BasketCase
Username sez it all
Random note: as I established a while back with a poll, we CFC'ers don't avoid answering challenges. We get distracted from them by real life or by the fact that THERE ARE TOO MANY DAMN THREADS. 
Pledge of Allegiance to be banned in public schools?
- Thread starter madviking
- Start date
blackheart said:
I'm not against naturalized citizens. I just don't think it is unreasonable for them to recite a simple pledge of allegiance for the country they wish to join. Why is that such a big deal? If they don't want to be in the US, that's fine, we're not forcing them to stay. And if they do, then they need to be willing to pledge loyalty to their new country. I really don't see why this is an issue.
Simple put, because it acknowledges that America is not perfect and is not the ultimate power, even America is 'under God'.
blackheart
unenlightened
Elrohir said:
What if you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god? Because that is the god that the pledge is referring to.
Elgalad
Bully!
I am not convinced that the Pledge of Allegiance with or without the phrase 'Under God" is unconstitutional or that it requires any sort of affirmation of religious belief on the part of anyone who recites it.
Now before you all get in an uproar about my apparent 'blindness to the obvious..' hear me out!
When I was in elementary school, we were indeed required to recite this Pledge every day as school began. And the phrase 'under God' was part of it. When you're little you don't really think about the specific words of the thing (at least I didn't) but rather accept that it's a sort of community building experience with your fellow schoolchildren. I understood that it meant that I was stating aloud that I was an American, and that I should be proud to be an American (which I was) and further, that I realized that it also meant a series of promises that my country was making to me ("..with Liberty and Justice for all.").
As I grew older and moved on to high school, my classmates and I were no longer required to recite the Pledge and I mostly forgot what it meant. I didn't realize that kids today still repeat it in class. In fact, that surprises me, since the cynical side of me believed such affirmations of nationalistic pride have long since been swept out of public education altogether.
So when I came across this news item on the television and later here in the forums, I had to do a little research for myself. There are references all over the internet regarding this hot topic right now, and plenty of good historical sites as well. I've learned a great deal more about this oath tonight just by considering the issue.
Some of you know that I'm a pretty die-hard nationalist as well as a Christian, so you might expect me to join the chorus of "preserve the words!" And before I looked into this, I probably would have. But there's definitely something to be said about taking your time to make up your mind. And my opinion now is pretty clear: I'd much rather keep the Pledge available in our schools than to get in a fight over the inclusion/exclusion of a divisive phrase that was not even a part of the Pledge to begin with.
I have no problem with the phrase itself, and I believe that many of its opponents are misreading the true meaning of it. "Under God" does not state that one must believe that the United States is a Christian Nation, but rather, that the Pledger Acknowledges that this nation was founded under Christian Principles. It's really that simple. Some folks do not want to admit that, or deny it outright, but the evidence seems clear. More importantly however, this nation was founded with, as one of its goals, the opportunity for All to practice their chosen religion (or lack of) freely.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written long after the founding of this country. And the contentious phrase is actually a relatively recent addition. It was added just as many here have said, during a difficult period in our nation when we were fighting an ideological war with a powerful enemy. It was added to point out one stark difference between our society and that of our opponent, and while some might choose to call that difference Christianity vs Atheism, I Strongly disagree. It would be far more appropriate to call the conflict represented by that phrase, "Freedom of Religious Expression vs State-Sponsored Religious Oppression".
The cold war is long over now, and this phrase that once represented Freedom has graduated into something else, something many find offensive. I may not feel offended myself, but I can understand well how others do. For this reason, I do support removing the phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance and restoring it to the pre-1954 version.
It is vital to keep in mind that this nation was founded in great part by many refugees from religious oppression in Europe. These men and women were determined to build a haven where they might practice their beliefs in peace. The framers of the United States Constitution realized that religious freedom could never co-exist with Government interference, even were it to be positive by nature. They further realized that unless the Government itself was Free from specific religious influence, it could not preserve those freedoms for all. Religious freedom must be universal or it does not exist for Anyone. And religious freedom Must include the right to Not believe as well.
This issue will not be resolved quickly or easily. I fully expect that when the case reaches the United States Supreme Court, it may decide to preserve the status quo. I believe this would be a most unfortunate decision because the simple solution (remove the words, "Under God") Would be something that I think most Americans could live with. But if the fight continues, it will most likely result in the Pledge being removed completely from our schools.
-Elgalad
Now before you all get in an uproar about my apparent 'blindness to the obvious..' hear me out!
When I was in elementary school, we were indeed required to recite this Pledge every day as school began. And the phrase 'under God' was part of it. When you're little you don't really think about the specific words of the thing (at least I didn't) but rather accept that it's a sort of community building experience with your fellow schoolchildren. I understood that it meant that I was stating aloud that I was an American, and that I should be proud to be an American (which I was) and further, that I realized that it also meant a series of promises that my country was making to me ("..with Liberty and Justice for all.").
As I grew older and moved on to high school, my classmates and I were no longer required to recite the Pledge and I mostly forgot what it meant. I didn't realize that kids today still repeat it in class. In fact, that surprises me, since the cynical side of me believed such affirmations of nationalistic pride have long since been swept out of public education altogether.
So when I came across this news item on the television and later here in the forums, I had to do a little research for myself. There are references all over the internet regarding this hot topic right now, and plenty of good historical sites as well. I've learned a great deal more about this oath tonight just by considering the issue.
Some of you know that I'm a pretty die-hard nationalist as well as a Christian, so you might expect me to join the chorus of "preserve the words!" And before I looked into this, I probably would have. But there's definitely something to be said about taking your time to make up your mind. And my opinion now is pretty clear: I'd much rather keep the Pledge available in our schools than to get in a fight over the inclusion/exclusion of a divisive phrase that was not even a part of the Pledge to begin with.
I have no problem with the phrase itself, and I believe that many of its opponents are misreading the true meaning of it. "Under God" does not state that one must believe that the United States is a Christian Nation, but rather, that the Pledger Acknowledges that this nation was founded under Christian Principles. It's really that simple. Some folks do not want to admit that, or deny it outright, but the evidence seems clear. More importantly however, this nation was founded with, as one of its goals, the opportunity for All to practice their chosen religion (or lack of) freely.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written long after the founding of this country. And the contentious phrase is actually a relatively recent addition. It was added just as many here have said, during a difficult period in our nation when we were fighting an ideological war with a powerful enemy. It was added to point out one stark difference between our society and that of our opponent, and while some might choose to call that difference Christianity vs Atheism, I Strongly disagree. It would be far more appropriate to call the conflict represented by that phrase, "Freedom of Religious Expression vs State-Sponsored Religious Oppression".
The cold war is long over now, and this phrase that once represented Freedom has graduated into something else, something many find offensive. I may not feel offended myself, but I can understand well how others do. For this reason, I do support removing the phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance and restoring it to the pre-1954 version.
It is vital to keep in mind that this nation was founded in great part by many refugees from religious oppression in Europe. These men and women were determined to build a haven where they might practice their beliefs in peace. The framers of the United States Constitution realized that religious freedom could never co-exist with Government interference, even were it to be positive by nature. They further realized that unless the Government itself was Free from specific religious influence, it could not preserve those freedoms for all. Religious freedom must be universal or it does not exist for Anyone. And religious freedom Must include the right to Not believe as well.
This issue will not be resolved quickly or easily. I fully expect that when the case reaches the United States Supreme Court, it may decide to preserve the status quo. I believe this would be a most unfortunate decision because the simple solution (remove the words, "Under God") Would be something that I think most Americans could live with. But if the fight continues, it will most likely result in the Pledge being removed completely from our schools.
From the United States Constitution said:
-Elgalad
Masquerouge
Deity
Good job Elgalad 
This is the most sensible post on the subject I have so far read. I disagree with some of what you say, but it's a pleasure to do it with someone who haas given much thoughts and considerations to the subject
This is the most sensible post on the subject I have so far read. I disagree with some of what you say, but it's a pleasure to do it with someone who haas given much thoughts and considerations to the subject
blackheart said:
It doesn't say "One nation, under the Judeo-Christian god", it just says "One nation, under God". You can take this to mean Allah, or Brahma, or the universe or your pet cat, I really don't care.
And it's not like you have to say the words or anything.
@Elgalad
An Associated Press poll awhile ago showed that 87% of Americans want the Pledge to stay the same as it is. Would not Democracy demand that we keep it in?
Link 1
Link 2
farting bob
ThEy MaDe Me Do iT.
I took the following quote from cuivienen earlier in the thread (post #45), who says he does know about the law. Maybe you dont know everything yourself h4ppy.h4ppy said:
Cuivienen said:
Elgalad
Bully!
Elrohir said:
I was not aware that public sentiment ran so strongly in favor of preserving the current Pledge. This Does add significant weight to the debate. I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised since most of the people I have spoken to about this (outside the forum) are also very supportive of it (as am I!).
However, this question has become a Constitutional issue, and a Constitutional question. As such, there appear to be only two permanent ways to resolve it:
A) Constitutional Interpretation by the Judiciary ( last stop: US Supreme Court)
B) Constitutional Amendment (Passed by either the Congress and State Legislatures or during a Constitutional Convention of the States)
It does not matter that the majority of American citizens support the wording or not, this is not a democracy as so many are quick to point out. This is a democratic constitutional republic under the rule of law. Congress cannot simply pass a bill to protect the Pledge, nor can the President enact an Executive Order to do so. More precisely, either branch Could do those things, but neither of them would provide any permanent resolution. It's important to note that when the Pledge was last changed, it was done through precisely these very means: Congressional legislation signed into law by then President Eisenhower.
And today the question being raised is the Constitutionality itself of those very words that were added. The fact that they are required to be spoken in public schools makes this a Constitutional issue.
I do realize how important this issue is to many Americans, particularly those who believe it is just another example of erosion of our culture and national heritage. But the Law must protect all citizens equally, not just the majority. And to do so, it must remain impartial to public opinion and influence. There is a process to change those laws we disagree with, but until and unless we choose to do so, we Must act within the bounds of those that exist.
-Elgalad
blackheart
unenlightened
Elrohir said:
You want the whole pledge recited, but now you say don't say a portion of it? It doesn't say under the Judeo-Christian god, but that was what meant when it was added during the age of McCarthyism.
Elgalad said:
May I see the evidence that suggest this? All the history texts I have read point that the founding fathers were Deists.
Elgalad
Bully!
blackheart said:
I'll simply refer you to one of the links that I posted previously. The specific reference is..
In addition, you'll find this link at the same webpage. Please click on the Question entitled,
"Q: In determining whether the words "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance, is it valid to look to the specific comments and thoughts of the Founding Fathers?" (this is a Javascript popup and I could not link to it
)Now we could take this even further into a back and forth debate and you could post quotes from Founding Fathers that state clearly that the United States was not founded on Christian principles, and I could post quotes from the very SAME Founding Fathers that state clearly that the United States Was founded on Christian principles. This would take us pretty far off topic and would really solve nothing. You would continue to believe that it was not, and I would continue to believe that it was. But I will point out that I've already qualified myself in the very portion of my post that you cited. I said that
I've highlighted those words that qualify my statement.
I apologize if my tone was perceived as patronizing in any way. It was certainly not intended as such. It was, just as is Every post on this forum, the considered opinion of one individual. And while it may have been backed up by a link or a quote, it was still my Opinion.
You're entitled to your own as well, friend.
-Elgalad
h4ppy
You sir, pineapple?
Maybe if you would read on you would have learned that I alrady explained that charge.farting bob said:
Elgalad said:
I was not either until I read about it on a conservative website, Frontpagemag.com. But I didn't think you guys would find that a credible source (
) so I did a little digging, and found that it's true. I would have thought support for keeping it in would be in the 60-65%, but I guess I underestimated the American public.The rest of your post is too long to quote in it's entirety, but suffice to say I agree. A ruling by the Supreme Court should settle it, and I'm confident that it would rule to keep it in, especially once Bush get's a conservative in to replace that swing-voter, O'Connor. But, should it for some reason not make it that for or this absurd ruling be upheld by the Supreme Court, unlikely as that is, I think there is enough support for a Constitutional Amendment. The average American would probably be rather angry at the Judicial branch after something like that and I imagine the backlash could be strong enough for Conservatives to rush through an Amendment.
Hotpoint
Rome Treaty Legions
Elgalad said:
The only problem with the notion that the United States "was founded under Christian principles" is that the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) specifically states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
This treaty was introduced to Congress by George Washington during his last term as President, and was ratified by the Senate (signed by President John Adams). Once ratified the treaty was part of US Law and more to the point the fact that it managed to get ratified at a time when the founding fathers were still very much extant is certainly a blow against the notion that the country was built on "Christian Principles" because they specifically said it wasn't.
The Dark Master
Pure Evil
I don't pledge alleagince to nobody. And this is what happens when you give people to much freedom, all of these damn legal cases. And so what if it has god in there I usually make fun of the pledge and say things like "one nation under Budda".
newfangle
hates you.
Is there a chance you aren't younger than 13?
The Dark Master
Pure Evil
Actually im 14
The Dark Master said:
Didn't see that one coming.
That is such an old argument, and an invalid one. First of all, this is part of Article 11, and was actually gibberish in the original Arabic document. It was mistranslated in America, and passed by the Senate or not, it was not actually part of the treaty, and is thus invalid.
It is invalid secondly because this treaty was broken in 1801 and renegotiated in 1805 at which time this was removed, correcting the mistake. So not only was it not supposed to be there at all, but it's an old and broken treaty that the US is in no way bound to follow. Your argument is completely invalid and off-topic.
blackheart
unenlightened
Elrohir said:
But the Senate DID pass it, even if it were mistranslated, the Senate read the (mis)translated version, and passed it because they agreed with its words?
blackheart said:
Didn't you see that 'factual documentary', Fahrenheit 911? Most Senators don't read the bills they pass!
No, seriously now, they were trying to end a war, I don't think they really cared what the document said. And as it was both a mistranslation and has since been broken and renegotiated with a different treaty it has absolutely no bearing on any US law. Try arguing that it does in court and you'll get laughed out of town.
A'AbarachAmadan
Deity
IglooDude said:
That's a good point, but I don't think you'd have to brief the options 'every day'. I do believe there should be two official versions, so that one can say it with or without it. I personally just don't say it.
Similar threads
