Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo because there are no damages it can't be wrong? Get real.
So when you read the DOI, are you alienated as well? Perhaps you're just in the wrong country, if that's the case.
I highly doubt that you will find a country more tolerant of religious thought than this one. I equally doubt that you will find one without religious influence. More than those two levels of doubt, I doubt that anyone is persecuting a ...[text shortened]... anctioning you for failure to recite the pledge, let alone for omitting two words of the same.
When I read the words "the Creator" in the DOI I'm free to think of anyone or anything I want. I happen to think of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Those words were left vague and I have no problem with them.
The words "under God" force me to think of a specific God which leaves out a whole bunch of patriotic Americans. If the Pledge were changed to: :I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America one nation under the creator..."
I would have less problems with it because it allows me some freedom. Although, I still don't understand why we need to discuss religion or the spiritual at all when pledging allegiance to our country.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by vistesdBy God (oops! didn't mean to alienate anyone), you're right! It's deja vu all over again.
ROFL!! I accept the compliment, Skip, and thank you for it—but there is a hilarious irony here: Just the other day, in another context, Freaky told me the same thing, nearly word for word!
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat God allegedly had to do with the formation of the country has nothing to do with my allegiance to it now! The whole purpose behind founding this country in the first place was, in part, to establisha place where people could practice their religion without interference from the state. Now all want to do is practice my patriotism honestly and without interference from religion and the freakin' Pledge of Allegiance will not allow it!
You've yet to acknowledge the historical import of God within the formation of the nation. If you need to, take a nap and think about it.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by vistesdHa! I hate having to laugh when I'm so pissed off but that is darn funny. 😉
ROFL!! I accept the compliment, Skip, and thank you for it—but there is a hilarious irony here: Just the other day, in another context, Freaky told me the same thing, nearly word for word!
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipperNext, you're going after the money, I just know it.
What God allegedly had to do with the formation of the country has nothing to do with my allegiance to it now! The whole purpose behind founding this country in the first place was, in part, to establisha place where people could practice their religion without interference from the state. Now all want to do is practice my patriotism honestly and witho ...[text shortened]... terference from religion and the freakin' Pledge of Allegiance will not allow it!
TheSkipper
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are darn right I am. The money, by making the statement "In God We Trust" paints all of the country's population as God trusters when we are, in fact, not. Again, I ask, what is the purpose of attempting to paint the entire country with one spiritual brush when everyone is doing everything they can to be a different color.
Next, you're going after the money, I just know it.
But, to get back to the topic at hand. Have you answered my question yet? Why is it ok for non-Christians to be forced to lie if they want to recite the Pledge? Is it that there are no specific damages? Or should I just remain silent for three syllables while my country alienates me because of my religious beliefs. Those three syllables last an eternity from where I'm standing.
Originally posted by TheSkipperHonestly, I think it's much to do about nothing. Think about when these references were added (thanks to vistesd for a good link) in terms of the emotional reactions of a large part of our citizenry. Quite frankly, whether the phrase is there or not, I truly don't care. It is not a mandatory test of citizenship, nor will it ever be as such.
You are darn right I am. The money, by making the statement "In God We Trust" paints all of the country's population as God trusters when we are, in fact, not. Again, I ask, what is the purpose of attempting to paint the entire country with one spiritual brush when everyone is doing everything they can to be a different color.
But, to get back to th ...[text shortened]... se of my religious beliefs. Those three syllables last an eternity from where I'm standing.
One of the benefits I do see for the inclusion of the phrase, however, is that it does touch on something historical (with respect to our roots) for our children which might not be given enough due in the course of regular lessons.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOk, well to tell the truth I don't *really* care if it is there or not either. I still firmly believe that it is unconstitutional for the Pledge to read the way it does. However, in the end I think it is what those in the legal community might call de minimis.
Honestly, I think it's much to do about nothing. Think about when these references were added (thanks to vistesd for a good link) in terms of the emotional reactions of a large part of our citizenry. Quite frankly, whether the phrase is there or not, I truly don't care. It is not a mandatory test of citizenship, nor will it ever be as such.
On ...[text shortened]... roots) for our children which might not be given enough due in the course of regular lessons.
For the record, I’m a Christian and I personally have no problem repeating the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. I just have respect for those who think and believe differently than me and I have no need for my country to validate my beliefs.
Thank you for engaging me on the matter.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipperOh, you cad. You had me going there for awhile.
Ok, well to tell the truth I don't *really* care if it is there or not either. I still firmly believe that it is unconstitutional for the Pledge to read the way it does. However, in the end I think it is what those in the legal community might call de minimis.
For the record, I’m a Christian and I personally have no problem repeating the words “unde ...[text shortened]... or my country to validate my beliefs.
Thank you for engaging me on the matter.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt wasn't worth adding the phrase and while I think it's a constitutional violation, it's a de minimis one. I thought the Supreme Court decision in the case that the father of a child who shares physical custody and pays supports has no standing to assert his child's rights was more offensive and dangerous than a decision that a few words stay in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Honestly, I think it's much to do about nothing. Think about when these references were added (thanks to vistesd for a good link) in terms of the emotional reactions of a large part of our citizenry. Quite frankly, whether the phrase is there or not, I truly don't care. It is not a mandatory test of citizenship, nor will it ever be as such.
On ...[text shortened]... roots) for our children which might not be given enough due in the course of regular lessons.
I would regard it as a poor teaching tool, though; delving into the influence of various religious persuasions on the Framer's political philosophies is worth teaching but a pithy, rather meaningless statement in a rote recital isn't worth much.
Originally posted by vistesdI disagree that the purpose of a theocracy (in the broader sense of a State with a State religion) is to impose control over the expression of people's religious beliefs. A theocracy may try to exercise control over people's actions based on religious principles -- but how is that any different from any other form of government that uses fundamental principles to control people's actions through laws and statutes?
In the public (state) school system I grew up in, you would presume wrong. Every day, every class, every school, from grade school on up. To say that I could probably recite the pledge before I could read “See Tip run” is probably only a slight exaggeration.
Indoctrination is indoctrination—whether for good or ill (before someone brings up that I was pr ...[text shortened]... t “prevent”—inhibition is possible, prevention is likely not, without another form of despotism.
The fact that many theocracies have ended up imposing control over the expression of religious beliefs does not automatically make it a purpose. And, before you argue that none of what I'm saying is practical or historical, let me remind you that I come from a part of the world that has originated several world religions, has been an adopted home to several others, has seen monarchy, theocracy, oligarchy and democracy, and has seen some of both the best of religious harmony and the worst of religious intolerance. Plus, FYI, I did actually grow up in a theocracy that restricted religious practices of minority religions. So, when I disagree with you, don't assume it's coming from some sort of idealism or naivete.
(Apologies if that sounded a little sharp -- I hope you take it in the right spirit.)
You see a problem with a theocratic system making the police-power of the state available to particular religious authorities (there is a confusion of the narrow and broad senses of "theocracy" here). Even if it were true, how does that make it any different from any other government's use of its police forces? What stops the majority community of a democratic nation voting in an extremist government that uses its police forces against minorities?
Yes, I agree that a theocracy designed to promote religious pluralism is counterintuitive. But why is religious pluralism a particular good to be aspired for?
The question you should be asking is - why is a theocracy a theocracy? I see two reasons - either a religion is part of the foundation of the nation; or it was adopted as state religion at some point of time. In either case, the question of whether such a theocracy would try to control religious activities of its citizens depends on many factors (e.g. the nature of the religion itself -- is it one that promotes religious freedom? e.g. the manner in which the State-Religion relationship is defined -- does the State base its sovereignity/legitimacy on the Religion?* etc.)
No one is arguing that public schools should be used to "indoctrinate" (which has a rather vague meaning) children towards particular religious beliefs. But, I don't see recognition of the history of one's nation as indoctrination. If the United States was founded with an explicit belief in a Creator as a foundational belief, then I see the inclusion of "God" in the Pledge as a recognition of that historical fact -- IIRC that was precisely Eisenhower's argument to include it.
Now I'm not arguing that the US become a theocracy. If I were around in 1954, I probably wouldn't have supported the inclusion of the words "under God" in the pledge. But I find the way you, BdN and RW simply seem to simplistically assume secularism=good; theocracy=bad more indicative of an anti-religion bias than the product of critical thinking.
LH
* It is for this reason that heresy was a state crime. Most monarchies of the time identified their authority as God-given via the Catholic Church. To challenge the church was to challenge the state, effectively. Now, one can argue that such punishing such "thought crimes" is indefensible; I'd generally agree with you. However, if you had an Al Qaeda operative working from within the US, calling for the toppling of the Government and the Constitution by violent means, and providing plans for bomb-building over the internet, you'd have to be rather thick not to see such "thought crimes" as at least potentially dangerous, if not criminal.
Originally posted by no1marauderI wouldn't characterize the phrase as any more or less meaningful than any of the other phrases of the pledge. Each of them convey enough meat to provide for many, many diners and just as many dinners.
It wasn't worth adding the phrase and while I think it's a constitutional violation, it's a de minimis one. I thought the Supreme Court decision in the case that the father of a child who shares physical custody and pays supports has no standing to assert his child's rights was more offensive and dangerous than a decision that a few words stay in the Ple ...[text shortened]... rth teaching but a pithy, rather meaningless statement in a rote recital isn't worth much.
While the roteness of the pledge may cause many eyes to gloss over and ears to drone out, the solemnity itself is enough to give a thinking mind pause. From pause comes thought, from thought action.
Originally posted by lucifershammerLH: If the United States was founded with an explicit belief in a Creator as a foundational belief, then I see the inclusion of "God" in the Pledge as a recognition of that historical fact
I disagree that the purpose of a theocracy (in the broader sense of a State with a State religion) is to impose control over the expression of people's religious beliefs. A theocracy may try to exercise control over people's actions based on religious principles -- but how is that any different from any other form of government that uses fundamental p ...[text shortened]... h "thought crimes" as at least potentially dangerous, if not criminal.
This is changing an apple into an orange.