News Should the Pledge of Allegiance Include Under God?

[Nicool003]

[SOLVED] The Pledge of Allegiance

Changing it is a bunch of bullcrap. We have had that pledge for so long and it means so much to so many people, including me being that I have said the pledge of alligiance every day since I started kindergarten all the way up until now! And I still have quite some time left in school. over 90% of the worlds populations believe in God or at least have a religion. Why should a small percentage of atheists change it for everyone. Besides since the pledge is mostly centered in schools I seriously think they should let the "kids" and "teenagers" decide. We arent stupid and the pledge means more to us than anyone else. Don't change it now. This kind of connects to the separation of church and state. This situation is different because it fits in the church and state category. However it has been aroudn for a long time and like stated before it means a lot to us, the "kids" and "teenagers." I say keep the Pledge!

 

[damgo]

The pledge is dumb. We start teaching it to kids before they know what the words 'allegiance' or 'indivisible' mean. It's creepy in a cult-like everyone-recite-the-mantra-in-unison sort of way. Anyways, the real pledge didn't have "under God" in it until the 1950s when they changed it. And this court case is not challenging the pledge; it's just challenging schools requiring its reading. Same thing as prayer in schools, pretty much.

And a huuge number of those religious people -- Buddhists, Hindu, Shinto, etc -- do not, in fact, believe in 'God.'

 

[jb]

let's say the line in the pledge was "under buddha". would that offend you? references to god (the christian god) are like a slap in the face to those who believe differently. it's like the government is telling you that you are wrong, that you should adopt their god. it just shows no consideration for those who are different.

let us not forget that the pledge originally didn't include "under god." it was added during the red scare after world war 2, in an attept to scare off the godless commies. so based on that context, it's outdated and unnecessary.

the only reason why the pledge means so much is because you've been saying it just about every day from when you were 5 until you were 18. 5 year olds are very impressionable.

schools where i live started up again with the pledge last year. unfortunately, many do not see the objections some have to the pledge. some teachers create pressure on kids to stand up and recite it.

to me, the pledge represents what's wrong with the country, like bush's imperialist jingoism, a sort of I'm right, you're wrong mentality when dealing with others. even in the classroom, there's an instilled sense of anti-anti-patriotism, I'm almost scared that next time i sit down for the recitation of the pledge, i'll be taken from my bed in the middle of the night and locked up in camp x-ray. and I'm not sure we aren't close to that already.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Nicool003
Changing it is a bunch of bullcrap. We have had that pledge for so long

It was created in the 1892, by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist. According to http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm,
"His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]"

The "under god" part was added in 1954 after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus.

and it means so much to so many people, including me

That doesn't mean that the school should orchestrate it and ostracize those who don't wish to say it. If you feel that way, you are always free to do it on your own.

being that I have said the pledge of alligiance every day since I started kindergarten all the way up until now! And I still have quite some time left in school.

And that's a big problem--indoctrination. Did you really understand the pledge in kindergarten? Did I? No. We just did it because we were told to, and it eventually became routine brainwashing.

over 90% of the worlds populations believe in God or at least have a religion. Why should a small percentage of atheists change it for everyone.

The best part of this nation and its Constitution is the protection it affords to minorities and dissent. This statement smacks of irony.

*edited to fix "QUOTE" tags*

 

[Zero]

Yes, I agree with Nicool, why should minority rights be protected? It is GOOD that a majority can force3 its beliefs on others, that is teh American Way, right?

 

[Nicool003]

Yes, I agree with Nicool, why should minority rights be protected? It is GOOD that a majority can force3 its beliefs on others, that is teh American Way, right?

THat was stupid. I wasn't saying that. I'm saying Atheists don't have to participate in the pledge because it says under god and are they even a minority? Atheism isn't a religion, a group, a race. What is it? And Why should say 5% or less take over what 95% are willing or glad to do? Is it the American way to force the MAJORITY to have to change beacuse a very small "minority" dislikes a very small part of something much bigger?

And a huuge number of those religious people -- Buddhists, Hindu, Shinto, etc -- do not, in fact, believe in 'God.'

THey believe in a holy person or a prophet and I said those that don't bleieve in god have a religon. Next time read my post more carefully.

The pledge is dumb. We start teaching it to kids before they know what the words 'allegiance' or 'indivisible' mean. It's creepy in a cult-like everyone-recite-the-mantra-in-unison sort of way. Anyways, the real pledge didn't have "under God" in it until the 1950s when they changed it. And this court case is not challenging the pledge; it's just challenging schools requiring its reading. Same thing as prayer in schools, pretty much.

Your comparing the pledge to a cult? that's sick

 

[Zero]

The Pledge of allegiance should be worded to include ALL Americans, don't you think? Why should you have a pledge that some Americans cannot, in good conscience, participate in? THAT'S the idea that is bullcrap, that American citizenship can only belong to the majority, and everyone else is second-class.

Removing 'under God' makes the Pledge INCLUSIVE...which is the whole point, isn't it? Why in the name of whatever you hold holy would you suggest a national Pledge that only includes part of the nation??



BTW, the last statistic I read put non-Christians closer to 25% of the population. Should a quarter of Americans have to yield their freedom, so that Christians don't have to compromise?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Nicool, the author of this post spoke to soon, and she also spoke the truth without knowing it. She said:

"Changing it is a bunch of bullcrap."

You're right. It should have been kept as it was at first. Our founding fathers we're all self-declared atheists accept 2 of them. To add this GOD idiocy into it was to Sh*t on our fathers wisdom and to literally perform reverse evolution.

To remove it won't be to advance as a society, but simply to recover from an embarassingly stupid mistake.

After doing so, americas face should still be blushed, it deserves to feel retarded for making such an anti-humanitarian choice.

Needless to say the changing of it broke one of the fundamental rules, number 2. It's in my sig. You'll be amazed over the course of my time here how many times those two rules are broken, and those of you who "think like me" general meaning atheists who are also anti-speudoreasoning, will hopefully take to hear those statements and please feel free to share them.

Regards...

 

[Zero]

Something I wonder...why is it that some people have to force their opinion on others. officially? Is their faith so weak that they have to get government support for it?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Zero. Think of emotion as a fuel. The stronger emotion the stronger the fuel.

Some people must so contain themselves into a world where their UNTRUE and easily proven believes go against reality, that they cannot live on a planet where truth that hurts their feelings exists.

They must stop at nothing to force the world to agree, because challenging these things they hold so hardset into their brains literally causes them a physical pain.

It's sad, and very very sickening. It sounds like a horror movie but to them it is their every day life.

It's one of the saddest things about humanity.

Rest assured science is exploding. Just think of it's history, and look at religions PEAK time and how it's downfall is occurring. At this rate my rough estimate is that religion will return to a nonsuperimposing nature in perhaps 2,000 to 5,000 years history depending.

Feel good ZERO that humanity is on a positive path. And with every atheist popping their head out in the birth room, we move closer

and closer, and closer.

 

[Mulder]

I've been reading up a little on America's 'pledge' since I knew nothing about it before. I don't think it should have the words 'under God' in it, obvious reasons really.

What I don't understand is why those words are an addition to the original version, especially since America has surely become more culturly and religiously diverse over the past 100 or so years.

 

[FZ+]

THat was stupid. I wasn't saying that. I'm saying Atheists don't have to participate in the pledge because it says under god and are they even a minority? Atheism isn't a religion, a group, a race. What is it? And Why should say 5% or less take over what 95% are willing or glad to do? Is it the American way to force the MAJORITY to have to change beacuse a very small "minority" dislikes a very small part of something much bigger?

33% of americans are atheists. And I did not realize that the USA just became a theocracy.

The idea of the pledge is allegiance, not just to the nation, but to the fundamental values of this nations. One of these values is respect and freedom of belief and action for all, regardless of their religion, race, sex etc. To have a pledge that implies that atheists are second class citizens, or however excluded, is one of upmost hypocrisy. No matter how small the minority, the constitution demands that their peaceful rights be respected. History has taught us that any segregationism in this way leads to greater loss of freedom, and typically bloodshed. Would it be acceptable to have a pledge that exluded, say, Jews, because they represent less than 1% of the population. No. With any other group, it is no different.

EDIT: I got the values from another post. Not sure if they are correct. But for such a pledge of allegiance, I don't think that the % of people is really so relevant. Being American has nothing to do with your religion.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

FZ - you said it!

MULDER - the allegiance was changed when someone (congress of course and a president who I don't recall) slyly had this done during a time when their was huge world news, a war or something I forgot, so as to have this ruling overshadowed.

President BUSH has done this lately with his faith-based intiative. That's what he likes to call it, but if you investigate it you'll see it can also be called his HATE-BASED INITIATIVE.

He's doing all sorts of sly Sh*t behind peoples backs.

 

[jb]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist

MULDER - the allegiance was changed when someone (congress of course and a president who I don't recall) slyly had this done during a time when their was huge world news, a war or something I forgot, so as to have this ruling overshadowed.

i believe this was added by eisenhower and mccarthy, maybe huac had something to do with this too. and as i said earlier, it was added during the beginning of the cold war, back when everyone was terrified of communist infiltration.

 

[FZ+]

Presumeably communists, as spawns of the devil, would melt away in spectacular pyrotechnics the moment they said it.

 

[enigma]

A bunch of incorrect data here...

1) Atheists do NOT make up 33% of the population. They make up 1.5%. Agnostics are another 2%. 'Non-religious' (whatever that means) is up to 18%

2) The founding fathers were not atheists. They were deists for the most part. There is a subtle difference.

***********************

And Nicool, changing it (back) is not "a bunch of bullcrap". The constitution leaves nothing up to chance here: The government is not allowed to make ANY law which says ANYTHING about what goes on outside this realm of existence (i.e. god and religion). If you think this is a bad thing, I suggest you take a look at countries which don't have those rules like Iran and pre-war Afghanistan.

In the 1950s, "under God" was added by Christian groups with the sole purpose of proving that the US was different from the awful godless commies. It was codified by the congress... made into law. See above.

Adding "under God" marginalizes those who do not buy into it by creating an 'us vs. them' type scenario. It makes those who disagree with the tenet of "under God" the same as those who disagree with the tenets of "liberty" and "justice".

"under God" <-> "indivisible"

pick one.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by enigma
1) Atheists do NOT make up 33% of the population. They make up 1.5%. Agnostics are another 2%. 'Non-religious' (whatever that means) is up to 18%

My guess would be theother 18% are people who don't understand the definitions of "athiest" and "agnostic."

My opinion of the "under God" part is that it really isn't an important part of the pledge and I wouldn't care one way or another if its in there (I'm a Christian) except that I have a HUGE problem with the REASON its in there. So I'll not say those two words.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by russ_watters
My guess would be theother 18% are people who don't understand the definitions of "athiest" and "agnostic."

My thoughts exactly. I'd bet that 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 are agnostic (both say 'non-religeous' to avoid the stigma attached with them), and 1/3 don't give a rat's ass...

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Was the pledge of allegiance out lawed or something? My teacher still makes us do it, so I was just curious.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by enigma
A bunch of incorrect data here...

1) Atheists do NOT make up 33% of the population. They make up 1.5%. Agnostics are another 2%. 'Non-religious' (whatever that means) is up to 18%

2) The founding fathers were not atheists. They were deists for the most part. There is a subtle difference.

I'm glad that you mentioned it. You beat me to it. I found those to be peculiar statements, as well. I know that many of the founding fathers (jefferson, paine, madison, others, and possibly washington) were deists. And 33% just sounds way off.

I suppose that "non-religious" means anyone who doesn't fall into a major category, and probably includes deists and people who haven't really thought about it or aren't sure enough of what they believe to give them any type of label. 3.5% sounds a little low for atheists/agnostics to me.

From http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Backdrop&Context/nonreligion.htm:
"There exist today many philosophical variants of nonreligious belief systems. Naturalism, rationalism, secular humanism, atheism, and methodological skepticism, along with agnosticism, are the most common perspectives. Outlooks that fall under the umbrella description “nonreligious” presented here have in common that they do not contain any supernatural beliefs."

And one thing...I don't know how accurate these surveys are. I know that I've never been asked for a survey.

"under God" <-> "indivisible"

pick one.

Good statement.
******************************************

Nicool003
THey believe in a holy person or a prophet and I said those that don't bleieve in god have a religon. Next time read my post more carefully.

I'm not sure if you can call the Buddha a holy person, and definitely not a prophet (prophets receive revelation from deities). Anyway, that statement is relevant to the pledge. The pledge says "under god", not "under some idol".

According to the 1st and 14th Amendments, the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and "under god" in public schools' ritual of the pledge is an establishment of religion by the government.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
3.5% sounds a little low for atheists/agnostics to me.

Well, there is that nasty stigma attached with it in many parts of the country. I am in the double digits of people who have insulted assaulted me (e.g. "Hope you enjoy burning in hell"; "You worship the devil?"; "Get thee from me Satan"; etc) when they found out my (lack of) religeous beliefs. And I live near Washington DC... one of the places with the highest percentage of college graduates in the country. I'd really be hating life if I lived in the bible belt, I think. I'm not one to conform to make people happy, nomatter how grating they think my views are.

I'm sure some fudged their answer to avoid the potential to be 'outed'.

Majin, the pledge was not outlawed. The use of "under God" was found unconstitutional when delivered in a government sponsored setting (like a public high school). This was also only for some western states, but (last I heard... has anything new happened recently?) it has been put on hold pending review from a higher court.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by Nicool003
THey believe in a holy person or a prophet and I said those that don't bleieve in god have a religon. Next time read my post more carefully.

I have a religion?

That's interresting.

Is 'bald' a hairstyle?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters


My opinion of the "under God" part is that it really isn't an important part of the pledge and I wouldn't care one way or another if its in there (I'm a Christian) except that I have a HUGE problem with the REASON its in there. So I'll not say those two words.

You, and probably a pretty large chunk of 'non-evangelicals', seem to have the same view...that 'under God' doesn't belong in government-sponsored speech.

 

[Sting]

Well, there is that nasty stigma attached with it in many parts of the country. I am in the double digits of people who have insulted assaulted me (e.g. "Hope you enjoy burning in hell"; "You worship the devil?"; "Get thee from me Satan"; etc) when they found out my (lack of) religeous beliefs. And I live near Washington DC... one of the places with the highest percentage of college graduates in the country. I'd really be hating life if I lived in the bible belt, I think. I'm not one to conform to make people happy, nomatter how grating they think my views are.

That stinks and in reality it's a real hypocrisy. If these people verbally assaulting you are "Christians" as I assume them to be, then they are displaying hypocrisy. In theory, Christianity is supposed to be a tolerant religion (someone should inform these people).

But I must say that not all Christians are like that. I one time walked into the Baptist Student Union with a Rage Against the Machine t-shirt that had "Fear is Your Only God" (It doesn't reflect my personal beliefs. It's just a cool RATM t-shirt). I was expecting them to give me dirty looks and to ignore me but NOT ONE PERSON treated me any different and even to this day they still treat me in a very courteous and friendly way (just like the day I first met them).

 

[Nicool003]

The Pledge of allegiance should be worded to include ALL Americans, don't you think? Why should you have a pledge that some Americans cannot, in good conscience, participate in? THAT'S the idea that is bullcrap, that American citizenship can only belong to the majority, and everyone else is second-class.

I never said the Minority didn't count. If people thought like that women couldn't vote and civil rights movement wouldn't have changed anything. I'm saying that the pledge has been that way for a very very long time and many of US not you US would not like to see it go. You people don't give a hoot about the pledge anymore your not even in school. That is another point of mine. AND is a 5 year old little girl an atheist? No. Just because you don't have a religion doesn't make you an atheist and some of those kids are too young to even know what a religion is. But older elemtary, middle school, and high school kids all know. And if you don't want to say the pledge you don't necessarily have to so why should it be ruined for everyone else when you don't even have to say it if you are atheist?

I have a religion?

That's interresting.

Is 'bald' a hairstyle?

In that post I meant the people with a religion believe in a prophet etc... Always the critic arent you?

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by Nicool003
I never said the Minority didn't count. If people thought like that women couldn't vote and civil rights movement wouldn't have changed anything. I'm saying that the pledge has been that way for a very very long time and many of US not you US would not like to see it go.

Slavery was around for a long time and MANY people didn't want to see it go. Women being unable to vote was that way for a long time and MANY people didn't want to see it go.

Whether you want to see it go or not is really irrelevant. It is against the constitution for the government to take sides in religion, and by codifying a statement asserting the existence of a deity into the pledge of allegiance, they are making unconstitutional laws.

You people don't give a hoot about the pledge anymore your not even in school.

I do give a hoot about the wonderful country I live in, thank you very much. I don't need to be in school to care what goes on.

That is another point of mine. AND is a 5 year old little girl an atheist? No. Just because you don't have a religion doesn't make you an atheist and some of those kids are too young to even know what a religion is.

Uhm. Sorry, no. Atheism is the default position. If you don't know about or don't believe in God or gods, you are an atheist. You need to be taught religion.

But older elemtary, middle school, and high school kids all know. And if you don't want to say the pledge you don't necessarily have to so why should it be ruined for everyone else when you don't even have to say it if you are atheist?

Let me ask you a question.

Would you be pissed if the pledge said: "One Nation, under NO God, indivisible..."?

You wouldn't have to say the "no God" part, of course...

Let me tell you... I'd be just as mad if that were the case as I am now.

In that post I meant the people with a religion believe in a prophet etc... Always the critic arent you?

And that is an uninformed assertion.

There are plenty of religions which don't have prophets or gods. Example: several Native American religions, several African religions, etc.

And yes, I am always critical. Comes with the territory when you're a skeptic

Seriously Nicool... what is so bad about: "...one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."? Say it once out loud. Just try it on for size.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Nicool003
I never said the Minority didn't count. If people thought like that women couldn't vote and civil rights movement wouldn't have changed anything. I'm saying that the pledge has been that way for a very very long time and many of US not you US would not like to see it go.

Tradition is no reason to keep something that is clearly wrong. Also, the pledge was without "under god" longer than it was with it.

You people don't give a hoot about the pledge anymore your not even in school. That is another point of mine.

I care about more than just myself. I care about societal change. I care about indoctrination.

AND is a 5 year old little girl an atheist? No. Just because you don't have a religion doesn't make you an atheist

Yes, it does.

And if you don't want to say the pledge you don't necessarily have to so why should it be ruined for everyone else when you don't even have to say it if you are atheist?

Maybe we should have a "heil the fuhror" pledge, too? You don't have to say it if you don't want to...

In that post I meant the people with a religion believe in a prophet etc... Always the critic arent you?

Making sense and being correct and being able to follow logical implication are always good.

 

[Ganshauk]

I may be pedantic here, but what is the difference between forcing a kid to say the Pledge of Alleigance and forcing the kid not to say it?

It seems to me, the only one that the difference between these two actions is not apparent is to the kid.

I say STFU. Leave things as they are until you can point out something really detrimental in an empirecal and qualitative fashion. Until then, I can only assume some wayward attempt at self idolatry or an out-and-out subversion of your home.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Who said anything about forcing a kid not to say it?

Anyway, the difference is the difference a parent's perogative and government-mandated religion.

As for empirical findings, I can look around me and see all the brainwashed people and all the tragedy it causes.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
I may be pedantic here, but what is the difference between forcing a kid to say the Pledge of Alleigance and forcing the kid not to say it?

It seems to me, the only one that the difference between these two actions is not apparent is to the kid.

I say STFU. Leave things as they are until you can point out something really detrimental in an empirecal and qualitative fashion. Until then, I can only assume some wayward attempt at self idolatry or an out-and-out subversion of your home.

Hmmm...last time I checked, you aren't allowed to have random outbursts in teh middle of class, are you? That's teh difference, I suppose. Frankly, I think any recitation before class is wrong; children are in school to learn, not to be indoctrinated. But, if someone insists on a Pledge of Allegiance, let it be one that is not forcing religion on others, you know?!?

 

[Nicool003]

Hey guys I haven't been able to go on for a few days because my cousins confirmation, My school band went to a competition THEN 6 flags. Then my other cousins first communion was yesterday...And today I'm going to a yankees game.

GO YANKEES!


Anyways

Slavery was around for a long time and MANY people didn't want to see it go. Women being unable to vote was that way for a long time and MANY people didn't want to see it go.

and MANY people did want to see it go enigma. There were many abolitionists that tried to have slavery abolished they just weren't as violent as pro slavery people so you heard less of it. Many others wanted it to go because it was wrong many others thought the south was getting to big or making more money. But the latter still wanted slavery abolished just for the wrong reason. Wasn't that a nice history lesson?

 

[enigma]

I'm well aware of pre-civil war and civil rights history.

You were trying to make the fallacious argument that: "It should stay because many people want it to stay."

It doesn't matter what the collective 'we' want when it comes to making unconstitutional laws. Those laws break the rules, and constitutional ammendments to make those laws legal would weaken the constitution.

Again I'll ask:

What is so bad about: "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."?

 

[Nicool003]

"It should stay because many people want it to stay."

No, no that is wrong. I was saying that we should be allowed to decide and like i have said many times THEY DONT HAVE TO SAY THE PLEDGE IF THEY DONT WANT TO!

It is an optional thing so they shouldn't ruin it for US when they don't even HAVE TO DO IT. Talking to you people in the political forum is like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nicool003


It is an optional thing so they shouldn't ruin it for US when they don't even HAVE TO DO IT. Talking to you people in the political forum is like talking to a brick wall.

So, wait...I'm confused. You say thatthe Pledge is ruined if you don't get to insert a reference to your God in it? That isn't logical at all.

And, of course, let's be realistic: how will someone be treated if they refuse to stand for the Pledge? What if everyone hears someone omit 'Under God', or fill in their own Deity? Will they be treated just the same? What happens to a kid who inserts 'Under ALLAH'?

 

[kyleb]

or, in reference to street layout above the white house, http://www.worldsgreatestband.com/Pictures/pentagram.jpg ?

 

[jb]

Originally posted by Zero

And, of course, let's be realistic: how will someone be treated if they refuse to stand for the Pledge? What if everyone hears someone omit 'Under God', or fill in their own Deity? Will they be treated just the same? What happens to a kid who inserts 'Under ALLAH'?

there really is a pressure to say it in schools, i.e. teachers will almost order kids to stand.

one of my teachers i believe is buddhist, and i think she still says "under god." maybe she's just so used to it that it doesn't mean anything.

 

[BoulderHead]

Oh, those 'Christian' founders...

Originally posted by kyleb
or, in reference to street layout above the white house, http://www.worldsgreatestband.com/Pictures/pentagram.jpg ?

...were such jokesters!

 

[Zero]

I can't support illegal speech with eth 'out' of "You don't have to say it". That's simply not enough. And, strangely, the reactions of most adults who support 'under God' show exactly why it should be removed.

 

[Nicool003]

So, wait...I'm confused. You say thatthe Pledge is ruined if you don't get to insert a reference to your God in it? That isn't logical at all.

Naw don't put words in my mouth. I was right-talking to you people is like talking to a brick wall...


I am ssaying it isn't the same when it has BEEN that way all our lives and when MANY OF US WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nicool003
Naw don't put words in my mouth. I was right-talking to you people is like talking to a brick wall...


I am ssaying it isn't the same when it has BEEN that way all our lives and when MANY OF US WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY

So,why do you want to keep it that way, even though it is illegal, immoral, and insulting to some of your fellow students? Because change is bad, no matter what?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Nicool003
Naw don't put words in my mouth. I was right-talking to you people is like talking to a brick wall...

I am ssaying it isn't the same when it has BEEN that way all our lives and when MANY OF US WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY

And people have rebutted that point.

 

[Zero]

I wonder, though...is it comforting to feel that the government supports your mythology over others? Is that why people don't mind trampling the rights of others when it comes to religion?

 

[Nicool003]

So,why do you want to keep it that way, even though it is illegal, immoral, and insulting to some of your fellow students? Because change is bad, no matter what?

VERY FEW fellow students. Also there are very few atheists in my grade probably my school too. And also there haven't been any problems at my school or complaining in my school district even. So why even think of changing it for the whole USA when there was one complaint. That's stupid.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by Nicool003
VERY FEW fellow students. Also there are very few atheists in my grade probably my school too. And also there haven't been any problems at my school or complaining in my school district even. So why even think of changing it for the whole USA when there was one complaint. That's stupid.

Oh, if it only tramples on the rights of VERY FEW, then it's OK, I guess... my bad.

Do me a favor. ASK the atheists what they think about it.

Care to place a bet what they will say?

Why don't you hop on over to www.iidb.org and ask the atheists and freethinkers there what THEY think about the pledge...

EDIT: I'm going to drop out of this discussion, because it's only making me mad.

It is NOT -and never will be- OK to write unconstitutional laws and trample over the rights of atheists, even if we are an extreme minority.

EDIT 2: Fixed link

 

[Dissident Dan]

I think that he meant to link to www.iidb.net

And the Constitution's provisions were not meant to only protect large segments of the population.

And it is also part of religious indoctrination, which is just wrong.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nicool003
VERY FEW fellow students. Also there are very few atheists in my grade probably my school too. And also there haven't been any problems at my school or complaining in my school district even. So why even think of changing it for the whole USA when there was one complaint. That's stupid.

I'm with the rest of the crowd here...you don't ignore the law because it only affects a few people. We are only as free as the least free segment of our society.

 

[kyle_soule]

In our school we don't have to participate in the pledge if we do not wish, but in the morning there is a time for those who wish to say it.

I don't think it should be forced, forced patriotism isn't patriotism, it won't do the country any good, but I don't think it should be changed to suit people, just as it shouldn't have been changed in in 1954 to suit their needs. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I think we should leave it, personally.

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
In our school we don't have to participate in the pledge if we do not wish, but in the morning there is a time for those who wish to say it.

I don't think it should be forced, forced patriotism isn't patriotism, it won't do the country any good, but I don't think it should be changed to suit people, just as it shouldn't have been changed in in 1954 to suit their needs. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I think we should leave it, personally.

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.

HUH?

When something is illegal, it is illegal! How is that concept so difficult to understand? Plus, the point is to be inclusive, isn't it? This is why the Constitution sets the government in a role of official neutrality. That way, we shouldn't even have to discuss this sort of thing.

 

[Zero]

Here's an interesting(though still slightly wrong-headed) perspective on the issue:http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15964

 

[Nicool003]

Oh, if it only tramples on the rights of VERY FEW, then it's OK, I guess... my bad.

Do me a favor. ASK the atheists what they think about it.

Care to place a bet what they will say?

Why don't you hop on over to www.iidb.com and ask the atheists and freethinkers there what THEY think about the pledge...

EDIT: I'm going to drop out of this discussion, because it's only making me mad.

It is NOT -and never will be- OK to write unconstitutional laws and trample over the rights of atheists, even if we are an extreme minority.

That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that don't do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)



Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5! and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children don't even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely!