Prayer in public schools and the Pledge

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:25 pm

Lord Mhoram wrote:The pledge of allegiance never states that one has to believe in God.

You’re right--it’s not a statement . . .it is something much worse. It's not telling me I have to be under God; it's telling me I am. That’s kind of the opposite of freedom--kind of fanaticism. How general a term is God, truly? Unless it's referring to my father, He who gave me life, then I'm thinking when the pledge says "under God", it makes the pledge nothing better than a pagan chant, an occult ceremony. The worst part is they schlock it out to kids in kindergarten. On my school newsletter they have a picture of a flag and two children praying superimposed over the flag. On top of the image is "ONE NATION", and under it is "UNDER GOD". Why don’t we just go ahead and put out: “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer!”

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:38 pm

Lord Mhoram wrote:The pledge of allegiance never states that one has to believe in God.

Nor has anyone made such a claim. I'm saying that, since I will not recite the pledge because of its religious quality, I am not a real American. This is in opposition to the principles that the USA was founded on. Many of those who first came here were fleeing religious persecution, and did not want to become persecutors themselves, so that kind of thing was not included. But now, it's easy enough to find posts on the internet, letters to my local newspaper, etc, that say things like, "If you don't like it, go live somewhere else. This country was founded by Christians, for Christians." How can I argue with such a statement, when the Pledge to our nation takes a religious stance?

The Pledge is supposed to be a big thing. We swear our allegiance to the country. But I do not, because the country is trying to exclude me. Don't you think that's a problem? Don't you think that things should be as broad as possible, welcoming everyone - which is what made us so great in the first place?

Lord Mhoram wrote:
It was only added in the 50s by McCarthy
I was not aware of this...where did you hear that? Did McCarthy have the power to change the pledge of allegiance?

McCarthy had the country in a grip of fear, bringing anyone he wanted to trial, asking the famous question, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party?" The Soviet Union was considered to be on par with Satan. This may have been true in Stalin's case, but the political climate of the time wasn't concerned with the USSR's actions, merely the fact that it was a communist state. So anyone who dared stand up to McCarthy would be considered a traitor. And anything that differentiated us from the USSR was pushed. Since they called themselves and atheist state, getting "under God" added wasn't particularly difficult.

Lord Mhoram wrote:
If the body that makes our laws does so to promote religion, we are a religious state.
I agree. But that's not happening.

Of course it is. Congress makes our laws. Congress officially put "under God" into the Pledge.

Lord Mhoram wrote:God is a very general term.

True enough. Is your point that, since it does not represent any specific religion, I shouldn't have a problem saying the words? Or are you saying that, since the majority of Americans believes in one definition or other, we should just let you have your way?

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:43 pm

My only allegiance is toward freedom--not America, which is a walking contradiction, could it walk. Anyway, I'm not giving my allegiance to anything. I don't actually have allegiance, anyway; I have freedom within me, if I have anything at all. Save the pledges, allegiance, and all that other "I give to thee" fealty crap for the days of feudalism. Word.

Trying to support the pledge and saying that "under God" is not a religious term very much reminds me of Bill Clinton saying "what is your definition of sex?" Or whatever he said. If “under God” was put in by McCarthy, then I see removing it no different from removing the Confederate battle emblem from the Georgia State flag. They both represent fear and hatred. Tradition down, freedom up!

Post by **[Syl]** » Sun Apr 27, 2003 12:33 am

full article at www.flash.net/~lbartley/au/issues/godtrust.htm

The Pledge of Allegiance

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

This pledge was issued by the executive committee at the dedication of the World's Fair Grounds in Chicago, IL, on October 21, 1892; subsequent research suggested that it was written by the Committee chairman, Francis Bellamy (United States Flag Association, 1939). Originally consisting of 22 words, the word "to" was added immediately after the first celebration. The pledge was first revised at the First National Flag Conference in 1923 when the words "the Flag of the United States" were substituted for "my Flag," and the words "of America" were added to that phrase at the Second National Flag Conference in 1924. (We might note in passing that the United States is the only country in the world that pledges allegiance to a flag!) The pledge of allegiance did not, however, become the official Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag until Public Law 79-287 was signed on December 28, 1941 by President F.D. Roosevelt to prepare it for service in the war effort.

Nevertheless, the Pledge of Allegiance remained thoroughly secular, as demanded by the Constitution, for 62 years. Then, in the early 1950s, as with the national motto, a group of religionists used the concerns of the cold war against "Godless" communism to remedy the lack of foresight of the writer of the pledge in omitting any reference to Christianity or, the next best thing, to God. But this time it was a Roman Catholic organization that got the ball rolling when the Knights of Columbus began a campaign that would alter the fundamental relationship of our national government to the governed that had existed for 178 years.

The Knights of Columbus had apparently in 1951 instituted their own version of the Pledge of Allegiance for use at their meetings that contained the words "under God." Seeing that the time was right, they enlisted the cooperation of the American Legion in lobbying the Executive branch and the Congress to add "under God" to the pledge. Ignoring the Constitution and caving in to the expediency of the moment, President Eisenhower expressed support for the measure, and it was passed on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.

This was a major expansion of the religious province of government officials; what had previously been expressions of personal piety, as in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation, were now transmogrified into the first religious test instituted for citizens of this nation. Clearly the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance is an "establishment of religion" and thus is clearly unconstitutional.

Conclusions

This brief history of the paths by which the national motto, "In God We Trust", was born and caused to be placed on our paper currency and coins and the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance demonstrates that these actions were never approved by the mass of the American people but were the result of opportunistic actions of, by and large, two religious fanatics acting 90 years apart. But James Pollock and Matthew Rothert could only accomplish these acts with the inadvertent help of Theodore Roosevelt and the acquiescence of many government officials and elected representatives who forgot that they were charged with upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States. What can be done about this situation? For the present, perhaps, nothing, but we can still correct the false ideas that many persons hold that "In God We Trust" has "been on our money since year 1" and that the presence of the motto indicates that we are a Christian nation and thus the mass of us should accommodate Christians when they seek to override the Constitution. Then perhaps someday we can restore the proper motto for our diverse nation, E Pluribus Unum, to its rightful place as emblematic of American democracy.

Post by **The Leper Fairy** » Thu May 01, 2003 3:57 am

I pledge allegiance to the earth, one planet, many gods and the universe in which she spins

Post by **Damelon** » Thu May 01, 2003 1:52 pm

Fist and Faith wrote:Many of those who first came here were fleeing religious persecution, and did not want to become persecutors themselves, so that kind of thing was not included.

I disagree with that. The Colonies were founded by different groups of religious dissidents who practiced religious persecution themselves when they came here.

The reason we have freedom of religion was, at the time of the Revolution, that there could be no established church. Since there were so many different groups no one could never be accepted by all the states if they wished to keep the country together. If you asked the Founders about what freedom of religion meant they would say the freedom to practice Christianity. Certainly, most of the Founders took a dim view of atheism. There were some important exceptions like Franklin and Jefferson, but they were in the minority.

The way Freedom of Religion has turned out in practice, meaning all beliefs, has been good for the country. My mother's family came over in the 1880's because, in Germany, they were forced to go to church. But there will always be those who will try to force their religion on the rest of the community, and try to force conformity with them. That must be resisted.

The Pledge is just an example of where the majority, or at least a very large and vocal minority, has succeded in placing a religious reference in a national context. "In God We Trust" on the currency is more blatent. That though is much older than the Pledge, dating from the Civil War.

Post by **Ryzel** » Thu May 01, 2003 2:15 pm

I will take this opportunity to enlighten you about how things are here in Norway with regards to the pledge of allegiance and the prayer thing.

Now in my school days I seem to remember reciting the norwegian version of the Lords Prayer at the start of some school days, but not all of them. Clearly this was more a matter of individual choice among the teachers. Nowadays you will not see any prayers in norwegian schools, because that would offend the muslim "minority" in some schools and as all norwegian schools is supposed to have the same rules its out.

Norway has nothing even resembling the pledge of allegiance. There are a few rules about when you can raise it and what to do with it but there are no pledges. (And as an aside I heard from a swede that if a swede were seen to raise the flag except on especially prescribed days he was probably going to be considered a swedish nationalist.)

When I was in the military I had to salute the flag, of course, but that is how the military works anyway.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu May 01, 2003 5:06 pm

That's what American is--a bunch of dirty nationalists!

Post by **Brinn** » Thu May 01, 2003 6:56 pm

Now, Now...

Were all up for informed discussion on any variety of topics but this sort of generalization is unfair. If your interested in a dicussion on this, create a post in the "Tank" and we'll talk about it like civilized, educated people. At the very least support your opinion with a few examples: "Americans are dirty nationalists because...

The reason this board is the best on the net is the lack of flames. Let's not lose that spirit. And if your going to make an inflammatory statement at least have the courage to put a name to your post!

Now say you're sorry! ;^)

Post by **Ryzel** » Thu May 01, 2003 8:22 pm

The point I was trying to make about swedes was more that being seen as nationalistic is not well looked upon in Sweden. Norway has a lot more flag waving than most nations anyway, a custom that goes back to the 19th century and the "fight" for independence from...Sweden.

Post by **Skyweir** » Fri May 02, 2003 5:11 am

I havent read the whole thread .. so I apologise .. but I personally have no problem with prayer in schools ..

prayer as prayer is a positive energy .. I dont know why it would need to be 'christian notions of prayer' .. those who dont wish to participate should not be forced.

Here prayer is not allowed in public schools .. it is seen as politically incorrect .. and I see that side of the arguement too.

As far as reading a pledge of allegiance goes .. standing with ones fist across one's heart each morning reciting the PoA 'religiously' .. seems to smack of a social conditioning strategem ..

I like that idea less ..

just my 1.5 cents

Post by **Lord Mhoram** » Sun May 04, 2003 11:50 pm

Regarding prayers Sky--I couldn't disagree more. That's definitely putting pressure on minorites who dont believe in the god that's being prayed to. "Postive energy" for some, hiigh pressure for others.

Post by **Bannor** » Mon May 05, 2003 1:46 am

No one should be forced to repeat or say a memorized prayer in public schools. There has always been prayer in schools, it should just be privately prayed to not step on the rights of others. I pray daily for my school, but I don't inflict it upon the students. I've had students ask me to pray for someone in their family or him/herself, and I take him/her aside and pray with them. I don't see different beliefs being given time out of class to pray unless all beliefs are given the same privilege. America is certainly a free country where freedom of religion or freedom from religion can and is practiced, but I'm certainly glad that I'm not going to have to explain to God one day why I didn't believe in him. (Just my 2 cents worth, and I fully expect to be set upon: Jesus told us long ago that others would hate us for being Christians.)

I hope I've not alienated anyone. I love each and every one of you.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon May 05, 2003 2:14 am

Bannor wrote:...I'm certainly glad that I'm not going to have to explain to God one day why I didn't believe in him.

Same with me. We're a couple of lucky guys, eh?

Post by **Bannor** » Mon May 05, 2003 2:21 am

I don't know about "lucky" but certainly "blessed." Thanks for the support, F&F (and a Green Lantern fan to boot?).

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon May 05, 2003 2:40 am

Ummm...
Well, certainly a GL fan!!
But, as I don't believe in the existence of any god, much less worship any, I wasn't so much supporting your statement as I was pointing out that it was kinda obnoxious. Or was it meant in a good way?

I certainly don't hate you for being a Christian. One of the people whose religious views I most respect and appreciate (and, of the several with the same type of attitude, the only one I've had personal contact with) is a Christian. (He's also darned smart, funny, and all that.) But, just as I don't say things like, "You're wasting your life believing in and worshipping something whose existence isn't a fact by any definition of fact," because it is insulting to you and accomplishes nothing, I don't like being told what trouble I'm going to be in when I die. Your post was wonderful until then.

Oh heck, I don't know.... You know, not having tone of voice and body language sometimes leads to big misunderstandings in cyberspace. It could be that your statement wasn't directed at those who don't share your beliefs, but rather was just a sort of sigh of relief that you can't help but feel, considering your beliefs. If that's the case, I apologize for having jumped to the wrong conclusion and accusing you of that kind of behavior.

Post by **Bannor** » Mon May 05, 2003 11:17 am

No, I meant everything I said. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted you. I don't think I've ever been called obnoxious before, but I've been called worse. God bless you anyway.

Post by **Vain** » Mon May 05, 2003 12:23 pm

I've been called obnoxious before......prolly 'cos I used to be

Post by **Skyweir** » Mon May 05, 2003 2:28 pm

rofl!!!

Vain wrote:prolly 'cos I used to be

used to be huh? lol ..

hehe ..

Mhoram wrote:Regarding prayers Sky--I couldn't disagree more. That's definitely putting pressure on minorites who dont believe in the god that's being prayed to. "Postive energy" for some, hiigh pressure for others.

yeah I get that

I dont condone compulsory prayer .. thats ridiculous .. I was speaking personally .. I dont take offence at the thought of prayers .. I dont think they need to be structured 'christian prayers' .. heaven knows there's no one christian way to prayer anyway ..

I think beginning the day .. with a bit of meditation is equally as powerful .. there was a teacher in my school who used to meditate with the children at the end of each day .. or after the lunch period. It was a good wind down and focus for the kids .. it wasnt religous per se .. and I think it was beneficial. But this is my personal opinion here.

I guess the problem is a complex one .. if you're talking formal prayer of some kind .. I cant relate to that because its not something thats allowed here .. for political reasons.

But anyone can pray or meditate anywhere they like and at any time .. as someone else here quoted .. the prayer to be seen of men scripture .. with such an intent its meaningless ..

We often hear that relgion has no place in the education system .. and prayer has no place in the education system .. but it is a fundamental part of human social and cultural history .. and religion means many things to many people.

Throughout history religion has always been indigenous to human experience ..

In todays world .. the future generations are denied an understanding of the role of 'religion' .. in the pursuit of political correctness.

We require a spirit of tolerance and understanding of religion and all its expressions.

Prayer in schools is more than likely a christian expression .. as I said .. I dont feel threatened by such a notion .. but I wouldnt be threatened by any expression of prayer ..

At Uni we have prayer and meditation rooms where folks who want to pray or meditate on their navels .. can. Why not provide access of this kind to anyone who wishes such access.

If folks want or need to pray .. well they can .. anywhere .. anytime .. and they should not be discriminated against because they want to.

And if folks dont want to pray .. well they dont have to .. and should not be forced to participate in an act they dont wish to participate in.

There's got to be a happy hunting ground somewhere .. a happy middle ground ..

Post by **Ryzel** » Mon May 05, 2003 3:33 pm

I have been raised in a country where the religious dogma, in my interpretation, is that unless you actually believe in God and everything else in the bible more or less, you can pray until you go blue and it will have no effect whatsoever. And I don't.

But I have no problem seeing that a religion whose dogma does not include belief as necessary for salvation might feel that somebody's own best interests were served by having compulsory prayer. A bit like taxes if you know what I mean, its not that you actually like it but it is for your own good so you have to do it or you will be punished. Even if you do not believe that paying taxes will help you in any way.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Prayer in public schools and the Pledge