Pledge

[Guest Agaib]

Just because we send bad messages in other ways doesn't mean we shouldn't stop sending bad messages in this way. Of course we send bad messages all the time. We're not really too great about it, but I personally think that its our responsibility to try and fix both our foreign policy and social problems.

[Leonhart29]

Okay - first and foremost (and I've read through this thread from beginning to end) God is who or what you as a person make it. Even in the established and controlling (yes I said controlling) religions like all of the branches of Christianity and Buddhism or Islam or whatnot you have a god... Alah, Buddha or the Holy Trinity or whatever you want to call it - it's still a higher power and it's still looked upon as a god (even if he/she was in human form at one time). To say that god is a Christian thing is not entirely true. I myself do believe in a higher power - it's called Nature. But that's neither here nor there, and as far as I'm concerned each to his/her own. I have no problem whatsoever with a certain religion - just don't force it down my throat and respect my beliefs as I respect yours. And if you don't have a belief that's your choice - don't ever let someone tell you you're missing out on something... they're wrong unless you like being controlled and manipulated (sorry - just a bit of a rant).

As far as the pledge goes, in high school I did try the whole "you can't make me say it" approach and I ended up suspended for it (I did stand for it and I am patriotic, but that didn't mean I felt I had to say it out loud). Granted the suspension was struck from my record after a heated debate, but I was still punished for taking a stand. I can understand why kids would just go along with it to keep the peace. I chose not to say it because of my budding beliefs (or lack thereof) and not because some idiot told me I shouldn't have to say it. What you say, the words that come out of your mouth or that you put on paper, are yours and should come from you - not someone else.

The pledge is part of our heritage and rightfully so. To change it would be like trying to change the constitution... like trying to change history. What needs to be done is allow people to have a CHOICE and a VOICE. Which is what this country was originally founded on. At this point in time we do not have a choice and even less of a voice. If we choose not to say the pledge we run the risk of being ostracized, beaten or killed (and I know that's a bit over the top, but it's still a possibility - especially where I live in the gun wielding, bible thumping, good ol' boy south).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that as a society we tend to feel like the power to be ourselves has been taken out of our hands. Our rights have been changed from "you have the right to..." to "You DON'T have the right to..." and that's sad and wrong.

Now that I've had a little time on my soap box I feel a bit better - and I'm not ashamed of anything I've said as it is my opinion with a little fact thrown in here and there... and that is as it should be.

[foeofthelance]

Skipping over the phrase kind of ruins the flow, doesn't it? How about using " under [deity]"? You can put in Christ, Allah, Deva, Mother Earth, Hecate, Satan, the president, no one... The options are limitless.

If the phrase does have to stay 'God' should be allowed to be by substituted by whatever the person feels should go there. "One Nation Under Allah", "One Nation Under Vishnu", "One Nation Under The Invisible Pink Unicorn" and so on and so forth. Of course, this does present somewhat of a problem for atheist, but they should be allowed to have their fingers crossed.

This is the point of view I most agree with. If you don't want to say God, then feel free to sunstitute your own. Its not a problem for aethists at all, really. "One nation, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all," is just as good as "One nation, under god, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all." It is those last five words that are much more important then the two under debate.

I realise that. But seriously, when somebody comes up to you and asks "Would you like to talk about God?" do you really assume he or she could be talking about Islam or Judaism?

There are probably many more Christians running around this planet then in any other religion, barring perhaps aethism, which doesn't count to begin with. Unfortunately, this means we also bear the largest number of loud mouth ignoramus' (ignorami?) then any other organized religion. Sorry about that. [Tongue in cheek]Hopefully the new controlled breeding programs will go into effect soon...[/Tongue in cheek]

Perhaps. But everybody knows that there is only deity who is named "God". No other deity in the world is called "God". They're all gods, yes, but not God. Even when they are Allah or YHWH, they are not God.

That's because no other religion in the world has a clause in its holy book that says if you say a god's true name he/she'll strike you dead. God with a captial does generally signify one of the Book religions, but can pretty much mean anything or anyone you want it to, depending on your belief. Allah is the arabic term for god, IIRC, and YHWH is supposed to be God's true name without the vowel sounds. So yeah, they're still the same existant. The Hebrew God, the Islamic God, and the Christian God are all the same; the only difference is in who one acknowledges as prophets, and which rules you think it wants you to follow. Odin or Zeus/Jupiter can also be reffered to as God, because they are the reigning rulers of their respective pantheons, as can any other figurehead.

Still. It still does kind of rather heavily imply that Church and State are, in fact, not seperated. Also, atheists are still screwed.

When the state begins telling us what to worship, I will believe the seperation no longer exists. Just because the people trying to run things think that asking for a bit divine intervention in dealing with something as large as a nation is a good idea doesn't mean anyone else has to. As far as aethists being screwed, well, yeah. Either they're right, which would suck for everyone, or they're wrong, which would suck just for them.

Now, I'm not going to stand here and demand people say the pledge. I do request that they at least stand for it. The purpose of the pledge is not be indoctrinated into being the government's stoodge, but to show respect for the nation for which it stands. If you don't want to respect the nation you live, then as far as I'm concerned you might want to find one to live in that you can respect. (In regards to that, standing up debating things is part of the American heritage, as is peaceful protest. Being upset with the sitting government and disrespecting the country are not the same thing, at least as far as I'm concerned.) But when I'm standing for the seventh inning stretch I'm not looking at the flag and thinking "Gee, our country is spectacularly fucked up, isn't it?" No, I'm thinking about all the people who gave their lives to ensure that I can enjoy that ball game. (ok, I'm also thinking about how I want to smack the guy three seats in front of me who left his hat on, but still.) When I'm standing at attention for a flag raising or lowering ceremony, I'm not worrying about the next social action plan the government is going to try, I'm enjoying the way the sun is setting or rising behind the stars and stripes.

[Guest Yhitzak]

I find it decidedly amusing that *this* situation makes us think about the separation of church and state, a thing that has never *actually* existed in this country. If it did, there would never have been any witch-trials or sodomy laws (non-consentual sex notwithstanding, and those are just examples). There were a few on this thread who pointed out that the phrase, "Under God," was added to the pledge many years after it was written. (This addition happened under the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954, quite obviously in response to the Communist scare and McCarthy's witch-hunt.) Thanks for pointing this out, because this is undeniably a crucial note to make in this discussion. Why it is presently up for debate about why to remove those words, I really don't understand; those words were added in, anyway.

Monotheists rule the world and have for many years. The debate here isn't whether or not 'god' is an all-encompassing term (by dictionary standards, god is a deity or being worshipped by Men blah blah blah; there is no definition for God with a capitol G, thus implying that 'God' is a pronoun specific to one entity), but whether or not it is a concept appropriate for public worship/acknowledgment. America was founded on concepts of religious and political freedom, but the practice has always been far from the projection. Yeah, it's written into the fine print of the constitution that you don't have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, but (as another writer pointed out) that doesn't stop school-boards from having the power to punish you for it.

The pledge is part of our heritage and rightfully so. To change it would be like trying to change the constitution

We *have* changed the Pledge, and we *have* changed the Constitution; what else are Ammendments but changes to the Constitution?

It is absolutely foolish for anyone in any place at any time to think that social changes don't happen, or can't happen over a period of several centuries. We are not living in the same America as existed a hundred or even fifty years ago. Something most people like to forget is that when the Constitution was written, slavery was still a standard practice (even for people who lived higher up the East coast than the Virginias), there was no War on Drugs, and if you didn't like your government or your society, you could pack it up and move out West. The Constitution states that dissent is necessary for the healthy lives of a nation and its people, yet the American government has effectively quashed every rebel movement that has sprung up since its inception with the exception of the Civil Rights Movement. This is not a free country; it is based on majority rule. There is no such thing as a 'free' country; we *all* subscribe to social contracts, it's just that some countries' social contracts are more or less severe than others'.

Here's a great link I found on the subject of the Pledge of Allegiance:

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

[foeofthelance]

I find it decidedly amusing that *this* situation makes us think about the separation of church and state, a thing that has never *actually* existed in this country. If it did, there would never have been any witch-trials or sodomy laws (non-consentual sex notwithstanding, and those are just examples).

America was founded on concepts of religious and political freedom, but the practice has always been far from the projection.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there Yhizak. There is a very well defined seperation between church and state in America. The seperation clause exists to ensure that the government does not try to decree a state determined church for the masses, as was done in England. Just because those in power have religious beliefs does not mean that they are taking orders from the High Pontiff of their respective religion. They might ask a priest for advice every once in a while, but what religious person doesn't? As long as there are even semi-religious senators, representatives, judges, etc. then there will be references to religion in government affairs. Your examples of witch hunts and sodomy laws are false ones. Witch hunts for the most part took place before the American Revolution,and before the Constitutional Congresses. Those that have taken place since then, and the McCarthy Witch Hunts were in name only, have the product of local populations turning to hysterics for whatever reason. Sodomy laws are much the same. While there might be some amount of religion in their origins, they are as much anti-homosexual bias laws as they are religious controls.

As for the rest, I'm pretty much in agreement, though I am curious as to what you term a "rebel movement". The only open rebellious cause I can think of was the attempt at secession by the southern states in the Civil War. I am aware that the government will break up protests, but that is usually at the request of those being protested, so that they might get on with their work.

[AmyMcClair]

I would like to share a quote from the Declaration of Independence.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit  of happiness.

Now I don't want to argue semantics, but "God" and "Creator" were both mentioned in that short quote. This document was written by the same author, who penned the Constitution. The men who sat on the Continental Congress, were men who believed and followed the Christian God. They created the 1st Amendment to the Constitution with the freedom of religion ideal so that no one would be persecuted for following any faith.

As for the phrase, "Under God," it was added in the last century. If you don't want to say it or you don't believe in God, omit it. No one will ever know unless you point it out to them. (I find that people tend to be really unobservant.)

Now for the reference made earlier about pledging allegiance to a country, I am on a military installation everyday here in England and we have to salute both "The Star Spangled Banner" and "God Save the Queen." I have no allegiance to the queen and never will, but for custom sake and for courtesy, I will pay lip-service to that institution.

Anyway, I guess my point is, if you don't want to say it, then don't. If you don't want your kids to say it, inform them that they don't have to say it either. So long as you give respect to those who wish to do so at the appropriate time, no one will fault you for it.

[Guest Agaib]

If I believed that the separation of church and state had ever fully existed I wouldn't argue for it. I wouldn't care if I thought that the government was completely impartial to the persuasion of religion. I do care, because it isn't.

[Guest Yhitzak]

If I believed that the separation of church and state had ever fully existed I wouldn't argue for it. I wouldn't care if I thought that the government was completely impartial to the persuasion of religion. I do care, because it isn't.

Yeah, Brothah! Or Sistah. Or Whatevah. (I'm not actively seeking to be an ass for once, so apologies that I don't know your sex/gender.)

My point about the separation of church and state in the context of this discussion (it is still about the Pledge of Allegiance, right?) is simply that it is blatantly obvious that such a separation is up for debate. By adding the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge, the meaning of the thing has been altered. What was once a secular prayer written by a Christian has become a patriotic-Christian prayer. This isn't merely a matter of opinion, but also a matter of fact; look at language and syntax.

Having religious political figures isn't the problem in this or in any country. The problem is having religious political figures who make their faith a major factor in their decision-making for the whole of their nation, as well as other nations (especially ones that don't subscribe to the same faith). The problem with faith-based decisions is that someone (usually a very large group or groups) is inevitably shafted by the decisions. Look at Israel, man. Perfect example of how faith and government don't mix.

[Guest Agaib]

I'm male, your first guess was best.

[Leonhart29]

Just a quick little note on something I saw on the local news this morning while getting ready for work. After all of the controversy that's kicked up around "Under God" in the American constitution, the 80th Legislation Session of the Texas state government has passed a house bill (or is it a senate bill? They didn't say) that will INSERT the words "Under God" into the Texas state pledge.

I live in Texas, and I can tell you this is about right. Texas is the only state that is able to fly it's flag at the same height as the US flag and now they are thumbing their noses at the rest of the country - or at least the portion that's having problems with the American Pledge of Allegance.

I just thought this was an interesting tid bit - and what do you know? It fit right in.

[Guest Agaib]

Yea, well I'm from Oklahoma, its fairly similar here. Unfortunately places like Texas and Oklahoma have a larger ignorant voter base thats willing to vote one way because the preacher said so. They don't really think about philosophical or moral implications.

I should clarify that I don't think everyone who wants "Under God" to be in the pledge of is ignorant. However, ignorant people are more likely to take this perspective really...

[foeofthelance]

However, ignorant people are more likely to take this perspective really...

That's kind of bigoted isn't it? I would think any person of a religious nature would be likely to support such a move, no matter how intellectual they might be. Granted, I don't know your personal experiences, and I am more then willing to agree that ignorant people stand a greater chance of playing a game of Follow the Leader when it comes to social issues, but wouldn't this be more a case of prevailing social mores?

Granted, Texas is a conservative state, as well as fairly religious one when it comes down to everything. So I would more then expect Texans to vote for representatives who would pass such a measure, just as I would expect the representatives of more liberal states, such as New York and California, to cringe at the idea of possibley excluding a group of people by inserting a few choice words into the state pledge or oath. This is because people vote for their either their beliefs or their party line, and those choices are generally determined by the type of society they would like to live in. In order to do this people who share common beliefs will congregate where they can enforce those beliefs, while those who don't share them and feel threatened by them generally head to where their own beliefs are prevalent. This works because there are a few common ideals that are almost universally held by everyone, and are willing to unify as a single front to defend them, even if they do then split into smaller groups at a later point.

[Guest Agaib]

You're right foeofthelance and thats basically what I was saying you know. I wasn't intending to be bigoted and if you thought I was I apologize.

All I was trying to point out was a correlation. As level of education increases there is generally a decrease in religious conviction. I'm not going to claim that this is a causative effect because I'm not in a position to do so at all. Also, for me to assume that one point of view is less valid simply because those of lower levels of education adhere to it would be an association fallacy. I believe that the the inclusion of "Under God" in the Pledge is a less valid viewpoint because of My own personal thoughts on the matter.

I do believe that follow the leader is a factor however because those who are less educated are more likely to turn to religious leaders for decisions. This can give religion a greater weight in politics than if situations were otherwise. Social mores are also important too when considering how political decisions are made and I do acknowledge that. I just think it would be foolish to assume that the "follow the leader" factor wasn't important.

[foeofthelance]

No doubt, but how can it be determined which leader are they following? Are the masses being led by one of the 700 Club, or are they talking with the local preacher? Without knowing exactly who a voting base is listening to, what else can be determined to define their beliefs and social mores other then their voting patterns?

I do believe that follow the leader is a factor however because those who are less educated are more likely to turn to religious leaders for decisions. This can give religion a greater weight in politics than if situations were otherwise.

Replace religious with loud and I can agree with you. Living in New York, the only 'religious' leader that seems to have any effect on the voting base is the Rev. Al Sharpton. Even then he isn't preaching from the bible, unless he's criticizing Romney for being a Mormon. From my own observations the leadable masses are more likely to guided by the nightly news, the NY Times or Wall Street Journal editorial pages, or some other form of mass media. I'm inclined to believe that 'follower' types are more likely to have just enough determination to determine which command figure they are likely to listen to, if for no other reason then to hear what they want to hear.

[Guest Agaib]

The issue is that in Oklahoma and Texas religious leaders do have a fairly strong affect on the voting base. This may not be true for New York, but it certainly is here. . In the south, religious leaders tend to be loud, and as you said ignorance causes people to turn to those who are particularly loud. The only real issue I see that you're pointing out is that My statement was really only applicable to southern states rather than the rest of the World or the US. Weren't we talking about Texas to begin with?

[foeofthelance]

Actually, if I recall correctly the thread was started on a national issue, and then the topic of the Texan vote was raised as a corollary.

I think though that it has to be determined where the true source of the deciding factors are. While I don't doubt that religious leaders have some sort of impact on those they preach to, I do tend to reject that they are the sole basis for which these voters make their decisions, again based on my own experiences. I have dealt with many people who are devoutly religious as well as intelligent, and they can easily seperate politics from theology. They would attend church on a regular basis, but they're views on politicians, economics, etc., where as far as I could tell entirely their own. At the least, they never once cited the Bible/Torah/Koran to make their points, using instead information relevant to the argument.

I think that what ends up happening is that a society can hold a collective belief, and act upon it, without being a group of fanatics devoted to a cause or religion. If, however, the majority of the people being heard are fanatics, then it is easy for an outsider to equate the loud minority with the silent majority, simply because the majority is willing to tolerate the minority.

The way that I see it is thus, and feel free to correct me!

The point of view presented:

Data: There are many religious Texans.

Data: There are loud Texan religious leaders who can affect voting patterns.

Conclusion: If someone is a religious Texan, then their voting habits are being infuenced by religious leaders.

The way I see it:

Data: There are many religious Texans.

Data: There are loud Texan religious leaders who can affect voting patterns.

Conclusion: Because many Texans are religious, they are more willing to tolerate attempts by loud religious leaders, even if they themselves don't act on it.

This tends to occur because the majority is more willing to tolerate that the voicing of extreme opinion when it is line with their own beliefs, even if they choose not to act on it, much the way a loud child is tolerated by adults related to it. They might take action should the child become truly unruly, but so long as the child is relatively well behaved, then they do nothing. That does not mean that the child is determining it's relatives decisions for them, merely that it might be taken into consideration at some point.

[Leonhart29]

I'm a Texan, and I vote on the topics, not what some zealot tells me is right. Now granted I do know quite a few people who say "My preacher tells me this House Bill or that Senate Bill is the work of the devil and I'm voting to defeat the devil." It's brainless and sad, all too common place, but thankfully still in the minority.

Like the rest of the country, Texas has some intelligent people and some idiots. It's normal human nature sadly.

[Guest Agaib]

Damn devil... he always works his way into EVERYTHING

fucker...