"...under God..." in the Pledge of Allegiance

I couldn't vote because I think it will be overturned based on the precedent of tradition. It can be tradition and historical practice without being "ceremonial deism", which is more along the lines of Scalia's position.

 

My bumper sticker says, "One Nation Under God".

Enough said...

 

I do too. In 100 years, if we have a Muslim president and enough Muslims in Congress will we see "One Nation Under Allah"?

 

Students have been reciting the pledge of allegiance, at the beginning of the school day, for how long?

They learned respect for their country and their God.

When people lose respect for either one, the work ethic also goes downhill - right along with the morals.

If we ever have a Muslim president, I doubt if this will be OUR nation...

 

50 years.

Perhaps at one time the point was valid. In the vast majority of public schools today the pledge is meangingless.

I don't think it matters if it is there or not. Our country made it almost 100 years without any pledge and another 80 years without saying "under God" and those were our best years as a nation.

 

IMHO, everyone needs allegiance/accountability to someone and who better than God and our country?

 

But does a meaningless repetition of it in the public classroom make it real?

How many children in those schools really and truly pledge allegiance to flag and country (no where in the pledge does one pledge allegiance to God) in their heart? No one can stop a child from pledging allegiance in their heart. No one stop a child from acknowledging the role of God in their country in their heart.

Is it not the parent's responsibility to teach allegiance?

Forced allegiance is no allegiance, IMHO.

 

I remember when I was in school (a LONG time ago), we didn't feel like we were being forced to say the pledge. It was an honor...



Can we agree to disagree on this one?

 

Of course we can .

It was indeed an honour in my day as well (not too far behind you )

 

Slightly off subject, but...I also remember when in the second grade, every few weeks IF we were good and finished our work early, our teacher would take us to the park next door to the school. First, however, we would have to march single file all around the school yard singing the Marine Corp Anthem ("From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli....", and that was an honor for us too) Can't see that happening today....oh my, what memories

 

Very true.

 

There us a BIG difference between teaching and forcing.

It is not the role of the State to make my child, or any other child, to say a few words pledging allegiance to something that any parent might not hold allegiance to.

It is the parents' responsbility to teach allegiance.

And forced allegiance is not allegiance.

These two facts have nothing to do with each other. You teach allegiance, you don't force it.

 

Since this is a poll thread - I have opened a discussion of the general topic here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/18/3609.html?#000002

 

rsr,

I oppose state-enforced demonstrations of both patriotism and religiosity.

And what enforcement exists?


C4K,

Your answer to IAB16 is telling. When she noted that children learned respect for God and country you answered that at one time perhaps the point was valid but then you went on to say that we made it for 100 years without it. If the point is valid, it is valid. You noted that the years without the Pledge were our best as a nation. Perhaps one justification for the need for it in the first place was that we were starting to slip (unless your argument is that the Pledge is a reason for our slide) and a recognized need to re-learn that respect, which as you implicitly conceded may have been a valid concern.

Your statement that its repetition is meaningless is, IMO, an argument for its critical need. It is meaningless partly because our culture teaches there is no God and certainly no need for a God, that there is nothing worthy of respect, that morality is transient, and that our history is mixed at best, in terms of goodness. Certainly against this backdrop, the Pledge appears a trifle. But it never hurts to be reminded from whence we come. Surrendering to the cultural currents and discarding the Pledge as "outdated" validates those currents. It remains a sliver of truth's light. I believe that your answer is to extinguish it.

 

Thing is, rsr, the ENTIRE pledge is already optional! No student in a public school is REQUIRED to say ANY of the pledge. Usually the individual schools would most likely ask them all to stand out of respect, but they are NEVER required to say it. This is because there are several religions that believe that ANY kind of oath is wrong, and they include the pledge to the flag in that.

So this "argument" about only the phrase "under God" being some kind of enforced patriotism or something is not really valid, since NONE of it can be REQUIRED from the students.

 

If a student does not wish to say "one nation under GOD", then just don.t say it! Why should the rest who have no problem with it have to conform to their wishes? When I was in elementary school there was a Jehovah witness girl who would go and stand in the hallway every morning just before the pledge was said and reentered when the pledge was finished, when we kids asked her why she did this, she explained that it was against her religion. The girl's explaination was accepted and we went thru elemantary school together without incident. This is a beloved tradition, it tears me up to see it go. I remember when we prayed every morning, then they stopped us, I was confused why this had happened, it was a refreshing and beautiful way for us kids to start the day. things have gone downhill every since!