Boulder High students to protest Pledge of Allegiance

[stephanie]

I read about this a couple of days ago...since then they have come up with their own pledge...:rolleyes:

By Vanessa Miller (Contact)
Originally published 08:18 a.m., September 26, 2007
Updated 02:10 p.m., September 26, 2007


Boulder High School students will stage the first of what could become many Pledge-of-Allegiance protests Thursday in the school courtyard.

Members of the activist club "Student Worker":coffee: are calling on students to leave class every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. — when the pledge is recited over the intercom — and rally in the courtyard to say a revised version of the pledge.

Club President Emma Martens, who's leading the protest, wrote this new version:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all."Martens said her group is concerned that the traditional pledge read daily at the start of second period classes takes away from school time. She also said the phrase, "one nation, under God," violates the separation of church and state.

"Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or One God," she wrote in an e-mail to the Camera.

"We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it," Martens said between classes today. "It's disrespectful and in complete violation of the separation of church and state. It's almost religious oppression."

She said the group has written a letter to Principal Bud Jenkins asking that Boulder High hold the recitation — which the school must make available by state law — in the auditorium during both of the school's two lunch breaks.

"That's so students can go if they want, but not everyone is required to listen to it," Martens said. "I don't want them to break any laws by not saying it. We just want them to do it so we don't have to hear it every day."
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/sep/26/boulder-high-students-plan-protest-against-pledge-/

[AFbombloader]

I read about this a couple of days ago...since then they have come up with their own pledge...:rolleyes:

By Vanessa Miller (Contact)
Originally published 08:18 a.m., September 26, 2007
Updated 02:10 p.m., September 26, 2007


Boulder High School students will stage the first of what could become many Pledge-of-Allegiance protests Thursday in the school courtyard.

Members of the activist club "Student Worker":coffee: are calling on students to leave class every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. — when the pledge is recited over the intercom — and rally in the courtyard to say a revised version of the pledge.

Club President Emma Martens, who's leading the protest, wrote this new version: Martens said her group is concerned that the traditional pledge read daily at the start of second period classes takes away from school time. She also said the phrase, "one nation, under God," violates the separation of church and state.

"Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or One God," she wrote in an e-mail to the Camera.

"We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it," Martens said between classes today. "It's disrespectful and in complete violation of the separation of church and state. It's almost religious oppression."

She said the group has written a letter to Principal Bud Jenkins asking that Boulder High hold the recitation — which the school must make available by state law — in the auditorium during both of the school's two lunch breaks.

"That's so students can go if they want, but not everyone is required to listen to it," Martens said. "I don't want them to break any laws by not saying it. We just want them to do it so we don't have to hear it every day."
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/sep/26/boulder-high-students-plan-protest-against-pledge-/


These children need to pay attention in history/civics/government class. If they did, they would realize exactly what the founding fathers intended when they spoke/wrote about the church and the government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it speak about the "seperation of church and state".They would realize thet the Constitution does not guarantee they will never have to utter the word "God". Saying the pledge does not push religion on anyone, neither does having "In God We Trust" on our currency.

:link:http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

What is out there are letters from the founding fathers expressing their views on this subject. They did not want a state religion like the Church of England.

"Wall of Separation" between Church and State
Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:

"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."

During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion.


The other point is that it only takes 15-20 seconds to recite the pledge. Saying that "takes away from school time" is a poor argument.

I am all for students expressing their opinions. But I would hope they had all the facts before they act.


AF:salute:

[truthmatters]

Then why did the phrase under god have to be put into the pledge in the 50s?

These kids are acting like Americans and performing their civic duty to speak out.


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

[AFbombloader]

Then why did the phrase under god have to be put into the pledge in the 50s?

These kids are acting like Americans and performing their civic duty to speak out.

Did you see my final statement? I have no issues with them speaking out. My point is that they need to be educated and aware of the history of the subject they are speaking out against.

I really have no idea of the history of the pledge. It is not something I have looked into. II will. I personally have no issue with the pledge, but I also have no issue with someone not saying it if they so feel.

AF:salute:

[truthmatters]

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...

[AFbombloader]

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

Looking at your link, "under God" was added at a time in America where the majority thought that way. Maybe now is a time for open dialog about the subject. I would be for keeping it the way it is, but I'm sure there are just as manu who would want it changed back to the original form.


AF:salute:

[truthmatters]

I agree with you. If a person does not want to pledge to god then they should not have to.There is a rising portion of our population which does not believe in any god or gods and they should not have to.
I think these kids are great kids trying to get involved in their country and how it operates.

[diuretic]

I'm reminded of a silly psych joke that goes, "Oedipus, Schmoedipus, who cares as long as a kid loves his mother?!"

I know it's a bit inappropriate but I was thinking....who cares, as long as the kid loves their country?

[truthmatters]

http://www.barefootsworld.net/founding.html#franklin

This site provides some founders quotes on the subject of the founders adn religion.


"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy, absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." --- Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728


Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests.

It honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.

-Thomas Paine, "Of The Religion Of Deism Compared With The Christian Religion"


"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

[diuretic]

Anyone who is required to submit to a religious oath is laying another brick in the road to theocracy. By all means if you wish to swear an oath and your god is mentioned, then fine, but if you're not of that religion or any religion and you are forced - even by de facto pressure rather than de jure authority - it seems to me a theocracy isn't far off.

[truthmatters]

I think these kids have been studing their govenment and in a free country this is what happens when you give people knowledge, they act like educated people.

Maybe some think they need to be tazered for their actions but real Americans would appauld them.

[diuretic]

The status quo is fine as long as it meets the needs of the populus, when it ceases to do so then it needs to be amended. Amendment is best by consensus of course but in extreme circumstances there needs to be a more stringent expression of opposition. People will be free, it's a natural instinct and it will have its way.

[avatar4321]

So does anyone honestly think the kids care about this or do you think their parents are the ones telling them to protest?

[Hagbard Celine]

When I see this kind of stuff, I kinda understand the thought behind it, but honestly I wonder why these kids don't have anything better to do. When I was this age, the only thing on my mind was getting to second base. If somebody had asked me to protest the pledge of allegiance I would've hit them with a water balloon.

[truthmatters]

So you people are suggesting these kids cant be concerned about thier country because they are too young?

My Son was very into politics in high school and him and his friends talked politics, history ,science all the time.

Why do you want to place all kids in the same category that you people were in?

[April15]

These children need to pay attention in history/civics/government class. If they did, they would realize exactly what the founding fathers intended when they spoke/wrote about the church and the government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it speak about the "seperation of church and state".They would realize thet the Constitution does not guarantee they will never have to utter the word "God". Saying the pledge does not push religion on anyone, neither does having "In God We Trust" on our currency.

:link:http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

What is out there are letters from the founding fathers expressing their views on this subject. They did not want a state religion like the Church of England.

"Wall of Separation" between Church and State
Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:

"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."

During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion.


The other point is that it only takes 15-20 seconds to recite the pledge. Saying that "takes away from school time" is a poor argument.

I am all for students expressing their opinions. But I would hope they had all the facts before they act.


AF:salute:

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml shows when the phrase was placed on coins and paper money, and the reason for it..

[Hagbard Celine]

So you people are suggesting these kids cant be concerned about thier country because they are too young?Not at all. I just think if you're going to protest an issue, pick one that matters. The pledge is a non-issue and the only people who are "offended" by it are sniveley little whiners.


My Son was very into politics in high school and him and his friends talked politics, history ,science all the time.I'm sure you're proud that you raised a son with a free mind and a yen for learning.


Why do you want to place all kids in the same category that you people were in?I don't necessarily, unless it comes to wasting their time on non-issues that amount to little more than mental masterbation.

[truthmatters]

They should go after what matters to them. Because it does not matter to you does not make it unworthy of their efforts. That is part of the freedom thing ,they get to decide what is important to them not you.

[Hagbard Celine]

They should go after what matters to them. Because it does not matter to you does not make it unworthy of their efforts. That is part of the freedom thing ,they get to decide what is important to them not you.

Just because I decide that chocolate creme oreos are racist against white people doesn't make it an important issue. I guess technically your right though: everybody does have a right to invest themselves into whatever triviality they deem appropriate.

[truthmatters]

The freedom to not be forced to pledge yourself to a religion you dont agree with is not trivial in a country founded on freedom of religion.

[Monkeybone]

how are they pledging themselves to a religion?

[truthmatters]

how are they pledging themselves to a religion?


Not everyone believes in God.

[Hagbard Celine]

Not everyone believes in God.

It's a non-issue.

[jimnyc]

The freedom to not be forced to pledge yourself to a religion you dont agree with is not trivial in a country founded on freedom of religion.

Where does it say in the article they are being forced to do so? Their complaint is that they have to hear it over the intercom everyday.

[avatar4321]

So you people are suggesting these kids cant be concerned about thier country because they are too young?

My Son was very into politics in high school and him and his friends talked politics, history ,science all the time.

Why do you want to place all kids in the same category that you people were in?

simple, we know kids.

[avatar4321]

Not everyone believes in God.

i was unaware that by acknowledging the hand of God you were somehow pledging yourself to a religion. which religion are you pledging yourself too exactly?

[Yurt]

"under god" is not traditional, it was added only recently, in terms of this country's history.

[Yurt]

i was unaware that by acknowledging the hand of God you were somehow pledging yourself to a religion. which religion are you pledging yourself too exactly?

TBF, how would you feel saying:

one hand under satan or allah?

[Monkeybone]

Not everyone believes in God.

that doesn't answer the question.

they don't have to say god if it is that big of a deal, but to say it doesn't pledge themselves.

[Monkeybone]

TBF, how would you feel saying:

one hand under satan or allah?

i think that if we were pledging under Allah, that these kids would be stoned to death for protesting.

[Yurt]

that doesn't answer the question.

they don't have to say god if it is that big of a deal, but to say it doesn't pledge themselves.

???

They don't have to say god, but then to say it, will not pledge themselves....

Are you advocating lying? If not, are you saying the "under god" has no real value then?

[Yurt]

i think that if we were pledging under Allah, that these kids would be stoned to death for protesting.

you did not answer my question.

[actsnoblemartin]

What they are doing is very unpatriotic. To protest your national anthem. Its disgusting, I dont care what your opinion is, but to publicly protest your national anthem, because you dont like a word, or dont believe in god, is anti-american.


I read about this a couple of days ago...since then they have come up with their own pledge...:rolleyes:

By Vanessa Miller (Contact)
Originally published 08:18 a.m., September 26, 2007
Updated 02:10 p.m., September 26, 2007


Boulder High School students will stage the first of what could become many Pledge-of-Allegiance protests Thursday in the school courtyard.

Members of the activist club "Student Worker":coffee: are calling on students to leave class every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. — when the pledge is recited over the intercom — and rally in the courtyard to say a revised version of the pledge.

Club President Emma Martens, who's leading the protest, wrote this new version: Martens said her group is concerned that the traditional pledge read daily at the start of second period classes takes away from school time. She also said the phrase, "one nation, under God," violates the separation of church and state.

"Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or One God," she wrote in an e-mail to the Camera.

"We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it," Martens said between classes today. "It's disrespectful and in complete violation of the separation of church and state. It's almost religious oppression."

She said the group has written a letter to Principal Bud Jenkins asking that Boulder High hold the recitation — which the school must make available by state law — in the auditorium during both of the school's two lunch breaks.

"That's so students can go if they want, but not everyone is required to listen to it," Martens said. "I don't want them to break any laws by not saying it. We just want them to do it so we don't have to hear it every day."
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/sep/26/boulder-high-students-plan-protest-against-pledge-/

[Monkeybone]

no, i am saying that if it is a big deal, then don't say it. just like if it was Allah or satan i wouldn't say it because i don't want to. was this nation a majority of satanist? if it doesn't have meaning to you personally, then why should you bitch that it is there if it has meaning to someone else?

[April15]

"under god" is not traditional, it was added only recently, in terms of this country's history.Fact Sheets: Currency & Coins
History of 'In God We Trust'

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

[truthmatters]

i think that if we were pledging under Allah, that these kids would be stoned to death for protesting.


That is the whole Idea this is America and no one should be forced to pledge to God.

[jimnyc]

That is the whole Idea this is America and no one should be forced to pledge to God.

Again, read the article, who is being forced to do so?

[Dilloduck]

That is the whole Idea this is America and no one should be forced to pledge to God.

We shouldn't be "forced" to do anything.

[Monkeybone]

That is the whole Idea this is America and no one should be forced to pledge to God.

no Duh TM, and no one is being forced..i don't know where you are getting that.

am i reading this article right, are they only protesting on thursdays? or do they only say the pledge on thursdays?

[truthmatters]

Many schools force the kids to say the pledge.

[Monkeybone]

Many schools force the kids to say the pledge.

um...ok. no one was forced when i was in school. you either said it or you didn't..so :link:

[April15]

um...ok. no one was forced when i was in school. you either said it or you didn't..so :link:In the McCarthy era you said it or else! That was my time in school. I remember it well. Every day first thing after role call. You didn't say it and it was of to the office so your folks could come and explain they aren't communists.

[Dilloduck]

In the McCarthy era you said it or else! That was my time in school. I remember it well. Every day first thing after role call. You didn't say it and it was of to the office so your folks could come and explain they aren't communists.

I was forced to read books---books I hated !!!!!

[Guernicaa]

When I see this kind of stuff, I kinda understand the thought behind it, but honestly I wonder why these kids don't have anything better to do. When I was this age, the only thing on my mind was getting to second base. If somebody had asked me to protest the pledge of allegiance I would've hit them with a water balloon.
Isn't it weird that the kids who are protesting the Christian view of god in the pledge are the kids who are (in the way you put it) putting abstience and intelligence before getting some?

[April15]

I was forced to read books---books I hated !!!!!So was I but now I don't have to, but if I want I can!

[Dilloduck]

So was I but now I don't have to, but if I want I can!

They forced YOU to read books TOO !! Those bastards !!

[manu1959]

if you don't like the pledge don't use the money.....

[Abbey Marie]

The freedom to not be forced to pledge yourself to a religion you dont agree with is not trivial in a country founded on freedom of religion.

You still haven't answered the question: Which religion are they being forced to pledge to?

Waiting...

[AFbombloader]

You still haven't answered the question: Which religion are they being forced to pledge to?

Waiting...

The answer nobody is giving you is they are not pledging any specific religion. Some would say it was Christianity, but only because the people who added "under God" to the pledge were Christians. If they were pledging to a religion, it would say, under Christianity, or Budism, or whatever.

If you don't want to say it, don't. If you don't want to hear it, tune it out. I know these kids can tune it out. My teenager sure knows how to tune things out!

AF:salute:

[Dilloduck]

I was forced to read books about atheists.

[Yurt]

You still haven't answered the question: Which religion are they being forced to pledge to?

Waiting...

Would you be ok with god being changed for allah?

[manu1959]

Would you be ok with god being changed for allah?

you said allah...you are unclean...they are going to kill you....infidel....

[avatar4321]

That is the whole Idea this is America and no one should be forced to pledge to God.

No one is pledging to God. They are pledging allegience to the Flag. Acknowledging that the republic is under God is hardly pledging to God.

[truthmatters]

Why does a pledge have to say anything about God?

It was put in in the 1950s because of the Knights of Columbus insisted on it.

It does not belong in the pledge of a country which was founded on freedom of religion.

You can say it should not matter to me because it doesnt matter to you but that does not make it right.

You dont get to deside what matters to me and other Americans.

[avatar4321]

Why does a pledge have to say anything about God?

It was put in in the 1950s because of the Knights of Columbus insisted on it.

It does not belong in the pledge of a country which was founded on freedom of religion.

You can say it should not matter to me because it doesnt matter to you but that does not make it right.

You dont get to deside what matters to me and other Americans.

The same reason the Declaration of Independence does: To acknowledge the source of our rights and by what hand we are free.

[truthmatters]

I knew we could find agreement.

[Monkeybone]

Why does a pledge have to say anything about God?

It was put in in the 1950s because of the Knights of Columbus insisted on it.

It does not belong in the pledge of a country which was founded on freedom of religion.

You can say it should not matter to me because it doesnt matter to you but that does not make it right.

You dont get to deside what matters to me and other Americans.

why doesn't it?

ok...so that makes it bad? not everyone watches the superbowl which isn't that old but everyone else makes a big deal out of it so should we stop it?

so how does it make it wrong?

don't think that anyone has stated that they do get to decide what matters to others. i see ppl trying to decide for me to take out something that i like, just because they don't. how is that fair?

[truthmatters]

You are not forced to pledge to a country without god. I would fight that too right along side you.

Fair is fair.

[Abbey Marie]

Would you be ok with god being changed for allah?

Allah is god for Islamists. Yaweh is god for Jews. Which religion are we being forced to adhere to by saying "god"?

[Abbey Marie]

Allah is god for Islamists. Yaweh is god for Jews. Which religion are we being forced to adhere to by saying "god"?

I'm still waiting for that answer from the person I quoted originally.

[avatar4321]

Allah is god for Islamists. Yaweh is god for Jews. Which religion are we being forced to adhere to by saying "god"?

I'm still waiting for that answer from the person I quoted originally.

we will be waiting for a while i fear.

[Yurt]

Allah is god for Islamists. Yaweh is god for Jews. Which religion are we being forced to adhere to by saying "god"?

Allah is not "God", Allah is muhammad, they are not the same, in fact Allah says he cannot have children and that jesus is simply a prophet. So, if we input allah, we would indeed be using a different being, a demon IMO.

[-Cp]

You are not forced to pledge to a country without god. I would fight that too right along side you.

Fair is fair.

Don't lie TM - you wouldn't ever lift a finger to "fight" for anything...

[Abbey Marie]

Allah is not "God", Allah is muhammad, they are not the same, in fact Allah says he cannot have children and that jesus is simply a prophet. So, if we input allah, we would indeed be using a different being, a demon IMO.

Allah certainly is god to Islamists. I'm no Islamic scholar, but this is, as far as I know, a very well-known Islamic quote: "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet"


The Qur’ân, the Divine Revelation from the only God, Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds (Qur’ân 56:80), repeatedly tells us that there is no god but Allâh [1]. Allâh (Subhanahu wata’ala, meaning: the Exalted, Most Glorious) Alone claims for universal divinity. He I Alone commands mankind to know that there is no god but He. Allâh the Almighty says in His Book:

“And your Allâh
s one Allâh; there is no god but He, Most Gracious Most Merciful.” (Qur’ân, 2:163)


“Know, therefore, that there is no god but Allâh, and ask forgiveness for your fault...” (47: 19)


For the clear guidance of all mankind, Allâh the Most High mentions in many parts of His Book that He Alone is our God. Indeed, there is no god but Allâh. He is the Living, the Self-Subsisting, the Supporter of all (3: 2), and the One Who gives life and death (3:156; 6:95; 15:23). Allâh
s the Creator of all things. He is the One, the Supreme and Irresistible (13: 16).

The fact that Islam has no Trinity, like Christianity, does not change the fact that they too have belief in one true god, and therefore, the "god" in the Pledge can certainly Allah. The Pledge does not require us to acknowledge Jesus, or a divine Trinity.

http://www.wefound.org/texts/Allah_files/One%20God.htm

[Yurt]

Allah certainly is god to Islamists. I'm no Islamic scholar, but this is, as far as I know, a very well-known Islamic quote: "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet"







The fact that Islam has no Trinity, like Christianity, does not change the fact that they too have belief in one true god, and therefore, the "god" in the Pledge can certainly Allah. The Pledge does not require us to acknowledge Jesus, or a divine Trinity.

http://www.wefound.org/texts/Allah_files/One%20God.htm

So then the "god" we mention in the pledge is generic? Eg, we can insert whatever diety, Thor, Venus, we want.

[Abbey Marie]

So then the "god" we mention in the pledge is generic? Eg, we can insert whatever diety, Thor, Venus, we want.

Why not? No one can stop you from believing in any god, and thinking of him, her, or it, while you recite it. At least, not so far. :terror:

[Nukeman]

So then the "god" we mention in the pledge is generic? Eg, we can insert whatever diety, Thor, Venus, we want.
Yes you can you can relate to whatever god you want in your head or ifyour with like minded individuals you can pledge under whatever god yousee fit, however when in mixed company you may wat to use the generic god....

[Yurt]

So why have "god" in there at all? Just seems to me that if it is generic and can mean essentially anything, that the word is cheapened.

just my two and a half cents :cool:

[April15]

I was forced to read books about atheists.You didn't have to read Ayn Rand's books?

[April15]

The mere use of the word god is objectionable to me in that it exerts a presumption of a supreme being. I can not accept that innuendo.

[Dilloduck]

The mere use of the word god is objectionable to me in that it exerts a presumption of a supreme being. I can not accept that innuendo.

uh------you just used it :laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

You didn't have to read Ayn Rand's books?

no

[April15]

uh------you just used it :laugh2:I know but how do you describe a deity in a single syllable word with out the use of god? Allah is not an option! This is America, still!

[April15]

noLucky you! Long ass read they are.

[Dilloduck]

I know but how do you describe a deity in a single syllable word with out the use of god? Allah is not an option! This is America, still!

OMG--you typed it again !!!

You bring up a good point tho-----Allah is not the same as God in America !

[April15]

OMG--you typed it again !!!Yes, but I didn't say it!

[Yurt]

The mere use of the word god is objectionable to me in that it exerts a presumption of a supreme being. I can not accept that innuendo.

Not that I agree with your beliefs and presumptions, but the word "god" does evoke a thought of a "supreme" "being."


I guess that it why I am interested in the "word" in our pledge. If the word is generic, then why use it? If it means something, then it is not generic and the we cannot substitute allah for "god."

IMO

[April15]

Not that I agree with your beliefs and presumptions, but the word "god" does evoke a thought of a "supreme" "being."


I guess that it why I am interested in the "word" in our pledge. If the word is generic, then why use it? If it means something, then it is not generic and the we cannot substitute allah for "god."

IMOI would say that for the Americans who had it placed in the pledge it had specific meanings. The meanings were that you were not a communist as in the early 50's McCarthy had a whole lot of paranoia going with his investigations and hunts for "commie bastards". At that time it was presumed that a communist could have no religion, so to admit a God in a pledge was to submit to not being a communist. Perverted logic but hey it was the 50's.

[mrg666]

"In God We Trust" on our currency.

ill wager they have no problem with passing that around though or are they planning on demanding a change in currency :laugh2: