next »

[SensitiveJohn]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220213under_god_at_issue_acton_atheiststake_fightto_court/

It seems that the Boston Herald is to the right of Fox.

[BGuttman]

This is interesting because the phrase "Under God" was added only fairly recently: the 1950s.  It was an attempt by Joe McCarthy and his ultra-rightists to "counter Godless Communism" and declare us "on God's side".  The change actually occurred while I was in elementary school and one year they told us to put "under God" in the Pledge and we did so.

I wondered how some religions that do not acknowledge either a single God or any Supreme Being dealt with the revised Pledge.  Clearly it would make them second-class citizens.

If we wanted to be accurate, we should change it from "under God" to "in worship of the Alimghty Dollar"

[ronkny]

This is interesting because the phrase "Under God" was added only fairly recently: the 1950s.  It was an attempt by Joe McCarthy and his ultra-rightists to "counter Godless Communism" and declare us "on God's side".  The change actually occurred while I was in elementary school and one year they told us to put "under God" in the Pledge and we did so.

I wondered how some religions that do not acknowledge either a single God or any Supreme Being dealt with the revised Pledge.  Clearly it would make them second-class citizens.

If we wanted to be accurate, we should change it from "under God" to "in worship of the Alimghty Dollar"

"Clearly it would make them second-class citizens"?  No, not clearly.  Unless they are ultra-sensitive thin skinned paranoids, then yes.  "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me".  What happened to that mantra we heard when I was a kid? We are turning out to be over sensitive thin skinned wusses in this country. 

[BGuttman]

That's easy for you to say.

You never had to deal with "No dogs, Jews, or Irish need apply".

Those who are not affected fail to see what the problem is for those discriminated against.

[ddickerson]

At least you admit that communism is Godless, along with all of her kissing cousins.

[Baron von Bone]

That's easy for you to say.
 
You never had to deal with "No dogs, Jews, or Irish need apply".
 
Those who are not affected fail to see what the problem is for those discriminated against.

Which is exactly how bigotry works.

[ronkny]

That's easy for you to say.

You never had to deal with "No dogs, Jews, or Irish need apply".

Those who are not affected fail to see what the problem is for those discriminated against.

My Irish ancestors did quite well.  Jews are doing quite well too.  They worked their butts off and blew off the bigotry and succeeded.
I'm not sure how being in a room where the pledge is being recited is an issue.  If they recited the Our father, the Muslim prayer and the Sh'ma I wouldn't be offended.

[SensitiveJohn]

My Irish ancestors did quite well.

Certainly many Irish folks did do well, but a lot of them lived in poverty.  If your family hadn't moved away, you would be more familiar with the obsticals that Irish-Americans faced in the New England.  Some people up in Maine are still nasty about the it.  The poverty was rampant.  People lived at the garbage dumps.  Some kids grew up with malnutrition, and were stupid their entire lives because of this.  I think that Irish-Americans still lag in post-secondary education.  I received two engineering degrees from two institutions in the most Irish-American state; As I recall, I was the only one with an Irish last name in my classes.

[ronkny]

Certainly many Irish folks did do well, but a lot of them lived in poverty.  If your family hadn't moved away, you would be more familiar with the obsticals that Irish-Americans faced in the North East.  Some kids grew up with malnutrition, and were stupid their entire lives because of this.  I think that Irish-Americans still lag in post-secondary education.  I received two engineering degrees from two institutions in the most Irish-American state; As I recall, I was the only one with an Irish last name in my classes.

My family moved to Brooklyn.  They stayed in the Northeast.  I lived there till 1983.  The Irish did ok in NY.

[SensitiveJohn]

Some Irish did okay in New York, but they didn't do as well as the WASPS or Jews.  I'd wager that as New York has become more prestigious and more expensive, that there are fewer Irish-Americans.  Brooklyn is in the Mid-Atlantic states, not exactly the North East from where I sit, and from what I gather, the people in New York were much more tolerant than the people in New England.

[ronkny]

Some Irish did okay in New York, but they didn't do as well as the WASPS or Jews.  I'd wager that as New York has become more prestigious and more expensive, that there are fewer Irish-Americans.  Brooklyn is in the Mid-Atlantic states, not exactly the North East from where I sit, and from what I gather, the people in New York were much more tolerant than the people in New England.

Maybe but the Gorman's, Kavanagh's and Murray's did pretty good.

[SensitiveJohn]

I'm sure that many did well, but there was a lot of alcoholism, poverty, semi-organized crime, and other problems in every Irish-American community; some of it persists to this day.  Dismissing it isn't honest.  Even in Irish majority towns, it was obvious that there was some discrimination.  I remember, when I was a kid, wondering why I wasn't placed in the high level math classes; I was good at math.  I think now that the WASPy teachers liked to type the Irish kids into lower and middle tracks.

I will agree that anti-Irish discrimination has mostly gone away, but more recently than you'd like us to think.

but you’re white now, so what’s the problem?

[Baron von Bone]

Certainly many Irish folks did do well, but a lot of them lived in poverty.

Yeah ... how well given people did in spite of the bigotry they dealt with is beside the actual point though.
 
At least it appears we all understand we are talking about discrimination.
 
Unless of course what we're actually seeing here is the inability to maintain a line of reasoning--the failure to maintain context, or to identify the subject and not to change it arbitrarily.

[SensitiveJohn]

What if the hippie thing had taken hold, and the Pledge was changed from "under god" to "under Krishna."  I bet the Christians would be the first ones in line with the lawsuits.  It was wrong to feed the Christians to the Lions, but the founding fathers, despite their killing of the natives and the slaves, were awesome.  They had a Protestant work ethic; that is why they needed to steal from the natives and force the slaves into doing the work for them.

All I heard on the TV, when they went out and asked people about "under god," was "founding fathers" this and "founding fathers" that.  As was already mentioned, "under god" has nothing to do with the founding fathers and everything to do with Republican divisiveness.

[ronkny]

What if the hippie thing had taken hold, and the Pledge was changed from "under god" to "under Krishna."  I bet the Christians would be the first ones in line with the lawsuits.  It was wrong to feed the Christians to the Lions, but the founding fathers, despite their killing of the natives and the slaves, were awesome.  They had a Protestant work ethic; that is why they needed to steal from the natives and force the slaves into doing the work for them.

All I heard on the TV, when they went out and asked people about "under god," was "founding fathers" this and "founding fathers" that.  As was already mentioned, "under god" has nothing to do with the founding fathers and everything to do with Republican divisiveness.

Buzzer!  WRONG!!!

[Andrew Meronek]

All I heard on the TV, when they went out and asked people about "under god," was "founding fathers" this and "founding fathers" that.  As was already mentioned, "under god" has nothing to do with the founding fathers and everything to do with Republican divisiveness.

I'm not sure of the specifics behind why ronkny thinks that this is wrong, but so do I, in a sense. The 'under god' phrase is definitely from the Republican side of Congress - just look at the history - but they were trying to divide the U.S. from the Communists, not divide the country. Of course, we judge actions by their actual effect, not their intended effect.

[ronkny]

I'm not sure of the specifics behind why ronkny thinks that this is wrong, but so do I, in a sense. The 'under god' phrase is definitely from the Republican side of Congress - just look at the history - but they were trying to divide the U.S. from the Communists, not divide the country. Of course, we judge actions by their actual effect, not their intended effect.

Yes.  Partly my point.  And this country was founded by believers who were at least diests.  Believers in God who wanted religious freedom and no state religion.  Saying under God violates none of those. It's the secularist atheist ****** that want to throw a tantrum that think believers are idiots and only they know better.

[BGuttman]

Yes.  Partly my point.  And this country was founded by believers who were at least diests.  Believers in God who wanted religious freedom and no state religion.  Saying under God violates none of those. It's the secularist atheist ****** that want to throw a tantrum that think believers are idiots and only they know better.

And this country was founded by believers who were at least diests.  Believers in God who wanted religious freedom and no state religion.  Saying under God violates none of those. It's the secularist atheist ultra Christian ****** that want to throw a tantrum that think non-believers are idiots and only they know better.

It's just as easy to say it this way...

[ronkny]

And this country was founded by believers who were at least diests.  Believers in God who wanted religious freedom and no state religion.  Saying under God violates none of those. It's the secularist atheist ultra Christian ****** that want to throw a tantrum that think non-believers are idiots and only they know better.

It's just as easy to say it this way...

You could say that again dressed up like a clown on a unicycle too but it would still be wrong.  Saying under God establishes no religion since religion Implies a belief in God but no specific God therefore doesn't establish any specific religion.
Let's see.  The athenuts want to tear down signs, crosses, menorahs, etc that have been around for tens of years because....?  The religious say leave it be and the athenuts say change it.  If the athenuts didn't complain then there would be no problems. 

[BGuttman]

In 1634 Roger Williams wanted the right to worship in his own fashion in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  The establishment said "Why, it's been this way for 10 years".  He was forced to leave the Massachusetts Bay Colony and found Rhode Island.

You sound like the Puritans.  Apparently you have been so brainwashed that you don't think any religion exists but the ones based on Abrahamic Law (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).  And from other posts I'm not sure you want to give full membership in that crew to Islam.

In 1935 we were saying the Pledge without "under God".  Even during the War Years (1942-1945) where we were fighting the Fascists and the Japanese Shinto (emperor worship).  Surprisingly, during the War Years we had friends -- the "Godless" Communists.

Sorry, your arguments don't wash.

[SensitiveJohn]

I'm not sure of the specifics behind why ronkny thinks that this is wrong, but so do I, in a sense. The 'under god' phrase is definitely from the Republican side of Congress - just look at the history - but they were trying to divide the U.S. from the Communists, not divide the country. Of course, we judge actions by their actual effect, not their intended effect.

It was very much internally divisive.  And "under god" did appear a the time when the Republicans were trying to use hate and fear to gain power.  They hadn't stumbled upon homophobia yet, and racism was the shtick of the Southern Democrats of the time.  Look at who Joe McCarthy was going after: domestic communists, or those he suspected as communists, such as union organizers or civil rights activists or just being very liberal and Jewish.  Sanctimony was a way for these Republican to legitimize their witch hunt, which really had no purpose other than to scare Americans into thinking that only they were courageous enough to confront the Commies.

[Michael Medrick]

I seriously doubt that the dents and dings to civil liberties initiated during "McCarthyism" and reinvigorated post 9/11 will ever be rectified.

 Bigots and zealots can be found everywhere, but when you introduce to the mix faith-based thoughtlessness, ( as the GOP did getting in bed with protestant fundies ) it makes a path to the polls for true-believers.   

I never thought I would live long enough to see the GOP so concerned about the issues of the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe if we get a GOP President, there will be blanket amnesty for the child molesters and their facilitators in the RCC hierarchy.  Tax free buggery, just like the middles ages...

...and the Washington monument is cracked, it must be a "sign from God"...maybe a cross in it's place will prevent more earthquakes in the D.C. area.
After all, we got the "true word from God" after hurricane Katrina...

...It's right there in front of you for all to accept...Just as you are...jeans and golf shirts before".. you take to kids to the mall..."
...and remember...it wasn't "Occupy" picketing soldier's memorial services...that was the "hand of God"...and someone voice told theese folks that "God hates fags"... and other brilliantly Christian viewpoints... bet on it!!!

[Andrew Meronek]

Yes.  Partly my point.  And this country was founded by believers who were at least diests.  Believers in God who wanted religious freedom and no state religion.  Saying under God violates none of those. It's the secularist atheist ****** that want to throw a tantrum that think believers are idiots and only they know better.

What about religions that are not monotheistic like Hinduism and Buddhism? It's not just atheists who are marginalized by 'under God.'

[Baron von Bone]

What about religions that are not monotheistic like Hinduism and Buddhism? It's not just atheists who are marginalized by 'under God.'

Besides, it's not about how many and/or who's offended, it's about why, what's right, what's consistent with constitutional principles and civic propriety--being decent neighbors/getting along with others/playing well with the other children. The children who always have to get their way "because only that kid (or those kids) are offended by my divisive/imposing/invasive public behavior" ... well, we learn better, most of us at least, by about the fifth or sixth grade--high school at the latest (then if we behave that way it's because we're just arses, not because we don't know better).

[ronkny]

What about religions that are not monotheistic like Hinduism and Buddhism? It's not just atheists who are marginalized by 'under God.'

Life isn't always fair.  It's been like this for over 50 years.  I don't think Hindus and Buddists hiding and not going to school.  Why does everything have to be fair?  It's getting ridiculous now.  No tag,might hurt the slow kids feelings.  No dodge ball, some kids can't throw.  No holding hands in school. No hugging in school. No Indian mascots (funny though how non Indian liberals people get upset and many Indians don't as long as they are used in a respectful manner)The rules just keep multiplying.  It never ends
BTW I don't care if thin skinned atheists are marginalized though. Sorry.

[BGuttman]

I'm not hearing Buddhists complaining, but I sure am hearing one Catholic moaning and groaning about how his nice, cozy religious view is being infringed

[Andrew Meronek]

Life isn't always fair.  It's been like this for over 50 years.  I don't think Hindus and Buddists hiding and not going to school.  Why does everything have to be fair?  It's getting ridiculous now.  No tag,might hurt the slow kids feelings.  No dodge ball, some kids can't throw.  No holding hands in school. No hugging in school. No Indian mascots (funny though how non Indian liberals people get upset and many Indians don't as long as they are used in a respectful manner)The rules just keep multiplying.  It never ends
BTW I don't care if thin skinned atheists are marginalized though. Sorry.

Oh, good grief. I'm in a mood to actually respond to this garbage.

"Life isn't always fair" is a ******** excuse for apathy. Sure, it's true, but if there's something that we can do, why not do it? That's like refusing to gas up your car because "life isn't fair" that gas prices are going up. Totally irrelevant.

The issue is not that Buddhists and Hindus are not going to school. Why even bring that up? I never said that the 'under God' phrase prevents them from going to school, and as far as I know, no one else has either. And why also include that stuff about not playing tag, dodgeball, not allowing hugging, or holding hands? What does that have to do with 'under God?' Besides, I don't think that these activities are allowed at a lot of private schools, too. Which makes it even more irrelevant.

And why demonize atheists that you say are 'thin skinned?' If someone beats up someone else every day at school, do you want them to have a 'thick skin' and just take it without ever saying anything?

[B0B]

Heard a story on the radio a few days ago about a girl in Rhode Island who fought to get a prayer removed from her high school. Everyone said it wasn't religious or any issue at all... until she fought it and won. Now she has to have a police escort to her school and the school board which has already spent a great deal of money is considering an extra hundred grand into the pot to challenge on appeal. Oh, and they are hurting on the budget too. They don't have the money to begin with, but it might be worth firing some teachers to keep fighting.

So that "not an issue at all" was suddenly a serious issue when it was challenged.

Just like, say, "under God" in the pledge.

For all of those who claim to follow Christ, yet sow hatred and even violence at what they themselves said was not an issue all I can say is:
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13, 34-35

Or "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them." 1 John, 9-11

These words were written between 1900 and 2000 years ago:
"While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matthew 9, 10-13)
And yet in all of that time, many of those who claim to follow Him most feverantly, instead follow the ways of those He preached strongest against.

*NIV translation*

[ronkny]

Oh, good grief. I'm in a mood to actually respond to this garbage.

"Life isn't always fair" is a ******** excuse for apathy. Sure, it's true, but if there's something that we can do, why not do it? That's like refusing to gas up your car because "life isn't fair" that gas prices are going up. Totally irrelevant.

The issue is not that Buddhists and Hindus are not going to school. Why even bring that up? I never said that the 'under God' phrase prevents them from going to school, and as far as I know, no one else has either. And why also include that stuff about not playing tag, dodgeball, not allowing hugging, or holding hands? What does that have to do with 'under God?' Besides, I don't think that these activities are allowed at a lot of private schools, too. Which makes it even more irrelevant.

And why demonize atheists that you say are 'thin skinned?' If someone beats up someone else every day at school, do you want them to have a 'thick skin' and just take it without ever saying anything?

It seems atheists have just as much tolerance as I do with atheists (thin skinned whinnying type of course).  "If there's something you can do, why not do it.". Huh?  I could easily just say , "why do it?". 
I slipping the sidewalk in front of a business.  I say, "Hmm.  He's got insurance.  I think I'll sue.  Why not do it?".
That's screwy logic.
You brought up Hindus and Buddhists.
Political correctness, everyone is the same, we all deserve tI win, attitude stinks. 

[SensitiveJohn]

I bet if it said "under Satan" that Christians (and probably Muslims too) would want the pledge changed.

[ronkny]

I bet if it said "under Satan" that Christians (and probably Muslims too) would want the pledge changed.

Gee.  Ya think?

[SensitiveJohn]

Well, um, yess, and if we shouldn't make special accommodations for Satanists, we shouldn't show preference to Christians either.

[ronkny]

Heard a story on the radio a few days ago about a girl in Rhode Island who fought to get a prayer removed from her high school. Everyone said it wasn't religious or any issue at all... until she fought it and won. Now she has to have a police escort to her school and the school board which has already spent a great deal of money is considering an extra hundred grand into the pot to challenge on appeal. Oh, and they are hurting on the budget too. They don't have the money to begin with, but it might be worth firing some teachers to keep fighting.

So that "not an issue at all" was suddenly a serious issue when it was challenged.

Just like, say, "under God" in the pledge.

For all of those who claim to follow Christ, yet sow hatred and even violence at what they themselves said was not an issue all I can say is:
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13, 34-35

Or "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them." 1 John, 9-11

These words were written between 1900 and 2000 years ago:
"While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matthew 9, 10-13)
And yet in all of that time, many of those who claim to follow Him most feverantly, instead follow the ways of those He preached strongest against.

*NIV translation*

Well those threatening her are nuts.  Not all faithful are 100% devout.  I'm certainly not.  Some are lunatics like westboro and terrorist muslims.    And obviously it's important to the school and the parents.  Why can't they appeal?

[ronkny]

Well, um, yess, and if we shouldn't make special accommodations for Satanists, we shouldn't show preference to Christians either.

That's a tough question to answer.   

[Andrew Meronek]

It seems atheists have just as much tolerance as I do with atheists (thin skinned whinnying type of course).  "If there's something you can do, why not do it.". Huh?  I could easily just say , "why do it?". 
I slipping the sidewalk in front of a business.  I say, "Hmm.  He's got insurance.  I think I'll sue.  Why not do it?".
That's screwy logic.

Maybe I should be more clear: if there's something that we can do to make life better for everyone, why not do it?

You brought up Hindus and Buddhists.

Yes, and I said nothing about them not going to school.

[ronkny]

Maybe I should be more clear: if there's something that we can do to make life better for everyone, why not do it?

Yes, and I said nothing about them not going to school.

How does this make life better for everyone?   

[SensitiveJohn]

The Republicans can say under god at home or at church or anyplace not owned by the secular government.

[BGuttman]

The Republicans can say under god at home or at church or anyplace not owned by the secular government.

Actually, if a Republican or even a Muslim wanted to pray on the floor of the US Senate, they should be able to do so.  Provided they don't force anybody else to join them, and provided it doesn't interfere with everybody else.

[Baron von Bone]

The Republicans can say under god at home or at church or anyplace not owned by the secular government.

But that wouldn't provide the much needed external affirmation of their "faith" like the endorsement of their revered authority figures and institutions does.

[Andrew Meronek]

How does this make life better for everyone?   

By reaffirming the secular focus of our government. By removing a divisive meme introduced by the fear-mongering McCarthyists of the 1950s. By allowing minorities to protest things which marginalize them. In the grand scheme of things, this helps everyone, including the majority.

[Baron von Bone]

By reaffirming the secular focus of our government. By removing a divisive meme introduced by the fear-mongering McCarthyists of the 1950s. By allowing minorities to protest things which marginalize them. In the grand scheme of things, this helps everyone, including the majority.

But it doesn't provide the affirmation ...

[ronkny]

By reaffirming the secular focus of our government. By removing a divisive meme introduced by the fear-mongering McCarthyists of the 1950s. By allowing minorities to protest things which marginalize them. In the grand scheme of things, this helps everyone, including the majority.

Let's see.  It's been a secular government for 200+ years.  Terese protests by atheists make it more secular? Like more pregnant?  

[BGuttman]

Let's see.  It's been a secular government for 200+ years.  Terese protests by atheists make it more secular? Like more pregnant?  

If we were truly secular there would have been no "Under God" in the Pledge.  Nor on our Currency.

We aspire to Freedom of Religion, but in fact there are some interesting anomalies:

Christian holidays are generally granted, but other religions need to take personal/vacation days for holiday observance.

We get Sunday off, but not normally Saturday if it is somebody else's religious day (or Friday).

We have public displays of certain religions but will castigate others (Hare Krishnas, for example).

[ronkny]

If we were truly secular there would have been no "Under God" in the Pledge.  Nor on our Currency.

We aspire to Freedom of Religion, but in fact there are some interesting anomalies:

Christian holidays are generally granted, but other religions need to take personal/vacation days for holiday observance.

We get Sunday off, but not normally Saturday if it is somebody else's religious day (or Friday).

We have public displays of certain religions but will castigate others (Hare Krishnas, for example).

So we are not secular?  Or not secular enough?
So how many holidays a year should we have?
Most people work 5 days a week.  Not all, but most.  Where I lived in Philly and NY the jews got Saturday off if they asked for it.  No problem.
The preponderance of our country, in the 18th century, was Christian, and still is, therefore we followed the Christian calendar.  Jews got Saturday thrown in there so now we have a weekend.  Should we now make it a 3 day weekend with Friday off too to accommodate muslims?
Once again life is not fair. Oh well.

[Andrew Meronek]

Once again life is not fair. Oh well.

I can use the same take for the opposite argument:

So you want 'under God' to remain in the pledge? Too bad. Life is not fair.

[ronkny]

I can use the same take for the opposite argument:

So you want 'under God' to remain in the pledge? Too bad. Life is not fair.

It's already there and it's not unconstitutional and no one is harmed.  Sorry.

[BGuttman]

It's already there and it's not unconstitutional and no one is harmed.  Sorry.

I take issue with that statement.  You  are not harmed, but somebody apparently is or there would have been no lawsuit.

[ronkny]

I take issue with that statement.  You  are not harmed, but somebody apparently is or there would have been no lawsuit.

What?  Her feelings have been hurt?  Does she have medical report showing that she has been harmed?  Was she denied an education? No, no, and no.  Where is evidence that she has been harmed?  If you get injured in an auto accident or you are denied a job because age, then you need proof .  She's got bupkis.

[sly fox]

thus spaketh the constitutional lawyer, historian and expert of the dentistry world on the necessary and proper issues presented by the law suit in question.

how dare anyone disagree.

I think I'll give an expert opinion on dentistry

perhaps not.


isn't the legal term "bupkis" supposed to be italicized - bupkis 

[Andrew Meronek]

It's already there and it's not unconstitutional and no one is harmed.  Sorry.

Oh, come on. Use your brain.

"It's already repealed and it's unconstitutional and no one is harmed. Sorry."

[ronkny]

thus spaketh the constitutional lawyer, historian and expert of the dentistry world on the necessary and proper issues presented by the law suit in question.

how dare anyone disagree.

I think I'll give an expert opinion on dentistry

perhaps not.


isn't the legal term "bupkis" supposed to be italicized - bupkis 

So "under God". In the pledge has been ruled unconstitutional?  You might need a law refresher course.

[ronkny]

Oh, come on. Use your brain.

"It's already repealed and it's unconstitutional and no one is harmed. Sorry."

Under God has not been repealed.  It's not unconstitutional either.    the courts said no one is compelled to recite the pledge.

[sly fox]

What?  Her feelings have been hurt?  Does she have medical report showing that she has been harmed?  Was she denied an education? No, no, and no.  Where is evidence that she has been harmed?  If you get injured in an auto accident or you are denied a job because age, then you need proof .  She's got bupkis.

your "elements" of unconstitutionality are, as you set out above:  was she hurt???  does she have medical records???  denied an education??? evidence of harm???

that is what I was clearly responding to and by the way, those are not the "elements" necessary to show whether someone's claim something is unconstitutional is supportable.

please stick to your admitted area of expertise, that is all I ask.

and yes, forcing some one  to say the pledge has been ruled unconstitutional for at least a year or two, perhaps that is why you don't realize it:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=624

[ronkny]

your "elements" of unconstitutionality are, as you set out above:  was she hurt???  does she have medical records???  denied an education??? evidence of harm???

that is what I was clearly responding to and by the way, those are not the "elements" necessary to show whether someone's claim something is unconstitutional is supportable.

please stick to your admitted area of expertise, that is all I ask.

and yes, forcing some one  to say the pledge has been ruled unconstitutional for at least a year or two, perhaps that is why you don't realize it:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=624

Clear as mud.     so the elements I pointed out are not necessary?  You failed to mention the elements that are necessary. I did mention the vcourt ruling regarding the pledge.  See my last post.  No one has succeeded in removing "under God". From the pledge.
Btw I don't scold posters in the "healthy Trombonist". Section of the forum if they discuss dentistry. Nor do I tell then to stick to their expertise.  I'm not that important.  So chill out dude.

[Andrew Meronek]

Under God has not been repealed.  It's not unconstitutional either.    the courts said no one is compelled to recite the pledge.

Yes, you're right on the specifics.

It seems to me odd that for many people who don't like the court ruling, the default position pretty much amounts to eliminating the pledge from the classroom altogether rather than simply removing 'under God.'

[ronkny]

Yes, you're right on the specifics.

It seems to me odd that for many people who don't like the court ruling, the default position pretty much amounts to eliminating the pledge from the classroom altogether rather than simply removing 'under God.'

The default position is that you don't have to recite it.  How does that remove it?  Recite it and dont say "under God"is another option.

[ddickerson]

There is only one reason why someone would actually want to remove 'under God' from the pledge of allegiance, and that reason lines up with the goals of communism. Coincidence?

[BGuttman]

There is only one reason why someone would actually want to remove 'under God' from the pledge of allegiance, and that reason lines up with the goals of communism. Coincidence?

That herring is redder than your shirt, Bitmeister

Which goals of Communism are you concerned about?

Overthrow of the Democratic system and replacing it with a Peoples' Republic?  Nothing to do with God.

Replacement of "Opium of the People" with a new ideology?  Fat chance.  Our law says you can worship God, Gitchee Manitou, or Nero's Horse flop.  Want to be godless?  that's allowed as well.  Long as you aren't trying to undermine the Gummint of the US.

Maybe the one I should be watching out for is you.  You want a Christian Republic under the Taliban of Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, and Jerry Falwell.  That's scary

[ddickerson]

That herring is redder than your shirt, Bitmeister

Which goals of Communism are you concerned about?

Overthrow of the Democratic system and replacing it with a Peoples' Republic?  Nothing to do with God.

Replacement of "Opium of the People" with a new ideology?  Fat chance.  Our law says you can worship God, Gitchee Manitou, or Nero's Horse flop.  Want to be godless?  that's allowed as well.  Long as you aren't trying to undermine the Gummint of the US.

Maybe the one I should be watching out for is you.  You want a Christian Republic under the Taliban of Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, and Jerry Falwell.  That's scary

You are quite the hyperbolic mentalist.

[Andrew Meronek]

The default position is that you don't have to recite it.  How does that remove it?  Recite it and dont say "under God"is another option.

Under God has not been repealed.  It's not unconstitutional either.    the courts said no one is compelled to recite the pledge.

The default position is that you don't have to recite it.  How does that remove it?  Recite it and dont say "under God"is another option.

See how easy it is for us to refute bad arguments?

You shouldn't do character assination ('those wusses should just grow a thick skin') or what amounts to "neenerneener" ('life isn't fair') and expect people to listen.

[ronkny]

See how easy it is for us to refute bad arguments?

You shouldn't do character assination ('those wusses should just grow a thick skin') or what amounts to "neenerneener" ('life isn't fair') and expect people to listen.

I don't expect atheists to listen.  they've made up their minds that people who believe in God are stupid and beneath them.  I can live with that if they could stop whining and complaining.
Militant whining elitist atheists have assasinated their own character just by acting the way they do.  They don't need me to point out their flawed and hateful logic.

[Piano man]

Putting aside the 'under God' issue, the idea of administering a loyalty oath to grade school students is offensive and absurd. It probably doesn't really even hurt anything, but it's still offensive and absurd.

Imagine how we would make fun of other countries that asked elementary students to recite a loyalty oath.

[BGuttman]

I don't expect atheists to listen.  they've made up their minds that people who believe in God are stupid and beneath them.  I can live with that if they could stop whining and complaining.
Militant whining elitist atheists have assasinated their own character just by acting the way they do.  They don't need me to point out their flawed and hateful logic.

Whiny religionists don't advance their cause much either...

[SensitiveJohn]

Putting aside the 'under God' issue, the idea of administering a loyalty oath to grade school students is offensive and absurd.

It seems very much authoritarian.

[ronkny]

Putting aside the 'under God' issue, the idea of administering a loyalty oath to grade school students is offensive and absurd. It probably doesn't really even hurt anything, but it's still offensive and absurd.

Imagine how we would make fun of other countries that asked elementary students to recite a loyalty oath.

Offensive and absurd?  Ok PM.
How do you know if other countries don't?     if they did why would it bother you?

[Piano man]

Offensive and absurd?  Ok PM.
How do you know if other countries don't?     if they did why would it bother you?

I wouldn't be surprised if regimes like Iran did something similar. I'll have to look it up.

It would make sense to require new citizens from other countries to declare allegiance to the US when becoming naturalized. There's no earthly reason to routinely administer a loyalty oath to schoolchildren who were born in this country. The Pledge isn't an important part of our national heritage, and it's hard to imagine Jefferson or Madison approving of the idea.

[ronkny]

I wouldn't be surprised if regimes like Iran did something similar. I'll have to look it up.

It would make sense to require new citizens from other countries to declare allegiance to the US when becoming naturalized. There's no earthly reason to routinely administer a loyalty oath to schoolchildren who were born in this country. The Pledge isn't an important part of our national heritage, and it's hard to imagine Jefferson or Madison approving of the idea.

Still doesn't explain the offensiveness and absurdity that you claim.  We've been doing it for over 100 years.   

[BGuttman]

It might be interesting to look at the various versions of the Pledge (courtesy Wikipedia):

I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

It was immediately amended to:

I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

In 1923 it was changed:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Another change in 1924:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

It was formally adopted in 1942.

Last change in 1954:

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.

In accordance with the Wikipedia article, changes from each revision are shown in bold.

Note that the formal adoption of the Pledge was made during the patriotic fervor of 1942 (there was a war on, if you remember).  It was originally composed to be recited in school ceremonies, beginning on Columbus Day 1892 (the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of the New World).

The original composer was Francis Bellamy, who had considered adding "Equality and Fraternity" but chose not to do so since Blacks and Women were not considered equals of Whites (remember, this is 1892).

We recited the Pledge without reference to God for 60 years.  I see no reason why we couldn't go back.

[Piano man]

Still doesn't explain the offensiveness and absurdity that you claim.  We've been doing it for over 100 years.   

That argument isn't very well thought through, is it? Can you think of any practices that lasted over 100 years that weren't entirely salutary? Maybe you think that posting an eyeroll emoticon is a substitute for thought and argument.

You're also wrong. We've had an official POA only since 1942 (70 years ago, and 166 years after the Declaration of Independence). So even if you're blindly honoring tradition, the non-Pledge tradition is far more venerable than the Pledge tradition. The Pledge itself was written as an entry in a magazine contest in 1892, over a century after the founding of our country. It was written not by the founders, but by an avowed Socialist.

What is absurd and offensive is that we ask schoolchildren to stand and recite, word for word, a dimly understood oath. How many seven-year-olds understand the words 'pledge' or 'allegiance' or 'republic'? It's odd that people who fear indoctrination by the schools would overlook such an egregious example. If the same thing were happening in North Korea, we'd laugh at them, of course forgetting that we do the same thing.

You probably won't admit this, but I guarantee that it's true:  If no one else had come up with the idea of a Pledge of Allegiance, if children simply went about the business of learning without any loyalty oath, just like before, you'd never in a million years come up with the idea or propose such a thing.

And why would you? The danger of seditious third-graders or secessionist grammar schoolers? Defending the Pledge of Allegiance is a fool's errand, and you've appropriately taken it up.

[ronkny]

That argument isn't very well thought through, is it? Can you think of any practices that lasted over 100 years that weren't entirely salutary? Maybe you think that posting an eyeroll emoticon is a substitute for thought and argument.

You're also wrong. We've had an official POA only since 1942 (70 years ago, and 166 years after the Declaration of Independence). So even if you're blindly honoring tradition, the non-Pledge tradition is far more venerable than the Pledge tradition. The Pledge itself was written as an entry in a magazine contest in 1892, over a century after the founding of our country. It was written not by the founders, but by an avowed Socialist.

What is absurd and offensive is that we ask schoolchildren to stand and recite, word for word, a dimly understood oath. How many seven-year-olds understand the words 'pledge' or 'allegiance' or 'republic'? It's odd that people who fear indoctrination by the schools would overlook such an egregious example. If the same thing were happening in North Korea, we'd laugh at them, of course forgetting that we do the same thing.

You probably won't admit this, but I guarantee that it's true:  If no one else had come up with the idea of a Pledge of Allegiance, if children simply went about the business of learning without any loyalty oath, just like before, you'd never in a million years come up with the idea or propose such a thing.

And why would you? The danger of seditious third-graders or secessionist grammar schoolers? Defending the Pledge of Allegiance is a fool's errand, and you've appropriately taken it up.

This is the eye rolling emoticon 
This isn't 

[ronkny]

That argument isn't very well thought through, is it? Can you think of any practices that lasted over 100 years that weren't entirely salutary? Maybe you think that posting an eyeroll emoticon is a substitute for thought and argument.

You're also wrong. We've had an official POA only since 1942 (70 years ago, and 166 years after the Declaration of Independence). So even if you're blindly honoring tradition, the non-Pledge tradition is far more venerable than the Pledge tradition. The Pledge itself was written as an entry in a magazine contest in 1892, over a century after the founding of our country. It was written not by the founders, but by an avowed Socialist.

What is absurd and offensive is that we ask schoolchildren to stand and recite, word for word, a dimly understood oath. How many seven-year-olds understand the words 'pledge' or 'allegiance' or 'republic'? It's odd that people who fear indoctrination by the schools would overlook such an egregious example. If the same thing were happening in North Korea, we'd laugh at them, of course forgetting that we do the same thing.

You probably won't admit this, but I guarantee that it's true:  If no one else had come up with the idea of a Pledge of Allegiance, if children simply went about the business of learning without any loyalty oath, just like before, you'd never in a million years come up with the idea or propose such a thing.

And why would you? The danger of seditious third-graders or secessionist grammar schoolers? Defending the Pledge of Allegiance is a fool's errand, and you've appropriately taken it up.

Written over 100 years ago. Adopted in 1942.  Sorry.
Avowed Socialist.  So what?  he was a preacher.
Is the pledge that hard to understand?   
The rest of your post is silly.

[Piano man]

Written over 100 years ago. Adopted in 1942.  Sorry.
Avowed Socialist.  So what?  he was a preacher.
Is the pledge that hard to understand?   
The rest of your post is silly.

The pledge is hard for most children to understand, and it's certainly hard for young children to understand its true meaning and import.

I'll stick to my guns on this one--if we imagine for a minute that no children's loyalty oath existed, you wouldn't propose one, because it serves no possible purpose. Can you imagine someone saying, "Why aren't these kids being asked to recite a loyalty oath?" I can't either.

Again, you've mustered no real argument. Calling my post 'silly' isn't isn't any sort of rebuttal, is it? It's no more substantive than the little pictures you stick to your posts like a little girl putting stickers on her school folder.

[Piano man]

This is the eye rolling emoticon 
This isn't 

Sorry. I guess if I were semi-literate, I'd festoon my messages with little pictures, and I'd be more conversant with their precise names.

[ronkny]

Sorry. I guess if I were semi-literate, I'd festoon my messages with little pictures, and I'd be more conversant with their precise names.

Now you've got something to work on in your free time. 

[ronkny]

The pledge is hard for most children to understand, and it's certainly hard for young children to understand its true meaning and import.

I'll stick to my guns on this one--if we imagine for a minute that no children's loyalty oath existed, you wouldn't propose one, because it serves no possible purpose. Can you imagine someone saying, "Why aren't these kids being asked to recite a loyalty oath?" I can't either.

Again, you've mustered no real argument. Calling my post 'silly' isn't isn't any sort of rebuttal, is it? It's no more substantive than the little pictures you stick to your posts like a little girl putting stickers on her school folder.

It's not hard to understand.  No one teaches it to them though. 
Never said I would propose one.  I also didn't think of computers or software or sending people to the moon or music or sliced bread or...

[Piano man]

It's not hard to understand.  No one teaches it to them though. 
Never said I would propose one.  I also didn't think of computers or software or sending people to the moon or music or sliced bread or...

Fair enough. Now, if you thought of it, would you think it was a good idea? Would you think that instructing children to recite a loyalty oath as part of their state-sponsored compulsory education should be added, if it weren't already there?

I'm still trying to see the purpose of it. It strikes me as a custom more appropriate to a dictatorship than to a republic.

[ronkny]

Fair enough. Now, if you thought of it, would you think it was a good idea? Would you think that instructing children to recite a loyalty oath as part of their state-sponsored compulsory education should be added, if it weren't already there?

I'm still trying to see the purpose of it. It strikes me as a custom more appropriate to a dictatorship than to a republic.

I'd say it's not a bad idea.  I don't know.
England sings God save the Queen.  Seems like a loyalty song to me.  They are not a dictatorship.  I don't know many other countries customs though.  There may be others.

[Piano man]

So, if tiny kids in North Korea were asked to stand and recite in unison "I promise my loyalty to North Korea, and to its flag" as part of their state education, you wouldn't think it was overreaching by the state? You wouldn't think it was an inappropriate use of class time?

Having a pledge of that nature is a solution in search of a problem. I just don't think that many second graders are planning treasonous activities, with or without an oath. There's a reason that it wasn't instituted until long after the death of our founders.

[ronkny]

So, if tiny kids in North Korea were asked to stand and recite in unison "I promise my loyalty to North Korea, and to its flag" as part of their state education, you wouldn't think it was overreaching by the state? You wouldn't think it was an inappropriate use of class time?

Having a pledge of that nature is a solution in search of a problem. I just don't think that many second graders are planning treasonous activities, with or without an oath. There's a reason that it wasn't instituted until long after the death of our founders.

Over reaching by the state?  No.  It's there country.  they can do what they want. I started reciting the pledge in 1966 along with My country tis of thee.  Did it make me a more loyal citizen then those who didn't?  We may never know.  However, reciting that every day for 12 years did not harm me or anyone else that I know. 
I think the exercise took about 90 seconds.  So class time is not an issue.
I don't think the purpose is to prevent 2nd graders from treasonous activities.  However, since all students recite it in the US, it does unite them in a small way.

I thought this thread was about "under God" being in the pledge.  Is the ulterior motive to end the pledge completely?

[Piano man]

I don't think that's the motive of most people who object to 'under God'. It's my explicit motive, so you can scarcely call it 'ulterior'. I see no reason for mass loyalty oaths in a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people. I'm sure everyone else likes loyalty oaths just fine.

As soon as I was old enough to understand the Pledge of Allegiance, I knew it wasn't quite right to have kids say it.

[Piano man]

Just for the heck of it, ask the next ten eight-year-olds you meet what, precisely, they think 'allegiance' means.

[BGuttman]

How many kids recite "I led the pigeons to the flag ..."  and pledge "to the Republic for Richard Stands"?  It's a famous Mondegreen, but illustrates quite clearly that the kids reciting it may not have a clue what it was about.

Incidentally, if you go to the Wikipedia article on the Pledge of Allegiance, you will see some kids reciting the Pledge in the 1930s using something called the Bellamy Salute.  They have their right hand out, palm down, pointing toward the flag.  It looked remarkably like the salute used in Germany in the Nazi era.  It was abandoned for that reason, and we now place our hand across our heart.

ronkny, when I was in school, almost a generation before you, I had to recite The Lord's Prayer in the morning as well.  My class had very few Christians in it.  I was glad to see that removed.

Remember, kids in school are not very sophisticated and will do what they are told.  If they are told to recite an oath that calls Jews "Christ Killers" they will do it, even if they are Jewish.

[Baron von Bone]

I can use the same take for the opposite argument:
 
So you want 'under God' to remain in the pledge? Too bad. Life is not fair.

It's already there and it's not unconstitutional and no one is harmed.  Sorry.

I take issue with that statement.  You  are not harmed, but somebody apparently is or there would have been no lawsuit.

I had a similar exchange with a coworker today. I put my Lipton Green Tea packaging on his desk when he wasn't there. He brought it to me and I told him I didn't want it. He complained that I should take it back. I told him it was his--it was on his desk, after all. He didn't seem to understand--thought it was still mine even though it was last on his desk. Dunno what his problem is, or why he wants me to handle his garbage.

[ddickerson]

Ok, so we go from wanting to remove 'under God' from the POA to now wanting to get rid of the POA altogether.

You people need to follow that up with getting rid of "saluting the flag", while you're at it.

Oh yeah, forgot about the National Anthem that most of the liberal singers can't sing, we need to get rid of that too! Its too dang difficult for untalented singers. We need something that simpletons can sing. 

[Baron von Bone]

Ok, so we go from wanting to remove 'under God' from the POA to now wanting to get rid of the POA altogether.
 
You people need to follow that up with getting rid of "saluting the flag", while you're at it.
 
Oh yeah, forgot about the National Anthem that most of the liberal singers can't sing, we need to get rid of that too! Its too dang difficult for untalented singers. We need something that simpletons can sing. 

Throw out a few straw men, take umbrage, and dodge the actual issue entirely ... standard issue dishonest, intellectually cowardly right wing political maneuvering. You should be proud (that's an observation, not an exhortation).

[ronkny]

Throw out a few straw men, take umbrage, and dodge the actual issue entirely ... standard issue dishonest, intellectually cowardly right wing political maneuvering. You should be proud (that's an observation, not an exhortation).

You're so full of yourself that you are unable to contribute to the discussion.  "Attack the poster.  Attack the poster. I can't comment.  I am unable.  My job is to attack and belittle the poster. Attack.  Attack"

[Andrew Meronek]

You're so full of yourself that you are unable to contribute to the discussion.  "Attack the poster.  Attack the poster. I can't comment.  I am unable.  My job is to attack and belittle the poster. Attack.  Attack"

To be fair, the first half of his sentence was contributory.

[Piano man]

Ok, so we go from wanting to remove 'under God' from the POA to now wanting to get rid of the POA altogether.

You people need to follow that up with getting rid of "saluting the flag", while you're at it.

Oh yeah, forgot about the National Anthem that most of the liberal singers can't sing, we need to get rid of that too! Its too dang difficult for untalented singers. We need something that simpletons can sing. 

Again, there's no 'you people'. That's just a construct that you invented to help you think even less clearly. It allows you to respond to something I said and attribute it to other people who didn't say it.

Here's your reasoning:
1)Some people want to return to the previous version of the POA.
2)Some other people don't like the POA being used in schools in any form.
3)Even though these are two completely different opinions, they are part of 'you people' because you disagree with them both. You can now pretend that they're all the same and the first group must secretly be part of the second and that an insidious conspiracy is afoot.

Here are the facts:
--A great many people like the POA just as it is.
--Some people like the POA, but don't think 'under God' should be part of it.
--Some people don't mind the 'under God' part except asking kids to say it in school.
--Some people don't give a rip about the POA at all.
--A few people--myself included--don't think a free people should be asked to stand and recite a mass loyalty oath in public, unless they're being sworn in as citizens. That's not a 'liberal' idea, but a libertarian one. It must not be a common opinion, because I've never read it anywhere else.

Ok, so we go from wanting to remove 'under God' from the POA to now wanting to get rid of the POA altogether.

You can't support that with facts. Who, specifically, went from the first thing to the second? Name the person. My opinion on this subject hasn't changed in decades. The people who like the pledge but don't like 'under God' disagree with me as well as with you.

Of course you can ignore all of the facts and simply talk about 'you people' and 'us people'. It reduces the complexity of life to the level of picking a sports team to root for, which will satisfy the easily satisfied.

[Baron von Bone]

To be fair, the first half of his sentence was contributory.

It's all contributory, just as when unacceptable behavior is met with social sanctions in other arenas. It's just that most have somehow been convinced that the same natural mechanisms that establish appropriate behavioral boundaries is oppressive when applied to ideas ... or at least certain categories of ideas anyway.

[ddickerson]

PM said:
"Putting aside the 'under God' issue, the idea of administering a loyalty oath to grade school students is offensive and absurd."

SJ joined in with

"It seems very much authoritarian.

PM again
"I'm still trying to see the purpose of it.

BG joins in with

'How many kids recite "I led the pigeons to the flag ..." and pledge "to the Republic for Richard Stands"? It's a famous Mondegreen, but illustrates quite clearly that the kids reciting it may not have a clue what it was about.


Therefore, the use of 'you people' are justified.

[Piano man]

BG was agreeing that children often misunderstand the meaning of the POA, which is a separate issue from it's appropriateness.

SJ agreed that it seemed 'authoritarian' but stopped short of agreeing with me that it shouldn't be recited.

I'm the only person who has said that the POA should not be used. What does that have to do with other people who prefer the older version of the Pledge, whose opinion is different from mine?

[BGuttman]

Ok, so we go from wanting to remove 'under God' from the POA to now wanting to get rid of the POA altogether.

You people need to follow that up with getting rid of "saluting the flag", while you're at it.

Oh yeah, forgot about the National Anthem that most of the liberal singers can't sing, we need to get rid of that too! Its too dang difficult for untalented singers. We need something that simpletons can sing. 

First, please remember that the United States flag is not  the United States of America.  It is a symbol.  Desecrating the flag is not the same thing as invading the United States.

Pledging allegiance to the Flag or saluting the Flag is simply a way to express respect for the United States.  Nobody is forced to do that; we have a Constitutional Amendment that says you can say (or not say) whatever you want, provided it does not harm anybody else.

Also, the "song the Liberals can't sing" is tough for a lot of Conservatives I know as well.  At the time of its adoption (the 1940s) a major contender was a little ditty called "God Bless America" which was easier to sing and really nice.  But it was written by a Jew and hence was taken out of the running.

Incidentally, I am not saying that the Pledge must be eliminated, I'm just saying that it probably is going over the heads of the younger reciters.  I will say that "Under God" was a spurious addition from the 1950s.  You are thus eliminating all the non-deist religions that we want to incorporate in this great melting pot of a country.

PM's comment about a loyalty oath is interesting.  Note who else has to recite a loyalty oath.  The Chinese.  The people in the African dictatorships.  People in Nazi Germany in the 1940s.  Notice that the British don't have a loyalty oath.  The French don't have a loyalty oath.  The modern Germans don't have a loyalty oath.  Only the paranoid have a loyalty oath.  Is our government so specious that it can be toppled by somebody simply saying so?  I think not.  I am more concerned with those who would force everybody here to stand in line and meet certain requirements to prove they are "real citizens".  That was not the banner under which this country was founded.

[ronkny]

First, please remember that the United States flag is not  the United States of America.  It is a symbol.  Desecrating the flag is not the same thing as invading the United States.

Pledging allegiance to the Flag or saluting the Flag is simply a way to express respect for the United States.  Nobody is forced to do that; we have a Constitutional Amendment that says you can say (or not say) whatever you want, provided it does not harm anybody else.

Also, the "song the Liberals can't sing" is tough for a lot of Conservatives I know as well.  At the time of its adoption (the 1940s) a major contender was a little ditty called "God Bless America" which was easier to sing and really nice.  But it was written by a Jew and hence was taken out of the running.

Incidentally, I am not saying that the Pledge must be eliminated, I'm just saying that it probably is going over the heads of the younger reciters.  I will say that "Under God" was a spurious addition from the 1950s.  You are thus eliminating all the non-deist religions that we want to incorporate in this great melting pot of a country.

PM's comment about a loyalty oath is interesting.  Note who else has to recite a loyalty oath.  The Chinese.  The people in the African dictatorships.  People in Nazi Germany in the 1940s.  Notice that the British don't have a loyalty oath.  The French don't have a loyalty oath.  The modern Germans don't have a loyalty oath.  Only the paranoid have a loyalty oath.  Is our government so specious that it can be toppled by somebody simply saying so?  I think not.  I am more concerned with those who would force everybody here to stand in line and meet certain requirements to prove they are "real citizens".  That was not the banner under which this country was founded.

The British sing "God save the Queen"  which mentions God and loyalty to the Queen.

[ddickerson]

First, please remember that the United States flag is not  the United States of America.  It is a symbol.  Desecrating the flag is not the same thing as invading the United States.

Pledging allegiance to the Flag or saluting the Flag is simply a way to express respect for the United States.  Nobody is forced to do that; we have a Constitutional Amendment that says you can say (or not say) whatever you want, provided it does not harm anybody else.

Also, the "song the Liberals can't sing" is tough for a lot of Conservatives I know as well.  At the time of its adoption (the 1940s) a major contender was a little ditty called "God Bless America" which was easier to sing and really nice.  But it was written by a Jew and hence was taken out of the running.

Incidentally, I am not saying that the Pledge must be eliminated, I'm just saying that it probably is going over the heads of the younger reciters.  I will say that "Under God" was a spurious addition from the 1950s.  You are thus eliminating all the non-deist religions that we want to incorporate in this great melting pot of a country.

PM's comment about a loyalty oath is interesting.  Note who else has to recite a loyalty oath.  The Chinese.  The people in the African dictatorships.  People in Nazi Germany in the 1940s.  Notice that the British don't have a loyalty oath.  The French don't have a loyalty oath.  The modern Germans don't have a loyalty oath.  Only the paranoid have a loyalty oath.  Is our government so specious that it can be toppled by somebody simply saying so?  I think not.  I am more concerned with those who would force everybody here to stand in line and meet certain requirements to prove they are "real citizens".  That was not the banner under which this country was founded.

I just made the comment noting that this thread went from 'under God' to just dissing the POA altogether. Which it did.

[Piano man]

No, you used the phrase, 'you guys' to describe people who prefer the older version of the POA and also people who don't see any purpose in the POA to begin with.

Those are two completely separate opinions. People who hold those two opinions disagree with one another just as much as they disagree with you. I don't expect you to admit the error.

Ronkny made a similar implication when he asked if getting rid of the POA was an 'ulterior motive' of people who prefer the older version of the POA. I see no evidence of that, but if you're in the habit of believing things without evidence that won't bother you.

[RedHotMama]

The British sing "God save the Queen"  which mentions God and loyalty to the Queen.

Most of us don't sing that damn thing. And if, in a court of law, someone approached me with a bible upon which I was supposed to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I would refuse to do it.

[ronkny]

Most of us don't sing that damn thing. And if, in a court of law, someone approached me with a bible upon which I was supposed to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I would not do it.

Just to be spiteful.  Because if it didn't mean anything to you, what's the big deal?

[BGuttman]

I think RHM considers her "sacred honor" more important than religion.

If she intended to lie, she'd simply place her hand on the book and swear, since the book means nothing to her.

I guess that's something you'd have a problem believing?

Incidentally, I think Brits would sooner swear allegiance to their local Football team than to the Crown.

[RedHotMama]

Thanks, Bruce.

Just to be spiteful.  Because if it didn't mean anything to you, what's the big deal?

Where did I say it didn't mean anything?? It means a great deal.

I am completely opposed to the monarchy, and also object to the premise that swearing before a God in which I don't believe will ensure that I tell the truth. What utter nonsense.

[ronkny]

Thanks, Bruce.

Where did I say it didn't mean anything? It means a great deal.

I am completely opposed to the monarchy, and also deny the principle that swearing before a God in which I don't believe will ensure that I tell the truth. What utter nonsense.

Sorry.  I read "damn thing" and jumped to conclusions. 

[RedHotMama]

Sorry.  I read "damn thing" and jumped to conclusions. 

OK.