so what about the pledge?
 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/pl...eut/index.html

ok, so this ahteist guy sues because he doesnt want his daughter reciting the pledge, because it says "under god" in it... i have no problem with that, its his right.

however, why cant he just have her not recite it? why does it have to be banned, just cuz his kid is an atheist? (not that an elementary kid can make that decision, but thats a whole other thread)

i mean really, it IS voluntary, no one MAKES u say it... if they do, then yes they should be corrected, but i know in school i was never FORCED to recite it, and i doubt kids are today...

am i missing this guy's logic? it is voluntary, why do we need to ban it??

derr :2 cents:

Good question. I think a lot of schools don't recite it anymore.

Although I'm fairly sure most people would like to recite it.

Every time someone bitches that we DON'T live in a democracy, they're right. Majority hardly ever rules.

yeah just another bitch whining over something that isnt worth whining over. i dont belive in god but i couldnt give a damn about that. what i do think sucks is that you cant buy alcohol before 12 on sundays. its only happened to me once but i was pissed. just because of some church crap.

GOD is one of the principles this nation was founded on. FUCK whoever wants to change the U.S. because of their own beliefs.

I don't think god approves of the porn industry. At least not the "god" that's referred to in the pledge.

Actually stocktrader, that line wasn't even put into the pledge until the 50's. They did that to please the bible belt. If we just said the origional pledge without that line dirtying it up, we wouldn't have these problems.

Number one the mother has the child, not him.
2. She is not an atheist.
3. The 9th circuit court is crazy, read the minority opinion.
4. The SCUS always overturns these screwballs.

The only question is how long will it be before the loud speakers go up calling the Muslims to prayer?

I am sure the 9th circuit would agree with that.

:thefinger

About God. God is relative, people really need to figure that out. My God is different than yours, and your God is different than mine. Whenever I see something mention God, I simply plug in my God. It's that simple. If you really, truly, have no God, than don't refer to get. Refrain from reciting the Pledge.

Making everyone else stop the Pledge because you don't feel comfortable same God is pretty silly. Get over it.

My bitch is with these people in general. Next they will want the In God We Trust taken off our money. :2 cents:

In a related note, I went to a small alternative elementary school that was founded in the mid 70's. When it came time for the state to accredit the school, there were only two things the inspectors cared about: that there was a US flag and that we said the pledge to it. They didn't look over the curriculum, teaching certificates, or anything else.

That was put on the same time that it was put in the pledge. It was put on in a different time, now that church and state are seperate(though it seems they're becoming closer under the bush regime), I don't think the government should encourage faith at all. If they support freedom of religion, then why are they excluding athiests and polytheistic ones?

i think theyve already tried that...

but it makes u wonder... why do they only pick certain things to bitch about. god is on our money, our buildings, our pledge, and probably in the fucking constitution... that word is everywhere... if they want to seperate things, they need to go for all or nothing... not choose certain battles just cuz it affects them personally.

that isnt acting for a cause, its acting for personal gain.

What?

It was my understanding that "In God we Trust" started printing on our currency during the depression to give people hope that things would get better.

It was also my understanding that Eisenhower put God in the Pledge. It may have been in the '50s like you said.

Because it forces a young kid who doesn't want to recite to take an unpopular public stance (one that would probably get her beaten up by people with the same attitudes as some of the fools in this thread) over it in school. Not only that, but since its a religious service, why should my kid be forced to attend while other people do it? It is not voluntary, they still have to sit through that bullshit.

Forget the 1st Amendment establishment issues, kid should not be forced to make those sorts of choices just because some idiot wants to chant to an invisible man in the sky every morning.

Now, speaking of the first amendment... what part of the Establishment Clause don't you understand? Establishment does not just mean establishing a State religion, it also means preferencing one belief over another. The Pledge currently preferences theistic belief over non-theistic belief and it is thus unconstitutional to force children to attend a recital of it.

so what about the kid who wants to chant to the invisible guy? why deny them their rights?

They can do it all they want, voluntarily, to a non-captive audience. They can do it at home, in school clubs etc.. As I added above when I edited the post, it is NOT currently voluntary, because the kids who don't want to recite it are forced to attend. Why should my kid be forced to attend what is essentially someone elses religious service?

Notice how you believe that if you don't get to force kids who don't want to say it to sit there and object, and still listen to it, you are being denied your rights. hahahahahaha. You never had a right to force your religious bullshit on other people in public schools in the first place.

In 1954, when "Under God" was added, it was meant as the Judeo-Christian God, pushed into being by the Knights of Columbus.
The government shouldn't endorse any specific religion.
A good article on it HERE

The Pledge of Allegiance a religious ceremony? Get real. I guess currency is now religious paper, no? So who here doesn't accept cash because it says God on it? There HAS to be somebody.

In this case the girl wants to recite the pledge, it's the father
that is trying to make her stop. What about her rights?

Pledging allegiance to God is a religious act. Belief in god is a religious act.

There is no problem with money, because children aren't forced to chant "In God We Trust" en masse in schools. Funny, almost all conservative commentary I've heard on this issue is pretty much the same as yours. It ignores the real issues.. the Establishment Clause and forced attendance, in favor of making idiotic analogies with money or the Declaration of Independence.

Are you now telling me that a parent does not have the right to direct his or her childs religious education?

Nice ;)

so i think this proves that there is no solution. if you please one group of people, you piss off 5 more groups. please those 5, get sued by 10 others.

our country is too diverse, and too 'free' for everyone to ever be pleased. there will always be something wrong based on someone's personal beliefs.

someone once said democracy was a noble experiment... i have to agree

Don't throw me in that group. I think God should be taken out of the Pledge. But I certainly don't think the current form of the Pledge is a religious ceremony.

Idiotic analogies? Why? Because you don't see the similarities in having God written in the Pledge and also having God written on Capitol buildings, currency, federal documents, etc. Yeh, some kid can join a discussion that mentions God (the Pledge isn't even honoring God!) and that somehow infringes on rights moreso than having millions of people carrying around little bills (that represent our country) that say "In God We Trust".

You're right. No similarities at all. Those fucking conservatives. Comparing God to God.

There is a solution. Those who want to recite the Pledge can do it privately, along with others of like mind. They can even do it in school constitutionally, as long as no one is forced to attend. No different than religious school clubs who meet voluntarily, or freethought clubs for that matter.

The problem is that there are people who believe that their "rights" are being violated if they can't force other people to attend their little religious services. In reality they never had those rights in the first place, but they've been able to act like they posessed them for much of US history.. so its very difficult to turn things around.

i can see your point. this makes a lot more sense than banning the fucking pledge for sure. people in this country take things to extremes... like this guy... HIS rights are being violated, so he is going to get MY rights taken away... very logical... hypocritical...

*sigh*

The issue with the Pledge is not God per se. Its not the Pledge by itself that is unconstitutional. Do you realize that the words "nation under God" would not be removed from the Pledge if this 9th circuit decision stands?

The issue is forced recital, a parents right to control his childs religious education, and how those things violate the Establisment Clause.

Nothing to do with buildings, money, other government documents or anything else.

Again we engage in the delusion that you have a right to force other peoples children to attend your childs religious service. Sorry, you never had that right in the first place.

You would be correct if it were actually a religious service. But since it's not, you're wrong.

It was never originally a religious service. It was a Pledge to pay respects. Someone added two words to it, and suddenly a religious service. Right.

no, was merely pointing out that instead of talking to the school to get the pledge recited maybe in a voluntary group or something, he is suing to get it completely banned... thats an extreme... and if he succeeds, will deny people who want to say the pledge, their right to say it in a voluntary assembly.

There's no reason for it to be there, putting it on was a step backwards.

When religion and politics mix, it's a horrible thing. Look at the muslim extremists AS WELL AS the zionist fucktards over in israel. This whole thing could have been resolved if each people weren't convinced that it was some magical land and some mythical being had promised it to them.

No he won't be, they'll still be allowed to recite it. The problem is that the person leading it is a government official while they are on the job. If the students want to recite it before school on their own, fine.

Of course the better solution is to use the REAL OIGIONAL pledge and elminate the religious aspect. Make it apply to everyone, not just Christians, Jews and to a certain extent all other monotheistic people.

No he's not. This issue is no different than prayer. Despite what the religious right would have you believe, kids can pray in school all they want. They can form prayer clubs, they can pray silently, they can pray out loud during lunch, recess, before school, after school, in groups etc etc etc. The only thing that is not allowed is praying to a captive audience... or forcing other people to attend your religious ceremonies.

The Pledge issue is exactly the same. Its not the Pledge itself that is unconstitutional, the words "Under God" will not be removed, all that will happen if the 9th Circuit decision stands is that compulsory, captive audience recitation will end.

It really isn't that big a deal... unless you are of the mindset which believes its has the right to force other peoples kids to engage in religious observance, and I gather you are not.

Unfortunately some of the posts in this thread illustrate the degree to which this issue has been misrepresented by those in Congress, the religious right and so forth. People actually believe the Pledge is going to be banned.. oy.

ah you guys are just blowing this up to be more than what it is.

you have an angry dickhead of a father who doesn't want his child reciting the pledge cause hes a moron atheist (sorry. angostic is the way to go ;)

solution: tell the girl she doesn't have to recite it for the whole 20 seconds that the other kids are.

i'm sure if you went door to door in every home in america i'm sure the very large majority of the parents approve of the pledge. so with that being said, majority rules (should atleast) and it should continue on as a voluntary act. boo fucking hoo if suzy's father's feelings are hurt. he is probably a redneck white trash hillrod.

Hmm... it was banned from my schools. Although, I'm sure we could have stated it privately like you said.

I remember when kids would gather around the flag pole every morning to say a little prayer. Man, the shit and harassment they got from the other kids. Damn...

So I can understand the viewpoint of "my daughter will feel left out and be teased by the other kids if she doesn't recite the Pledge". But it certainly goes both ways.

It's not so much about the father, it's about the kids. Saying the words Under God every day gives them the idea from a very early age that there is a god. They should be learning facts in school, not myths. Kids assume that what they hear in school is true, therefore alot may just assume that god is real because that's what they say in school. Our children should never have their faiths molded by the school system, whether it be as explicit as prayer to a christian god or as broad as the assumption that everyone believes there is a god.

Though getting rid of the whole pledge because of that is an idiotic idea. Alot more people would support reverting to the origional pledge which was exactly the same except that it didn't mention god.

It's true that she would be harassed. I got harassed in high school for not saying the pledge by not only students, but teachers. I just don't agree with the whole thing. Being an anarchist I don't feel that pledging your allegience to a country is right. I'm a member of the global community, not just a part of it. Anyway the shit that that stirred up, it would be traumatic on a little girl.

Right answer!

:thumbsup

I attended HS in N. California and it was pretty much the opposite. Not that everyone was religious, but most people were live and let live. We had muslims who prayed to mecca 5 times a day, xtians who gathered before school to pray near the football field, buddhists, Hindu's.. and lots of people with no faith at all.

People took shit for alot of stuff in HS, but never once did I hear someone getting it over their choice of religious observance.

Question: What do you people do when you're a guest at someone's house and they say a little prayer before dinner?

Personally, I do my best to pray with them, no matter the prayer or religion. I have no problem saying prayers with other people.

What year did you graduate? I did in 2001, in the midwest.

But my roommate said the same things happened at his school. He was actually one of the harassing members, haha. This was in San Diego.

That's fine because it's in their private home. They're not government appointed officials on the job, which is teaching our kids.

I'm not asking a political question. It was a personal question. Was just curious. What do you do?

if the parenting of a particular child is strong, then anything a "government official" from a school says won't impact them very much at all. and besides, in all honesty i think if a government official wants to teach children that they SHOULD recite a pledge (which is obviously something a bit more positive opposed to kids turning their back on the flag) then i think its fine.

1991

It must have been the sheer amount of weed that was consumed at our HS that prevented much bullying going on over beliefs. Everyone was too baked all the time to give a fuck.

i do the same.

Despite the fact I'm an atheist, I do pretty much the same. If someone asked me to lead a prayer I would probably bow out, then again maybe not.

I would pray with them. No need to start a debate with my friends. It's their normal habit so I'll go along with it. It won't mean anything to me, it'll just be keep them doing whats normal for them without any distractions.

Thats cool if you dont want to pledge but do you have to turn you whole fucking body the other way and disrespect the flag that so many fought for you could even have fucking freedom.

Just like all the people here that drive around with their Mexico flags or wherever and they are the biggest U.S. haters.. Well if its so fucking bad then GO THE FUCK HOME!

Well, I'm not really religious, nor am I certain there is one god who's all powerful, and I don't really think that god has a place in our govt...but if your kid saying the words "under god" while pledging allegiance to the flag is going to wreck your kid's life, you're not doing a very good job of raising your kid.

I don't respect the flag who so many died for, I respect those who died for it! The way I see it the flag represents the ruling class who got into a fucked up situation and needed the war in the first place. The ones who died are the heros who saved the common people from the danger that the ruling class put us in.

The flag represents the righ, the soldiers represent the common folks. The common folks are what give the rulers their strength, but at the same time the ruling class treats us like shit.

How would it be if the pledge said...

"One nation under Allah"?

I think it's an endorsement of God, endorses that there is a God.

That reference doesn't belong in the Pledge, but the pledge belongs in classroms (without that endorsement).

There are private schools religious schools parents can send their children to, if they'd like them brought up that way. Public schools should be religiously neutral.

I remember the 2 Jehova's witness kids at school that didn't recite the pledge in elementary school and they were both outcast by the rest of our class.