The Pledge "Unconstitutional"

[TK-8252]

Yeah, but then you'll be pleasing the smallest crowd of people. The athiests will be mad still, the christians, jews, and muslims will be mad... so yeah...

 

Why should they be mad? The reason god was added to the Pledge was to combat communism, not to cater to the religious. Are they going to be mad because we're not combating communism anymore?

[SkinWalker]

You act as if its an act of defiance.

 

Isn't it? It is the defiance of the so-called religious right that protects this and other superstitions, like the 10 commandments in public buildings. I find it ironic, by the way, that religious right heralds the 10 commandments as sacred -a set of rules from the "old law"- but they wouldn't dream of putting up quotes of Jesus. I'd have no problem at all with "blessed are the meek...," "turn the other cheek," "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...," "blessed are the peacemakers...," and "who ever said I could walk on water? I just know where all the rocks are."

[lukeskywalker1]

Umm... yeah... rocks in the middle of a huge lake? Peter walked on the water too. Really funny skin... yeah.

 

Why should they be mad? The reason god was added to the Pledge was to combat communism, not to cater to the religious. Are they going to be mad because we're not combating communism anymore?

 

Think about it. If you change it to "Gods" then all the christians, muslims, and Jews will be mad because they only believe in one God... they won't settle for that. And the athiests will be mad because religion is still in it. Unless... of course, you guys are just mad because the Christian God is in it, and in that case your whole argument falls in on itself and proves that your just nitpicking because you don't like Christianity.

[TK-8252]

Think about it. If you change it to "Gods" then all the christians, muslims, and Jews will be mad because they only believe in one God... they won't settle for that. And the athiests will be mad because religion is still in it.

 

Yup, changing it to "gods" would be even worse.

 

Unless... of course, you guys are just mad because the Christian God is in it, and in that case your whole argument falls in on itself and proves that your just nitpicking because you don't like Christianity.

 

Except that if it WERE the christian god then we'd have MORE reason to argue about it, because that really would be the state sponsering an official religion - unconstitutional.

[Mike Windu]

It isn't hurting anything, and nobody is making or forcing kids to recite it with or without the word God in it.

 

Nobody gives a damn about the pledge.

 

I say it every day. It's just reciting something. I don't care if I am semi agnost. It doesn't burn my throat to mention God. :/

[riceplant]

No offence, but thats slightly weak: I can see it now "The pledge violates the constitution, so why not violate it more!!!!! You act as if its an act of defiance.

What exactly are you saying would be unconstitutional about changing the pledge? When you get right down to it, at the most basic level laws are made to be changed. Although, everyone does seem to be making a big fuss of it, you are aware of the British national anthem, are you not? I'm not religious, but I have no problems with singing it. When you get right down to it, it's just words, it's not hurting anyone (unlike many other religious presences in American culture).

[lukeskywalker1]

What exactly are you saying would be unconstitutional about changing the pledge? When you get right down to it, at the most basic level laws are made to be changed. Although, everyone does seem to be making a big fuss of it, you are aware of the British national anthem, are you not? I'm not religious, but I have no problems with singing it. When you get right down to it, it's just words, it's not hurting anyone (unlike many other religious presences in American culture).

 

Im not saying its unconsitutional to change the pledge, but Skin was saying that "Under God" Violates the constitution, and that could be an excused used to further violate it. I doubt that would happen...

 

Nobody gives a damn about the pledge.

 

Evidentally, some people do. They care enough to take the whole situation to court just to change the words. I doubt those people regularly recite the pledge anyways.

[ShadowTemplar]

No offence, but thats slightly weak: I can see it now "The pledge violates the constitution, so why not violate it more!!!!! You act as if its an act of defiance.

 

Precedents, Skywalker. Precedents are important.

 

And, yes, I'll happily admit that it would give me a warm and fuzzy feeling in my tummy to see the fascist right of the US slapped so soundly in the face over this issue. But that is hardly my primary concern. If you want to know why Skin and I are so riled up over it, go here. Essentially it boils down to the fact that the words themselves are fairly trivial but they set the precedent that the right to practice religion overrules the right to not practice religion. And that has some of us mighty pissed.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Isn't is a but fascist to have kids reciting a pledge of allegiance? It's like those schools in fascist countries that teach kids how their country is great, yada yada yada...

 

To a non-American who never even had to learn his own national anthem, this is just weird.

 

IMO, just get rid of the whole thing. People will become "patriots" by their own will. Nobody needs to pledge every year/month/day.

[CapNColostomy]

Isn't is a but fascist to have kids reciting a pledge of allegiance? It's like those schools in fascist countries that teach kids how their country is great, yada yada yada...

 

To a non-American who never even had to learn his own national anthem, this is just weird.

 

IMO, just get rid of the whole thing. People will become "patriots" by their own will. Nobody needs to pledge every year/month/day.

 

Once again, nobody is forced to say it. Anywhere. It's completely voluntary. Nobody that I'm aware of is forced to learn their national anthem either. Where do you people keep getting the idea that this is somehow being forced on kids? It isn't. Fascist how?

[lukeskywalker1]

Well, I guess thats a valid arguement, ShadowTemplar, but I can also say that saying "Under God" doesn't mean you are practicing a religion.

 

IMO, just get rid of the whole thing. People will become "patriots" by their own will. Nobody needs to pledge every year/month/day.

 

Yeah, like CapNColostomy said, you don't have to say it at all... ever. And yes, it is weird considering I go each day not even thinking about the pledge, as many other Americans do aswell. The only time I think about it is in school when they say over the intercom and we stand... and are supposed to say it. The only requirement is that we stand. Thats probably illegal to, but since we are merley students, nothing we say or do will influence their decision.

[Mike Windu]

I shall return after my exploits tomorrow in not saying the pledge during the morning announcements when they ask us to stand and do it.

 

Pray for me my friends; I may not return.

 

 

I've not said the pledge plenty of times. Stood silent or mumbled to give the appearance of saying the pledge as a little kid.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Didn't somebody mention they were forced to do it? I'm sure I read it somewhere...

[lukeskywalker1]

Yeah, some schools force you too.. but technically, its 100% illegal and unconstitutional. I am made to stand, although I don't mind it... I guess some people do. :-\ I mean, its a quick 20 second pledge... probably less than that.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Ah ok. I always thought it was long or something. Then again, I never had to pledge my allegiance to the US of A

[Rogue15]

lol its as long as

 

i pledge allegiance to the flag

of the united states of america

one nation

under god

indivisible

with liberty and justice for all*

[TK-8252]

lol its as long as

 

i pledge allegiance to the flag

of the united states of america

one nation

under god

indivisible

with liberty and justice for all*

 

You forgot

 

"And to the republic

on which it stands"

[El Sitherino]

FOR which it stands.*

[SkinWalker]

Then let us all start wiping our butts with the Constitution. The establishment clause is clear. The pressures on young, impressionable minds is clear. My daughter is a perfect atheist. She knows absolutely nothing of any gods or superstitious nonsense.

 

At some point she'll come home from her indoctrination process in school, after standing up and reciting the "pledge" and ask "who's god?" Mind you, I'm ready for that question, but it doesn't change the fact that elementary school children don't have the first clue what their legal rights are with regard to the establishment of religion. The only thing they know is that the single highest authority in the room said stand up and repeat after me.

 

The inclusion of "under god" in the pledge is unconstitutional. It needs to be removed. It sets a precedent. It violates the rights of those that aren't aligned with a cult of Christianity. It wasn't there until religious nutters put it there. The pledge works fine without it.

 

The case will go before the Supreme Court again and, this time, they'll have to hear it and rule. Mark my words: it will be gone. The Court already has precedent and the only reason it wasn't removed already is because of a technicality that gave the Court a way out.

[TK-8252]

FOR which it stands.*

 

You've exposed me as the unknowledgeable bastard that I truely am... >.>

[Dagobahn Eagle]

What do you mean, you say the pledge, and continue your daily plan. I mean, its not like people recite it in there homes (well, I guess some people might)

Except there's a good deal more to it than saying the pledge. There are patriotic gatherings, the "duty" to fly your flag every day and show your patriotism, your "duty" to support the President, and so on. Not to mention that it's all organized, which never was very healthy for democracy.

 

Isn't is a but fascist to have kids reciting a pledge of allegiance? It's like those schools in fascist countries that teach kids how their country is great, yada yada yada...

Yup, it is.

 

Once again, nobody is forced to say it. Anywhere.

Fallacy alert, as was already stated.

 

Nobody that I'm aware of is forced to learn their national anthem either.

That's not the same thing. Learning is one thing; Reciting is another.

 

Im not saying its unconsitutional to change the pledge, but Skin was saying that "Under God" Violates the constitution, and that could be an excused used to further violate it. I doubt that would happen...

Incorrect.

 

I don't see how a little nationalism hurts anything

It doesn't.

A lot of organized nationalism, on the other hand, has been known to hurt a good deal in world history. The way Presidents have been known to use patriotism as a political tool is just one of many examples.

[CapNColostomy]

Fallacy alert, as was already stated.

 

Yeah. You should see the poor children, all at gunpoint being forced to recite the pledge. Zoinks. Sound the falacy alarm.

[Samuel Dravis]

Except there's a good deal more to it than saying the pledge. There are patriotic gatherings, the "duty" to fly your flag every day and show your patriotism, your "duty" to support the President, and so on. Not to mention that it's all organized, which never was very healthy for democracy.

It is not my "duty" to do any of those things, and no one forces me to. The only organization happening is at the citizen level.

 

And it's not a democracy.

 

 

Yup, it is.

As it's optional, I'd say it's not. If no one's forcing you to do it, how is it fascist?

 

Incorrect.

It's been there for 50 years. No one's yet succeeded in exploiting it.

 

 

It doesn't.

A lot of organized nationalism, on the other hand, has been known to hurt a good deal in world history.

Organization at the citizen level is a fundamental American right. If schools want to encourage it by saying the pledge, it's not a problem so long as everything voluntary.

 

The way Presidents have been known to use patriotism as a political tool is just one of many examples.

Politicians use anything that happens to be available as a political tool. Saying that they use patriotism (or whatever) is like saying they use words, or that they lie. Even Stalin used patriotism as a political tool, and he was (supposedly) a communist. They're all about furthering their agenda, one way or another.

[Mike Windu]

I didn't say the pledge today.

 

I'm writing this from the county jail.

 

Nobody gave a damn. I got a funny look from my friend. That's about it.

 

Sure kids are impressionable. But at the same time do you really believe they are interpreting the pledge? Nah, I don't think so. I didn't. It was just something I said. Then when I got to middle school I started analyzing it and decided it was good enough to continue saying, even with (gasp) under God in it. Even though I was technically Buddhist at the time. (gasp x2).

[Kurgan]

'Cause it's money, dope. Though I do find it very interesting that the groups who attack the pledge never mention the bills and coins. I guess man is just too greedy for money to care what's on it.

 

As for the pledge itself, though I would sorely be dissapointed if it was removed, it wouldn't be the end of the world, so meh.

 

As for "In God We Trust" on currency...

 

Don't they get away with the currency bit because the Federal Reserve is not a government agency?

 

Then again, I guess the mints (that press the coins) might not count (somebody correct me on that it's been a long time since American Government class in High School!).

 

As for the pledge it doesn't seem to have any real benefit other than some touchy-feely stuff. Does it really make better citizens? Does it squelch free thought? I don't think so, but ultimately somebody is mad about it because it gives the IMPRESSION that people are being taught "fit in with us or you're weird" (ie: conformity in majority patriotic monotheistic culture). Originally there was no pledge, then we had one, and it was tweaked a bit, then we got "under God." I can see it going back and forth. Honestly it's hardly a catechism, so religious folks aren't missing anything by not having it.

 

Incidentally we recited the Pledge in church a few weeks ago (I was visiting the historic St. Mary of the Seven Sorrows Catholic Church in Nashville that features a latin liturgy, and before you ask, no the pledge was in english). Very interesting, since I'd never seen that done before. Given the geographic location and history, I'm thinking this may have been a remnant from America's anti-Catholic past (after all this was a very old church and you could see the Irish influence on everything). After all, one of the main polemics against the RCC was that their members (mostly immigrants) were "dual citizens" and thus could not be trusted in patriotic society. Of course the Knights of Columbus were the ones who insisted on putting "God" into the pledge, so perhaps it was another way to show "hey we're on your side!" etc.

 

Perhaps certain fear-mongers feel better when they see immigrant children reciting the pledge? (oh good, they'll grow up to be loyal Americans!) I don't know, but it's a possibility.

 

As far as requiring it in public schools, I'd say no. I can see why Libertarians would be upset about this though. The idea is that even if it's "optional" the threat of peer pressure on kids is too great a "risk."

 

 

When I was growing up, we did it in 1-3rd grades IIRC, and 4th and 5th we didn't do it as much. After that we never did.

 

If they want a patriotic exercise, perhaps standing for the national anthem would be better?