Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

The point of the pledge of allegance is to promise, or pledge, that no matter what happens, politically or economically, the people of the nation will stand together and work for what is geniunely best for the people. To pledge that we are loyal to our nation. There's no religious purpose intended in it, and I honestly think people are making kind of a big deal about the under god thing. If you don't want to say it, don't.

_________________

If there's no religious purpose intended in it, there should be no religious content in it. If there's no religious purpose intended in it, then I honestly think people are making kind of a big deal about keeping the under god thing.



That's easy for you and me, but it's essentially impossible for a third-grader who will be punished either by his teachers or his peers (or both) for deviating for the status quo.

_________________

Trev-MUN, the bit was supposed to hint that that part was a joke...

Not that I don't think there's a grain of truth in it, because people are still expected to recite it even if they don't have to (just like you don't have to give Christmas presents, but you feel pressure to if you have any money). But do I seriously think it's a form of mind control? Nah.

BTW, one (mostly unrelated to the above) thing I forgot to mention in this thread yet. I became very disgusted with our government with what seemed to me to be a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. Whether I was right or not, I still don't know. But I was, so I decided to protest. In school, that protest manifested itself by not standing up for the pledge.

I nearly got expelled.

Now, a couple times I've related this story people have tried to tell me that I was way out of line or I shouldn't be an American or whatever. That stuff isn't the point. Whether I was being a jerk or not, I thought, and still think, I had the right to do that. Why? Because it sent a message. That people took notice meant that it obviously was effective. The school told me to find some other way to protest. What, you mean something that isn't effective and will go unnoticed? I refused. Basically, the principal told me that they can't make me say the Pledge, but they can make me stand up for it. And if I didn't like it, I was going to be thrown out and I'd have to go to John Marshall, not a very reputable school. I very nearly accepted that challenge to basically give them the finger and stand up for how I felt, but my mother pressured me not to and in the end I just gritted my teeth and did as I was supposed to.

I hated that school and I particularly hated that principal. I always had, but especially after this. Ugh.

- Kef

We don't have to, but everyone does it, and is expected to do it.

_________________

By the way, another point on that note...

Although saying the Pledge is voluntary, that much occurs to almost nobody. So in that sense it isn't so voluntary because they think they have to do it.

- Kef

Furrykef, I apologize. My experience with other communities on the 'net has caused me to see , , and as largely being emoticons used when someone is being a jerk. Which is ironic, because I used to use all the time years ago ...

Your story is a strange 180 from the experiences I have had and seen ... wow.

My associate didn't stand up for the pledges either, and he was never given any lip for it, just peer pressure to do so.

_________________

Sure lets go with that

a thing

I had no problem with saying "under God"in the pledge. I really didn't care. I don't like this ruling, because all it is going to do is give th religious right more ammo, and that is the last thing we need.

_________________

And they could use that ammo to assassinate a few world leaders.

_________________

yeah, I'm definetly siding with beyond here. People are making a big deal over something really insignifigant. I doubr saying the words "under god" as a child will make anyone grow up to make a different religious choice than they normally would.

_________________

The problem I have with this is that it's a step down a slippery slope. Look at our Declaration of Independence, which begins:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.."

Uh-oh. Looks like they mentioned God. And we can't have that. Skipping a few sentences:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

And a Creator? Who endows humans with certain rights? By golly, we can't have that either! Quite honestly, I'm surprised somebody hasn't rewritten this already or excised the "offending" words. It would make me very sad.

The Declaration of Independence is an entirely different matter as it is a historical document that reflected the times, and more to the point, it is not a part of our government (unlike, say, the Constitution). We are talking about government's role in religion, not religion in the role of history. "They're as different as night and day. Don't you know that night and day are different? What's wrong with you?" (Just kidding. ) So, no, I don't see how this is a slippery slope at all.

By the way, I think Thomas Jefferson wasn't actually a Christian anyway. The Declaration of Independence was written like that to appeal to an audience who largely was. It makes sense... remember the Declaration of Independence, other than formally declaring war, was also designed to rally the masses.

- Kef

Yeah, he wasn't Christian. Actually, a lot of founding fathers/prominent figures in the American colonies during that period were Deists. Bejamin Franklin, James Monroe, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine to name a few ...

Deism was a popular religious position at the time, I think--The Enlightenment movement was taking Europe and the American colonies by storm.

*paints toast*

_________________

Upon re-reading my post I realized there's something I could make clear that I hadn't yet...

Most atheists aren't offended by just any old mention of God. Some are, of course. For a brief time I was, but I was a jerk anyway during that period. What they -- we, if I may speak for a group (not all atheists, just those more or less in my camp, which I believe includes Interruptor Jones and a few others here) -- sometimes find offensive is when religion seems to be thrust upon us. Somebody brought up, say, wearing a cross to school, or having religious items in your school locker. I'm cool with that. Remember, the First Amendment protects the free practice of religion. Or, you know, even if I do take offense to it, it doesn't mean I have the right to take his right away. So I'm totally for allowing that sort of thing in schools.

What I'm against is state sponsorship of religion. A student wearing a cross to school, and a teacher wearing a cross to school, are two entirely different things. A teacher in a public school is, more or less, representing the state. So I probably wouldn't be cool with a teacher wearing it to school (myself, I might look the other way, but if I were to speak for all non-Christians I couldn't). One thing that bugged me in my senior (I think) year in high school was our music teacher, Mr. Gibson, would only give us Christian songs to sing. I mean ONLY. Every single song we learned had some Christian aspect to it. I cannot remember a single song we learned that didn't. I have no problem with singing the occasional Christian song, even though I'm not Christian myself, if we get a little variety or, better yet, some multiculturalism. Give us a traditional Jewish song every once in a while, I've had fun singing those. Give us a taste of Arabic or Chinese music.

I mean, imagine just how up in arms a Christian community would be if they found out their children in school have been singing about Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Allah all year. And they were forced to by the state, or they wouldn't get a good grade. That's how some atheists feel when religion seems thrust upon school students. Even if it's voluntary, like school prayer was, it kind of isn't because you feel pressure to join in. (Again, imagine how Christians would feel if, say, a traditional Muslim prayer were used. I know school prayer was nondenominational but I'm just making a point here.) Which is, by the way, the situation you have with the Pledge of Allegience, including the issue of choosing saying "under God" or leaving it out if you do recite it.

So you see, most atheists wouldn't want to rewrite the Declaration of Independence anyway. Even some of those who just find the mere mention of God offensive will recognize that it is a historical document and history should be left alone, and won't mind the Declaration being quoted in full in a school textbook. In any case, the Declaration of Independence is not state sponsorship of religion. "Under God" and "In God We Trust" are -- not any particular religion, but a group of religions. (Yeah, I know "Under God" was a Cold War thing. I don't really see how that makes a difference.)

So... where's the slippery slope here, again?

- Kef

So what you're saying is that teachers have less right to express their religion freely, solely because they're teachers? I'm sorry, but I disagree. A teacher wearing a cross necklace to school doesn't say anything about the entire school. (Besides, wearing religious jewelry doesn't mean you're religious. It's a bit of a fad.)

Your school music program is strange. Ours bent over backwards for multiculturalism. It gets to the point where I felt like bribing the school in order to hear something more classical, instead of songs written for a choral series to meet a racial quota, by some small-name composer nobody is going to care about or even know about in 100 years.

The reason I posted that is that "rewriting" is already going on in lesser forms. I hope what I say never happens. But I can see how it will.

By teaching in a public school, they're working for the government, and that involves certain responsibilities. Besides, for example, all businesses have a dress code. Some make you wear either a suit and tie or a dress. Teachers can get away with a T-shirt and jeans if they're lucky, or probably more likely they'll wear something more like a polo shirt and slacks (which ended up being our school uniform style after the first or second year I was there). Teachers are not bound by the same rules of conduct that students are.

You see, the role of a teacher isn't nearly the same as the role of the student. They are not held as equals or anything close to it. The teachers set an example, and I think part of that is the recognition of the separation of church and state, a principle held by the body that employs the teacher: the government. Flouting that principle can send the wrong message. That's why I think it's OK for students, but not teachers, to bring religious items to school.



Where? How?

- Kef

I still disagree. The First Amendment allows for freedom to express religion, and this applies to teachers as well as students. A teacher wearing a cross necklace does not reflect on the entire school or government; it only reflects on that individual. Now, if it was mandated as part of a uniform to wear a cross necklace, that would be different.

Rewriting goes on all the time, mostly for school tests and textbooks.

You still haven't provided any concrete examples...

Take me on my word, or discount my statement. I don't feel like redoing all the research. It's tied into literature as well.

The reason I say this is because I am finished with this discussion. I have stated my point and have no wish to give or take further potshots.

Fine, but unless you substantiate it, your point has no credibility... I don't mean to insult you or your point of view, that's just the way debate works.

*scratches head* Crystallina, when you speak of this, are you talking about the various revisionist schools of thought concerning historians? Or is this something different?

_________________

I'm not sure if it's already been said here, and, if it has, ignore me.
But let me quote the American Declaration of Independence.
"When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation."

And another...

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Look, I'm not saying that you should be forced to say it. I'm saying that it's in the Declaration and that we should be free to decide if we say it or not. America was founded on liberty and on God, and I don't see why anyone can say that it's "unconstitutional" to use the phrase "under God." Look on any coin. It says "In God we trust."

Okay, I'm finished. I'll shut up now.

_________________

Yeah, it's been pointed out about the Declaration of Independence. What I pointed out was that the Declaration of Independence was a historical document, but it isn't part of our government. We didn't even have a government at the time. It's an important part of American history, but that's the key: history, not government. On the other hand the Pledge was declared to be the official Pledge of Allegiance.

Also, I would argue you're wrong. Indeed the United States was founded upon liberty, but I would argue not "on God". Most of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, they were Deists. Deists generally did not believe that God intervenes in daily life, only acknowledging his role as Creator. This is a more general and abstract notion of "God" than most people use the term today.

Of course, a lot of people in the States, indeed I'm sure the majority, were Christians in that time. But it's important to note that they weren't the only ones, and not necessarily the most central figures either. So I don't really see the argument that this country was founded "on God".

Finally I'd like to state that what the country was "founded on" was unimportant. What matters is what it is now. Right now it tries to be a country that does not endorse religion in any form, and I think removing "under God" from the official Pledge would be consistent with that.

Most people here have argued that they should keep "Under God" and if you don't like it, don't say it. But how come nobody has suggested it the other way around?

- Kef

Or we could bypass the whole thing altogether. Get the government out of school. Private schools for any sort of belief system, that can say the Pledge, or not, or make up their own, or whatever they want to do. As a very smart man once said, "That government is best which governs least." I fully appreciate our beautiful country and consider myself a patriot. That being said, it could use a few improvements - and one of them is to eradicate every vestige of government out of school. Which, as a benefit, would also kill a lot of taxes. Or they could keep the taxes and start paying off the National Debt.

I know, I know, I must sound like some sort of Utopian. I'm sure my theory is riddled with holes and would never work. But that's my passive opinion...

Oh, and one more quote for those who say that the Pledge should be abolished altogether (he says it so much better than I ever could!):

"Breathes there the man, with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said
This is my own, my native land?
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burn'd
As home his footsteps he hath turn'd
From wand'ring on a foreign strand?

If such there breathe, go, mark him well.
For him no minstrel raptures swell.
High though his title, proud his claim,
Boundless his wealth as wish could name
Despite these titles, power, and pelf
The wretch, concentr'd all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung."

_________________