Archive through June 27, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Pledge of Allegiance Declared Unconstitutional: Archive through June 27, 2002

Wcv63

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 10:06 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Fairygdds you certainly argue persuasively and have many salient points that are easily understood on an intellectual level. I guess the words "under God" bring a certain emotionalism into the pledge that makes it more personal for me. However, although I will concede that you make some good points I still don't agree with your mindset.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fundy Christian nor do I even go to church. It's a matter of faith for me. It's rather comforting when the big bad world and all its realities scares me silly. I'm also not saying that MY faith should be imposed on anyone. I do believe that EVERYONE has faith in SOMETHING.

Faerygdds

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 10:16 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
WCV.. as I said... I'm not asking you to agree... just look at the other side. :)

Like I said... I'm really not out to "change" anyone's mind. :)

Me??? I love everyone.. I celebrate diversity and I respect YOUR faith and the faith of every person.

It IS a scary world! And if your faith gets you through the day, then guess what... you are on the right path for you... don't get off of it! :)

The only problem comes when you have some ppl who really don't have a faith. Or have faith in only themselves... (I'm not in this category, just thinking aloud) Not everyone has faith in something. (I know that probably makes you sad, frankly, it makes me a little sad, but I guess it's realty huh?) :(

Karuuna

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 10:22 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
well, it's kind of silly to pledge allegiance to a flag anyway, isn't it? Why aren't we pledging allegiance to the constitution, or the nation?

And what the heck does my post have to do with anything anyway?

Wcv63

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 10:22 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I guess arguing whether someone has "faith" is really a matter of semantics. Because having no faith is still a belief (a truth or complete trust that there is no faith) that equates into....well faith. Sounds like circular logic but it works if you think about it.

If we all agreed on everything we'd have a pretty boring world, don't you agree? I'm enjoying our discussion even though neither one of us is likely to change our opinion. Looking at the other side is the basis for every debate.

Max

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 10:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I have to say that I love this discussion. Kudos to us for being so logical, well reasoned, and respectful! :)

Faerygdds

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 10:35 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Absolutely... and I love it... I cracked up at your circular logic though! Not because I disagree with it (because frankly you are 100% correct) but more because I do that ALL the time!

I love discussing things with you and others on here. We can all manage to disagree and still be respectful of the other person's feelings. And to me... that's a beautiful thing.

Karunna: You know... you may have a point, but the Flag is supposed to be a symbol of liberty, the Constitution... the idealistic foundations of our country. So I guess in a way, we are pledging to the nation or the Constitution when we say the pledge to the Flag.

Uh oh... my husband just yelled out from the peanut gallery... "Wait, didn't we leave England in the first place to get AWAY from religious persecution?"

OK... I'm off to bed... will catch up in the morning... night

Seamonkey

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 10:41 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The guy who launched the lawsuit said he had planned to attack the "In God We Trust" on coins and currency but then decided that going this way, suing for his daughter thru the schools, would work better. He did it so his daughter would be able to "fit in". I'm sure this will
help <not>.

Connie Chung did a ham-handed job of interviewing him on her show tonight.

I should remember when the "under god" was added, I guess the transition was pretty smooth and we did say the pledge every day in school. But school was so different way back then.. the biggest scandal was the kid who was expelled from Kindergarten.. the first day he charged up to the teacher and bit her on the ankle. I was quite impressed.

Sage

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 11:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I've been wondering for a long time when this issue would come up. It really doesn't surprise me at all. I suppose pledging allegiance to the country is simply that. Not all people are believers in God, and I suppose its foolish to think we could force that belief onto anyone. The issue of believing is a personal choice.

I would have to pretty much agree with what Faerygdds is saying. She is much more eloquent at it than I am. Our country was founded by christian men with christian beliefs, but we have evolved from that, and have become very diverse. As much as I'd like us all to be a christian nation, it simply isn't the reality. And it isn't right for a person or a nation/government to shove their beliefs onto another, as that takes away the choice of the individual. Of course, not all cultures/religions believe that a person has that choice to believe in what he wishes to. Many are killed for not believing as their rulers dictate, from the ancient past to the present. I'm not a theologian, or a historian to be accurate in what I'm trying to convey here. Its just that the reality is that we can personally dedicate our country to God, if that is what the christians want, and not have to do in a ritual speech to the flag for which it represents.

If they want to take God off the money, then let them. The most important place that the christian God stands, is in the heart of the people. That is the most meaningful and influential place that God can be in the believer's life.

Riviere

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 01:18 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Can understand this dilemma and with all proper respect to individuals with varied beliefs, I'm thinking our National (patriotic) Pledge of the Allegiance to the country we love probably should not include any references to religion. It was partly religious prosecution that led to the UK emigration in particular and the founding fathers who rebelled English rule. America is so diverse today! We can do away with all religious refs or add a longwinded silly line to include all of our spiritual beliefs or lack of, "one nation under gods for those who believe in any" etc.. but that isn't logical. I'd rather see the phrase "united
under God" replaced by the simple words "united in spirit" or something, meaning a patriotic spirit to freely live in our USA and love it, defend it from all enemies. It's our HOME!!! Nobody IMHO put Baptists or Catholics in charge of politics. The cold war era of the 50s had more folks praying, true, oh so holier than thou thinking why not combine more church into state but it's embarrassing to think of civil rights issues of that day. I can live without the word 'god' on my cash or in my allegiance.. And Sage, you do speak eloquently!

Faerygdds

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 02:05 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Riverie...

when I read this...

I'd rather see the phrase "united under God" replaced by the simple words "united in spirit" or something, meaning a patriotic spirit to freely live in our USA and love it, defend it from all enemies.


I absolutely LOVE IT!!!!!!! What a fabulous idea... someone send it to Congress... and FAST

And Sage... Reverie is right... you DO speak eloquently!

... one nation united in spirit...


wow... that's inspired and inspiring...

Misslibra

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 02:08 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Most of us have been saying the pledge (under God) all our lives. Why now the court decides to change it due to someone who said they don't believe in God even though I believe in order not to believe in God you have to first believe their is one. I think someone already said this above.

I don't agree with the courts decision, although I agree with the right of this person to take this case to court. And taking God off of money, well when I think sometimes about strip clubs and where I hear money sometimes end up... well that's another story. :) I think the court will probably agree with him about money to, and then of course the higher court will strike it down.

What I want to know is why some people get so bent out of shape by the use of the word God? And I'm not talking about religion I'm talking about just saying the word alone seems to really bother some people. And it bothers me that they are bothered. I wonder does seeing Allah have the same affect on them? I respect his and other's right not to believe if he respects mind to believe.

I think this issue will be taken to a higher court who will over turn it. There are to many other important things going on in the World today. And Gail you make a excellent point about court. And let me add I respect everyone's opinion just wanted to get my 2 cents in here. :)

Misslibra

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 02:17 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I don't think we should re-write the pledge just to make some people feel better if they don't like it don't say it, plug your ears, walk away, or use your {God's} name in place of God or better yet when it comes to the part of under God just don't say that part of it. They aren't forcing anyone to say it from what I heard kid's in schools have a choice to say it or not. Or did I hear wrong?

Riviere

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 03:53 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Hiya MissLibra, most always agree with your opinions, just not this time.. I think the USA should rewrite the pledge. Better to do it in under 50 years than never, correct the self important religious attitudes the majority of the US were feeling in the 1950s. I was forced to repeat the pledge every day for a decade and the 'god' ref always bothered me. I'm not one to go deaf dumb blind and walk away, even if it's a 'tradition' to know the pledge by heart. Some changes need made in this old world. Have you thought USA is really just 250 years old as far as UK civilizing it, but my other people were here many generations before they met? I never discuss my beliefs but I am a patriot. And a realist. Playing possum while the current salute to our beloved USA and the symbol flag is being recited means what? I never saw a flag sewn with a cross on it, just the united states of men and women guarding our homeland whether or not we ascribe to one religion or another. Word 'god' has no place in this pledge that I can see in the year 2002. America is the world's melting pot, I hope we natives aren't cramming a 1 god religious mascot or something down everyone's throats, that goes against every church & state issue brought up. So, I support the ruling current "Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional" because, it is.. One nation, united in spirit, with liberty and justice for all.. Does have a nicer ring to it and what most of us think USA stands for? We don't hide behind any 1 god to make war, jihad, we just want peace. America has no nationwide religion last time I checked. I really think it's time our national pledge and anthems reflect that so we can stay #1 strong as a world leader. In my view, sadly, religion has toppled many a society, along with the usual greed. I'm very spiritual, but manmade religions and modern times in America are very unhappy bedfellows.

Misslibra

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 04:21 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Hi there Riviere, it's good to see you!:)
In my view, sadly, religion has toppled many a society, along with the usual greed.

I really agree with that statement. And always dislike it when people try to force their faith down my throat. In this case though I don't see it as the state trying to force religion on us. But see God as representing what ever your faith may be, be it a higher power, an apple or whatever and not representing one particular faith or God.

The pledge to me is as much a part of this country as the Flag. I don't see this as religious. What next, will someone decide they don't like the colors of the flag so we have to change those to? I know it not the same, but I can see where this could lead.

I bet this decision will be overturn even though we are living in different times. I believe the pledge will stay the same, but of course I could be wrong. :) JMO

Max

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 08:05 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I love Riviere's idea, too! One nation, united in spirit, with liberty and justice for all.

That is music to my ears!

:)

Juju2bigdog

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 08:25 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Excellent suggestion, Riviere! United in spirit.

Faerygdds

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 08:34 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Miss Libra...

I really agree with that statement. And always dislike it when people try to force their faith down my throat. In this case though I don't see it as the state trying to force religion on us. But see God as representing what ever your faith may be, be it a higher power, an apple or whatever and not representing one particular faith or God.



The only flaw in your thinking is this... in 1954, the federal Government... OUR government was in the midst of McCarthyism and the red scare. The term "under God" was added in order to impress the importnace of religion in our society to the "athiestist communists". So, indeed it WAS added in order to force the majorities religion down people throats. I was mildly amused by the whole controversy until I found that out.

I can remember when I was little and we had to say the pledge everyday. At the time I was a VERY practicing Catholic in a public school. Even back then I can recall coming home and asking my Dad, "What if you don't believe in God... are you lying when you say the pledge... or does not believing in God mean you are not a real American?" The point of adding it was to sort of "engrave" religion into our Patriotism and our souls... and THAT whether you like it or not... is coersion...

The Pledge has been modified a couple of times to better suit the times. I think that after almost 50 years -- we HAVE evolved. We realize that we can all still be QUITE patriotic despite our differences in race, religion, culture, and experiences. Isn't it time our pledge reflect that???

... one nation united in spirit...

Dang... I just can't stop saying it!

And MissLibra... you know I still love ya sweetie! :)

Spygirl

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 10:06 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Just to toss something out for thought while I head back to work...


This law suit was started by an Atheist who did not want his daughter subjected to God in school. He has won his right to prevent her from being subjected to saying a pledge (or even hearing a pledge) that includes the word "God" in it.

So, what about this.


What if I decided that I didn't want my daughter to be subjected to being taught by an African American because I don't think it is right to have my child taught by a person of another color (granted, I absolutely do not believe this, but hang with me). So, what is the difference here? A pledge versus a teacher's skin color -- but in both cases, the parent does not believe in their children being "subjected" to something they personally disagree with. To me it seems that this lawsuit means we are now allowed to seek out the justice system for help and make them change something that has been integrated into the school system to essentially "fit" our own personal beliefs.

Where does this end?

To me, it seems that our country believes in equality for some things and not others.

Just food for thought -- I'm heading back to work.

Max

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 10:12 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Yup, Spy, that's the problem. Where does the line get drawn? Freedom of speech includes the right not to listen, doesn't it? :)

How about this?

This athiest who brought the suit wanted to pursue getting "In God we Trust" removed from money but decided it would be easier to build the case around his daughter's school experience.

Now, there's a new ruling from the U.S. Supreme court that it's okay to issue school vouchers and let parents use them to fund their child's private education, including education in religious-based private schools.

So, on the one hand a California court says it's illegal to say the pledge of allegiance because of the word "God" being in it and on the other hand, the highest court in the land has ruled that it's okay for parents to take their portion of our tax dollars marked for public education and apply them to tuition at religious private schools.

Hmmm... Sorta makes your head spin, doesn't it? :)

Seamonkey

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 10:20 am EditMoveDeleteIP
As was pointed out by a caller on Fox news this morning the separation is of CHURCH and state, to avoid a theocracy.. not god and state.

Faerygdds

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:26 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Spy...

the difference is this...

In this country we celebrate diversity.. all diversity. Your scenario is meant to EXCLUDE a person - due to race (or whatever)... His suit was meant to UNIFY - as Patriots rather than as a religious country. Do you see the difference?

I guess the thing is that the second someone brings a suit like this they are automatically deemed (subconsciously if not vocally) nonpatriotic. The reality is that I read what this man has to say and he is a Patriot. He loves this country!

It's the same concept as a good US soldier saying, "When I see a man burn a flag I want to really hurt him. BUT... I will fight fervently for my country to give him the RIGHT to do so."

It is both the beauty and the bane of this country.... Freedom is a double edged sword. But if you believe in the concept of Freedom, you have to willing to fight for it unilaterally.

Sorry to ramble. I just got off the phone with my Mother in law (a NATURALIZED citizen) and the subject came up. She had some interesting opinions on the issue...

Oh... and Max... I went to a private Cath HS. We didn't pray every morning or anything like that and WHEN they had services (I think there were altogether about 3 a year) you had the option to not go and do study hall instead. Frankly... *I* have another problem with the whole school voucher thing, but it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with educational standard in this country... and THAT's another thread.... :)

Seamonkey

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:49 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I know there are jillions of polls, but two where you can weigh in on this are at

http://www.vote.com

http://www.courttv.com

(the court tv one won't be up after today, as they have three new polls every day).

Wcv63

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 12:16 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Fairygdds: "In this country we celebrate diversity.. all diversity. Your scenario is meant to EXCLUDE a person - due to race (or whatever)... His suit was meant to UNIFY - as Patriots rather than as a religious country. Do you see the difference?"

Ahhhh, but excluding faith from a pledge professing faith (to one's country) is an exclusion that divides. Diversity is a good argument except for the fact that the rights of many are being deciding by a few. I don't see how such an exclusion is supposed to unify.

Does my right supersede the rights of others? Do their rights supersede mine? Or, under the constitution are we all granted to the same rights?

Seamonkey said, "As was pointed out by a caller on Fox news this morning the separation is of CHURCH and state, to avoid a theocracy.. not god and state." Very astute and I agree completely.

Neko

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 12:18 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I really have no say in this seeing I'm not an American and really almost have no clue to what the Pledge of Allegiance is...

But I know that some people don't believe in God, or don't have the "same god".

It says "under God".
It doesn't say which one does it?

I like the "One nation, United in spirt" myself.
It has a better ring to it.

Missy666

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 12:33 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I have mixed feeling on this subject. I can understand people not wanting to say the word God, but I can't see why it would offend them if someone else says it. I am sure that no student is required to say God when they say the POA, I'm sure they could just as easily pause for a second.

It also seems to me that it is infringing on the right of freedom of speech by not allowing a person to use the word God when they recite the POA.

What really bothers me though is that people have nothing better to do than to worry about something so simple. I beleive in the pholosofy of live and let live. This is costing every tax payer money, this money could be used for much better things such as feeding the poor, building new roads, increasing national security, etc etc.


I like the United in Spirit listed above, but I don't think that word would fly either, in some religions that is also a holy word and the same people would complain about that.