Thanks, Lady Greek!
 

Wow, this is the first time I've visited this forum since I posted.

I didn't mean to leave you stranded, Ladygreek; Ditto your response. This is not about belief or non-belief. It's about separation of church and state. As stated earlier, different religions call their deities by different names, and as advocates of a separation between church and state, we are trying to insure that religious freedom continues; not limit it.

While the pledge is a small issue, it is important to PAY ATTENTION to anything that sets court precedent – especially in defense of our freedoms. If you had ever lived in a country where you were privy to religious persecution (Ireland, for example, as Ladygreek pointed out), you too, would be very attentive to anything that looks even remotely close government endorsed religious bias.

To draw the conclusion that Ladygreek and I are "secular" because we believe in a separation between church and state is rather ridiculous. The man who is raising the pledge issue is atheist, but most of the people who support this separation, including me and Ladygreek, are not. Be careful about assumptions. They are almost always inaccurate and they can also be hurtful and serve to limit discussion, thereby curtailing meaningful dialogue that can bring clarity to emotion-laden issues.

Now, understanding that both I and Ladygreek use the word GOD in our homes and with our families on a daily (and sometimes, for me, moment-to-moment) basis, is it possible to view separation of church and state not as an attack on Christianity but as a meritorious defense of one of the freedoms that we enjoy in this country and don’t want to see eroded through the process of court precedent? If the decision that “Under God” can stay in the pledge comes down, it may seem as if Christiandom has been defended, but in actuality they are setting a court precedent that limits freedom (not just religious, but on all fronts). Recently, this is a consistent trend in this country and it’s happening because many Americans don’t see the forest for the trees.

im also on the "chill out with the pledge" side of the fence. theres a reason why separting church and state exists in the law (then again, a lot of our laws stem from christian beliefs, so...)

however, what happens when that kids gets in trouble for protesting the pledge? this happened in school (from elementary up to high school) and kids would get letters and phone calls, suspensions, all sorts of crazy mess. i personally think its a waste of time (i know red flags are goin up and ppl are gonna jump down my throat). i mean, do we need an public educational institution telling us that to start our day off, we need to pledge allegiance to the flag under god? teachers would throw a fit if you didnt stand up, put ur hand over ur chest, everything. to the point where if you didnt to it with the class, you had to recite it to the class afterwards, which took up even more time, and then the kid looks like a fool.

ive not once felt any better or worse in school (or any public institution) by saying the pledge.

Check this out for some history on the matter. Note when Under God was added and why. Also note what happened to the Jehovah Witnesses and why. (Hope you can open it since we can't post the article itself anymore :(. j/k I understand perfectly why we can't.)

http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4691323.html

Thanks for sharing, LadyGreek!

Yes, thank you. That was a fantastic article. The pledge, in its entirety, is kind of silly.

GOD STAYS
 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._allegiance_10


I never read this thread and just happened to skim it just now and OH MY WORD at part of the exchange in here. :eek: :eek:

ladygreek, thanks for posting the history of the pledge changing during the McCarthy era, and adding in "under God". It is important to know the context of why it was changed and when. One difference of this situation, to that of "In God we Trust" printed on our money, is that the pledge was altered, whereas the money was originally that way. Not saying it is right or wrong, but it does make a difference.

Personally, I would prefer it to not be there, as it was not originally intended by the author. Yes I am a Christian, but I believe Freedom of Religion extends to all faiths and those who don't have a faith equally. For those of us who do believe in God, he won't disappear because if his name isn't in the pledge. In a public, government funded school, it is a conflict of beliefs. In a private school, they can do as they please.

Re: GOD STAYS
 

YAH!!!!!!!:D

Re: GOD STAYS
 

But you know they punked out. They did not rule on the constitutionality of it but just his ineligibility to speak for his child since he is a non-custodial parent. This is not really resolved.:p

Re: Re: GOD STAYS
 

Very true Soror.:)

Re: Re: GOD STAYS
 

Which, of course, is the genius of this decision. They sidestepped the true question that they know is on everyone's mind: Is the use of the word God on government tender constitutional? Obviously they are trying to not to give the extreme right wingers a victory...but their point got across. Now, of course, someone who is of age will bring a suit and use themself as the sole interest represented in the case. We shall see the fancy footwork the court will do next time.

As a former school teacher (2 years...they drove me crazy!!) I can honestly say that if there is anywhere that God is needed it is in our schools.

Side note:
Every morning when the pledge was being said, I never said it. I haven't said it since middle school. I didn't even require kids to stand and recite it if they didn't want to. I would just face the flag which was in the front of the room and turn my back to the kids with my hand over my heart.

Truth be told, I didn't know schools still said it. As a child of the 80s, I remember saying the pledge during elementary school, but it stopped after that.

Re: Re: Re: GOD STAYS
 

A whole 'nother issue. :D