Thread: Kinda surprised no one has mentioned this ("Under God" Decision")

Originally Posted by Clyde

That's nonsense. If they replaced it with "We don't trust in God because we don't think he exists" THAT would be an endorsement of atheism, simply removing it would make money/ the pledge religion neutral - neither for nor against.

why do i always feel clyde is a super computer from the future.. He is always logical (may be relative to me) and right on the point....

Howdy,
How does kids saying "one nation under god.." being said in the pledge have anything to do with

Plus you must realise that countries are not completely cut off from each other, they interact, what happens in one country has influence on other countries (though it may be long term rather than short term influence).

M.R.

Actually it's pretty odvious that if you don't wish to say those couple of words then don't! It is in no way more harmful to ones health than passing by a church while driving down the road. You aren't forced to look at the church. Just look at the other side of the street. Same with the pledge. Just skip those words. Heck, 90% of the kids where I go don't even do the pledge, they just stand up and wait for it to finish.

How does kids saying "one nation under god.." being said in the pledge have anything to do with

"Plus you must realise that countries are not completely cut off from each other, they interact, what happens in one country has influence on other countries (though it may be long term rather than short term influence)."

M.R.

US policy has huge global influence, the views of the American public have huge influence on US policy, religious views have huge influence over a large number of the American public (i'm not saying it's good or bad, just that it's influential). One only need read Mein Kampf to learn how effective repetition is at propogating ideas/views, that can only be strengthen by linking it to something as powerfull as allegiance to ones country especially in a country as patriotic as the US.

If religion is based upon perception, then what you consider neutral may not be what another considers neutral

No again that's clearly nonsense, if something doesn't refer to a topic AT ALL it cannot possibly be viewed as anything but neutral towards that topic whether it be religion or anything else.

Consider the following sentence:

I like dairy milk chocolat.

And ask yourself whether that sentence, was pro or anti the war in Iraq, whether it was pro or anti globalisation, whether it was pro or anti the European Union.

Clearly the answer to all the above is - it was entirely neutral - it didn't mention any of those things at all.

If you pledge allegiance to your country and you make no reference to a creator or lack thereof, then your pledge is entirely neutral on that subject.

No again that's clearly nonsense, if something doesn't refer to a topic AT ALL it cannot possibly be viewed as anything but neutral towards that topic whether it be religion or anything else.

It's a good point, but because the words "Under God" already exist in the pledge, taking them out could be seen as being non-neutral, like saying the religion is wrong.

At the present time, when those words have been present in the pledge for over 50 years, the most neutral thing to do would be to leave the words in, thus making no active statements about religion.

Even better would be to scrap the pledge altogether. We have nothing like it in Australia, and we turned out fine didn't we.

Howdy,
Yea your right Clyde, we shouldn't teach our kids any aliegience to anythng. Keeping them grey on all issues will make them much easier to control.

M.R.

It's a good point, but because the words "Under God" already exist in the pledge, taking them out could be seen as being non-neutral, like saying the religion is wrong.

A pledge/money that makes no mention of anything related to religion cannot itself be viewed as anything but neutral. However when discussing the actual action itself, ie. the actual removal of the words "under God..." then terms like "neutral" cease to mean much, you are removing a bias, you are moving towards a neutral position, that is what matters. According to the constitution the government should be neutral with regards to religion, at present it's not.

better yet. try france. no uniforms, no pledges, no religion at all (you're not allowed to show your religion)

Spent much time there have you?

Yea your right Clyde, we shouldn't teach our kids any aliegience to anythng. Keeping them grey on all issues will make them much easier to control.

What?

Howdy,
IMO if you teach kids to be middle of the road on every issue with no emotion to country, religion, politic etc they will be much more suseptable to which ever charismatic or fanatical figure that comes along.

M.R.

And you base that reasoning on what exactly?

All the fanatics i have ever come across seem to demonstrate exact opposite of what you're saying, they are the people who have been made to recite which ever holy text day and night, who think that there way is the right way - the ONLY way.

The people who have not been made to recite mantras or instructed in the right views to hold, the people who have not been taught WHAT to think but rather HOW to think, they are the people who are least susceptible to charismatic fanatics because they are capable of seeing through it.

Furthermore i think your point is out of context, i have not been advocating teaching kids to be "middle of the road", it was not I that said get rid of the pledge - that was benny. I was merely pointing out that the religious slant in the pledge violates a part of your constitution, a part that IMO is important.

Howdy,
Which part of the constitution?

M.R.