Atheist Dad in 'Under God' Case

[pushpills]

One nation, 'Under God', with liberty and justice for all.



As you may know, an athiest man (an ER doctor by trade) is in court battling the reference to god in the pledge of allegiance.


What do you think, should it be taken out? Why/why not?


My vote goes for yes. I think that conditioning kids at a young age with that phrase makes them more likely to believe in god instinctively than to make their decision themselves. So do parents and tradition etc, but that's a different story, this is in public school. My 2 cents.

-Once again I'm starting this poll before I go tanning...back in a bit.

[mojobill]

Ya know.. this was a good post.... up to this point:

-Once again I'm starting this poll before I go tanning...back in a bit.

a) Irrelevant
B) who gives a fuck?

[Carrie]

I'm torn on this one. It's the pledge to me, but that phrase wasn't *originally* in it. It was added in sometime... in the 60s? I don't remember.
Taking it out would be dissassembling the pledge to *me*, but I suppose putting it in was the same thing to the folks who remembered it not being there.

That being said, public school is all about conditioning.
To gays, to "alternate lifestyles", to anti-business, to anti-trade, feel-good schooling/competition, to gov't control, to politically correct bullshit... why censor out one when you push the rest so hard?

I think the case should be dropped simply because the man behind the suit does NOT attend public school and doesn't have to say the pledge. His daughter, for whom he is supposedly doing this, disagrees with the whole thing, doesn't share his view, and wants him to stop. He tried this in Florida as well and when it didn't fly there, he moved to California where he could toss it in front of the infamous 9th district judges who were more likely to let it through.
This isn't about his daughter, it's about HIM. Since the subject of the suit (the daughter) does not support it and doesn't agree with it, the court should drop it. Period.

[sarettah]

I could not care less....... It is interesting to note though that the pledge, which often seems to have the left and right riled up for some reason, was written by a socialist...

The words "under God" were added by Congress in 1954.

I know when I was growing up, it was mandatory to say the pledge in class in our schools. Us "hippies" during the 60's used sitting and refusing to say the pledge as a minor form of protest against it being mandatory.

from: http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm


The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer
Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

.................................................. .....................

[TheEnforcer]

get rid of it.

[PornoDoggy]

I propose a compromise.

Leave God in the Pledge ... and elimiate the welfare to religious organizations called "faith based initiatives."

[pushpills]

Originally posted by fatbaby@Mar 25 2004, 01:43 PM
Ya know.. this was a good post.... up to this point:

-Once again I'm starting this poll before I go tanning...back in a bit.

a) Irrelevant
B) who gives a fuck?
oh it's relevant.

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 25 2004, 02:13 PM
I propose a compromise.

Leave God in the Pledge ... and elimiate the welfare to religious organizations called "faith based initiatives."
haha.

couldn't agree more.

:okthumb:

[sarettah]

Originally posted by pushpills@Mar 25 2004, 06:01 PM
oh it's relevant.
To whom ???

[Vick]

Let the music do the talking ....


The Rogue Nation of Ignis Fatuus Now is a very large, socially progressive nation, ........

.....Religious organizations are being forced to leave the country or pay income taxes like everybody else .......


Just another reason to vote Vick in 2004!

[RawAlex]

How about just getting rid of the boy who came up with "faith based inititiatives"?

Alex

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Carrie@Mar 25 2004, 04:54 PM
That being said, public school is all about conditioning.
To gays, to "alternate lifestyles", to anti-business, to anti-trade, feel-good schooling/competition, to gov't control, to politically correct bullshit... why censor out one when you push the rest so hard?
I think you forgot anti-white people.