The Pledge--God is just a "philosophical idea"

I light of the recent ruling on the un-constitutionality of the pledge I wanted to start this thread. I did a search on the topic but found nothing where these specific comments would apply. Mods are free to move if they deem necessary.

A typical comment I've heard from "under God" proponents is "God is not a religious symbol but rather, it is a "philisophical idea" of something greater than us and therefore there is nothing unconstitutional about the expression."

My question is: If this is true, why is there such an extreme outcry to have this "philosophical idea" removed from the Pledge?

Before "under God" was added to the pledge, the allegiance was a patriotic expression that every freedom-loving American could rally around as there were no devisive elements contained in the text. But once "under God" was added, the word that follows, "indivisible", conjures a sense of poetic irony.

If "under God" is simply a philosophical idea; why not remove the expression in the interest of patriotic unity? It seems that most "doth protesteth too much" and would prefer the idea of God be foisted upon others at the cost of patriotic unity.

The truth is that God is not simply an idea. It is a religious deity. I challenge anyone here to explain where their knowledge of God came from. Whether it is sunday school, your parents, a minister etc; the fundamental source of information of God exists within religious texts.

Since I, as well as millions of others, believe God to be a religious deity, the Pledge effectively alienates those of us who are patriotic and who love America from partaking in an otherwise unifying patriotic expression of allegience.

My point in this thread is that people's anger over the declaration that the pledge is unconstitutional indicates that "God' is more than just a philosophical idea. As a religious deity, separation of church and state is clearly being violated in the pledge.

For the sake of greater national unity, why not remove "under God"?

Awaiting astute comments....

My question is: If this is true, why is there such an extreme outcry to have this "philosophical idea" removed from the Pledge?

My personal opinion? Alot of people in the US find pleasure in just bitching and complaining.... if you don't want to say the pledge with "under god" then dont. ... just wait.. next people are gonna start going after "epluribus unum" and "in god we trust".... "WAIT WE MUST GET RID OF ALL MONEY!!! IT OFFENDS ME TO SEE GODS NAME ON MY $20"

My knowledge of god came when I was a child thru church.. but as I grew my personal believe strayed far from religion. Religion is a man made creation, in some respects the most utterly corrupt and evil thing to exist in the history of man kind.. god and religion in my mind dont mix at all...


Derek

PS- yes im from the US..

[edit on 23-9-2005 by DerekJR321]

This country was founded on the principles of a god fearing society. They specificially didn't endorse a paticular God but they definetely expressed belief in a higher being. Many such as myself who learned of God from our parents and the Bible and church have the belief that he is to be raised up high and praised at any chance. This means giving praise to him in various ways such as monuments and songs with reference to him. You notice that Jesus is not mentioned in anyway at a Federal level. The reason is exclusion, the founding fathers knew long ago what would become of this country and left this out specifically i'm sure.

Saying God doesn't make you a Christian, there are many names for him we chose the one most used by Christians obviously because of the Anglo founders. To turn our back on God is the worst thing a Christian can do, and i'm sure most other religions. So excluding him from our daily life and our country is not something I feel I could ever vote for. Me making 1% of the population of this country happy and me making my father happy....well take a guess what any right minded human would pick. This country rose to great heights with God including I dare think what would happen if we changed that and totally excluding him.

Originally posted by DerekJR321
if you don't want to say the pledge with "under god" then dont. ...

I would like my kids to understand patriotism and unity without having the notion of "God" muddying the waters. If you want religion in your llife, keep it at home, in church, friends homes etc. Please keep it out of public schools.

You see Freedom_for_sum, whether it is philosophical or otherwsie, removing such will set a precedence. If "under God" is removed, then those who are advocating such will then move to have "God" and "creator", etc. removed from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc.. Would the use of "God" or "creator", etc. in those historical documents be deemed philosophical also? I think not.






seekerof

[edit on 23-9-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by rstrik
This country was founded on the principles of a god fearing society.

This is incorrect. This myth has been perpetually spewed by the far right Christian conservatives who are motivated by their fundamentalist bible views to sway public policy toward religious lines. This country is founded by people who left their homeland (England) to escape religious persecution. It was James Madison (father of our Constitution) who, in a letter written to edward Livingston stated: "Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;"

Originally posted by rstrik
Many such as myself who learned of God from our parents and the Bible and church have the belief that he is to be raised up high and praised at any chance.

So; you're acknowleging that the concept of "God" is religious based.

Originally posted by rstrik
This means giving praise to him in various ways such as monuments and songs with reference to him.

No one is saying you can't give praise to him. Why do you need to give praise to him in a nationalistic and otherwise unifying pledge? Is your need to impose your beliefs on others more important than having a unified patriotic county?

Originally posted by rstrik
Saying God doesn't make you a Christian, there are many names for him we chose the one most used by Christians obviously because of the Anglo founders.

Praising God doesn't necessarily make you Christian--but it does make you religious.

Originally posted by rstrik
To turn our back on God is the worst thing a Christian can do, and i'm sure most other religions. So excluding him from our daily life and our country is not something I feel I could ever vote for.

So don't turn your back on or exclude him. Nobody is asking you to do that. Pray when you eat. Pray when you go to church. When you're home--whatever.

Originally posted by rstrik
Me making 1% of the population of this country happy and me making my father happy....well take a guess what any right minded human would pick. This country rose to great heights with God including I dare think what would happen if we changed that and totally excluding him.

You are way off on your number. Approximately 20% of the US population is either agnostic, atheist, or have generally given religion no thought at all. That equates to almost 50 million people and that number is growing at a rapid pace as more people become educated and enlightened each year. I often wonder how much further along we would be as a race if we didn't have the stifling paradigms of religion getting in the way.

Originally posted by Seekerof
You see Freedom_for_sum, whether it is philosophical or otherwsie, removing such will set a precedence. If "under God" is removed, then those who are advocating such will then move to have "God" and "creator", etc. removed from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc.. Would the use of "God" or "creator", etc. in those historical documents be deemed philosophical also? I think not.

I don't have a copy of the declaration in front of me but I don't believe "God" is used. You are correct, however, that "creator" is used. My creator is my parents and all my ancestors before them. The way it's used in the declaration is in a manner that the freedom my ancestors fought for and enjoyed are passed down to me as inalienable rights. You choose to replace "creator" with "god'.

Religious people ought to have every bit as much a right to acknowledge God as non-religious people have to disregard him/her/it/them.

As an agnostic, I think both sides of the debate are a little out of control.

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
Religious people ought to have every bit as much a right to acknowledge God as non-religious people have to disregard him/her/it/them.

As an agnostic, I think both sides of the debate are a little out of control.

Only a little? I have to disagree, they are way out of control!
Both sides are attempting to do away with the other completely. It is almost a battle of the fittest, who will survive?

In the end both but both will be the losers

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
Religious people ought to have every bit as much a right to acknowledge God as non-religious people have to disregard him/her/it/them.

No one is saying religious people don't have the right to acknowledge God. Where in this thread do I say they don't?

My kids have to attend school. They don't have an option. However, religious people have their homes, their church; parochial school; plenty of other places to enjoy their religion. Why do they need to foist it on my kids in public school and on the taxpayers dime?

Why not? Because you find it offensive?

Why should that, being the opinion of a minority, be reflected in our nation's government? It isn't hurting anybody... it's just a word, not a totalitarian indoctrination program.

Even if there is no god, where is the harm in acknowledging a metaphorical higher power? Humans would do well to keep our self-opinion as a species in check.

I just don't see why this is such a big deal, is all... from my perspective, the drive to alter the pledge of allegiance just looks like a handful of highly vocal revisionists that are upset because they can't have their way.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Where did I learn about God? From God and from nature.

Check this out.


And this.

[edit on 9/24/2005 by queenannie38]

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Alot of people in the US find pleasure in just bitching and complaining.... if you don't want to say the pledge with "under god" then dont. ...

I asked my son about this. At his school, they give detention to anyone who doesn't say the pledge, or if the teacher notices them faking it.

I told him don't say it if he doesn't want to, and I'll talk [threathen really] to them if he gets in trouble. Of course he won't, due to peer pressure. I'm tempted to file a suit to prohibit any consequences for failure to comply with the pledge regardless of 'under god'.

A mandatory pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional in its own right. The fact that it is not only suggested, but required, should be repulsive to every freedom loving citizen. It's whole purpose is to create mindless drones for the empire.

I asked my son about this. At his school, they give detention to anyone who doesn't say the pledge, or if the teacher notices them faking it.

I told him don't say it if he doesn't want to, and I'll talk [threathen really] to them if he gets in trouble. Of course he won't, due to peer pressure. I'm tempted to file a suit to prohibit any consequences for failure to comply with the pledge regardless of 'under god'.

I do NOT agree with the school on this issue, and I commend you for pursuing the course of action that you have. My belief is that the pledge should be allowed, but never mandatory.

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
Even if there is no god, where is the harm in acknowledging a metaphorical higher power? Humans would do well to keep our self-opinion as a species in check.

Sorry for the lateness of my response--I've been outta town.

Where is the harm in acknowledging a higher power? Well the problem is that you are sacrificing unity for a make believe figure. It might as well say "...one nation, under Santa, indivisible,...."

My question is: If there is no God, (and I have yet to see scientific proof of his existence) why force the notion of this possibly ficticious figure on school children?

I would say that given the lack of meaningful responses lately in this thread that the majority, at least here on ATS, agree that the pledge, as it is currently written, is unconstitutional.

Prediction: Sometime in the next couple years, the supreme court will rule that it is unconstitutional; forcing the government to remove "under God". I can only hope; because my oldest son is now being forced to acknowledge the idea of God in public school--an idea I would rather he learn by choice; not by force. It seems to me that it would benefit the cause of religion if it weren't forced on people.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

"Philisophical idea"

Then the concept of "God" could be construde as different things to many different souls. Variety is the spice of life, maybe not ours, but any supreme deity/entities/entity

It has been my observation that there are different states of mind that rule over how people observe the same stimuli. How else could you explain the time you gave a comment and the person took it as an insult? Was it their state of mind that caused a problem with the communication? Was it your fault for not having the love and empathy to understand their state of mind before you opened your mouth? Was it both of your faults? Communication is key. Love is universal communication. Fear is the lock.

"Self Preservation"

Self preserve introduces fear.

fear.

fear loves fear = less than truth.
fear fears love = less than truth.
fear hates fear = less than truth.
fear hates love = less than truth.
fear hates hate = less than truth.
fear loves hate = less than truth.
fear loves truth = a path worth following.

but what of "truth", the one universal truth? The one universal truth that is attached to all that exists in existance?

Truth fears truth = less than truth.
truth hates truth = less than truth.
truth loves truth = a path worth following.
truth loves hate = a path worth following that shows you hate is fed only by fear.
Truth loves fear = Why we have access to the truth, but there was a cost.

If I could summerize a philosophy that serves me best, and that I can equate to the truths point of view:

Well, your thoughts?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
"Philisophical idea"

Then the concept of "God" could be construde as different things to many different souls. Variety is the spice of life, maybe not ours, but any supreme deity/entities/entity

My point is that God is more than some "philosophical idea" simply because of the anger engendered in Christians from the mere mention of removing "under God" from the pledge. I believe "God" is a religious deity.

As far as the rest of your post: WWWWWWhat??

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Alot of people in the US find pleasure in just bitching and complaining.... if you don't want to say the pledge with "under god" then dont. ...

I asked my son about this. At his school, they give detention to anyone who doesn't say the pledge, or if the teacher notices them faking it.

I told him don't say it if he doesn't want to, and I'll talk [threathen really] to them if he gets in trouble. Of course he won't, due to peer pressure. I'm tempted to file a suit to prohibit any consequences for failure to comply with the pledge regardless of 'under god'.

A mandatory pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional in its own right. The fact that it is not only suggested, but required, should be repulsive to every freedom loving citizen. It's whole purpose is to create mindless drones for the empire.

I agree wholeheartedly.