Judge Rules Reciting Pledge in Public School is Unconstitutional

nah. we'd forgive the typo or ignorance and politley correct if it seemed appropriate. Like you did.

 

Thanks... and I spell terrible.

My points were in the context that some Christians problably had it added back whenever (1950's) and that most Christians who ever said it were assuming that it meant that 'Christian' God.

Sishir, I think it takes a little naivity to generalize the issue as if Christians are not primarily being affected. I don't mean that we should be upset or react or be affected. I mean it should be obvious and understandable that Christians would respond to this.

Understanding the first amendment and disassociating all the references to Bible verses (even New Testament verses) engraved in stone all over the country in memorials, government buildings etc. should be enough to admit to the strength of Christian influence in society throughout the last 250 yrs. Without commenting on whether it is right, wrong, legal or constitutional any honest reporting of American history would reveal a Christian influence. The 'God' on our money could be any God, the Bibles that government leaders place their hand on before they are sworn in could be 'other religious writings'.

But truth is, there has been a great deal of Christian influence in America.

I don't see any reaction to this as irrational (at least by a Christian). Or unexpected.

I am asking for understanding.

For myself, they can take God out of America, but they can't take God out of me.

I am fine with that.

 

That may be the best response I have heard in a LONG LONG LONG time. Great post and I agree with everything you said.

I am a Christian but I do not believe that we need In God We Trust on our money nor do we need Under God in our pledge. It isn’t the governments place to include religion or dictate morality in the live of its constituents. If I want to worship God then Woo Hoo for me. If you don’t, great for you. Its my choice and your choice. I think the analogy of some of our current government officials and the Pharacies is incredibly accurate. Their talk is big but I think it is all a bunch of BS.

 

Actuallly nobody has any idea what god's name really is. Yahweh is a possibility, but at the time hebrew didn't have vowels. The name, known as the Tetragammaton, was written as four letters which were not to be pronounced. Since nobody pronounced it for centuries, (addoni, or "my lord" was used in it's place) and there was no written record of the vowels, the actual pronounciation is lost to history. Reconstructions are only guesses.

The four consonants, יהוה (pronounced yod - heh - vav - heh from right to left) have been translated as yahweh, jehovah, and most likely many other things.

Not to be churlish, but this sounds to me like an argument for removing the name from places like the pledge of allegiance, something that millions of kids recite every day from rote memory without thinking of it's meaning. There's nothing sacred to the pledge of allegiance.

 

Well said player

 

I would usually give the weekly pledge over the airwaves every week when I was in HS. I missed out on a good controversy. I should've said Under Allah. I remember they got mad when I said it slower than normal because people often complained it was done too fast. They asked, "What were trying to pull on there? Were you trying to disrespect America?" I actually got quite agitated about the situation and told them to mind their own business. I remember, however, the next week the school board sent a memo saying that it was the best performance they had heard. As a Muslim, I never cared using the phrase Under God. If it was under Jesus, I would be very angry though.

 

As are the pirates and their global warming scourge.

 

Word on the street is that the Invisible Pink Unicorn has also joined the ranks of the amused.

 

are you serious? It is that arbitrary?

Rocket River

 

Not to be a post nazi, but it's spelled 'Buddha.' Budd meaning enlightened or awakened, and ha meaning one.

 

I wouldn't necessarily credit McCarthy et. al with "good" intentions.

 

999 just isn't good enough.

Here's what wikipedia (cult) says:

"In religion and sociology, a cult is a relatively small and cohesive group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or because of its idiosyncratic practices."

As you can see, a cult is generally small in number and also cohesive, but those terms can apply to plenty of 'legitimate' religious groups as well.

The second criteria is a subjective analysis of the minority belief by the majority. Very ambiguous.

In conclusion, a cult is just a tool used by mainstream religions to persecute smaller religions and/or differentiate themselves from those practicing a belief system different from theirs.

 

Your still not answering the question. If the pledge said "under Allah" would you be ok with that for you and your kids?

So you mean if you were a kid whos family moved to India, and a pledge had to be said in school, you would denouce saying "under Buddha" and replace it with GOD? I highly doubt that. No offense.

 

There is no question that officially leading the pledge and more or less coercing students to recite it with the phrase "One Nation Under God" establishes the belief in God, and coerces everyone to affirm said belief. Furthermore they have to affirm that the nation is under God (it is actually possible to believe in some kind of god but reject that the nation is "under" god).

Now it is true that "God" is not defined in any detail, whatsoever. And the Hebrew God, Muslim God, Christian God and Deist God are very different in nature. Nevertheless belief in some kind of God is by its very nature a matter of religious belief because that is belief in an unproven supernatural entity. That is very different from saying the "Nation under the Sun" as the Sun obviously exists and is clearly not a religious supernatural entity like God.

The fact that "God" is not well defined and is generic does NOT make the concept any less religious. Therefore officially respecting the belief in "God", a purely religious concept, and furthermore coercing people to affirm said belief is obviously respecting an establishment religion. This is in direct violation of the First Amendment and therefore it is unconstitutional.

 

I'm not being deliberately obtuse to ignore the obvious that its primarily Christians that are upset about this or that Christians were the ones that put that line into the Pledge in the first place. My point though is we need to consider the specific language to determine whether its violates the letter and spirit of the First Ammendment. My point is that it comes down to whether the "God" implied is a specific deity or a generic reference that there is a deity with no regard to its specificity. If if is a meant to be a Christian God then I would say it definately violates the First Ammendment because it is a declaration of one specific religion. If it is generic then it doesn't because I don't believe that acknowledgement of a deity in its most generic sense is an establishment of a religion.

Obviously an atheists would consider the mention of even a generic deity to be religion but in terms of merely stating that there is some higher metaphysical being with no dictates of worship or even a creed I don't see that as a religion.

Yes there are many Bible versus engraved on government buildings but so are many ancient Roman, Greek and even Native American deities and symbols. The Goddess of Justice that sits at the top of the Supreme Court, yes above Moses and the Ten Commandments, is a Pagan symbol yet no one would contend this is a Pagan country.

As you say though the 'God' on our money could be any god. That's my point. As for the Bibles people swear on those have no official meaning but are purely ceremonial. Someone being sworn could swear on any or no religious text. The action of swearing in and not the holy book is what makes it official.

That also goes to my point that there is a traditional recognition that the government doesn't deny the existence of god (in the generic sense) and individuals have the freedom to decide which god or no god. Since the Pledge is largely ceremonial I see no problem with keeping a generic "god" in the pledge.

I'm not saying that its irrational, I would say its Constitutionally wrong to assert it as specifically Christian God, but I'm defending keeping "Under God" (I mean "under god") in the Pledge.

As I said I'm not advocating taking God out of you at all but am arguing for what I believe to respecting the First Ammendment and the separation of church and state. The recognition of a generic non-specific belief of a deity leaving it to individuals to decide the specifics about that deity in accordance with their own faiths.

I am fine with that.[/QUOTE]

 

Yes I will agree there is a coercion factor there and that is the only area of concern I would have but as I said in regard to having to swear on a Bible or some other holy document when one is sworn in to testify in trial it is up to the individual to decide which document or none. Its tradition that one is sworn in with their hand on a holy book of some sort but has no legal bearing, like whether one says the Pledge, so would it be your contention then that because tradition dictates swearing on a holy book applies to coercion of witnesses and office holders into religion?

This goes to the question of what constitutes a religion and establishment of a religion. The atheists viewpoint is that any mention of a metaphysical deity in any governmental context represents establishment of a religion. As with the case of what someone swears on though I don't think that can be the case though since the government out of tradition will accomodate beliefs. The question is merely stating a that there is some deity a religion? I don't think so especially if there are no dictates to follow that deity. Its the same as saying "there's a ghost" is the establishment of a religion. I agree that 'under' can mean supplication to a God and but that doesn't fit with the rest of the Pledge as the Pledge is specifically not a pledge to supplicate oneself to a god but to the United States. This is in keeping with with the tradition of the US going all the way back to the founding document which acknowledges the existence of a divinity but doesn't specifiy any fealty to that divinity.

As far as coercing people. I agree that if legally people were compelled to that is a violation of individual liberty just as if people were legally compelled to swear on a holy book but its already been addressed that people don't have to say the Pledge or any part of it. I won't deny there is a coercion in regards to peer pressure but that's not being imposed by the government.

 

[/QUOTE]

Sishir, you would be surprised to know how much we share conclusions but from two different perspectives. I don't think I actually disagree with much of your reason, but I do try to share a perspective that a Christian pastor would have (like me).

Sometimes I am thinking of other Christians when I post and other times non-Christians and mostly just my own opinion.

With regard to taking 'under God' from the Pledge, I don't think I would give it a thought aside from this thread. I certainly embrace a strict interpretation of the first amendment and see how there is conflict there.

No problem. As long as Congress passes no laws that prohibits me from practicing Christianity and I have freedom of speech- I'm good.

Personally I strictly believe the intent of the 'freedom of religion' clause originally was nothing more than a barrier to prevent the establishment of a national religion- like the Church of England or the Catholic Church in Mexico. I do not believe and thorough research would bear out that they did not intend to remove religious expression from government.

I know that is no longer a held belief in todays society, but I am convinced in my own mind that it represents the original intent of the amendment. I certainly understand the vast diversity we share today that was not present in 18th century colonies.

Having said that, I am not one who opposes removing religion from government, I wish we could remove about 85% of government from our lives.

Have a great weekend.

 

Two pledges? I went to high school in Texas, I only remember one. Don't tell me you pledge to the Texas as well???

Anyway, I disagree. Kids need to be taught to respect their country.

 

HUH? Its common sense man. Not hard at all. Like I said, In America I expect my kid to say the pledge as it is. Period. We dont say Allah here.

If my kid was in India and they said a pledge that included Allah, I would tell my kid, not to say it. I wouldnt try to force their government to remove it. I would tell my kid while others are saying buddha you just say under God. No big deal. If my kid got flack from the school leaders, I would tell him not to recite it at all or we would just have to move. It is there country and we will abide by their rules. This is my country and others need to abide by our rules. Why do some people make it as though America has to change everything about it to make America "politically" Correct for others. I am leaving for Iraq next week and while I am on their soil, i will abide by their rules, not to disrespect their religion or anything. I will read my Bible in the privacy of my own trailer. When Ramadan comes, I will respect it every way I am told how to. Period. It is their country and I respect that. Any other questions?