Banning the Pledge....

[alexican]

Who has heard about this?

THE SCOOP

I think this whole separation of church and state, however good it seems in theory, is getting way out of hand. I understand that his beliefs do not include acknowledgement of any higher power but is it so terrible to even hear the word "God" uttered in a public setting? Newdow wants his rights respected but at what cost? Everyone else's rights to be trampled so that his daughter doesn't have to say the dreaded three letter word? The Supreme Court even pointed out that the girl's school district allows the children to make a choice as to whether or not they want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This just seems like another over-opinionated person's way of dragging out their 15 minutes of fame.

[Ryan]

I'm mixed on the issue. I do not consider myself to be religious in the traditional sense at all, but I am not offended by the concept of or reference to "God." From my perspective, the usage of "God" on our money, in our motto, etc., is nothing more than a secular reference to something that is part of this country's history. As such, I do not feel pressured to acknowledge a god or a religion when spending money or when I am exposed to some other traditional reference to "God."

What I believe separates this issue, is that small children are forced, if not by rule then by pressure, to declare an allegiance to a nation "under God." I don't think that children without the capability of even understanding spirituality or making decisions about their religious beliefs should be forced like drones to recite this phrase every morning. More importantly, I don't believe that people who want to raise their children with "non-traditional" spiritual beliefs should have to explain to their toddlers why they are not allowed to say the Pledge like all the other children.

As a final note, let me remind you that the Pledge is much older than the phrase "under God." It was, in fact, Christian politicians who decided to insert that phrase just a few decades ago because they feared that their God was being removed from society more than they liked. To that extent, they (the politicians) should have the burden of showing why this phrase is so important rather that having people like Mr. Newdow fight to declare his opposition to it.

[alexican]

Originally posted by Ryan
What I believe separates this issue, is that small children are forced, if not by rule then by pressure, to declare an allegiance to a nation "under God." I don't think that children without the capability of even understanding spirituality or making decisions about their religious beliefs should be forced like drones to recite this phrase every morning. More importantly, I don't believe that people who want to raise their children with "non-traditional" spiritual beliefs should have to explain to their toddlers why they are not allowed to say the Pledge like all the other children.

true but don't you think that the parents need to take the time to explain to her the situation at hand? for one thing, its probably confusing enough for her to have divorced parents of different religions each wanting her to adhere to their own beliefs. for another thing, she's in third grade. thats about 8 or 9 years old. thats old enough to comprehend what it means to recite the pledge.

[xryptic]

I was almost kicked out of several schools when I was kid for refusing to say the Pledge. I didn't see the point in pledging allegiance to a country I wasn't even a citizen of.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by RainbowBriteB29
true but don't you think that the parents need to take the time to explain to her the situation at hand? for one thing, its probably confusing enough for her to have divorced parents of different religions each wanting her to adhere to their own beliefs. for another thing, she's in third grade. thats about 8 or 9 years old. thats old enough to comprehend what it means to recite the pledge.

No. Divorce is a family issue to deal with, this is a state issue. Children should not be put in a position to be subjected to this kind of thing at school and parents should not be forced to make it an issue.

I think it's absolutely creepy (and Chinese-like) that we force our children to pledge allegiance to our flag every day regardless of this issue. This is pure indoctrination as most children have no concept of what they are saying anyway. That would solve the entire issue - quit forcing our kids to pledge allegiance to an inanimate object at the start of every school day.

[alexican]

Originally posted by Ryan
No. Divorce is a family issue to deal with, this is a state issue. Children should not be put in a position to be subjected to this kind of thing at school and parents should not be forced to make it an issue.

i know this. i was merely pointing out that she's probably already confused enough at home with her parents wanting her to adhere to their individual beliefs. but you don't think that parents should take some responsiblity in explaining to their kids about differences in religion and the significance of reciting the pledge? instead of taking this case to the Supreme Court, don't you think it would have been better for her parents to sit down and explain the choices she has?

[Ryan]

Originally posted by RainbowBriteB29
i know this. i was merely pointing out that she's probably already confused enough at home with her parents wanting her to adhere to their individual beliefs. but you don't think that parents should take some responsiblity in explaining to their kids about differences in religion and the significance of reciting the pledge? instead of taking this case to the Supreme Court, don't you think it would have been better for her parents to sit down and explain the choices she has?

If, by some strange occurrence, our legislative branch was suddenly overtaken by a bunch of Muslims who decided to change the phrase to "under Allah," would you have no problem explaining what that means to your children? And before anyone starts in with the BS about our forefathers, realize that if your answer is that you would take issue, you are experiencing exactly what Mr. Newdow is feeling.

[alexican]

Originally posted by Ryan
If, by some strange occurrence, our legislative branch was suddenly overtaken by a bunch of Muslims who decided to change the phrase to "under Allah," would you have no problem explaining what that means to your children? And before anyone starts in with the BS about our forefathers, realize that if your answer is that you would take issue, you are experiencing exactly what Mr. Newdow is feeling.

no i wouldn't have a problem explaining it. allah is just another word for god and although the beliefs differ, the core of it all is to acknowledge a higher being. now, if the muslims wanted my kids to say that their (the muslims) religion is the greatest overall, then i'd have a problem. if the option was there for them to sit out on the pledge, i would leave it up to them. if they didn't care about saying "under Allah", then say it. if it bothers them, don't say it. its that simple. there's freedom of choice in this country for a reason

[johnny861]

The Irony about the pledge, is that it was indoctrinated by Liberal ideas and now it is being attacked by Liberals... lol





The Original pledge is was not intended as a pledge to the united states, but rather the republic for which the flag stands for, being that of liberty and justice [and in the thoughts of the author, equality] for all...

The man who authored the pledge was considered a liberal socialist in his time, in fact his views were so left socialist, he was forced out of the baptist church...


Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'


His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

[kit'n]

i think they should just take the words "under god" out. i dont care either way about the pledge itself except for those 2 words. they were only added in the 50's anyways, so why not take them out? maybe its just me, but it really doesnt seem that hard of a concept. *shrugs*

[Krash]

Asking people to make a pledge that they don't believe in, not only demeans the pledge - it demeans the person.

[xryptic]

I think the entire concept of it is ridiculous.

[GLopez]

I think it's kind of like living in your parent's house. If you live in your parent's house, you follow their rules, and if you don't want to follow them, then move out!!!!!!! Just my opionion..........

[johnny861]

Originally posted by Krash
Asking people to make a pledge that they don't believe in, not only demeans the pledge - it demeans the person.

I remember when I was in school, I was required to pledge alliegance to both the Texas flag and the American flag. Why both? What significance did having a pledge to both my state and my union have on me as an American growing up?

I think about my loyalties as an American now, but I also think about my loyalties as a Texan. It's easy for the modern nomadic American to forget state's rights and loyalties as they travel from state to state, but as for me... The place of my birth is Texas, it is where I've spent a majority of my life. If Texas were to seceed from the union, where would my loyalties as a Texas Native be? To the Union? Or to my state? Would I question the secession even if the idea was noble, say if Bush indoctrinated martial law in America and people opposed it, including the states.

I may not want a seperation from the union, but understanding the rights of states, I might be inclined to support it if it meant for the welfare of the people the state was trying to protect.

As an American, I believe in the principles of democracy and our representative government as defined in the Constitution and to state's rights. I see myself as loyal to both my union and my state.


I don't think pledging itself is a bad idea, I think they should reinstate the original pledge, which is pledging allegiance to the principles of what the republic stands for...


therefore, it would not be a pledge under god... nor a pledge to the united states, but a pledge to the indivisible view of liberty and justice for all for which this republic stands for.


If one doesn't believe in these values, then one doesn't have to uphold such a pledge if they are not American, nor wish to become an American citizen, but I feel it is the duty of Americans to uphold the principles of the Constitution, which was founded to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promte the gerenal welfare and Secure the Blessings of Liberty.


I see the pledge as reaffirmation of what our role as Americans are to our union and our states.

I feel it is an American's duty to uphold the the Constitution and the principles for what the republic stands for.

If an American is opposed to pledging to these principles, what then, are they?

[kezarmyaj]

I think the whole thing is stupid. if they dont want to, dont say it. no one (hopefully) is forcing them to. there HAS TO be more pressing issues in american than this.