 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: Nerd Date: 03 Jul 02 - 02:51 AM LH, The issue may be a red herring, but then why have you been arguing about it for so long? The fact is that you are supporting the use of the word God in the pledge because you believe that God is "the actual functioning substance and working of all that is" In other words, God is something like "The Universe." My point is that, for those who put God in the pledge, this is not what God is. God, to them, is the Christian God-concept, a male all-powerful being who lets you into heaven for righteousness and banishes you to hell for sin. Think of what would happen if at a presidential function someone said "under Allah" or "under Vishnu" or "Under Astarte" and you'd see that the use of the words "under God" isn't about inclusion! As a member of a minority religion, I think it is wrong to say that it's only the party system that dictates that every single president except Kennedy was a WASP, and that every one in history was a white male christian. In fact, just to say that the parties won't put forth a muslim because it might lose them votes shows you exactly what the issue is: the US does suffer from religious discrimination, and the pledge is part of it. To say that religion is not the issue, but "mental habits" is is meaningless. Both religion and religious discrimination are mental habits, and they are precisely the issue! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:34 PM Well, LH, it's HOT in the tropics so the people who have lived there forever are probably a lot more comfortable without clothes. As far as covering up the naughty bits... well, they're kinda sensitive, ain't they? You don't want them getting caught in the door hinge or stepped on or anything like that... Wasn't it someone on this forum who posted about their dad or granddad being a missionary in the Pacific? He arranged for the native ladies to have t-shirts so they wouldn't have to go about bare-breasted, but they cut out holes for their breasts anyway. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Jul 02 - 08:39 PM Nerd - Not exactly as you say...I'm not supporting the Pledge of Allegiance at all, with or without the words "under God". I don't personally care for the Pledge of Allegiance, and I never did care for it. I just like discussing philosophical concepts about God and religion, that's all...that's why I keep talking about it. I'm well aware that the religious right does not share my conceptions of God! :-) And...I am objecting to the petty concerns of people who obsess about specific religious symbols (whether they are for OR against them) and then, on the basis of their obsession, try to get laws passed to FORCE everyone else to either use or not use those symbols, in accordance with their obsession. They are troublemakers, in my opinion, and are lacking in tolerance. It reminds me of when certain feminists in the 70's started demanding entrance into private male clubs, for instance. I even know of one case of a male pagan who repeatedly demanded entrance into private female gatherings. He was a very insecure person with an attitude problem. It was the same attitude problem in fact, but the diametrically opposite application. It's always done in the name of freedom, but it's not about freedom at all...it's about having a huge chip on your shoulder and feeling that everyone else must give up their freedom to be who they are on behalf of your freedom to be who you are...by force of law. One thing though, I agree with you that the US political system DOES practice religious discrimination...and just about every other form of discrimination one could care to mention too. In that way, it mirrors the society in general. To oppose (on a legal basis) the use of the phrase "under God" in an official statement is indicative of a form of anti-religious prejudice, while to insist (on a legal basis) that it must be there is indicative of another form of prejudice. I think it's a dumb thing to launch legal battles over in either case...and just because some court finally brings down a decision on it doesn't mean diddly. Courts are composed of people, and people are fallible, and many laws are stupid and wrongful, as time has proven over and over again. You see, the legal system isn't God either, although it acts just as if it were. I would like people to be free to either say "under God" and/or the Pledge itself...or not say it...as they wish...without some stupid law telling them what they must do or not do in that situation. This isn't support of the Pledge, Nerd. It's support of individual freedom of expression. People should be allowed to think these things out for themselves, and not be dictated to by Big Brother. I don't give a hang if Big Brother is a religious fanatic or an atheist fanatic, he's still Big Brother regardless when he tells me what I can or cannot say in public. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: GUEST,Genie Date: 03 Jul 02 - 09:35 PM Actually, I think the suit over the pledge in public schools is based on the right issue, namely that the insertion of the words "under God" by Congress in 1952 was--don't kid yourselves--an attempt to "establish a state religion," even if only a rather amorphous one. Dewey, if "...it is a proclamation that the country [Italics mine]believes in a higher power..," that proves the point. As Fionn said, government is not supposed to take a particular stance on religion. It may not take an action for or against the establishment or exercise of religion. And that has historically been the key issue in court decisions about religious ceremonies' and symbols' compatibility with the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, you're right, LH--"Fussing about traditional religions and the use of the word "God" in this or that document at this point in history is like fussing about your malfunctioning barbecue while a forest fire engulfs your property from all sides." The guy who brought the suit, for one thing, is badly in need of a personality transplant, if you ask me -- not the most charismatic spokesperson for atheism -- and, yes, Toadfrog, his timing, in bringing the suit so soon after 9-11-02 seems symptomatic of shoot-oneself-in-the-foot disease. The public, the "liberal media," and US politicians, on the other hand are, by their exaggerated reaction to the court decision, kinda proving that the suit had merit! Both sides should pick their battles more judiciously. Yes, Liland, I, too, find it interesting how people who are one minute screaming about "law and order" and "if you do the crime, you should do the time," can in the next breath be advocating civil disobedience when they think a law or court decision is unjust. [Fionn, having kids salute the flag and say the pledge is an attempt at indoctrination, but it ain't brainwashing--nor are most attempts at propaganda. We use the term "brainwashing" much too loosely, I fear. What do we then call the kind of "attitude adjustment" which has been used on POWs, involving starvation, sensory deprivation, torture, removing a person from all human ties, and doing everything possible to remove all hope--i.e., the sytematic treatment for which the term "brainwashing" was coined?] BTW, well said, Big Mick!!!
Genie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: GUEST,Genie Date: 03 Jul 02 - 11:28 PM Gloredhel, you're probably right that if the Supreme Court held the "under God" in the pledge to violate the "establishment" Clause, they'd have to apply the same logic to the currency, etc. [Though you could argue that having kids recite the pledge calls for their active endorsement of the concept of God, whereas passing money does not.] As a practical matter, of course, it would cost nothing to stop saying prayers in government sessions or having "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and relatively little to notify schools and government officials of the decision. Changing the US money could cost a great deal. As for the Declaration of Independence, it's a historical document that has no legal status in the way the Constitution does, so it wouldn't need to be changed. And does the Constitution mention God? Where? Little Hawk, I fear that "bozos" like this guy who brought the suit over "under God" are doing more harm than good to the cause of keeping government and religion separate. The ones like the late Madeline Murray O'Hare who keep suing every time a school mentions anything Judeo-Christian or a church group wants to hold an Easter service on otherwise-unused public land, etc., just fuel the fires of the far Right, who would like nothing better than to impose much of their religious/moral viewpoint on everyone else. The Religious Right shouldn't get to holier-than-thou about this sort of intolerance, though. I've heard many of them objecting to public schools' teaching such things as relaxation skills, "because these techniques have their foundation in transcendental meditation, which is based on Buddhism or other non-Christian beliefs." Liland, thanks for the link to the history of the pledge. Wonder how many in the Religious Right know the pledge was written by a minister who did not feel it necessary/appropriate to include "under God" in "what is Caesar's"--or that the author was a (Gasp!) socialist! Guest Browning (who won't read this if you've really exited), I, for one, am not anti-Christian. Like a number of Christians, some of whom are Mudcatters, I feel it verges on blasphemy to tie Christianity to capitalism, vengeful militarism, intolerance, eye-for-an-eye "justice," etc., the way the Religious Right in the US tends to do. Jesus said to give Caesar what is Caesar's and give God what is God's. Genie (still without my biscuit) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jul 02 - 09:20 AM Bravo, Genie! Very well said throughout. These things need to be thought out in depth, not just reacted to in a knee-jerk fashion, which is the trap a lot of people fall into when it comes to "religion". - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: Big Mick Date: 04 Jul 02 - 01:06 PM Well done, Genie. These days, due to job and time being spent on the Uilleann Pipes, Irish Bouzouki, and Low D whistle, my Mudcat time is spent mostly in reading without writing. I have followed this thread with interest. Your point about the folks who are upset at this ruling, yet object to any type of other religious influence in our institutions is the most astute of any made so far. That is not to say that there have not been many fine points made in defense of the various positions, but this one grabbed me. It seems to me that this comes down to the depth of committment to ones values, to ones code, to what one believes. Personally I don't give a damn if my child recites the pledge in school each day, or if the currency has "In God We Trust" on it. In fact I would prefer that they did not, and that it did not. This is because it is much more important to me that she feel the presence of God and that she trust the goodness of S/He That Is Always Watching, in her heart and mind, as opposed to wondering if what her old man is always telling her, and which the teacher is always telling her, and what the other kids are always telling her. I want her to sit on my hill, with a starry sky above and the wonder of the Earth Mother below, maybe with her old man's Low D whistle in hand, and know that she is a part of a wonderful plan. When we are in Mass, I want her prayers to be a conversation with that which is the greatest among us, and not some rote thing she learned in Catechism. As I was the first to say above, this is all a red herring. It is not worth the bandwidth being devoted to it. When politicians raise an issue like this one, without addressing the meat of it, it is usually done to get your attention off other things. Trust me, I know this system well. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: Haruo Date: 04 Jul 02 - 07:50 PM Genie wrote, "Jesus said to give Caesar what is Caesar's and give God what is God's." And in the Gospel of Thomas the saying ends with a third line, "and give me what is mine." Interesting; one of those instances where a pretty good case can be made that Thomas preserves a more original form than the canonicals. Liland |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: Genie Date: 04 Jul 02 - 10:44 PM Well said, Mick. Thanks for the info on The Gospel of Thomas, Liland. My quotes of "Jesus" are based on traditionally accepted Biblical verses, without getting into the issues raised in the Jesus Seminar, etc. Even if you accept the King James version of the Bible as is, you can still refute a lot of the spin that some current "Christian" advocates put on its "message" for our society and government. One thing that, to me, is really clear is that the attitude that American lives are worth more than the lives of Afghanis or anyone else does NOT jibe with what the accepted Bible says was the teaching of Jesus. Genie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Jul 02 - 11:21 AM Genie - Nope, it certainly doesn't jibe with what Christ taught...but people are usually far more willing to quote Jesus' teachings than they are to actually live up to them! This is as true of Americans as it is of most other nations. What makes America different right now is its extreme dominance in technological weaponry and firepower. That was what made the Romans different in their time too, and the British as well between, say, 1815 and 1914. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: Genie Date: 07 Jul 02 - 01:52 AM LH, I'm not bothered as much by Christians whose human foibles allow them to fall short of their ideals as by "Christians" who distort the ideals themselves. Genie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2 From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Jul 02 - 12:07 PM I'm with you on that, Genie... Various so-called Christians have proven quite adept over the centuries at finding isolated passages in the Bible to support whatever mayhem they had in mind to perpetrate upon a suffering humanity. The thing I notice is that aggressors may be of the religious variety...or the atheistic variety...or they may simply pretend to be religious if it's politically advantageous at the time...but it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. What matters is their propensity for aggression. - LH |