New Pledge Ruling

Erik · 03-12-2010, 08:40 AM

Can't win 'em all: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/...giance/?hpt=T2

Haven't read the decision as yet. I'm sure it will be twisted logic. And there's little point in appealing to the Supremes who will not reverse the decision if they even decide to look at the case.

anthonyjfuchs · 03-12-2010, 10:38 AM

The ruling does not, however, require students to say "under god" in the pledge. Responsible parents can very easily teach their children the original pledge, and explain that when teachers get to that particular phrase, they just don't have to say those words:

"...one nation, pause-pause, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I'm not persuaded by the "social pressures" argument from the Newdow camp either. This is an opportunity to teach a valuable lesson about individuality. The child doesn't have to recite say the same things or in the same way as everyone else, and they shouldn't do it just because everyone else does.

Or as my grandfather often said: "if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?"

We nonbelievers are going to be far more effective if we take responsibility and teach the proper Pledge to our children, and let them know that it's okay for them to recite the Pledge properly in school.

03-12-2010, 01:14 PM

I "pledge" my "allegiance" to no one or nothing

Irreligious · 03-12-2010, 01:53 PM

The ruling doesn't even require anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It just prevents one group of people from imposing their will on another group who want to include the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The protected group, in this case, just happens to be the majority.

Most Americans profess to believe in a deity they call God, however they conceive of this alleged thing. That's the reality with which we must deal, and I don't really see it as an imposition on me. As Fuchs said, there's nothing preventing anyone from omitting the word God from their recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't even care if some folks want to add Jesus to the Star Spangled Banner, so long as I'm not required to sing it.

Including the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance is among the more benign things religious people do, in my opinion.

03-12-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

The ruling doesn't even require anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It just prevents one group of people from imposing their will on another group who want to include the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The protected group, in this case, just happens to be the majority.

Most Americans profess to believe in a deity they call God, however they conceive of this alleged thing. That's the reality with which we must deal, and I don't really see it as an imposition on me. As Fuchs said, there's nothing preventing anyone from omitting the word God from their recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't even care if some folks want to add Jesus to the Star Spangled Banner, so long as I'm not required to sing it.

Including the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance is among the more benign things religious people do, in my opinion.

it's more , to me , about their ridiculous need to inject their god into any and all aspects of our society

I do remember when I was a kid and I told them I wouldn't be reciting the pledge , and of course from previous experiences they assumed it was the whole "god" thing that I was opposed to

and when I told them I would not pledge my allegiance to any thing , or any one, they were seriously at a loss, they had nothing to say

just sat there with stupid looks on their faces

Erik · 03-12-2010, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

The ruling doesn't even require anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It just prevents one group of people from imposing their will on another group who want to include the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The protected group, in this case, just happens to be the majority.

Most Americans profess to believe in a deity they call God, however they conceive of this alleged thing. That's the reality with which we must deal, and I don't really see it as an imposition on me. As Fuchs said, there's nothing preventing anyone from omitting the word God from their recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't even care if some folks want to add Jesus to the Star Spangled Banner, so long as I'm not required to sing it.

Including the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance is among the more benign things religious people do, in my opinion.

The voluntary nature of a recitation doesn't save it from violating the First Amendment. That argument was tried and failed in the New York school prayer case (Engel v. Vitale). I myself am somewhat ambivalent about that for the same reasons you are; it seems fairly benign to me. But then again, you and I have both managed to escape the attempts to shape our malleable little brains.

I could be persuaded that it isn't benign to someone else. I don't agree with Fuchs; I see little reason why we should be putting our children into this position in the first place.

dogpet · 03-12-2010, 03:02 PM

UK soldiers have to swear loyalty to her sovereign majesty & many cross their fingers when pledging. As if that works,

. My voodoo beats your voodoo is justification for true lies part 1, but not if nobody else sees it.

03-12-2010, 03:38 PM

Quote:

dogpet wrote

UK soldiers have to swear loyalty to her sovereign majesty & many cross their fingers when pledging. As if that works,

. My voodoo beats your voodoo is justification for true lies part 1, but not if nobody else sees it.

if I remember correctly
our "oath" when we joined the military was to "defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic"

dogpet · 03-12-2010, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Simple Mind wrote

if I remember correctly
our "oath" when we joined the military was to "defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic"

I'd have to lie a lot to get in our army:

I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

03-12-2010, 03:52 PM

Quote:

dogpet wrote

I'd have to lie a lot to get in our army:

I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

I didn't take my "oath" to heart

psychodiva · 03-12-2010, 05:58 PM

Quote:

dogpet wrote

I'd have to lie a lot to get in our army:

I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

just as in the courts now you can swear without using a religion to base it on- although you have to know that and request it first- lol I remember the shocked faces of the Magistrates the first time I refused to 'swear' on the babble and asked to 'attest' instead- they got used to me after that

Sternwallow · 03-12-2010, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

The ruling doesn't even require anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It just prevents one group of people from imposing their will on another group who want to include the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The protected group, in this case, just happens to be the majority.

Most Americans profess to believe in a deity they call God, however they conceive of this alleged thing. That's the reality with which we must deal, and I don't really see it as an imposition on me. As Fuchs said, there's nothing preventing anyone from omitting the word God from their recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't even care if some folks want to add Jesus to the Star Spangled Banner, so long as I'm not required to sing it.

Including the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance is among the more benign things religious people do, in my opinion.

Yes, these are benign in isolation, but mention that God might not exist to a Christian and they flash back "Of course there is a God, it says so right on our money! Even the gummint endorses the one true God, Jesus! And, when evil atheists went after it, they found that the Consititution supported it too!"

nkb · 03-12-2010, 08:49 PM

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?

03-12-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

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.

this is the true point of the thing to me

Sternwallow · 03-12-2010, 09:27 PM

Quote:

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?

In the Pledge case, the conformity is encouraged by the government authority (teacher) to the point of tolerating the peer pressures that fall on the individual.

One teacher, of my experience, actually enabled several kids to pummel the noncompliant individual for refusal to "respect our country" because they would not say the (politically and religiously bastardized) Pledge.