Time Machine (Let Me Take You back)

[bountyhunter]

I saw on the news last night the uproar over the pledge of allegiance and whether or not God should be in it. Is this a religion question or a Constitutional rights question? before you answer, come with me back to Louisiana back around 1960 when I was in public schools. We started every day with two things:

1) The pledge, including the "under God" part.

2) Saying the Lords Prayer OUT LOUD in unison. For non Christians, that is the prayer that starts: "Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..."

The point is we did not get a minute for silent reflection or prayer if we desired, we were forced to say the Cristian national Anthem. Now I am a Christian, so it all seemed OK to me.

If you still don't grasp why the "God" thing in public schools is all about freedom of (and from a specific brand of) religion, just change the above scenario slightly:

Substitute the Star of David on the wall for the cross and replace the Lord's Prayer wigh a jewish prayer..... and ask yourself just how fair you think it would be to force every kid here to say that each morning. The bottom line is that the Christian Right in this country believe they have the right and duty to trample all over personal freedom toward the end of installing Christianity into our government and our schools. I was in school back when they had free reign, and I know why pissed off people filed lawsuits over it. They made their bed now they have to accept the fact that Christianity will not be taught (either by word, symbols, or praying out loud) in public schools and Christian symbols will not be displayed in public government buildings where the public must go to do business with the government. And IMO, that is as it should be because I saw the alternative... and it is definitely is worse.

 

[K-Romulus]

I remember the same thing

Pledge
Lord's Prayer

every morning - Houston, TX elementary schools circa 1980-83.

That was part of the culture shock I had moving there from NYC. I really didn't think much of the pledge/prayer thing at the time (3rd grade), but I was unfamiliar with the whole "Lord's Prayer."

 

[Bigjake]

the Christian Right in this country believe they have the right and duty to trample all over personal freedom toward the end of installing Christianity into our government and our schools.

I don't really think the issue is that of "installing Christianity into our Gov't and schools". Like it or not, Christianity and its priciples are what this country was founded on. Even an atheist/ agnostic/non christian should be able to realize that the majority of our most basic laws are christian in someway or another.

 

[Leatherneck]

False analogy, BH:

Substitute the Star of David on the wall for the cross and replace the Lord's Prayer wigh a jewish prayer

Nobody's discussing or contemplating crosses or The Lord's Prayer currently.

They're discussing two words and only two words: "under God."

This is not a particularly big deal to me either way, but specious arguments don't advance your position (whatever that may be).

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[bountyhunter]

Even an atheist/ agnostic/non christian should be able to realize that the majority of our most basic laws are christian in someway or another.

And anybody who has read about this country's founders knows how carefully they worked to keep religion out of it. That's the point: the majority (or minority) can follow any religion they want. But it is simply wrong and illegal under our constitution for the majority to believe they can and should put religous material into a cirriculum of public schools or into public governmental buildings.

 

[bountyhunter]

Nobody's discussing or contemplating crosses or The Lord's Prayer currently.

They're discussing two words and only two words: "under God."

This is not a particularly big deal to me either way, but specious arguments don't advance your position (whatever that may be).
.

Let's be real. The roll call of Loud Whiners on the "Under God" club are the same people who are pushing to get religion back into schools and school vouchers sanctioned so they can yank their kids out of the public school system and put them in private schools subsidized by our tax dollars.

The core issue is not defined only by "Under God", it's framed by whether or not any God should be placed into the cirriculum of a public school. Period. And we all know exactly who is behind this and exactly where their agenda goes. My example was the true life rendition of exactly where that road will take us if the SCOTUS allows a precednt for religous references or artifacts to be incorporated into public school.

My arguments are not specious, but pretending not to know what this issue is all about seems to be. As to my position "whatever it may be" on the issue: it's the same one as our founding fathers: religion is personal and should be kept OUT of the government or things that taxpayer money is used to support. Period. Under God should be out of the pledge (and BTW, it was never originally there to begin with). Prayers should not be read in class during school hours (after hours, who cares).

 

[bountyhunter]

They're discussing two words and only two words: "under God."

And the Easter Bunny just told me they NEVER use rulings as a legal precedent to springboard up the ladder to the other things they want (see "school vouchers" which have been routinely struck down as violating separation of church and state issues).

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

If you still don't grasp why the "God" thing in public schools is all about freedom of (and from a specific brand of) religion, just change the above scenario slightly:

It's really more about unconstitutional restrictions on the free exercise of religion and State's rights IMHO.

The so-called "seperation of church and state" doctrine has no basis in the Constitution. The Establishment Clause is strictly only a restriction on Congress's law making ability. The extremist misinterpertation of the Establishment Clause is instead an expression of anti-Catholic bigotry on SCOTUS in the past centuary.

All of that's not to say that forcing kids to participate in the exercise of any religion they oppose is a good thing. But there's nothing in the US Constitution to prohibit the practice.

 

[dischord]

Even an atheist/ agnostic/non christian should be able to realize that the majority of our most basic laws are christian in someway or another.

Actually, Anglo-American laws have pre-Christian roots (Celtic, Germanic and Roman). Proscriptions against murder, theft and whatnot are are rather universal.

 

[Joe Demko]

Even an atheist/ agnostic/non christian should be able to realize that the majority of our most basic laws are christian in someway or another.

No, they aren't. The most basic laws are the ones against killing, stealing, raping, etc. Laws against those things are pretty well universal and pre-date the Christian era by a good many years.
Also, whether the Founding Fathers were themselves Christian is neither here nor there. A lot of them were slaveholders. A lot of them drank (saw an inventory about the amount of alcohol they consumed in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776. You could make a good case that they were drunk when they signed the Declaration). What I am getting at is that while their personal lives, no doubt, influenced a lot of what they did and their attitudes, we are not bound to make our society in the image of the Founding Fathers.

 

[dischord]

The Establishment Clause is strictly only a restriction on Congress's law making ability.

Speaking of time machines, that changed with the 14th Amendment. Thus the 1st applies to the states no matter how broadly or narrowly you define its scope.

All of that's not to say that forcing kids to participate in the exercise of any religion they oppose is a good thing. But there's nothing in the US Constitution to prohibit the practice.

"Shall make no law."

Law to the founders meant more than a statute passed by both houses and signed by the president. It means an official government action, policy, rule etc. no matter how it came into being (including the judicial concept of common law).

Thus a government school forcing children to practice a religion most certainly qualifies as a law "respecting the establishment."

The 1st Amt doesn't simply prohibit the establishment of a religion. It prohibits laws respecting the establishment. The government does not get to force people to make religious statements as long as it refrains from passing a statute actually establish a state religion -- and that includes not forcing people profess belief in the divine, whether that forced declaration comes in the form of a prayer or a salute to a national flag.

 

[mercedesrules]

Forcing kids to attend school and then forcing them to pledge daily allegiance to a "country" is even worse than forcing them to pledge an oath to some "god". And yes, of course I went along with it when I was little. That's the point. Indoctrinate them when young into little christian taxpaying cannon-fodders.

 

[lee n. field]

(Before this thread get's closed)

Isn't the problem too much state?

I am a Christian, and the whole P. of A. thing creeps me out. I am not comfortable saying it anymore.

 

[braindead0]

I was lucky, 7th grade I had a math teacher first day he told the entire class that contrary to popular belief you do not have to say the pledge, you can sit quietly, say it without the 'under god' (which is what he did).. but you will respect everybody else's right to say the pledge if they chose to.

 

[kbsrn]

"The bottom line is that the Christian"s settled this country and made it what it is. We do not owe anyone an apology, in fact they owe us thanks. Perhaps if the ideals of the christians on this country were still being taught in the schools they would be better places, turning out better educated and behaving children.

 

[Dex Sinister]

Well, let's take our time machine ride a little further back to 1954 - the year that the words "under God" were inserted into the pledge in the first place, according to A Short History of the Pledge of Allegiance or The Strange Origin of the Pledge of Allegiance

Obviously, given that it was added specifically after a lobbying campain by the Knights of Columbus, the words Under God "are supposed to" have specific religious significance.

What is really amusing is the original salute to the flag was a straight-arm salute, like was adopted by the Nazi's [see The Socialist Pledge of Allegiance

I ran accross a site with actual historic pictures of children saluting the flag straight-armed, but I can't find it at the moment. I'll post if when I do.

Dex }:>=-

 

[Oleg Volk]

While this is a fascinating topic, it is not in THR's brief and so will be closed. If you find a good forum for discussions of cultural anthropology, please let me know, as I'd join it in a heartbeat.