Pledge of Allegiance Changed...

[cooker52]

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.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Remember that no one outwardly expressed atheistic doctrine at the formation of this nation or for that matter well into the twentieth century.

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).

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Agreed, but in the big scheme of things, the belief in a higher power does tilt the balance towards justice and right.

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.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

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.

[Cooley744]

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.

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by Cooley744

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. Oh, and if Anyone has Any questions, feel free to message me. I would love to talk to you further about this issue. God Bless.

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.

[Bill Gold]

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.

[Dan Richardson]

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.

[JaneYoung]

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

[Mike Martus]

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.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Mike Martus

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.

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

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

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.

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.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Pavan

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

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.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Pavan

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.

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.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Pavan

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.

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?

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

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.

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.