Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

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

That's pretty much "separation of church and state", just using different words.

- Kef

That is actually a very good point. Why were the words, "Under God" added in the first place? Did congress or whoever made that desicion even look to see if it was constitutional, and if they did, why was is it constitutional?

The answer to that is really simple: what was going on in the 1950's? We had just fought a war with Germany, and were looking at the possibility of going to war with the Soviet Union (insert Soviet Russia joke here). Anyway, the spin was that the Russians were all atheists (because of the predominance of Communism), and so the US Govt. countered by encouraging Americans to consider themselves God-fearing people. Thus, the "under God" was added to the pledge.

Personally, I'm not even sure most kids even know what their saying when they recite the pledge (it's basically an oath of fealty). To quote Calvin, "I pledge allegiance to Queen Frag, and her mighty state of hysteria." Man, I remember being in grade school reciting the pledge. The word "pledge" to me was that stuff momma sprayed on the furniture, and I had no clue what "allegiance" was! And I was pretty smart for my age, too.

_________________

Not really... It doesn't say ANYTHING about religion not having any part in the government.. it just says that the government can't ban a religion or the free practice of it. It says nothing of the promotion of free practice of a religion.
Sorry, that's all it says.
I hear that all the time when I'm talking about the second amendment.. Why can things be read into one amendment but not another?

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

It also says the government cannot establish a religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Establishment in this sense means basically government-sponsored religion, or the binding of church and state. (This sense of "establishment" had also led to the word antidisestablishmentarianism, the longest word in the English language with any practical use, if we cash aside from alternate suffixes such as -istic.) This statement clearly says the government cannot do that.

So, sorry, it does quite clearly say something about whether or not religion can have a part in government.

- Kef

To be honest, I could care less if the official pledge says "under God" in it. I'm atheist (technically agnostic, but meh), and I just skip over it. Sure, the teacher is miffed, but he usually respects my (non)beliefs, and the world spins yet.

I think that being passive in an issue like this is the best course of action for those against the "under God" pledge. Just go from '...one nation,' to 'indivisible...' and everything goes just fine. Compare this, however, to other recent issues of religion in public schools, and it's just a drop in the ocean.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

And I used to think that the one nation was invisible. AAAARRRRGGGGBLBLBLBL!!

_________________

I don't see it... All it says is that the government cannot stop the establishment of a religion, or, at least, that's all I see.I'm not reading anything else into it. I don't really want to argue about this, though.. In the end we'll probably be proven wrong... There is no government, anyway. It's just a TV show that's on all the channels..

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

The United States motto is "In God We Trust," so in a way it makes sense to include Him in the flag salute. Then of course there's an argument to remove God from government altogether.

And on a related note, I just realized that the US is losing Christians and that the atheist population is increasing. There are a lot of people in this country who do not believe in God, so I could understand where they're coming from when they say that it's wrong to include Him in government.

_________________
[porplemontage studios]
>>internet entertainment

It's not a matter of "reading anything" into it. The only thing that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" can possibly mean is exactly what I said: the government cannot officially establish religion in a law. This is called the "Establishment Clause" and it is well known. For instance, see Wikipedia's article on it.

What is more fuzzy is if the state is allowed to sanction religion without putting it in the law, for instance, hanging the ten commandments on the wall of a courthouse. Certainly no law can be made requiring such (it may have happened at one time or another but it's still unconstitutional), but you don't have to pass a law to hang things up, so that technically would not violate the letter of the First Amendment. The debate is over whether or not it violates the spirit.

- Kef

I hear the "under god" part of the pledge was concieved soon after the U.S.S.R. set up camp in Russia to distuingish us (freedom of religion) from them (no religion what so ever).

The U.S.S.R. is now toppled and the last three powerful communist nations don't really care if we have a religion or not 'cuz they want nothing more than to blast us into dust.

Verdict: You should be able to say "Under god" as part of the pledge if you so desire, if you don't then you don't have to. End of story.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

I seem to remember saying something like that...oh, I don't know...like maybe at the top of this page?

_________________

Meh, chalk it up to the fact that it's about 1:00 in the morning over here.

Didymus just made me look not smart.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

I guess I just have that effect on people!

_________________

That kind of seems contrary to the idea of the pledge... (which in my opinion is a form of mind control to begin with )

- Kef

Wow. That is perhaps one of the most uneducated opinions I've seen. Actually, it sounds more like some sort of paranoid conspiracy theory. With a lot of winking and smiling.

A pledge that was invented by an atheist, later promoted as an official pledge, and has NEVER, in my experience, been forced onto people and made to recite it ... A FORM OF MIND CONTROL!?

Unbelievable.

_________________

The matter of including god doesn't have anything to do with the amount of christians, but with the basic notion of seperation of church and state. Even if 99% of the country was christian, it would still not be right to include something like this.

......is that motto real? O_O. Yeah, take that out. It violates seperation of church and state.

For Porplemontage:

The one thing that bothers me about that survey is that it cares to subdivide the Christian population into major sects but doesn't differentiate athiests from agnostics/people with no religion.

There's a fundamental difference between an agnostic and an atheist ... Atheists don't believe (or actively deny) in the concept of the divine/supernatural. Agnostics think that they might exist, but we can never know. They're more neutral than anything.

For KN:

Yeah, it is, and it's the same deal as "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

In God We Trust was made a national motto in 1956 ("Under God" appeared on the pledge in 1954). However, it comes from the final stanza of The Star Spangled Banner (which isn't part of the national anthem ... I think?)

Though it also appeared on coins during the Civil War due to the rise in religiousness at the time.

_________________

I usually have no problem with people expressing their feelings about another's oppinions but please, PLEASE do not flame Kef. He's one of the smartest people I know so just give him a chance to explain himself.

As for myself, why can't they replace "under God" with "under the flag"? Then in public schools you would have a choice at least.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

Personally, I don't remember saying the pladge in elementary school much at all. Maybe once a month. We did it once a week in junior high, but after that it kind of dissapeared. Suprising, seeing as Southern Ohio isn't exactly a quote unquote "athiest" area of the country.

I don't think I've grown up any differnt, though I could be wrong. I like my country. It's not perfect, and I don't exactly agree with the government in most cases, but we have a lot of rights that most people don't have. One of those rights is to choose your own religion, and have complete freedom to express it. If you don't want to say under god in the pledge, then go right ahead. The rest of the pledge seems pretty harmless.

_________________

Right. Church and state need to be separated. Plus there is a great diversity of beliefs in the US and it really isn't "fair" to those who do not worship God.

_________________
[porplemontage studios]
>>internet entertainment

But some would argue that it's not fair to us who do to expect us to exclude him. I mean, if you expect us to respect the beliefs of others, it's only fair you respect ours as well.

Of course, the question arises in my mind, why should anyone who believes in God ever swear fealty to a nation that does not? I mean, why not simply do away with the pledge entirely?

Frankly, I think the whole "under God" thing is just a cheesy piece of anti-Communist spin doctoring left over from the 1950's. But nevertheless, it does stand as a challenge to those of us who do believe: swear your undying loyalty to a country that does not accept your God. And that's not fair to us, either.

_________________

Not including god does not mean the US wouldn't ACCEPT god. Do you not have the freedom of worship? That pretty much covers the acceptance part.

Wouldn't polytheistic people take offense that it doesn't say "One nation under.. erm.. many, many gods", or something? Trying to please everyone is impossible and against earlier mentioned seperation of church and state. Removing it from the pledge and adopting a new motto would not mean the rejection of god. It would be... the right thing to do, as the 'enemies' the US has now DO believe in god. It's not really.. needed anymore.



Do feel free to put "Under god" on churches in HUUUUGE letters.

I'm not arguing for the "under God" at all. As I stated, I believe it's an outdated piece of spin doctoring. I'm just pointing out how many Christians--including some of my own parishioners--feel about this.

It has been suggested before that it be left in, and that those who do not believe it be allowed to refrain from saying it. To me, that makes the most sense, as it allows for the consciences of the majority of people. But to yank it out entirely is only going to alienate people who do believe. Again, because you'd be asking us to swear fealty to a nation that expects us to exclude our God.

As for "In God we trust" on American money: I think it should be removed--because it's a lie.

_________________

Lets reverse the current situation and see how that looks: it's NOT in the pledge, but christians CAN say it if they want to. That way, everyone is happy and there is no breach of seperation of church and state. Seems better to me.



I wub you now

That's a good point. Even if they do take it out, we Christians will probably keep saying it anyway.

Actually, I'd probably just stop reciting the pledge altogether.

_________________

Uh, yeah, that too.

So you don't have to say it AT ALL? It's just.. ceremonial? ..........







HOLY FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER you Americans are confusing

On the "under God" stuff--I totally agree with what Didymus said. It's more of that loopy Cold War tactics I dislike so much.

Though honestly, I think the pledge shouldn't keep or remove "under God" from its phrase. Why? Read below:

I think it should be re-engineered so that however you believe, you may state that in your recital. Under God, under Allah, under whatever diety/dieties you believe in, or say nothing if you don't. (I prefer this wording because it puts everyone on equal footing--rather than taking it out, or leaving it as is.)

I think that makes it fair to everyone, giving everyone a chance to express their national identity.

EDIT:



Then I await his explanation, and it had better be a very good, detailed one, with sources if possible.

However, given my first post in this thread and how I divulged my personal accounts where no one was forced into saying the pledge--and in fact the pledge was never said in the schools I've been to until after 9/11--the accusation that the Pledge is a form of mind control is, I find, EXTREMELY outrageous.

Others in this thread have posted accounts of not having to say the pledge every morning, as well. Now, I do know some who have said there are places where the pledge is required to be recited, but I think this is still important to take note.

It means there is no federal statute requiring that people say the pledge every morning, or at whatever period of time. If it's "a form of mind control " as furrykef suggests, it fails miserably. Heck, if it IS "mind control " what is its intended purpose? Keeping Americans loyal to their nation of birth?

*glances at the American expatriate movement that flared up after the '04 elections*

Yeah, that sure is effective "mind control " ...

But then, it's not mind control in the first place, and was never intended for anything but an affirmation of one's national identity! Oops.

Accusing the pledge of being a form of "mind control " is just like accusing the United States of becoming a facist state for having a pledge, really. It's absurd. My idignant reaction to it was mainly over the fact that I have never heard such a conspiracy theory before, and quite literally, it stunned me.

_________________