dannyk

Hi , I have been following the pledge controversy in America with some interest and thought of mentioning the situation I encountered in Australia during my citizenship ceremony.
Prior to the ceremony you are requested to inform the Dept.Immigration and Multicultural Affairs as to which pledge you would prefer to make .

Pledge 1
"From this time forward,under god , I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

Pledge 2
"From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

Would this system satisfy the religous fanatics ?
I found it quite reasonable personally.

Alonzo Fyfe

I am not sure that it would satisfy me, because of the different role that the words "under God" plays.

In the Australia case, one says that one sees oneself as 'under God' -- it plays the same role as 'so help me God' does in many American oaths.

However, the text 'under God' in the American pledge refers not to the individual making the pledge, but to the nation. The speakers pledges to devote himself to a nation free of atheist influence. In other words, it identifies atheism as an enemy of the republic, along side rebellion, tyranny, and injustice.

I don't think I would be at all comfortable with the idea of the government offering even an officially sanctioned OPTIONAL pledge to rid the nation of atheism.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

oriecat

Also, unless I misunderstand, your citizenship pledge would be said alone by only you. When we say the Pledge of Allegiance, it is a group effort, so it gets really messy when everyone says their own thing. We need to just have one pledge that applies to everyone, so that it can stay in unison.

Fiach

As I understand it, over in America, the Pledge with its ONE NATION UNDER GOD, is led by the teacher. The child is reponsible for either leaving the room and becoming the school outcast or trying to get away with just not saying "under God" while the class mates are saying it.

Does the child feel the risk of being ostracised if they notice that his lips are not moving while "under god" is being recited? Or is the child to be advised to move his/her lips while the other children are saying "under God" instead say, "under no god" or "under Gob" or "wonder dog" which would appear good enough to fake it.

The shame is that children of unbelievers there may have to fake it or face ostracisation.

Fiach

capsaicin67

The idea that fundies keep promoting that a child should have to risk being sentenced in thecourt of the playground to ostracization or ridicule is the most shameful of all. The same folks that harangue about Newdow subjecting his daughter to the same, are totally satisfied with the notion of freethinking children being placed in serious social jeopardy daily, and victims of playground politics. Playgrounds are brutal and children are often cruel and even more un-insightful and underinformed than their parents. If memory serves me, it was a lot more like Lord of the Flies than Family Circus when I was there. It's shameful that the religious right would exploit the vulnerability of children to advance their agenda.

Alonzo Fyfe

This assumes that the child has enough conviction in her beliefs to take the risk.

The child leaves home and goes to the school where she is daily forced to witness a ritual naming atheists as anti-American. How is the kid to understand this. "Are my parents anti-American? Are they bad people? If not, why is the school telling us that they are? Maybe my parents are bad."

Add to this the fact that such children will find comfort from their peers and the school if they take this view; face ostracism and ridicule if they do not adopt the dominant view, and there are some very powerful dynamics at work to turn the non-beliver's children against their parents.

Also, it is not just ostracism and ridicule that these children may suffer. They risk physcial violence as well. I know this from personal experience.

capsaicin67

AF,
Yup, I agree totally. The pervasive threat [and delivery] of physical violence is exactly what most kids know is the worst case scenario, and it goes on all the time, as most any adult can surely recall. Even those that did not receive it surely witnessed at least some episodes of it.
Your points regarding the clear coercion to accept the religious beliefs of peers, and to denigrate those of family if they are nontheistic/freethinking, are right on, too. No kid needs saddled with that sort of burden on top of the usual baggage of school attendance/survival.

Alonzo Fyfe

My guess is that many (most) of the most vocal defenders of the Pledge laws know this. That they count on this. That their real goal is to force young children into a situation where they must either say that they believe in God or suffer the consequences.

They seek to put these children at risk of what their peers may do -- what every adult knows children often do to each other -- so that they may coerce these children into accepting God.

Clarice O'C

It seems that not only atheists should be up in arms over the "under God" but also US citizens of other religions because the god is a christian one. Is this happening?

Clarice

Toto

The God is not explicity Christian. It could be the Judeo-Christian-Abrahamic God, or even the Deist god, and that covers the major religious groups.

I have heard about some pagans issuing a statement in opposition to the pledge.