And I agree with you there.

Sadly, it is fallable, unclear, selfish man who is reciting the Pledge of Alleigance, not an enlightened deity. Thus we have to take into account how people will react to this as people, and they place value on the name of God, just as they are displeased with being forced to recide a pledge to a God many of them do not believe exists.

Let's remember the pledge: "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."

That isn't a pledge to God. The above is a pledge to the state. That pledge, without the inclusion of 'under God', offers alllegiance to the state (over God).

Ok, I concede that it's offensive to Athiests. But I honestly don't think that's a good enough reason to take the two words out. I don't think we should change some of our traditions that don't effect ones ones rights, to accomodate new philosophies or ideologies. The argument of homosexuality for example: the gay community is being denied equal rights as their straight counterparts, by not being allowed to be married. So now part of the argument comes down to wordage. Marriage, domestic partner, blah blah blah. I think, if we are given the same rights to "marry" I don't care what you call it. So in the same sense, if we chose the word "one nation under Jesus, or Jehovah' would be wrong.

According to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=god

God is :



There is no mention of any particular religion, faith or cult. By it's own definition, it's PC.

The irony is, of course, that that is exactly what happened in the 1950s: A tradition was changed from the original to reflect new ideologies, or more appropriatly, to oppose a new ideology, when 'undr God' was added to the existing pledge.

If you really want to hold to tradition, then change the wording back to what was originally written, and was good enough for people, god-fearing or not, for over a hundred years.

Ok, I'll agree with you only if it's put to a national vote. If it passes, change it back. BUT, "In God We Trust" has been on our money alot longer than the Pledge was around and it shouldn't be messed with.

I see nothing wrong with the term UNDER GOD, but then again, my views on religion and God are a little different than traditional ideology...

I never had a problem with the phrase on US money, but then again, to me US currency looks so fake and lifeless: Go multicoloured, like Canada!

Actually we have with our $20 bill. I actually like it, it's refreshingly different.

Billy Jean, you keep stressing that the god in "under God" is generic and so not religious. This is not true. Any affirmation in a deity is religious by nature; what it is not is necessarily Christian. That other religions and personal philosophies operate absent of any belief in a deity means that any state endorsed affirmation of a deity is state endorsed discrimination of their particular beliefs. This applies not only for those who define themselves as agnostic or atheist, but also those belief systems which themselves are agnostic or atheist such as Buddhism, Taoism and certain forms of paganism. And of course, these beliefs combined serve to form a considerable percentage of our population.

As to putting it to a vote, I've already addressed the issue of using democracy to discriminate. Just as it would have been wrong to put civil rights and women's voting rights to a vote and let the majority sort it out, so to would it be wrong to allow the government to willfully slight a religious minority on the basis of vote.

Currently, I don't think it is required of students to say the Pledge. My first problem, however, is that those students who choose to refrain (those in a minority) are singling themselves out for possible verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of their fellow students. My second problem is that any recital of the Pledge by the public school system is an endorsement of one school of faith (that of masculine monotheistic deity worship) which necessarily disregards others.

So while I am glad children are not required by the state to recite the Pledge, I do not feel the optional status of the Pledge frees it of criticism for endorsing one school of faith over another. Generic as it may be so as to not specify Christianity (whose members seem to be the most concerned, if not the only), it is still an affirmation in monotheistic deity worship not shared by fair percentage of our country.

If you want to claim that the words "in god we trust" should remain on money solely because that is tradition, you must oppose changing the color of money which has traditionally been just green and black.

You can't argue that putting the words "in god we trust" on money should be left because it is tradition, just like you can't argue that we ought to reinstate slavery because its tradition. Just like you can't argue that gays should not be allowed equal rights because it's tradition.

All or none. That's all I'm saying. If we want to put religious creeds on money, ALL religious creeds deserve their spot.

If we don't want to allow ALL creeds, then we should allow none.

No. This has nothing to do with infringements of personal rights or liberties or discriminating. This is a pledge. If Georgia can have a state wide vote on the contriversial rebel flag symbol on the state flag, then surely we can have a national vote to hear the opinions of the people on this beloved and contriversial pledge. It's not a detriment to anyone and therefor shouldn't involve the very biased Supreme Court and if we went through the congress, it'd most definatly would stay as is. It should be a straight up vote of the people.

I believe that the founding fathers were Christian, and that are first document and its many references to God proves that (magna carta). However, I think in the times that have passed America has proven to become a much more athiestic and self-relying country. All Christian values aside, I would not want anyone thinking God was responsible for some of the things that go on in our government.

America is a great nation, but I believe that if we got closer to God we could be much better than we are. That being said, I knew it is not God that rules in the hearts of some of our politicians, but money, greed, politics and power.

"In God we Trust" was one of the debated topics when formulating Georgia's current flag. I was one of those who did not think we should have it posted so boldly on the flag. I mean why "officially" lie to people, right?

Georgia had the confederate symbol as part of their state flag, Billy Jean. While a painful reminder of the Civil War and the practice of slavery which came to be associated with it, the flag was not inherently racist or discriminatory. There is a difference in the ability of voters to elect their state flag and their ability to elect a religious affiliation on either the state or national level.

To recite a Pledge which contains within it an affirmation of belief in a monotheistic masculine deity (regardless of denomination). The issue of requiring anybody to recite such a Pledge necessarily discriminates against those with no belief in a god, those with polytheistic beliefs and those whose deity worship is of the feminine.

What you are advocating is basically tyranny of the majority. But democracy doesn't mean a majority group can impose a belief system or way of living upon a minority group, regardless of whether that minority is based on sexual orientation, race or ideology.

[quote=perspective,Jan 14 2004, 02:34 PM] [QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]Secularist tend to not give up an inch even when it's obvious that inch has caused much greater problems than it solved.
[/QUOTE]
Some examples? Define what you mean by secularist and explain what you mean about giving up inches causing greater problems than 'it' solved - what is 'it'?

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
Today's children have much less time with a parent than ever before.  Instead of a parent being the major influence in their world as in the past, there is now a battle between daycares and television.  After WWII there came an opportunity to rise in the class warfare by becoming a two income family and, as many wives had worked during wartime, it easily took hold and became the norm in a very short time.  Wasn't long before it became a necessity rather than an opportunity and today our children suffer because of it. 
[/QUOTE]
As a female child, I prospered and benefited from having career-oriented female role models.

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
Also, it wasn't long before divorce became common in the US.  Single parent, teen pregnancy, kids abusing acohol and drugs all quickly followed.  "Enlightened" secularists would cry "bad parent" or "mental instability caused by chemical imbalance".  Usually these secularists had no children of their own so you know how expert they are on the subject. 
[/QUOTE]
Some of these secularists came from broken homes and they certainly have expertise in living in a family that knows no peace. For some people, divorce is the better option, versus growing up in a warzone. There are teen pregnancies and drug abuse in families that are not divorced. And more often then ever, teens are getting pregnant for the sole purpose of getting married (wed-lock). Seems like women who feel like they have no choice to take care of themselves on their own figure their only way to support themselves is to get married. Kudos to women who have careers and show their daughters that you don't need a man to support yourself.

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
Most children come out of schools looking for what is the most they can get for the least effort and how little they will settle for.  They have little respect for anyone or anything.  I know of "men" in their 30's that still live off of their mothers.
[/QUOTE]
This is quite a broad statement. You presume to know what "children" (IMO young adults) are searching for in their lives. Blanket statements like "They have little respect for anyone or anything" tends to be a bit dramatic, don't you think? (Can you tell I'm a law student?)

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
I cannot understand why it doesn't offend me to hear someone say they are agnostic or atheist but it offends them to hear someone say" under God".  It's like we are suppose to be sensitive to their needs but not vice versa. 
[/QUOTE]
Anyone is allowed to declare their faith personally. Everyone has that right. And if one group has a right to add their creed to our national motto, our national pledge, our national anthem, then all creeds have a place in those things:

One nation, under god, under buddha, under einstein, under allah, under jehovah, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all....

You wouldn't object to that, right?

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
If you have any doubt about the religious founding of this country just read  the original Articles of Confederation.  Trying to make the argument that the government will not establish a national religion means something other than that just does not fly.  Too many founding documents have "Creator" or "God" mentioned in them and it was obviously not their intent to have a godless society. 
[/QUOTE]
It's not obvious to me. Please show me how it's obvious that the forefathers intended this nation to worship the Judeo-Christian god?

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
However, contrary to what one poster said, I have seen where a town had banned manger scenes on private property. 
[/QUOTE]
Where?

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
Today's children are getting physically mature at a younger age and they have less and less supervision.  Without moral direction they will become a danger in today's society.  Today's high school grad is no where near the citizen that the school systems used to create.[/QUOTE]
Children are maturing faster physically - the biological clock of humanity is speeding up - because children are less supervised? How is today's high school grad nowhere near the citizen that the school systems used to create? Who is over there in IRAQ dying for the older generations' poor planning and warmongering? America's Army with an average age of 19, even today.
Yeah, today's high school kids are terrible citizens. <sarcasm> [/quote]
[QUOTE][QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]Secularist tend to not give up an inch even when it's obvious that inch has caused much greater problems than it solved.
[/QUOTE]
Some examples? Define what you mean by secularist and explain what you mean about giving up inches causing greater problems than 'it' solved - what is 'it'?

Secularism is the rejection or exclusion of any and all religious considerations. Actually the self same people are usually against any form of restriction or discipline of children until a child does harm to them. What "it" is is obvious from the sentence structure. It is whatever inch of so called advancement they have placed upon the general public. Removing the ten commandments, stopping led prayer in school, things like this have put a little grin on secular faces but at what expense? When I went to a large high school in the early 70's, we knew of three pregnant girls the entire three years. We knew of a handful of drug users. I believe that school had a much more responsible and moral class of citizen. I've had this discussion before with young people that were not around then and only go by scary baseless tales of children chained and beaten until they confessed christianity.(It did not happen.) Or children that were beaten silly for not conforming. (Also did not happen. The school absolutely would not tolerate that.) I've heard all the fairy tales but also I was there. If you were atheist (there were few at the time and the world was a better place) or if you were other than Judea-Christian, you said your own prayer silently or no prayer at all. We aren't talking about a 10 minute bible study here. We are talking about 1 minute prayer. Any student that believed anything other than Judea-Christian were invited to discuss there religion to the point we brought adults from their church in to discuss it. They were not mocked or belittled. I learned a lot about different religions and respect them all. Respect was a keyword something grossly lacking by young people today.


[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
Today's children have much less time with a parent than ever before. Instead of a parent being the major influence in their world as in the past, there is now a battle between daycares and television. After WWII there came an opportunity to rise in the class warfare by becoming a two income family and, as many wives had worked during wartime, it easily took hold and became the norm in a very short time. Wasn't long before it became a necessity rather than an opportunity and today our children suffer because of it.
[/QUOTE]
As a female child, I prospered and benefited from having career-oriented female role models.

Children learn interpersonal relationships from what they see in their home mainly. Single parent homes most often produce children that will grow up to be a single parent. Marriage is not just a business partnership. Single parents usually lead a frustrating life bordering between child neglect and insanity. There are just not enough hours in the day to raise a child properly, pay the bills and have a personal life. It's nice you had female role models, every child should have a role model.

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
Also, it wasn't long before divorce became common in the US. Single parent, teen pregnancy, kids abusing acohol and drugs all quickly followed. "Enlightened" secularists would cry "bad parent" or "mental instability caused by chemical imbalance". Usually these secularists had no children of their own so you know how expert they are on the subject.
[/QUOTE]
Some of these secularists came from broken homes and they certainly have expertise in living in a family that knows no peace. For some people, divorce is the better option, versus growing up in a war zone. There are teen pregnancies and drug abuse in families that are not divorced. And more often then ever, teens are getting pregnant for the sole purpose of getting married (wed-lock). Seems like women who feel like they have no choice to take care of themselves on their own figure their only way to support themselves is to get married. Kudos to women who have careers and show their daughters that you don't need a man to support yourself.

Many teens today get pregnant for that feeling of unconditional love. A love they were suppose to get from a parent that was unfortunately too busy or divorced which cut that chance in half. Yes, there were parents that were abusive to one another and yes there were and are homes abusive to children but that was less and less the norm as you go back in time. One guy beats his child with a board and the next day no parent should lay a hand on a child. One husband knocks his wife's teeth out and the next day half of America is divorced because they had their first argument. It's like doing surgery to relieve a small splinter. What makes it all the more ridiculous is for the school counselors to continue to sensitize our children. Our media does as well. It is paramount to national brainwashing. Prepare for "Child, the state will handle all your problems."

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
Most children come out of schools looking for what is the most they can get for the least effort and how little they will settle for. They have little respect for anyone or anything. I know of "men" in their 30's that still live off of their mothers.
[/QUOTE]
This is quite a broad statement. You presume to know what "children" (IMO young adults) are searching for in their lives. Blanket statements like "They have little respect for anyone or anything" tends to be a bit dramatic, don't you think? (Can you tell I'm a law student?)

I own a small business that hire young people and I've seen them come and go from all walks of life. Their work ethic stinks even more so over the last ten years. For some reason they think a job is an entitlement and not a privilege. I've had to fire some for having temper tantrums, chewing a clients earrings, setting a truck on fire without reporting it for a week, stealing(happens a lot) and many other silly scenarios. I've had them quit because, "Mom said she would pay my bills", " You gave me three Fridays off this month but not four"(they weren't supposed to get any Fridays off), they're spouse quit and wouldn't go back to work so why should they work(they had a small child). I had one I promised a raise to if he would just come in on time. He lived across the street from the office an we gave him wake up calls. He still couldn't get in on time. You and your college friends I applaud but know that for each of you there are ten if not more of these types. You know who they are, you saw them in school. The became adult and your well earned tax dollars will be going to support them. Please know they exist.

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
I cannot understand why it doesn't offend me to hear someone say they are agnostic or atheist but it offends them to hear someone say" under God". It's like we are suppose to be sensitive to their needs but not vice versa.
[/QUOTE]
Anyone is allowed to declare their faith personally. Everyone has that right. And if one group has a right to add their creed to our national motto, our national pledge, our national anthem, then all creeds have a place in those things:

One nation, under god, under buddha, under einstein, under allah, under jehovah, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all....

You wouldn't object to that, right?

Wouldn't object at all if the country was founded on all those religious principles but it wasn't. As a law student I'm sure you would want a disclaimer for every other word of the pledge. Sometimes the law becomes more frivolous than the lawsuits. Again a point of the sufferage of the many because of the indiscretions of the few.

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
If you have any doubt about the religious founding of this country just read the original Articles of Confederation. Trying to make the argument that the government will not establish a national religion means something other than that just does not fly. Too many founding documents have "Creator" or "God" mentioned in them and it was obviously not their intent to have a godless society.
[/QUOTE]
It's not obvious to me. Please show me how it's obvious that the forefathers intended this nation to worship the Judea-Christian god?

Do you need a link for the original Articles of Confederation?

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
However, contrary to what one poster said, I have seen where a town had banned manger scenes on private property.
[/QUOTE]
Where?

This was a news story around Christmas time I heard on the radio. I don't recall which state. There was also a story of a home with too many Christmas decorations that was order by a township to remove a certain amount of them. Also there was a story of a homeowners group that forced a homeowner to change the color of his home. I will research the exact stories.

[QUOTE=TSheCat,Jan 14 2004, 08:04 AM]
Today's children are getting physically mature at a younger age and they have less and less supervision. Without moral direction they will become a danger in today's society. Today's high school grad is no where near the citizen that the school systems used to create.[/QUOTE]
Children are maturing faster physically - the biological clock of humanity is speeding up - because children are less supervised? How is today's high school grad nowhere near the citizen that the school systems used to create? Who is over there in IRAQ dying for the older generations' poor planning and warmongering? America's Army with an average age of 19, even today.
Yeah, today's high school kids are terrible citizens. <sarcasm>

Do you have a problem with sentence structure? To say AND they are less and less supervised does not make it the reason they are physically maturing faster. Nor does it have anything to do with a bio clock. It does have to do with growth hormones in our food supply. Your example of troops in Iraq is dramatic but not suitable. Most of today's young recruits in Iraq went in the service for a peace time
army to get benefits. They did not enter thinking there was a chance of getting shot at. Not all are of that ilk but most were. Too many fought tooth and nail to get out as soon as war was declared. When you're in the service, you don't volunteer to go into a war zone. They aren't interested in what you want, they just put you there. Volunteer army does not mean you get to choose what you do. There are those grads that choose to be in a fighting army and those that did not. I applaud all of those that went into harms way of their own volition. I applaud all those that carry out their orders and have an allegiance to their duty. And in particular I applaud all those that enlist during wartime. But do not assume that all troops in Iraq became soldiers to fight for this country. Any time in the military does teach responsibility and honor to a young person. Schools and parents used to do this as well. Schools have decided to forget their responsibilities to parents and single parents will never do the job that a two parent home can. Removing God from school and country has and will continue to to do more harm than good. Less morality, less time with parents, less loyalty to one's country and less concern about honor and reputation and less discipline. It is a prescription for disaster.

Uh.... yes, I know that. I LIVE in Georgia.

What you see as tyranny of the majority, I see as the voice of the people. If what you're saying is true, then the whole democratic process is tyrannical. You just wouldn't like the outcome, that's why you don't want it put to a vote.

No, it isn't simply that I wouldn't like the outcome, Billy Jean. There are reasons why not everything is decided based upon a vote. The "voice of the people" is not a valid reason to discriminate against any minority group. In a society intended for the equal application of laws there is no reason why any majority group should be allowed to discriminate against any minority group on the basis of a vote.

Were we to have put the rights of African Americans and women up to a vote a century ago with the outcome favoring the continued deprivation of rights, would such continued deprivation of rights been the correct course of action in a soceity intened for the equal application of law? No, because a vote doesn't magically grant amnesty to those who would choose to discriminate.

I am neither black nor female and would have nothing to lose were such a vote to have been enacted a century ago. With no personal interest in such a hypothetical outcome, I have no reason other than logic to argue against such an attempt to discriminate against a minority. So no, Billy Jean, it isn't simply because I have an interest in the outcome of the "under God" controversy.

This is going in circles. The two words do not discriminate against anyone. It's not even in the same ball park with womens suffrage and equal rights. It's a pledge to our nation and the traditions and morals on which it was founded on. Yes it was modified in the 50's. So? Our money has been modified countless times. Be an atheist. Don't believe in a god. I don't care, it's a free country. But if you're that adamant about it, don't use the currency either, because you shouldn't be using a currency that plainly states:

IN GOD WE TRUST.

NO

What one does in ones own home is one's own business.
To allow one group regardless of their size to indoctrinate the children of others is a severe crime against humanity. One that should be dealt with harshly. Especially when it involves children. OTHER peoples children.
Personally I find the thought of my children being brought up to worship supernatural spirits abhorrent. Are we going to change the school nurse to a witch doctor next.

It is a COMPLETE violation of my Rights as an American and as a human being.

The current solution is just.
If your child wishes to include the words fine, and if your child does not, same thing, fine.

I agree with that part 100%. No one is putting a gun to our heads or threatening us with jail terms or fines for not saying it! We are not being forced to say UNDER GOD.

TsheCat - you make an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims up there. If you really believe all that, you're entitled to your opinion, but on AD, we must back up our claims with evidence. I won't even begin to point out the argument flaws that you demonstrated, or the problems with quoting that you obviously have, even though you find it necessary to so rudely try to correct my grammar. Remember, one should not cast stones who lives in a glass house.

But anyway, back on topic.

The pledge of allegiance -
we can all agree that one should not be forced to say "under god". We can also agree that children don't need to say the pledge at all if they don't want to. Just like children don't need to pray in school.

The way I used to say the pledge in school was the way that it was originally written. More often than not, I was reprimanded for disrupting the recitation, because my version ended a few syllables earlier than the rest of the class. It was like singing in rounds. If I'm going to be reprimanded for not wanting to say "under god", then none of us needs to say the pledge aloud. Maybe we should just have a moment of silence to recite the pledge if we so choose, in whichever way we so choose. That would be fairer.

tell me how you would feel if the pledge was changed to "... one nation under NO god...?" IF you feel it violates your rights, than how does saying "under god" not violate other ppls rights who do not believe in god? :hmmm:

I don't understand your question.

I believe that the pledge should either mention all religions, or mention none.

I'm sorry if i made myself unclear.

I was trying to put it in a perspective for christians who believe that the pledge of allegiance is right the way it is and is unbiased.

I mean what if the pledge was changed to:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands one nation under NO GOD and indivisible with liberty and justice for all

Many christians would be outraged and say how it is unfair and denies them their freedom of religion. But if this is true, than how does Saying what it is now not do that to atheists?

And how do you propose that it mentions all religions?

Oh! I know! How about using a vauge term for a higher power or diety?

Perhaps....

GOD.

Like we've been through before

"god" does not include all religions.

Scroll back to Ab's arguments about monotheistic male dieties and the religions for which that does not stand. (Oh, and for the religions that don't believe in gods).

I was being facetious....

If it is not necessary to believe in a religion before accessing the 1st Amendment to seek protection from same, then am I permitted to seek protection from Thespianism in our public schools? Or, football?

As a minority holding a minority view of what religion is or isn't, must I accede to the majority view of religion in order to access the 1st Amendment?

And more importantly, when the 1st Amendment is accessed to prohibit the free exercise of religion anywhere in America, including the public sphere, how does the government establish what is and what is not a religion for the curious purposes of prohibiting it? Allowed religions for this purpose to the right, disallowed religions to the left?

Please, is there a God-O-Meter involved of some kind? 'Real' supernatural gods to the right, 'unreal' supernatural gods to the left? If your religion kicks higher than a 4.5 on the government God-O-Meter, then by all means, it is a candidate for scrutiny to make sure it's not popping up on the public commons.

Not even the IRS is foolish enough to define 'religion,' or 'church' for that matter. They know better; it is prohibited.

Such is the nature of trying to enact legislation around a singularity.

Since when is protection from bending over backwards to be 'insulted' a constitutional right? You have to dig deep and provide your own shovel to find an establishment of either God, religion, or a church in an optional pledge. What happened to religious tolerance as a guiding American principle?

The phrase 'under God' is what you make it to be. Feel free to bring your own hymn book. Maybe it means under, as in, supplicant to. Maybe it means under, as in, a nation organized underneath the concept of God, not on top of it or equal to it or mixed up anywhere near it. Is that better? That is all that tolerance takes.

Maybe part of our confusion is in the mixing up of church, religion, and the concept of God. The three are not the same. The first two, at least, are totally 100% man made concepts. The latter may or may not be, that is unknowable, and that is the point of much of the former, though not all of the former.

If only the 1st Amendment was a prohibition against the state establishment of religion, for any purpose, including, the curious prohibition of the free exercise thereof anywhere in America. No, for that purpose, and that purpose only, religion is very clearly defined and established: something about God, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, maybe a handful of other icons, that's it. ie, the 'real' supernatural Gods. Football gods are not 'real.' The sacred space of the theatre is not religion; no Jesus in sight, unless it's the Passion Play. Does that make any sense at all? Show me this God-O-Meter.

Don't let me define religion, whatever you do, because if you did I'd say that religion(not 'a' religion, but the concept 'religion')is any human effort to seek answers to the following fundamental questions: "Why do we believe we are here, and what are we supposed to do now as a result of that belief?"

If that is the definition of religion, then in a nation whose only real religion is 'freedom,' what a great set of questions to prohibit the state from providing OneSizeFitsAll answers to. In freedom, we answer those questions with the living of our lives. No, don't let me define 'religion,' or even folks who now smugly regard themselves as 'above religion' will suddenly have an epiphany.

I say that as a devout non-aligned agnostic theist.

Some, not all, not most, atheists protest too much the insult of mere words in a nation founded on religious tolerance, especially to a word describing a concept that they claim is no more 'real' than the Gods of Football or the Gods of the Theatre or the Gods of Golf. If a minority view of 'religion' can access the 1st Amendment to seek protection from that which they do not even think is real, than as a minority who does not worship in the sacred space of the theatre, what should prohibit me from accessing that same 1stAmendment for 'protection' --even to the point of mere 'exposure' -- to Thespianism and its variants in our public schools? Or football? Or environmentalism? Or socialism, you know, the religion that believes in the Great Spirit 'Society' and embues it with all kinds of animistic traits, like wants and needs?

regards,
Frediano

That's an interesting point. If the pledge is just another song on the radio - then let it be as it is. If the pledge is just another hymn at church - then let it be as it is. If the pledge is recited aloud every day at school, make no punishments for children who modify it to their own choosing.

I'm not arguing that religions shouldn't be allowed to stand in the public square and preach at the top of their lungs - because all religious or non religious faiths have that same right to do that.

The argument here is that you must give everyone the same rights to practice their beliefs, no beliefs should have special rights. For instance, since I can't put my two cents into the pledge (without reprimand by a school teacher), then no one should put their two cents into the pledge.

editted: to cut out some of fredianos quote above

I totally agree with that and have from the beginning of this debate. I think the Pledge should be modified for each individual student. "Under Allah", "Under Reason", "Under Science".... I would be very happy with that.

But keep it in WRITING as it is as a nod to our history...

Again I must ask: What is the point in even fighting to keep "God" on money, on state flags and in ouur daily recitation?

I mean it is not like we as a country actually believe in it. We might as well not even bother worrying about it.

Plus, I feel that it is up to Christians themselves - as opposed to government - to "spread the gospel" and all that good stuff.

Why make the government do what we are too lazy to do?

Edited to say: This is in response to the Christians who want the two words as an allusion to THE God.

I take offense to that. I have stated VERY clearly that I don't assume UNDER GOD or IN GOD WE TRUST to refer to the Christian God. It's a generality to the higher power, which can be manifested in many ways to different people.

I'm not referring to the statement you made Billy Jean. I am saying that for those who believe it is the government's duty to spread Christian beliefs - and there are many of those out there - then they should do more themselves.

My statement had nothing to do with the debate between you and Frediano.

Ah, I understand now. But honestly, there's nothing wrong with some of the Christian beliefs and for them to be adopted as policy:

Charity, compassion, humility, acceptance, tolerance, forgiveness, peace, pacifism, living a simple life and love.

Not all Christians live by them, but those are the core of Christ's teachings. And perhaps if we DID have more policies influenced by them, America wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

Alas, that would have been me most days. I escaped mostly unscathed, in spite of starting each word with the syllable 'phnph' most mornings. (Try it, it is curiously amusing.) It's a 'pledge' for crying out loud; to a flag of all things.

But, just like that pledge, in a strange way, aren't atheists elevating the concept God, simply by taking such offense to the mere word in a pledge? Is that their intent?

I am seriously devout about my non-aligned agnosticism. I can't conceive of a concept of God that is knowable, and barely so provable, nor can I help but laugh when I hear mere humans claim to speak for God, know what God wants, or know what pleases God, or even, that there is or is not a God, both equal human acts of mere faith. So, in my mind, the Gods of Football or the Gods of the Theatre are just as real as the God of Abraham, and may in fact be one in the same for all I don't know as a devout agnostic.

For me to claim that I know anything at all about the concept of God is to seriously limit the concept of God. For all I know, He loves the NFL, and gets a great kick out of seeing his creatures make a 4th and 26 once in a while. Who am I to claim otherwise? Who is the Pope to claim otherwise? All I know for sure is, it's good to be the Pope, so I can see why he might have a political interest in keeping the gig by suggesting otherwise. But while doing so, I can't help but notice that he's just a well dressed naked sweaty ape, just like me, and just like the folks who wrote the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and the RuleBook for the National Football League.

I define religion broadly, which in a land based on religion freedom seems like not such a bad thing to do. "Why do we believe we are here, and what should we be doing now as a result of that belief?" Seeking answers to those questions, to me, is religion. Not just the stuff about the cross, the ten commandments, the Easter eggs, or whatever. That, to me, is a narrow and silly definition of 'religion.'

To me, whatever God is or isn't, our conversations are private and direct. One skin, one conversation, and it is direct, not through middle men speaking in tongues and rolling their eyes back into their heads for my distraction and amusement, so I don't notice them inserting themselves where they have not right to be. It is one thing to be invited into that conversation; it is quite another thing to insert oneself, uninvited.

I am not hostile to conventional religions, however, nor do I judge folks who decide to seek answers with others, or share their conversations with God with each other. But, I am sensitive to the blatant political acts, the attempts of other mere humans to insert themselves as middlemen in those personal conversations with God, whatever God is or isn't. If I perceived this instance--the mere insertion of an undefinable by anyone word 'God,' further obfuscated by the phrase 'under God' in a mere optional pledge as one of those acts of political aggression, I would probably take offense. But, to me, it is well below harmless. To me, it is necessary to bring your own meaning of the word to the party in order to even find the merest hint of offense. I am quite comfortable with the phrase in this or any mere 'pledge', to me it reflects the religious freedom and tolerance that this nation supposedly supports--whatever that means.

With my definition of religion--not the silly, limited definition, but the broad definition, the 1st Amendment takes on a whole clearer meaning in the context of a nation whose real national religion is freedom. The freedom to seek answers to those two fundamental questions without undue interference from the irresistible brute force of each other is a remarkable prohibition, said clearly in the 1st Amendment.

"Separation of church and state" is a curiously limiting concept in my opinion. The concepts church, religion, and God are not the same things, and the basis for that separation claim is the 1st Amendment, which speaks to religion, not church or the concept of God. We've lumped them all up into one big Easter egg; hasn't that confused the issue?

regards,
Frediano

I have to wonder if anyone thinks it makes any difference if people say Under God , it has no real influence on anyone as far as I am concerned. But I do think reciting the Pledge on occasion is a healthy idea, after all you are not born Patriotic, it is something you learn.

As I mentioned I grew up in a different era, and doing so in the 40's and 50's when the world was at war dam near continuously during my childhood, you were at the time pretty much a born patriot, knowing your turn would come to serve your country. Everyone I knew went off to some branch of the Military, and we all knew what war could do to you, we had a Military hospital where I live at the time and we saw many soldiers limping around town without a leg or arm but we went on our way without protest or concern.

It was a very different time in America, I was one of the youngest kids and last to go, and a dozen or so Mothers showed up at the train station to see me off, it made me feel strange a little bit, like they thought I was not coming back. If you can picture that scene in your mind, then you know pretty much what it is when people are patriotic, and when people care about the kids in a neigborhood who may not come home again. Its something you never forget.

I am drifting off subject here, but what I want to say is , if it makes people feel better saying under god, then leave it alone, it does no one any harm, and it may do some one some good from a spiritual point of view. When you are old enough to have a Son or daughter on a battle field in some god forsaken Jungle or hell hole , you just may hope their is a god, and hope he is watching out for that child.

QUESTION FOR AMERICANS:

When the WTC and Pentagon was attacked on 911, how did you feel inside, did just a little bit of the Pledge come forth in your Sub conscious mind just a little, did you think about your country not knowing just how broad or what magnitude this attack was, were you ready to fight back if need be.

America is not a perfect nation, but let someone try taking it from you and see how you feel about the Pledge.

I have often heard it claimed that the horrors of 9/11 increased the patriotism (and spirituality) of Americans. Perhaps this is true for the vast majority. All I can say is that it confirmed my long-held opinion that the most important thing for human beings to have is doubt. Persons with doubt do not massacre other human beings. Therefore, I became even stronger in my belief that I will never "pledge allegiance" to the United States, or any other human organization. I like living here; it's better than most places on this sad planet. But I will always withhold absolute loyalty to it.

So it's true what William Hazlitt said in "On the Pleasure of Hating", that patriotism is merely a country's hatred to foreigners?



Patriotism, to me, is the love, devotion or pride one feels for one's country. You shouldn't have to learn to love. If your country is good enough, it should come of its own accord. If it's not good enough, your countrymen or government is at fault, and you should work at creating a nation of which you can be proud.

Why does "under god" have to be in a pledge to your country? Even if it is a nod to tradition, it's talking about the present, not the past, in a personal oath of devotion to your country. Why should those be the official words?