I know this is kinda a dead topic, media coverage wise, but a few weeks ago it was THE hot topic.

And I'm curious, what do you think?

There are those that say reciting "under god" in the Pledge isn't fair, there are those that say it's part of the Pledge, deal with it.

Having the opinion that it's pushing religion on those people that are just trying to be patriotic is just ridiculous. An entity of "God" is all over in this country. In our Plege, on our monies, in our legal documentation and carved in the stone of some of our National monuments.

Whatever your ideas and visions of what/who God is most likely differ from mine, or your neighbors, or the people across the country. Isn't that a good thing though?

The problem I had with the "under god" part of the pledge is that it was legislated in as part of the pledge in 1954, well over fifty years after the pledge was originally composed. Our congress has no business legislating any of this nature. They should have kept themselves out of it and this problem would never had occurred.

My other issue with this case is that Michael Neudow, the man who brought the case to court, presented his claims on behalf of his daughter. Well, if you've watched the news of late, you'll find this little girl very much believes in god and her mother is fighting to get any mention of her daughter stricken from the record.

I find the means to Mr. Neudow's end are twisted and self-centered. He obviously didn't care about his daughter enough to even find out her true feelings on this issue before he created a federal case to promote his atheism.

It is a dead topic but as simple as you may think it is it's even simpler, by putting "under God" in it we are specifying a deity and we thrive off of diversity. So No It Shouldn't Be In The Pledge.

I think that history teachers have failed. Our nation was established as a Godly nation, it was settled by Godly people, and has maintained as unified because of the moral endeavors of the nation. In the 1950’s there was movement to pervert the writings of our founding fathers with the statement “separation of church and state” which is nowhere to be found in the constitution. During this time people who sought fame (as is today) went head to head with the government to remove the mention of god from our schools. In response to the removal of prayer from the schools (a total perversion of the establishment clause) the congress came back with a mention of Under God in the Pledge. It was to remind us on a daily basis that there is something more to us that just a “melting pot” of people. We truly have been blessed to live in such a land of freedom and opportunity.

Congress could have chosen a number of sayings. The majority (HUGE MAJORITY) of America is Christian, they could have said under Jesus, it would have passed. But no they said under God. Who is God, isn’t that up to you to decide? And to say that this violates the constitution is just showing the ignorance of what the Constitutions says. The First Amendment prohibits that establishment…say it with me “ESTABLISHMENT” of a religion. And saying “under God” is not establishing anything…even if you’re an Atheist. The Courts can decide what they want, but I doubt you will be hearing the Pledge of Allegiance not mention Under God anytime soon.

First, just because the majority of this country is Christian doesn't mean that I should have to say pledge anything to their god. I have no problem with kids praying in schools; you can pray to whatever you want. I've got major problems with teachers leading prayers (which is, in my opinion, what this clause make the pledge).

Second, why the hell are we pledging anything to a piece of cloth? If we want to pledge to something why not pledge to the thing that actually makes this country great, its Constitution.

Had to get in on this one...

Here are my thoughts on the separation of church and state: it doesn't exist. It is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights says:



I look at this issue in two different pieces:

1. Is "Under God" establishing a religion?

Since the Pledge of Allegiance is not mandatory, I believe it is not establishing a religion. If we were forced to say this pledge, it would clearly be establishment. Then you would be forced to recognize a god. In this case, I think it is in recognition of the value of religion and it's part in our Nation's history.

2. Is Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

Congress, no. The Legislative Branch, yes. We are granted freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. If parents want their children to say the pledge, then the parents have the right to have their kids say it. And if the teacher wants to lead it, it's their right to do so. As for teaching it, they can teach it with "Under God" in it because it is forever a matter of historical record. It is okay to teach history, right?

How does everyone else interpret this?

Mike

To answer Mike's questions:

1. Is "under god" establishing a religion?

The "under God" clause was legislated into the pledge by congress, so the answer to this question is yes, it does establish religion. God automatically indicates to me a Christian diety. It doesn't say under Yahweh, Buddah, Allah...it says "God." The very act of legislation IS establishment as I interpret this.

2. Is Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

First, I'd like to say that I don't think you actually answered this question in your last post, Mike. So I will comment on what you did write.

I agree with you in a weird way on this one. You say I agree. This, however, opens up the whole issue of school vouchers.

The problem with public schools is they are forced to homogenize everything so they don't make anyone mad. Thus, the need to nix god from the pledge. However, wouldn't school choice fix this?

Well, if we are going to teach the pledge as "historical record" shouldn't we talk about how it was written by a socialist and as it was originally worded (above) could be interpreted as a universal call to socialist state, regardless of nation?

And how the author didn't even like the change from

to


Unfortunately he was dead before the clause under discussion was added so we really don't know what he'd say.

Really all that is beside the point though…

Lets say that my local government decided to pass a law saying we are no longer allowed to talk about politics. There is no congressional act here that is “abridging the freedom of speech,” but I have a sneaking suspicion that such a law is in fact unconstitutional.

That being said, I think when a teacher leads the pledge, this does in fact “prohibit… the free exercise” of religion. Just as it would if they were to lead a Communion, Seder, Beltane or any other religious ritual or ceremony.

I will again state that the kids can pray to whomever they want whenever they want, I just don’t want any endorsement of any particular religion.

1. Is "under god" establishing a religion?



So even though no one is forced to take this pledge, the very act of recognizing religion's contributions to our Nation is establishing a religion? If a very religious man receives the Congressional Medal of Honor, and during the ceremony they cite him for his "service to God and his country", is Congress' recognition of God an establishment of religion?

2. Is Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion?



I certainly did. Since Congress did not make this ruling, and "Under God" wasn't removed by Congressional mandate, they have not prohibited the free exercise of religion.

I am placing the ball in the Legislative branch's court. The Judge in this case is misinterpreting the Constitution, and overstepping the bounds. By declaring the Pledge unconstitutional, he is Legislating from the bench. If the ruling effectively "bans" the pledge, it therefore denies students and teachers the opportunity to say the Pledge. This is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This ruling is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

Mike

Mike-

If you had read the actual ruling (I think I'm one of few who actually did) you would find that the teachers in the school district in question WERE required to lead the students in the pledge. The students were required to follow their teachers. Thus, the students were forced to recite the pledge in this particular issue. It was not an option for the students.

****

I don't get this "legislating from the bench" comment. Please clarify.

Yeah, right... Look what you started...

Anyways, Jaime. I didn't read the actual case. My opinion addressed the bigger issues surrounding the case, and not actually the specifics.

I still believe noone should be forced to say it, and in this case, the judge may have made the only decision available to him. He clearly couldn't have forced these people to say anything they didn't want (which actually they did, but that's a whole different story!).

And to Ouroboros:



Sure we should. I was forced to read excerpts from the Bible for English class for "grammatical content" and "imagery". But when it comes down to it, they can get away with it because it's part of history.



Of course it's unconstitutional in that case, but I'm talking about the Congressional adaptation of "Under God" in the pledge.



How does this actually prohibit the free exercise of religion?

Mike

I agree with Jaime, Congress should not have messed with the Pledge and we wouldn't have this problem.

As a child in a Catholic grade school way back in the 40's, I said "Under God." I will continue to say "Under God" no matter what Congress does or does not do.

If you study the history of the Pledge you will find it has been changed several times. I can even remember when as a child the straight armed gesture was changed to holding one's hand over the heart. The former was thought to be too Hitler like.
Under God was added due to the urging of Eisenhower to separate us from the "Godless" country of then Communist Russia.
Mike is right no where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state. This is another example of judges MAKING law instead of interpreting the Constitution.
GOD BLESS AMERICA

Just a note...the change to Under God took place in 1954.

Whether it is viewed as automatic, tradition, acceptable or for any other excuse, the pledge of allegiance is a form of brainwashing used by many cultures for hundreds of years. It can be likened to the practices of other cultures as a form of conditioning to insure or perhaps justify patriotism, and a sort of unquestioning prejudice favoring the symbols of a culture. Whether it is the massive parades of Russia and the giant pictures of Lenin and Stalin, or the Massive propaganda techniques of the Chinese, or the continuous, repetitious, and eventually monotonous pledge of the Americans you can be sure the aim and the reasons are the same. For kids to repeat the same pledge or prayer every morning over 200 times per year for 12 years shows both doubt on the part of those persons in control and a stubborn insistance on the assurance they need that there will be patriotism and religion installed into the values and mindset of their youth regardless of the limitations of their culture. Repetition is a great teacher but it is a hollow dictionary. Most kids have no idea what a pledge is or it's implied and accepted importance. Nor do they have any idea what allegiance means. Nor what a Republic is. They speak every morning to a flag as if it had ears and they have no idea what a flag means, it's history as an American symbol, or what it means to other people in other lands.
The notion that "Under God" has a meaning that makes sense is the kind of infectious ignorance that adults are contaminated with. It makes no semantic sense to say these words. This culture will probably stay infected for several more generations before a semblance of sanity begins to change the way interpersonal humans relations are conducted.

This is getting away from religion a little but...

Joemailman, you bring up an interesting thought. You offer that the pledge may be interpreted as brainwashing. I'd like to play devil's advocate (no endorsement of any particular religion ) and offer that the pledge may be part of a ritual in which some human animals participate. I don't mean a religous ceremony type ritual, but daily ritual, like why one prefers to brush their teeth before washing their face in the morning.

We are all merely animals and all animals have rituals (don't believe me, come watch the daily routine of my cats, it's the same every day). Perhaps the pledge is the ritual of a pack of animals known as Americans. It's just something we do. Many of us don't really understand why we do it, but we know that it in some way defines us and therefore, we can not surrender it or we are no longer "us."

Just a thought. Can't say I even believe it myself.

Hey Joemailman-

Welcome to the debate.

I agree that the saying of the Pledge could be brain washing. But what constitutes brainwashing? Is brainwashing only brainwashing when used for a negative end result?

When parents raise a child, the parents teach the child right from wrong. But what is the parents' view of right and wrong were, hypothetically, opposite, that child would then believe that. So do parents, in effect, brainwash their children? Or is that just the norm when raising a child?

So this then carries over to the Pledge. While most kids don't understand the Pledge, they say it. They say it because the teachers and their parents tell them to say it. And because the parents and teachers don't want to teach the kids "wrong", the kids assume it's "right".

And I think, in this case, the brainwashing is positive. Kids are taught that in order to be a "true American", you say the pledge. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so.

Mike

Mike--It is a negative process as it demonstrates the inability and distrust of parents and teachers to interest their own assigns, in this case the kids, in the idea or concept of being and maintaining a contructive attachment to their nation. They are obviously and behaviorally not sure of the results of their instructions. think of yourself and your interests in the routine of your own daily life. No-one has to continuouisly remind you of your attachments to anything in this life. Even your president need not take his oath of office ( although this one should just to remind him of his duty) more than once.
Children have interests and are at the most curious time in their lives and this nation's values do not include techniques for generating an interest in the nation of their own children regarding their citizenship. So they (the educators and parents) resort to repetition and a kind of monotonous dialogue with a colored cloth on a stick that will they hope turn into a sort of blind obediance to ....something. Most people in this nation know little or nothing of the history of their country or of the operation of their government. Most graduate students cannot tell you of their Congressmen, or their Senators. They are as dumb as sawdust when it come to anything that doesn't interfer with their money, sexual interests, sports or their jobs in the marketplace. They are even extremely stupid regarding their religion regardless of what that is. Patriotism is truly the "Refuge of the Scoundrel".

The catholic religion originators learned a long time ago that repetition is a control device....thus the rosary beads and the repetitious pennance after their confessions. I think it was father flannagan who said "Give me a boy at a very young age and he will never turn away from the church". What do you think the orthodox jews are saying or thinking as they rock back and forth at the famous "wailing wall"? Why does every religionist continously pray and pray and pray for the same thing if their individual ghosts are listening? Is it possible that this is merely habit as a result of continuous teaching and demands that they repeat and repeat and repeat until there is established behavior? I think this is probably closer an answer than establishing the interests of a child in the history of the "flag" or religious interests on an intellectual level.

Jaime--What you have proposed and expressed is another way of saying the same thing. Of course I agree with you. Being cultural animals we behave in ways that reflect our culture and if that behavior includes a repetitious pattern it only means that we have been conditioned to that behavior. B.F. Skinner was right on target ever since his declaration of behaviorism was expressed some 50 years ago. Of course Watson before him and J. Loeb before Watson. But the people in control were and still are threatened by the proponents of behaviorism. There is a great deal of power and wealth in the ignorance of patriotism and religion. Science has always experienced negative reactions from the conservative, the conventional and the traditional. It always will because of the structure and nature of those characteristics. They are the antithesis of progress and human cultural development.

I don't agree with you that kids assume it's right. I think that they don't assume anything. They just say it period. It is obvous that it doesn't work. The interests that it is suppose to generate does not happen. The attachment that it is suppose to generate does not happen (there is no rush at all to partiscipate in the armed forces on the part of the great majority of high school grads). The military and the government go to great lengths (through advertising) to interest kids and it doesn't work....obviously. It is much cheaper to buy a flag for $10 and hang it on your car than it is to commit your interest in your country to the Peace Corps or the military or VISA or any so-called patriotic function.

I don't think parents, Teachers, or school officials are lying. I just think they are dumb as hell and don't think any other technique is worth promoting or investing in.

One last point. I don't think saying the pledge is a bad thing....I think it is a useless thing...nonproductive, monotonous, and may very well be a part of the resentment that many young people have regarding school. Educate the youth to the reality of relevant information and you won't have to be concerned with their interests in their nation.

Nettie, I also remember using the straight armed gesture when reciting the Pledge. We placed our hand over our hearts while we said "I pledge allegence " then straight out for the remaining words. This was discontinued for the reasons you mentioned. Too much like the Hitler salute.

We ALWAYS said "under God" in the Catholic school I attended. I don't know how it was recited in the public schools at that time.

Did anyone see the little boy,on 60 min. last night, who said how important the Pledge is to him and his classmates since 9/11?