Remember that thread Sorcerer opened about patriotism?

Remember those things that happened because he didn’t want to recite the pledge? This might be of interest now.

I do remember it.

I don’t think the government has the right to demand that type of respect of the population - because that’s all it really is, a form of respect. I ended up having to go through a lot of shit because of that, and there ended up being a faculty meeting solely on the issue. Almost all of the people I had to talk too cited that standing and saying the pledge, along with placing your hand over your heart and standing for the singing of the Star Spangled Banner are all forms of respect towards the country on the whole.

What comes into play is that as young school children obviously have no such political ideals to effectivly state their case as to why they feel that they don’t need to do this, so they do it because they’re told too. Which is the main reason people do it today, because it was forced upon them at such an age where it’s routine.

Personally, I think it’s a choice. Some people feel that the country deserves no such respect in what it has done, not only in recent months/years, but in it’s existence period, which is my case. There are a number of reasons, and they shouldn’t have to defend themselves. The fact that the state feels the need to force people to give them the respect they feel they deserve is quite pathetic in my eyes.

Also, as far as this case goes, I agree with the guy that sued the school system. The pledge of allegience is probably at the forefront of things the public assosciates with the government, and to have that specific phrase does indeed seem to give it a “government stamp of approval”.

I don’t see why he;s upset over “infusing religion into our society” because it’s quite harmless. That’s the only part I really understood (because I actually have no idea what the Pledge of Alligience is, I normally ignore this political stuff). Some people will state it for ceremonial purposes like it was written and some will actually believe the religious meaning behind it. I don’t see a point in removing such references, if you don’t like it get your kid to sit down. In saying such words, does not give you the impression of being religious. But whatever, can’t say i blame him, if I was an active athiest maybe I would do the same but it seems fairly pointless…

But yeah I agree with everything Sorc said about being forced to acknowledge the whole situation and whatnot.
I may not agree with the reason why people refuse to stand but hey, many people have a valid point in doing that, so I wont be intolerant. To each his/her own.

FUCK!
That’s not about patriotism at all, that’s seperation of church and state taken to the bullshit level. Just because they hate religion doesn’t mean people should be censored. I’m all for it being voluntary, but banned? That’s crap! Complete garbage.

I don’t do the pledge, but this whole “OMG DEY SED GOD LEZ KILL IT OLZOLZOLZ” thing is horse shit. It’s voluntary, just like prayer in school. They don’t say you HAVE to stand for it, they just ask that you do.

All they need to do is take out those two words, “Under God” and I’ll be okay with it.

What’s so bad about it being in there? You can just say the rest of the pledge, skipping over the “Under God” part entirely.

Yea, same here. No need to take out the pledge on the whole, just docter the damn thing to how it used to be.

Originally posted by Cybercompost
All they need to do is take out those two words, “Under God” and I’ll be okay with it.

Sadly, people are idiots, and don’t see how easy this is.

Actually, they see it. But since we’ve come up with the idea first, and since people rarely listen to people who are younger than 50, then they dismiss it just like in Gallow’s sig.

Actually, this is just nitpicking. Taken to bullshit level would be outlawing the Mythology : Arts and Litterature class I’m taking because we talk about religion in there.

Originally posted by demigod
That’s not about patriotism at all, that’s seperation of church and state taken to the bullshit level.

Originally posted by Sorcerer
Yea, same here. No need to take out the pledge on the whole, just docter the damn thing to how it used to be.

Right, but isn’t that exactly what this’ll force Congress to do if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s decision? The area affected will be left with two choice - continue to not have a pledge to say, or adopt a revised one.

<small>On the topic of religion, if I can high-tail it out of here quick enough in an hour, I’ll be able to catch the latter half of a Classics Symposium meeting featuring a member of Hellenia, an organization dedicated to the worship of the ancient Greek/Roman gods (there are two aspects to the organization, apparently, one seriously religious and the other scholarly). I don’t want to miss it - my campus is only 1/3 a college of liberal arts; the other parts are a graduate school and a seminary. Apparently the Methodists get jumpy when there are pagans about. One grad student blew his top last week, by all accounts, and there must be all kinds of chaos going on at the meeting.</small>

I hope the court reverses the appeals court’s decision. This country is a democracy, and like it or not, the large majority of Americans are of some sort of religious persuasion, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Atheists are quite a minority, and if they want to live in a religious country, there are some things they should learn to abide by. Saying the pledge isn’t required, it’s completely voluntary. What’s next, banning “God Bless You” when somebody sneezes? It’s simply absurd. And seriously, what’s the worst that can happen, an atheist hear “under God” so much they become religious? It’s not like atheists go to some fiery place after death for believing in a God. By this logic, it’s far more detrimental for religious-oriented children to have to listen to evolution and the Big Bang…and that’s not voluntary as far as I know, that’s part of the curriculum. Do I advocate removing that stuff? No, that too would be absurd, just like removing “under God.” In a Supreme Court case, I believe it was from the 1950’s, it was Zorich vs. something, I forget the other half. But in writing the majority opinion, the justice wrote two things: We cannot read into the Constitution a hostility towards religion, and this country was founded by a religious people, religion is part of America. To ban “under God” would seriously violate these ideas put forth by the Supreme Court itself. This is a democracy, and the majority is religious. The same freedoms that give atheists the right to speak their mind and have religious freedom also protects the will of the majority and their religious freedom.

Atheism is considered a religion, and it’s more widespread than you think.
I have a serious question. Do you think all atheists are like that?

Regardless of what society deems appropriate, the constitution says that the federal government will not show any affiliation with any religion. Now, just because society on the whole is religious means very little in the eyes of the constitution, because society is not the same thing as the federal government.

Do you really think that “under god” is an excercise of religious freedom and freedom of speech? It isn’t freedom of speech if children are being forced to recite the pledge.

Children aren’t being forced to recite the pledge by the federal government. Individual teachers might do so, but that isn’t a federal issue.

Rather ironic that aetheism is considered a religion, but what else would you call it I guess. A philosophy?

As for the whole being offended by the phrase “under God”, that’s ridiculous. I’ve got a friend who modifies the phrase to “under gods”.

Originally posted by Steve
Atheism is considered a religion, and it’s more widespread than you think.
I have a serious question. Do you think all atheists are like that?

I’m an atheist and I couldn’t care less about the pledge. Outlawing the pledge would be like having to stop printing money, because the words “In God We Trust” are on every dollar bill and coin.

Originally posted by Striker44
I hope the court reverses the appeals court’s decision. This country is a democracy, and like it or not, the large majority of Americans are of some sort of religious persuasion, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Atheists are quite a minority, and if they want to live in a religious country, there are some things they should learn to abide by. Saying the pledge isn’t required, it’s completely voluntary. What’s next, banning “God Bless You” when somebody sneezes? It’s simply absurd. And seriously, what’s the worst that can happen, an atheist hear “under God” so much they become religious? It’s not like atheists go to some fiery place after death for believing in a God. By this logic, it’s far more detrimental for religious-oriented children to have to listen to evolution and the Big Bang…and that’s not voluntary as far as I know, that’s part of the curriculum. Do I advocate removing that stuff? No, that too would be absurd, just like removing “under God.” In a Supreme Court case, I believe it was from the 1950’s, it was Zorich vs. something, I forget the other half. But in writing the majority opinion, the justice wrote two things: We cannot read into the Constitution a hostility towards religion, and this country was founded by a religious people, religion is part of America. To ban “under God” would seriously violate these ideas put forth by the Supreme Court itself. This is a democracy, and the majority is religious. The same freedoms that give atheists the right to speak their mind and have religious freedom also protects the will of the majority and their religious freedom.

Democracy killed Socrates. This is a republic.

You can learn what science is without having to believe in it, just like I learned that the pharoahs (forgive me, it is late) demanded to be considered gods without me having to consider them divine in the least.

On words: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_23_4.htm

Saying “under God” in the pledge neither confirms nor refutes and individual’s faith or lack thereof. It being put in there had nothing to do with a religious basis, it was just a way to counter Communism.

Originally posted by Striker44
By this logic, it’s far more detrimental for religious-oriented children to have to listen to evolution and the Big Bang…and that’s not voluntary as far as I know, that’s part of the curriculum.
Actually, those two are not only part of the curriculum, but are taught as irrefutable fact, rather than the scientific theories they actually are. Funny that those are the only two taught as such. But that’s another topic…

Originally posted by demigod
I’m all for it being voluntary, but banned?
It’s not being “banned,” it’s just that school officials are going to be forbidden from taking time out of the official school day to make a special school function for saying it. The officials are essentially being paid with tax money to do that specific thing by the federal goverment. Even if people don’t have to say it, they still are forced to have part of their day, for which their families paid tax money, which is designed for their education, set aside for an endorsement of some religion. It’s perfectly fine for schools to have something like Prayer Club or a Bible study group, because those are extracurricular activities that don’t cut into the official school day. It’s also fine for students to endorse their own religion while in school and pray during recess or lunch or something. It’s even fine for teachers to do it as long as they’re not using their official authority as teachers as part of it. Basically, anything is fine as long as it doesn’t involve schools officials using their government-given authority as school officials and introducing religion into an official school function. If you think that that amounts to “hating religion,” the problem is on your end.

Originally posted by someone or other
Actually, those two are not only part of the curriculum, but are taught as irrefutable fact, rather than the scientific theories they actually are. Funny that those are the only two taught as such.
Instead of just saying “scientific theory” and pretending that that doesn’t mean anything, you should set yourself straight on what a theory actually means in practice. A “theory” isn’t just anything you can come up with, though it’s convenient for people who know nothing about how rigourous the scientific method really is to pretend that that’s so. A “theory” doesn’t even come into existence until it has passed tests set by the scientific method. It is inevitably backed by scientific evidence. An old theory like evolution has been around for years, and credible evidence for it continues to mount. Otherwise, scientists would already have rejected it a long time ago.

Originally posted by someone or other
and this country was founded by a religious people, religion is part of America.
So what? Even if all of the founding fathers went to church 10 times a day and were all devout Christians, which was not the case, it so happened that they made the Constitution, the highest law in the country, completely irreligious.