Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Supreme Court allows "Under God" on a technicality...

pan6467 · 06-19-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pigglet
I've been reading this thread and watching it develop for a while now, and I've got a few questions for pan. I don't mean to attack, but there are a few things in your arguments that I don't understand, and you seem to have become something of the spearhead for the "leave it in" side. I am personally for the removal of the "under God" phrase, but I would like to understand the other side of the argument, especially from someone as fervent as you seem to be who claims not to relgious, but rather spiritual. This is how I consider myself, as well. So,

1. You have repeated several times that the word GOD has no intrinsic value, but rather whatever value you place on it. I have to draw distinction with this idea, at least in this context. Yes, to use one of your examples, black people have transformed the word "nigger" into a slang term and devalued it of its meaning, at least in some contexts. However, if I (as a middle-class white dude) were to walk into a predominately black neighborhood with a bullhorn and start chanting " What's up my niggers? What's kickin'? Anybody up for a game of Parcheesi?" do you honestly think that the typical response would be " Hey, look at that guy. Seems ok to me...shit, I could go for a game of Parcheesi..." ? I don't. I think I would have my ass kicked six ways from Sunday within five minutes. The reason being that that phrase has meaning, especially in certain contexts.

I believe that, similarly, in the context of a Pledge of Allegiance to country , that the term "God" has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean biscuit, for example. It doesn't mean nickel. It doesn't even mean "Twelve major Greek gods, all the associated demi-Gods, and a couple of caraffes of wine thrown in for good measure." It clearly is derived from a Judeo-Christrian background, if not the relgion itself, and at very minimum implies a belief in a personified deity, and non a pantheon of deities, or a more wholistic natural view of spirituality. Wriggle it however you like, that's still the implication. Remember, saying the pledge isn't discretionary - when I was in school, you had to say it . Period. I think that this is pretty common. I don't think they have a minute of quiet time at the begining of the day, where you can either say the pledge or pass notes. Which leads me to...

2. You claim that, yes, it is possibly linked in some way to a Judeo-Christian background, but that it is part of our history. Then, when the facts are brought up that it is not, in fact, historical truth that "Under God" has always been a part of the Pledge, but rather was added in 1954 in response to the Red Scare and McCarthy, and this Knights of Columbia angle (that I personally was unaware of) you state that this is irrelevant, and that the role of the phrase in the Pledge shouldn't be affected by this, because it reflects a spritual / political reality of the founding of our nations. This, to me, is interesting.

I grew up in S.C., where up until about two or three years ago, we had the Battle Flag of the Confederate States on top of our State house. Supporters of the Flag remaining on the State house used many of the same arguments that you have used. Removal of the Flag would remove a part of Southern history, that the spirit behind the flag was "Heritage, not Hate." It was brought up that the flag was only placed on top of the State House in 1964, in response to the court ruling in Plessy vs. Fergusson for integration of public schools, and the downfall of Jim Crow legislation and the policy of "Separate, but Equal." Supporters of the flag also claimed that this was irrelevant, and that they didn't intend for the flag to carry the message of "Hey black people, either accept being second class citizens or get the hell out of our state." but rather "we are proud of our Confederate soldiers, and want to honor this part of our history." Very well. A few of them may, although I suspect that many of the ardent supporters of the flag were and are racists, because I grew up with them. However, it's really a moot point.

The point is that any black person looking at that flag would have to see it as a symbol of their years of slavery, whether it was intended that way or not. Even if it were not put up in 1964, but had been atop the state house since the end of the Civil War, they would see it that way. It specifically excluded them. They could pretend that it honored their ancestors who had to fight in the Confederate Army, but understandably relatively few did / do.

I see your claim that the taint of the Redscare context of the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge should not be offensive to Atheists or people who believe in non mono-theistic religions, and the fact that the inclusion of the phrase wouldn't offend them even without this context in an analogous manner. The fact is, if you're from one of these backgrounds, it does exclude you, and probably would offend you or single you out. Unless you place the value of the word God to mean something else. Besides God. Which I don't think your average person is going to do, much less your average kid in grades K-12. They aren't sitting around debating the finer points of philosophy and how they fit into a tautological understanding of the pledge. They say the pledge, and when it comes to the phrase "under God" I guarrantee you that most have a picture in their mind of what is intended , regardless if it is consistent with their beliefs or the beliefs of their household.

In conclusion, allow me to say that I understand what I consider to be the heart of your position, and I agree that the attempt to remove any notion of spirituality and various relgions completely from society is foolish and stoopid. Yes, with two o's. That's how stupid I think it is. It flies in the face of learning to appreciate diversity and respect other subsets of cultures. I agree that I would prefer that Christmas festivals be allowed in public places in the season, but also that such festivals as the Festival of Lights from India or perhaps something commemorating Rammadan be encouraged, or at least allowed if groups from these societies want to throw the party to share their culture with others. However, I personally feel that you may have picked the wrong battle with the Pledge. If you said that you were adamently opposed to a Christian group not being allowed to hold a Nativity scene in the town hall, which people were not forced or coerced to attend, then I would back you 100%. And tell those Nazi-ass shiteating people in town hall to go straight to hell, hell, hell. But on this one, you're taking a stand to leave a specific mention of a phrase which is overtly associated with the presupposition of relgion, in place in a pledge which is nominally intended to show fealty to a secular, inclusive American government, and which children are forced to recite every day before school. I agree that too much money is being spent on this farce, and that we have better things to spend our time on, but I also believe that the phrase should simply be removed and we should be allowed to move on to other things.

I appreciate the questions Pigglet and thank you for the chance to explain.

1. While yes, God to many may mean the Judeo-Christian God, in my opinion it is the value you put on it. If I say or read "In God we trust", in essence I put MY value of the meaning on the word there. Noone can tell me what value to place for God. As for, what others mean by the word, that is their decision, and does not affect my understanding of my higher power (or God). This is a conscious decision by me.

As for kids, a parent can talk to them try to explain what they believe and why. The parents can try to help place a value, but eventually as the child grows they will put their own meaning to the word.

In my opinion, and this is not to offend anyone as this is just my opinion, I believe if you are open and honest in your spirituality with your child and open them to others so that they know what is out there, saying God at school will not be an issue.

If you tell your children that the "under God" is just for the Christians and has no meaning to you, then you are effectively teaching them that God can only have that value. Whereas, if you teach your children there are more than just one view of God, and everyone has a differing view, then they will not be troubled by the word.

As for your example with the word "nigger" I truly feel that it is in the context of use. The way you use the word and the value the target has on it is in direct correlation to the response you'll get. The main reason one would say this is to be inciteful to begin with.

2. Like I said it's not so much the pledge, but these people will not stop. They take and want more. It's the pledge, then it's the money, then it's the holidays, then it's any mention of the word in schools and government. Then they'll clamp down on the prayers in Congress and so on. It is not ever going to stop until people like me say enough. Live with it. We are still the freeest country and have the most liberties, but by your demanding things your way you are taking rights away. Because every lawsuit, every law passed is an erosion of more rights for the majority.

If people don't realize they are wasting tax dollars, clogging the court systems up with ridiculous lawsuits INSTEAD of educating themselves and trying to compromise, then eventually we will have no rights, because we have proven we can't handle the responsibilities.

I just have had enough. Instead of taking rights away, if these people truly wanted what was best for the country, they would work with government and the schools around them and find common ground. But they won't, they want what they want and everyone else be damned.

Look what they are doing to broadcast media right now, not to mention Ashcroft's war on porn. Instead of educating and working to keep the rights, these groups would rather take away the rights of all for their purpose.

It might sound radical, might sound like I'm way out there. Perhaps, time will tell. But we have to take a stand on all these groups and say enough. No matter how stupid the object of the stance appears we have to look at the whole picture. And right or wrong this is my stand to say enough.