View Poll Results: Do you have a problem with "Under God" being said in the "Pledge of Allegiance"?
Yes 23 38.98%
No 25 42.37%
Don't Care 11 18.64%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Pledge of Allegiance

Yep, GuardianB, that's what I meant. It doesn't seem to me that Jews or Muslims or Buddhists, etc. have much of a problem with mentioning "god" in the Pledge. It's the people who don't believe in ANY of those gods that have a problem.
Originally Posted by Who Me?
Not quite true. Muslims don't call their god "God" - they call their god "Allah" and would have problems calling their god "God." Buddhists do not believe in transcendant, personal a god or goddess. There are many religious which believe in multiple gods and goddesses and would have a problem with pledging allegiance to a nation that under a "God" instead of all the gods. (And some adherents to the 3 Abrahamic religions believe that speaking the name of God, Jehovah, or Allah aloud is a blasphemy, anyway.)

The whole Under God thing really does reflect a Judeo-Christian bias - not just a bias against the nonreligious.
Originally Posted by kurlykitty
Thanks, kurlykitty. Every time I've mentioned my position against the Pledge of Allegiance (in "real life"), people have jumped on me saying that all religions have a god, not just the christians, etc. I hadn't really had the chance to think it through and prove them wrong!
"I don't know! I don't know why I did it, I don't know why I enjoyed it, and I don't know why I'll do it again!" -BART SIMPSON
No, they haven't ruled yet. That story is just a reporter's early interpretation of the justices' thoughts based on the questions they asked the lawyer presenting the case. Could be an accurate interpretation or it could be misreading the justices playing devil's advocate.

The justices likely won't issue their opinions for months.
Originally Posted by Gretchen
darn!

i should've remembered that it takes several months for opinions to be rendered.
My blog:

http://labellatestarossa.blogspot.ca/

Little Mother of all the Roaches, President-for-Life of the MAC Harlots!
Yep, GuardianB, that's what I meant. It doesn't seem to me that Jews or Muslims or Buddhists, etc. have much of a problem with mentioning "god" in the Pledge. It's the people who don't believe in ANY of those gods that have a problem.
Originally Posted by Who Me?
Not quite true. Muslims don't call their god "God" - they call their god "Allah" and would have problems calling their god "God." .
Originally Posted by kurlykitty
Actually, Muslims don't have "their God", as opposoed to the Christians' God, and the Jewish God. To Muslims, it is all the same God - there is only one. They believe in the Torah and the New Testament and the Koran. They revere Moses and Jesus as major prophets. The only difference is that they believe Muhammad was the last prophet sent from God, the same God that sent Moses and Jesus. And from all the Muslims I know (which is lots and lots), they have no problem calling God "God". Allah is just Arabic for God.

I believe the "under God" portion of the pledge is just plain wrong. It clearly violates the separation of church and state that this country was supposedly founded on. But if you want ot go even further on this, one of my fellow co-workers was showing me some fancy certificate he got from the government upon his retirement in the Jag Corp., and it states, for the date, "In the year of our Lord, 2003". Give me a break!!
But if you want ot go even further on this, one of my fellow co-workers was showing me some fancy certificate he got from the government upon his retirement in the Jag Corp., and it states, for the date, "In the year of our Lord, 2003". Give me a break!!
Originally Posted by MichelleR
I think that is what AD (Anno Danai(sp?)) means in Latin. I believe people write out "In the year of our Lord" to sound fancy..but I'm not sure.
Has anybody noticed the term B.C.E. (Before Christian era) is being used instead of B.C. (before christ)?
No, they haven't ruled yet. That story is just a reporter's early interpretation of the justices' thoughts based on the questions they asked the lawyer presenting the case. Could be an accurate interpretation or it could be misreading the justices playing devil's advocate.

The justices likely won't issue their opinions for months.
Originally Posted by Gretchen
darn!

i should've remembered that it takes several months for opinions to be rendered.
Originally Posted by rouquinne
No biggie! You're WAY ahead of me in your understanding of US workings vs. my understanding of Canadian workings!
Gretchen
NaturallyCurly.com co-founder
3A

You are beautiful!
No one should be forced to say it. I wish this country was truly under god, but I wouldn't say it because it's not. I would only pledge allegiance to a country I really believed to be. Not exactly the normal argument there, but reasons for not saying it actually go both ways. Do you or do you not accept that pledge? Do you just not care to say it? So be it.

In terms of church and state seperation, if it's treated as involunteery, then there's resentment. But for those of you that are against it for this reason, do you see the words "under god" in the whole pledge as representative of making an oath to a religious figure and therefore in oppostion to your beliefs, or more of a traditional thing, where God is in there because the people who founded this country believed in him? Either way you probably consider it an infringement of church and state, but I'm curious in what sense do you disagree with the "churchiness" of it?
It was only a sunny smile and little it cost in the giving but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living. - F. Scott Fitzgerald

3B ■ Medium/Course ■ High Porosity
When I was in grade school and had to say the pledge, I would exclude the words 'under god'. I would pause for a second whole everyone else said them. Yes, even in first grade I knew I did not want to make the pledge to god. I remember clearly, even if you didn't say the pledge, you were expected to sit respectfully and shut up while everyone else said it.
Has anybody noticed the term B.C.E. (Before Christian era) is being used instead of B.C. (before christ)?
Originally Posted by papayahed
That's Before Common Era.

CE (Common Era) is also replacing AD (Anno Domoni)
"Beware the man of one book." --Latin proverb
Has anybody noticed the term B.C.E. (Before Christian era) is being used instead of B.C. (before christ)?
Originally Posted by papayahed
That's Before Common Era.

CE (Common Era) is also replacing AD (Anno Domoni)
Originally Posted by kurlykitty
The first time I'd ever heard that was about 10 years ago when I read a book called When God Was A Woman.

I like that it's being used.


Obamacare is not a blueprint for socialism. You're thinking of the New Testament. ~~ John Fugelsang



i have a silly question:

does EVERY school in the US require this? or is the decision to have this said in the schools done on a school-by-school level, a school district level, a state level?

i can't see schools in DC where you have the children of diplomatic corps members in attendance requiring it. or do they have separate schools for them and for children of UN delegates in NYC?

because if i worked at the Canadian embassy in DC and sent my child to a school, i wouldn't want my child saying it.

we have no special school for diplomats' children here in Ottawa. they attend private or public schools as their parents' wish.

we don't have pledges, but i do recall singing "O Canada" every morning...
My blog:

http://labellatestarossa.blogspot.ca/

Little Mother of all the Roaches, President-for-Life of the MAC Harlots!
I just wanted to add in another reason why some people don't say the pledge. I'm Christian (Jehovah's Witness). And we don't say it because we don't give our allegiance to anyone but God. Since I don't have an allegiance to my country, I don't "pledge" allegiance to the flag. This is also because the Bible says pledging to idols like the flag is wrong. It is similar to the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Anyway, we still have great respect for the country. As Christians we just don't view America or Americans as closer to us than brothers and sisters in Europe, Asia, Africa etc. So theres no greater loyalty based on nationality, just love for anyone who respects/loves God.
Also bothers me in court, you put your hand on on bible and say "I solemnly swear..., so help me God."

Do atheists and non-Christians get to lie?
Also bothers me in court, you put your hand on on bible and say "I solemnly swear..., so help me God."

Do atheists and non-Christians get to lie?
Originally Posted by Poodlehead
Poddlehaed - I don't know about where you live, but here in California, they got rid of the bible and swearing to God. Here, you just raise your hand and say that you swear to tell the truth.
.....to the house groove...
3b
Carlos and Carmen Vidal just had a child
A lovely girl with a crooked smile
Now they gotta split 'cause the Bronx ain't fit
For a kid to grow up in
Let's find a place they say, somewhere far away
OK i haven't read all the responses before me but isn't there enough to worry about in this world other than the words "under God"
What's next...money is going to have to change too???
Really people are just looking to ****** at something!
The fact is the pledge of allegance was written so long ago, its just part of the american heritage, why does it have to be taken so literally.
Can't we remember what this country was found upon without people going crazy over the wording??
I just think its so absolutely ridiculous that people are up in arms over the words "under God" and making people say it because not everyone is christian and what not but no one cares that this country wants to ban gay marriages which IS ALSO....based on soley religious beliefs!

If you really wanna fight for separation of church and state then it should be for COMPLETE separation not just for the things you want to be separate.
Rou- NO schools in the US are allowed to require us to say the pledge.

My dad was one of the kids tormented by the mandatory prayer. He had a teacher who made the class say the lord's prayer (is that supposed to have capitals? I don't know) and he refused. He got in trouble every day. That school year the Supreme Court made the ruling that it could not be required in public schools. The day after the ruling he asked the teacher at the beginning of class "So, are you going to make us say the prayer today?" He was a total snot....

That experience survived, he still doesn't think there's a problem with the pledge. Legally (he's a lawyer) he also believes that it's not unConstitutional.

This is an edited (so the sensors don't puke on it) quote from him.

The arguments about religion stem from the Constitution which prohibits any attempt to either "establish" a religion, or hamper the "free exercise" thereof.

Most of the arguments like the parent you quoted are garbage (edited) and have nothing to do with the constitution, and are therefore of little effect.

However, is a private school requires students to say a prayer, that is as if the school is saying that everyone must believe in this way. As a result, it is unconstitutional.

The pledge of allegiance is non-sectarian though it does refer to one nation "under God." However, that has been construed to mean whatever deity you believe in, and, children are not forced to say the words, only to be respectful. Of course, if a kid does not want to say the pledge, he will probably take a lot of **** anyway.

The really biggest issue is over school funding. Giving funds to a parochial school smacks of supporting or establishing a religion, and has been the major battle ground.

Then of course there is the interplay between free speech and freedom of religious expression.

People who advocate to put religion in the school are doing so on religious grounds, in an attempt to foster their religious view. That is exactly what the constitution forbids, yet those are the people most apt to claim that the constitution allows it.
The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
-Speckla

But at least the pews never attend yoga!
Don't we have better things to worry about?

All this stuff about God, gay marriage, the Ten Commandments being displayed in a courthouse seem so superfluous when you remember that we have people who have been out of work for months, a ballooning deficit and troops out there dying for no reason.
Do you know why they call it "PMS"? Because "Mad Cow Disease" was taken.
--Unknown, presumed deceased
CC -- For some people, the belief that the Constitution (the document granting the way of life supposedly being protected by our soldiers are supposed to be protecting) is a critical issue. I don't have a big problem with the words being in the pledge. It's not an official, governmental pledge. I have a problem with government entities using it compulsorily. If people want to use it in the context of private functions fine, the work meetings I go to do that and it doesn't bother me. Part of what bothers me about the arguments being offered in support (aside from factual and historical inaccuracies), gay marriage and the courthouse issue is that they seem to symbolize a narrowing of the fundamental tenet of separation of church and state. The gay marriage amendment idea is particularly troublesome b/c I can't imagine the Constitution being used to narrow and deprive a category of citizens of something. It disgusts me.

People can focus on and regard as important more than one thing. People were sensely dying of hunger, domestic violence and lack of adequate medical care before the war in Iraq. They will continue to do so afterward. I still care about all of those things a great deal in addition to caring about the issues surrounding the Constitution.
Don't we have better things to worry about?

All this stuff about God, gay marriage, the Ten Commandments being displayed in a courthouse seem so superfluous when you remember that we have people who have been out of work for months, a ballooning deficit and troops out there dying for no reason.
Originally Posted by curlyincali
To some people, things like not being allowed to get married, have equal rights, financial and legal security if something should happen to them or their partner, healthcare benifits, the right to have a family... those things might not fall into your 'better things to worry about', but perhaps it does for them....

How insulting for you to trivialize people's personal issues, why- because you don't think they are valid? Hell, with that logic, I have a high paying job and an education.... so why should I care about the poor slob next to me who has been out of work for a year?

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com