HumanisTim

I have a couple ideas which I think could be fair. To those on both sides of the pledge debate. Either redo it so the official pledge has the (under god) part in parenthesies(SP). Or perhaps congress could pass a bill which would make the alternate non god one equally vailid. And make either one perfectly acceptable and considered our national pledge.

Bill Snedden

The words never should have been added. Congress should simply revoke the 1954 amendment.

I would have no problem however if they recognized an alternate wording that included the added phrase as long as it specified that speakers could add whatever they wanted in place of "god". For most government officials, I imagine "under indictment" would serve quite well.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

David Bowden

In recent conversations I've facetiously proposed that if the pledge language remains as is, then legislation should be passed outlawing atheism, agnosticism, and anything short of certain god-belief.

I know full well that the persons I'm chatting with have no intention of going that route. But still. All we're asking for is a consistent federal policy on the relationship between God and government. If they don't want us, let them make a law saying so. If they do want us, let them restore our original pledge, so that we truly are one nation, undivided by this stupidity.

Either this is a nation of theists or it's a nation that isn't concerned with whether or not you're a theist. I believe in the latter sort of America. That's the nation I want to pledge my allegiance to. I'd like some clarification from our government as to which America I was born in and live in now.

-Wanderer

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

madmax2976

I have this for a solution....

As I've argued in the other Pledge of Allegiance thread, we have allowed Christians to steal the word "God" and treat it as their own. It is NOT for them to define this word, and we should not allow them to continue doing so. "God" can be Yahweh, Jehovah, Odin, Vishnu, Zeus, Rama, Allah, the Great Spirit, the Great Gazoo, or, as in my interpretation, Nature itself - all there is.

By allowing Christians to force the definition of God to be the Christian bible God Yahweh, we allow them far more power and authority than they deserve. Their deity is the warlike, tribal deity of an ancient nomadic tribe of sheep herders - nothing more. It is not the God of everyone else who is not a Christian.

I would suggest that we refuse to any longer endorse or implicity condone the Christian theft of the term "God" to automatically mean their God, Yahweh.

If we did so, this whole mess about "under God", "In God We Trust", "God save this honorable court", etc. could all go away. They could interpret it as they wish and the rest of us could interpret it as we wish, including a non-religious sense.

Spazmatic

Generally, many people consider God and Allah viable synonyms (even Christians, who think Muslims are just confused in their worship, but got the right god). Thing is, God is a monotheistic word with a monotheistic context. Zeus is not God. Zeus is a god.

madmax2976

No. "God" is purely a defined concept. Christians and Muslims cannot point to something and say, "Here's God, so your wrong if your definition is different". They just define "God" to be what they believe it is.

They have defined "God" as being the one and only personal, intelligent deity, creator of the universe, the deity described by their holy books and known as Yahweh, Jehovah or Allah.

I, as a Pantheist, define God as Nature - all that there is. Hawking defines God as "the embodiment of the laws of nature". I think Einstein has simliar leanings if I remember correctly. The point being God is not necessarily a "monotheistic word with a monotheistic context".

If we use the terminology, "a god" we have to define what we mean by it. "A god" could imply a personal,intelligent deity of some sort. So either Yahweh or Zeus would be considered "a god", not "the" God. I would simply state I have no belief in any such entities.

I have started a thread in the E of G forum to discuss this very issue as a tactic to rescue "God" from Christians (and all others who would seek to define it for all people).

Spazmatic

Every word is a defined concept. "Chair" is a defined concept. Go try to change that.

madmax2976

But there is an actual object that we point to and say that we are going to reference as "chair". You can't do that with things like "God", "spirit" or "soul".

Some people view "soul" or "spirit" simply as our emotional selves. That part we call "us". Even as a synonym for our personal consciousness or will. Of course some view it as this mysterious supernatural force or substance which supposedly inhabits our bodies or in some way exists in a relationship with our bodies. Who's to say which definition is right and which is wrong?

Likewise if I have a different interpretation of what "God" means, I challenge anyone to prove me wrong, regardless of how popular one interpretation may be.

Remember, I'm challenging the status quo and arguing that it shouldn't be the way it is. Its a call to Revolution! (however small it may be )

Philosoft

Sorry madmax, you haven't convinced me. With all due respect, I think your motivations are sincere. But at this point, I feel that renaming something I already believe in "God" is an unreasonable action. And I would feel inordinately stupid, after 5 years of saying, "I don't believe in God," to say now, "Well okay, but God is my coffeemaker."

Autonemesis

Either one of the versions are acceptable, permissible, valid... and always have been. What is not constitutional is Congress passing a law making the religious version the official version. Whether the 9th decision stands or not, people are free to recite whichever version of the pledge they want, or to recite no pledge. The 1st Amendment Establishment clause applies to Congress, and by extension via the 14th amendment equal protection clause, to any government rule, policy or practice, from the federal on down to the local levels.

Now if these religious right wingers would focus on whether the 14th amendment ought to trump any teacher's free speech right to lead whichever version she preferred, or her class preferred, we could have a meaty argument. For it is the 14th amendment and the precedent that has proceeded from it that is preventing the teacher from leading the post-1954 pledge, not the 9th circuit. But on the question of whether Congress passing a law establishing "under God" as part of the official pledge is violating the 1st, there can be no honest dispute made.

But you see, diminishing the power of the 14th amendment undermines federal authority and opens up a bunch of questions which, last time they were in the national spotlight, took nothing less than the Civil War to resolve.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>