| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/25/2004 11:30:02 AM · #1 |
In reference ot this...
//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115048,00.html
I have a serious question. Let's see if I can ask without getting flamed.
Ok, if the request for removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegience is based on separating church and state, what happens if it IS removed?
From what I understand, there are kids that attend public schools who currently leave the classroom when the Pledge is being recited because it interferes with their religious beliefs. Now, if "under God" is removed, and is deemed free of "church", will ALL students be required to recite the Pledge? Even internationals?
Can a religious group protest the Pledge if there is no "church" in it anymore?
Intelligent replies only, thank you and God bless.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 11:41:16 AM · #2 |
I do think you are correct, they will have to stay in the class room and recite it since there is no religious meaning to it(that is if the phrase gets removed).
Im not being a stick in the mud and dont want to be flamed either, but the phrase "under god" was added to the pledge back in the 1950's as a result of pressure the US government received from the Knights of Columbus, which is a religious group.
Knights of Columbus and the Pledge
So in fact this was a mixture of church and state, technically speaking.
James
Message edited by author 2004-03-25 11:41:47.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 11:46:40 AM · #3 |
Seperation of church and state has been twisted by the anti-religious left (thats a combo group, NOT AR and left).
I bet most people don't, by no fault of their own, have a clue what seperation of church and state really even means, at least not on any detailed level!
edit: i spell like a 4yr old
Message edited by author 2004-03-25 11:48:38.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 11:48:36 AM · #4 |
Nobody can be required to recite anything in this country, regardless of whether it has God in it or not. That is what freedom is all about. Forcing children to recite something is a trademark of a dictatorial regime.
As far as religious groups protesting if the words are removed, heck, they are free to do as they wish. As far as I am concerned, they can protest the painting "American Gothic" because no one tatooed a Jesus fish on the farmer's head. Doesn't mean it will change anything.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 11:56:44 AM · #5 |
Russell, I took 24 semester hours worth of constitutioal history and law but I never listen to Rush or Fox News. Am I qualified to have a clue?
Message edited by author 2004-03-25 11:58:13. |
|
|
|
03/25/2004 12:04:11 PM · #6 |
So don't leave us hanging, Russell, tell us what seperation of church and state means.
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Seperation of church and state has been twisted by the anti-religious left (thats a combo group, NOT AR and left).
I bet most people don't, by no fault of their own, have a clue what seperation of church and state really even means, at least not on any detailed level!
edit: i spell like a 4yr old |
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 12:09:52 PM · #7 |
If he claims that establishment is a verb, I swear I am going to hit my head agaist the table repeatedly.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 12:10:58 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Nobody can be required to recite anything in this country, regardless of whether it has God in it or not. That is what freedom is all about. Forcing children to recite something is a trademark of a dictatorial regime. |
If they are not required to recite it, why are they complaining?
Why can't the atheists leave the room like everyone else?
And if "under God" is removed, they are still not required to recite it?
What's the hubub, bub?
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 12:14:57 PM · #9 |
I have a better idea, replace "under god" with "for whites". And if any blacks, hispanics, or other non-white races don't want to say that, they can leave the room.
Wouldn't that be lovely?
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 12:15:22 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by bamaster:
Now, if "under God" is removed, and is deemed free of "church", will ALL students be required to recite the Pledge? Even internationals?
Can a religious group protest the Pledge if there is no "church" in it anymore?
Intelligent replies only, thank you and God bless. |
The answers to your questions are:
NO, All students will NOT be required to recite the Pledge.
YES, a religious group can protest the Pledge, and, in fact, they did - in 1943, well before the "under God" phrase was added. In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, which was filed by the Jehovah's Witnesses, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to pledge allegience to or salute the U.S. Flag.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/25/2004 12:44:48 PM · #11 |
| If anyone wants to become qualified to have a clue reading this short piece might help. Warning: contains opinion of someone who has a clue.from last Sunday's Wash Post |
|
|
|
03/25/2004 01:09:39 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
If anyone wants to become qualified to have a clue reading this short piece might help. Warning: contains opinion of someone who has a clue.from last Sunday's Wash Post |
Also requires you to be a subscriber to access...
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 01:16:58 PM · #13 |
Here's the piece.
A Preamble Instead of a Pledge
By Linda R. Monk
Sunday, March 21, 2004; Page B07
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument this week on one of the more explosive questions before it: Whether public school teachers can lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance to a nation "under God."
In the Newdow case the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that public school teachers within that circuit (comprising nine Western states) violate the First Amendment when they lead students -- even those who are willing -- in the pledge. The reason? The court said that teachers are endorsing religion, contrary to the Establishment Clause, when they lead the class in reciting the pledge's words: "one nation, under God." In a public school setting, the lower court held, nonbelieving children can be coerced by teachers' actions in a way that adults are not.
The best solution to this problem -- one that respects both the community's desire to instill patriotism and the conscience of religious dissenters -- is to end recitation not just of the words "under God" but of the entire Pledge of Allegiance. In its place would go a much better statement of our national values: the Preamble to the Constitution.
The preamble was written in 1787 by the nation's founders. The pledge was written in 1892 by a socialist minister to honor Christopher Columbus in a children's magazine. "Under God" wasn't even in it -- the phrase was added in 1954, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus.
Why the preamble? Because it affirms the sovereignty of "we the people," who strive for a "more perfect union" and thus "do ordain and establish this Constitution." That last part is trickier than it seems. It unites citizens in an ongoing responsibility to uphold constitutional values, not just mouth loyalty oaths.
In the current debate about "under God," it's important to remember that the Pledge of Allegiance itself has a mottled history in this country. That's not surprising in a nation where people take oaths seriously. When World War II was brewing in Europe, Jehovah's Witnesses were the most disliked religious group in America because they opposed saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
What could it hurt, argued countless school boards and eight Supreme Court justices in a 1940 ruling, for schoolchildren to learn a lesson in patriotism? Jehovah's Witnesses responded that swearing an oath to a flag was the equivalent of worshipping a graven image. They also noted the similarity of the flag salute, which at the time involved children pointing their outstretched right arms toward the flag, to the "Heil Hitler" salute of Nazi Germany. The Nazis were at that time persecuting Jehovah's Witnesses for refusing to give that salute.
After the 1940 court decision on the pledge, Witnesses' children could be denied the right to attend school, even if they stood respectfully and quietly during the pledge. The court's ruling unleashed a wave of violence against Witnesses nationwide, with 335 attacks against 1,500 Witnesses in 1940 alone -- including a castration in Nebraska.
Out of shame over the wave of religious violence it had triggered, the Supreme Court overturned itself only three years later, the fastest reversal in its history. Wrote Justice Robert Jackson, who was later to serve as a prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials: "To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds."
As amended in 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance makes a statement about God's role in the republic that the framers of the Constitution omitted in 1787. True, the signature line of the Constitution does include the standard dating convention "in the year of our Lord," but that hardly qualifies as an assertion equivalent to "one nation under God." Despite pleas in the ratification debates to add such divine references to the Constitution, the framers believed these are the words we all can agree on:
"We the people, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Linda R. Monk is author of "The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Message edited by author 2004-03-25 13:19:52. |
|
|
|
03/25/2004 01:26:24 PM · #14 |
Coolhar, I'm curious if you ever read her book "The Words we Live By" and if so, do you recommend it.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 01:39:53 PM · #15 |
Well coolhar, I can easily guess that you search for ways to be offended. If you read my post, which you obviously didn't, I said MOST. I didn't say most liberals, I didn't say most socialists and I didn't say most conservatives.
No instead I was very general, and since your such a freaking expert, I obviously didn't point my finger at you. As far as your 24 semester hours? While thats great you have that experience, what makes you think I'm not qualified. I have an equal amount of law and constitutional law under my belt. Also, I'd be interested in how you took such a consentrated study in ONE subject, where as most colleges only have 2 or 3 classes at most on the subject! Also, I hear plenty of people who have WAY WAY more constitutional law knowledge than my self, miss-quote the constitution or twist a few words all the time on the "news".
I don't really think I have a problem with removing under god from the pledge. I guess what my problem is, is that the Separation of Church and State is being miss-used to gain this goal.
To make this short I will be overly simplistic. Separation of church and state means no SPONSORED church by the government. This means that there can not be a Church of America; run, promoted or encouraged by any of our governments. Under God is EXTREMELY broad, it does not specify a religion and it does not promoted it.
Instead I think it points to a history. America has the freedom and the constitution that it has because our forefathers WERE god fearing men. I'm guessing if they were atheists it would be different country. I don't say this in a negative way, although I'm sure it sounds it.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 01:48:48 PM · #16 |
Russell, I personally believe there are three major kinds of religion, atheistic, monotheistic, and polytheistic. Under God specifies a monotheistic religion. You argument is akin to claiming that if it said Under Jesus, it would not sponser a specific religion because it can apply to baptists, cathloics, episcopalians, presbyterians, unitarians, orthodox, lutheran, etc... However, "Under Jesus" would promote Christianity as a whole over judism, Buddhism, and many more. Likewise, "Under God" promotes monotheism over poly- and atheism.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 02:05:08 PM · #17 |
The words "Seperation of Church and State" do not exist in the constitution. And they were originally made to guard the church from the state. Not the state from the church.
I personally believe that "under God" should not be taken out. People are not forced to say it, they don't have to stand. Saying the Pledge is rhetoric. It is not forced, it shouldn't be changed. |
|
|
|
03/25/2004 02:07:17 PM · #18 |
Mke up your mind Zoomdak. Either "Under God" should be taken out or the pledge shouldn't be changed. By leaving it in, you have already changed it.
;)
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 02:24:26 PM · #19 |
Which version do you prefer:
1892
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
1923
I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
1924
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
1954
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.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 02:27:29 PM · #20 |
Although I believe that under god should be struck, I have a larger problem with the phrase "with liberty and justice for all". It's a nice goal, but as a matter-of-fact, something that will never occur. I think it's wrong to indoctrinate children into a belief that we have established liberty and justice for everyone.
I disagree about the effect of "under god". The phrase implies that the nation's government and people are subserviant to a religious figure. Also false is the assumption that all religions believe in the principle of a god.
As for pledging allegiance to the Motherland and it's flag, personally I have no problem at all. |
|
|
|
03/25/2004 04:04:46 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by bamaster:
[quote=Trinch] If they are not required to recite it, why are they complaining?
Why can't the atheists leave the room like everyone else?
|
I have heard this argument several times lately. Why do people who believe in God think that people who don't should pledge to Him?
Why should an atheist leave the room when the pledge is said? An atheist can be proud of their country. Even with its faults. They should be able to be proud to pledge allegiance to our country without pledging to your God..
I may be wrong on this, but my understanding is that when you say/spell God with a capitol G, that is specific to a certain God and specifically excludes other gods. That makes it specific, not general. (same as the difference between 'person' and 'Jim')
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 04:15:57 PM · #22 |
Why should we try so hard to please every damn person on earth. Were working hard to strip this country of so many things because it might "offend" someone...
If an atheists is offended by my views on god it makes the nightly news, do you think anyone would giving a flying F*** if I was offended by his/her non-beliefs? Of course not!!!
It is often that someone trys to stuff their non-beliefs down my throat, and this is exceptable, but holy cow, if I even mention god in the work place I gotta worry about getting sued.
Message edited by author 2004-03-25 16:17:42.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 04:26:36 PM · #23 |
why does the phrase "under god" need to be in the pledge in the first place???? What purpose does it serve in pledging your allegiance to the USA and the Flag of the USA???
We went 62 years with out that phrase in the pledge
it was not originally there so why not take it back out
James
|
|
|
|
03/25/2004 04:28:46 PM · #24 |
Trinch- No, I haven't read her book.
Russell- you don't offend me, rather you amuse, or entertain. You seem to have taken it as your mission in life to pass along all the misinformation from the radical right to the rest of us here at dpc and to convince us of it's validity.
I expect that the Supreme Court will rule to uphold the 9th Circuit but I would prefer to leave the pledge as is and broaden the interpretation of "under God" to mean that our nation acknowledges the difference between good and evil, and strives toward good and away from evil; in other words- that we are a moral nation.
garrywhite2- you are correct that that it is misleading to tell kids that we have "liberty and justice for all". We don't, at least not equally. |
|
|
|
03/25/2004 04:32:45 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
You seem to have taken it as your mission in life to pass along all the misinformation from the radical right to the rest of us here at dpc and to convince us of it's validity. |
Wow, you do a really bad job of reading into the meaning of posts!
Originally posted by coolhar:
I expect that the Supreme Court will rule to uphold the 9th Circuit... |
I don't, I expect the Supreme Court to uphold the findings of the 9th Circus. Just like they do with 75% of all of the 9th's findings, they are over turned. The 9th Circus court is the biggest joke in this country!
Message edited by author 2004-03-25 16:34:10.
|
|
