish our country founded on the belief that rights were God-given and our foremost enemy, which did not. That's not a religious statement but an accurate historical one.

That contrast seems especially appropriate these days and is well worth reminding folks.

I find it odd that those folks who don't beleive in God would want to excise that completely from the record, in any form. After all, it was a belief in God which grants those people the rights they enjoy today.

 

[sunstruck]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

It was correctly added because Congress felt it important to distinguish our country founded on the belief that rights were God-given and our foremost enemy, which did not. That's not a religious statement but an accurate historical one.

That contrast seems especially appropriate these days and is well worth reminding folks.

I find it odd that those folks who don't beleive in God would want to excise that completely from the record, in any form. After all, it was a belief in God which grants those people the rights they enjoy today.

Correctly added? Says who?

No one is looking to remove God from any record. That sounds a bit paranoid. This country is too varried in it's occupants to require ANY religious entity or dogma be named in order to pledge allegience to the country.

You should not have to acknowledge God in order to aknowledge the U.S.A.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

Correctly added? Says who?

No one is looking to remove God from any record. That sounds a bit paranoid. This country is too varried in it's occupants to require ANY religious entity or dogma be named in order to pledge allegience to the country.

You should not have to acknowledge God in order to aknowledge the U.S.A.

Says the United States Congress and the courts which have affirmed in the past that language of such type, even in governmentally-sanctioned events is appropriate. But aside from that, the Pledge is very clear that reciting it is not pledging a single thing to any deity at all. That section is a description of this country and is pretty accurate in its history.

And I do think it's appropriate, and even important, to acknowledge that the entire reason we have the virtually unbridled rights as individuals we do in this country is because a very brave group of people designed a government based on the principle that those rights are explicitly given by God, and not an earthly individual or government. That was a bold statement to make and a very experimental one. It's worth remembering because it does draw the starkest difference between the UNited States and most other countries.

 

[estevie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

After all, it was a belief in God which grants those people the rights they enjoy today.

No.

Belief in God and religious freedom are not the same. In your religious freedom you choose God. In Mischka's (as an example ) religious freedom she chooses not to believe.

Freedom to choose.

 

[sunstruck]

So basically you're saying that this country should adhere to the dictates of the men who founded it's government - over 200 years ago?

Bullshit. This country is changing, it's traditions have to change with it.

If all rights were God given there would be no court. People make the laws, the laws give the rights. Saying rights are God given and having it be true are not the same.

 

[YogiBare]

Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

We're not divided. A few folks here or there who comprise a small and very nasty minority have decided that to hear the word "God" in public scalds their ears like sunlight does a vampire and they must run shrieking to their nearest courthouse to excise said horrible word from ever being uttered in public again.

The fact, eloquently expressed in the dissenting opinion, is that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge is not a statement of religion but a factual historical allusion to the principles on which the country was founded and, as such, have no current religious significance whatsoever.

The thing that irks the hell out of me was that the athiest father in question wasn't challenging whether or not his daughter would be forced to recite the Pledge, but whether or not she had to hear it. He said that to stand there silently forced her to make a religious choice.

Utter bullshit on its face.


I swear to God - no wait - I mean, I swear to Some Undetermined Authority that religion has become exactly like smoking these days. You don't dare do either of them in public.

Jim, I strongly disagree.

If "Under God" is merely a statement of historical fact, put it in the history books, where it belongs. For an atheist or a polytheist, or anyone who worships a single god other than that of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, that phrase in the pledge is coersive. You need to be able to pledge allegiance to this country without acknowledging that it is under this very specific god with a capital G. It is the American way to protect the right of Americans to hold diverse religious beliefs. The phrase "under God" (with a capital G) is very definately an exclusionary expression of religious belief.

It concerns me greatly that you would call people a "very nasty minority" because they defend their constitutional right to separation of church and state. And that is the issue here. You don't have to agree with their argument here in order to respect their right to raise the issue. It is so very American to exercise the right to challenge the government and to fight for one's right to believe differently from the majority of American citizens, without having one's loyalty to the country questioned. Nobody here is saying that the word "God" cannot be uttered in public. Of course it can be uttered - in churches and synagogues and mosques - where it belongs.

To include this phrase in an official declaration of loyalty to the country does, inherently, force a choice and a division based upon religious beliefs. You may believe that this country is "under God," and I certainly believe that everything is "under God." But others don't have to believe it in order to declare their allegience to this great nation.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

No.

Belief in God and religious freedom are not the same. In your religious freedom you choose God. In Mischka's (as an example ) religious freedom she chooses not to believe.

Freedom to choose.

Unfortunately, you're wrong.

This is not a question of whether or not you have the right to choose your religious belief. That's not even in question here.

This is a question about whether saying the word "God" is a matter of religious choice. I, and courts before me, maintain that it does not. It's a matter of historic fact that a belief in God was a basic block in the foundation of this country, and that such a belief remains one. It is the reason you have the "inalienable rights" you have right now.

That is worth acknowledging. It shouldn't be excised from our memory just because one person hates hearing the word.

And sunstruck, your argument is also fallacious. Go back and do some reading in the founding of the country. having rights which were given by a non-earthly authority was an unprecedented departure from other forms of government.

The impact that had meant was huge. It meant that no more did the basic freedoms outlined in the Declaration of Independence have to be granted by a King or Queen. It meant that you could live, be free, and pursue happiness on your own, instead of at the pleasure of an absolute ruler. You had those rights because they were instilled in you by a ruler greater then any on Earth. Whether or not you believe in that power is unimportant. But that the decision was made that was is important and should be acknowledged.


That's the same principle under which we operate today, whether it's taught widely or not.

 

[estevie]

Yes, Yogi, thats what I meant to say. Very well said.

 

[sunstruck]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

And sunstruck, your argument is also fallacious. Go back and do some reading in the founding of the country. having rights which were given by a non-earthly authority was an unprecedented departure from other forms of government.

The impact that had meant was huge. It meant that no more did the basic freedoms outlined in the Declaration of Independence have to be granted by a King or Queen. It meant that you could live, be free, and pursue happiness on your own, instead of at the pleasure of an absolute ruler. You had those rights because they were instilled in you by a ruler greater then any on Earth. Whether or not you believe in that power is unimportant. But that the decision was made that was is important and should be acknowledged.


That's the same principle under which we operate today, whether it's taught widely or not.

Ok, AGAIN, saying that doesn't not make it true. We have no rights that were not granted up by our government. The Constitution grants us religious freedom, the laws grant us freedom to prusue happiness.

PEOPLE created this society. People make the laws that grant the rights.

No one is debating whether it should be ackowledged that a belief in god was part of what this country is founded on. The argument is, should it be a part of our continued patriotism.

The answer is no and the reason is, this isn't a 13 state country full of white christians anymore. If you keep involving god in patriotism, you will have fewer patriots. And we need all we can get.

 

[Black_Bird]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

It was correctly added because Congress felt it important to distinguish our country founded on the belief that rights were God-given and our foremost enemy, which did not. That's not a religious statement but an accurate historical one.

That contrast seems especially appropriate these days and is well worth reminding folks.

I find it odd that those folks who don't beleive in God would want to excise that completely from the record, in any form. After all, it was a belief in God which grants those people the rights they enjoy today.

I think the reason why so many people rail against the mentioning of God in the pleadge is the use of it by fundamentalist to claim that the USA is *Christian* and Christian only state.

It's just not a matter of believing in God or not, it's also a matter of which God you choose to believe in, or worship. Regardless of how historically correct the statement is, it does not accurately describe the United States as it stands today. We are diverse, and if we turn our back on that diversity for the sake of historical preservation, we might as well become colonies of the British Empire again. (PPman, you can thank me later.)

 

[Mischka]

Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

We're not divided. A few folks here or there who comprise a small and very nasty minority have decided that to hear the word "God" in public scalds their ears like sunlight does a vampire and they must run shrieking to their nearest courthouse to excise said horrible word from ever being uttered in public again.

As difficult as it is to hold a conversation with a dick, I'll do my best.

The fact, eloquently expressed in the dissenting opinion, is that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge is not a statement of religion but a factual historical allusion to the principles on which the country was founded and, as such, have no current religious significance whatsoever.

As eloquent as it may be, that's not entirely correct. The founding fathers were monotheists, but the foundation of our government was plagarized from Locke's Second Treatise on Government. Locke was a philosopher that went into great detail about the need for a social contract among civilized people. Our inalienable rights are inherent in our humanity, not because they are bestowed by some God. The concepts work together, but they can be separated.

I have no problem with religion being enthusiastically practiced in the private sector. But why is it necessary to include mention of a Judeo-Christian God in a government context, especially when our country has moved so far from the homogenous roots of its foundation? Are polytheists and atheists not as patriotic as their monotheistic brethren because they simply wish to pledge their devotion to this nation, and not to a God they do not recognize?

 

[sunstruck]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

I think the reason why so many people rail against the mentioning of God in the pleadge is the use of it by fundamentalist to claim that the USA is *Christian* and Christian only state.

You know that's exactly it. I'm going to post a "patriotic" email I received that might help people to understand how using the word god in our laws, pledges and on our curency can be highly detrimental to our country.

Remember, I HATE THIS PIECE OF SHIT! It reads like a KKK news letter.


GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
>
> There are a few things that those who have recently
> come to
> our country,and apparently some native Americans,
> need to
> understand.
>
> First of all, it is not our responsibility to
> continually try not to
> offend you in any way.
>
> This idea of America being a multicultural community
> has served
> only to dilute our sovereignty and our national
> identity.
>
> As Americans, we have our own culture, our own
> society, our own
> language, and our own lifestyle.
>
> This culture, called the "American Way" has been
> developed over
> centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by
> millions of men and
> women who have sought freedom.
>
> Our forefathers fought, bled, and died at places
> such as Bunker Hill,
> Antietam, San Juan, Iwo Jima, Normandy, Korea,
> Vietnam...
>
> We speak English, not Spanish, Arabic, Chinese,
> Japanese, Russian,
> or any other language.
>
> Therefore, if you wish to become part of our
> society-learn our language!"
>
> In God We Trust" is our national motto.
>
> This is not some off-the-wall, Christian, Right
> Wing, political slogan-
> it is our national motto.
>
> It is engraved in stone in the House of
> Representatives in our Capitol
> and it is printed on our currency.
>
> We adopted this motto because Christian men and
> women, on Christian
> principles, founded this nation and this is clearly documented
> throughout our history.
>
> If it is appropriate for our motto to be inscribed
> in the halls of our
> highest
> level of Government, then it is certainly
> appropriate to display it on the
> walls of our schools.
>
> God is in our pledge, our National Anthem, nearly
> every patriotic song,
> and in our founding documents.
>
> We honor His birth, death, and resurrection as
> holidays, and we turn to
> Him in prayer in times of crisis.
>
> If God offends you, then I suggest you consider
> another part of the world
> as your new home, because God is part of our culture
> and we are proud
> to have Him.
>
> We are proud of our heritage and those who have so
> honorably defended
> our freedoms.
>
> We celebrate Independence Day, Memorial Day,
> Veterans Day, and Flag Day.
>
> We have parades, picnics, and barbecues where we
> proudly wave our flag.
>
> As an American, I have the right to wave my flag,
> sing my national anthem,
> quote my national motto, and cite my pledge whenever
> and wherever I choose.
>
> If the Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't
> like Uncle Sam, then you
> should seriously consider a move to another part of
> this planet.
>
> The American culture is our way of life, our
> heritage, and we are proud of
> it.
>
> We are happy with our culture and have no desire to
> change, and we really
> don't care how you did things where you came from.
>
> Like it or not, this is our country, our land, and
> our lifestyle.
>
> Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to
> express his opinion
> about
> our government, culture, or society, and we will
> allow you every opportunity
> to do so.
>
> But once you are done complaining, whining, and
> griping about our flag, our
> pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I
> highly encourage you take
> advantage of one other great American freedom:
>
> THE RIGHT TO LEAVE!
>
> Another thing: To those who do complain about the
> usage of words like 'God'
> and 'American' and speaking the language of our
> great nation, TRY GOING
> TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND SPEAK AGAINST WHAT YOU DON'T
> LIKE.
> YOU WILL MORE THAN LIKELY END UP JAILED OR EVEN
> KILLED.
>
> In America, you take your right to complain for
> granted.
>
> The more patriotism that is removed from where our
> children are taught, the
> less
> our children will learn about what it is to be an
> American and our nation's
> spirit
> will slowly be killed.
>
> Keep patriotism alive.
>
> It is time to take a stand!!
>
> God Bless America and our Military and Veterans!!!
>
>
Is anyone else feeling ill?

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: I love her sooooo much!

As difficult as it is to hold a conversation with a dick, I'll do my best.

Please, don't hurt yourself.

Our inalienable rights are inherent in our humanity, not because they are bestowed by some God.

The founding fathers disagreed.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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."

These are, of course, the opening words of the Declaration of Independence. This is what underpinned the entire system of government on which the country was built and on which it still operates. There are at least two clear references to God in there.

You don't have to believe yourself, but you do have to respect that they did, and that their belief is why you have what you have right now.

Are polytheists and atheists not as patriotic as their monotheistic brethren because they simply wish to pledge their devotion to this nation, and not to a God they do not recognize?

No, of course not.

I am not questioning anyone's patriotism. I am simply saying that it's appropriate and not contrary to the constitution to acknowledge the influence of a belief in God on this country's founding and continued freedoms.

 

[sunstruck]

Ok no one is bothered by that????

 

[Mischka]

Ok no one is bothered by that????

Nope. I've been convinced that I cannot be a good citizen without fully endorsing the idea that the Judeo-Christian God is an integral part of the government. The good ol' U.S. of A. cannot exist or advance without reference to an Almighty. If you happen to believe in multi-Almighties or no Almighty, you still need to bow down to the One and Only Almighty.

 

[sunstruck]

Nope. I've been convinced that I cannot be a good citizen without fully endorsing the idea that the Judeo-Christian God is an integral part of the government. The good ol' U.S. of A. cannot exist or advance without reference to an Almighty. If you happen to believe in multi-Almighties or no Almighty, you still need to bow down to the One and Only Almighty.

Oh, well when you put it like that...hand me the knee pads.

 

[cutie pie]

Jumping into the discussion. . .however briefly

Both sides have been eloquently presented here. If I may. . .here is my .02:

1. Yes, religion has become rather controversial. I may be forever flamed for this, but it is my opinion that references to Christianity should not be included in educational/governmental/public situations. We are entitled to freedom of religion and thus we should not be forced into acknowledging one particular faction. I have my own beliefs, but do not feel in necessary to force them on others. Nor do I like to have other beliefs forced on me.

2. Having said that, I am a firm believer in tradition. Especially now. For 48 years, we have been reciting the Pledge of Allegiance as it is, God and all. I can remember clearly learning it in school and feel proud when I had finally memorized it and could recite it correctly. The message contained therein is something we need to be reminded of on a daily basis. Especially now. Now, the focus will be on what to change and how to change it. The message will become lost in the clutter.

It angers me to no end to see this kind of petty political bull shit when there are way more serious issues to be dealt with.

Thank you. You may now return to your regularly scheduled debate.

 

[YogiBare]

Yes, Yogi, thats what I meant to say. Very well said.

Thanks, este!