my 2 cents: I always thought the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge was ridiculous. Tainted it, imo. I really don't see what the problem would be to take it out, esp when many schools are forcing kids to say it every friggin day. argg. sidenote: cool Truth article Jeff. very interesting.
They should have sued. Here is a link to the relevant SCOTUS decision from 1943: WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE I don't know the how these fit together, but from the original article that started this thread ... The court ruling was reminiscent of the 1988 White House race when President Bush ( news - web sites)'s father, George Bush, the Republican nominee, ripped Democratic rival Michael Dukakis for vetoing as Massachusetts governor mandatory recitation of the pledge by the state's public school children. So in the late 1980's, it was apparently a pretty controversial issue as to whether you could force people to recite the Pledge or not.
HEY CHRISTIANS!!! What if we named God? What if it said -"One Nation Under Vishnu" ? -"One Nation Under Allah" ? -"One Nation Under Jehovah" ? "Christ" ? "Ganesh" ? "Gutter Snipe" ?
Perhaps true, but doesn’t really affect his main point, no? I would take this point further in fact. I’d say that blindly reciting the name of God every morning could be much like worshipping an idol. It de-emphasises the personal nature of the connection to God, and reinforces the legalistic impersonal elements of idol worship. Given that the name of God was included in very recent times for political purposes, I’d be even more concerned. The name of God has often, throughout history, been misused as a form of mind control for large groups of people. My question would be, is its use in keeping with the spirit of God? There is a passage in the bible, the location of which I can’t remember right now, which says that repeating the same words to God over and over is like an empty gong, or something close to this. As a Christian, if I was an American, I’d be concerned about the presence of the word in such a pledge. I’m all for God, but I’m not sure this is of God. As a footnote, since we’re talking about the power of words and XTC lyrics, this is a segment of an XTC song that I always though had some wise insights. It goes a little farther than I would, bit is food for thought nonetheless. No Language In Our Lungs Lyrics - XTC There is no language in our lungs to tell the world just how we feel no bridge of thought no mental link no letting out just what you think there is no language in our lungs there is no muscle in our tongues to tell the world what's in our hearts no we're leaving nothing just chiselled stones no chance to speak before we're bones there is no muscle in our tongues I thought I had the whole world in my mouth I thought I could say what I wanted to say For a second that thought became a sword in my hand I could slay any problem that would stand in my way I felt just like a crusader lionheart, a holy land invader but nobody can say what they really mean to say and the impotency of speech came up and hit me that day … Do words ever say what we mean them too? Are they ever really understood by the other party the way we mean them? Is the signified very often even close to the object? Interesting links to semiotics, don’t you think?
No, I wasn't arguing his main point, I was just being picky about history. The rest of your post is similar to what I was initially saying about mindless repetition defeating meaning. I was only thinking of the political ramifications so i am glad you brought up the religious. Most in this country, of course, will disagree with you. You are just a silly Canadian, after all. Almost as bad as a "Euro" (not the currency, either).
i think is=if but i think the point is that "God" is supposed to be a general term for the different gods that different religions worship... however, would that be "god"? what is the difference betwen "God" and "god" according to webster: a capitalized "God" = the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe... no reference to a specific religion, so as long as you believe in a God, this probably shouldn't offend you... BUT... if you believe in several or no Gods, than I understand the offense taken.
You make a very good point cson- although perhaps not the one you think. If it was under Aunt Betty, since "Aunt Betty" holds no significance for me, I could just laugh and move on. Similarly, since God should mean nothing to an atheist, why does he have a problem with it? This man has a history of similar lawsuits, and plans to make another frivolous lawsuit to remove "In God We Trust" off of the currency. I think everyone needs to recognize that he is not objecting to his daughter reciting it - he is objecting to the fact that she has to hear it. I agree with a previous poster who mentioned that this is just another PC case: "No! Keep that (stereotype joke/naked person/masculine word/mention of religion) away from (me/my child/the children)!!!" Honestly, the father in this case is acting like he must protect his daughter's innocent ears from any taint of religion. If he truly was an atheist, God has no meaning other than an archaic concept to him. What is the harm done? He acts like the mention of God in his daughter's surroundings is a gateway drug to Christianity. Why can't people leave the court systems for things that make a real difference instead of wasting our time and money? Why can't this man teach his daughter something more valuable, like tolerance?
Gutter Snipe - good post! That's kind of what I've been trying to say. God can mean whatever you do or do not want it to mean. Just because you and I might say the same pledge or worship the same God, does it mean that we both have the exact same idea of Him? I don't think so. Although he is trying to protect his little girl, she has a right to hear all the information. If by saying 'under God' in the pledge at school, she decides she is not an atheist then maybe that's better for her. As another technicallity, the pledge refers to the *nation* being under God, not the individual. If he and his family do not believe in god, that's fine because the statement does not refer to them then.
That was probably a reference to the actual salute used at the time. Before, and, i suppose, during WWII, the proper way to salute the flag while reciting the pledge was essentially the Nazi salute with the hand turned over.
God- Tori Amos God sometimes you just don't come through God sometimes you just don't come through Do you need a woman to look after you God sometimes you just don't come through You make pretty daisies pretty daisies love I gotta find what you're doing about things here a few witches burning gets a little toasty here I gotta find why you always go when the wind blows tell me you're crazy maybe then I'll understand you got your 9 iron in the back seat just in case heard you've gone south well babe you love your new 4 wheel I gotta find why you always go when the wind blows [give not thy strength unto women nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings] Will you even tell her if you decide to make the sky fall will you even tell her if you decide to make the sky God sometimes you just don't come through God sometimes you just don't come through Do you need a woman to look after you God sometimes you just don't come through Does this have anything to do with this thread....maybe, maybe no ? But hell that didn't seem to matter to about 80% of the people who posted in this thread anyway. ANd anytime I get a chance to think about Tori Amos...... mmmmmm Tori Amos...... it's damn well worth it.
He's got the whole world in His hands He's got the whole world in His hands He's got the whole wide world in His hands He's got the whole world in His hands -- author unknown
When I was in second grade, we had to say the Pledge every day. One day I got bored and decided to try not saying it, and see what would happen. Well, it got their attention. They called me out and asked if I was a Jehovah's Witness (to which I said, "I don't know"). Childish acts of rebellion aside, this proves that you won't be forced to say it if you have a religious reason not to. Also, why can't the "under God" part remain but be optional? I'm sure it effectively is anyway; nobody's going to notice if you leave two words out. Or even if you fill in the name of another deity. However, for those of us who believe there might actually be a God out there, we would like to acknowledge Him and ask His protection for our nation. Hey, it couldn't hurt. If they remove the words from the pledge, I suggest those of us who want to keep them ought to stick them in there after "one nation". Use that right of free speech...
The god issue is only part of this, since I think pledging allegiance to your country every morning before school is slightly disturbing - especially if, as some have said, they were punished for not saying it. Aren't you there to learn rather than to be indoctrinated? (Or are those the same thing?) What if you *don't* believe in what your government says your country stands for, or if you only believe in half of it? What if you want to change the country when you grow up and leave school? Does being a citizen of a country mean that you *have* to be wholly patriotic? Can't you feel conflicted? (I know I do.) What if you aren't even a nationalist at all? (Not that most kids think about this stuff, anyway.) I never stood up for the national anthem at public events when I lived there, and I must say that I was never harassed for it, not even after September 11. That speaks rather well for your nation's general tolerance, so yay for you. Actually, I've just realised that that whole paragraph was a lot of irrelevant waffle. Sorry. Shouldn't post late at night. And rockHEAD, um, rocks for quoting Mr. Andy Partridge. Possibly the world's most perfectly expressed agnostic song... (You too, Grizzled. Wow, how many XTC fans hang out here?)
Hey, no knocks on the nick - I lost my old one in the infamous bet! In response to your question, yes, I would like more people to react as I would. I grew up in a fundamentalist family, so I've seen firsthand how some people like to hide certain viewpoints from their children. Some heteros don't want to expose the concept of non-heteros, deaf parents want to keep their children deaf, and apparently this man wants to protect his child from the concept of God. Perhaps he believes the old "religion is the opiate of the people" line. I believe that you need to teach your child to examine all viewpoints, analyze them, and decide what is best for them. We are not meant to be a nation of sheep! And yet, most of the time, we are....**holden sad face**
What a complete waste of time and my tax dollars. Our grandparents that fought in WW2 would LAUGH at us for worrying about crap like this. All this Political correctness garbage is making our entire society weak. The very fact that JUDGES had to spend time to write an opinion on this is appalling to me. Why are we focusing on trivial issues like this, let's turn this country into a true democracy, and let the majority rule. If you don't like the laws, get the majority to be on your side, if not...tough. How much of our court time is tied up with GARBAGE like this, and unecessary law suits? Just think if the tax dollars YOU spent on these frivilous things could be used for something important, like education, or feeding the homeless. Our country needs an enemy to focus our attention, because our morale fiber is cracking, and this is exactly what happened to Rome. Anyone hear a fiddle warming up? DaDakota PS Isn't it ironic that when the bullets start flying, even atheist soldiers turn to God....just in case...of course.
Again with the Rome business ... what's with the fixation on a 2,000-year-old society? We're NOTHING like ancient Rome. I find your suggestion of a common enemy disturbing as well. Are you suggesting that we'll be a more "moral" country if we're all united in hating the same people? Doesn't that seem to fly in the very face of morality?
Why are we focusing on trivial issues like this, let's turn this country into a true democracy, and let the majority rule. If you don't like the laws, get the majority to be on your side, if not...tough. Absolutely! Slavery would never have ended, women would never have gotten the right to vote, the country would be completely intolerant, but hey ... who cares ... tough. PS Isn't it ironic that when the bullets start flying, even atheist soldiers turn to God....just in case...of course. Do you just make this stuff up as you go, or do you know atheist soldiers that do this? How much of our court time is tied up with GARBAGE like this, and unecessary law suits? Just think if the tax dollars YOU spent on these frivilous things could be used for something important, like education, or feeding the homeless. Do you know any of the numbers? The amount of money spent on frivolous stuff like this is a tiny fraction of what you'd save by simply cutting one jet fighter or one state pork project. If you were that interested in feeding the homeless, why not go on a rant about those things instead? They are easier to kill and would do much more good. The "frivolous" court system is the only reason things like segregation ever ended. Unless you have some magical way of determining, beforehand, which lawsuits are important and which aren't, the only way to kill frivolous lawsuits like these is basically kill all lawsuits.
