Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

So recently, the Texas legislation changed the pledge of allegiance and I am still wondering what the point is. Here is something I read up a little while ago from another site
Before revision:

"Honor the Texas Flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible."

The revised wording is:

"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."


Could somebody please explain to me why it was so necessary to change the pledge? My friends and I are going bonkers trying figure out why it was so necessary.

Thanks,
Pavan.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Obviously...God rocks...didn't you know that?

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Yeah, God is great. Really.

But anyway:
Look up the Federal Pledge of Allegiance, see when God was added to that one... (...one nation, under God, indivisible...).

Don

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Cause we, the citizens of the United States of America, hold or history in high regard. History in which puritans from Europe traveled from there to America to avoid religious persecution.

We believe ourselves to be a country with no definite religion of the people, and a country that accepts all kinds of people and faiths. So, what do we do? We revise the Pledge of Allegiance to include the words "under God". This clearly supports what we hold so dear... right?

Is this as confusing to other people as it is to me?

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Not everyone believes in God, though.

Our constitution forbids government from respecting any "establishment of religion". To me, it is pretty clear that the words "under God" violate those terms. My religious beliefs (and the beliefs of many others) do not include a belief in God. By legislating the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, the government is respecting a particular establishment of religion. That is unconstitutional.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

If you think this is bad, examine Article 1 Section 4 of the Texas constitution. This section denies atheists the right to hold public office in Texas, and it's not only the Texan gonvernment that does this, five other states have similar passages in their constitutions. Religious discrimination by the government is alive and well in the United States, it may be unconstitutional, but that doesn't stop people from doing it.

EDIT: I just went back and double checked my numbers, and it is in fact six states in addition to Texas, plus one that says you can be denied public office for being an atheist, but doesn't say that you will be.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Can you post a list? I'd like to confirm that.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Yeah, we love and believe in God so much we have to keep reaffirming it over and over again! See, we really love God, a bunch! It's even on the bumper sicker on my car, all my kid's lunch boxes, our tshirts we wear everywhere, in all the books we read (I've read through the Left Behind series 20 times!), video games, and thank god for christian music, finally I can escape from spontaneous human emotion and feelings to the uniform quality of McDonald's music!

:rolleyes:

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

I'm right with you Jaine. Although I was just Baptized Lutheran in March (or April?), I still don't believe that the people of the United States need to be forced to state that there is a God. Some believe in none, other believe in multiples. Free thinking is what made this country great from the start.

As for Texas, among other states, denying Atheists public office that IS unconstitutional. But then again, look was Texas gave us, our current President.*


*But then again Texas has Jane Young and Pavan... so maybe it's even. Whereas Tennessee gave the world me... so, therefore, it is the greatest state in the Union. :p

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

First off, I couldn't legally vote so I'm [not yet ashamed and] still proud to be a Texan, it's not my fault...Second, I do believe in god, but I'm not Christian, and although this stuff doesn't bother me because I could care less about some of these pathetic issues, I've been saying this pledge for almost 12 years, so I am wondering if this "change in the wording" is Texas' way of going against the grain or testing to see if it is above the law or something. But my biggest beef is the evidence for ADDING it in, and how they justify their actions.....*cough* and it sounds weird now, say both versions out loud */cough*

To me, this is like FIRST saying no more Anderson Powerpole connectors anymore out of the blue, just because they can.

This is about the NATIONAL pledge a few years ago:

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

This is one of those issues that hangs on the fuzzy area of legality. On one hand, the way it is written in both Pledges as "God" does not necessarily imply the Christian God, as Judiasm and Islam also worship a single "God". However, the inclusion of the term "God" implies a connection (and possible support) to religion, a connection that can be argued as being un-Constitutional. (Federally, which takes precedence over state constitutions.)

So in the end, I often tend to believe that either the government totally keeps out of religion, or it allows any and every religion to equally speak its voice. The latter of which is preferable choice, as it does not restrict one's rights to freedom of speech and expression, yet does not imply government support of any single religion or ideology. (Rather, it shows government support to the freedom of expression.)

I don't care there's a Christmas Tree (it's not a holiday tree!) in front of a Town Hall or other government building, as long as they give equal support to Judaism for a Menorah next to the Christmas Tree, or Islam during Ramadan, or Buddhism, or any religion during their holy times of the year. (Now there is an extent to this, as there's a fine line between being respectful and going to extremes to stay politically correct...)

For in the end, this is a country of immigrants, by immigrants. Everyone, even the "Native" Americans emigrated to North America from elsewhere, all for their own reasons. Yet all sought the same thing: a better life. The least we can do is respectfully let everyone live their own lives (and that includes letting them share their opinions and beliefs).

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Regarding the constitutionality of this action, I wonder what would occur if someone were to propose a law in Texas in clear contravention of the text and case law surrounding the 2^nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Probably an outcry, perhaps even a riot. So why aren't the defenders of liberty who support the constitutional right to bear arms equally vexed with the flouting of the constitutional mandate that prohibits the state from promoting religious observances?

It seems to me that the legislators of Texas (those who favoured this resolution, all 266 of them) are rather unmindful of their obligations as agents of the state. Maybe they've been led to believe that democracy is the ne plus ultra of all forms of government, and that they should therefore represent their constituency's opinions without regard for any other considerations. In fact, it wouldn't be a surprise if they themselves hold those same opinions. Or maybe they lust for re-election, and will prostitute their legislative powers to anyone who'll grant them a favour or secure a block of voters. Whatever the faults of the legislative clowns who brought this to fruition, the fact that Texas stands for this kind of foolishness can't help but cast its populace in a negative light.*

Particularly bad is the manner in which most Texan FIRST participants will see the results of this change—repeated every morning for the rest of their participation in school. Under the old pledge, the recitations were patriotic (in a saccharine way), but mostly harmless. (America is rife with saccharine patriotism as well, but that's a different beast.) By contrast, the recent modifications render it a form of mandatory prayer—this is unconscionable by any rational standard. How convenient, then, that when people are at their most impressionable—as children—it is suggested daily that their responsibilities as citizens are subordinate to their devotion to the Abrahamic god. This is not a recipe for sound public policy, and at worst, subliminally reminds everyone that it's alright to believe that the source of Texan greatness is a deity with a poor track record.

In any event, there's a well-supported stance propounded by some American linguists that the phrase "under God" was used in the 1800s to mean "God willing", and not "subject to God", as it is contemporarily understood. The 1951 modifications to the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance recall the Gettysburg Address of 1863, in which Lincoln apparently used that phrase in this context. What if the Texas Pledge said instead: "...I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state inshallah..."? After all, that's the same thing, said a little differently. What do we suppose would transpire, if that were proclaimed to open a session of the Texas Legislature? Ask, then, whether this is really about the god of Abraham (who Muslims also worship), or just promoting Christianity in general.

More broadly, this is a reckless attempt by religous bigots to inflict their own insubstantiatable beliefs upon everyone. The fact that they choose to practice their religion among themselves is tolerable; the fact that they use the state's slogan to proselytize in a manner inconsistent with the role of the state is not. Slogans of these nature are the stuff of holy books and bumper stickers, and cannot be the official positions of tolerant, equitable societies. You can pray when you feel compelled to do so, and you can declare your fealty to your pantheon of choice any time, but you shouldn't waste everyone else's time while you indulge your religious fervour.

I've got to take issue with the notion that respectful treatment means equal treatment. I can contrive any combination of frankly stupid notions, and call them my heartfelt religion. Worse, it's not out of the question that I might trick others into taking up my ridiculous cause. Why must society suffer the burden of accomodating these fantasies, when I declare it to be Holy Time? There's nothing wrong with prominently displaying the uncontroversially positive (or neutral) aspects of a culture, such as that tree with presents underneath, or the big shiny candelabra. The trouble arises when you do so in a manner that implies that the insubstantiatable beliefs that spawned the tree and menorah are themselves as real and venerable as the icons themselves. That's promoting religion, and that's the crux of the problem.

Here is a list of some of the offending statutes.

*Present company excepted, because here we seem willing to argue these things civilly, rather than force them upon our neigbours.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Keep in mind that I am a christian and I do believe in God and that I do respect other's belief's (I have athiest friends and Jewish friends, and then a multitude of others).

But also know this, you should have learned it by now. Our Forefathers built this country under the Bill of Rights, which give the right ot choose your own religion, but our country was declared by the Declaration of Independence.
In the first paragraph,
When they wrote the Declaration of Independence, they wrote in there the belief in God, and that they built this country on the freedoms that He has given us. They built this country Under God. We don't necissarily need the Under God in our pledges because of everyone's beliefs, but because that is how our country was built. We are on nation, built under God.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Before everyone goes too far, realize that in the course of human events, those people through the ages who have acted with justice and a will to treat others with respect have overwhelmingly believed in a supreme being. Our founding fathers recognized this fact. Multitudes of other organizations including the Boy Scouts, Masons, and nearly every religion on earth also recognize that men and women who profess a belief in a being higher than themselves, act in a manner befitting someone of respect. This fact does not make ours a religious based government nor does it promote religion. It was the hope of our founding fathers, that those chosen to govern would not only be recognized for their beliefs but would also recognize that certain things are answerable to a higher authority. Now, that being said, not all politicians act in a manner befitting a person who believes in a supreme being, a sad thing for all of us. Although God doesn't take an visibly active role in government, we as citizens hope that someone is watching over those who govern. We profess that belief with the words "one nation, under God". It doesn't read "My God", "Jacks' God" or "Earth Mother", simply "God". By so recognizing a supreme being in this way, it diminishes our ability to do whatever we want with respect to our family, our land, our neighbors or supposed enemies. Some of the states listed in Tristan's link recognize this in the wording of their precepts. However, one should read very carefully each of the paragraphs. Not all of them prevent someone from holding office if they do not believe. And before anyone starts pointing fingers, we should remember that state's rights allow the people of each state to make some self determination. If the people of the great state of Texas choose, through their representatives, to add certain words to their pledge, then it is not our place to chastise them for their decision.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Most times these days when I read discussions about "establishment of religion," the arguments seem to ignore the historical background which led to the inclusion of this wording in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

England, from which the colonies had just made themselves independent, had (and still has, last I heard), one "established" church. It was a government-sanctioned denomination--a specific organization, with specific creeds, practices, etc. I don't know if this is still true in England, but in some countries, taxpayers are forced to support the one established church and its clergy.

In colonial times, people who held beliefs differing from those of the colonial government-sanctioned church were often persecuted, to the point of having to flee their colony.

The founders of our country wanted to avoid this sort of evil; in fact, they wanted to maximize religious freedom. Hence, the 2-part statement: no government-run churches, and no government restrictions on religion.

But today there are many people who whine any time anyone in government says or does anything the tiniest bit "religious." All Americans--whether government officials or not--have the freedom to express religious beliefs. So if Congress wants to open with a prayer, the Constitution guarantees their right to do so. If a public school child is asked to write a book report on his favorite book, and he writes about the Bible, his teacher has no business telling him to choose another book.

If you don't like someone else saying "Under God," or talking or writing about their religious beliefs, you are entitled to your opinion. But you have no right, under the U.S. constitution, to try to force them to shut up. If you can't stand the religious freedom available in this country, then move to China or Vietnam, where the governments are busy arresting, jailing, and otherwise persecuting religious people.

And if you are a student in Texas, and have to say a pledge to the Texas flag (that sounds ludicrous to a Californian!), no one may force you to say "under God" if you don't want to. But if other people want to say those words, let them. Hearing them say it isn't going to harm you.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Texas has quite an exciting history filled with wonderful adventurers, pioneers, and history makers.
Here is a link to some of the early time line -
http://www.lsjunction.com/events/events.htm

Here is a link to information in Wikipedia regarding Texas history -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Texas

The history helps me understand that Texas is rich in cultural and political diversity. The richness is a large part of why Texas is the way it is and does what it does, sometimes creating controversy along the way.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Are students forced to recite the Texas pledge, or do some just stand quietly? While at our school I do expect the students to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, I do not force them to repeat it. I would think if one's convictions are such that one is uncomfortable saying "under God" out loud, one can simply pause for breath at that time.
The idea of incorporating "God" into patriotism is not a novel thing in America - simply look north and listen to "O Canada" sometime.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

But what about atheists and agnostics? I would argue that atheism and agnosticism are a form of religious belief - just as mainstream Christianity/Judaism/Islam are. The words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance do not represent all religious beliefs equally. It respects only one form of religious belief - the ones which profess a belief in God - and no others.

With regards to how laws are made, the Declaration of Independence has no influence. It is not a legislative document - it's more like a mission statement. We must answer to the Constitution (the supreme authority on legislative matters) with regards to this issue.

What does it mean to "build a country under God"? Does it mean that religion should be legislated upon the people? The Constitution says "No". Does it mean that every citizen is entitled to practice the religion of their choice freely? The Constitution says "Yes"!

The belief in a higher power is absolutely NOT a prerequisite to acting "in a manner befitting of respect". I have seen both Atheists and Believers commit reprehensible and inappropriate acts; conversely, I have seen both Atheists and Believers act with dignity and leadership. The qualities which make someone a model citizen have nothing to do with religious belief - they have to do with one's ability to lead, think, empathize, and act responsibly.

I am not a member of the so-called "over-politically correct" crowd. I could care less if a person chooses to express their religious views publicly or otherwise. I have a problem only when such expressions are sanctioned by LEGISLATIVE actions. There is nothing wrong with a child writing a book report about The Bible in class. There is nothing wrong with Christmas trees in the mall, or a Menorah in a shop window. There is nothing wrong with letting people embrace their various religious beliefs in public, as long as it is not being mandated or funded by the Government.

As I have said before, by legislating that the words "under God" be included in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Government is recognizing an establishment of a particular religion (and is excluding other religious beliefs). Leaving the words "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance is not suppressing anyone's right to free speech. There are plenty of other ways people can express their belief in God that are not written in legislation. It seems pretty silly to think that saying "under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance is the only way for a person to express that belief.

--Jaine

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

If students object to reciting the pledge, they can bring a written note from home, excusing them from participating. That is my understanding.

I had 2 children in 3 different high school environments. It varied depending on the school and within that, it varied depending on the teachers. My daughter had one teacher that would ask the students to stand and for the boys to remove their hats while saying the pledges. My son recited them every day.

I have no issue with this personally, and I don't tend to get involved in religious or political discussions. The reason is simple - I love living in the United States. It is not perfect by any means, but there is always the opportunity for change, for voters to make a difference, for future generations to make an impact - and there is always the opportunity to express an opinion appropriately or keep it to oneself. I respect that and I appreciate that freedom. :)

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Honestly, my teachers aren't "uptight" about it and you are free to recite if you wish, but you MUST still stand up and observe silence if you choose not to recite. But I do not know the official ruling of our district, this is just my experience so far.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

This implies that the parents have the right to veto their child's beliefs. When the child is willing and able to make a choice (subjectively right or wrong, as the case may be), this is hardly fair. Parents certainly have the right to influence their children, but there's no need for them to be the arbiters of their child's worldview—children must learn to think for themselves, and must be permitted to develop their own opinions.

Quite right that in Canada, we too have patriotic observances with religious themes. However, in my experience and to my knowledge, students are not compelled by regulation to sing O Canada. (For example, religious objectors regularly sit quietly when it is played.)

More importantly, the anthem is poetic and figurative (especially in its French version, which is often heard in unison with the English, even in English-speaking places) rather than a personal and specific declaration of allegiance. Canadians don't literally expect our hearts to glow as we see Canada rise—but Texans presumably do expect that their pledge should be followed literally, as written. That's why I don't really have a problem with O Canada—it's like the Christmas tree sitting harmlessly in the mall, symbolic and not prescriptive.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

This is part of an article I found when I googled Texas Pledge of Allegiance.
There was a little more that listed other states with pledges but I didn't see any sense in introducing them into this discussion.


Houston Chronicle
Aug. 2, 2007, 1:14PM
Students must remember ‘God’ in Texas pledge
By MELANIE MARKLEY

Texas students will have four more words to remember when they head back to class this month and begin reciting the state’s pledge of allegiance.

This year’s Legislature added the phrase “one state under God” to the pledge, which is part of a required morning ritual in Texas public schools along with the pledge to the U.S. flag and a moment of silence.

State Rep. Debbie Riddle, who sponsored the bill, said it had always bothered her that God was omitted in the state’s pledge.

“Personally, I felt like the Texas pledge had a big old hole in it, and it occurred to me, ‘You know what? We need to fix that,’ “ said Riddle, R-Tomball. “Our Texas pledge is perfectly OK like it is with the exception of acknowledging that just as we are one nation under God, we are one state under God as well.”

By law, students who object to saying the pledge or making the reference to God can bring a written note from home excusing them from participating.

But adding that phrase has drawn criticism from some who say it’s unnecessary and potentially harmful to children who don’t share the same religious beliefs. “Most Texans do not need to say this new version of the pledge in order to be either patriotic or religious,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. “This is the kind of politicking of religion that disturbs many Americans, including those who are deeply religious.”

The revised wording in the Texas pledge took effect on June 15, and the Texas Education Agency sent an e-mail reminding school districts about the change earlier this week.
(...)
Texas has had a pledge of allegiance since 1933. In 2003, the Legislature required all schools to pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags and observe a moment of silence every morning at the beginning of class.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

On one hand, we are free to change the laws if we disagree.

On the other hand, mentioning God is not promoting a religion. Not entirely atheistic, but still far short.

That being said, it's not something to get all to riled up about - unless that first hand is your goal. Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't - nobody really knows, or can claim to. The bible may be true, may be utter fiction, or may be somewhere in-between. I am not going to profess my faith* on anyone else unless they ask me to. Maybe not even then.

I was being serious up in that earlier post, but in hindsight it may be misconstrued as mocking. Let's just say I'm somewhat religious, leave it at that.

There is still plenty of room for science in there, too.

I just hope nobody is offended by an open discussion like this on a perhaps controversial topic. It's good to talk about these things, and to hear other viewpoints.

[/soapbox]

*and, after all, it is just a faith, not proven.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Yeah, I know. I was pointing out the irony of the situation through sarcasm. It's kind of hard to detect sarcasm through text... :P

Yeah, it may seem unconstitutional, but no one is forcing you to say it, which is probably why it is still in there. What's odd why they put it in in the first place. Of course, the fact that you don't have to say the Pledge doesn't justify that phrase being in there, but, to me, it sort of makes it seem less unconstitutional.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

My question is... why does Texas and the other, unmentioned, states have their own pledge? I see it as a waste of 30 seconds... we don't need to say we love our country everyday. What about those that hate this country? Or disagree with its policies. Is it treason to not say the pledge based on those grounds?

I never recited it because I thought it was pointless, and besides, they only had us saying it until the 6th grade or so... I spent my time thinking about/doing the homework that was assigned the night before or going over problems in my head during this time. I'm not one to waste time reaffirming something.

I'm at a middle road on religious beliefs. I like to think there is a God (god) but I put more weight in science. I have to see it to believe it (wholly), to overstate a beaten horse cliche.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

That is exactly why these discussions pop up on CD - people can feel safe expressing their opinions without fear of being subjected to the immature actions found elsewhere on the Internet and world at large.
While these discussions are excessively off the topic of robots, I welcome them. They provide a diverse set of views from an intelligent, cohesive group of individuals. They also allow for CD members to express themselves beyond the one-dimensional world of FIRST Robotics. Thank (insert deity here) for CD Chit-Chat.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Agreed, but in the big scheme of things, the belief in a higher power does tilt the balance towards justice and right. I am not saying that non-believers by definition are bad people as you have pointed out, I was merely referencing the founding fathers beliefs. Remember that no one outwardly expressed atheistic doctrine at the formation of this nation or for that matter well into the twentieth century. I disagree that the words "under God" is establishing a particular religion. It is so easy to point to the word "God" and conclude a Judeo/Christian/Islamic religion (about half of the world population believes in this same supreme being). In fact there are references to supreme beings in most established religions. And although Bhuddists do not have God as a central belief, there is a great emphasis on maintaining justice and repsect for the individual.

Jeremiah, to know a Texan is to love them. You don't ask "why", you just have to accept it.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Those are the individuals, who I believe are more than free to leave the country that I love, adore, and would die for.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

I'm not sure a day goes by when my kids get vetoed on something by my wife or me.

Can we have ice cream tonight? no - you had it last night
Can I stay up another 15 minutes to watch this TV show? no - it's time for bed
Will you let me use the car tonight? no - you didn't take care of it last time, so you have lost that luxury
I don't want to go to church today. well, get dressed, 'cause you're going anyway

Veto, veto, veto... that is part of being a parent. The more important part is love, love, love. So, while we do veto often, we also understand, listen, ask questions and explain things along the way. It's our job and right to influence and guide our children until they are adults.

All parents are different, of course. However, when it comes to being able to influence or veto my child's beliefs, I do surely have the right to do so if I believe it is warranted.

As for the Texas Pledge of Allegiance, if one of my daughters came home and asked me to write a note to exclude them from saying "under God", I would ask many questions, and then not write the note. However... if I raised my family so that we did not believe in a god, then I surely would write the note.

Andy B.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

In response to Jeremiah's question about why some states have pledges - in this case, the pledge and the flag go together:
http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/.../tx_pledge.htm

States have flags, birds, trees - symbols. Some of our states have pledges.
Think about this - companies have mission statements. If we read their mission statement, it gives us an understanding of who they are. Many teams develop mission statements as well.

A good place to ask many of these questions is in your American History classes.

(I do know how much Texans value and respect their Texas flag. We have carried Texas flags with us to Lone Star Regional and have given them as gifts. We've also taken them with us to Atlanta.)

P.S. It is always my hope that we are an inclusive society. We work together to resolve our differences, sometimes deciding mutually to agree to disagree. Our country has endured much in it's short life as a country. We still experience growing pains as a democracy. My grandmother's view of the United States began in the late 1800's and though she lived to her late 80's, she did not live to see the influence of the Internet or cell phones. She would have loved to know that we just experienced a teacher at work on Endeavour. It is important to look at where we've been in order to move forward sometimes. It is important to learn our history and use it to guide our future history that we create. It is important that we work together, learn together, improve society together - just like being on a team.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

I agree Jane, it is important to look back into our history to better plan our future, and also best to work together than alone.

At our shcool, you are not forced to say the Pledge of Alligiance at all, but you are to respect our country and others by at least standing up and remaining silent.

We never have had to have a note come in from a parent/guardian permitting their child not to say the Pledge of Alligiance. It's always been up to the student.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

I wasn't intending to refer to requests for material things or privileges, or even requests to skip out on church. Instead I was asking whether it was right for a parent to demand (in this example) that their child accept a particular set of religious beliefs, regardless of the child's thoughts on the matter.

If you tried to raise your child as a Protestant Christian, but your child felt no spiritual connection to that religion, would it be right to try to compel them to discover Christianity? What if they instead were convinced that there was no god but Allah, and that Muhammed was his prophet (i.e. they believed in Islam)? Would it be proper to treat your child as if he were a Christian, when in fact he believed himself a Muslim?

And even if you don't initially agree to let the child find their own faith, as the child becomes better able to make important decisions on their own, shouldn't your veto cease to be effective at some point? Given that we already assign all sorts of rights, privileges and duties to high school students, wouldn't it be fair to say that for the most part, they're ready to decide what they want to believe when it comes to religion? (Some people might be ready earlier, some later.) Is it ethically justifiable, or even productive, in this instance, to stand in their way?

If I'm not mistaken, atheism has existed in Western culture since the ancient Greeks—philosophers Socrates, Diagoras and Epicurus did not believe in gods, and wrote or lectured extensively on the matter (in their cases, they did not accept the traditional Greek pantheon). While you're right that it wasn't very popular for centuries thereafter, prior to the founding of the U.S., European philosophers Voltaire and Hobbes espoused rather atheistic ideas as well. Among prominent early American statesmen, Jefferson, Paine and Franklin were deists who believed in some form of universal divinity, but did not believe in the Abrahamic god—it is not certain whether they would have characterized their nation as one "under God", or instead believed in a god with a hands-off approach (who did not watch over America in particular, or even Humanity in general).
There are different interpretations regarding just who this "God" is. Many would say it's the Christian god, because the majority of Americans are Christians. But you're right to state that any system of belief which supposes the existence of a god could be represented here. What Jaine seems to be asking, however, is why make reference to religion at all? Doesn't the fact that a religious icon is invoked make this a state endorsement of religion (vs. non-religion).

It would seem that even establishing a part of a religion is enough to violate the Constitution. By this I mean that the state doesn't need to go to the trouble of defining every possible aspect of a religion to violate this tenet; instead, defining any aspect of that religious belief would be enough to contravene it. For example, if the government published a mass and proclaimed it into law, that would be an illegal establishment of religion, even if the mass were non-denominational and inter-faith (and maybe not even Christian at all). I'd argue that by the same token, defining an official slogan that celebrates a god is equally a fundamentally religious act, even if the god in question is not named.
That's a hard case to make, because it is so broadly worded. And while we're at it, we have to be especially careful about our definitions of justice and right—after all, religions have a tendency to generate their own particular prescriptions for what is just and right, and these prescriptions tend to entrench themselves in our culture. One might argue that it's not the belief in a higher power that creates just individuals, but rather that widespread belief shapes the very definition of justice in its own image.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Tristan,
Remember that I/we was/were discussing the founding of this country and the choice of words "under God" and the various other references in the early documents in the later half of the 1700's. Virtually all colonists were from religious backgrounds and/or countries. Atheistic views were simply not expressed by those people settling the colonies. As you point out there are some remarkable examples of people who profess to be atheist or perhaps more accurately agnostic.
As to the separation of church and state, again we must turn to those times and realize that a major reason settlers came to this continent was to escape the religious persecution they endured in their own countries. It is pretty clear the first ammendment addresses this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Let us also not forget that our government is an establishment to not rule over the people but to have a representative government of the people. Abraham Lincoln spoke to this fact nearly one hundred years later in the Gettysburg address, "government of the people, by the people, for the people". Now since the majority of "We, The people" believe in a supreme being, it follows that the majority expect our leaders to believe also and we also can tell as a majority when the government would step over the line in establishing a religion. I think that this country has done an outstanding job preventing religious persecution and allowing the "free exercise therof" without establishing a religion.
Finally, I disagree with your opinion that my statement is broadly worded. In examining world history and government, those who instituted changes that make us what we are today, in the majority, have believed in a supreme being. That being said, representative governments, this one in particular, have taken great strides at making laws that are not influenced by religious views. I think that you and I can make a decision of what is just and that decision would be void of religious definition. It is right irrespective of what a religious leader may say to the contrary.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Our country was founded on Christian principles, yet much controversey is currently going on. People want to take "under God", and "In God We Trust" out of our nation. The reason Texas is now adding "under God", is because they are showing that they support the Christian principles this country was founded on. As for the debate between a planned, intellegent creation by God, or a random evolution, I find it pretty clear. I will write further thoughts on this topic later. Lastly, God does rock! It's amazing just how awesome your life can get when you truely learn to give God all control.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Sure it may have been founded on Christian principles but big whoop? Our founding fathers decided the issue "separation of church and state" and that is the end. Christianity is a religion last time I checked. I have NO PROBLEMS with Christians or anyone really, its just doing mindless stuff to begin with, not to mention bypassing nation laws at the same time AS WELL as the principles this country was founded on.

Pavan.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

I’ve resisted posting in this thread a few times over the past few days. I feel bad that I haven’t brought myself to write something more elaborate or thoughtful to add another voice that’s similar to that of my old debate teammate, Tristan’s (oh the old days when it was Iraq, more religion, and Bush/Kerry). I just find myself not having the time or patience to be able to add my voice to these discussions in the manner I’d want to. Sorry for hanging you out to dry a little, old friend.

I just felt I needed to say a few things in this thread before I, most likely, fade back out of these topics on CD.

It’s typically considered “out of bounds” to liken people to Hitler, even if some people can see the analogy. It’s just inflammatory, and will most likely turn a few people off or piss a few people off. Talking about Hitler in a historical context (like when talking about WW2, etc.) is okay, though. I’m not saying anything about you or your ideas, Pavan. That was just for all people to take into account.

Also, I personally don’t care if our founding fathers or if the first European settlers in North America were religious or not. Most of them were, and a few of them weren’t, that’s just how it seemed to be. Justifying the encroachment of religious words at the least and ideals (anti-abortion / anti-same sex marriage) in the worst case on their religiousness is just very unsettling to me. Let’s outlaw people who work on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday (depending on your religion), too, or do other things with equally religious roots that don’t make sense to us non-believers while we’re at it. I remember the pledge of allegiance when I was taught it in public school in First or Second grade. I also remember thinking, as a non-religious person, as though I was being forced against my will to say it ("under God") everyday through Fifth grade. No one ever told me I didn’t have to say that part, and since I was forced to say the whole thing everyday, I thought that meant all of it. I was resentful. Young children should, at the very least, be told by their teachers in our public schools that it’s acceptable to omit that part if it isn’t just outright removed.

I seriously don’t care if religious people want to practice their religion. I don’t care if they go to their church equivalent once a year or if they go 5+ times per day. All I want is to be able to live my life without being treated as though I’m less of a person in any way for not being religious. That and that I really don’t want people to try to convince me to join their religion. If it’s working for you, I’m glad, but my life is good, I'm as moral as the next person, and I'm a thoughtful person. I’m fine without religion.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

The one thing that really gets me about these debates is people’s denial of faith. Alright so you don’t believe in God/gods/Allah/Jehovah/Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed/Shiva/Flying Spaghetti Monster, but you put your faith somewhere. “I base my beliefs around facts, logic and scientific reasoning,” I hear this all the time, being a Christian in college you hear all the arguments from professors, roommates, students, even the crazy guys who yells on the free speech lawn and tells you your going to hell because you listen to Rock and Roll or because you wear baggy pants. Whether you believe in life from non life or a Divine Creator, Common Ancestry or Common Design, you’ve established your faith somewhere. Whether God is your God, or science is your God you’ve established a belief system that you serve. Unless, you’re a Nihilist, in which case you believe in nothing, so I guess the phrase should be more fairly put “One State/Nation under God or Nothing.” But wait, if you’re a Nihilist why are you complaining about fair? You believe in nothing, I mean common, who is the Nihilist here?

My point? No matter how trivial it is, denial of faith is silly, of course I know agnostics and atheists don’t believe in an “Apparition that is like floating around in the cosmos man,” (Quote from my freshman year roommates) but you’ve established a belief in say the Big Bang theory and perhaps Matter being the end all be all and this is your God. Or perhaps you believe in a survival of the fittest mentality in which you are your own god (I’ve met dozens of people who claim this) and what better than you to say “One State/Nation under Me.”

What Ramifications does this have? Well none really other than the fact that this tidbit of knowledge helps me to say the pledge with the knowledge that I can’t really offend anyone. In fact, my biggest worry about saying the pledge is the original socialistic trends, right hand over heart left hand outstretched, and the original pledge leaving out key words because Woman and Blacks rights were still controversial. The recitation of the pledge should not be and is not necessary according to a 1943 Ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette apparently according to Wiki ‘“Compulsory Unification of Opinion” violates the First Amendment. Tell your teacher this and they’ll probably give you extra credit for knowing what compulsory means. Add in that this was oddly enough brought to court by Jehovah’s Witnesses because they believe recitation to be idolatry and you may just get a cookie as well.

Of course a significant number of the founding fathers were religious; we all know the puritans came on the Mayflower to avoid religious persecution from the state establish Church of England, which oddly enough had annexed itself from papal authority not long before because the King wanted to get divorced. But we also know that Jamestown settlers were as rough and tough as they come, and skimming over the diaries of those Men/Women will leave chills. This country has a dynamic history which is heavily influenced by religion, and the fact is we still are. According to a 2001 Self-Described Religious Identification of U.S. Adults 85% of Americans claim to believe in some god little g but of those 83.1% believe in the big G God. So claiming, as some have that Atheism/Agnostics is the new national trend, you’d be hard pressed to prove that true.

I know this post is getting rather lengthy and I haven’t really touched as much as I should upon the main issue so I’ll conclude by saying this. In a nation of which 85% of the people still believe strongly in a god it is hard to get a word in edgewise. Sitting back and evaluating the situation; supporting legislation of the mandatory recitation of a 20 second pledge that includes the 85% unifying words “Under God” is not something I’d likely lobby for, not out of religious beliefs but more out of a Libertarianesque political view. So this stance is mute in a religious sense because it has little to do with “Under God” being religious persecution and more to do with the forced “Compulsory Unification of Opinion” type of persecution. National pride is important I have it and recite the pledge happily when asked, but being forced to recite anything against your will is in direct violation of your rights and intolerable. Through it all I know that I stand Under God at all times and that is what is important to me.







P.S. Bill, bringing up abortion in this argument is misplaced because though Pro-Life is a stance that many God Fearing people take, it is not exclusive to them. Many Agnostic/Atheistic Doctors and Psychologists are against abortion because of long lasting physical and psychological ramifications that result in the mothers due to these procedures. Also it’s not a debate about the morality of abortion or personal rights, it’s a debate based on whether life begins at conception or at birth. If you believe at conception, then you believe pro life, if you believe life begins at birth, then you believe pro choice.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

This is from the Texas Almanac.
http://www.texasalmanac.com/religion/
I'm thinking that a census is taken every 10 years and a new one will be published in 2010. These are how the faiths break down in Texas. I'm including it to add a little perspective.

Here is the Handbook of Texas On-Line as well. It gives a little background. (I'm sorry, I've searched for non-believer numbers and break down in Texas and I can't find anything on-line.)
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/.../RR/izrdf.html

The initial post asked why the statement, 'one state under God', was included in the state pledge of Texas. That question has been answered. Now the thread has turned into a general discussion for the most part.

There are many FIRST teams in Texas and there are many sponsors that support these teams in Texas. Please try to remember that and help keep things in perspective as we post. I never forget that I'm a member of 418 and what I say and more importantly, how I say it, reflects on myself and the team. This is the chit chat forum, I understand, but we still need to practice tolerance and respect when expressing opinions.

That's an .02
Jane

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

As I read through these posts I am quite refreshed that young adults (and some old - Al & Andy - not Jane) are willing to express their beliefs and chime in on discussions often started by young adults.

Please continue to post with respect to others. Consider what you post - it is often better to write outside the forum - organize the thoughts and re-read to make sure what you have said is appropriate and what you wanted to say then copy/paste or re-write.

Remember there are many eyes watching and often you are judged by what you say and how you say it.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Thank you Mike. I'm older than Andy and Al by a long shot. No biggie.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

I'm saying that our country has had one major rule that has appealed to many foreigners that later settled here. It was freedom of religion and the government's duty to stay out of it.. Now I'll explain my Hitler analogy. Hitler did not meet the criteria of his 'perfect' race, yet he led them. He made rules but he said "you know what, I'm in charge so I'm exempt" similar to how Christianity is becoming in America. Although Christians settled America, THEY decided that there was going to write and preach separation between church and state. That said, now they (Christians) are pulling an Adolph, saying that our country's roots were this and that, when in all reality they wrote it but think they are exempt. Apologies to everyone Christian who is offended but this is exactly what is going on.

If you write rules, you must FOLLOW them [for any of you thinking about joining Congress one day].

Pavan.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Well, but in a way, isn't that the point?

There is a discussion going on in another thread regarding diversity.
Some thought is that it doesn't matter, all that matters is that in a team, the more qualified ones should be selected. Demographics shouldn't matter, ethnicity shouldn't matter.

But in this thread, the majority made the decisions when founding our country and the majority are the ones that continue to direct and implement the decisions.

Diversity does matter. It does. It is real and it should be acknowledged. One way to acknowledge it is to become organized and to identify the numbers and figure out who is out there and how it all fits together. There was a change in this century regarding civil rights and developing them. We still have a long way to go. From my point of view, non-believers have a long way to go in getting organized and developing a voice in matters that concern them. For example, on the team when making decisions, there have been one or two members who felt strongly about a direction or approach the team should take in a certain area. The team members who organized their thoughts, their materials and made a convincing presentation could impact the team and create change. The ones that didn't had their ideas ignored. In this society, one person can make a difference. It is how that person goes about it and what they want to do.

My children attended a small Catholic school at the time the state pledge requirement was implemented. The school always had a morning assembly where the national anthem, the national pledge, and the state pledge were sung and recited. This school was Pre K through 8th grade. A vast spectrum of development, growth, and understanding represented. At any point on that time line, if one or both of my children had approached me (I was present at the assemblies) and voiced concern about reciting the pledges, there would have been discussion, questions asked, more discussion - and if all of my questions were answered satisfactorily, I would have told the child to stand quietly and respectfully and I would have spoken to the administration regarding it. That never was an issue but it is what I would have done.

I'm thinking about Bill's thoughts as a 5th grader and younger. That is an area that could be brought to the attention of the elementary school level if it hasn't already been. That the students (and parents) in those grade levels should be told they have a choice. They are and have been studying American history and government at this point befitting their grade level.

Our American society is rich in cultural diversity, belief systems, and as reflected in CD, thoughtful intelligent people. More and more, that will be reflected in our political system and its process. If it isn't, then it is no one's fault but our own.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

The necessity of the change is entirely predicated upon the importance you place in acknowledging humility before God and recognizing that God alone could facilitate the morality and constitution of character demonstrated by our most treasured leaders and citizens. More practically, I'd venture to say the change was necessary only insofar as it provides Rep. Riddle with something to tout come Election Day since, as others have pointed out, lots of folks believe in her god. The bill does nothing to make the lives or futures of Texans better nor more prosperous and, as far as I'm aware, the state has not been undergoing a crisis of identity that requires a little bit of forced unity.

Discussion about this measure in the Texas House included recognition that this bill, "will acknowledge our Judeo-Christian heritage by placing the words 'under God' in the state pledge." That anyone could believe this change then doesn't reflect an endorsement of these sects of religion is astonishing. The "God" of this pledge of allegiance isn't some universal deity or some manifestation of faith in science and logic. It is meant to evoke, unequivocally and without question, the Judeo-Christian God. Rep. Riddle added, "I am simply mirroring our national pledge," while discussing the change.

Our country survived -- though just barely -- through more than a century with no Pledge of Allegiance. It survived another five decades more without any mention of "under God" in its verse. In fact, Thomas Jefferson recognized after nearly eight years in the office of President of the United States that,

"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

The drive to recognize the divine influence of God over the founders of our nation is little more than revisionist history -- an attempt to cash in on good will toward those who near-expertly identified and provisioned for the needs of a growing nation. What is most admirable about these men is not their adherence to Christian principle, but how they had both experience and foresight that led them to codify in our Constitution our freedom to express and practice any religion and to do so without fear of prosecution nor persecution. Pursuant to Jefferson's words and the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights, it becomes clear that Christianity does not have a monopoly on moral or ethical behavior! Our nation's strengths are not informed by Christian systems of belief, but by our collected experiences as immigrants from all parts of the globe fleeing persecution -- whether it be because of our religion, our race, or our caste.

The addition of "under God," to the recitation of the United States' Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and again to Texas' own Pledge in 2007 are fundamental affronts to the circumstances that formed this country. Compulsory recitation of either as required by law represents an unethical and unconstitutional recognition of religion in violation of the First Amendment and has been recognized as such by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. in 2002.

I am not offended by those that attribute our country's enormous successes to the leadership and wisdom of their god, but by their effort to force that opinion upon me through law and indoctrination. While some may consider this issue small or inconsequential, I'd argue that the Kristallnacht did not come without warning. I will not sit quietly at the sideline so that the majority may do as it sees fit, nor will I move to "China or Vietnam" so that I might return content with relative freedom.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

I didn't mean to say that I disagreed with your analogy. I just meant that there are other possible analogies out there that could be used instead of pulling the Hitler card, which as I said, is pretty inflammatory to a fair number of people. You've been doing a good job, just wanted to help out a little :)

Dan, I'd bet that the vast majority of the objections to abortion / same-sex marriage originated from religion. Neither of us has meaningful data on this, so it's pretty much useless for us to go back and forth about this. If people thought that those things were gross or wrong (non-believers) then quite likely they'd just be fine not doing it themselves, but if their God tells them they shouldn't do it then, usually, they feel as though they need to spread that restriction to everyone else in the world because they think us non-believers are either heathens or just misinformed. That's my point, religious people feel there needs to be legislation / constitutional amendments to impose their God's idea on the rest of us.

I may believe in "nothing," as you said, but it's still offensive to me to have other people force their ideals on me or look down on me for not sharing their beliefs. By caring about this, you haven't tricked me into believing in anything other than my freedom to be free of everyone else's religion, which I have here.

I'm here now, and when I'm dead I'll be dead. I can't do anything after I'm dead, just like I couldn't do anything before I was born, so I better have a good time while I'm here.

Hi Maddie. Long time no see in these threads. Remember those Tigerbolt days? :p

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "sect" means:
"a dissenting or schismatic religious body; esp: one regarded as extreme or heretical ... a religious denomination ... a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader ... PARTY ... FACTION"

"Judeo-Christian heritage" is a very broad term, encompassing a mindset common to a large majority of Americans up through the middle of the twentieth century. Usually this would include belief in God, with the Ten Commandments (don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, etc.) as the basic moral foundation. It would not necessarily include belonging to a church or synagogue, however. It also encompasses two major world religions, one of which was derived from the other.

The term "sect" is not appropriate to these broad concepts, but would refer to any of the innumerable smaller groups within the major religions, e.g., Hasidim or Missouri Synod Lutherans. As I mentioned in my previous post, the prohibition against establishment of religion refers to the government preferring one of these "denominations" over the others, as differentiated from acknowledging the basic views on God and morality held by most of our citizens earlier in our nation's history.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

No you're not! I'm the oldest, er older, um old.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Excuse my ignorance, but is Texas the only state that has a separate pledge of allegiance than the National one??

I have to ask that question before I chime in to any further discussion about this.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

No, Texas is not the only one. The pledges of the states go with the flags, usually. The flags are symbols as are other things. Also, many of the states have mottos. Those are very cool.
I could name a few states but it might be more fun for you to google and find some of the states, their pledges, their mottos, etc.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

Ok, not bothering to read everything... its late.

Some key inputs:

Thomas Jefferson, along with other founding fathers, considered himself a Deist. An olden-days spinoff of modern day agnosticism, if you will.

The word God never appears in the Constitution.

The phrase "seperation of church and state" was first used by Thomas Jefferson, and then quoted by the Supreme Court. It is not in the Constitution.

Re: Pledge of Allegiance Changed...
 

For the record, I do believe that "One nation under god" was added to the US pledge of allegiance because people wanted to differentiate themselves from the "godless" (at least that's what they thought) communists. My understanding is that the addition of "one nation under god" is just another artifact of the cold war.