God in the Pledge of Allegiance..

[Captain Chaos]

Just pray it does not get to this:

I pledge allegiance, to the cross, of the United States of Christ, and to the theocracy, for which it stands, one nation, under Christ, with salvation, and obedience, for all.

[Fonceai]

I pledge allegiance
To the ideal
Of a free and united America

And to oppose with fervor
Those who stand
Against this nation
Corrupt with tyranny
For the suppression of equality for all

[Jack]

America was so embroiled against Communism that it slipped past them.

And now the government is ready to try stunts like this again using the country's fear of terrorists. Fear of terrorism, fear of death...religion seems to expand as the degree of fear expands. I'm not surprised.

[Fonceai]

What if religion isn't the ends, it's the means.

In that case, because our gov't can't really logically explain how the things they do enhance the freedoms of Americans, they resort to citing religious ideas instead.

I know for a fact that the Catholic Church on the global level doesn't like being associated with the Christianity-laced logic spewed by the current administration.

[underbear1]

The only thing that gives me some ray of hope against the forces who have been paired together for faith-based initiatives, anti-gay legislation, anti-choice, anti stem cell research, etc.............they have quite a History of hating each others guts, and will eventually break their alliance with in fighting. Baptists, conservative Catholics, orthodox Jews, and Mormons won't be able to work as one for very long.

[gallo]

Quote by: belverron This should clear up the constitutional issues we're talking about, I think, even if you just want to read the introduction and conclusion.

Thanks, belverron. This certainly supports just what I have been saying. It seems that this issue generates a certain amount of cognitive disconnect in certain individuals.

Note that the clause is absolute. It allows no law. It is also noteworthy that the clause forbids more than the establishment of religion by the government. It forbids even laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Yep. Just as I said on several occasions only to be met again and again with "it's not a law."

In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause.

As I explained several times, only to be met with continued claims that schools are not Congress.

Others, including a majority of the justices of the current Supreme Court, believe the term prohibits the government from promoting religion in general as well as the preference of one religion over another.

Indeed as I have explained.

From Everson: “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion... . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"

I guess I should have just quoted Everson. But still, with the cognitive disconnect surrounding this issue, it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

Although the Court’s interpretation of the establishment clause is in flux, it is likely that for the foreseeable future a majority of the justices will continue to view government neutrality toward religion as the guiding principle. Neutrality means not favoring one religion over another, not favoring religion over non-religion and vice versa.

We can certainly hope so.

I notice, belverron, that the article goes into some detail about the Lemon Test that both you and I tried to explain - to no avail. Although lower courts still use the Lemon Test routinely, the Supreme Court has been moving away from it towards a less restrictive interpretation.

I notice that in the cases and resources it lists Newdow v. United States, 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002), the case in which recitation of the Pledge with the words "under god" was found to be unconstitutional that was overturned on the grounds that Newdow lacked standing. It also mentions Santa Fe I.S.D. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the case about prayer at football games that I mentioned.

Quote by: belverron If laws must have a legitimate secular purpose, as established by the Lemon Test, what is that purpose for the insertion of "under God"?

According to Eisenhower, "These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded." It is absurd that fuzzy thinking christians continue to insist that the words "under god" aren't religious.

[Fonceai]

@underbear

True.

It will also come out that they aren't champions of their respective religions and don't have the support of their religions organizations.

[Aeris]

Quote by: Fonceai I pledge allegiance To the ideal Of a free and united America And to oppose with fervor Those who stand Against this nation Corrupt with tyranny For the suppression of equality for all

Did you come up with that yourself? I have a comic site that I am starting, and I was wondering if I could make a comic about that?

I like it - its not swearing allegience to the government, but rather to the nation the government is supposed to represent. And the tyranny bit, I don't know what was meant by the author, but it could mean those within the system as well.

And none of the involvement of religion.

In the immortal words of my friend Justin, "I'd hit that."

Anyways, about making children say the pledge - I have seen it both forced and prohibited in the same school. I think that children should be taught it, but not forced to say it. I believe that when they're old enough to make the decision - they'll choose for themselves. Like for instance, I currently do not say the pledge...even without the words "Under God" because I don't agree with it.

Why should I pledge to support a non-functioning republic as opposed to my fellow Americans?

[Fonceai]

I made it up on the spot. It doesn't have to follow the rhythm of the original pledge.

Normally I would restrict it to...

I pledge to support the principles of freedom
And equality for all people
To oppose tyranny and corruption
Foreign and domestic
In a free and united America.

Doesn't follow the rhythm, but is a better pledge of loyalty to the American ideal rather than the American nation.

[belverron]

Foreign and domestic? There's another line I'll be leaving out when I recite it.

[Fonceai]

You won't oppose foreign tyranny and corruption trying to gain a foothold in America?

I think the wording in that part was vague.

I was absolutely NOT implying that we go to other countries to fight tyranny and corruption.

[underbear1]

I swear..........(end of sentence)

[Aeris]

Is anyone interested in seeing the comic?

[Wonderblob]

Quote by: The Architect Do you think the word "god" should stay in the Pledge. Its been that way for years, Im fine with it. What about you guys??

Has any one noticed that since we put the words "in God we trust" on our money and "one nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance our government has become more evil? We have not won a war since. It is so arrogant to assume God is on your side. Iraq is the shining example of how he is not on the side of our government. God would have nothing to do with the way our government is run. it is shamefully corrupt
God and Government don't mix. You are a fool if you think they do.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Fonceai I pledge allegiance To the ideal Of a free and united America And to oppose with fervor Those who stand Against this nation Corrupt with tyranny For the suppression of equality for all

Sounds great, except for the meaning behind "united." If one means in the face of those who wish to take our freedoms from us, or conquer us... agreed, mostly. Of course, as we have seen, bogus claims of drone planes and massive amounts of WMD can cause a somewhat "united" that creates an endless swamp of death and destruction... and little real freedom, if any.

If "united" means in agreement on just about any other national, or international, debate. I disagree. Our strength is the diversity of our beliefs, not any such "unity." That's the kind of "unity" we saw goose-stepping down the streets of Munich in the late 30's/early 40's. No thanks.

[Fonceai]

"United" meaning one America.

One country.

One nationality.

As pointed out elsewhere on Volconvo, Americans never respond "American"... they respond "Irish" or "German" or whatever.

It's been 230 years... the melting pot "give us your poor" and et cetera is over. We need to be our own nation now.

[zynner]

There are pictures out there from the 1920's or so where American school children are saying the Pledge, standing next to their desks, and giving the straight-armed salute.

Err ... ahem ... guess they had to change that when followers of Hitler used the same salute.

Forcing a child to pledge allegiance to the state is child abuse.

Get rid of the whole damn thing.

~ zynner

[gallo]

Quote by: zynner There are pictures out there from the 1920's or so where American school children are saying the Pledge, standing next to their desks, and giving the straight-armed salute.

Yes. I've seen them. I mentioned that a few pages back. I believe that it was in the U.S. Flag Code too. They had to change that. First it was changed from the familiar Nazi salute to the same thing with palm up, and then to hand over heart.

Quote by: zynner Err ... ahem ... guess they had to change that when followers of Hitler used the same salute.

I believe that you are correct.

Quote by: zynner Forcing a child to pledge allegiance to the state is child abuse.

Not to mention in violation of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.

Quote by: zynner Get rid of the whole damn thing.

Doing a way with it isn't a problem for me. However, there are some who see our national diversity of culture as evil and prefer that everyone be the same. I was always told when I was in school that our diversity is a good thing. But it seems that when some politician makes a huge mistake and has to cover his behind, he and his administration try to characterize patriotism with agreement with wrong policy. Opposition to an unjust war somehow becomes conflated with failure to support our troops. The demands that everyone toe the line and rigidly pledge loyalty no matter what are reminiscent of a guy named Adolf.