One nation, under god...

[thistlechaser]

I'm really confused about something -- or rather, I'm not seeing where the confusion is:

What's the reason for arguing for leaving "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Even if you say 'Well, it doesn't mean the God, it could be any god!', it's still wrong. Separation of church and state, anyone? Why has this gotten all the way to the Supreme Court? Why is there debate about this at all? (I'm asking these questions ignoring insane people like that judge who refused to remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse; let's just consider logical, rational human beings in this. Edited to add: Wait, maybe that's the problem...)

I have issues with the Pledge in general (we're making little kids who don't even understand the meaning of what they're saying repeat it over and over) -- not to mention that the Pledge isn't even true. "Liberty and justice for all"? HA HA HA. Nice idea there, but let's see it in action. However, since I no longer have to say it and I have no kids, I'm willing to let my other protests go unargued, everything except the 'under god'.

Comments

[simmysim.livejournal.com]

it wasn't in the pledge originally -- they added it when everyone was looking for, and blacklisting, commies. i don't know why it's still there, you think it would've gotten taken out when they took prayers from school ... ? but still, they're allowed to have christmas celebrations, maybe it has something to do with that?

[wikdsushi.livejournal.com]

It was added in the '50s, in the midst of McCarthyism and backlash against the officially atheistic Soviet Union. Needs to be removed again.

[loneguardian.livejournal.com]

The USA was originally a country based on Christianity. The whole freedom of religion is all well and good, but we came here to worship the Christian God and the separation of Church and State was meant to protect the church so the government couldn't dictate what they could and couldn't practice in religion. Sure, things have changed, but I don't think it's a reason to change our roots to be politically correct.

Maybe people who believe in different gods should make different pledges? Don't take away what's already there, just add to it. They don't even say the thing in schools anymore, so what does it matter? America's about the diverity, if you take out my God, what gives others the right to put in their God or their beliefs? Leave 'em all in and agree to disagree. Just change the words if you don't want to say 'under god', or don't say it at all if you hate it so much. *shrugs* I don't understand why people are getting so spastic about it.

[simmysim.livejournal.com]

hm ... they still stay it at the beginning of all our classes. i mean, our elementary and middle schools.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

They don't say it in school anymore? Huh. I've been out of school for a while now, but when I was still attending we had to say it every single day from kindergarten until the last year of high school. If it's not being said anymore, that'd be a good change.

but I don't think it's a reason to change our roots to be politically correct.

I have to disagree with that. This isn't a matter of being PC, it's a matter of one person's beliefs being forced onto another. X person believes in a god, Y person does not. Why should X person be able to force Y person to say that the nation, the room, the cat, or anything is "under god", if Y doesn't believe there's any such thing? Sure, it doesn't hurt anyone to mention something they don't believe in, but how about if they made you say 'one nation, hating niggers' or something like that? Why should one person's beliefs be forced on another person?

America's about the diverity, if you take out my God, what gives others the right to put in their God or their beliefs?

Agreed. No one's god should be in there.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I knew it had been added and wasn't in the original Pledge, I just can't understand that "rational" people are trying to defend keeping it in there...

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

You would have thought so, yeah...

[aretina.livejournal.com]

There is no law actually saying that there shall be separation of church from state-- that idea was put forth in those words in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and it was so eloquent and well respected a sentiment that it has become ingrained into peoples' psyches over time without it ever becomming de jure law. You could say that over time it has become de facto law, though there are still liquor laws regarding sales on Sunday in many places, for example, and special lawful consideration is given to churches separate from other kinds of property, so it isn't always simply de facto either.

There is a constitutional injunction against making a law that would respect one faith over any other, or repress one faith more than any other, and since the constitution is open to interpretation through the channels of the Supreme Court, ta da, we have this issue there.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Ah, that's really interesting. Thanks for the info!

[sillysophia.livejournal.com]

Welcome to United States Politics... Where things that make sense don't happen very often. Doo doo doo doo doo... *hums Twilight Zone theme.*

[daltontrix.livejournal.com]

Separation of church and state, anyone?

The constitution is open to interpretation, and as such... I'm going to have to disagree here.

Remember why the colonists were leaving England in the first place? Because the King instuted a country wide forced religion, and some people didn't want to do that? Our serparation of church and state is the reason why we're not being told we're a new religion after each election.

Also, are you willing to go through with everything that would imply? The word 'God' appears on national monuments, our currency, and even inside the supreme court itself. If we find the words 'Under God' in the constitution as forcing religion on people that don't believe in it, we'll eventually have to deface age old monuments and reprint every last bit of currency in the country to satisfy them.

The entire case itself was made under fraudulent circumstances (the father who originally made the case had no custody over the child he claimed was offended by the words, and she didn't even care about it anyway), so it technically shouldn't even be there for a different reason, but I still disagree with the statement that the word 'God' forces religion on someone.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Remember why the colonists were leaving England in the first place? Because the King instuted a country wide forced religion, and some people didn't want to do that? Our serparation of church and state is the reason why we're not being told we're a new religion after each election.

But instead of a different religion after each election, we're forced to have the same one. I'm not following your logic here. We don't have a choice in this. We can't say 'One nation, under JoeGodWhoever...', we have to say *the* God, the one the state/government is forcing upon us...

Also, are you willing to go through with everything that would imply? The word 'God' appears on national monuments, our currency, and even inside the supreme court itself.

Not only am I willing to "go through with that", I want it. God should not be forced upon us. What's on our money? 'In God we trust'. What if we don't? What if we don't believe in a god? What if we believe in multiple gods? Or in Satan? Or anything else? Why are we forced to carry something stating we trust in a certain god?

The entire case itself was made under fraudulent circumstances (the father who originally made the case had no custody over the child he claimed was offended by the words, and she didn't even care about it anyway),

This isn't exactly true, as I understand it. Back when the case was opened, the parents had co-custody and they filed the case. Then the mother "found god", and also got sole-custody of the kid. I could be mistaken though, but that's what I heard on the radio.

[kaiz.livejournal.com]

The USA was originally a country based on Christianity. The whole freedom of religion is all well and good, but we came here to worship the Christian God

This is not strictly speaking, accurate. Many of the so-called Founding Fathers were not Christian but were instead Deists, secular humanists, or held beliefs that were antithetical to the norms of Christianity at that time. George Washington himself was a Deist. If you are referring to the Puritains, then yes, they were Christian, but they weren't, by and large, the people who created the founding documents on which the US was established.

Just change the words if you don't want to say 'under god', or don't say it at all if you hate it so much. *shrugs* I don't understand why people are getting so spastic about it.

I'm guessing that the "pro God" folks are upset because they believe that the US really *is* a nation under a Christian God and that removing the words is akin to turning their backs on the Bible and their faith. The "no God" folks are upset because they, or their children, are being forced to publicly affirm a belief in a deity that they may not or do not have. How would any person feel if forced, either by law or by custom, to attend a religious service not of their faith?

[loup_noir]

Uh wait. The colonists came to this country for a lot of different reasons. Religion was just one of them. One of the major reasons people came here was debt: they were indentured servants. No rights. They had to work off a debt in what would be considered slavery for years. Is that very Christian?

I'm very much for separation of Church and State. The views of God and religion vary too much. I'm sure my views as to what God wants us to do won't correspond with a lot of others' views.

Now, I used to like the Pledge of Allegiance. I still do. But the people who say it should understand it. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation (under God) indivisible with liberty and justice for all." I just wish it were true that there is liberty and justice for all - but that's an entirely different rant.

[loneguardian.livejournal.com]

Really? Where do you live? Here in southeast Michigan it's been out of the schools since... Man. A long time. My sister only had to say it in like first grade, then they stopped making it a requirement. She's in 10th grade now, so it's been a long time for us.

[loneguardian.livejournal.com]

I think people should -know- the pledge, so I dunno which way to feel about it not being said in schools anymore. I think kids should at least be taught it, and then be given the chance to keep or drop what they like. The point of it is we are one nation, a union of people working together despite our differences. The people arguing over how the pledge should be 'legally' said are being kinna hypocritical to that point.

Why should one person's beliefs be forced on another person?

Never said they should be. I don't agree with forcing people to believe what I believe, though I can express what I believe and wish they'd agree. As in this case, you disagree, I'm cool with that, and fortunately you're not one of the more rabid people I've had this conversation with. @_@ Yep, I'm not a pile of crispy-flamed Kuri yet. :D~ There've been some that tried to rip me a new one for even hitting a keystroke to disagree. x.x

Anyway, no, I don't think people should -force- others to say the pledge with or without the 'under God' thing. Forcing people into anything that won't harm other people or if it's violating their personal space, etc. if they don't want to do it is wrong. But, on the other hand, I don't agree with the fact people are trying to rip out the 'under God' bit when they can just -not say it- and be done with it. Frankly, I don't think it should be a legal requirement either way. The person themself should choose, just as people choose their own way of life in everything else.

Hell, even from a Christian standpoint - and please stick with me here, I promise I'm not going to preach or condemn or anything stupid - the Bible itself says 'I set before you Heaven and Hell, Life and Death.' God -Himself- isn't going to force people to do anything His way. Who are we to try and force how we feel on others? I feel a strong conviction in that, Christian as I am, and being stuck having to follow the acts of some of the bigger so-called 'christian' idiots who try to force others to do things their way without caring how the other person feels.

Frankly, I apologize for them.

[loneguardian.livejournal.com]

I'm going to have to agree to disagree on your viewpoint of why people came over here. It's up for debate, but frankly I don't want to make an idiot of myself and toss up more opinions on the matter. Perhaps another time when I've had time to research, I would be interested in what sorts of facts and such we could each dig up to support our own views? It would be quite the debate. :D

And anyhow, you can read some of my previous posts, as I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this matter. Summing up: Forcing is bad. And people on both sides who aren't willing to talk and come to a middle ground really need some help. The world would be a better place if people would agree to disagree and live and let live.

[loneguardian.livejournal.com]

Ooh, yes. I totally forgot about the monuments and currency. That would royally suck. >.> But! That is a very interesting bit about the case itself. I never bothered studying it. I think I shall go look up stuff now! Thanks for the inspiration! :D

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

As in this case, you disagree, I'm cool with that, and fortunately you're not one of the more rabid people I've had this conversation with. @_@ Yep, I'm not a pile of crispy-flamed Kuri yet. :D~ There've been some that tried to rip me a new one for even hitting a keystroke to disagree. x.x

I'm glad it didn't come off that way! For a long time I avoided religious/political posts in fear of people feeling like I was attacking them personally or something.

I'm perfectly cool with 'You believe this and I believe that, and neither of us tries to force our beliefs on the other'.

[simmysim.livejournal.com]

0.0 wow. let's see ... okay, i had to do it all through elementary, and that was in california and colorado. then i moved to wyoming and we did it there. and then they have it in iowa. ^_^

[loneguardian.livejournal.com]

I love that icon. XDDDD

Lesse. Wow, maybe the more eastern states have just changed their rules more? o.O Strange, I didn't know there were schools and stuff that still did it, as there aren't any 'round here n' all. :3 Learn somethin' new every day!

[loneguardian.livejournal.com]

Well, I know you wouldn't personally attack -me-, since you're a cool person like that. :D Still... yeah, I know. I usually avoid the whole politics/religion topic in my journal unless my friends page is suddenly swamped with generic bitching over one topic without any backup other than randomly spewing bitterness. XDDD Then I usually get my poor lil ass in trouble by being my opinionated self. ^^;

Of course, I had to pounce your post tho, because it's good to have openminded discussions (plus I had a feeling we'd agree on some points, like the forcing is bad issue) and you didn't seem too horribly flamy-bitter in your stuff. That's just begging me to present my viewpoint for disection, you know. >:D Muahaha.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

because it's good to have openminded discussions

Yep! That's one of the great things about LJ.

[metron-ariston.livejournal.com]

Heh, wow, this got tons of really interesting comments.

I just can't get worked up about this. Once I got over Catholicism, I just dropped the under God out when saying it at school. No one ever complained, and it worked for me.

I do think, though, that the uproar over it being taken out is yet another sign that this country is going places I wish it wouldn't. People act like the tradition had been there since the founding fathers, but it was really only added (along with references to God on our money) to make Absolutely Sure that Americans Did Not Become Godless Commies.

Shit, I remember a couple of years ago that there was a huge uproar when Jesse Ventura said that the Pledge couldn't be mandatory in... uh, Michigan was it?

*shrugs* Anyway, I'm mainly impressed that no one flamed you!

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

*shrugs* Anyway, I'm mainly impressed that no one flamed you!

I'm impressed and happy as well, though not totally surprised. I know my flist pretty well, and thought there was only one person on it who would be for the 'under god' idea. Turns out there was more than one, and I'm glad *they* didn't get flamed, either!