BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:20 PM

if you are all too independent to follow a leader, what is this thing about all caps again. That is trying to impose a fairly new convention on people who might not like it. I do not like it. I will write in all caps if I want. I will write with no caps if I want..either way is better for your hands and some people with vision problems prefer it and some people just plain prefer it. I was on the internet a long time before I ever heard of that nonsense and I don't subscribe to it. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:29 PM

This argument is stupid. For the vast majority of people who believe in a supreme being, the term god is undefined as Christian in the pledge. For those who have no such belief (a true minority) omit the two words but continue the pledge. Surely we have far more important issues to deal with than this?

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:33 PM

Fair enough, mg...

Maybe I should clarify one thing...I would prefer a country where children were NOT lining up in school each morning, placing their hands on their hearts, and reciting a Pledge of Allegiance or a Loyalty Oath. I don't like the Pledge of Allegiance one bit.

The reason I'm objecting to the present controversy that has been raised about it, however, is that it has been raised around whether or not the phrase "under God" should be in the Pledge... That's a very minor side issue, as far as I'm concerned, and it's a petty one. This is only my own opinion, which is as subjective as anyone else's. What seems petty to me may seem vital to you...

I'm glad there is no such pledge in Canada.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:40 PM

Dewey,

I, for one, really resent being lumped with the drugged and illiterate hippy movement of the stupid seventies. Please call off your dispersions. I never was and never will allow myself to be painted with that ignorant brush whenever I can influence it at all.

BEAT GENERATION, yes, but never the hippy miscreants ;-)

Religions I try to ignore until they, somehow, insist on extending their precepts and, yes, their dogmas into my doings on this best of all possible mortal coils by disrupting my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:49 PM

L.H.,

I like your thought processes a lot in your many posts here and figure it'd be great to down a few beers but preferably Scotches (maybe both) with ya if I could convince my doctor to rescind his dictums against my doing that these days.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Gloredhel
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 02:18 PM

This is going to the Supreme Court, depend on it. Removing "In God We Trust" from the money has been tried several times, and failed. That makes the prospects for having "under God" removed from the Pledge not good. Besides which, if they did strike "under God", there would be an awful lot of work to do, like deleting it from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, negating the office of chaplin for Congress and the prayer with which sessions of Congress begin, and removing "that word" from several oaths of office for state and national positions. Do you think they're ready to undertake that sort of task? Do you think that it will ever be undertaken?

I have stated no personal opinion, and I am not going to. But realistically, how do you think this will end up?

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 02:41 PM

Firstly, I think the raising of this issue and between the howls from the rabid right wingers on AM radio, and the bleats of the NPR junkies listening to the FM bands, it's just great to see this country getting back to normal!

The guy talking about godless Germans under Hitler is in his own little world. The racist ideology of the Nazis didn't impede their version of Christianity any more than slavery did for 19th century Confederate Americans.

Meanwhile, while I personally remember putting my hand to my heart and saying the pledge, I don't recall anyone in my elementary school classrooms having a problem with this, except for some school bullies, one of whom I remember saying loudly he wouldn't be able to sleep right if he said the pledge of allegiance. I don't think this was an intellectual disagreement, however.

I remember having the Lord's Prayer recited in school in the morning, and even at the time, as a young kid, I knew it was wrong, because not everyone could say it together.

Therefore, if Jehovah's Witnesses, atheists, Hindus who happen to be my fellow Americans are being separated from other kids due to the words 'under God' in the pledge, the Ninth Circuit Court is correct in determining that the pledge as now constituted is unConstitutional.

BTW, I remember listening to 'God Save the Queen' before seeing a play in London, so I don't think Europeans are that different from Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 03:19 PM

Getting private gods out of our public policy: check out this thread which has an important link...

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 03:25 PM

Ya' know, I'd be all for inserting "with tolerance and understanding for all" instead.......It fits with the rest of the idealistic nature of the Pledge as something nice we'd like to believe about ourselves.

In my little conservative village here, the elementary school has Christmas plays, Christian based. The principal who grew up here and has been the principal for over 20 years openly said from the stage one year that he "knew the community wouldn't mind" the type of skits and plays being done. There are probably only about three non-Christian families here so no one objects. I could of course.....but what would be the point? My son Michael hasn't been harmed by this and we talk when he wants to about what I believe versus what they do in school. I don't put down the school or the religious based aspects of his education but I suggest that other people may believe otherwise and here's some examples. As he gets older we'll continue to talk at age appropriate levels about ethics and morals and beliefs....because that is a parent's job. Some kids would be more troubled by this than Michael I suppose, but so far it hasn't hurt him that I can see.

Now I have talked to my friend Rick, the principal, about it and as long as no one is signing him up for baptism, it's still okay. Rick and I disagree, but even this card carrying ACLU member can have some tolerance as long as he's doing his job as a principal and I mine as a parent......and for the most part, we're happy with each other's performance.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 03:49 PM

"In God We Trust" was added to the paper currency in the 1950s--a result of rampant McCarthyism, as was the "under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

I think if more US citizens knew the history of the religious words being inserted during the anti-communist heyday of McCarthyism, we might see vastly different results in the overnight opinion polls.

The fanatical right wing reaction we are witnessing ought to terrify everyone who thought a revival of McCarthyism could never happen here again.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 04:05 PM

Big Mick - You are entirely correct that "this whole issue is a red herring". Exactly. I wonder what it's intended to distract our attention from?

Peter T. - What is your point about "school voutures"? Please elaborate. Could that be the real issue behind the red herring?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Steve-o
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 04:27 PM

Good Grief, what a sad commentary on us Americans this is!!! The bozo who brought this suit (a doctor, if you can believe it) wants us all to realize that "atheists are people too!!' He always felt left out when he said the pledge, and now he will be able to "feel included". The meathead who started this thread says it's "about time"....we can't be having any of this scary mixing of church and state!! Holy shit, you guys, there are people starving, people ignorant, people fighting and hating, and THIS is what you concern yourselves with?? Get up off your wimpy butts and go do something that might change our world in an important way, you mealy-mouthed victims!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 04:56 PM

Right on, Steve-o! We have a similar bozo here in Ontario, Canada, who started a major legal brouhaha in this province about town councils and various other levels of government saying the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of public occasions, meetings, etc. He actually got the courts to rule it "unconstitutional" according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it might offend someone who is not religious. He did not do it in order to help Hindus, Muslims, or anyone else like that. He did it because he is obsessed with a vitriolic hatred for any and ALL religions.

I've seen said bozo's comments in the press. He is obsessed about the issue, for psychological reasons peculiar to him, and seems to feel that it is his holy mission to expunge all public references to any form of deity whatsoever, in order to protect the rights of atheists everywhere.

What a jerk. By insisting that everyone else behave exactly like him and do exactly what he wants he has caused immeasurable expenditures of time, money, and great unnecessary illwill in hundreds of Ontario communities...and become famous...or infamous...in the process.

I wonder...when will someone similar step forward to defend the rights of @$$holes? And when will someone else step forward to defend the rights of stupid people? Those who are neither stupid nor obnoxious should not be allowed, after all, to behave in ways which are offensive to those people who are!!! Uh-huh.

Society seems to be increasingly dictated to by the terminally insecure, with the aid of high-priced lawyers who delight in counting how many angels are on the head of a particular legal pin.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 05:46 PM

From the Washington Post RE: School Voucher Decision in Cleveland by the Supreme Court

This one is really the decision of the times and shows poor judgement in the extreme by the Court. It's obviously the biggest story here in Ohio where Public Education funding is in trouble anyhow. What really troubles me is that some feel it is simply "alarmist" to feel that this will go any further which is completely out of character as these decisions in the past have always "let the toothpaste out of the tube."........Spaw

From the Washington Post:

A bitterly divided Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an Ohio school voucher program yesterday, ruling for the first time that the government may give financial aid to parents so they can send their children to religious or private schools.

In a landmark church-state decision that could recast the national debate over education policy, the court ruled 5 to 4 that the Ohio program, which applies only to the failing Cleveland school district, is not a de facto subsidy for church-run schools.

Instead, the court said, it gives low-income families freedom of choice between secular and religious education and, as such, does not amount to an official sponsorship of religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

"[T]he Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in the opinion he wrote for the court. "It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice."

Rehnquist was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer dissented.

The case, which called upon the justices to render a legal opinion on one of the most hotly debated policy issues of recent times, drew more intense public attention than any other in this term.

"In practical effect, this is one of the most important constitutional decisions of the last 30 years," said Eugene Volokh, a University of California at Los Angeles law school professor who specializes in church-state issues.

Opponents of vouchers, led by teachers unions, consider them not only an affront to the separation of church and state but also a mortal financial threat to public education itself. Supporters, led by conservative free-market activists, say that the aid is the best hope for thousands of low-income children trapped in failing inner-city school systems.

The intense exchanges between these interest groups were mirrored in the passionate words of the justices yesterday.

Reading from the bench a joint statement from the four dissenting justices as a demonstration of their strong disagreement with the majority, Souter called the court's ruling a "potentially tragic" mistake that would force citizens to subsidize faiths they do not share even as it corrupts religion by making it dependent on government.

In his own dissenting opinion, Breyer said the court "risks creating a form of religious conflict potentially harmful to the Nation's social fabric."

Stevens added that the court has "remove[d] a brick from the wall that was once designed to separate religion from government, [increasing] the risk of religious strife and weaken[ing] the foundation of democracy."

But in an equally forceful opinion expressing his reasons for joining the majority, the court's only African American, Thomas, who often credits his own rise from poverty to the rigorous education he received at a Roman Catholic school in Savannah, Ga., said vouchers are necessary to rescue children from "inner-city public schools that deny emancipation to urban minority students."

"While the romanticized ideal of universal public education resonates with the cognoscenti who oppose vouchers," Thomas wrote, "poor urban families just want the best education for their children, who will certainly need it to function in our high-tech and advanced society."

The court's ruling will not immediately deliver a voucher option to other students in the country, however. It says only that the Constitution permits state legislatures to pass voucher laws similar to Ohio's -- not that they must do so.

But voucher proponents, who had feared that a defeat at the court could be fatal to their cause, said they expect their campaign in the states to be reenergized now that the constitutional cloud over it has been lifted.

"This decision removes a major impediment to school-choice legislation around the country," said Clint Bolick, vice president of the Institute for Justice, a conservative legal organization that led the battle for the Ohio program in the lower courts. "We expect to see major legislative efforts at the federal and state levels over the coming year. At least half a dozen states, including Colorado and Texas, should see significant action after the November elections."

Polls have found the public split on the issue. A Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation survey last summer showed that 50 percent of Americans opposed providing parents with vouchers, while 45 percent approved of the idea. Support for vouchers appears to be stronger among inner-city residents than among suburban voters, however.

In recent years, voters in California and Michigan rejected voucher proposals in state referendums, and a voucher provision in President Bush's education proposals foundered last year in the face of congressional opposition. The Bush administration weighed in on the pro-voucher side at the Supreme Court.

Aside from Ohio, only two states, Wisconsin and Florida, have enacted voucher programs to date.

Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes vouchers, said the court's ruling creates "no reason to think this is going to reinvigorate a voucher movement that has repeatedly been defeated in recent years. The American public may be ahead of the court on this issue."

Robert H. Chanin, an attorney for the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the country, said opponents will pursue legal challenges based on state constitutional law in states that do adopt vouchers. Such a challenge is pending in Florida, said Chanin, who argued against vouchers at the Supreme Court.

At issue in the case the court decided yesterday was a law enacted by the Ohio legislature in 1995 to cope with the near-breakdown of Cleveland's public schools. It provides a maximum of $2,250 each to the families of about 3,700 mostly low-income students, enabling them to attend religious or secular private schools. The bill also makes the aid available for paying tuition at suburban public schools, but no suburban schools have agreed to accept voucher students from Cleveland.

Backed by teachers unions and civil liberties organizations, Cleveland residents who opposed the program sued to block it as a violation of the separation of church and state. They believed they had a particularly strong claim that it was tantamount to taxpayer-subsidized religion, since 96 percent of the students who received aid in a recent year used it to pay for tuition at schools affiliated with churches.

But the case came to a Supreme Court that has been moving in the direction of greater support for including religious schools in government programs that provide aid to education. Majorities composed largely of conservative appointees of Republican presidents had ruled that such funding is not government sponsorship of religion as long as it is provided on an equal basis to religious and nonreligious institutions alike and is channeled through individuals who exercise free choice over how it is used.

In 1986, for example, the court held that a student could use state vocational scholarship money to study at a religious institution to become a pastor. In 1993, the court ruled that federal money could be used to pay for sign-language interpreters for deaf students at religious schools.

In yesterday's opinion, Rehnquist argued that the Cleveland voucher program fits neatly into this line of precedent.

He said that the key consideration is not that almost all of the students who used vouchers went to religious schools, but rather that the vouchers are just one part of an array of alternatives to the traditional public schools that also includes charter schools, magnet schools and special tutoring grants for traditional-school students.

"The . . . question is whether Ohio is coercing parents into sending their children to religious schools, and that question must be answered by evaluating all options Ohio provides Cleveland schoolchildren, only one of which is to obtain a program scholarship and then choose a religious school," Rehnquist wrote.

He noted that the percentage of voucher students in secular private schools would have been higher, but two such schools were converted into charter schools because of the court battle over the voucher program's future.

In his dissent, Souter contended that the issue of whether the program is state-sponsored religion should have been decided strictly on the basis of where the state voucher money went.

"The majority has confused choice in spending scholarships with choice from the entire menu of possible educational placements, most of them open to anyone willing to attend a public school," Souter wrote, accusing the majority of a "dramatic departure from basic [constitutional] principle."

But, crucially, Rehnquist received the unqualified support of O'Connor for this holding. Many court-watchers had speculated that O'Connor might join a pro-voucher majority but write separately to limit the impact of the case.

Instead, O'Connor published a concurring opinion, in which she backed Rehnquist fully, disputed Souter's reasoning at length, and called "alarmist" the concerns Souter and Breyer expressed about possible social division.

The court's ruling was on three consolidated cases: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, No. 00-1751; Hanna Perkins School v. Simmons-Harris, No. 00-1777; and Taylor v. Simmons-Harris, No. 00-1779.


© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 05:49 PM

The Lord's Prayer has no place as a precursor of public (i.e. governmental, scholastic, secular, performance) meetings. There are plenty of non-atheists who are not included in it, since it is Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 06:32 PM

There are plenty of people who are not included in anything one could care to mention, robomatic...except death and taxes. What are we gonna do about it? Pass more restrictive laws?

I find the idolization of flags offensive (somewhat). I find the influence of money in people's lives offensive (in certain respects). I find most television offensive, without a doubt. I find commercial radio programming offensive. I find RAP music offensive. I find backwards baseball caps offensive. I find the Democratic and Republican parties and professional wrestling offensive.

What if I were to find some smart lawyer and launch a legal action against them? What if it succeeded? Then what? Should my personal preferences serve to dictate the way thousands of other people live, and to eliminate their traditions on a whim of mine? I don't think so.

Furthermore, the Lord's Prayer is not exclusively Christian. Jesus was not a Christian! Every major religious teacher I have ever heard of or read from the East Indian tradition (to name just one non-Christian tradition) states that the Lord's Prayer is not an exclusively Christian prayer, but a universal prayer that can be spoken by any religious person anywhere within the context of his own faith. Obviously, they know something about it that you do not. Anyone who is moderately sophisticated in their spiritual outlook can readily see that such a prayer is not confined to one religious tradition only.

God and/or common reason, save us please from literal thinkers who see only the outer cover of a thing and never bother to read the flippin' book!

As for atheists, aren't there already a whole lot of things happening in society which are done in a way which would please an atheist? Should religious people be allowed to ban all those things by law? No! What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Democracy is encouraged by allowing many differences in human behaviour, not by banning certain forms of cultural behaviour in deference to others.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Banjer
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 06:52 PM

In an earlier post, Dewey asked "ANYONE GOT THE RED SKELETON SKIT ON THE PLEDGE OF ALLIGIENCE> WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT POSTED HERE!!!!!" To see and hear it CLICK HERE It's worth a listen and may help explain the pledge to some of our overseas friends who are still confused by this debate. I don't agree with what many of you folks who don't like the pledge have said but one of the beautiful things about our great country is the ability for us to disagree amicably amongst ourselves. At the risk of getting thrown out on my ear....GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Banjer
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 06:55 PM

Well, that clickie didn't like me! Let's try this one TRY THIS ONE. JUst in case this one doesn't work again here is the URL you may copy and paste.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Banjer
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 07:07 PM

Here is the URL which I forgot in take two above....http://home.att.net/~poofcatt/july.html.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 07:17 PM

Banjer - Yep. Well, that was a rather different time...with a different social tone to it.

Actually, many nations attempt to function under those very same basic assumptions...unity, indivisibility, liberty and justice for all. These are ideals and hopes common to many (if not most) countries such as: the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and goodness knows how many others...

There are always gaps between those cherished ideals and their full realization in a given society, but the desire to realize them is certainly there in virtually any population. It's not a situation unique to the USA, although the Pledge of Allegiance itself is unique, of course.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 07:53 PM

But all those other nations don't have the White Man Piebald Personoffspring's Burden of Leading the Free World.

Liland

ps to mary garvey, mary, fact is most people would much rather see all lower case like this than all SHOUTING intended or not. personally, after a few cases of that kind of orthographic assault i simply pass the posts by in silence even if the topic is one i'm interested in. to have to put up with all caps in order to read dangerously revisionist versions of nazi doctrines is asking too much. i am not at all alone in this and those newbies who do much ALL CAPPING deserve (even if, like dewey, they're writing falsehoods) to be apprised of the fact. imho ;-) i would not dream of imposing a "no all caps" rule (well, okay, maybe i would dream of it, but i wouldn't try to act on that dream), but people who use all caps should be made aware that it will cut into their readership and simultaneously irritate a significant portion of the readers who remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Souter
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 09:57 PM

More than being rude and hard to read, WRITING IN ALL CAPS makes all your arguments, no matter how sound and well reasoned, look like the illogical ravings of a fanatic, so people tend to automatically discount them.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: toadfrog
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 10:34 PM

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! TRUE FEALING must be expressed forcefully, or people won't read our

GODLY WRIT

. HOW ELSE PERSUADE THESE HIPPIE COMMIE LIBERALS OF THE EVIL OF THERE WAYS???????????? I could go on writing like this forever..............

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 29 Jun 02 - 12:26 AM

Of course you're right, Justice Souter, but as toadfrog points out, to borrow your phrases,

More than being rude and hard to read, WRITING IN ALL CAPS makes all your arguments, no matter how unsound and ill reasoned, look like the illogical ravings of a fanatic that they are, so people tend justifiably to discount them.

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 02 - 09:41 AM

I think someone should immediately launch a legal initiative to ban all practices which are offensive to illogical raving fanatics with unsound and ill-reasoned opinions. It should be pressed forward right to the Supreme Court, if necessary, until people realize that illogical raving fanatics are PEOPLE TOO!!! BY GUM!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 29 Jun 02 - 01:09 PM

AY-MEN, AY-MEN! AY-MEN! AY-MEN! AY-MEN!

Which may or may not be "religious speech".

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Banjer
Date: 29 Jun 02 - 03:04 PM

'illogical raving fanatics are PEOPLE TOO'

So tell us Little Hawk, did you post that as the the former or the latter? **BG**

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 02 - 03:08 PM

Ummm...wait...lemme think...ummmm...

Hmmmm...

(smoke coming out of ears...)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance history of origins
From: Haruo
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 02:19 AM

As a Baptist Socialist, since the Pledge was written by a Socialist Baptist minister, I dasn't be too harsh in my attitude towards the Pledge. Today SdJotD is featuring a site on the history of the pledge, and I recommend this page, The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History.

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: toadfrog
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 03:55 PM

Banjer, I have no quarrel with Red Skelton's version of the Pledge, which is the one I used to recite in school. (Although, to me. it was one long Mondegreen, and I had no clear idea what it was about.) Circuit Judge Goodwin also had no quarrel with that version. What bothers people is the "under God," which is not a part of Skelton's pledge. Especially in light of the context in which that got inserted.

I have no problem with patriotism, as long as people refrain from inserting their own questionable agendas into the concept of patriotism.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Banjer
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 06:13 PM

The last part of the commentary on the Red Skelton pledgee is what is pertinent to today's discussion:

'Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?

God Bless America!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 10:48 PM

Us polytheists object strongly. Should be "Under gods"

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 11:17 PM

Yes, but are not most polytheisitc religions simply intended to convey different aspects of an overall divinity that is too big to define anyway?

That's certainly the case in India, and I suspect it was the case with most other polytheistic religions...such as the Roman, the Greek, the Egyptian, the Norse, the American Indian...and so on. Each particular aspect of the divine was given a particular name and personality. People from officially monotheistic religions are missing the point of polytheism, I think, and judging the book by only looking at the cover.

This is the kind of stuff people just love<\i> to argue about... :-)

Now, if you define God as intelligence, consciousness, awareness, existence, potential existence, manifestation, thought, matter, energy, and life itself...then WHO does not believe in that God? Tell me. Atheism is just non-belief in conventional religions...it is not necessarily non-belief in God. Trust me on that. (grin)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 11:34 PM

Not to mention that worshippers of Mother Earth object that it should be "one nation over God[dess]"...

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Brían
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 11:38 PM

Thanks, Liland, for the history of the pledge. I found a similar piece on the NPR website. I find it most interesting that the contraversial under God was added much later. That the composer, who was a Baptist minister left out any mention of God is most telling.

Brían

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 01:32 AM

But of course he was my kind of Baptist, not their kind of Baptist. Incidentally, this morning my church, Fremont Baptist Church of Seattle, voted to rename itself "Fremont Community Church" just so people won't presume to know what we think of them. It gets tiresome, being taken for a fundie because you belong to the same denomination as Roger Williams and MLK. Rev. Bellamy was, as the site noted, a Christian Socialist. He was a contemporary of the great Labor Baptist Walter Rauschenbusch.

Liland
Formerly Baptist, newly Community ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: John P
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 08:53 AM

Liland, who's going to paint over the ten foot high "BAPTIST" that's 40 feet in the air on the side of the church? I think Fremont Community Church is a much better name, btw.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: John P
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 09:03 AM

I seem to be detecting a feeling that folks think wanting to remove God from our government is a new idea for lots of us, and we are all excited about it without ever having thought of it before. I'm all excited because it's finally getting talked about by someone other than me. I've been offended by the amount of religion being forced on me by our government for years. Laws against nudity, laws against polygamy, laws agaings homosexuality, laws against drinking on Sunday, laws against taking drugs, laws against various forms of sex between consenting adults, chaplains in Congress, prayer meetings in the Justice Department, official meetings that start with prayers, religious words on our money. What chance is there of anyone beng elected to high office in this country unless they are a professing Christian or Jew?

It's not a new topic, folks. It's just being talked about widely for the first time. I know it will take another 20 cases and 25 years before anything will change, but it's a start.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: kendall
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 10:29 AM

It never fails to piss me off when I hear someone credit Ronald Raygun for bringing down the soviet union. What a crock of right wing horseshit! The soviet union was brought down by: American television, Lec Walesa, the Pope and Mikail Gorbachev. Reagan slept through the whole thing.

By the way, what do we need a pledge for anyway? Does parroting a few patriotic words make you a better American? Is a Canadian less of a Canadian because they have no such pledge? When I was a small boy in school, I repeated that pledge every day without a clue what it meant; now, I know what it means, but, I have no need to show what a good American I am by repeating it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Art Thieme
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 01:58 PM

John P,

You said it all in your last post. Thanks.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 05:49 PM

John, as for the huge "BAPTIST" letters both on the south side of the building and facing east and west along the crest of the roof, it's probably a moot point. I think we're going to redesign the outside of the building to look more like EMP. (kidding; I actually have no idea what will happen)

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: toadfrog
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 11:40 PM

Kendall: I think you are mistaken about who brought down the Soviet Union. If any individual deserves credit for that, it is surely Osama bin Laden! Heavily subsidized, perhaps, by Reagan, but at our expense. The Afghan War really wore Russia down. Generally, ambitious military adventures turn around and bite their authors. Thus the First World War destroyed Austria, its author. The Second would have been fatal to Germany, but for the Cold War which led us to revive it. America was set way back by Vietnam; anyone who lived through the 1960's and 70's can tell you that.

And GWB should be very careful, if he cares at all about our fate.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Guest - Browning
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 02:15 AM

I was actually searching for some song lyrics and came across your little dominion here. And let me say in advance that I am certain that I will be discounted within the community as "right wing". However, I am a patriotic American who makes his living in environmental reclamation, yet votes Republican most of the time (who else will keep taxes from erasing my bank account?), and dearly loves God, and His son, Jesus Christ. For those of you who haven't the same theological bent as myself, I will be praying for you tonight. And....I will exit your little kingdom here, because although I enjoy intellectual conversation and disagreement, I find the America-bashing and Christianity demeaning tone of the website distressing. God Bless........

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 11:17 AM

LH,

I think that your understanding of polytheism is very self-serving. "It's really just one God that has many aspects, so it's basically the same as my religion." That is NOT the ancient Greek, ancient egyptian, etc, concept of polytheism at all. When Akhenaten tried to introduce monotheism to egypt, he succeeded as long as he was alive. Then for generations his visage was scratched out of every frieze and fresco. He became a hated figure for generations, because people did not believe there was just one deity, but many.

Obviously, those religions are gone now. But it's dangerous to assume other religions are just like yours with different outward trappings. They're not. They're different. Reference to any individual religion in a government-funded or mandated program is unconstitutional and obviously runs counter to the idea of the separation of church and state. It's not about whiners or fanatics being offended.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 12:49 PM

A polytheistic state religion can employ more priests than a monotheistic one. Maybe Akhenaton's image was abominated because the Priests' Union saw monotheism as a threat to job security.

Sorry to see Guest Browning leave like that but at least it's a relief to know s/he'll be praying for all of us.

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 03:56 PM

Nerd - Well, of course my statements about polytheism are self-serving... I'm just as fond of my own opinions as most other people are of theirs! :-) Your point about Akenaton, however, is an excellent one to support your argument...and it had already occurred to me when I posted mine. It's the most obvious retort to mine that I can think of.

The way it is with God and religion is: People will always squabble about the outer particulars...the names used for God, which prophet(s) to follow, which holy books to read, which kind of clothing to wear, what kind of food to eat, one god or many gods, and anything else they can dream up to fight about. All this is due to accustomed mental habits and small-mindedness, IMO. And it all falls short of addressing the real question of divinity and what it means in life. As far as I'm concerned, all religious ideas are different ideas about the same fundamental question. This is why I belong to no specific church or religion, but simply to Life itself. In that respect, all people are my brothers and sisters, whether they know it or not. It's not always easy to get along with siblings...I know that.

Liland - Very good point about why monotheism would have had strong opposition in Egypt.

It is possible to see monotheism through the mechanism of many gods and goddesses...you only need not to be afraid of the idea. If you are afraid of it, you won't countenance it.

God does not prohibit anything. People prohibit things. If God did prohibit anything, it would simply not exist in the first place nor even be able to...God being the actual functioning substance and working of all that is.

People argue about God because they imagine that God is separate from themselves. It is not...it is just larger than themselves in its totality...and they are each one small part of it.

I've got no problem with separating church and state, because as far as I'm concerned, most churches have precious little of any use to say about God, although they never stop talking about Him/Her/It.

It is entirely appropriate in the meantime that American money have "In God We Trust" on it, because money IS God in America. That's what's so ironical about it. The statement fits the shoe that wears it!

You people are piddling around worrying about church and state when the state is already totally bought and dominated by money...and that is what has perverted it. The church was also bought out by money long ago, centuries ago. Money is the great god you must dethrone in society if anything is to change for the better.

That's why this issue about "under God" in the Pledge is a red herring.

Browning - By all means then, pray for everyone of a different viewpoint. Jesus did. He also said "Ye are all gods, and sons of the Most High". That doesn't sound exclusive to me, it sounds inclusive. Hurrah for Jesus! He was a true democrat (small "d"). If he was around now in the flesh, he'd be called a Communist in the West, and something else equally untrue and nasty in Communist China....like a "revisionist saboteur" or something of the sort.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 04:07 PM

John P, I imagine that laws against nudity have more to do with public good taste than religion. Some people are just not pretty to look at without their clothes. Others of us don't like to have to pick hairs out of our food at restaurants, so there's also a sanitary issue.

Besides that, if G(g)od(dess) had meant for us to go naked, we would've been born that way.

Oh, wait.......... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 04:36 PM

Nudity was not much of a problem for most tropical area tribal people...except that they did generally cover the genital area with some bit of clothing. It would be interesting to speculate on why they did that...to maintain social order in public?

Ideas about nudity are primarily a matter of existing social customs...people are usually quite uncomfortable with practices they are unaccustomed to. They then shape the religion to fit the customs, usually.

John P - Yeah, I can just imagine a Muslim, a Hindu, or a self-professed atheist trying to run for President of the USA on the Republican or Democratic tickets! Or a socialist! Not bloody likely. This again, has to do more with existing social customs and expectations than it does with religion.

Major political parties will not nominate candidates who are too unconventional or controversial...that might lose them some votes. This is sheer opportunism at work, not religion. Religion is not the real issue here. Hypocrisy and mental habits are the real issues.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 07:56 PM

Well, I voted for McReynolds in 1980 because I sort of saw the handwriting on the wall as far as who's gonna win, Reagan or Carter, and besides the idea of voting for a gay English prof for prexy and a nun for veep (sorry, have forgotten the Sister's name) was just too delicious to pass up.

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 08:54 PM

As regards the terrible danger of school vouchers after today's decision let me just point up that the Supremes' rationale weas that the vouchers were being distributed without bias to parents so that they could educate their children appropriately. There was in no way an intent or effort to establish any bias toward or away from any religion and therefore, there was no consitutional compromise made.

The Pledge, however, is an act of Congress and as such, it is unconstitutional for mob-o-theistic terminiology to be inserted into it, no matter what Joe McCarthy thinks.

A