News Should the Pledge of Allegiance Include Under God?

[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.