brianna

pan6467: my post was not directed at you. i know that you think it's not just the pledge, i've read your posts, but since my response was only in regards to whether or not being "one nation under god" somehow endows us with rights that we may not have otherwise I don't see why you think this is a sign that i've ignored the opinion that you've reiterated repeatedly.

pan6467

I appologize then Brianna. I am sorry for constantly repeating myself but this is a very passionate issue with me.

And to be honest "under God" in the pledge isn't that big of a deal, if it were to stop there. I just know it won't though, because it never ends.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Kadath

All of it? This country was founded with slavery and no voting for women. Do you really want to keep all of it? That argument is ludicrous. It's not hypocrisy to use what's right and try to fix what's wrong.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Kalis Enigma

In 1954, post McCarthy era "Red craze," when communists were seen hidden under every rock and in every person who was considered "unpatriotic", the Knights of Columbus began a modern day crusade. It was through their efforts that "under God" was added. Read the story in their own words in this PDF document on their web site K of C story of the Pledge
http://www.kofc.org/about/activities...nvolvement.cfm
(The story as about 1/2 way down the page).

There are groups attempting to restore the original Pledge. Among these is the Pledge Restoration Project.
This is a good site with a lot of links, information and history.
http://65.18.154.108/The_Pledge/the_pledge.html

I support restoring the pledge because children ARE punished and ostracised for NOT saying it. My kids were denied breakfast and lunch at school and harrassed by staff for not saying the pledge. I have my own case filed with my local ACLU office in case the school starts up again.

Our reasons for NOT saying the pledge are not purely religious. They are also tied to the fact that the K of C made the push to get the words "under God" added. The K of C honors a man that nearly wiped out an entire race. What are we teaching our children when we tell them Columbus is a hero? That murder is ok...

__________________
Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here we might as well dance!

pan6467

No it's not. The hypocrasy comes when people look at only one thing and are blind to the rest.

Gun control and the NRA are good examples. Each looks at the amendment to bear arms.

To me, it is just funny how we praise our freedoms given, praise how great the DOI and CON. are then when we see something we dislike we blindly focus on that one item.

There are some things that are definately outdated and have been taken care of through the amendment processes.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

DelayedReaction

I regret to inform that there are a significant number of people in this world who do not have a monotheistic belief system, and those people do not deserve to be ostracized. Having "under God" in the pledge ostracizes those people, and is an example of the government respecting the practice of a specific form of belief.

I personally am agnostic. I do not have anti-religious agenda, I just want everyone to be treated equally.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

pan6467

Now for that you have a very strong case. I do not think a school has the right to dictate what you can or cannot say (provided it is not vulgar and inciteful). In essence the school has taken your children's 1st amendment to free speech away and that is wrong.

I too want ALL treated equally, and therefore my stand to end the idiocies going on.

We cannot change history, Columbus did what he thought was right at the time, Puritans burning witches, slave owners did what they thought right at the time, Prohibitionists, McCarthy and so on, all did what they believed was best for their community at their time. I cannot condemn people in the past for doing what they believed and what the masses allowed to happen, because I was not there and they do not know what we know today as far as right from wrong.

It is easy to condemn anyone in history, but unless you were there, subject to exactly the education and beliefs they were, who knows what they would have truly done then?

Anyway, sorry for the change in topic and the ranting...... but I am the Mad Heretic afterall and being such I cannot allow myself to make too much sense.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mikado

Couldn't have said it better myself. I think most people need to grow a thicker skin.

pig

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.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

filtherton

^^^^^
<<<<< hanging from the nuts of pigglet.

Kalis Enigma

Pan wrote:I have to disagree. What is happening is that other religions are NOT being given the same voice as Christianity- Christians refuse to share the spotlight. People of other religious faiths are left hearing the, "the U.S. is a Christian nation if you don't like it move to another country" speech.

If they can't share then they need to lose their rights as well. They can't have it both ways. I NEVER had a problem with the pledge until post 9/11 when the school began forcing it and telling my kids they were bad for NOT saying it. My kids were and still are the ONLY kids in the school that know the history of the pledge and why it is said. The school just forces the kids to say it with no background info or history lesson.

If Christian people gave equal time and rights to other religious paths I would have no issues with the pledge, Ten Commandments or "in God we trust"; let’s see if the school will post the Asatru Nine Noble Virtues or the Wiccan Rede next to the Ten Commandments…

Many Christians believe they are the "chosen" and vehemently fight ANY religious diversity because theirs is the one true path and the U.S. government recognizes Christianity as the official religion (with the U.S. motto on money and with the pledge). Most don’t even know our original motto was E. Pluribus Unum: Out of many, one.

I have met only TWO true Christians who allowed all paths were valid and had no prejudices against other religions. I follow their example and hold no prejudice against any other religion. I just want the equality promised to me in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

__________________
Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here we might as well dance!

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

debaser

Quoted for truth.

__________________

pig

Pan, thank you for the response. In reading your reply, I see that I think that we are simply going to disagree on some points in this particular situation, although I agree with what I consider to be the basic underlying stance you are taking. As I stated earlier, I simply think that this is not be the place to stand. In fact, in feeling as though I would like to take a similar stand, I end up on the opposite side of the argument. Funny, eh? If your concern is the undue influence that relatively well-funded, highly vocal groups are having on our society (is this essentially your issue, or am I misunderstanding you?), then I would agree with you...at least when the influence is to successfully further objectives which are unconstitutional, or which unduly infringe on the rights of others. In the current case, I see it the following way. There is an increasing vocal, well-funded group of people who are very interested in the phrase "Under God" being removed from the Pledge. There is also a vocal, well-funded group who is very interested in the phrase "Under God" being retained in the Pledge. My guess is that the majority of Americans probably wouldn't pursue this issue on their own, nor would they develop a strong position if neither of these groups were pushing their agenda in the issue. This is the way most issues are argued in society. When confronted with this situation, this specific situation, and asked where I stand, I have to fall on removing the phrase from the Pledge, for the reasons I stated above in my earlier post. I don't see the point in repeating them, but...



Here is the first place we will have to agree to disagree for now. You seem to feel that you can say the phrase "Under God" and have it be inclusive to various forms of spirituality, and have it take on various meanings through parental counseling of the child or expanded consciousness. However, in my opinion, you fail to recognize that some parents and their children apparently do not want to have to do this. They just don't want to say the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge, neither do they want to feel singled out by not saying "Under God" in a classroom of their peers (and do you remember high-school / middle school peer pressure? God it was awful for some people). Saying the Pledge is mandatory in some places, I know because it was where I grew up. Over ten years ago. There is no doubt in my mind that saying the phrase "Under God" has no effect on you, and I commend you for your mental flexability in being able to render this phrase to mean whatever you want it to be. However, I do not think that everyone should be forced to warp the phrase away from it's original intention in order to be able to tolerate it, in a Pledge of Allegiance to the United States. Once again, this singles out people for no apparent reason that I can understand or justify. The inclusion of the phrase "Under God" was not the default - remember it was added merely fifty years ago, and I just don't see how a mandatory Pledge of Allegiance which includes the word God (which presupposes, at minimum a belief in some sort of monotheistic god, and for reasons which I think have been eloquently argued by previous posters, strongly insinuates a Judeo-Christian god (language, historical circumstances surrounding the group that originally lobbied to include it, etc)) can not violate Separation of Church and State.

As another point, remember that this is a Pledge of Allegiance. It's not a pledge to be a good kid and not stick bubble gum under the desk, under God. It's not a Pledge to show up for detention if you get caught trying to peek in the girl's shower, Under God. It's a pledge of Allegiance , to the United States, Under God. You don't think that if you don't believe in a God, that pledging Allegiance to one could be somewhat uncomfortable, or dare I suggest a violation of your constituational rights? I just don't understand that. Not to mention that even if every single kid in public school was a Christian (hypothetical - eliminates the need for any interpretation of the word God.) and wanted to say the Pledge with "under God", I don't really know how I feel about them making that Pledge in a public instituation devoted to the shaping of their minds and, at least partially, their world view, regardless of their views on sprituality. Is that really appropriate, technically?

Quote:

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.

So if you're choice was to teach your children that the concept of God was a load of horse dung, and that all this stuff was a bunch of hocus-pocus that has no more metaphysical reality than, say, Mickey Mouse in Fantasia , and thus they decided not to say the Pledge because it went against their relgious beliefs, which either 1. Got them in detention Hall (where I went to school, for instance, this could happen although it was rarely enforced), or 2. Singled them out from other kids, particularly uncomfortable in say, small town S.C. middle-of-the-Bible-belt land, or if they did say it, forced them to say something they don't believe in, in essence making them hypocrits. You don't think it's easier just not to have it in the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States (not the Pledge of Allegiance to the Land under the provence of a Collection of Loosely-Defined Any Spirtual Belief You Like So Long as It Has a God), and let the kids of various religious faiths pray elsewhere when they like?



Of course, that's exactly what I said. In this case, the context is a bunch of kids being forced to recite a Pledge of Allegiance which specifically includes the ideological concept that you are pledging allegiance to a Nation which is under the provences of a God, in a clearly state-supported instituation and setting. In may not incite anything in you, but don't it might incite some feeling in an Atheist child?

Well, I probably will live with it, at least for now. I'm not going to go out and spend my time and energy on these issues, personally, as there are other things that I need to do. However, I support those that are fighting these issues, and while we're at it, I'm glad you brought up the issue of money and prayers before Congress, because I agree - hopefully they will eventually go after that. As far as the $$$ goes, it's probably best just to not ask you to explain why "In God We Trust" is there, because of course it's the same issue and there's no need to diverge the current discussion. As for prayers before Congress, I don't know enough about it to have an informed position on it, but I would say that a mandatory prayer before the meeting of one of the most powerful governmental bodies in the world sort of sends a message. For the holidays and so forth, I already explained how I, at least, see that - and I haven't really heard so much about holidays being cancelled as much as I've heard about them being added.



I just don't see this, in this context - in fact, I feel as though by this statement you are essentially hoisted upon your own petar. To wit, everyone is this discussion is insisting on things being their own way - if they weren't, we wouldn't be having a discussion. Pot, meet kettle. If it wasn't that way, I'd be saying "Take the 'Under God' business out," and you would be saying....

Nothing, because you wouldn't be insisting on having it your own way. Secondly, I don't think that anyone is trying to take away your right, or anyone's right to say God anywhere, including school. I think that they are trying to preserve the right of kids not to say that they believe in some concept of a God, when in fact they may not...and certainly not to have them pledge allegiance to a God in a publicly supported instituation.

Quote:

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 don't know that civil rights cases are the ones clogging up the court docktets. I think that there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits, but I would guess the court system is more clogged with blue collar legislation, transactional cases, and other legal matters than these cases. I could be wrong, but this is the feeling that I get from my friends who are attorneys. In fact, I think that using this as a justification for wanting this particular suit is pretty much a strawman argument. It sounds good to me, but when I think about it I tend to think that of all the money wasted in our society, in court cases and in other areas, that the money going to fight this case is probably minmal. Not to threadjack, but of the top of my head I seem to recall that we paid some cat in Iraq about $350,000 / month to not do what we said to do and give us bad intelligence. I don't want to get into a discussion of that - I'm just saying that a lot of $$$ flows in our society, for a lot of reasons - and that attaching that stigma as a reason to throw this case away seems invalid to me.



Once again, I can't really speak to what attempts were made, if any to address this issue prior to the court case. I'm not trying to challenge you to quote sources here, as I've not included any either (we seem to be having an ideological debate, not a source-related what happened debate) but do you know that they didn't attempt to approach the school systems about this? I'd be curious to know. Once again, I don't see how anyone's rights are being taken away.

I agree with you 100% here; I just don't think that the two groups lobbying for removing the Pledge stuff and the people fighting to keep porn are the same camp. This really isn't a freedom of speech issue ( as no one is saying an individual can't say the word God on school grounds or anything) - it's a Separation issue, which I would think would actually be trying to protect people's civil rights. They don't happen to be yours in this issue, as far as I can tell. I don't mean that as an attack, I just think you'd have a different take if you couldn't make the phrase God mean whatever canopy of spiritual belief you hold to.

I don't think you're radical or out there - I just think that you may have chosen the wrong stand. As I said before, if you were talking about the nativity scenes and all that, then I would agree with you. If you were arguing that Jewish kids shouldn't be prevented from wearing the little beanie hats to school, then I would agree with you. If you were arguing alot of other things, I think I would tend to agree with you, espeically given what I've seen of some of your posts in other threads. Just not here. In any case, thank you for your responses. As you can no doubt see from this post, I still don' t understand your point about the phrase "Under God" having some dubious, relativisitc meaning - that is so ill-defined that you can make it mean whatever you want it to. If fact, if the meaning is that open to inpretation, it kind of seems like a crappy thing to have in such an official declaration. What if God to me meant "North Korea"? Or "Satan"? Or the "Hot Chick Living Next Door Whom I Regularly Spy On While She's In The Tub"? It's not much of a Pledge if it's so wishy-washy. I agree that special interest groups are, and have been, taking advantage of polical influence, primarily derived from $$$, for too long. I just think it's funny that two people who see that issue the same way, come down on exactly opposite sides of this position.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style