tv // lbd // shoulder touch

Un-PC pledge rant

Okay, Supreme Court. As of today, you have about a year and a half to get your affairs in order and reverse this ridiculous ruling by the 9th Circus court. Because I'll be damned if I'm going to let their liberal-wacko asses remove the Pledge from my classroom because of some little weasel with a grudge.

"An establishment of religion", aka a church, is not the same thing as faith, you morons.
  • Current Mood: annoyed annoyed
  • Current Music: FNC, The Big Story
Alli,

I'm not an American and I don't know the full story regarding this, however, I can appreciate why some people feel that they should not *have* to pledge allegiance to their country using the words 'one nation under God' if they are an atheists. I remember being upset in Junior School from the age of 7 or 8 because I knew I didn't believe in a 'God' but I was forced to sing religious hymns and say prayers in assembley and at meal times in school - I tried not to say the prayers or sing the hymns but I was often reprimanded by my teachers for doing so. Now, I don't know if this is the same with the pledge of allegiance in America (do children have a choice whether they say it or not?) but if it is, I can see a valid reason why it needs to be re-worded or at least not compulsory in schools.

Kate - liberal-wacko? ;-)
LOL. You're not a wacko... at least not as far as I know ;)

The thing is that students don't have to say the words "one nation under God" if they don't want to. They can not say that specific line, or they can opt not to say the Pledge at all. I believe the only requirement is that they stand, but that may vary between regions. So really, no one is being forced the say anything they don't want to.
Okay, that's what I wanted to know - thanks. I'd like to comment further on this but I must get some sleep now! So, maybe tommorrow.

Kate :-)
**Non-wacko liberal**
Okay, so maybe it's just this furriner's really weird, crazy, straightforward solution...

Why can't the 'one nation under God' bit be optional in the recitation? Or why can't it be changed? "one nation under heaven" might be considered less religiously-charged...

Ironically enough, though, I personally think (not that I've ever had to recite the damn thing or would recognise it if a bunch of yanks chanted it at me 24x7) that they shoulda just left it. Don't the majority of Yanks believe in a god-like supernatural force, whether masculine/feminine/neuter, and with whatever individual attributes? Sure, it rules against atheists, but all they have to do is omit that phrase while they're reciting the Pledge...

Of course, maybe this is all just too sane, sensible and logical for the Americans...

...and what would be new about that?
Why can't the 'one nation under God' bit be optional in the recitation?

It is.

Don't the majority of Yanks believe in a god-like supernatural force, whether masculine/feminine/neuter, and with whatever individual attributes?

Yup.

Of course, maybe this is all just too sane, sensible and logical for the Americans...

Too sane, sensible and logical for liberal-wacko-run San Fran ;) This is the city that uses tax money to build 'community centers' used for cross-dressing parties and lessons on bondage games.

The problem weasel-boy had with the Pledge doesn't have anything to do with kids being forced to say the G-word. I can assure you that no normal teacher in an American public school is going to threaten little Billy and Jilly: "You better say the whole Pledge or you don't get to go to recess!" Complaints seem to fall in one of two categories. 1) Atheist children, while not having to say the Pledge themselves, should not have to hear other students say it. Kinda like how the loonies at OS shouldn't be made to hear opinions they disagree with... it hurts their feelings ;) 2) The very fact that the word 'God' is in the Pledge, and the Pledge is said in public (government-funded) school, the mere existence of this forbidden word, is against the law.

Personally, it all strikes me as a lot of politically correct, anti-Christian garbage.
Interestingly enough, the words to the original Pledge of Allegiance did not include the words 'under God'. My parents remember a time when the words weren't there. I think the federal government (yes those brilliant chaps) decided to add it sometime in the 70's.

So all of this fuss may just lead to the federal government reverting back to the original words. Whatever. Still got that growing deficit gentlemen. And Iraq. North Korea. Failing economy. Ring a bell?
Well, you know that I'm proud to call myself a liberal whacko, Alli.

Personally, I didn't care for the pledge in school. I eventually just stood, and said nothing. But in our high school, the debate team members took turns reciting over the school-wide intercom. When one boy recited it, leaving a pause where the words "Under God" would usually go, he received a week's suspension and wasn't allowed to do it anymore.

Personally, I find that whether or not it's Christianity, male monotheism pretty much pervades America. Y'know, the big three: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Just once, I'd love to hear, "One nation, under Goddess." I'm pretty happy about the current ruling. Given the diverse beliefs of our country, isn't it best to leave religion out of our government? Government is supposed to be for all of us, not just the members of the majority faith.
Well, you know that I'm proud to call myself a liberal whacko, Alli.

Oh, I know it. I don't understand it, but I know it ;)

Personally, I didn't care for the pledge in school. I eventually just stood, and said nothing. But in our high school, the debate team members took turns reciting over the school-wide intercom. When one boy recited it, leaving a pause where the words "Under God" would usually go, he received a week's suspension and wasn't allowed to do it anymore.

Hmm... see, to me, that's a failing of the school, and it was wrong of them to do that.

Personally, I find that whether or not it's Christianity, male monotheism pretty much pervades America. Y'know, the big three: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Just once, I'd love to hear, "One nation, under Goddess." I'm pretty happy about the current ruling. Given the diverse beliefs of our country, isn't it best to leave religion out of our government? Government is supposed to be for all of us, not just the members of the majority faith.


Which is why there is freedom of speech, and people can choose not to say it... just like they can always pay by check or credit if they have problems using money with 'in God we trust' on it ;)

Think we just might have to agree to disagree on this one, hon
Uhm, Alli?

They don't have to ban the pledge, all they have to do is remove the one offending phrase [which phrase, BTW, Congress added to the original pledge (in the 50s, I believe), so it's not like removing it would even damage the integrity of the pledge.]

And I'm guessing that none of the above will make any difference in your opinion, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

Meph
Re: Uhm, Alli?
They don't have to ban the pledge, all they have to do is remove the one offending phrase [which phrase, BTW, Congress added to the original pledge (in the 50s, I believe), so it's not like removing it would even damage the integrity of the pledge.]

No argument here. Well, not much ;) I see nothing wrong with 'under God', myself. I'm not a stridently religious person, I don't go to church (the last time was after 9/11), but like most people in the US I still consider myself a person of faith. "Under God" was added in the 50s when the US wanted to separate itself from athetist USSR, I believe, and if public sentement has changed since then so be it. But we're not talking about that... we're talking about one man with an agenda and a handful of notoriously biased judges.

The weird thing is, no one thus far seems to even be talking about that specific segment of the Pledge... it seems to be an all or nothing issue with some of these people
Re: Uhm, Alli?

Well, I'm not fond of the "under God", myself, as much because it isn't true as for any other reason. We're not one nation under God. We're one nation under a whole lot of different belief systems. There are days that I find the idea of rotating the phrase very amusing. "under Goddess" today, "under Allah" tomorrow, "under Buddha" the next, then "under Yahweh", then "under Queen Mab", ...

On the other hand, I think the whole idea of the pledge is a little silly, to begin with. Either you are or you aren't loyal to your country, and no amount of repetition of any pledge is ever going to change that.

And I'm waiting for someone to try to get a court to declare our currency illegal, because it bears the phrase "In God We Trust". And to have all court cases thrown out because the witnesses swear on the Bible...

Meph <thinking evil happy thoughts>
I bet he doesn't object to using money, though--waiting for him to file suit that spending US dollars is offensive to him because of the "In God We Trust" sentiment on every single piece of currency and coin.

Okay, cute patriotic and non-athiestic stories:

My now-five-year-old (today's her birthday) solmenly bows her head when she says the pledge and ends it with a very prayerful "amen."

When she was three and right after 9-11, we were in the store and she begged for a little American flag (like the one the girl is waving in Alli's pic). We said sure and bought it for her. She then said that when she got home she was going to plant it in the garden so it could grow up to be a great big flag like the one Grandfather had in the yard :)

We'll say the pledge as is. We still have prayer in school, though it's been "illegal" thanks to the late Atheist Madeline Murray O'Hare. I was in junior high before I learned that my school system shouldn't have been having a morning recitation of the Lord's Prayer following the pledge back when I was in elementary school. In high school, we still started sporting events with a non-secular prayer for the safety of the participants in the event. I was in a dance squad and we had a prayer before each performance, as did we in drama before each performance. And, again in college.

This country is based on freedom. In my opinion, Atheists have the freedom to NOT say the words (as do those of any religious faith, if they so choose). I have problems with legistalting to the one versus legislating to the mass.

I bet he doesn't object to using money, though--waiting for him to file suit that spending US dollars is offensive to him because of the "In God We Trust" sentiment on every single piece of currency and coin.

Actually, doofus is apparently planning on doing that. It was being offended by money that gave him the idea to go after the Pledge.

Here's the interesting thing. He said in an interview that he considers atheism to be a religion. I'm not saying everyone agrees with him, but if that's his viewpoint... wouldn't the government taking 'under God' out be as much as establishment of religion as leaving it in apparently is?

This country is based on freedom. In my opinion, Atheists have the freedom to NOT say the words (as do those of any religious faith, if they so choose). I have problems with legistalting to the one versus legislating to the mass.

Amen ;) But the way I see it, it's a bit of an epidemic in this country. Lack of any personal responsibility or proportional response. Someone offend you? Sue them. Get hurt doing something stupid? Sue whoever was inolved who has the most money. Get fat because you've been eating fast food 5 times a week for the last 20 years? Well obviously it's not your fault...

And as far as the Pledge goes... this isn't even legislation, that's the annoying thing. Instead of going about it the right way, collecting signatures, getting it put on a ballot where it can be put to a fair vote, doofus circumvents the entire thing, instead going to the most liberal court in the known world. Gee. Wonder how they'll rule
This country is based on freedom. In my opinion, Atheists have the freedom to NOT say the words (as do those of any religious faith, if they so choose).

Yes, I'm aware that I am not obligated to speak the words when one faith is illegally being promoted over all the myriad others that are practiced in this nation.

Just once, I'd really like it if I had the right not to hear the words. Public schools aren't just for Christians. Same goes for school-sponsored events. Yes, those who are not Christian have the right not to speak the words -- and then be singled out by their classmates. If you want Jesus in your child's classroom, send them to a religious school. Trust me, even in public schools, the students are praying before those exams.

I maintain that in what is supposed to be a secular school system, it is an act of disrespect towards students of non-majority faiths to make them listen to one religion being promoted over others.

But hey, why would that bother the majority? Because theirs is the only correct faith, you know, and all the others need to sign on or get out.
Re:
"But hey, why would that bother the majority? Because theirs is the only correct faith, you know, and all the others need to sign on or get out."

Not saying that at all. However, one cannot be revisionist and take out all references to God. Whether or not you believe in a monothestic god or a group of deities or none at all, the founding fathers of this country did believe in a singular Christian God, and on Christian principles they based this country.

If this country had been based on Buddhist principles and had a recitation of every Buddhist deity within the pledge, I would say the same thing.

Ultimately, I would rather my children be exposed to some sort of value system respecting each other and life in general as to be comletely non-theistic and I do take the time to explain differences in beliefs between our household and others and had to do so recently when Chanukah was taught in a "Christmas around the world" holiday lesson. I can understand the reasoning in incorporating teaching about Chanukah because it falls near the same time, but it isn't related to Christmas at all and shouldn't have been represented as such. So, I took it upon myself to reteach correctly what Chanukah is and why it's celebrated by Jews and what the differences between the Jewish faith and Christianity is. I also took it upon myself to explain that there are many different kinds of religious beliefs besides these two.

I guess, by your reasoning, I should have taken the teacher and school to court for misrepresenting Judaism and for teaching cultural world differences with regards to the Christian Christmas holiday and for not referencing how Christmas celebrations are based upon Paegan solstice rituals?

Not trying to be rude, just trying to clarify a point--how far is too far and when does it all stop?