crocodile deathroll

Since God by definition is so ambiguous does any one object to the American oath allegiance when their children place little hands on their hearts and swear they are "united under one nation under God".
I feel there could be a number of options. Either intelligent Americans can continue to redefine God and shift further and further away from that almighty bearded old man in the sky and merely define him/her as Allah, Brahman, Elvis(Americans would love that as they often go on a pilgrimage to Graceland) or just define him as the blind laws of physics. In other words just leave what one believes about God up to the individual's imagination.
Or strickly adhere to a Xtian Biblical God with no room for compromise. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
I would love to dispense with the old boy altogether, but with 95% of Americans being theists and also voters I think that would be a big ask. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
In the long run I feel at least Americans should respect the opinions of atheists and at least give them the option of not participating Oath of Allegiance. After all with they often respect the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses when they have any qualms about it.

crocodile deathroll

WJ

"In the long run I feel at least Americans should respect the opinions of atheists and at least give them the option of not participating Oath of Allegiance."

Well said!

Walrus

Bill Snedden

It's not at all well said. In fact, it's grossly offensive.

What you both are in fact suggesting is that I, a patriotic American citizen, should forego pledging allegiance to my country so that monotheists can add something to that pledge that never should have been put there to begin with.

Jehovah's Witnesses exempt themselves from the pledge because their religious beliefs prohibit them from pledging allegiance to anything except God. That's a far different issue from someone who wants to pledge, but must either make up his/her own oath or remain silent because the monotheistic majority has unconstitutionally altered the words of the pledge to reflect their personal beliefs.

The original pledge, as written by Francis Bellamy (a Christian) was good enough for this country for almost sixty years, two world wars, and countless national crises before Congress decided to throw the First Amendment out the window and amend it because they were afraid of a few Communists.

If you really think that the "under god" phrase should remain, how about offering a cogent legal or Constitutional rationale rather than "if they don't like it, they can lump it." I'm sure the Founders would prefer the former.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

madmax2976

But are you not able to say the pledge, be silent for that phrase, and then continue on with the rest of the pledge?

Certainly no one forces anyone to say the pledge or that part of the pledge. Lets assume it was removed, could not those who like the phrase include it anyway? (Just say it quickly to keep the tempo) Would we procecute those who did so?

WJ

Bill, of course I disagree and here's why;

"What you both are in fact suggesting is that I, a patriotic American citizen, should forego pledging allegiance to my country so that monotheists can add something to that pledge that never should have been put there to begin with."

How do you know it should not have been there to begin with?

Let's say that we should remove the concept of God from American government. Should we then remove all endorsed principles that the society had used in the development of such laws, customs, behavior, etc. from that same concept god (don't confuse the issue of whether god *really* exists here as we could replace God with some other concept, for purposes of this salient point. I think this is where the atheist who argued his case went astray)?

In other words, did free 'human conscience' impact the thoughts/development of the so-called virtuous aspects of American society, or did the concept god have an impact?

What [concept] or who should we attribute the development american society to? Pragmatism?

Walrus

Mageth

Let's say that we should remove the concept of God from American government.

Umm...the founders made deliberate effort to do just that when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The only mention of religion in the Constitution are restrictions on the government precisely to keep religion out of the government and the government out of religion.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Mageth

What [concept] or who should we attribute the development american society to? Pragmatism?

Americans, duh.

WJ

Is the concept of a God religion? If so, that means that all people are/should be acting religiously. Please answer my specific question. Do you borrow from a god's principles or is it your conscience?

Walrus

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Mageth

No, the concept of a god is not a religion.

Borrow what? I don't borrow from a god's principles. There are no gods.

And you're posing a false dichotomy, and changing the subject to boot. I thought we were talking about the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution neither borrowed from "a god's principles" nor based it on conscience.

The essential principle of the document is that government must be confined to the rule of law. Laws are developed by communities, not by gods or individuals.

Philosoft

1) It is in direct and obvious violation of the First Amendment.

2) Because it purposefully excludes a percentage of the population from a pledge that is supposed to include everyone.

<strong> How about the government remove itself from the God business?

<strong> Not if those laws, customs, behavior serve a secular purpose.

<strong> Who cares? Read the freaking Constitution until it gets through your skull.