Does "under God" offend you?

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Honestly does it?

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/california-students-ban-pledge-of/20061110073709990026?ncid=NWS00010000000001

LOS ANGELES (Nov. 11) - Student leaders at a California college have touched off a furor by banning the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, saying they see no reason to publicly swear loyalty to God and the U.S. government.

The move by Orange Coast College student trustees, the latest clash over patriotism and religion in American schools, has infuriated some of their classmates -- prompting one young woman to loudly recite the pledge in front of the board on Wednesday night in defiance of the rule.

"America is the one thing I'm passionate about and I can't let them take that away from me," 18-year-old political science major Christine Zoldos told Reuters.

"The fact that they have enough power to ban one of the most valued traditions in America is just horrible," Zoldos said, adding she would attend every board meeting to salute the flag.

The move was led by three recently elected student trustees, who ran for office wearing revolutionary-style berets and said they do not believe in publicly swearing an oath to the American flag and government at their school. One student trustee voted against the measure, which does not apply to other student groups or campus meetings.

The ban follows a 2002 ruling by a federal appeals court in San Francisco that said forcing school children to recite the pledge was unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God." The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ruling on procedural grounds but left the door open for another challenge.

"That ('under God') part is sort of offensive to me," student trustee Jason Ball, who proposed the ban, told Reuters. "I am an atheist and a socialist, and if you know your history, you know that 'under God' was inserted during the McCarthy era and was directly designed to destroy my ideology."

Ball said the ban largely came about because the trustees didn't want to publicly vow loyalty to the American government before their meetings. "Loyalty ought to be something the government earns through performance, not through reciting a pledge," he said.

Martha Parham, a spokeswoman for the Coast Community College District, said her office had no standing on the student board and took no position on the flag salute ban.

"If their personal belief is that they don't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, the district certainly isn't going to dictate what they do," she said.

More than 28,000 students attend the community college, located in conservative Orange County, California, south of Los Angeles.

Sophomore Chris Belanger, one of several students who attended the meeting to support keeping the pledge, waved an American flag and accused the board of "radical views and anti-Americanism."

Personally I don't see the problem. There was a discussion on another forum where a majority of the people said that it should be taken out. Why? Seperation of church and state. THAT'S WHY! But wait? Does "under God" in the pledge violate the seperation of Church and State.

No.

I know some of you might scream foul and others just don't see a reason for it to be there in the first place. It is there, but at the moment, there seems to be more pressing matters on the menu rather than "under God" being in the pledge.

Does it matter me if it is or is not in the pledge? No. If it's taken out the pledge is still the pledge. I'll be dissapointed, but I won't cry about it in the morning.

I really don't see the problem of it. Especially during that whole fiasco with that hippie Michael Newdow. That dude was a total tard.

Anyway, the pledge (at least as far as I know) isn't forced on kids. It isn't forced on adults. Teachers don't suspend students for not saying it and you don't get fired from a government job for not saying it. What bothers me is that some people just get offended by it. Like somehow it insults their intelligance to actually say "under God". The socialst above is a retard on his own merit though and doesn't represent socialism or athiesm on a whole.

Saying "under God" does not violate seperation of Church and State. Fact. End of story.

It does not say "Under the Lord Jesus Christ" or "Under the Glorious Allah" or "Under the Wise Buddha". It just says "under God".

Current interpriations of Church and State laws are basically this:
1. Government cannot promote/favor or hinder any set religion.
2. The Government is not "entangled" in any set religion.

To try to take "under God" out is like telling the Government to seperate itself from the idea that God exsist. Saying it isn't a favor to Christianity, although most people would like to believe that. That's basically what it is and you can run with it from there. Or not say it at all.

No one is pointing a gun to your head.

[Soli]

It doesn't offend me. We don't have to say it in school or anything.

When they say, "God" I don't think of it as meaning the person people go to chruch every sunday for. It's more of a moral thing for me.

[Roxie]

I don't think they should ban it, but they should stregthen or protect those clubs who take their own side of the issue.

No one should be forced to say thet pledge.
In my senior year in high school, about half way through, I was tired. So I stopped rising for the pledge or saying it.

I'd said it every morning since I was 5 years old. I think I got it down. Besides, if I really feel such, saying the pledge doesn't illustrate it. And if I don't feel as such, I shouldn't be forced to say it.

But then came the backlash.
My classmate got angry with me and started talking about how I should honor "our" ancestors that fought for us to be free. Which made me giggle..not at the idea of people dying for what they believe in, but b/c we certainly did not share ancestors (our ancestors had distinctly different issues with freedom) and secondly, because freedom also means freedom from.

Then my teacher got so upset with me she threatend to have me suspended. I think I stood up that day, but sat down the rest.

Even though I believe in God, I would take it out of the pledge because it wasn't orginally in there and because of the political reasons as to why it was added didn't have much to do with God at all.

[MeneerDijk]

I think it's offensive that people are trying to force their ideology on others. They should let people decide for themselves how and if they want to say the pledge.

My highschool was one based on a christian ideology. That meant that the days started with prayer, and there would be the opportunity to pray before dinner. but not all students were christians or even religious. So they just didnt participate. all that was asked of them was a couple of minutes of silence so the others could say their prayers.

I figure keeping silent for a couple of minutes for another person is part of a basic respect that everyone should have for another.

[Jetsetlemming]

I don't see this as much of a "religous" or "political" issue, as much as it is a bunch of pretentious college kids with nothing better to do and too much time on their hands creating a "ban" to purpously create a furvor, looking at their actions as "sticking it to the man", without realizing that they are doing exactly what they've claimed "the man" has been doing: Using a position of power to persecute things they don't agree with. Conservative christians have become the new rebels on college campuses.
God music is the new Devil music.

[Roxie]

Conservative christians have become the new rebels on college campuses.
God music is the new Devil music.

You forgot to quote 1984.

[Jetsetlemming]

I've never got around to reading 1984, sadly. :( Every time I make plans to, I forget. >_> Must be a government conspiracy to keep me down.

[Stephy]

I don't see this as much of a "religous" or "political" issue, as much as it is a bunch of pretentious college kids with nothing better to do and too much time on their hands creating a "ban" to purpously create a furvor, looking at their actions as "sticking it to the man", without realizing that they are doing exactly what they've claimed "the man" has been doing: Using a position of power to persecute things they don't agree with. Conservative christians have become the new rebels on college campuses.
God music is the new Devil music.

I think this is it ^

Also I am atheist and I don't feel offended by that at all. From elementary to the end of High school we HAD to pledge to the flag and of course that line is in it. I never minded much or cared much about it. It didn't bother me. I just tried to respect the school's policy each year and pledge every morning.

[Candyvan Stan]

I think being forced to say a pledge every morning before starting class is in itself a form of brainwashing. Luckily people aren't forced to in most US schools.

Of course, that's just my opinion and I know many of you will disagree. I respect that. However, if I were forced to pledge allegiance to something as silly as the country I was born before starting school each day, I'd find another school or go as far as to move.

[Nebosuke]

I'm not really religious at all, and I can't say that the 'under god' part offends me. What does offend me, however, is the origins of the phrase's addition to the pledge of allegiance during the height of the red scare. The Knights of Columbus basically lobbied for congress to amend the pledge with the implication that your views on economics (capitalist vs communist) and compatibility with American values are inextricably tied to your religion--the exact opposite of the vision for America that was held by our founding fathers.

I would have no problem with it at all if they had simply added the 'under god' part in deference to the fact that the vast majority of the US believes in the same family of religions that all worship the same god. On the other hand, however, I think that they should probably have just left it intact in its original form.

[Trump]

This issue is not even worth a discussion. When you become a citizen of this country you effectively take an oath of loyalty to this country. If you pay attention to what the pledge actually says, it doesn't say anything about worshipping God, or even whether or not he exists. "one nation under god, indivisible..." implies we appear to everyone, other countries and even a higher power, as one united nation. What does religion really have to do with it?

[CrazyAce86]

Hell, by the time I hit senior year, nobody stood up for the pledge. My homeroom teacher didn't bother most of the time, unless the superintendent was prowling around. Then we'd stand and not bother with the pledge. I tell you know, I said it all throughout my school years, and I still have no idea what the words are if you asked me.

As for "under God," no, it doesn't offend. Since most religions believe in a god-- even Pagans, like myself, we believe in a God and Goddess-- it can be taken to mean the god(s) of your choice.

For agnostics and atheists, well, exercise your freedom not to say it. I don't think it should be there, since it wasn't there originally (it was added in the '50s, I believe.) But change is hard to come by, so until its mandated one way or another, just do whatever feels right for you to do. Say it, don't say it. Stand up, don't stand up. It's personal choice, and no matter what our government says, you still have the right to a personal choice.

IRT Trump, you're right, it is an oath. It's the oath part of it that we're discussing. Now you said it yourself, when one becomes a citizen of the United States, you take an oath. But shouldn't that oath be welcoming to all religions and not just single out the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God? I mean it could be taken to mean any god, sure, but we all know it's not. Should only those that believe in God be American citizens?

I'm not saying I buy this, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I personally believe it's your choice to say "under God," "under gods," or "under ___" if you don't believe in any god or gods. (One atheist I know used "under law".)

[tweek.3867]

Anyway, the pledge (at least as far as I know) isn't forced on kids. It isn't forced on adults. Teachers don't suspend students for not saying it and you don't get fired from a government job for not saying it.
Actually, we used to get detentions for not standing up and reciting the pledge during homeroom. That stopped when kids at my school complained and made a formal argument to the administration of the school... and it took a while to change, even then. Our school doesn't like to listen to students, even if the students have an actual lawyer [i.e. my friend's dad is a lawyer] look over their arguments to see if they are sound and completely reasonable, on whatever subject, this or otherwise.

Anyways: I honestly don't care one way or the other. If the phrase "under God" is there or not, I will not put up a fuss... it really makes no difference one way or another in my book. So no, I do not find it offensive. However, I honestly don't see why it is there in the first place.

it doesn't say anything about worshipping God, or even whether or not he exists. "one nation under god, indivisible..." implies we appear to everyone, other countries and even a higher power, as one united nation.
To me, it implies that we are all under God's wing. United yes, but specifically united under God's wing, which is indeed wrong. To me, that is a pretty big deal as far as the seperation of chuch and state is concerned. Even implying in the slightest that we are all under God is a religious idea and thus should not be there, in anything relating to our government.

I am not going to put up a huge fight and try to get the pledge banned or anything... I never even say the pledge anyway. I never really thought I needed to recite a few lines, that are now as good as meaningless, to show my patriotism -- that comes from actions, not useless sayings. Yet just the same, I still don't think it needs to be there.

The pledge itself should not be banned. I do think it would be a wise idea to remove the words "under God," though. The meaning of those two words is entirely subject to interpretation, but I think there are enough people out there who will see it is a religious idea for it to matter.

[edit]Also, isn't there a comma after "nation"? Making it read "one nation, under god, indivisible..." Grammatically speaking, this would further imply the idea that it is saying one nation in God's realm, as opposed to how we are seen, as united, by well.. anyone.

And is it not true that Pres. Eisenhower said this, upon signing the words "under God" into the pledge:
From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.

[Angelyne]

Forcing children to take the pledge is far more offensive to me than the phrase "under God". Honestly, how many kindergartners and elementary school students even understand what they are pledging every day? It's such a creepy ritual.

I attended several public schols in different states. All of them enforced the pledge. My high school was the most lenient--you didn't actually have to say the pledge, but you got in trouble if you were not quiet, did not stand, or did not pay attention while it was recited.

[Zaysho]

Personally, I couldn't care less if it as in there. In high school, we just kinda stopped doing it. Not because of fear of offending someone, but teachers just didn't bother. I think if you want to say it, fine. Don't want to? That's fine too. The way I see it, you could just stand up for the few seconds it takes and then sit right back down. I don't believe anyone's arms are being twisted to recite it.

I don't usually say it just because I think that standing up and at least looking respectful is good enough for me. I don't really see a reason for "under God" to be removed just because a few people need something to complain to about though. However, I won't lose any sleep over it if it were to be taken out. If I were to recite it though, I might put it in there just because it's the way I learned it. Jetsetlemming summed it all up quite nicely actually.

[Kwiz]

Being bitter about how "the Almighty" is seen by so many as a single supernatural, miracle-inducing being up in the sky, I'm actually not offended by the "God" portion. I'm put off by the "under" clause.

[chad mullet]

It strikes me that the very existence of the pledge hints at a deep underlying insecurity and lack of confidence in the American people.

I notice too that when the Star Spangled Banner is played all and sundry put their hands over their hearts ,[or are they protecting their wallets], and adopt a what they imagine to be a posture of misty-eyed patriotism.

You have no idea how funny and ridiculous this seems to many of us here in Britain - I think that emotions ,including patriotism or loyalty to one's country,
are something to be felt rather than shown in empty displays such as this pledge.

[Jon885]

i chose 4. i stood for the pledge but never said it, since i never payed attention to the words so i never memorized them all.

[Jetsetlemming]

You know what I always found weird about the pledge? That it's "I pledge alliegance to the flag of the united states of america". Not "I pledge alliegance to the united states of America", but to the flag. :watson: Always struck me as kinda odd.

[Pierrot le Fou]

The Pledge of Allegiance offends me, deep down. It's brainwashing. Like multiplication tables. How dare they force young children to repeat those blasted products over and over again?! They are trying to enforce a love of arithmetic! THIS MUST STOP!

"That ('under God') part is sort of offensive to me, I am an atheist and a socialist, and if you know your history, you know that 'under God' was inserted during the McCarthy era and was directly designed to destroy my ideology."

Like, he was totally trying to destroy my che-guevara-wearing revolutionary ideology, man. I'm totally sort of offended by his, like, total NARC-ism. He was a total bummer.

So like, I'm going to fight the power man! Because I'm a socialist, because it's, y'know, TOTALLY counter-culture.

If I ever meet that man, I will put him on the slow-boat to Cuba without a passport so he can enjoy his socialist Utopia first-hand.

[Jetsetlemming]

It strikes me that the very existence of the pledge hints at a deep underlying insecurity and lack of confidence in the American people.

I notice too that when the Star Spangled Banner is played all and sundry put their hands over their hearts ,[or are they protecting their wallets], and adopt a what they imagine to be a posture of misty-eyed patriotism.

You have no idea how funny and ridiculous this seems to many of us here in Britain - I think that emotions ,including patriotism or loyalty to one's country,
are something to be felt rather than shown in empty displays such as this pledge.
Just like religous observances and the mourning of dead loved ones are vacous shows of pretending, to make other people believe you have feelings you don't too, right?

[erised]

(One atheist I know used "under law".)

That's a pretty good substitute; I like it. ^_^

I never particularly liked it, but I said it when I was in school when they "made" us. When I was in the 5th grade, a big stink was raised and they didn't force people to say it, but you did have to stand and be quiet while everyone else said it.

I see why some people get upset. I don't think it should be in there (the fact that many of the 1st Americans were seeking religious freedom makes it seem pretty ironic), but I'm out of school now and don't have kids, so I don't worry.

[Karthak]

From my perspective, the pledge itself stinks of brainwashing. Forcing small children to stand up and say that every day....It´s something I´d expect from North Korea, China or Burma, not from a democracy.

[Kintaro]

Hmm, in Canada, it's rarely this in your face. I mean, individuals can use the words of their choice, but the government must attempt to stay as neutral as possible. Despite the fact that our country was founded with people from two cults, the country is for everybody, you can solemnly affirm instead of taking an oath without substance (it's the man or woman anyways that makes it worth something. Look at all your crooks spouting "I'm honest, I swear!" ad nauseam.

Some places have instead of "best effort possible", "mandated maximum effort" towards secularity. On a scale of 0 to 10, France scores a 10 there, Quebec scores a 9 for government, an 8 for the people. Canada, about 7. USA = 3. Christianity is desecrated on a daily basis for political gain where 85 % don't care, 10% do, and 5% are against it. Most people wouldn't mind "under cheeseburgers", if cheeseburgers were part of American culture... oh wait...

At least it isn't central Africa or the Middle East, which has hot pockets of Convert or die fundamentalism.

[RandomPasserby]

Hmm.. to my understanding, God (instead of a god) is almost always assumed to be christianity's god, no-one else. And if there is no religious message in it, why can't the pledge be returned to it's original form then? If it could be changed in the 50s, surely it can be changed back to the original form? After all, it isn't a big thing if the phrase is there so why it would be a big thing that the pledge was in original form?

This is just my opinion as a non-american though. It seems so silly that apparently some religious people are against removing a "totally unreligious" phrase (not necessarily meaning op).

[Pierrot le Fou]

I always chuckle about this issue.

We have two words. Two words that have very little real impact on anything. And we have scathing public debate about those two words. The discussion surrounding this issue, and the benefits of that discussion, FAR outweigh the issues that those two words cause.

I'm sure there are a few kids in the US who will never learn about the controversy surrounding those words, but they are in the vast minority. And those people who are so cut off from the political climate and the issues that concern the American populace as a whole are not likely going to be much better-off not having to say those two words, or even the entire pledge.

Every morning at my company, we have to recite the company pledge. We all stand up, face the sign it's written on, and talk about how we will all get along, do our best, and work for the good of the other workers and our customers. I s'pose it's different because we're adults, but honestly, it's far more like brainwashing than the pledge ever was, and there's NO discussion about whether or not it's right or wrong.

This entire issue is making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Josh]

Of course the pledge stinks of brainwashing, thats what it is supposed to do. Every government around the world takes part in socializing the children of their respective countries in order to make good little patriots. Cuba does their cuban thing, France does their french thing and so on for everywhere. Just because you might not notice doesn't mean it isnt happening. Its those little things you don't think about, ya know?

That said, I don't think they should ban it from their meetings. If you don't want to say it, then don't. Sit down and be quiet, it takes all of 30 seconds to say and then its over.

[Kintaro]

Josh : Your statement is fallacious, to say the least. In what way does France make "good little patriots". The avenues for dissent are almost innumerable. From socialists to nationalists, nothing is done to forcefully unite the French people other than keep the language. While most people could agree with the Cuba statement without backing given empirical data, you're off base for France. No scapegoats anonymous here.

[Kass]

It strikes me that the very existence of the pledge hints at a deep underlying insecurity and lack of confidence in the American people.

I notice too that when the Star Spangled Banner is played all and sundry put their hands over their hearts ,[or are they protecting their wallets], and adopt a what they imagine to be a posture of misty-eyed patriotism.

You have no idea how funny and ridiculous this seems to many of us here in Britain - I think that emotions ,including patriotism or loyalty to one's country,
are something to be felt rather than shown in empty displays such as this pledge.

Do you even know why the pledge was started in the first place? It was instituted after the Civil War to ensure loyalty from the leaders of the South. After their surrender at Appomattox in 1865, the South was to rejoin the Union. To prevent another immediate uprising amongst Southern leaders and soldiers, they had to pledge their allegiance to the Union. (At the time, God wasn't mentioned in the pledge.)

The pledge stems from a time when the nation was deeply divided and the need for allegiance to one common nation was at a premium. The nation had to rebuild and it couldn't do that if it was divided.

I think "under God" should be removed just because it isn't in the original text. I've little patience for militant atheism that not only demands their freedom, but also demands that the freedom of the religious be abridged so that they don't even have to acknowledge that anyone believes in God. Their freedom not to believe doesn't trump the freedom to believe.

I'd argue that right now, we need the pledge more than ever--not as an oath of loyalty to the current adminstration, but as a reminder that this is still one nation. All the red state-blue state bull and the rampant anti-everything in this country has left us more divided than we were after the Civil War. That war was a one-issue war. You can couch it in state's rights all you want, but the only right they wanted and couldn't have was the right to own slaves. The democratic republic, the politics, etc. were never the problem and those wounds healed. I believe the wounds we have now won't for a much longer period.

The disrespect for those who engage in "empty displays" of patriotism is another problem. If you don't want to say the pledge, fine, but don't be disrepsectful of those who do. If that means you stand silently, then get off your ass and stand silently out of respect for those around you--not the government. It's called common courtesy, although it isn't at all common anymore. Most of the people who piss and moan about standing during the pledge wouldn't think twice about standing during the national anthem of another nation at a hockey game or the Olympics, yet that simple courtesy is beyond their capacity when it comes to their neighbors.

Oh, I'd also like to point out that in that kid's atheist, socialist state, he wouldn't have the freedom to demand that anything be banned. You see anyone in Cuba demanding anything of Castro? Didn't think so. They all get on boats to the US and demand we do something about Castro.

[Kass]

Josh : Your statement is fallacious, to say the least. In what way does France make "good little patriots". The avenues for dissent are almost innumerable. From socialists to nationalists, nothing is done to forcefully unite the French people other than keep the language. While most people could agree with the Cuba statement without backing given empirical data, you're off base for France. No scapegoats anonymous here.

This about a nation that has an entire government agency to prevent the contamination of the French language with English words. English words can't be added and used in the official French lexicon without government approval and you want to assert that the French government does nothing to promote France over everyone?

The French immigration laws prevent immigrants and their children and grandchildren from moving up economically and socially. They banned muslim girls from wearing the hijab in school to make them look more French and not stand out. Entire neighborhoods around Paris are completely isolated by choice. Police and fire services can't go into these enclaves without being attacked. The officials can't do anything about it. These enclaves go up in riots fairly regularly now and Paris goes up in flames from time to time--all because French superiority complex is so ingrained in government and culture that it is discriminatory against anyone not French.

France might not use a pledge to display loyalty or patriotism, but it is so blindly and fiercely nationalistic, they will let their cities burn before they will accept any dilution of their culture.

[chad mullet]

Just like religous observances and the mourning of dead loved ones are vacous shows of pretending, to make other people believe you have feelings you don't too, right?

99% of the time ,yes.

[Kintaro]

Kass: I turn on TV5 almost daily. Saying that France blocks intrusions of anglicisms in their language is laughable. Quebec does a better job than France, although not a great one either. Besides, language degradation comes from within with the whole verlan/céfran mindset.

While most of your second paragraph is reflective of fact, you're confusing integration with patriotism. As we say, you're comparing apples and oranges. Besides, some people find it totally normal to remove all signs of faith in the public square (out in public is free, talking about state-sponsored stuff like schools) when the tenets of those faiths basically state that non-x's are subhuman for not believing in x.

Enough of the derail from me, if you want to talk about francophone patriots, you're more likely to find them in Quebec, where the curriculum is shaped in history and language classes to create a sense of oppressor and oppressed (which existed then too, probably more dramatized than it has to be though), leading up to discussions on "distinct society" and "nation within a nation". This leads to a clash of patriots, those loyal to a concept of a unified Canada, and those of an independent Quebec state. There's an effective form of patriotic struggle, that isn't defined by circular logic struggling around words like "god".

Singing O Canada in Quebec schools doesn't fly , and I'd say that 5/10 would be against it for the Canada part, 5/10 against forced patriotism and 5/10 about the "god"/religion mentions in the anthem. Given a random distribution, only 12-13% would be okay with that as is, probably out of apathy.

[Kass]

It doesn't block them, it approves or disapproves them in the official lexicon on a case by case basis and there IS a bureau of the government to do so. Le bleu jean, for example, was approved and can officially be in the French lexicon. Everyday usage of any language is always a toss up because of slang, etc.

The French do not differentiate patriotism from their culture. They are one in the same. An assault on French culture is an assault on the people and the country. There is no distinction between them.

As for the difference of integration and patriotism, I'm not comparing apples to oranges because I was pointing out the REASON for the lack of integration. The French refuse to allow integration because it is a corruption of their culture and, thus, their nation. The hijab ruling was not an attempt to encourage religious freedom, but an attempt to discourage one particular religion that is only common amongst immigrants. No one was complaining about crosses or stars of David--only the hijab. The French don't want these people to integrate. They want them to leave the country and go out of their way to make them feel unwelcome. If they don't leave, they don't want them to stand out.

Their immigration laws deliberately make it virtually impossible to integrate. Even children of immigrants born in France have few rights and aren't considered French citizens.

Quite frankly, their cultural and patriotic isolation will be their downfall. The riots of two summers ago will look like school yard fights. The immigrant enclaves are openly hostile to even fire and rescue services to the point that none will respond to emergencies in the enclaves. If France wants to regain authority and return the rule of their laws to the enclaves, they will have to go in with military force.

France uses its cultural identity as a binding identifier amongst the French and as a tool to keep non-French out. They even walked out of the EU meetings because the EU leaders decided to hold those meetings in English, not French.

Either way, the pledge of allegiance is harmless. Everyone of those kids who are kicking and screaming about having to say it said it at one point in elementary school. Every American school child who has grown up to criticize the US government said it at one point. Richard Reid said it at some point and he tried to blow up an American plane because he joined al Qaeda.

There is no evidence that saying the pledge results in brainwashing or blind patriotism. Given the divisive state of the US (very possibly the most divided since the end of the Civil War) and all the red state-blue state bullshit that is going around, I'd argue that it has no affect on patriotism or willingness to follow the government at all. The current state of politics belies any assertion to the contrary. So does the very existence of groups who want to ban the pledge.

[Ichisan]

I find the words have a more powerful appeal with 'one nation under God' than without. You want the pledge to be something emotional and stirring not bureaucratese or legal-speak.

But, as a non-American, it strikes me as a bit much that you have to repeat the pledge *every single morning*. Doesn't that just make it less special and more of a chore?

[setrict]

Do you even know why the pledge was started in the first place?
This is different from the history I got googling it. I had no idea the 'God' portion was added later, so I decided to look up the history after reading Nebosuke's post.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur10.htm

Of course the pledge stinks of brainwashing, thats what it is supposed to do. Every government around the world takes part in socializing the children of their respective countries in order to make good little patriots.
Sounds like you are right on. It was an extreme socialist who came up with the thing in the first place. On a related note, a socialist friend of mine insists the the primary purpose of the public education system is NOT education, but to promote nationalism and unity.

[Kass]

If you read other sources, including my history texts, it is noted that most saw Bellamy's pledge as a way to unify the nation after the Civil War. It is a shorter and more concise version of the pledge that Confederate officers and soldiers were required to give.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance

[setrict]

As usual, Kass is right again. I read a little more on Bellamy, and despite the POL being 27 years later Bellamy's comments make it clear that the civil war was foremost in his thoughts then writing it.

"It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution... with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
"The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands'. ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

[Beowulf]

As Kass said, I'm all for removing it just because the whole 'under God' part was only added to PROTECT US FROM GODLESS COMMUNISTS!

If they don't want to take it out then should just change it to something cool like 'One Nation Under Ted Nugent' or something.
http://www.nhgazette.com/shop/uploads/nugent_ted.jpg

[D-pad]

even Pagans, like myself, we believe in a God and Goddess-- it can be taken to mean the god(s) of your choice.
*giggles*:frypan:

[Kass]

As Kass said, I'm all for removing it just because the whole 'under God' part was only added to PROTECT US FROM GODLESS COMMUNISTS!

If they don't want to take it out then should just change it to something cool like 'One Nation Under Ted Nugent' or something.
http://www.nhgazette.com/shop/uploads/nugent_ted.jpg

Please note this is not the reason I support removing it. My sole reason is the hsitoric integrity of the pledge. I could not care less about the God part otherwise. We have "In God We Trust" on our money and other very important documents and it has done very little to make this a "religious nation." Frankly, an extraordinarily small, but vocal minority has done more for that than all the references to God in government documents and writings of our founders ever have.

It's in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence (please tell me that memorization of this is still mandatory in schools):
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Thomas Jefferson referred to God repeatedly in his writings:
The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them.

Patrick Henry:
It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

President John Adams:
We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Benjamin Franklin:
This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.

Mr. Franklin once again:
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

Mr. Franklin is often overshadowed by Jefferson as a writer. He's very underrated:
God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country.

The Father of Our Country, Gen. George Washington:
The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness
from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend on God, on the courage and conduct of this army.

Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.

Once more from President Washington:
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Justice William O. Douglas:
We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.

All these wise men, among the many others who have shaped our nation, had the good sense to realize that religion was best served if the state did not muddle in it and vice versa. At the same time, they recognized that religion provided a moral compass for individuals and was as important as a small, unintrusive and fair government.

President James Madison, fourth president of the United States:
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.

One more from President John Adams:
Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.

Mere references to an ambiguous God do not endorse a religion, nor do they impose it on anyone. Mere references impinge upon no one's religious freedoms and frankly, if the mere mention of God is so offensive to someone that they go into a litigious tizzy, they have a serious persecution complex that needs professional attention.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Mere references to an ambiguous God do not endorse a religion, nor do they impose it on anyone. Mere references impinge upon no one's religious freedoms and frankly, if the mere mention of God is so offensive to someone that they go into a litigious tizzy, they have a serious persecution complex that needs professional attention.

I've heard quite a few things about the mear mention of God around anything governmental is taboo. We (I guess) are sapposed to remember everyone else and that everyone doesn't believe what you believe.

Here's the deal and I'm not gonna sugar-coat it.

Whenever anyone hears God said in this country its automatically relayed in the brain that they are talking about Christianity. Christianity is the majority religion in this nation. Of course it's relayed back to that religion. Some people think "under God" or any refrence thereof is specifically directed to Christianity. So they call up the seperation of Church and State...*sigh* again.

More and more I'm seeing some athiest getting more vocal about what they think about Christianity. Christianity is probably bashed the most by them. I'm not saying "Oh we poor Christians have a rough life, we're opressed" no and in fact in the past they did that a little themselves, but I never really hear an athiest bash a Buddhist. I understand, we are a majority religion and when someone has to make a point they aren't going to go after a minority (unless you are Tony Snow).

From their viewpoint they are tired of something that they do not believe being shoved in their face. "under God" is just another way of forcing something down the throat.

[Kass]

Yeah, that's the same argument I hear for telling private companies they can't say "Christmas" because it is discriminatory and the same reason I got when I was told my daughter couldn't wear her crucifix to school and it is as much bull now as it was then.

If they choose to make that association, that is up to them, but when I worked with the Girls Scouts, I had two troops of muslim girls and I spoke at length with the leader about the Girl Scout oath and how girls could substitute whatever word for God their religion recognized. One leader promptly pointed out that they had no problem with it because they just assumed it meant their God, not the Christian depiction of God. Very reasonable, I thought.

The freedom of religion does not mean that God can't be mentioned or invoked by anyone within earshot/eyeshot of another. It means the state cannot force you to choose one religion over another or meddle in the affairs of the church and vice versa. Nowhere does it say that oversensitive babies are to be sheltered from big, bad words like "God" or that it can't be used at public events/meetings.

Recitation of the pledge in public schools is optional. Jehovah's Witnesses opt out of it all the time because their religion is opposed to making such a pledge. The only thing that is required is silence and respect while those who don't object do recite it. At publicly funded universities the policy should be the same, but if it is a private university, they can tell you to spin around three times before every lecture and if you don't like it, you can leave.

Most of the activist atheist movement anymore isn't just atheist. It's the anti-Christianity religion of its own. Their goal isn't to be accepted for being atheists. It's to eradicate any reminder that Christianity exists and that was NEVER the intent of the separation of church and state clause.

Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were not really Christians, but rather Deists, believing that human reason and the natural world revealed the existence of a God or Supreme Being instead of the other way around. James Madison was an atheist. To assume that they intended a Christian God would be a bit presumptive. Some like Patrick Henry did obviously, but the major authors of the Constitution did not.

That is the brilliance of the Constitution that is so rarely overlooked. It was a massive compromise of needs, wants and beliefs. No colony got everything it wanted. No one philosophy dominates. Yet, despite being a hastily drafted document in comparison to the time it takes to draft such documents now, it is artfully crafted and skillfully written to be very specific and open to interpretation at the same time. When it was written that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" they meant EXACTLY that, yet references to religion are deliberately so generic that they reference any religion.

If that is the automatic assumption of opponents of "in God" anywhere is a reference only to a Christian God, it shows mostly their ignorance of history. It would do them well to spend more time in history class and less time in extracurricular clubs.

[Nebosuke]

The notion that 'God' in government documents does not refer specifically to any particular religion's supreme being is besides the point for atheists and many other objectors. Muslims and followers of some other religions, as you mention, may feel that the phrase encompasses them as well, but atheists, Buddhists, and believers in any other 'godless' or polytheistic religions are excluded by definition.

The argument that you should not feel offended because the phrase is vague enough to encompass your religion is valid if true, but does nothing to address the issue of the objections of those for whom that is not the case.

[Kass]

And they have the option of not reciting anything with such an oath, however, I think it is a gross assault on history to write out references to the principles upon which the nation was founded--as gross an assault as adding in "under God" in the 1950s was. It says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. The mere mention of a God of anykind does not establish a religion. No one has the right to not be offended. If you want free speech and free religion, then you ahve to be willing to live with things that might offend you. It's the price of your own freedom.

It is also a generic mention of God which can be interpreted as a goddess as well. No Wiccan I know objects to saying the pledge. It doesn't seem to bother them because they look on it for what it is--a generic reference much like using mankind or human to describe homo sapiens of all genders. They also recognize what negligible impact it has on people.

The militant atheists who lead many of these challenges are the ones who object to the religious exercising their right to free exercise of religion even when not in conjunction with a government function such as what jewelry can be worn, whether or not Wal-mart and Target can use "Christmas" in their ads and internal communications (they've argued it violates first amendment rights for a PRIVATE corporation to do so) and object to private displays of religious symbols on private property viewable to the public.

Again, if someone is offended by the mere mention of God and others exercising their rights to freedom of religion, then they have bigger personal issues than this. Nowhere is it written that the religious have to abridge their rights to appease anyone, nor is it written that we have to undo founding documents and imagery to vanquish any reference to our origins. Should we delete the reason the Puritans came to this continent in the first place from history books as well?

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free;

...

that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right;

...

that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

...

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.


That last paragraph would also encompass legislating out references to God as well.

Three guesses who wrote that and for what.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

to Kass: I'd say Ben Franklin, the style and rather long sentences sound like him. He might've written it for his autobiography, but, well, that's just a guess.

Somehow this debate reminds me of Roy Moore, the judge who put a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse. I spoke to my mother, who was for keeping them there. I think I said something to the point that if he was allowed to keep them in his courthouse, then other judges would also have the freedom to put up, say, the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, passages from the Koran, or heck, the Eleven Satanic Rules of Earth. I think she said something like, we can't have that, because we're a Christian nation, so I said, "And that's why it's illegal."

I wonder if she understood what I was saying...

[Kass]

I've no objection to displays of other faiths short of perhaps public animal sacrifice or something like that, but I also object to the forcible removal of references to the principals upon which we were founded and frankly, the Ten Commandments are the basic laws from which all of our modern laws stem, with the exception of the graven images commandment. It would do people well to remember better our past rather than try to obliterate it. They'd find the world a far, far more tolerant place.

Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right not to see, not to hear or to not be exposed to the religion of others. Suppression of religion in support of any other religion isn't freedom. It's oppression and it's only a matter of time before the next "offensive" religion is targeted.

No, it isn't Ben Franklin.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Tolerence is dead in the world.

People either want it their way or their rights are being violated. That's it.
I think if the framers of the Constitution saw what people were arguing in the future I think they would of just said, "Why bother?"

I great people are passionate about something, but there is a limit.

It's not just athiest, Christians, Republicans, Democrats, gays, straights, black people, white people, etc.

It's EVERYONE!

Everytime I see an issue in Congress, that shouldn't be an issue in Congress, I want to take a bus to Washington DC and constantly scream obcenities to my congressmen.

This isn't just the Congressmen or Senators. This is the people of this nation as well. We cannot tolerate anyone who does not have the same set of beliefs as you. It may not look like it now, but if history rhymes, then we are building and adding to a powdered keg that in any given moment will blow up in a situation we don't want.

I know atheist don't believe in religion. Tolerate it.
I know Christians don't like gays. Tolerate it.
I know Republicans and Democrats hate each other. Tolerate it.

You don't have to agree to it, but by God, you can respect it and let it be. Jesus was one of the first religious figures to teach tolerance to his own people. Now look where we are in the world.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

I think perhaps you misunderstood me, Kass? My point was that if you protect one religion or give one religion rights, then you give them all protection and rights.

I don't think tolerance is dead, I think stupidity has abounded...

If it's not Ben, then it's TJ. Being who he was, he's probably wrote that on behalf of the state of Virginia.

[Fred]

I know I am stepping into the discussion late.

I think the Pledge of Allegiance helps to create a sense of national identity, which I think has some benefit. So, I support its recitation in public schools.

I am certainly not offended by the term “under God”. It is no struggle for me to interpret the word to mean whatever that I want it to mean. In fact, it is my belief that everyone interprets the word the word God to mean whatever they want it to mean.

However, if I had to vote whether to keep the words or delete them from the pledge, I would choose to delete them. For me, the words “under God” imply a certain sense of righteousness that I am not comfortable with. It suggests to me that I should think whatever my country does is justified because God is on our side. I am not saying that the authors of the phrase did or did not intend to make that implication. It is definitely my own “baggage”.

[RandomPasserby]

Number17, it's atheist. Also at least my only problem with christian views about abortion, homosexuals and witches is actually that it isn't just dislike, but that there is a lot of hate/fear that has already lead to bombings of abortion clinics and in the past, witch burning. So tolerating the hate-part is little out of the question when it is known to lead to violence.

ps. Kass our laws would almost certainly be the same without the 10 commandments (check what is allowed in China/Japan and compare that to our laws), so saying that laws are based on 10 commandments is silly.

[Kaji]

ps. Kass our laws would almost certainly be the same without the 10 commandments (check what is allowed in China/Japan and compare that to our laws), so saying that laws are based on 10 commandments is silly.

Did Massachusetts, founded to give the Puritans free practice of their form of Protestant Christianity, derive their laws from those in China or Japan? How about Maryland, founded as a haven for Roman Catholicism? Or the rest of the original colonies, founded by followers of the Church of England (which depending on who you ask was only a hair's breadth from the Catholic Church anyway)? True, perhaps the laws would have developed as they did were it not for the 10 Commandments, but to deny the role of Christianity in the founding of the colonies that came to form the first states of this nation is ludicrous.

[MNJetter]

(One atheist I know used "under law".)
Hey, my friends and I used to say that. That brings back memories.


Hmm.. to my understanding, God (instead of a god) is almost always assumed to be christianity's god, no-one else. And if there is no religious message in it, why can't the pledge be returned to it's original form then? If it could be changed in the 50s, surely it can be changed back to the original form? After all, it isn't a big thing if the phrase is there so why it would be a big thing that the pledge was in original form?
Quoted because I couldn't phrase it better myself. My thoughts exactly. Which means, by default, I also agree with Kass's basic argument.

Though my biggest argument with the phrase is actually the fact that I don't want to be forced to tell a lie in a pledge that I otherwise feel is pretty much true.

The notion that 'God' in government documents does not refer specifically to any particular religion's supreme being is besides the point for atheists and many other objectors. Muslims and followers of some other religions, as you mention, may feel that the phrase encompasses them as well, but atheists, Buddhists, and believers in any other 'godless' or polytheistic religions are excluded by definition.

The argument that you should not feel offended because the phrase is vague enough to encompass your religion is valid if true, but does nothing to address the issue of the objections of those for whom that is not the case.
And this would be illustrating the lie that I had to tell every day at my elementary school. It's a very specific set of religions - namely, monotheisms - to write "God" with a capital letter and no article or plural to go with it. I've always felt a little strange with the pledge for that reason.

It's not that I don't think that people should be able to express their religion. But the Pledge is an official government-sponsered thing, which is the only place I think any mention of a specific religion or set of religions should be forcibly separated from. I mean, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, because I understand that the 75%-80% of Americans who are monotheistic just don't really understand that the phrase is inherantly limiting. How would you like it if it changed to "under gods," assuming that not everybody worshipped the same god? If you're a monotheist, you would probably feel a little strange about it, even though it doesn't specifically refer to a single religion or religions, and the term is vague enough to include anybody's beliefs. It's not like it takes up my thoughts in my daily life, but I disagree with anyone who says that it is vague enough to encompass and include anybody.

[Kass]

Number17, it's atheist. Also at least my only problem with christian views about abortion, homosexuals and witches is actually that it isn't just dislike, but that there is a lot of hate/fear that has already lead to bombings of abortion clinics and in the past, witch burning. So tolerating the hate-part is little out of the question when it is known to lead to violence.

ps. Kass our laws would almost certainly be the same without the 10 commandments (check what is allowed in China/Japan and compare that to our laws), so saying that laws are based on 10 commandments is silly.

Again, people would be better served if they spent more time in history class.

As far as capitalization, I do tend to capitalize God because of my convictions, even though I often refer to God in reference to other religions. I figure I owe their beliefs as much respect as mine. When referring to anything not a specific to religion, I use lowercase.

If you go back and look at historical documents, you find that capitalization was pretty darn random. Almost every word in the letters and writings of Jefferson and Franklin are capitalized. That held true pretty much into the 1900s. The rules of grammar were much less defined prior to that. The original pledge had all nouns and verbs capitalized. Capitalization and spelling were up to the individual authors. Many of these people had no formal schooling. George Washington had virtually no schooling and was very conscious of his inadequacies and went to great lengths to hide them. He had secretaries clean up his writing.

I also never asserted "under God" encompassed everybody. I said it was generic enough to be inoffensive and for those who have objections to using the phrase, they can not say it or even not say the pledge.

[RandomPasserby]

Kass, you mean you americans didn't take part witch hunts?

Also, when I said our laws, I meant western world. You can't argue that american laws weren't affect at all by the laws in Europe when the immigration started.

[Jetsetlemming]

Americans in general? No. Superstitious uneducated villagers in new england? Yes. There's a difference. Also, the witch trials weren't instigated by Christianity. In the village of Salem, some teenage girls accused varying members of the community of attacking and choking them in their sleep. The town was thrown into a superstitious panic of servants of the devil with magical powers attacking people, and thus some of the people accused of witchcraft, 19 to be exact were put to death by hanging. See here for more info: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM
It has nothing to do with America at large, or Christianity in general. It's also far from american-centric occurance.
(also, since it happened in 1692, America wasn't america yet. :P Massachusetts was, at the time, an English colony.)

[RandomPasserby]

Still superstitious and uneducated christians whole lived on the continente that is now known as North-America, harhar.

[Kass]

Kass, you mean you americans didn't take part witch hunts?

Also, when I said our laws, I meant western world. You can't argue that american laws weren't affect at all by the laws in Europe when the immigration started.

I was referring to a current situation.

It wasn't Americans who went on the Crusades, set up the Inquisitions under the auspices of the pope, or persecuted those who would later become Lutherans. Let's see... Where could those have happened?

One small village of English citizens, most of whom were recent settlers, compared to an entire continent gone bezerk on religious piety. I'm thinking Europe is on the losing end of this. America has never gone on a rampage of intolerance like Europe has. We've never persecuted one faith to the point that people had to flee the country and start their own.

We're also not in the habit of banning things like burqas and other religious garments like the hijab. Let's see. That would be happening in the Netherlands and France.

You might want to see if you're standing inside glass walls before you go throwing stones.

[Trump]

Since I didn't get back to respond before it was 20 posts buried I was going to ignore this but since MNJetter just brought up that post I might as well.

IRT Trump, you're right, it is an oath. It's the oath part of it that we're discussing. Now you said it yourself, when one becomes a citizen of the United States, you take an oath. But shouldn't that oath be welcoming to all religions and not just single out the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God? I mean it could be taken to mean any god, sure, but we all know it's not. Should only those that believe in God be American citizens?

Look, if you understood my post you'd know that the oath I was talking about was NOT the pledge. The oath is that as a citizen we accept freedoms in return for responbilities and limitations. For most, this happens the moment they are born. The pledge is like most government forms, more for show, for propoganda than anything else.

BTW, this country is still very focused on the "God" mentioned in the pledge. If I had to guess, I'd say the chances of electing a president that followed a another religion (one that did not believe in one "God") would be zero. People are still hesitant to elect even a Catholic to office for fear the Pope would have too much influence.

So can you come up with another way to say express what "God" means in that statement? To me it means some higher power, whether it is God or not. It refers to some higher moral ground and something above the tier of "nation". Does it mean something else to anyone else?

[RandomPasserby]

...
America has never gone on a rampage of intolerance like Europe has.
...
You might want to see if you're standing inside glass walls before you go throwing stones.
Hmmm... weren't you the second last to drop racial discrimination laws and didn't you have a big fight about slave owning?

But mainly, burqa isn't a part of islam, it's more a part of women should stay at home, between fist and stove-culture in the Middle-East. check out Indonesia or tatars etc. Not really a part of the religion is it?

[Roxie]

And then there was Jim Crow....Thanks to Plessy V. Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._ferguson)

[Jetsetlemming]

That Justice Henry Brown was quite the prick, wasn't he? I think it's important to note that the "seperate but equal" laws was created by an action of the Supreme Court, contradicting an anti-segragation law already in place which was created by congress.
Other minority races besides blacks were treated just as badly, especially the native americans. When my great, great grandmother died at the turn of the century, neither the white cemetary or the black cemetary would take her. She ended up being buried in a corn field.

[MNJetter]

That Justice Henry Brown was quite the prick, wasn't he? I think it's important to note that the "seperate but equal" laws was created by an action of the Supreme Court, contradicting an anti-segragation law already in place which was created by congress.

Seperate but Equal wasn't a law, or even a set of laws. The Supreme Court can't create laws, because that's Congress's job. It was a court ruling that basically gave the states permission to create their own separate but "equal" laws.

[Jetsetlemming]

That's basically what I meant: The laws came to be due to the supreme court's decision. Excuse my wording of the statement. >_>

[Roxie]

Actually, the laws where already in place. The case was argueing whether the laws where constitutional or not.

[Arctic_Slicer]

I think they should revert it back to the pre 1956 version and remove that part. Joe Mccarthy was in large part responsible for it's addition and pretty much every thing that man did should be undone.

[Jetsetlemming]

What's wrong with Joe McCarthy? He get's badmouthed a lot, but never for doing anything specific. Always just "He was a bad guy, take it for granted". I looked into him a while ago. He was one of the congressmen who looked into soviet spies and sympathists. His actions and behavior were very, very, very typical politician, unremarkable, as far as I can see, due to his uniformity with so many other politicians. Plus, just about everything he accused anyone of was accused back at him by someone else, plus a lot worse. The whole period was a time of mudslinging and political bullshitting, with McCarthy sticking out only because he was a popular target. He was a jerk. So what? Can you name a politician who isn't? He was part of a panicked movement. He didn't cause it, he didn't lead it. He just got singled out as a weak and very public link by the politicians who were against it. You have to face it, though: He DID name a lot of people that actually were communist or communist sympathizers. :watson: There were a number of people that were innocent, but there are a lot that were guilty. Even for those falsy accused, the worse that happened to them was hollywood blacklisting. McCarthy was taken about as seriously at the time as he is now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona
The whole time period and events are interesting. Not saying McCarthy was a good guy, but he still gets way, way more negative attention than he deserves. There WERE soviet spies in the government. McCarthy went after them, and got quite a bit of attention from people whose friends and political allies were accused of communism. Why their attacks on McCarthy remain to this day are beyond me.
Also of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg
If what they were accused of is true (The venona project pretty much proved they were communist spies, but it's not absolutely conclusive that they personally passed along the information on nuclear weapons), then they are essentially directly responsible (along with Klaus Fuchs, Donald Maclean and Theodore Alvin Hall) for the nuclear escalation of the Cold War. Here's a statement from the judge of the trial after their conviction and sentencing:
"I consider your crime worse than murder...I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-Bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country. No one can say that we do not live in a constant state of tension. We have evidence of your treachery all around us every day for the civilian defense activities throughout the nation are aimed at preparing us for an atom bomb attack"

[Ichisan]

Every morning at my company, we have to recite the company pledge. We all stand up, face the sign it's written on, and talk about how we will all get along, do our best, and work for the good of the other workers and our customers. I s'pose it's different because we're adults, but honestly, it's far more like brainwashing than the pledge ever was, and there's NO discussion about whether or not it's right or wrong.

This entire issue is making a mountain out of a molehill.

:eyepop:

That really is a cultural difference: no-one feels comfortable doing that in Britain...I mean, it's just a company, not a religion.

Swearing allegiance to your country, at least on special occasions, I can understand but to a company? A company just isn't sacred.

So do you feel like you're on a sacred mission to maximise company profits? ;)

[Ichisan]

It doesn't block them, it approves or disapproves them in the official lexicon on a case by case basis and there IS a bureau of the government to do so. Le bleu jean, for example, was approved and can officially be in the French lexicon. Everyday usage of any language is always a toss up because of slang, etc.

The French do not differentiate patriotism from their culture. They are one in the same. An assault on French culture is an assault on the people and the country. There is no distinction between them.

As for the difference of integration and patriotism, I'm not comparing apples to oranges because I was pointing out the REASON for the lack of integration. The French refuse to allow integration because it is a corruption of their culture and, thus, their nation. The hijab ruling was not an attempt to encourage religious freedom, but an attempt to discourage one particular religion that is only common amongst immigrants. No one was complaining about crosses or stars of David--only the hijab. The French don't want these people to integrate. They want them to leave the country and go out of their way to make them feel unwelcome. If they don't leave, they don't want them to stand out.

Their immigration laws deliberately make it virtually impossible to integrate. Even children of immigrants born in France have few rights and aren't considered French citizens.

Quite frankly, their cultural and patriotic isolation will be their downfall. The riots of two summers ago will look like school yard fights. The immigrant enclaves are openly hostile to even fire and rescue services to the point that none will respond to emergencies in the enclaves. If France wants to regain authority and return the rule of their laws to the enclaves, they will have to go in with military force.

France uses its cultural identity as a binding identifier amongst the French and as a tool to keep non-French out. They even walked out of the EU meetings because the EU leaders decided to hold those meetings in English, not French.

Interesting point about the French attitude to patriotism.

I agree immigration law needs reform but I'm sure the French would argue that disallowing the hijab (in schools - it certainly doesn't apply on the street!) is a way of promoting integration. You live in France, you embrace French culture.

Either way, the pledge of allegiance is harmless. Everyone of those kids who are kicking and screaming about having to say it said it at one point in elementary school. Every American school child who has grown up to criticize the US government said it at one point. Richard Reid said it at some point and he tried to blow up an American plane because he joined al Qaeda.

There is no evidence that saying the pledge results in brainwashing or blind patriotism. Given the divisive state of the US (very possibly the most divided since the end of the Civil War) and all the red state-blue state bullshit that is going around, I'd argue that it has no affect on patriotism or willingness to follow the government at all. The current state of politics belies any assertion to the contrary. So does the very existence of groups who want to ban the pledge.

Richard Reid was British, born and raised in London, but converted to Islam and then spent time going to all the usual extremist places in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world, being indoctrinated.

It sounds too simple to me to summarise a process like that as simply 'joining Al Qaeda'. I guess it would be the last step...

I also think it's a very bold claim to say that the pledge has no effect at all, although I take your point that there are a lot of Americans critical of either the government or their country, but they've been 'counter-exposed' to sources of government criticism. All I can say is we know propaganda is very powerful and, to Europeans at least, the impression one has when visiting America is it's very patriotic: are you saying we are being taken in by appearances? Flag-waving and parades don't mean intense feelings?

Don't you feel anything when you say the pledge?

Obviously China, for example, is a much more extreme case, and you've got both more extreme indoctrination and less freedom of information and also no tradition of openness to criticism.

[Ichisan]

I was referring to a current situation.

It wasn't Americans who went on the Crusades, set up the Inquisitions under the auspices of the pope, or persecuted those who would later become Lutherans. Let's see... Where could those have happened?

One small village of English citizens, most of whom were recent settlers, compared to an entire continent gone bezerk on religious piety. I'm thinking Europe is on the losing end of this. America has never gone on a rampage of intolerance like Europe has. We've never persecuted one faith to the point that people had to flee the country and start their own.

We're also not in the habit of banning things like burqas and other religious garments like the hijab. Let's see. That would be happening in the Netherlands and France.

You might want to see if you're standing inside glass walls before you go throwing stones.

This is a totally ridiculous comparison because America didn't exist at the time of the Crusades or when the Inquisition began.

Also the hijab is not banned per se, but only in schools.

Also everyone knows European society - just to generalise about the whole of Europe for a moment - is more secularized (jaded and cynical) than American. There's no European Bible Belt. Why dispute this?

[Kaji]

The point wasn't whether America was around at the time or not; the point is that America, for all people complain about it, has not ever gone to the extremes that Europe has in its history. For centuries the entire continent was one big Bible Belt.

Furthermore, I find it ironic that people hail the French move as promoting integration of immigrants to France into French culture, but yet they yell at Americans for being racist when they express a desire that Hispanics et al would make more of an effort to integrate. Where do you draw the line, people?

[RandomPasserby]

Furthermore, I find it ironic that people hail the French move as promoting integration of immigrants to France into French culture, but yet they yell at Americans for being racist when they express a desire that Hispanics et al would make more of an effort to integrate. Where do you draw the line, people?
Never heard of any european who cared about american hispanics (as they aren't as black as blacks are) tbh. Pcs please or it didn't happen.

[Jetsetlemming]

What the hell does that statement mean? :eyepop: Aren't as black as blacks are? What?

[RandomPasserby]

What the hell does that statement mean? :eyepop: Aren't as black as blacks are? What?
Talking about skin color (and slavery). When you say that you are worried about blacks' rights in USA, people of course remember slavery, racism, klu klux klan etc. But hispanics don't create any images like that in people's mind (in europe). Mainly because they are basically same as the portuguese and spaniards who aren't treated bad in europe as they are considred the same people as the rest of europe (like it is).

[Ichisan]

The point wasn't whether America was around at the time or not; the point is that America, for all people complain about it, has not ever gone to the extremes that Europe has in its history. For centuries the entire continent was one big Bible Belt.

Americans have also never lived in caves, unlike in Europe where people across the whole continent used to live in caves. And Europeans pretend to be more sophisticated than Americans! Gimme a break!

See how friggin' stupid and ridiculous that is?

Furthermore, I find it ironic that people hail the French move as promoting integration of immigrants to France into French culture, but yet they yell at Americans for being racist when they express a desire that Hispanics et al would make more of an effort to integrate. Where do you draw the line, people?

Funnily enough I didn't "yell at Americans for being racist when they express a desire that Hispanics et al would make more of an effort to integrate". Show me where I did.

Furthermore I find it ironic that people criticize the French for trying to make immigrants integrate and then turn around and complain when they receive criticism for wishing to do the same thing. Where do you draw the line, people?

Gosh, isn't this a fun game?

[Jetsetlemming]

That comment wasn't pointed at you, Ichisan. That should be obvious.
And Randompasserby, I have no idea what you're talking about. Apparently, Ichisan said that, because hispanics aren't as black as black people are, Europeans don't care about then. What the hell does that mean? O_o

[RandomPasserby]

That comment wasn't pointed at you, Ichisan. That should be obvious.
And Randompasserby, I have no idea what you're talking about. Apparently, Ichisan said that, because hispanics aren't as black as black people are, Europeans don't care about then. What the hell does that mean? O_o
Uh, it was I who said that, not Ichisan. I was explaining that saying that Kaji's statement that "normal" europeans give USA shit about treatment of hispanics must be fantasy as there is no easy/wellknown reasons for it, like there is with blacks, especially as hispanics look too european to be seen as an oppressed minority (=not as black as blacks are).

[Trump]

What? Hispanics look European? Have you looked at someone of Hispanic decent recently?

Living in Florida, it is relatively easy to tell who is from Europe and who is from Mexico/Carribean.

[Jetsetlemming]

Trump: As a european, his image of a hispanic is most likely people from Spain and Portugal. Hispanics from the Americas are mixed Spainiards/Portugese, and native americans, which gives them their unique racial look we as americans think of.

[Trump]

That's true, I do not think of Spanish and Portuguese as Hispanic. However, the most common definition of Hispanic refers to Latin America. I guess since I don't live there I just intuitively think of someone from Spain as a European.

[japanat]

I love these arguments about "America didn't do this or that", Europe did. OK, many fringe religious groups did leave England when the colonies were founded, seeking religious freedom. Then they persecuted other groups in much the same manner. Yes, Europe had the 100yrs war, the 30yrs war, and schism between Martin Luther and the Catholic church. SO WHAT?

All these things happened at specific times, and changed the way things were perceived after; often changing things enough that people wouldn't do the things they did before. Of course Americans didn't do the Crusades - those occured in the early middle ages, as a result of many second and third sons of landed feudal lords who had no inheritance but what they could win at war, and egged on by a church which was threatened by the Moors. Yet a large number of Americans are descended from the people who did. Again a specious argument -- "Gee, your X to the Nth grandfather hit another monkey on the head with an antelope thigh bone. You're responsible!"

At least argue sensibly...

[Ichisan]

Apparently no-one knows what I'm talking about or they just ignore my posts.

Oh well, anyway, I agree with japanat as that's one of the points I was making.

[Roxie]

Uh, it was I who said that, not Ichisan. I was explaining that saying that Kaji's statement that "normal" europeans give USA shit about treatment of hispanics must be fantasy as there is no easy/wellknown reasons for it, like there is with blacks, especially as hispanics look too european to be seen as an oppressed minority (=not as black as blacks are).

Yes, he was saying he was not referring to Ichisan, but to YOU.. Actually it's not a fantasy, especially with immigration being a HUGE issue (deservedly) there has been abuses of rights and voilence. For instance, recently a girl and her mother where accosted by INS agents for being immigrants when they are actually both American citizens who where speaking spanish.

America has a deep, through history of racism/ethnocentrism aganist (pretty much) all outsiders, especially those of color (Chinese, Japanese, Latino, Black, etc). So while it might not be well known to Europeans, it doesn't take much to look it up.

[RandomPasserby]

Roxie, I said it's a fantasy that normal europeans would know much about it or criticize it while cheering France's move. I didn't, at least didn't mean to, deny that there is intolerance/racism towards hispanics in USA.

Also, Trump and JetSetLemming, In Europe we probably see more Latin-American hispanics in the media looking like Shakira and Salma Hayek than those who look like Luis Guzman or Danny Trejo.

[Jetsetlemming]

America has a deep, through history of racism/ethnocentrism aganist (pretty much) all outsiders, especially those of color (Chinese, Japanese, Latino, Black, etc). So while it might not be well known to Europeans, it doesn't take much to look it up.
Xenophobia is a popular passtime, all around the world. At least in america we openly stigmitize racists and bigots, and they are the minority. There are plenty of places in the world where the hating of outsiders is not only the norm, but mandated by society. We're far better off here.

[Ichisan]

Xenophobia is a popular passtime, all around the world. At least in america we openly stigmitize racists and bigots, and they are the minority. There are plenty of places in the world where the hating of outsiders is not only the norm, but mandated by society. We're far better off here.

I love this. Someone says America is worse than Europe in some one particular regard and you answer by comparing yourself to countries like China or North Korea or Myanmar.

This must be what's meant by the phrase 'comparisons are odious'.

[Jetsetlemming]

Um, no, america is NOT worse than europe in terms of racism. Most certainly not. America is on par with some more progressive european countries as far as the reduction of bigotry, and a damn site better than some places, if you believe what some people say of certain places. You don't have to go as far as China, or N.Korea to have worse xenophobia than america. Not at all.

[Ichisan]

Um, no, america is NOT worse than europe in terms of racism. Most certainly not. America is on par with some more progressive european countries as far as the reduction of bigotry, and a damn site better than some places, if you believe what some people say of certain places. You don't have to go as far as China, or N.Korea to have worse xenophobia than america. Not at all.

Quite true, and there are places in Europe that are much worse than others, but they're still stigmatised for it and it's not mandated by the government is it?!

[Jetsetlemming]

If we're ignoring France, as we seem to be doing, you'd have to go to the middle-east, Africa, and Asia for countries like that. I never said europe was like that, only on par or worse to America in the subject.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

This is a WHOLE nother topic.

[Ichisan]

What is this topic about again?

I'm just interested in proving other people wrong! ;-)

[Jetsetlemming]

number 17, your topic has been answered. :P By a ratio of 1 to 6, op9ers are not offended by "under God".
Hooray!

[RandomPasserby]

Tbh, USA is worse than Europe on racism, really, KKK and burning crosses, lynch mobs etc. aren't that distant history. Even if european racists spout worse crap, they are still mostly losers who won't do much beyond few beatings. You guys still got stuff like Rodney King and that broken broom rape.

Btw. I would like to point out that KKK-markets in Finland aren't klukluxklan-markets, but members of the Kesko group's markets, which are rated on a scale of 1-4 Ks, 1 for a small, 4 for a really big one. I hope this lessens your views of Europe as a racist haven.