Paul2

My point is, that if your children first hear of "god" in school when they say the pledge, then they come home and ask you about god. You say he's just santa clause but for adults, or whatever is cliche, and go about your business. You say that having the words "under god" in the pledge somehow alienates you, which i fail to understand. I still say the pledge is meaningless and the courts should have more important things to do like fight terrorism or something. the whole "under god" thing is a cold war relic. I say keep it in as a reminder.

Paul2

Just had a thought. Shouldn't the Christians be the ones fighting this battle? Are they really OK with using God as a PR weapon against communists? Woo look at us, we got God.

crazyfingers

Consider that you are asking parents to fight this battle 5 days a week for 12 years.

And consider the position that it places the kid into? Kid feels compelled by peer presure to participate. Does the kid believe? Maybe or maybe not. But it places the kid in the position of believing the parent or believing the teacher.

"One nation under God". Hmm. I don't believe in a god. So , I must not be part of the nation I suppose...

That is alianating.

Paul2

Granted, I don't have any children. I do however, work in a school. Not that i'm saying it doesn't happen, but i've never seen or even heard of any student being pressured by a teacher. I guess things might be different in elementary where teacher standards are different?

The country is 85% god believing. So, generally speaking, this is one nation under god. This is a democracy, so majority rules unless the majority starts infringing on the minorities rights, which then of course action must be taken. However, i've yet to see a compelling argument for the idea that having "under god" in a rarely spoken (outside of elementary school?) pledge is infringing on your rights.

But seriously though, it's not that I think that "under god" should be included, i don't. My only argument against this whole debate is the fact that there are other pressing issues that need to be handled first. this is, in my opinion, a fucking waste of time.

Worldtraveller

Precisely. This is the crux of the whole thing. I don't have kids in school (I don't have kids.), but I still see this as infringing on one's rights, even if it doesn't affect me directly.

Cheers,
Lane

crazyfingers

How many 2nd graders are prepared to say "no" when the teacher tells them to repeat the pledge and all the other kids are doing it?



The question is, are the rights of school children being violated when the state tells them to affirm a religious belief? I would say yes. Children have the right to be free of government attempts to tell them what to believe on issues of religion or to have them make a religious affirmation.

And I would also argue that the rights of the parents are violated when the government presumes to have the authority to teach the children a religious opinion when in fact, that authority resides with the parents.


It may seem trivial. But it strikes at the very heart of separation between church and state and the right of citizens to be free of government sponsorship of a religious opinion.

The Government has no right to declare that a god exists or to tell anyone, particularly children, that they should affirm such belief.

Refused

I imagine the country was at least 85% god-fearing in 1953 as well... See, the whole point for me is that it was inserted for pure political propaganda. The original pledge was never intended to divide this country, I mean, that's what "indivisible" is in there for: unification. Eisenhower's quote says it all.

I know there are always more pressing issues, but to me, defending this nation's roots and people against the religious-right's selfish interests is right up there. What other issues would you have Newdow tackle before this one? Poverty? Crime? Decent music on the radio?

-Refused

Arizonaepu

The majority of the people belive in god, not the nation or government. The government is prohibited from being a theocracy.

It is infringing on the rights on minority atheists and non-believers, and action is being taken.

I guess you didn't hear about Sen McDermott being criticized for omitting "under God" in Congress? Try omitting the words when you are with a group of adult peers and see how much flak you get.

So support the cause so we can eliminate the unconstitutional words and get on with life.

Paul2

How many seconed graders even understand what they're saying?


So what are we arguing about, the fact that "under god" is in the pledge, or the fact that children are 'forced' (be it by teacher or peer pressure, whatever) to say the pledge?


The government is not declaring that a god exists, the government is acknowledging the fact that 85% of the population accepts the idea of a god. again, being in the majority, it's "one nation, under god."

Paul2

i agree with the above statement.

Newdow isn't defending the nation's roots, or fighting the religious right. Newdow is throwing a bitch fit because he's got nothing else better to do. /my opinion.

He's distracting the easily moved public from more important issues. However, i just looked on drudgereport, cnn.com, and a few others and i'm not seeing anything at all on the front pages. Maybe my point is moot.