For those of you that don't know, Michael Newdow is that guy that tried to change the "under god" part of the pledge of allegiance, what I hate about this guy is that he is just one of those jerks that like to stir up trouble. I also belive that he is a coward by saying he is doing this for his daughter.

agreed.

NOT agreed. atheists, agnostics etc. should have the right to pledge allegiance to their country without having to pledge to a god that they don't believe in.

jeez. what's so wrong with that?

Those two words aren't even mandatory to say. I've got nothing against atheists

If I were living in India and the pledge to the flag everyday paid respects to the god of the founders of their country I wouldn't go out and protest. If you don't believe in a god, that's fine (I may not believe in a god). But, our country was formed and founded on these principles. When you say the pledge you are paying your respect to flag and what it stands for. If you can't do that, then you don't say the pledge.

yes, but it's a denial of nontheist human rights. NO ONE should have to pledge to something they don't believe in...

and they don't have to

Wasn't your country founded on the Enlightenment principle of separation of Church and State?

Then don't say the pledge. Some people don't think America holds liberty or justice anymore. That doesn't mean you should remove it from the pledge.

so what's the big deal with removing the words "under god" from the pledge? you're contradicting yourself...

No he's not.

He's saying if you don't want to say it, DON'T. If you don't agree with something that doesn't mean the rest of the nation has to change to make you more comfortable.

you're forgetting that someone who might WANT to pledge allegiance to america might be an atheist. what's the problem?

i REALLY don't get this. WHY the f--k is nontheism not accepted as a valid belief?

In America no church holds a say in our government. That doesn't mean people don't hold religous beliefs.

Yes, but there was very few, if any atheists in our country back then. The separation of church and state are meant to avoid people bieng oppressed just because of thier beliefs, I dont find forcing everyone not to say something that you don't need to say right.

No one said it's not accepted. You're just overly defensive and want the nation to change to make you feel more comfortable. If you don't want to say the words "under god" then DON'T. Take the words out and you'll see you can still recite the pledge. But, don't make the rest of the nation change because a select few feel uncomfortable.

Then just don't say "under god" and stop whining about other people saying it

I agree it is worth considering changeing the wording if it stops such a pledge from being a downright lie, unlss the actual words of the pledge arent considered of importance.

I do have a problem with the whole concept of 'pledging'. I think this is a dangerous example of authoritative mind-control.

right, so these "select few" don't count for anything? that's the impression you're giving...

I DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE SAYING IT. it's the fact that if an atheist was to pledge to a god they don't believe in, it's violating their beliefs...and since when was this an encouragable thing?

It's as simple as this. If you want to say the pledge of allegiance, say it, if you don't want to say the words "under god" then don't say them. and if you don't want to say the pledge at all, then by all means don't, but that does not give you the right to prevent others to say it.

If I'm a vegetarian I don't go to the government and tell them they have to stop selling meat because I'm offended. If I turn on HBO and hear a cuss word I don't go to my legislature and tell them my child heard it and I'm offended and it needs to be removed. If I don't believe in a god I don't go to my government and tell them to change the pledge.
Everyone has their own personal beliefs. No one is asking you to recite someone elses or conform to their beliefs. If you don't want to say it, DON'T. But, don't make it so that the majority of the people who want to say it can't because you're defensive about your beliefs and refuse to allow the rest of the world to practice theirs.
It is a simple practice of paying respects. If you go to a Catholic funeral and the priest says "Amen" you don't tell him you don't appreciate that and he must not say that anymore. You either say it to pay respect or be quiet.

When did anyone ever say they have to? If you don't want to you don't have to. That should be enough.

EXACTLY.
No one is forcing you to say it. Don't make it a liberal thing where it's taboo to say it because a select few wear their pants too tight.

Riddle me this, why stop at the pledge of allegiance? why is Newman not protesting our currency? He isn't even protesting X-mas!

All too true. Polos did make a good point. There's this happy thing called Seperation of Church and State. But that's just an ideal put on paper so things sound nice and tidy. On the majority its certain religious groups that create certain things in this country. Remember the uproar when that Judge put the Ten Commandments up at that courthouse and they got removed? Everyone was all up in arms about how the US was desecrating these holiest of holies. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, LEARN IT LIVE IT LOVE IT. And most amusing is their argument: "Its not a religious thing. These are ideals everyone should live by"

Thats what they said when the Commanments were removed. Uh huh. Of course you think they're ideals for everyone to live by. YOU WANT TO SUBJECT EVERYONE TO YOUR IDEALS AND TO HELL WITH ANYONE WHO IS DIFFERENT. This country was founded on the ideals of being able to worship how you see fit. however, honestly I think that ideal was created simply so the people who came here (and subsequently stole from the Natives their land) could worship how they wanted to....which isn't that why they left England in the first place? I'm not too down with my history, forgive me.

Side note: That's a scary thought. England is the womb, we're the fetus. They gave birth to us!

If Church and State are separated, then why is God even mentioned in the pledge of alleigance to the God-dissociated country?

EXACTLY, Polo.

By having the words "under God" in the pledge, it gives the impression that the belief in God is endorsed by the state. It's not.

And our money SHOULD be changed. In God we trust? No thank you. I don't trust in the God of mainstream theism..why should my government's money say that I do?

And why would he protest Christmas? That is simply a religious holiday that many government workers have off because a majority of them celebrate it...so it's easier to just give all of them the day off rather than deal with 29348329483 requests. That doesn't mean, however, that a giant cross fashioned from Christmas lights should be placed on a city courthouse (that I would object to). I see no problem with giving the workers time off, however, when the majority of them do celebrate the holiday...as long as requests for time off to celebrate other religious holidays are honored (which, from what I understand, they are).

The words "under god" should have NO place in our pledge of allegiance. Yes, no one has to say the words if they don't want to...but as I said before, by having them there it implies that our government endorses a belief in God.

Our government is supposed to be religiously neutral. Not to protect your rights as a Christian or member of another large religion...but to protect those of us who are a minority, but do not believe in God or follow a religion that has no specific God...or has a goddess, or any of the other thousands of possibilities. You have NO right to tell us that your beliefs deserve a place in anything regarding our national government any more than ours do. None of our beliefs deserve any place AT ALL.

I don't force my religious beliefs onto you. Please don't try to force yours onto me. It's too disrespectful for words.

How many more liberals is our society going to create .

The pledge stands for something. If you don't like what it stands for then don't pledge. I don't understand why these psuedo-new age liberals feel the need to change a culture because they think everything is against them. Like those idiots who thought the Snapple bottle was a slave ship when it was clearly the Boston Tea Party. When is it going to end? Does it REALLY hurt your feelings so greatly that "under god" was added to the pledge to the point where you demand it be removed? And if it does perhaps you should see a pyschologist because you have more problems than fighting for this cause.

And what is wrong with "in god we trust"? I am personally a strong believer in science and evolution and the whole thing, but that doesn't mean having "in god we trust" written on our money offends me. I can't believe people actually take offense to these things. Perhaps you should stay in your home, have food delivered and never turn on the tv, radio or read a newspaper. If little things like this really mean so much to you that you're going to fight to have it changed perhaps you'd be better off exiled from our society.

And just how is having "in god we trust" imposing a religon on someone? This is too disgusting for words?

I don't feel the need to change the culture. You can be conservative and Christian if you like. I'd rather not, though.

I don't see how these two little words are so integral to the pledge that they cannot be removed. Nor why the phrase "In God we trust" is SO important to have on our money. Especially when both of these things offend thousands of people.

Like I said before, our nation is supposed to be religiously neutral. PERIOD. Having the word God on anything is NOT remaining neutral.

And I'd imagine that our society is going to churn out quite a few many more liberals. Why is that a bad thing?

I needn't lock myself inside my house to avoid things offending me. I just think that my national government should not have things that make it seem as if they are in support of any one religion over another. It directly violates separation of church and state.

If you want to say "under God" when YOU say the pledge, by all means..do. But don't make it part of the actual pledge. God has no place in government.

I really hope that it is taken out, simply because it has no place in there. Just like the Ten Commandments had no place in a courthouse and prayer has no place in school (private, voluntary prayer meetings are fine..but asking all students to pray is not).

how many more arrogant, narrow-minded conservatives is your society going to create? because i've f--king had it up to here.

Damn you hurt my feelings

Speaking as a Liberal here, perhaps the issues aren't being dealt with in particularly constructive manner...

Firstly - the pledge was drafted in a private magazine in 1892, it used the first ten words of the Bill of Rights (i.e., the "Establishment Clause") that had been written in 1789. It was the approved by congress in 1942 as the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. At no point had it mentioned God.

The words "Under God" were added in 1954 at the height of the Cold War during the peak of McCarthyism. Now almost 50 years later this is being challenged.

It appears to me that the issue is down to the recitation in Schools of the pledge...

sjbbandgeek, who started this topic, suggests in a rather forcefull manner that Mr Newdow is simply a trouble-maker using his daughter's right to religeous liberty as a tool to get what he wants...

Newdow's argument is that his child shouldn't be forced to say the pledge because of the exclusive nature of the wording:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, [B]under God."[/B]

This wording may be seen to imply that the Republic stands for one indivisble Nation with Liberty and Justice for everyone who belives in God; perhaps to the exclusion of anyone who does not.
________________

When swearing to tell the truth in court witnesses are given to the option to swear on the Bible, the Torah, The Koran - ar any other religious text OR to simply affirm that they are going to tell the truth... that is swear in a non religious context not to lie.

Why can't something like that be adopted here? As sjbbandgeek said himself, those particular words are not mandatory... so if the constitution is to be upheld - where no one religion holds dominance over the US - then surely the followers of ALL religions AS WELL AS aethism should be allowed to express themselves as they see fit in pledging their allegence?

As a Liberal I feel that everyone's rights should be taken into account, not just one side or the other. If everyone can make the pledge and make it personal to them - then the matter should be resolved. Banning the pledge at school because it is too religeous will be unfair on people who do believe in God... conversely, leading impressionable kids to recite it before they're old enough to make up their own minds on their beliefs is unfair on them - especially on aethists...

To ban a 50 year old tradition will upset many Christians, Jews and Muslims - keeping it in place will upset everyone else from people who worship many Gods, to aethists. So allow people to vary the wording relating to "under God". Problem solved.

My approach is classically Liberal. I doubt that this a "psuedo-new age liberal attempt to change culture." So JaJay721, just because someone doesn't agree with you or suggests something you don't like - please don't try and lump together all liberals as holding this view.

In responce to the second point you raise: a devout Christian friend of mine said that he has problems with the words "in God we trust" written on money... he feels it smacks of providing religious authority to the root of all evil . He posed the question "I wonder what Jesus would say after having driven the money-lenders from his Father's house - if someone suggested placing the name of our Creator on the dollar bill?"

I doubt that these words on money are as important to aethists as the Pledge to the Flag. It's only a currency - it could have a picture of Itchy and Scratchy saying "Kill kill kill kill", it wouldn't matter. Pledging yourself to the Flag of America and all that it stands for is, perhaps a more important issue.

Maybe the answer here is to gradually move away from paper money - towards a semi-cashless society where creditcard transactions replace the need for the bulk of paper money?

JaJay, I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that people with liberal beliefs to be suffering from mental illness. This kind of thing happens repeatedly and that is precisely why Debaser is now writing in a more defensive style.

As always, the point of these forums is for discussion of opinions, it is not to start pushing attitudes of political superiority on others. JaJay, your style of writing can be inflamatory, if you want to discuss these issues sensibly then I suggest not deliberately trying to annoy other people on the board.

Debaser, rather than just getting annoyed with JaJay please explain why you feel annoyed by his attitude, hopefully then we can prevent this thread escalating towards a near flame war that other threads of a conservative v.s liberal nature have in the past.

Anyway, back on topic:


Actually, no you can't. You will be saying _a_ pledge of allegiance, but not The Pledge of Allegiance. Since 1954 the words 'under God' have been the officially legislated version.

If people wish to pledge their allegiance to America but not to God there is no officially sanctioned method of doing this. By removing 'under God' from the pledge you can make all the people happy all the time. Those who wish to involve their beliefs with support for their state may do so freely, indeed even the official recognition of two versions of the pledge of allegiance would be acceptable I'm sure.

There is no reason why two pledges could not be acceptable by the government, especially considering the previously mentioned issue that church and state are alledgedly separate.

Then again, the country was happy without those words in The Pledge until 1954, what would be so wrong with returning to the traditional form of it?

I know it was added to the pledge which is why I said

I thought it was added in the late 50's though. I am most likely mistaken though.

The rest of the sentence reads:


If the answer is yes, they have more problems than reciting the pledge of allegiance.


If you do not say under god it does not say "all those who oppose god are excluded". It is just: "One nation, with liberty and justice for all." How does that imply someone who is atheist is excluded?


I agree with this completely. I do not feel schools should force children to say "under god" if they do not want to. But, I don't think it should a mandate change.


I am not lumping all liberals... just "psuedo-new age liberal attempt to change culture". I agree completely with everything you have stated.

Huh? Sorry, but that just makes no sense to me. Perhaps you got your wording wrong there, because I don't see the point you are trying to make.

And if you don't say "under God," it is not "One nation, with liberty and justice for all." It would be "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

JaJay721 - dude, I fully accept that your earlier post indicated that you were aware of the "under God" part being included later... point taken there. Further - you are not mistaken - it was added in the 50's.



Sorry mate, I'm not quite sure what you mean here, could you explain it again for me?

I wasn't making the point for myself - just reitterating what some people who want the words dropped were saying - that the "under God" part implied that the Republic provided liberty and justice for people who are under God... PERHAPS implying that if you don't fall under God (aethisits pagans etc) then you shouldn't receive liberty and justice... Their argument was that if you went back to the old pledge then it includes everyone - not just those under God.



Fair enough, but please mention that you aren't having a dig at Liberals in general - but specifically people who want to remove something you feel shouldn't be removed... the only reason I thought you were taking the mick out of all of us - was because of the way you started that particular post:



Though I do accept that you did then go on to talk about the psuedo-new age liberals who are trying to change culture...

I'm glad you agree with my suggestion of modifying the ending of the pledge to suit the person pledging... As Mata pointed out though, it is going to be very difficult to implement, given the fact that the words were incorporated under legislation... still - I can live in hope.

Darn tootin' it should be changed. In God we trust? I wouldn't trust God with my money. He'd spend it all on fish and prostitutes.

IN THEORY this country had some decent ideals. Seperation of church and state and all that. But of course, things NEVER work that way.

fish and prostitutes!?!?!?!????



Maybe to fund his massive aquarium, as staffed by all those reformed working girls?

The fish would be used for Jesus to continue doing that "Fish Thing" at cocktail parties.

unfortunatelly, WHAT the pledge stands for (with the words "under god") is unconstitutional. that's why it's in the supreme court. whether you're forced to say it or not, this pledge was adopted by CONGRESS. congress is a part of our GOVERNMENT. which is part of the STATE. notice the phrase 'separation of church and STATE'. while 'under god' may not represent one specific church (although it's pretty obvious that they're talking about the Christian/Judaic/Muslim god), it does represent a monotheistic god. ok, now i'm going to branch off into a few separate points, so bear with me:

1) whether you want to respect tradition, don't want to change the pledge, think it's unimportant to change it, etc. etc. doesn't matter much in a court of law. a court of law looks at the law and makes its decision. the law in this case would dictate that since the government adopted the pledge, whether it is mandatory or not, it is giving certain beliefs preferance over others. this violates separation of church and state (oh, and congress did adopt this as a law. the wording of separation of church and state begins 'congress shall make no law', so there's no getting around this through stupid little loopholes in the wording of the constitution)

2) personally, i say 'under god' most of the time during the pledge. why? because everyone else says it. it's 'mob mentality' really. i feel uncomfortable each time i say it, but i say it regardless because i don't want some insanely religious/patriotic person giving me sh*t because i didn't say 'under god'. on the other hand, whenever i'm in homeroom, i NEVER say the words under god. why? because no one else does. i garantee you that there are MANY other people in this country that feel the way i do (this case is a good example of other people), and even if there isn't, one is all you need.

3) like it or not, church and state aren't entirely separated. in fact, they're not really that much separated at all. 'in god we trust' is on our money. 'under god' is in the pledge of allegance. in texas, one must acknowledge a supreme being before being allowed to hold public office. in the military, it's the same. jurors, judges, congressman, witnesses, and presidents say their vows putting their right hand on a bible. the list goes on. (and then of course there's our current administration, but i won't turn this into a bush debate) this is not separation of church and state. this violates our constitution. this must be stopped as soon as possible. this case only takes ONE thing off of that list.

4) the pledge was specifically made to differentiate us from 'the ungodly soviets'. you know what that means? it was specifically made to make us appear a 'godfearing' state to contrast atheists. if that's not a violation of separation of church and state, i don't know what is.

All I'm saying is M.N is the bad kind of hippie. Where did he go to get credability? The 9th circut court, where 27 of thier last 28 decicions were reversed by the supreme court.

hippie? where'd you get THAT from? is he a hippie for trying to change the pledge of allegance because it violates the separation of church and state? what exactly makes him a hippie? and what's so bad about hippies anyways? and how do you tell the difference between a 'bad' hippie and a 'good' hippie? that's just a matter of opinion, isn't it?

Here is my final arguement on the changing of the pledge.


Jehovas Witnesses religious beliefs do not allow salutes to symbols of temporal government.

Forcing a complete change to the pledge will discriminate yet another group of people. I'm with Mata on this one, the U.S should reconize two versions of the pledge

How will it discriminate against anyone? Seriously.

If you're talking about Jehova's Witnesses...they wouldn't say it no matter how it was changed, so I don't see how that's discrimination.

It's so great to see the liberals and conservative traditionalists duke it out. Really, to an outside observer, this is rather amusing.

The pledge is not a major issue in this country, our government has more important issues to worry about, like BALANCING THE DAMNED BUDGET and REFORMING OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. This is a waste of time for an institution that has a lack of time to get the important things done.

Now Mr. Newdow, while his point is valid and I agree with him, there is one thing he and all his supporters must realize. AMERICA DOESN'T CARE ENOUGH. There are simply too many traditionalists in the country for an overhwelming majority to give a damn.

Our country was founded above all else on the principle of freedom, our laws, like ALMOST EVERY OTHER EUROPEAN LAW OF THE TIME are based on judeo-christian moral principles. Therefore, our flag stands for those principles, however, it does not stand for the god that sponsors them.

Edited to spell Newdow correctly

That's beside the point. this thread was made to give my opinion on M.N and to try to support it with facts. Yes we do have bigger fish to fry, so just make your own topic.
I don't dislike M.N because he wants change, (but I am against a complete change)I dislike M.N because he's just the kind of person I just don't like.

A) Have you read the rest of my post? There are opnions there you know.

So...I this an "I don't like this poopey head" thread, if it is only here because you find him irritating?

well... yes

M.N credability is worthless to me, I don't find him to be a person I'd favor in almost anything.

And yes I did read your post, and It you are right, nobody cares. That has alot to do with the pledge, but nothing to do with my dislike of M.N.