And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department

[SaburoS]

Buddhists don't believe in God (IIRC).

LOL, for those pointing fingers at the guy for bringing suit as being too sensitive, you guys sure are being sensitive by the added phrase in '54 being removed from the Pledge.

Sandman's right though, it is trite.
Nash is right, don't need to say a pledge of allegience to be a patriot/love one's country.
If the country's going to a hell in a handbasket, it won't be because "Under God" was removed from the Pledge.

[midnight Target]

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
     one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

October 11, 1892

-------------------------------------------------------
I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
     one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1923
---------------------------------------------------------

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.

June 14, 1924

---------------------------------------------------------

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
     of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
     one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1954
----------------------------------------------------------




I'm all for traditional values.. I say we go back to the 1892 version.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Sandman
Hmm... the Congress added "under God" to the pledge as a result of a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. As the KOC are Catholic, what "god" do you think they we're referring to?

My point is "god" is inclusive to a great many religions.
Not just one.
Had they said Jehova or Mohammad... or Budda  (forSaburoS sake) or something along those lines it would be an entirely another story.
God is not religion specific and as such does not violate the constitution if we go by its original intent

[lazs2]

the solution is to get rid of public schools.

lazs

[Dinger]

...but not to all religions.

For that matter, how many countries are there that force a pledge of allegiance at all?

Furthermore, you southerners ought to be opposed to the Pledge on principle. After all, "indivisibility" is a direct jab at the war between the states and all that.

Some other history points:
The "hand on heart" came in only in the early forties. Before that, the more traditional outstretched arm (sieg...) was used.

"Under God" is differentiation from the Godless commies; in other words, it was brought in as part of a wider program of persecution for political beliefs.

Anyway, the point is, religious belief is something the state has no business dictating. I'm sorry, if you want a state religion, there are plenty of countries in the world that do that. Many of us came here to escape that crap (and that doesn't make us all atheists, either). Forcing children to affirm the existence of God is a pretty clear-cut case. We don't only have atheists here; we've got polytheists and people whose beliefs don't even countenance the notion of God. Why persecute them?

This reminds me of a story my professor told me of growing up in Louisville. Her First-grade teacher refused to teach her unless she went to church like everyone else. Rather than explain to the teacher and the school board just what exactly Judaism was, her parents took her to the Unitarians.

[Chairboy]

Funny, when I was in elementary school, we WERE forced to recite it.  Anyone who had religious or other objections was required to have a parent present a note.

The original poster's quote is pretty clear.  The ruling speaks

of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God

If you're religious, you're scratching your head because at some level, you're wondering "Why would anyone not want to affirm God?"

...and that's exactly why you're blind to the conflict.  A PUBLIC SCHOOL is a government institution.  If the school is requiring (as MY school did) students to recite the pledge, then they are, with this 1954 version, requiring the children to affirm allegiance to a religion.

How sanguine would you be if the text said "Under Allah" instead?  Why not just sit quietly while everyone pledges to allah around you?  Knowing this group, I'm certain that there are a bunch of you that would have a big problem with that.  Well, I'm not a christian, and for me "Under god" is just as bad as "under allah" would be to you.

[Flit]

If your not religious, how about just not saying the "under God" part, and not forcing Your beliefs down everyone else's throat ?
 As for me, I never took the "under God" part as being religion forced upon me, but as part of  a pledge of loyalty to a Nation.
 Because of the ACLU , and entities like them, this Nation is becoming the Land of the Three, instead of the Land of the Free.
  If you don't want your kids to say the Pledge of Alliegence, then homeschool.
  It's that simple.
   Instead, these boneheads are forcing thier beliefs ( or lack of , depending on how you look at it ) on everyone else, while tying up the  courts and wasting public money.

[Chairboy]

Flit, explain why christians putting "under god" into the pledge is NOT "forcing your beliefs" on those of us who are not Christian?  This is a pretty serious double standard.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Sandman
True enough, but when it comes to stuff like this, most kids just do what the rest of the class is doing.

I've stated it before and I'll state it again... I think the Pledge of Allegience lacks any meaning at all. It's trite. Most people simply say the words and don't even pause to think about what they mean.

Sandy is right, It didnt mean much to me but back then I had an even more fanitical love for this country then I do now.

Is it true for all kids? Prolly not all, but I bet most just do it cause they have to.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by lazs2
the solution is to get rid of public schools.

lazs

Spot on Laz, or at least give them something to compete against.

[Aubrey]

my 2 cents is this  

The anti religous folks fight all this stuff no matter how small, for the same reason the hand gun folks fight anti handgun laws no matter how small....

they do not want to set a precedent  that it should be acceptable to have it  (religion) or not have them (guns)

so they file suits and fight the laws, always every time,  to keep a precedent form being set.

[Suave]

It's wrong for the same reason that it would be wrong if the line went "under no god" .

"Under god" was just a pc line inserted to earn votes for policians.

[GtoRA2]

I don't think the "under god" part of the pledge is a big deal, and I was an atheist when in school. It didn’t bother me then or now.

I guess I am agnostic now. The organized religion types I think may have it wrong, but I am not sure there is not some kind of god like thing.


Still that said, I am ALL about separation of church and state, because I don't want to live under a theocracy of any kind. I will just save my energy fog bigger more important fights over things that have no in place for years and harmless.
__________________

[Flit]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Flit, explain why christians putting "under god" into the pledge is NOT "forcing your beliefs" on those of us who are not Christian?  This is a pretty serious double standard.

 Read the first line of my post

[Chairboy]

If you're religious, how about just saying the "under God" part, and not forcing your beliefs down everyone else's throat ?