New Pledge Ruling

[Kamikaze189]

Having any pledge at all is repulsive. It's the kind of activity you see in countries like North Korea, where the government couldn't get people to support it by its merits.

If the American Gov. wants to be admired, it should act admirably. No indoctrination of children necessary.

[Irreligious]

nkb wrote

Even though I agree that the Pledge itself is relatively benign, it is a matter of principle. Like Sterny says, it is one of many reinforcements of peoples' beliefs, and another reason to claim the separation of church and state is not valid.

As far as your kid having an opportunity to display individuality, that's fine if you have a kid that can handle it. But what if your kid doesn't have the personality to be different, or can't handle the abuse?

Thousands of children of Jehovah's Witnesses manage to gather the intestinal fortitude to forgo reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in class. I think the children of atheists can manage as much if they are encouraged by their parents to forgo mentioning God in the pledge.

I agree with you and Sterny that reciting the pledge is a reinforcement of religious people's beliefs, but they have thousands of other social reinforcements to that effect, as well. Wha' cha gonna do?

As a result, it's just not pratical to demand an abrogation their right to invoke the name of a deity in the recitation of a pledge that is not a legal requirement for anyone to recite, anyway.

As long as our right to forgo mentioning God in the Pledge of Allegiance is not abrogated, this is one we'll have to just suck up.

Of course, many more parents would have something to complain about if their children were led in a pledge in which the name of a specific deity, such as Jesus, were invoked. At least, the attempt at brainwashing would have more resonance with Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu parents. However, most of them are not going to complain about invoking a generic god in the pledge and few are going to care about what offends the sensibilities of atheists.

[nkb]

Well, then you should have no problems with teacher-led prayers in school, right? As long as it is not mandatory for every kid. The atheist kids can just shut up and wait for the authority figure and the rest of the class to finish.

As I said, to me it's a matter of principle. You have to draw the line somewhere, so why not at 0% religion (where it should be), as opposed to 5% or 10%?

[Sternwallow]

Kamikaze189 wrote

Having any pledge at all is repulsive. It's the kind of activity you see in countries like North Korea, where the government couldn't get people to support it by its merits.

If the American Gov. wants to be admired, it should act admirably. No indoctrination of children necessary.

The first man in George Washington's army to be executed for treason had signed a loyalty oath. They are both ineffective and insulting.

As Robert Heinlein said "If my simple word is no good, is my oath any better?"

[Sternwallow]

Irreligious wrote

Of course, many more parents would have something to complain about if their children were led in a pledge in which the name of a specific deity, such as Jesus, were invoked. At least, the attempt at brainwashing would have more resonance with Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu parents. However, most of them are not going to complain about invoking a generic god in the pledge and few are going to care about what offends the sensibilities of atheists.

It is pretty damned clear, in a nation that claims to be some 85% Christian, just exactly what god is intended in "under god (Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior)".

I would be interested to see the reaction in a classroom if a student substituted a different god every day into the Pledge.
"under John Frum"
"under Aphrodite" (this one should raise eyebrows even more)
"under Baal"
"under Bacchus"
"under Jupiter".

Figuring roughly 200 school days per year, the student is covered with god names for about 50 years of morning recitation.

Kamikaze189 wrote

Having any pledge at all is repulsive. It's the kind of activity you see in countries like North Korea, where the government couldn't get people to support it by its merits.

If the American Gov. wants to be admired, it should act admirably. No indoctrination of children necessary.

I agree

patriotism should not be compulsory

[Irreligious]

nkb wrote

Well, then you should have no problems with teacher-led prayers in school, right? As long as it is not mandatory for every kid. The atheist kids can just shut up and wait for the authority figure and the rest of the class to finish.

As I said, to me it's a matter of principle. You have to draw the line somewhere, so why not at 0% religion (where it should be), as opposed to 5% or 10%?

Well, I don't see reciting the pledge and teacher-led prayer in school as being remotely the same activities. The former is an otherwise secular, quasi-civic activity in which an alleged deity may or may not be invoked or acknowledged by the person reciting it. The latter is an attempt at a direct appeal to this alleged entity.

As I see it, reciting the pledge is passive, while being led in prayer is active.

Believe it or not, I'm on your side. In my ideal world, people would not be invoking God into civic matters, but I honestly don't believe that is at all practical when the majority of citizens profess to believe in some type of god. Many of them will get quite ornery if they're not allowed to at least acknowledge publicly that they believe in a god. Again, with the pledge, that's pretty much all they are doing, in my view. Leading others in prayer, however, takes that acknowledgement to another level, which is where I would draw the line.

I'm trying to be practical and recognize that I don't have a legal basis for demanding that others be barred from publicly acknowledging their belief in an alleged deity. As I said, the word God is easily omitted by the individuals who choose to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or they can refrain from citing the pledge at all.

Yeah, it stinks that our kids have to endure such compromises, but let me tell you, as a member of a couple of other minority groups, you learn to endure what you have to and pick your battles wisely. This whole consternation over invoking God in the Pledge of Allegiance thing is wasted energy to me. Of course, your mileage may vary, and I respect that.

Irreligious wrote

Well, I don't see reciting the pledge and teacher-led prayer in school as being remotely the same activities. The former is an otherwise secular, quasi-civic activity in which an alleged deity may or may not be invoked or acknowledged by the person reciting it. The latter is an attempt at a direct appeal to this alleged entity.

As I see it, reciting the pledge is passive, while being led in prayer is active.

Believe it or not, I'm on your side. In my ideal world, people would not be invoking God into civic matters, but I honestly don't believe that is at all practical when the majority of citizens profess to believe in some type of god. Many of them will get quite ornery if they're not allowed to at least acknowledge publicly that they believe in a god. Again, with the pledge, that's pretty much all they are doing, in my view. Leading others in prayer, however, takes that acknowledgement to another level, which is where I would draw the line.

I'm trying to be practical and recognize that I don't have a legal basis for demanding that others be barred from acknowledging their belief in an alleged deity in public. As I said, the word God is easily omitted by the individuals who choose to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or they can refrain from citing the pledge at all.

Yeah, it stinks that our kids have to endure such compromises, but let me tell you, as a member of a couple of other minority groups, your learn to endure what you have to and pick your battles wisely. This whole consternation over invoking God in the Pledge of Allegiance thing is wasted energy to me. Of course, your mileage may vary, and I respect that.

you strike me as a very "it's not so much as where you are on the outside, but more where you are on the inside" kind of man
i respect and understand that, as you said, some battles are not worth fighting,
battles that are about principle are usually not worth fighting.
as for the pledge, Jehovah witnesses have always refused to say the pledge,..I think it's them, because of the whole "idolatry thing". (the flag part)
it's up to the individual to decide where they wish to draw the line

[Irreligious]

Kamikaze189 wrote

Having any pledge at all is repulsive. It's the kind of activity you see in countries like North Korea, where the government couldn't get people to support it by its merits.

If the American Gov. wants to be admired, it should act admirably. No indoctrination of children necessary.

As I understand it, the whole point of having school children recite of the Pledge of Allegiance was to instill a sense of common purpose. A century or more ago, many of the children reciting it (without invoking God back then) hailed directly from other countries, or their parents did. The idea was to have them shift their loyalties from Italy, Poland, Greece, etc., to the United States. In other words, it was to remind them every day that they were Americans and no longer Italians, Poles or Greeks.

from what I read in that link
it was stated that now the schools could recite the pledge

not that they have to
if it's an issue with you, just tell the school that your kids will not be taking part in their little brain washing exercise

[Sternwallow]

Irreligious wrote

As I understand it, the whole point of having school children recite of the Pledge of Allegiance was to instill a sense of common purpose. A century or more ago, many of the children reciting it (without invoking God back then) hailed directly from other countries, or their parents did. The idea was to have them shift their loyalties from Italy, Poland, Greece, etc., to the United States. In other words, it was to remind them every day that they were Americans and no longer Italians, Poles or Greeks.

Right. And when, in 1954 (I remember it well) the additional phrase was added, a tissue paper patch stuck on with used chewing gum, the line was crossed. The pledge went from a formula into which individuals could, as you said, express publicly their belief in god, to one which instructed them and anyone else reciting the formula, to do so. It became an opt-out rather than a voluntary situation. And infesting the public landscape with "God" was just so we could tell ourselves that we were not Communistic in any way.

[Irreligious]

Sternwallow wrote

Right. And when, in 1954 (I remember it well) the additional phrase was added, a tissue paper patch stuck on with used chewing gum, the line was crossed. The pledge went from a formula into which individuals could, as you said, express publicly their belief in god, to one which instructed them and anyone else reciting the formula, to do so. It became an opt-out rather than a voluntary situation. And infesting the public landscape with "God" was just so we could tell ourselves that we were not Communistic in any way.

Interesting. I never thought about how the whole anti-Communism hysteria of the time played into the introduction of God into the Pledge of Allegiance.

As someone who attended public school in the 1960s through the mid 1970s, I never really gave much thought to the " one nation under God" portion of the pledge. If I paid any attention to the words at all, I was more fixated on the "with liberty and justice for all" reference which, from my view back then, was a lie.

Still, I never felt any threat of religious indoctrination, though that was, perhaps, owed to the fact that I went to very diverse New York City schools. The students were from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds, but most of my teachers were Jewish and they never even attempted to raise the issue of religion in the classroom. A few were Roman Catholic and they tended to be just as discreet. Also, back then, a lot of the Roman Catholic kids and some of the Jewish kids used to be dismissed early from school once a week to attend religious instructions at their houses of worship. In other words, it was a given that a public school environment was not the place to indulge one's religious beliefs.

Maybe my experiences would have been different if I had attended public school in the south or midwest.

Irreligious wrote

Interesting. "with liberty and justice for all" reference which, from my view back then, was a lie.

still is

[nkb]

Irreligious wrote

Well, I don't see reciting the pledge and teacher-led prayer in school as being remotely the same activities. The former is an otherwise secular, quasi-civic activity in which an alleged deity may or may not be invoked or acknowledged by the person reciting it. The latter is an attempt at a direct appeal to this alleged entity.

I disagree that they aren't remotely the same. It's the same shit, just to a differing degree.

To me, the difference is simply in the number of words. Yes, the pledge is cleverly inserted into an otherwise secular, patriotic recital, and the prayer is entirely religious, but it's just semantics.

What do you say to the people who say that atheist kids can just keep silent through the entire prayer, or just silently contemplate whatever they want to, while everyone else follows the teacher's lead?

What's the difference really, if a kid chooses to skip two words, or a few dozen? That is why I want to draw the line at no religion, no matter whether it is part of a secular ditty, or completely religious.

Irreligious wrote

As I see it, reciting the pledge is passive, while being led in prayer is active.

I don't see the distinction. Is the teacher not reciting the words "under God"? How is it different?

Irreligious wrote

Believe it or not, I'm on your side.

I know that, Irr. I understand your position, I just disagree with it.

Irreligious wrote

In my ideal world, people would not be invoking God into civic matters, but I honestly don't believe that is at all practical when the majority of citizens profess to believe in some type of god. Many of them will get quite ornery if they're not allowed to at least acknowledge publicly that they believe in a god. Again, with the pledge, that's pretty much all they are doing, in my view. Leading others in prayer, however, takes that acknowledgement to another level, which is where I would draw the line.

Understood, and I draw the line at a (in my mind) more logical point.

Irreligious wrote

I'm trying to be practical and recognize that I don't have a legal basis for demanding that others be barred from publicly acknowledging their belief in an alleged deity. As I said, the word God is easily omitted by the individuals who choose to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or they can refrain from citing the pledge at all.

See above. Kids can choose to not recite the prayer too.

Irreligious wrote

Yeah, it stinks that our kids have to endure such compromises, but let me tell you, as a member of a couple of other minority groups, you learn to endure what you have to and pick your battles wisely. This whole consternation over invoking God in the Pledge of Allegiance thing is wasted energy to me. Of course, your mileage may vary, and I respect that.

The reason I don't think it's wasted energy is that the small stuff like this is, in my opinion, the way to start the cracks in the dyke. If you take on much bigger issues head-on, you are much more likely to come up empty-handed, because religious people will be far more stubborn on more significant issues.

But, chip away at all the little annoying things (like the pledge, IGWT on money, etc) that are just blindly accepted by most, and it will slowly gain momentum (I hope).

[Irreligious]

NKB, may I first say that, more than anybody else here, I actually enjoy disagreeing with you the most. I know that sounds weird, but I always feel like I'm actually getting somewhere when you and I disagree.

Anyway, the degree to which reciting the pledge and being led in prayer differ is pivotal in my mind. One is acknowledging the existence of an alleged deity when the word God is invoked. The is other goes beyond that and makes a direct appeal to the alleged deity. Personally, I can ignore the first, but not the latter.

If teachers were allowed to lead kids in prayer at school, I'd see no reason why anyone's child would have to show deference to that teacher or other students in the classroom by pretending to be reverential. So, no, I would not advocate that they be required to shut up until it's over.

Fortunately, leading kids in prayer at public schools is not an issue, but if it were, I would be against requiring that those children who do not participate leave the classroom or that they otherwise be required to stand or kneel silently while others pray. In other words, they should be free to act as though nothing relating to them is going on in that classroom, whatever the outcome of that might be. And it would probably lead to chaos.

Ideally, I agree with you that God should be left out of the Pledge of Allegiance. I leave it out when I say the pledge in public places, which is usually at municipal government meetings. They often pray at these meetings, too, and I sit while others are still standing with their heads bowed. So far, I haven't yet been called on my seeming impertinence, but I'm ready when and if it happens.

However, I don't see that there's much I can do about what others choose to do on those occasions. In the case of school children, is it practical to have the courts ban the recitation of the pledge in class or require that teachers leave the word God out of the pledge? I don't think it is and I'm more than dubious about the prospect that I would ever get my way.

On the other hand, I see why you think it's worth the fight. Truly. But I prefer to lend my voice to what I perceive as more significant battles in the war against encroaching theocracy, and I don't want to be distracted from those bigger battles.