Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

lets discuss

While I think the Pledge of Allegiance in GENERAL is bad already, reciting it in school (wheter it includes 'under god' or not) seems very... very unnerving to me.

North Korea anyone?

One of the things that irritate me deeply is when people try to draw paralells in American patriotism to tyrranical or facist countries like North Korea, or That-Regime-That-Must-Not-Be-Named.

Suffice to say, KN is not the first person I've encountered to have such sentiments.

I had briefly touched this on our PM a while back, KN, when you said the same thing then as in this thread, but I'll expound on what I said for the sake of discussion.

If North Korea had some sort of pledge of allegiance, you'd likely be shot if you tried to not recite it, or some other form of outrageous punishment.

I know from personal experience that for the United States, this is certainly not the case. Ever. To insinuate that the U.S. is on its way to being a North Korean clone just because of the pledge is absurd--especially given the fact the pledge predates World War I by ... roughly two/three decades.

Given the age of the pledge, KN's opinion that its mere existence is some sort of proof that the U.S. is becoming ever more facist, or that the citizens want to be facists, would mean that this has been happening for more than a century. :/

In my experience with the school system (from California to Texas ... gotta love being an Air Force brat) the pledge of allegiance was never said daily in class, at least until 9/11. At that time, my high school (by popular demand ... note that, KN) decided to set some time aside every morning for students to say the pledge if they wished, led by one of the students.

Even then. NO ONE was MADE to say the pledge in my school. An aquaintance of mine actually made a point of not saying the pledge, as was his right. Sure, fellow students encouraged him to join in, but he refused. His reasoning: "If you have to say it every morning, then it has no meaning."

He was never punished or forced into saying the pledge.

_________________

Still, it's not something often done in other nations, hence my....... unnervingness about this pledge thing.

So then, it makes the U.S. unique, especially given (for all the legal and political battles that have gone on since this nation's birth) it's still a democratic republic despite having one.

The pledge itself isn't a pledge to the government, but of the nation (as in, the people and the union of nation-states). Therefore, the pledge is an affirmation of one's national identity.

I honestly don't see that as a bad thing--you can be proud of what you are and where you come from while still recognizing the black marks of your country's past--just as you can also have pride in what you are while not developing a mindset that you're better than everyone else who isn't a part of your country.

That does explain the logic behind Congress voting to add "Under God" to the pledge during the 1950's, since (as I mentioned in our PM) the Soviets officially declared themselves atheist--and the U.S. was trying to identify itself as the USSR's polar opposite.

However, I personally feel that atheists, agnostics, or others of the vein should be free to say the pledge without that line (or Muslims to say it as "under Allah," for example). Given what I said in the past post, it's very easy to do.

Anywya ... I'd be more inclined to reflect your views if, say, "and to the Republic for which it stands" was changed to "and to the Government for which it stands." I'd be worried then.

_________________

In addition to what Trev was saying, most countries actually do have customs to express their patriotism and to instill patriotism in their children - doesn't have to be in the form of a pledge. I'm sure you'd have customs like that in the Netherlands too, KN, don't you?

Like having national anthems played before football matches, teaching children patriotic poems and nation-centred history at school, the celebration of independence days or patron saints' days, etc etc. These are the more subtle ways of instilling patriotism, but just as effective as saying a pledge every day - it's just an important part of any country's culture.

As regards the opposition to the phrase "under God" in the pledge, I do see where its opponents are coming from. That phrase does excluse US citizens of non-Judeo-Christian traditions from expressing their patriotism by the pledge.

Well.... no. If anyone tried this, non-Dutch would be offended, and the institution that expresses this patriotism would be taken to court.

why dont we just do what that teacher did, "Under your Religious belifes", i mean, a few months ago it was wrong to say it, but now its ok to say it? man, this is another reason i hate atheists who try to get everyone to become athiest.

_________________

The first half of your post was completely untelligible, but the second, unfortunately, was not. Lawsuits and legislation which aim to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance have nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with freedom of religion, something which every sensible person of faith holds dear. Requiring children to say the pledge as written discriminates against all children whose faith--these are religious people we're talking about, not atheists--does not include a single god named God.

It does happen that a number the people pressing for this are atheists, but none that I've heard of have an aim to convert anyone to atheism. No atheist, for example, has tried to ban children from wearing a crucifix pendant to school, or keeping a picture of Jesus on or inside their locker. However, many of Christians have tried to ban young people from wearing pentagrams or putting articles of pagan faiths on or in their lockers. Who is trying to convert whom, here?

_________________

Actually, they have. They aren't children, but I think it still counts. here and here. I don't see a problem with allowing people to not say the pledge, but you shouldn't get rid of it just because some people don't like it.

The only thing that confuses me is how this could be ruled on by a lower court after the it left the supreme court.. Did the Supreme Court not make a ruling on this or something?

I don't know why people make a big deal of this. The pledge is a completely meaningless string of words to most school children. If they aren't taught the meaning of it, there's no point in them reciting it.
I'd still say "Under God", because that doesn't bother me.
I don't have a problem with atheists not saying it.

The big thing here is, "Did saying 'God' offend the kid or the parents?" Hopefully these atheist parents aren't pushing atheism as "the only right choice" on their kids. Too many other religions, beliefs, and the like do that.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

To be fair, neither of those articles mention atheists being involved, but at any rate both are ridonkulous.



I don't think saying it offended anybody, I think it was requiring children to say it that raised the hackles. At any rate, I would be offended if my child were required to recite any solemn oath that he or she doesn't understand (lI sure didn't when I was first taught it), and doubly so if he or she were required to invoke the name of a god not of their choosing.



In my experience (which I admit is narrow), many atheist parents encourage their children to explore as many belief systems as they wish, and I rarely see this practice in Christian households.

_________________

well, why not insted of the pledge of alegiance, they just use the star spangled banner? or just come up with a new Pledge to the flag? on another note, for some reason, down here in texas, we have to pledge the texas flag. why, is what i ask. what makes my state different from everyone elses state?

_________________

WTF? I've never had to do a "Pledge of Allegiance to the Texas Flag" when I was livin' in Texas...Nor have I ever heard of such a thing.

I'm sure that it's because Atheist parents feel like their kids have nothing to lose from worshipping the "wrong" thing.. I mean, if you think that you die, and that's it.. No afterlife, no punishment or reward, no re-incarnation, etc. So, the only things your kids do by worshipping is getting some "crazy" ideas in their heads, and wasting time.

If you believe in some sort of reward or punishment, the stakes go up. You have to make sure your kids don't "stray from the flock", or else, they face eternal damnation or somthing equally uncool..

That's my guess as to why you've seen what you have...

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

StrongRad is right. If you don't believe in heaven or hell, you probably don't care what you're kids believe. But, if you're Christian, it's highly unlikely that you want your kids to end up on the wrong side of eternal life.

_________________

i think it was passed by law a few years ago, i remember having to do this when i moved here to texas in 1999. when did you live here?

_________________

_________________

That's SOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo gonna be sigged! LOL

The only thing I see you would have to fear from your kids worshipping God if you did not believe in a heaven or hell is that they would be "wasting time" that they could be doing something else... but I don't know..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Well, that's no surprise; the Justice Department's argument was bunk. I'd have expected them to come up with something other than that.

_________________

May I ask, what is unconstitutional about the pledge of allegiance and it including "God"? The kids were never required to say the pledge of allegiance (were they?), and are they just annoyed when they hear anyone say "God"? If I went and lived in Saudi Arabia, and people pledged to Ala or some other greater bringing, am I going to pitch a hissy fit because I don't believe in it? No. I respect their beliefs.

It would be more unconstitutional to force people not to say the pledge than saying it; it would be a violation of freedom of speech.

I was watching the O'Reilly Factor last night, and he said that people want a government in witch religion has no part. He also said that "God" is not religion, it's a philosophy, and it's part of American history.

The thing is, if you heard someone pledging Allegiance to Allah, they'd be pledging allegiance to God.. Arabic speaking Christians say Allah when refrencing God...
Allah and God are the same, the God of Abraham.. Funny thing, religion..
The issue is that people are somehow upset of offended that their children are, in effect, forced to say something which acknowledges the existence of God in school.
They feel it violates "seperation of church and state".

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/flagpledge.html

It exists, though I don't really know much else about it. I bet the reason that it exists at all is the same reason Texas is allowed to fly their state flag equal to the US flag: Texas was once an independant country, and they got to throw these little things into their constitution before coming a state.

Our school just decided that bon the last period for Friday, we have a choice to say the Pledge of Allegience., It reminded me of this topic, as AI was just looking at it yesterday. Anyways, i agree that kids should have a choice to say it if they want. I would, but I don't know it very well.

ohh, so thats why, so then....... my state is equal to the country of the united states!

_________________

I've always had to say it everyday in school and honestly, I don't think this makes much of a difference. 7/8 of the kids in my school don't even say the pledge when they're supposed to. It's not because of religous beliefs, its because of apathy towards it. I don't blame them. When you say something every day over a thousand times it loses all meaning.

_________________

I don't think reciting the Pledge of Allegience in school is unconstitutional. I think the requirement to recite it is. And, frankly, if you're not required to recite it, it's rather pointless anyway.



I know that one from firsthand experience. It probably wasn't until high school I finally thought about what that string of words actually meant. Children usually begin reciting the words long before they know what words like "indivisible" mean.

Which is all the more reason the Pledge really doesn't have much purpose. But, just because most children don't pick up anything out of it doesn't mean none of them do. After you day "Under God" for the 1000th time wouldn't you want to learn a little more about this God thing? And when you do, might you be predisposed toward it? After all, you're in a nation under God, you better respect this God guy.



Whether it offends the kid or the parents is unimportant. Many people would find the pledge of allegience offensive if it instead read, "One nation, under no God". If I had a kid I wouldn't want him reciting that pledge -- and I am an atheist. I wouldn't want him to be taught what to believe by a school or a government or possibly even by me. His path is his choosing.



My problem with this is that other people hold contrary beliefs just as strongly, and they usually have just as much experience and evidence to back it up. So what makes that other guy's beliefs wrong and yours right? Why not let your kid evaluate all the options rationally? After all, you're no more certain that you're on the right path than anybody else is, and the same will be true of your child. You can at least afford him a little flexibility.



I hate the Department of Justice and I wish it would just die. In any case involving them I hear about, they have no sense.



The problem is that this suggests an establishment of religion. Some people try to argue with this, and I am forever baffled by this. The same people who say it doesn't establish religion are the same people who are offended by the notion of taking it out, and invariably, they happen to believe in God themselves. Hmm, might there be a connection between the offense and the belief? Nobody I know of who fiercely defends the words isn't Christian (or Jewish). If it isn't establishing religion, what are the words doing there at all?

- Kef

Had you paid attention to the post, you might have noted that I didn't comment about who's beliefs were right or wrong. I was addressing the issue as to why Christian parents might actually care about their children's eternal destinies, whereas atheist parents wouldn't be terribly concerned about such things.

_________________

I understand that, I was just making a point. They may be trying to save their children, but they don't really have any better an idea than anybody else about the right path. So I think maybe that care is somewhat misplaced.

- Kef

None of the founding American documents say "Separation of church and state". It's a clause found in Supreme court rulings.

_________________