News Should the Pledge of Allegiance Include Under God?

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kat
What's the "Newdow" thing?

Fine them? Probation? belligerent repeat offenders?
Lol, have you ever dealt with the teachers union?

so..5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

Well, then nothing. If their doing not is a kind manner, then they have the right to do that. It's not government-sponsored. Now, if they're doing it to taunt others, then that's something that should be reprimanded. Of course, it would be up to the teacher's discretion. I'm just giving my opinion on how I would handle it.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, then nothing. If their doing not is a kind manner, then they have the right to do that. It's not government-sponsored. Now, if they're doing it to taunt others, then that's something that should be reprimanded. Of course, it would be up to the teacher's discretion. I'm just giving my opinion on how I would handle it.

Yeah...well, say for instance that they say it together at the flag before school...not sponsored speech, they can do it. IF they have a Pledge reading in the classroom, and they shout out 'UNDER GOD', they can be disciplined for being disruptive.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by kat
so..5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

So, two kids say "under god" cuzz their parents taught them to.

1. Where are they saying this? When and where...

2. The assertion that an atheist child would be uncomfortable. If you're religious Kat, then perhaps you biasly added this.

Normally, it's religious children who are uncomfortable with any other children who do not share their exact religion. In my experience with atheist children (ages 6 to 14) they're very confident, and don't have a problem with religious people whatsoever.

But, if we were to assume an atheist child was uncomfortable, the answer is they should be conforted.

It's against the law for a public school teacher to assert a religion for the school.

But you failed to declare where and when this was being done. That's why I can't answer you, way to vague.

 

[damgo]

Whatever... who cares? It's completely a symbolic thing; just change it officially. Most people will switch over sooner or later, and if the 4th grade teacher at Robert E. Lee Elementary School in Hicksville, Mississippi wants to keep saying 'under God,' let him.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by damgo
Whatever... who cares? It's completely a symbolic thing; just change it officially. Most people will switch over sooner or later, and if the 4th grade teacher at Robert E. Lee Elementary School in Hicksville, Mississippi wants to keep saying 'under God,' let him.

Let him break the law?

What if he wants to touch the children? That's factually only breaking the law. Only opinions say it's "right or wrong"?

Where do we stop from punishing people from breaking the law?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Let him break the law?

What if he wants to touch the children? That's factually only breaking the law. Only opinions say it's "right or wrong"?

Where do we stop from punishing people from breaking the law?

Logically, I can see your point. In the real world, however, a compromise will have to be reached. It will be a good few years before the situtaion normalizes itself.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Not that I have a problem with breaking the law, I do it all the time. But little laws...

Also, I don't take the stance of removing under god cuzz it's 'wrong", just cuzz it's illegal.

So if our country changed the law so it was legal, then I have no factual basis, none really good anyways, that it "should" be removed.

ALso, I assert the claim (which is actually a premise for a much greater claim) that religion is anti-humanitarian, and thus spreading it is anti-humanitarian, thus making the spreader anti-humanitarian.

But I recognize the power of, power. And I understand that I'm not going to use emotions to fight claims.

I FEEL it's wrong, and hate people who do it, but I choose not to use those because they're not objective.

I asked earlier, does anyone know the supreme court status on this? they ruled to remove under god after the case, but then I heard some BS about all senators saying it was insane etc...


I say as an atheist "god bless supreme court judges"!

they rock our world!

 

[damgo]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Let him break the law?

What if he wants to touch the children? That's factually only breaking the law. Only opinions say it's "right or wrong"?

Where do we stop from punishing people from breaking the law?

Like, maybe, when it really, yknow, matters?

 

[damgo]

The Supreme Court has not yet heard the case.

The 9th Circuit threw out the words; the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant cert -- to hear the case. They should do that within the next couple weeks.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Let us hope for humanity, being an influencial country, that they are thrown out.

Damgo - when does "it" matter?

While a teacher molesting a child disrupts a few lives, the imposition of religion onto an entire nations generation damages humanity (so says I) in an unfixable manner!

 

[Mattius_]

i don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, nor do i care to scroll through each and every post to see, but the 'under god' part was added during the cold war because communists by creed do not believe in a higher being... and if I am correct, that is the reason why its being banned in the first place... so we can now conclude that communists are taking over the united states...

 

[BoulderHead]

Those "Godless Communists"

I think many people were actually only fighting Atheism all those years...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mattius_
i don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, nor do i care to scroll through each and every post to see, but the 'under god' part was added during the cold war because communists by creed do not believe in a higher being... and if I am correct, that is the reason why its being banned in the first place... so we can now conclude that communists are taking over the united states...

That's a novel interpretation, if nothing else.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I think many people were actually only fighting Atheism all those years...

This could be a good separate thread: Is the general hatred of communism based mainly on a hatred of atheism?

 

[Mattius_]

sarcasm zero

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mattius_
sarcasm zero

Well, it isn't like I can hear your tone of voice, now can I? Plus, I've read stranger posts than that my two years here.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Zero
This could be a good separate thread: Is the general hatred of communism based mainly on a hatred of atheism?

Since you use "general" I'll comment.

I would say today the general hatred of communism in America is because of one thing; conditioning.

I would bet that in a random poll representing american citizens of the newer generations, age 30 and below, you'd find that barely any could define communism.

Thus since they wouldn't know what it was, if you asked them if it was "bad" they'd probably say yes, and you could conclude it's because conditioning.

In fact I would further bet if you polled people on "what was the religions of communist leaders" or "what was the religion of ___" filled in with the name of a communist leader, nearly none would guess correctly.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Since you use "general" I'll comment.

I would say today the general hatred of communism in America is because of one thing; conditioning.

I would bet that in a random poll representing american citizens of the newer generations, age 30 and below, you'd find that barely any could define communism.

Thus since they wouldn't know what it was, if you asked them if it was "bad" they'd probably say yes, and you could conclude it's because conditioning.

In fact I would further bet if you polled people on "what was the religions of communist leaders" or "what was the religion of ___" filled in with the name of a communist leader, nearly none would guess correctly.

Sure..and it would be cool to discuss this in a separate thread.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Well it's what the thread is about. I merely looked at what's been said since I posted. I don't read the whole thing over agian, just the new stuff.

So move it! Or start a new one and pop a link here for us to follow.

 

[Zero]

Getting back on topic...

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Yes back on topic. My response (again) to the original post.

Of course "under god" should be removed, it's illegal!

 

[schwarzchildradius]

No, it shouldn't! It's traditional! Just so long as kids get to substitute the name of their particular trendy god into it during the pledge, there's nothing wrong with it. Hey those commies are scary.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
No, it shouldn't! It's traditional! Just so long as kids get to substitute the name of their particular trendy god into it during the pledge, there's nothing wrong with it. Hey those commies are scary.

SO let's see here.

1. It's against the law for government do endorse religion.
2. "under god" endorses religion
3. You believe that the government should be allowed to break the law?

It's tradition? No it's not, it's barely been there but a couple of decades, and was properly absent MUCH LONGER.

Just so long as kids get to substitute? You missed the point here. It's illegal. SO should the government also be allowed to randomly decimate people, so long as the person gets to choose their particular trendy way to be murdered?

 

[BoulderHead]

Mention was made in this thread about the consequences of removing those words from the pledge and how it might be, how should I say it, traumatic? But has anyone discussed what 'society' went through in the first place when those words were originally inserted into the pledge, or considered that indeed life settled back to normal afterwards? I think calmer heads would prevail, fanatics would be dealt with, and eventually people would settle down.

Now, what about this God business when swearing in a secular court of law?

 

[Mattius_]

Well athiest, I am sorry to burst your bubble but this is a realistic society and humans will always crush the other human minority whether it is against the rules or not... i do recall you posting in another post that you break laws regularly(nothing big)... so you are stabbing at our government from every possible direction(in this case with "law") and yet you yourself break the law on a regular basis? it seems to me you are more intent on bringing our current government down than sticking with your ideals...

let not yourself be washed away into blind disagreement... and I am not sitting on my throne condemning you either because i have caught myself frequently doing the same thing... just trying to teach objectivism here, i think we could all use a lesson.

 

[FZ+]

Well athiest, I am sorry to burst your bubble but this is a realistic society and humans will always crush the other human minority whether it is against the rules or not...

So we should embrace this? Ok!
All americans, down your weapons now! The chinese are the majority, and instead of waiting for them to crush you, let's just surrender to their will. All heil Hu Jintao! All heil Hu Jintao!

Disagree? Your feeble laws will not stop us from crushing you! Mwhahahaha!

i do recall you posting in another post that you break laws regularly(nothing big)...

Where? I think you will find the law breaking is all within a very directed and self-contain plan.

so you are stabbing at our government from every possible direction(in this case with "law") and yet you yourself break the law on a regular basis?

Oh, so the government is always right is it now? Mind if I just point out that this stabbing now is in terms of removing a senseless law, as presumeable the law breaking.

it seems to me you are more intent on bringing our current government down than sticking with your ideals...

I dunno, but sometimes that could be the same thing, perhaps? And did we say bring down the government? No, we say update it.

let not yourself be washed away into blind disagreement...

Yours or ours?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I agree with FZ. Mattius's post is filled with problems. I think FZ got them all.

SO, yeesh, all I have to say is that Mattius you aren't the majority. Secondly, remember the population of atheism is rapidly climbing.

But more importantly, the population of non-religion people is huge. It's over 33% now.

I'm just going to pretend he never posted it, and not point out all the serious issues with his psyche. Good day!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I agree with FZ. Mattius's post is filled with problems. I think FZ got them all.

SO, yeesh, all I have to say is that Mattius you aren't the majority. Secondly, remember the population of atheism is rapidly climbing.

But more importantly, the population of non-religion people is huge. It's over 33% now.

I'm just going to pretend he never posted it, and not point out all the serious issues with his psyche. Good day!

Where did you get that 33% from? Is that America, or worldwide?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Zero
Where did you get that 33% from? Is that America, or worldwide?

Just the United States citizens.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Just the United States citizens.

What's your source for the % you quote? If there's a link, would you mind sharing?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Let me see what I can find...

 

[damgo]

see http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm for some info

 

[LogicalAtheist]

1. I can provide sites with much more scientific results. And specific results of the younger generations also, which gives insight into upcoming change.

However, this statement makes me happy enough not to ***** too much:

"14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together."


Sounds good to me. Doubled since 1990, and that's from 2001. Let's hope this time it doubles inhalf the time.

"The only way to have heaven on Earth is for Earth to be atheist."

--L.A.

 

[kat]

Damgo-Thanks for the link, I love that site..I'm always finding the info I'm looking for there. It also linked to the ARIS study that I had accessed in a lengthy discussion in the religious forum at the old PF site.



LA- Just for the record (and I'm sure you realize this) Non-religious is not the same as not following an organized religion. I know many religious people who are very vocal about not following an organized religion..that doesn't make them any less...erm fanatical.

At any rate, I don't see a 33% non-religious reference on either Damgo's link or the ARIS study, it seems really high to me. I'll leave it at that since this subject is waaaay off topic and if I continue, zero will be threatening to spank me. ;)

 

[schwarzchildradius]

All americans, down your weapons now! The chinese are the majority, and instead of waiting for them to crush you, let's just surrender to their will. All heil Hu Jintao! All heil Hu Jintao!

you think he's joking? China just launched the sino version of GPS, man, that's the system we use to guide our JDAMS and Hellfire etc.

 

[Dissident Dan]

There was a 33% from that Religious Tolerance website, but it wasn't for atheists:

About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)

About 33% consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (up from 30%)

About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious.

Anyway, "under god" has no place in the pledge (not that I like the idea of pledging in the first place...let alone at the age of 5), regardless of the religious demographics of the nation.

 

[Nicool003]

I would object to it but it seems in the few days I was gone from PF quite a bit happened. Anyways according to LA people Dont have rights and entitlements so I guess I don't have the right to object huh?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan


Anyway, "under god" has no place in the pledge (not that I like the idea of pledging in the first place...let alone at the age of 5), regardless of the religious demographics of the nation.

Exactly. I don't care if there has never been an atheist within a thousand miles of your particular school. Looking at demographics on this is like keeping a racist school mascot on the grounds that no one of that ethnicity goes to school there, and if they did they could just avert their eyes.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

religion is way to personal to legislate. Obviously it was just a propaganda device against the communists, but has viceral meaning for fundamentalists today. Removing it with the judicial system would tick a lot of people off, and probably create a few Republicans. Hey, this is a democracy, why can't we vote for this?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
religion is way to personal to legislate. Obviously it was just a propaganda device against the communists, but has viceral meaning for fundamentalists today. Removing it with the judicial system would tick a lot of people off, and probably create a few Republicans. Hey, this is a democracy, why can't we vote for this?

So, now we are going to vote to take away my religious freedom...sweet!

 

[schwarzchildradius]

why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way.

You would allow local voting on basic American rights? If you started that, each county would end up with an official religion!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way.

Protecting individual rights is a FEDERAL matter and as such it will be decided in federal court.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Obviously that solution sucks.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Obviously that solution sucks.

LMAO!

 

[schwarzchildradius]

You would allow local voting on basic American rights? If you started that, each county would end up with an official religion!

not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same.

 

[Zero]

Can someone explain why forcing religion down other people's throat is so important? And why people need their religion validated by illegal government speech?

 

[jb]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same.

i already know how the people would vote, of course they'd keep it the same. again showing that the minority doesn't matter.

imagine 6 people on a raft in the middle of the ocean, and they run out of food. their only option for survival is to eat one person. everyone except for "frank" votes for frank. frank's vote doesn't matter, and he's forced to live with the minority's decision even if he knows it's wrong.

same here, the minority would get stuck with this even though it goes against all their beliefs.

the simple solution is to take "under god" out. it keeps non-christians happy, and in no way does it conflict with the beliefs of christians. and really, it serves no function today.

i don't see why some people are so obsessed with keeping it in. i'd like to hear from someone, why exactly they HAVE to keep "under god" in the pledge.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by jb


i don't see why some people are so obsessed with keeping it in. i'd like to hear from someone, why exactly they HAVE to keep "under god" in the pledge.

I think people are more obsessed with keeping their right to say it with God in it if they so choose, or at least that would be my concern. As children's rights to exclude the word 'God' is what began this debate, obviously childrens right of speach, and religous freedoms are a concern. This is why I approached the question of enforcement within the public school. If a child wants to say "God" in the pledge of allegience do you suggest she/he be stopped? punished? what?

There's another interesting and perhaps parallel situation evolving with a student claiming their rights are being infringed by being denied the right to use the word "God" http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/may03/143871.asp

The lawsuit, now assigned to the court's Green Bay division, contends that the school district violated Honer's constitutional rights to equal protection, free speech and free expression of religion. It seeks an injunction that the district "cease its discriminatory and unconstitutional policy or practice of censoring students from expressing their religious beliefs in their speeches, songs or performances at graduation exercises."

To me, most important is where is the median? How do you both protect free speach, religious freedom, and freedom from religion? I also think it would be really nice if this battle weren't waged through our children.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same.

That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.