mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
Today is a national day of prayer. 
Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
RealGun
Member
Not only that, but The President acted as a spiritual leader in officially declaring it. I am not against someone praying on their own but I believe "separation" is very important.
Do you genuinely believe that the founders meant this when they wrote the 1st Amendment? Or do you view the Constitution as more of a living document that has changed over time? If it is the latter, I can understand, but if it is the prior, then I don't.
Gordon Fink
Member
I believe that’s what the First Amendment means, but I also know the disagreements over the interpretation of the Constitution began the day after it was ratified.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
That is very true. I realize that the updated Pledge is only around 50 years old, but I don't understand why this is such a big problem now. Personally, I think they founders were more concerned with the establishment of a State religion (i.e. Anglican Church in England) than they were of minor references to a Diety. I could be wrong though...wouldn't be the first time.
joab
Member
Yes I believe that that is exactly what these men from diverse religious backgrounds some far outside the mainstream believed and meant
Desertdog
Member
Do you want to see what "an establishment of religion" means? If you really do, then go visit Iran or any other Islamic country.
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If you notice there are several parts to it, and the first part says;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Will anybody quote to me, and to everybody else, the statute Congress passed making the Pledge of Allegiance a religion!
They didn't, and it isn't.
As far as the phrase "under God", it does not specify under which God.
It applies to your God, as well as anybody else's God, even if it is Mother Nature, the trees in the forest, your work, your girlfriend/wife/husband, or anything else you worship, even Satan.
For those whom worship nothing, it covers your "nothing god", also.
The second part says; "to or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" which the court is trying to do with outlawing the Pledge, outlawing the Ten Commandments, and oulawing the Nativity Scenes on government properties.
chaim
Member
I'm another who is not a big fan of the Pledge, I don't see the point of pledging my allegence to a flag. The Constitution would be a different. In high school I used to refuse to say the pledge. My homeroom teacher and classmates saw me as eccentric but no more. Then we had a sub one day- he screamed at me, cussed at me, accused me of being unpatriotic (which had me yelling back since I has just signed up for the Army, having my patriotism questioned for not approving of requiring mindless, rote reciting of some pledge when our country is supposed to be about freedom, well, it pretty much pissed me off), and finally he sent me to the principal's office (the only time I was ever sent to the principal while I was in school). Some people don't understand the pledge and the flag- it is all about the pledge and flag to them, not the freedom they are supposed to represent.
Many Orthodox Jews are quite poor, some entire communities are. However, nearly all our kids go to religious schools. If a religious community decides it is a priority it can be done. Tuition is usually done on a sliding scale so those who can afford it pay a large amount, those who can't pay less, and some get full scholarships. To help the schools get by while allowing everyone to go they get a lot of money from outside contributions above and beyond tuition as well. If a community decides a universal religious education for their kids is a priority, it can be done.
It doesn't. This ruling and similar debates (i.e. school prayer) aren't about banning people from praying or saying G-d. It is about whether you can force it upon others through the government. There is nothing stopping a school kid from praying quietly during lunch, homeroom, between classes, or other times there may be a moments free time. There is nothing stopping kids from forming religious groups on their own time (before and after school). There is nothing stopping kids from saying the Pledge with whatever wording they wish on their own. These court cases only keep the government from forcing those who don't want to pray or acknowlege G-d from having to do so.
I am an Orthodox Jew. G-d is part of just about everything I do. When I worked in the schools and couldn't push my views on the kids I didn't feel that I couldn't practice my religion- I was free to say blessings whenever I needed to. Today, I work in a psychiatric hospital. I can't discuss religion with my patients whenever I want to- that doesn't stop me from my own personal expression of religion.
It is not about stopping you from your own private expression of religion, it is about whether the government can force it on everyone else.
The Pledge is just over 100 years old. At the time it was written the Socialist who wrote it was a flag salesman trying to drum up sales (so says one urban legend). He was definately a Socialist and G-d wasn't added until the 1950s (as well covered here).
Yep, people get ugly over religious stuff. Back in middle school I remember standing in line in music class to pick up some instruments for the class. The kids around me started talking religion. They were talking about how much they loved Jesus. I was silent which got their attention. They demanded to know if I was Christian and loved Jesus and when I acknowlged that I was not a Christian I had several boys get mad enough about it (I was polite in my reponse) that they attacked me in front of the teacher. And it isn't just kids, the teacher heard the whole exchange so she knew why I was being attacked by a mini-mob and she stood by and didn't do a thing about it.
Then the Christians need to learn from us Orthodox Jews. We decided long ago that the influences our kids were exposed to in the public schools or secular private schools were like poison (drugs, sex, sex ed, too much co-ed exposure for adolescents, and sometimes outright hostility to our religion). With the exception of a small number of kids who need special ed services our schools can't handle we don't send our kids to public schools or secular private schools.
Many Orthodox Jews are quite poor, some entire communities are. However, nearly all our kids go to religious schools. If a religious community decides it is a priority it can be done. Tuition is usually done on a sliding scale so those who can afford it pay a large amount, those who can't pay less, and some get full scholarships. To help the schools get by while allowing everyone to go they get a lot of money from outside contributions above and beyond tuition as well. If a community decides a universal religious education for their kids is a priority, it can be done.
It doesn't. This ruling and similar debates (i.e. school prayer) aren't about banning people from praying or saying G-d. It is about whether you can force it upon others through the government. There is nothing stopping a school kid from praying quietly during lunch, homeroom, between classes, or other times there may be a moments free time. There is nothing stopping kids from forming religious groups on their own time (before and after school). There is nothing stopping kids from saying the Pledge with whatever wording they wish on their own. These court cases only keep the government from forcing those who don't want to pray or acknowlege G-d from having to do so.
I am an Orthodox Jew. G-d is part of just about everything I do. When I worked in the schools and couldn't push my views on the kids I didn't feel that I couldn't practice my religion- I was free to say blessings whenever I needed to. Today, I work in a psychiatric hospital. I can't discuss religion with my patients whenever I want to- that doesn't stop me from my own personal expression of religion.
It is not about stopping you from your own private expression of religion, it is about whether the government can force it on everyone else.
Gordon Fink
Member
I don’t want the United States to become like Iran. That’s why this issue is marginally important.
“Under God” can mean “under no God”? Okay …
~G. Fink
“Under God” can mean “under no God”? Okay …
~G. Fink
joab
Member
Most of us don't, which is why we strive to nip it in the bud
Nobody has made that claim. Only that the term under god endorses a religion which is implicitly Judeo Christianity since most other religions refer to their gods by name
No it doesn't and even if it did it would still endorse religion in a mantra forced on school children.
By saying that it is a nation under god implies that there is a god and some don't buy into that theory, others don't buy into the theory that god should have anything to do with the politics of a nation
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
"Whether or not "under God" is in the Pledge or not, the Pledge itself is a monstrosity. Why should American children be instructed to pledge allegiance to the government? "
Another gem of an essay from Anthony Gregory.
Another gem of an essay from Anthony Gregory.
beerslurpy
member
Ditto. Never heard the God bit outside of movies and TV.
I would like to add a couple of things:
1) Forcing children to swear oathes of loyalty that they do not understand is unethical
2) The original pledge was created in 1892 by a socialist who wanted to heal the divisions of the civil war
3) The Knights of Columbus, an Ohio Catholic org got the god bit added in the 1950s
- Status