Student Says Allah Instead of God in Pledge of Allegiance

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 108
#61
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@oromagi
Any law making people recite an affirmation of a single, present deity is a clear violation of the First Amendment.  Better to toss that silly pledge written by a newspaper out the window and if any pledge seems necessary, write one that adheres more closely to the spirit of our Constitution.
The words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance during the Cold War to distinguish the United States from the Soviet Union.  It was, oddly enough, during that same time that the United States' closest alliances with the Muslim world were formed.  

The idea was, from the Capitol to the CIA, that the Christian West and Muslim East shared a common opposition to godless, atheistic communism that was as destructive to Christianity as it was to Islam.  As "men of the book," their interests in preventing their religion from being driven from this earth was shared and existential.  That was at least the thinking in Washington, Riyadh and Tehran at the time.  Strange to conceive of all three as allies now, but once we were all on the same team.  

That being said, the United States does not compel its citizens' allegiance any more than it compels recitation of any pledge.  You do not have to say the pledge.  Laws requiring any compelled speech are themselves unconstitutional, not for violating the establishment or free exercise clauses; but for intruding onto the domain of free thought (i.e., the principle behind each of the rights protected by the First Amendment).  So your point is moot.  There is no law compelling anyone to recite the pledge of allegiance.  You can do it.  Or not.  It is your choice.  The government cannot compel you to do otherwise.  


#62
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
What do you mean "no issue"?  It's not a phrase I like to hear, but I don't care in general.  
#63
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@coal
Maybe I misunderstood you. Were you saying "God" was not necessarily referring to the Christian god? 
#64
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@thett3
@SkepticalOne
We are discussing the word "God" in the context of its usage in the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance.  The people who added the word "God" to the pledge meant the God of Christianity --- their God.  But use of the word in the pledge does not delineate between any of the monotheistic religions. 

So, its usage refers as much to the God of Christianity as to that of any other.

Understanding why that's true requires appreciating, simultaneously:

1. The purpose for which that language was added to the pledge; and 
2. The usage's generality (as opposed to specificity).  

In saying that the United States was "one nation under God," the intent was to communicate that ultimate authority did not lie with the state.  Rather, ultimate authority was wholly apart from the state --- in the United States --- unlike in the communist countries against whom the Cold War was waged.  For them, the state was the sole and ultimate authority.  The idea is that human beings have dignity and are vested by their creator (whoever you believe that is) with rights that the state cannot take away.  Insofar as those rights are grounded in something beyond the state and prior to the state's existence, they are inalienable.  Why?  Because as human beings, we are created in the image of God, and stand equally before God just as before the law and the state.  

The words "under God" were, therefore, not meant to (and do not) make theological claims about the particularities of God and/or religion.  Rather, it was to make a statement about the relationship between the state and the individual, where the limits of the state's authority over individuals subject to it were limited by something more than just a piece of paper a bunch of people wrote in 1789.  It was to reinforce the idea that the source of our rights is grounded in our being; in our nature and in natural law.  

For some reason, we don't teach that anymore.  Perhaps because some would like the state to be the source of ultimate authority.  I can think of nothing worse.  

Tagging thett because I think he might like this.  
#65
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@coal
My apologies, I did misunderstand you. 

The words "under God" were, therefore, not meant to (and do not) make theological claims about the particularities of God and/or religion.  Rather, it was to make a statement about the relationship between the state and the individual, where the limits of the state's authority over individuals subject to it were limited by something more than just a piece of paper a bunch of people wrote in 1789.  It was to reinforce the idea that the source of our rights is grounded in our being; in our nature and in natural law.  
This is certainly in-line with my understanding of the founders intent. However, the addition of "under God' is a clumsy way of trying to reinforce this. It suggests the power of the US government might come from a diety rather than from the people. Without a doubt, this is how Christian Nationalists have (wrongly) understood it.
#66
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I don't care about your uber specific way of phrasing things, we are talking are about generalities, in general, when capitalizing the word god we are referencing the abrahamic god, get over it bud. 
#67
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@coal
In America, it is mostly referencing abrahamic gods, perhaps grammatically you are indeed correct, but not in the context of the public school system. You are just so far off track there. 
#68
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
"we" who? you and your sock puppet?
#69
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Then how do you explain the total SCOTUS screw-up in interpretation of the 14A citizenship clause when it makes no mention of birthright citizenship, yet the Court made it precedent in Wong v. U.S [1898], without that term have mention constitutionally? Further, how do you justify the Court's interpretation, with precedent, of "separation of church and state" when the words are nowhere found in constitutional language. Further, find "privacy" in constitutional language. Moreover, find "investigation" as an sanctioned congressional action. I've got several of these magical interpretations by SCOTUS that defy logic, yet they are precedent.

Helps to read the Constitution once in a while. I've read it every month for the past ten years, and I'm just scratching the surface. Some never have read it, yet know exactly what it says, so they say. Nope.
#70
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@coal
->@oromagi
Any law making people recite an affirmation of a single, present deity is a clear violation of the First Amendment.  Better to toss that silly pledge written by a newspaper out the window and if any pledge seems necessary, write one that adheres more closely to the spirit of our Constitution.
The words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance during the Cold War to distinguish the United States from the Soviet Union.  It was, oddly enough, during that same time that the United States' closest alliances with the Muslim world were formed.  

The idea was, from the Capitol to the CIA, that the Christian West and Muslim East shared a common opposition to godless, atheistic communism that was as destructive to Christianity as it was to Islam.  As "men of the book," their interests in preventing their religion from being driven from this earth was shared and existential.  That was at least the thinking in Washington, Riyadh and Tehran at the time.  Strange to conceive of all three as allies now, but once we were all on the same team.  
While I'd agree that offering counterpoint to the state atheism of the Communist Bloc  was certainly one argument favoring the addition, I'm skeptical that the Daughters of the American Revolution were thinking about their fellowship with the Muslim world when they awarded Louis Bowman for coming up with the notion.  I'm sure Eisenhower had the bigger picture in mind but made no mention of the Sons of Ishmael at the 1954 ceremony signing the "under God" bill into law:
 
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."

the United States does not compel its citizens' allegiance any more than it compels recitation of any pledge. 
Except the presidential oath of office and Article IV of the Constitution which requires that members of Congress, state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers are to be bound by oath to uphold the Constitution and all branches of the US military likewise require the same oath.  By any road, an oath is a solemn pledge but of course all such offices are held voluntarily (except drafted soldiers which we haven't done since Vietnam).

You do not have to say the pledge.  Laws requiring any compelled speech are themselves unconstitutional, not for violating the establishment or free exercise clauses; but for intruding onto the domain of free thought (i.e., the principle behind each of the rights protected by the First Amendment).  So your point is moot.  There is no law compelling anyone to recite the pledge of allegiance.  You can do it.  Or not.  It is your choice.  The government cannot compel you to do otherwise.  
Well, that has not always been true.  Mandatory pledges were popular and seldom challenged during the WWI Era and the Supreme Court ruled as recently as 1940 in  Minersville School District v. Gobitis, that public schools could compel Jehovah's Witnesses to recite the pledge.  The Court reversed that 3 years later in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette specifically relying on the Free Speech clause which set the standard that the government may not compel the pledge from students although the demarcation line for "compulsion" is a rather restless front.  New laws and new legal challenges seem to pop up every year or two.  It is still true in several places that State government can compel you to recite the pledge if you are a student lacking your parent's permission. 

So while I'd agree generally that the govt. does not compel the pledge, I'd hardly call my point, which was that pledging to flags was silly and the whole thing needs a rewrite, moot.

Off topic, I'm also a little skeptical about placing Washington and Tehran on the same team in in 1954, considering the CIA's 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister to prevent oil nationalization.  I mean, I'm sure the Shah and the clerics were relatively pro-US in 1954 but can we really say that the people of Tehran were our friends after we imprisoned  Time's Man of the Year 1951 and the new govt was still executing his ministers?
#71
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
What are you going on about? Surely, you're not trying to suggest SCOTUS is absolute and without error?  If so, you'd better take a harder look at historical SCOTUS rulings. If not, you have no argument - Supreme Court rulings are not the end of all discussion on a given subject.
#72
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Reece101
God is mentioned in the Constitution, the fathers understood the influence of Christianity

also the quote is in reference to how the US doesnt have muslims as enemies, its not against christianity
#73
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is mentioned in the Constitution [...]
I'm not sure what you're reading, but it's not the Constitution - there is no mention of God in the Constitution. 
Topic's author
#74
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is mentioned in the Constitution, the fathers understood the influence of Christianity
What SkepticalOne said.

also the quote is in reference to how the US doesnt have muslims as enemies, its not against christianity
You said “he (John Adams) made it clear: america was made for a religious nation.”

I asked which religion due to the Treaty of Tripoli Adams signed. I don’t think it would be an Abrahamic religion because of the same god and all that.
#75
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
I never said SCOTUS worked error-free. They have overruled themselves over 200 times in their history. But, when it comes to legality, SCOTUS, in the U.S., is the last word.
#76
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,608
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There’s a certain basic confusion here, because God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (as “Creator”) but not mentioned in the Constitution.
As for the mention in the Declaration, one should keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson wrote it, and Jefferson was a Deist. This means that he believed in a theoretical Creator but was highly skeptical about miracles and even skeptical that the Creator might enter into history at all.
Instead, like a good Deist, he believed that God had given mankind everything we need to build a better world, but left it up to us to do “God’s will”: that is, to bring about a world of maximum happiness and justice.
(Yeah, yeah, he should have started by freeing his own slaves, but still…)
People should remember that this was Jefferson’s belief system before they go about insisting that the Founding Fathers were fundamentalist Christians.
#77
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
I never said SCOTUS worked error-free. They have overruled themselves over 200 times in their history. But, when it comes to legality, SCOTUS, in the U.S., is the last word.
SCOTUS has the last word until SCOTUS overrules it - got it.

My position has not changed. I'll wait for legislation or the Supreme Court to catch up to the intent of the godless Constitution that created them. ;-)
#78
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@FLRW
yes they were a lot of deist founding fathers but this is still a fundamentally Christian nation and always was
#79
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Reece101
just because adams said that the US has no trangressions against muslims doesnt mean he undermined Christianity
#80
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@SkepticalOne
declration of independence
Topic's author
#81
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin

Again, you said “He (John Adams) made it clear: America was made for a religious nation.”

I then tell you about the Treaty of Tripoli he signed which states, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."


Now you say:
just because adams said that the US has no trangressions against muslims doesnt mean he undermined Christianity
Your moving the goalpost into obscurity. 
Do you admit you’re wrong? 

#82
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Reece101
Topic's author
#83
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So where did he say America was made for a religious nation? 

We should separate opinions from official documents. 
 “Politicks” is written.
#84
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is mentioned in the Constitution, the fathers understood the influence of Christianity

I'm not sure what you're reading, but it's not the Constitution - there is no mention of God in the Constitution. 

declration of independence

The Christian god isn't mentioned in the Independence either...
#85
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
You do that. It's called patience. Age, some, you'll learn what that's all  about. Instant gratification. Premature efactulation is for adolencense.
#86
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@SkepticalOne
yes it is
#87
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Reece101
#88
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Sure thing, pops!  XD
#89
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No, the Christian god isn't mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. You're reading the Declaration through a Christian lense. 
#90
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@SkepticalOne
the fathers reconginaed the importance of Christianity