Pledge of Allegiance

Originally posted by TheSkipper
{Too over the top - even for me}

TheSkipper

Pansy.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You and rwingett must be fishing in the same thesaurus today. What part is 'pathetic,' exactly: the concept that a public solemn moment is intended to spur thought, or that our nation has recognized the hand of Providence, looked to nature's God since before its inception?

And if, indeed, the spurring of thought is what is intended, is it wrong for a c ...[text shortened]... I see you took out the part that I didn't respond to. Care to address that which remained?

So you have no problem with the idea that non-Christians MUST lie if they want to repeat this country's national statement of patriotism?

It is the only question I have and so far nobody seems to want to answer it directly.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by David C
Pansy.

Ha! Guilty as charged.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
So you have no problem with the idea that non-Christians MUST lie if they want to repeat this country's national statement of patriotism?

It is the only question I have and so far nobody seems to want to answer it directly.

TheSkipper

You act as though it's a test of patriotism when it clearly isn't. Since you are obviously acknowledging the words have meaning, have you considered perhaps not reciting the words which are so emotionally offensive to you? Three syllables of silence, and all your problems go away.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Have there ever been any Supreme Court nominees who claimed to be atheists? I would wager with certainty that there have not. I would love to see some so they can be grilled about the matter.

If there were, do you think they would be grilled (or even asked) about the matter?

Even if a non-theist is exempted from reciting the pledge, it all programmes and initiatives that may or may not make a minority feel "castigated"?

[/b] So, if a school decides to go with it, it's reasonable to suppose that the majority of parents there felt it was appropriate (the opposite should also normally hold). A minority may feel "socially castigated" -- but that's going to hold in all kinds of situations (and I don't think you need the Pledge to be socially castigated at school). Should schools do away with all programmes and initiatives that may or may not make a minority feel "castigated"?

If you’re going to make this kind of “any and all” argument—“If in this case, then why not all other cases?”—then I’m going to walk right in, and ask:

“If the majority of parents in a public, state, school feel that it is appropriate to have a required religion class in which Roman Catholics are characterized as “depraved and condemned Papists who worship idols”—despite that the fact that there is a minority population of RCC kids in the class—do you argue that, in order to disallow such a class in public schools, one would also need to do away with the annual prom, so that those who cannot get a date don’t feel ‘socially castigated’?”

Now, you could always side-step by saying, “I’d send my kids to Catholic school”—but not everyone can do that. Public schools are designed to provide affordable education regardless of a family’s ability to pay (in time resources or money) for alternatives—not so much because education is valuable to the individual. But because it is deemed valuable for the public at large, the community, the nation—and not just the religious members of it, let alone the members of a particular religion. Despite whatever other ways the public school system may be flawed.

Sometimes I think that religious people lose sight of how separation of church and state protects their religious freedoms precisely when their religious group believes itself to have sufficient “majority status” or political “gravitas” to not need such protection, indeed, perhaps to be able to weave their particular religious beliefs into the social/legal fabric.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You and rwingett must be fishing in the same thesaurus today. What part is 'pathetic,' exactly: the concept that a public solemn moment is intended to spur thought, or that our nation has recognized the hand of Providence, looked to nature's God since before its inception?

And if, indeed, the spurring of thought is what is intended, is it wrong for a c ...[text shortened]... I see you took out the part that I didn't respond to. Care to address that which remained?

The part that is pathetic is that our nation would force an otherwise patriotic person to admit the country is "under God" whether they believe in a God or not.

Agree with History!? Look, whether or not this country was founded by men with a Christian back ground has no bearing on whether or not this country is in fact "under God" currently.

Christians in this country are free to worship as they see fit and have incredible freedoms to do and say whatever they like about their God to anyone. There is absolutely no reason for the state to support a pledge that forces people who do not share in the Christian faith.

Frankly, I'm shocked you feel the way you do.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You act as though it's a test of patriotism when it clearly isn't. Since you are obviously acknowledging the words have meaning, have you considered perhaps not reciting the words which are so emotionally offensive to you? Three syllables of silence, and all your problems go away.

Three syllables of silence, and all your problems go away.

Or, the pledge could be restored to it’s pre-1954 form, theists could say three additional syllables silently to themselves, and all their problems would go away. 🙂

Interesting wiki article on the history of the pledge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pledge_of_Allegiance

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You act as though it's a test of patriotism when it clearly isn't. Since you are obviously acknowledging the words have meaning, have you considered perhaps not reciting the words which are so emotionally offensive to you? Three syllables of silence, and all your problems go away.

Whether or not I say the words is not the point! The point is that the United States which makes claims to being a country with a freedom of religion has supported a Pledge of Allegiance that cannot be repeated honestly by all of its citizens!

The very notion that the pledge, as written, is not for me is counter to what I thought this country is all about.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Three syllables of silence, and all your problems go away.

No, I still have the problem that my country choose not to include me when it choose to support the Pledge in it's current form.

Pretty big problem, if you ask me.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by vistesd
So, if a school decides to go with it, it's reasonable to suppose that the majority of parents there felt it was appropriate (the opposite should also normally hold). A minority may feel "socially castigated" -- but that's going to hold in all kinds of situations (and I don't think you need the Pledge to be socially castigated at school). Should scho ...[text shortened]... haps to be able to weave their particular religious beliefs into the social/legal fabric.

vistesd,

You are like my brother from another Mother.

😉

Rec'd

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
The part that is pathetic is that our nation would force an otherwise patriotic person to admit the country is "under God" whether they believe in a God or not.

Agree with History!? Look, whether or not this country was founded by men with a Christian back ground has no bearing on whether or not this country is in fact "under God" currently.

Chr ...[text shortened]... re in the Christian faith.

Frankly, I'm shocked you feel the way you do.

TheSkipper

As I already said, why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied into a public display of patriotism? Since it is for the kids in school, I believe it is just in that it is a teaching tool for history and policy.

As a child matures in thought, he decides for himself which of those ideals he chooses to pledge his allegiance to. For instance, our legal system is not about justice, and yet I am still pledged to the same every time I recite the POA. Does that make me hypocritical? I don't think so. It certainly makes me romantic, but I don't think I am being a hypocrite by voicing the way I want things to be, regardless of reality.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Whether or not I say the words is not the point! The point is that the United States which makes claims to being a country with a freedom of religion has supported a Pledge of Allegiance that cannot be repeated honestly by all of its citizens!

The very notion that the pledge, as written, is not for me is counter to what I thought this country is all about.

TheSkipper

So when you read the DOI, are you alienated as well? Perhaps you're just in the wrong country, if that's the case.

I highly doubt that you will find a country more tolerant of religious thought than this one. I equally doubt that you will find one without religious influence. More than those two levels of doubt, I doubt that anyone is persecuting and/or sanctioning you for failure to recite the pledge, let alone for omitting two words of the same.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As I already said, why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied into a public display of patriotism? Since it is for the kids in school, I believe it is just in that it is a teaching tool for history and policy.

As a child matures in thought, he decides for himself which of those ideals he chooses to pledge his allegiance to. For instance, our l ...[text shortened]... 't think I am being a hypocrite by voicing the way I want things to be, regardless of reality.

You are getting tiresome.

The pledge outlines ideals that this country and it's citizens *should* strive for. While our legal system may not achieve what it should we still have the ideal. To have, as one of those ideals, the notion that the country is or should be "under God" leaves out a whole segment of the population.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
You are getting tiresome.

The pledge outlines ideals that this country and it's citizens *should* strive for. While our legal system may not achieve what it should we still have the ideal. To have, as one of those ideals, the notion that the country is or should be "under God" leaves out a whole segment of the population.

TheSkipper

You've yet to acknowledge the historical import of God within the formation of the nation. If you need to, take a nap and think about it.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
vistesd,

You are like my brother from another Mother.

😉

Rec'd

TheSkipper

ROFL!! I accept the compliment, Skip, and thank you for it—but there is a hilarious irony here: Just the other day, in another context, Freaky told me the same thing, nearly word for word!