Comment of the Week: Pledge of Allegiance is Harmless
The pledge is an interesting issue, and generally a harmless one in my mind. I recall in the late 60's early 70's having to stand, face the flag hanging next to the chalkboard and recite the pledge.
I have never been religious nor has my immediate family, however I dont ever recall feeling uncomfortable or offended that I had to say "under god" Frankly as a 10 year old I doubt I cared one way or the other about religion and certainly uttering the "G-word" didnt devistate my personality.
I do find that there are some very "anti-religious" people who will attack anything even remotely religious. Living in san Diego there is a WWII memorial on top of Mt. Soledad, which for years has been the target of atheists because it is in the form of a cross.. it is indeed on state land..Politically this became quite an issue in San diego.
As an atheist, who sees this monument every day I am dumbfounded how even an atheist can be offended by it...its harmless and doesnt in the least way prosletise or promote conversion upon people. I was and am very much against its destruction.
But I digress, my point is I find the pledge to be equally harmless, it is not a form of conversion and if a parent is really concerned then they can talk to their children about it, we need more of that anyway. so in that respect I agree with Obama if his position is that "under god" doesnt fill the average kid with feelings of oppression, I suspect its the parents who are feeling oppressed not the kid.
I wasnt a brilliant child in school, just another average kid and the pledge did me no harm, I dont believe that "under god" is harmful, what may be more harmful is a parent placing their elementary school child in a position to be derided in school by the balance of the kids and faculty for causing such an uproar over so little...
It seems that Americans have acquired a thinner skin than they had when I was young.
Just my .02
[original post]
Is it really that Americans have "acquired a thinner skin" or is it instead that Americans are more willing to stand up to bigotry and discrimination? I think it's more likely the latter. It isn't "thin skin" for a black person to object to being told that they are inferior or less patriotic. It isn't "thin skin" for a Jewish person to object to being told that their religion is inferior to Christianity. In the past, Christian social and political power made it much harder to minorities to object and demand equality; today, though, people are more likely to object because they are more likely to realize that the injustice of this discrimination can be remedied.
I wonder if Earch would say they consider it "harmless" if the government said that we should pledge allegiance to "One Nation under Jesus" or "One White Nation." Most people would regard that as harmful, but then the people being harmed would be non-Christians and non-whites. It's acceptable to object when they are being harmed; when it's non-theists who are being harmed, that's OK. Not even all atheists can be counted to object to atheists being harmed. Then again, there have always been members of minority groups who object when others insist on standing up and complaining about inequality and unfairness.
Would Christians feel harmed if they had to recite "under Buddha"? Yes. Would Muslims feel harmed if they had to recite "under Jesus"? Yes. Would Jews feel harmed if they had to recite "under Odin"? Yes. How likely is it, though, that someone would insist that such phrases are "harmless" and people who complain simply have a "thin skin"? Why should atheists keep quiet when they are being told that being patriotic and even being an American is something they should be excluded from? Why should atheists keep quiet when schools are used to indoctrinate children into the idea that they should all believe in God and that America is a place for people who trust in God?
Douglas Laycock spoke at a Pew Forum event where he explained why the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is undeniably wrong:
[O]ver and over and over the Supreme Court has said the reason it will not allow the government itself to take a position on a religious question, will not allow the government to endorse a religious viewpoint or an anti-religious viewpoint is because government should not make any citizen's political standing in the community depend upon his religious beliefs, not even implicitly, not even by implication. ...
This is very direct and explicit. Now, children, it is time to pledge your allegiance to the United States of America, and to do that, you have to pledge that the nation is under God. We have linked religion and politics, religion and patriotism, religious faith and patriotic standing inseparably right in the middle of one sentence. And the only way to avoid the religious part is literally to drop out mid-sentence and then come back in.
Perhaps the simplest way to demonstrate the problem here is to replace "under God" with "under no God." Some Christians would be outraged if an atheist merely inserted the "no" on their own; many more would be incensed if anyone suggested changing the official Pledge of Allegiance to read "under no God." Why, though, if it's really no big deal? If "under God" is no big deal, then "under no God' should also not be a big deal. The fact that Christians would take it as a personal insult and attack on their beliefs demonstrates how "under God" is really intended: as an attack on people who don't believe as they do. This is also why they work so hard to defend keeping it in. They refuse to treat it as harmless and unimportant, so why should atheists?
Comments
Maybe I can weigh in and help explain this a bit. I didn’t used to care about “under god.” But I do now. The reason I didn’t care was because I was not political and did not understand the political agenda of the religious right. What I have learned in the past years, as I chose to become more active and involved in my atheism is that there is most definitely a well organized group of Christians in this nation who want to see more of a theocracy and less of a republic model.
There are small insertions, such as “under god,” or “in god we trust,” that are added in. But there are also bigger insertions, such as restrictions on teaching science, sex education misinformation, laws passing to restrict personal freedoms and control private behavior.
All of this rolls up into a total package that results in “this is a Christian nation,” not meaning that most citizens in this country are Christians, but that the basis for our laws and government is the Christian religion and the Christian god.
In reality, since there is no such thing as a “Christian” or a “Christian god”–it’s different depending on where you are and who you ask–any promotion or mention of religion by the government is going to step on someone else’s religion’s toes–whether that’s another brand of Christian or another brand of religion all together.
Still, a bit here and a bit there may not look like much when you’re looking at just one of the bits without a larger context. But once you get your brain around the entire thrust of WHY these insertions are made and where this is consciously meant to lead the nation–it becomes far more of a concern.
Also, the pledge is meant to unify the population. In my head, inserting a divisive statement is not a good idea and there is no positive reason to do so. It is only meant to alienate a portion of the population which has just as much claim to citizenship as any other. As Austin has pointed out, calling this a Christian nation is no less offensive than calling it a white nation. And how would we react to adding “One white nation under god” into the Pledge? Would it be just words that anyone could say? Would we wonder why someone would be put off by it and make such a big deal about it?
No, we’d understand immediately the problem. When a principle is in question, apply it across the board and see if you apply your judgement consistently. If you don’t, then the problem is not with the situation, it’s with an inconsistent view, in this case of how people should be treated and what constitutes respect for other people.
Just to provide an example of what I’m describing above (lest anyone claim I’m exaggerating…)
http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=2008_TXGOP_Platform
I dont know if comments support quoting text I’m fairly new here
Is it really that Americans have “acquired a thinner skin” or is it instead that Americans are more willing to stand up to bigotry and discrimination? I think it’s more likely the latter.
Well I think its both, there are many casesin america where people dance around in fear of even the slightest offense of another, people seem to take offense a whole lot quicker now than I remember. Dont misconstrue my personal feeling that “under god” is harmless as some feeling that athiests shouldnt fight for their right to not believe and not be subjected to others beliefs to their detriment, or that they shouldnt fight hard to keep religion out of government.
I simply ask, can we not concentrate on fighting the fights worth fighting? I would much rather atheists expend effort in becoming noticed and taking a bigger part in the political world…and to me fighting “under god” in the pledge of allegiance comes off aspetty, a miniscule issue that harms no child. I doubt highly any child has run from the classroom emotionally scarred from the utterace of “under god”. I take exception when my tax dollars are spent fighting something as minor as two measly words that have no meaning to us.
On the other hand, Richard Dawkinsmakes an argument in his excellent book “The God Delusion” against referring to the children of Christians as “christian children”, he says that the child is not equipped to decide if they are a christian or not and that they should be allowed to choose on their own. Should we not do the same with the children of ahiests?
Certainly, we should instruct our children on the fallacies we see in religion, like all good parents we should be teaching our children, talking to them, helping fill in the blanks that are not covered in public schools. Teach them that to say “under god” doesnt make it so, and doesnt mean you believe it, and to say it, does you no harm. then move on to bigger issues.
It isn’t “thin skin” for a black person to object to being told that they are inferior or less patriotic. It isn’t “thin skin” for a Jewish person to object to being told that their religion is inferior to Christianity. In the past, Christian social and political power made it much harder to minorities to object and demand equality; today, though, people are more likely to object because they are more likely to realize that the injustice of this discrimination can be remedied.
I certainly hope you are not implying that I subscribe to any of the above.
I wonder if Earch would say they consider it “harmless” if the government said that we should pledge allegiance to “One Nation under Jesus” or “One White Nation.” Most people would regard that as harmful, but then the people being harmed would be non-Christians and non-whites. It’s acceptable to object when they are being harmed; when it’s non-theists who are being harmed, that’s OK. Not even all atheists can be counted to object to atheists being harmed. Then again, there have always been members of minority groups who object when others insist on standing up and complaining about inequality and unfairness.
This is approaching a Straw Man Argument, exaggerating what it might say doesnt alter the fact that it doesnt say any of those things. We arent considering whether those are offensive or harmless, they have no bearing on the arguement any more than “one nation under hitler” one nation seeded by aliens” or any other variation you can invent.
However if you want to know, I would not consider them harmless, because “under jesus” presumes a certain religion that “under god” does not, “one white nation” presumessomething altogether abhorrant to me. But since neither of them is the issue its immaterial.
So there is the belief that non-theists are being harmed.
Which non-theists are being harmed? in what form does this harm manifest? describe the harm? Are our children harmed when they spend money which has references to god all over it? I believe not.
If you can convince me that there is a real and significant harm being done to athiest children by the utterance of these two words. Convince me that the possible ostricizion and negative attention they could experience after their athiest parents have dragged them through the courts while sueing the school, the teacher, the state, the government over this issue is less damaging to the child.
Show to me the real damage being done to the child, and show me that the possible ostracizion is worth it, and believe me I will happily change my mind.
Im only speaking from personal experience here. I know that saying “under god” didnt do me one iota of harm. Perhaps things have changed and children are more susceptible to words than they were when I was young. I wonder why that would be?
I personally think there are more important issues to address, so I choose to ignore this one.
Would Christians feel harmed if they had to recite “under Buddha”? Yes. Would Muslims feel harmed if they had to recite “under Jesus”? Yes. Would Jews feel harmed if they had to recite “under Odin”? Yes. How likely is it, though, that someone would insist that such phrases are “harmless” and people who complain simply have a “thin skin”? Why should atheists keep quiet when they are being told that being patriotic and even being an American is something they should be excluded from? Why should atheists keep quiet when schools are used to indoctrinate children into the idea that they should all believe in God and that America is a place for people who trust in God?
Are you seriously taking the position that two words “under god” by themselves classifies as indoctrination?
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
In what way can two words fullfill that definition? there is no instruction there? last time I looked the schools (public) are not permitted to teach religious doctrine. I assume that continues to be the case.It seems you have claimed that the two words “under god” are indoctrinating our children to believe in god. I would like to see your evidence.
You are quite correct though, other relgious people would be harmed and offended if they had to proclaim “under some other imaginary god besides my own” they are afraid of being blasted by a lightning bolt or going to hell. We are immune to that, the words “under god” have no sway over us unless we allow it to.
Perhaps the simplest way to demonstrate the problem here is to replace “under God” with “under no God.” Some Christians would be outraged if an atheist merely inserted the “no” on their own; many more would be incensed if anyone suggested changing the official Pledge of Allegiance to read “under no God.” Why, though, if it’s really no big deal? If “under God” is no big deal, then “under no God’ should also not be a big deal. The fact that Christians would take it as a personal insult and attack on their beliefs demonstrates how “under God” is really intended: as an attack on people who don’t believe as they do. This is also why they work so hard to defend keeping it in. They refuse to treat it as harmless and unimportant, so why should atheists?
Why should athiests treat it as harmless? in my opinion because we can, because we can think critically and realise that these two words have no more power over us than we wish to grant them. We should because then we can concentrate on far weightier issues.
There are small insertions, such as “under god,” or “in god we trust,” that are added in. But there are also bigger insertions, such as restrictions on teaching science, sex education misinformation, laws passing to restrict personal freedoms and control private behavior
I agree, and I maintain that for the limited amount of people working on our behalf, our efforts are better epxended making sure that teaching science and sex education remains in schools, that laws passing to restrict personal freedoms and control private behavior are not permitted to stand… I say fight the fights WORTH fighting
Also, the pledge is meant to unify the population. In my head, inserting a divisive statement is not a good idea and there is no positive reason to do so.
Who does it divide? if we dont believe it, if we instruct our children that those words have no significant meaning to us, then how are we divided? Lets try to be a little realistic, does anyone really believe that the removal of “under god” would significantly change the influence of religion on lawmakers..When lawmakers look at polls and see that 98% or so of this nation is religious in one way or another, they see those as votes. who here actually thinks there is any chance that “in god we trust” will be removed from our currency?
How do we come across to these politicians whom we want to take us seriously when we expend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a petty (clearly my opinion, and probably theirs) issue. If we want politicians to take us seriously, then we should be addressing serious issues. Keeping ID out of science classes, keeping religion out of decisions of law or personal freedoms.
Just to provide an example of what I’m describing above (lest anyone claim I’m exaggerating…)
http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=2008_TXGOP_Platform
Am I to believe that removal of “under god” will defeat the fruit loops described there? Thank you TracieH for providing such a good example…Show of hands.. which is more important?, removal of “under god” or making sure the nutcases she haspointed out to us are defeated in the next election.
This is your chance to make a difference, make it a good one.
thanks all.
You don’t give any reasons why it isn’t worth fighting, nor do you engage any of the arguments which atheists use to explain why it is worth fighting.
No, but you also don’t explain why “under God” is any less bigoted.
Offering parallel analogies to determine if a position is held consistently or not isn’t anywhere close to a Straw Man.
All, because children are being taught that there is an necessary connection between belief in a particular sort of god and patriotism, being an American, working towards truth & justice, etc.
Explain, please what sort of harm is present in “one nation under Jesus” or “one white nation” which is not present in “one nation under God.” You admit that the first two do cause harm, but you don’t explain whom is harmed or how.
All I need to do is point out the absence of relevant differences between “one nation under God” and “one nation under Jesus” or “one white nation under God.” If you hold to you principles consistently, and there are no relevant differences, then you must treat them all the same.
Oh? Do you live in an America where atheists are as trusted and accepted as theists? In the America I live in, atheists are the most despised and distrusted minority. It’s unreasonable to think that this is completely unconnected to how every public school student is expected to recite at the beginning of every school day a pledge of allegiance to a nation which is theist, not atheist.
Are you seriously ignoring the fact that the Pledge is recited daily for more than a decade? Or are you seriously suggesting that “instruction” is limited solely to class lessons and “indoctrination” cannot occur in the context of reciting dogmas and formulas over and over?
And the belief that America is “under God” isn’t biased or a point of view?
To say that we should treat it as harmless suggests that perhaps it is not harmless, but we should treat it as harmless anyway for the sake of some other goal.
I haven’t asked for reasons to treat it as harmless, reasons which would theoretically apply whether it is harmless or not. You said that it is harmless and I have yet to see any basis for this conclusion. I have never seen anyone give any justification for why it is harmless or rebutted any of the arguments for why it is not harmless.
Note: there is a big difference between “it is harmless” and “it’s not important to me.” Everyone has their own interests and things which matter more or less to them. No one suggests that you necessarily have to make a bid deal out of the Pledge of Alleigance, donate money to legal efforts, write letters, etc. If it’s low on your list of issues to spend time one, fine. Something has to be, right?
No, but you also don’t explain why “under God” is any less bigoted.
I dont believe I ever claimed it wasnt bigoted, all I claim is that I personally dont see the damage being done. I have many athiest friends…some have kids, some are teachers. I will have to speak to my teacher & parent friends about thier views on the pledge that would be an interesting discussion. Perhaps I will learn something.
If your exception to the statement under god is because it is bigoted, great we agree. It is bigoted. In the America I live in we are surrounded daily by bigotry, lawlessness in varying degrees,and all manner of things worth fighting, worth railing against. Some need to be attacked now, others because they are less pernicious can be saved for another day.
Which non-theists are being harmed?
All, because children are being taught that there is an necessary connection between belief in a particular sort of god and patriotism, being an American, working towards truth & justice, etc.
A connection that the child can be easily disabused from. The state is not the sole arbitor of what our children are taught. My many teacher friends complain often about the lack of participation of their pupils parents, I will not repeat the many stories I’ve been told about parents who have literally claimed its their (teachers) job to teach thier pupils all they need to know.
Maybe I see no harm because in my single parent family we discussed these things, maybe despite decades of recitation of this dogma, I and every athiest I know, have managed to maintain our disbelief in the existance of any “god”. Nor have I or my brothers and sisters exhibited any confusion in what it means to be an American, certainly I and they (to my knowledge) dont consider themselves less patriotic because they dont subscribe to the “under god” part of the pledge. I dont hold myself up as being special in any way, so I fail to see how a child of an athiest can be harmed if the parent participates in their own childs education. If however they desire to leave all education to the state…well you get what you pay for.
I think its pretty clear that many of us here recited this dogma for decades, how many here believe that there is a” necessary connection between belief in a particular sort of god and patriotism, being an American, working towards truth & justice, etc” ? If those of us who have been exposed to this indoctrination have failed to succumb to it then how powerful is it?
Offering parallel analogies to determine if a position is held consistently or not isn’t anywhere close to a Straw Man.
fair enough
Explain, please what sort of harm is present in “one nation under Jesus” or “one white nation” which is not present in “one nation under God.” You admit that the first two do cause harm, but you don’t explain whom is harmed or how.
I will try, and most likely fail but here goes…..
One nation under jesus: harmful in that it precludes anyone who doesnt follow that jesus is lord and god, so thats muslims(where jesus is considered a prophet), jews(jesus is not the messiah in jewish tradition IIRC), hindus(jesus who?) etc.. it mandates a specific religion. This is very divisive to use a previous responders words. It actually works against what the pledge is supposedly for.
One white nation: harmful in that it promotes the belief in the superiority of one race over another, contrary to all manner of evidence it is perhaps even more divisive than the one above and certainly more offensive to races other than caucasions.
one nation under god which god? Vishnu, Ptah, Shamash,Zeus, Jehova, FSM? this option obviously doesnt preclude all the religions of the world if you take it literally so in that respect its superior to “one nation under jesus” it doesnt explicitly condone the dissmissal of all the races of the world save one, so in that repsect its far better than “one white nation”. Presumptuous, yes. bigoted, sure. admittedly this excludes athiests but then again “under god” has no meaning to us.
All I need to do is point out the absence of relevant differences between “one nation under God” and “one nation under Jesus” or “one white nation under God.” If you hold to you principles consistently, and there are no relevant differences, then you must treat them all the same.
I guess I believe other than you that there is a relevant difference between those statements, perhaps the difference is arguable thats fine, but I think the former is too specific, it dictates which god. Under god alone does no such thing. one white nation is simply too divisive to be of any value in a pledge of allegiance to a nation that has always been open to those willing to come.
Oh? Do you live in an America where atheists are as trusted and accepted as theists? In the America I live in, atheists are the most despised and distrusted minority. It’s unreasonable to think that this is completely unconnected to how every public school student is expected to recite at the beginning of every school day a pledge of allegiance to a nation which is theist, not atheist.
Athiests were the most despised minority long before “under god” was added to the pledge and they will likely remain so after it is removed, should it ever be so. The pledge is not the source of the animosity, its removal will not eliminate the animosity. Was “under god” added to the pledge to attack athiests?, perhaps, but its a particularly poor attack as evidenced by the number of folk on this very site who were exposed to it yet do not hold to the indoctrination you assign it.
Are you seriously ignoring the fact that the Pledge is recited daily for more than a decade? Or are you seriously suggesting that “instruction” is limited solely to class lessons and “indoctrination” cannot occur in the context of reciting dogmas and formulas over and over?
Actually yes, I will ignore that its recited over and over for a decade. Ive seen no evidence that repeating these words over and over again have the effect of changing ones perception, can you offer otherwise?. I will concede your point however that instruction isnt limited to class lessons, it can be as you describe, it can also be in the home.
And the belief that America is “under God” isn’t biased or a point of view?
it certainly is…
Let me amplify my position, and perhaps concede some points.
The inclusion of “Under god” in the pledge of allegiance is, presumptive, bigoted, possibly unconstitutional and in general shouldnt be. I do not subscibe to it the pernicious ability to subvert our children into believing that they are less american, if they dont believe it. I do not believe it is the souce of animosity towards athiests, nor do I believe its removal would in any way improve the opinion people hold of atheists or improve atheists lives.
I would much rather efforts be expended in areas I find more important. However, if “under god” is removed from the pledge, I will be pleased. If it is not, I will not lose sleep over it.
While I disagree with the insertion of “under God” into the pledge, this debate lost a lot of its significance for me when the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2002.
California is one of nine states under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court in which coerced recitation of the Pledge is now a federal infraction.
For the other forty-one states, things aren’t so good. And regardless of whether or not it is forced on school kids is almost the lesser issue: In 2002, when the 9th Circuit announced its ruling, Sen. Kit Bond (R. Missouri) said, “Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.”
Considering that many of the framers of the US were atheists, most were deists, and all supported religious freedom, and objected to the notion of having a pledge at all, I doubt they would be so concerned.
The original pledge, written by a clergyman in 1892, after all the framers of the country were dead, goes:
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all.”
I think, if anything, the founders would have grudgingly accepted such a pledge, but would not have endorsed its recitation in public schools. The idea of forcing school kids to pledge allegiance even to the nation flies in the face of the desire for freedom that spawned this nation in the first place.
The pledge wasn’t adopted by the government until 1942, at which time “my flag and the republic” became “the flag of the United States of America and to the republic”.
At this point, the founders would have begun slowly rotating in their graves, as on a spit.
But when, in 1954, “under God” was added to the pledge, and Eisenhower made his not-famous-enough announcement (“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”), the true spinning would begin. Spinning with enough force to make the Sun start rising in the West.
It wouldn’t slow down again until, in 2002, a minor victory for freedom was won by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. What we need to see are politicians who know even the most basic information about our history as a country and people who consider the US’s quest for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to be not only the primary, but the sole goal of the nation.
I have no trouble proclaiming loudly the pledge of allegiance (the “one nation indivisible” form), but I will not be coerced into it, nor will I recite it daily like the subject of some kind of brainwashing exercise.
For the other forty-one states, things aren’t so good. And regardless of whether or not it is forced on school kids is almost the lesser issue: In 2002, when the 9th Circuit announced its ruling, Sen. Kit Bond (R. Missouri) said, “Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.”
Ah alas my discussion with my atheist friends (parent and teacher alike) is likely to not be all that illuminating, I and they are from California.
So, it is your position that the government is actively promoting bigotry which is no less bigoted than racism, but that this somehow isn’t harmful? How, then, could a racist Pledge possibly be harmful?
Same rejoinder can be offered with respect to “one White Nation under God” or “one nation under Jesus”.
That’s not relevant to what I wrote. Your children may not be directly harmed through reciting the Pledge themselves (though it’s possible for that to happen), but they are harmed by all the other children uncritically reciting it, absorbing its lessons, and coming to regard patriotism as necessarily linked to belief in a particular sort of god.
One nation under God precludes everyone who doesn’t believe in any gods, everyone who doesn’t believe in God, and everyone who doesn’t believe in God in a particular way (i.e., having a special relationship with the nation. It thus mandates a specific conception of a specific god and is divisive, working against what the pledge is supposedly for.
One nation under god promotes belief in the superiority of theists over atheists, contrary to all manner of evidence and is perhaps more divisive than the one above and certainly more offensive to atheists.
Everything that you say about why other phrases are harmful can be repeated back about “under God” with only minor changes in the most necessary words.
It is very specifically the god of traditional western monotheism — in the pledge it is spelled God, not god. That’s why there is no indefinite article there — if it was merely “god,” it would be ungrammatical unless it were “a god.” Christians, though, would not accept changing it to “under a god” any more than “under no gods” or “under a god, perhaps, if you want, or not, if you don’t.”
The phrase was added specifically to declare that America has a special relationship with God, just like the Jews once did. This has been a popular belief with Christians on this continent since the first settlers.
1. Hostilty towards other minorities has dropped faster since “under God” was added than for atheists.
2. Yes, hostility will remain after it’s removed because there are other factors as well. You cannot, however, expect to remove that hostility so long as it is the official position of the government that atheists are inferior. That’s like expecting to reduce racism while ignoring “one white nation” in a racist pledge.
It’s a know fact of religion and psychology that mindlessly reciting the same phrases over and over can have a very profound effect on one’s psychology. Why do you suppose it is that students who refuse to say the pledge so often must endure hostility, bullying, and even abuse in schools? It’s partially because of people absorbing the lesson of the pledge: atheists are inferior.
I hate to break the news to you, but when the U.S. Supreme Court hear this case, it found that Newdow didn’t have standing to sue in the first place and thus reversed the original decision. Recitation of the current Pledge of Allegiance may not be allowed in California, but it’s not a violation of federal law.
However, coerced recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is a federal violation and has been since Minersville v. Gobitis in 1940, a case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In regards to the issues of “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the words are only the root cause of the problem. Earch says that they never caused him any harm but I wonder if his experience is the norm? Did he ever leave them out? He is correct in saying that most children probably do not think about such things but does that in any way make it acceptable? A Muslim woman forced to wear a burqa may not realize that she is being oppressed or that such a thing is wrong but that does not mean we should ignore it.
Relatively speaking, it is as equally simple a solution for the Muslim woman to throw her burqa away as it is for a school child to leave the words “under god” out of the Pledge. Granted in most situations the Muslim woman will definitely be ostracized and possibly beaten and/ or killed while the school child will only likely be ostracized and harrassed by other students and possibly teachers and other school faculty. However, to the average school child, which is worse: being ostracized and harrassed or death? (Childish? Maybe but we are talking about children.) Also, depending on the environment, the system of harrassment may extend to the child’s parent(s)if they do not take actions that are deemed “appropriate” by the harrassers.
Sure, what I said above may not be the norm in such situations either. I really do not have enough data to say if it is or isn’t. However, I do have enough information in similar situations to say that such harrassment is typical. So while the words them selves may not cause harm directly, their intended meaning in reality does. As for opting to leave them out being a simple solution; having “under god” officially removed and allowing individuals to say them on their own, if they so choose, is just as easy a solution as well as being constitutional, which cannot be said for the reverse.
This has got to be the best thread on here! Fellow atheists discussing important things, and with no flaming from believers!
I’ve lived all my life in Virginia, and I can’t remember reciting the pledge any later than sixth grade, but it never meant anything more to me than another silly nuisance we had to do before actual schoolwork. I always found church to be a tedious ritual, and it was right about age 12 when I started thinking critically about Christianity’s claims. Since then, and it’s not often, I simply do not speak the words “under God”, when prompted to recite the pledge. I don’t feel personally offended or oppressed, but I can understand how some other might.
When “under God” was added in the 1950’s McCarthyism was out of control, and most Americans were terrified by the “Godless Commies”. I’d love to see it removed, but I’m not counting on it.
I must agree with Earch about picking our battles: The majority of the American public are uneducated about atheism in general, and
we must SHOW them that we are not the monstrous, satan-worshiping, society destroying people that Big Religion tells them we are. Discussions like this, on web sites like this, are a good start.
I’m an Australian but lived in Maryland when I was in primary school. We all had to recite the pledge every morning. For quite a while I thought the offending line was ‘one nation, under god, he’s invisible’. Eventually, after protests from my parents (who didn’t really see why the son of an Australian diplomat should be forced to pledge allegiance to a foreign flag), I was allowed to stand silently instead of reciting. But the mention of god seriously affected the way I viewed America at the time. My family were entirely unreligious - and I assumed that all Americans must see god as some sort of king figure who was in charge of the country. It scared me a little because I began to think that if so many people said god every morning then perhaps Americans knew something I didn’t. It also didn’t help when I told my classmates I didn’t believe in god and they told me that I would be going to hell. I had nightmares for months.
There is an insidious-ness about an image (such as the cross-shaped WWII monument in San Diego). It is always there, always proclaiming preference to a particular religion. It’s subliminal. Growing up in a religious society, saying “under God” or seeing such a monument would indeed be no big deal. Small steps, one at a time.
If subliminal messages didn’t work, McDonald’s wouldn’t pay money to have it’s products placed in movies, Burger King in games. Pepsi, Apple, Motorola etc.
I can attest to the idea that one small thing is “harmless” or “no big deal”. But when that small thing is actually 100 small things and it is always in favour of one group of people, then there is a problem.
Enough Already!
Why are some over zealous Christians so mean spirited and intolerant? They seem to be saying, “Atheists are unpatriotic, and don’t you forget it!”
Ever since the cold war between the United States and the communist USSR Christians in the United States have assumed that atheism was the problem and have equated Christianity with patriotism. This is when, when “in God we trust” became our national motto and “under God” sneaked into our pledge. During this time period Cecil B. DeMille donated stone replicas of the Ten Commandments to courthouses across the nation as a publicity stunt to promote his movie.
Today there are an estimated 4,818,239 or 16% of United States citizens who are not affiliated with any religion, and an estimated 8 to 10% of those, or roughly 2,710,260 who identify as atheist or agnostic. We are your doctors, your nurses, your teachers, your aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters, your parents, and your children. We pick up your garbage, fix your malfunctioning plumbing, serve in your military, fill-out your tax papers. We are your neighbors, your grocery clerks, and your attorneys. We are your policemen and women, your crossing guards, your fire fighters and your athletes. We are your babysitters, and your scientists. We are Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. We are old, young, and middle aged.
Why do some Christians go out of their way to paint us as unpatriotic? Their in-your-face God’s country attitude is downright arrogant, insulting and abusive. Why do they insist on reminding us on a daily bases that they consider us unpatriotic? Why are they so incredibly intolerant? Those of you who trust in God, know who you are, or do you need to be reminded with slogans on your money, and mouthing under god along with a pledge of allegiance.
What, may I ask was wrong with “E Pluribus Unum”? If you must hang something patriotic on your walls, put it on your money, why not “E Pluribus Unum”. That’s something all of us citizens could esteem. And what was wrong with “one nation indivisible” in our pledge.
When Christians changed our national motto from “E Pluribus Unum” to “one nation under god”, and changed the words of our pledge from “indivisible” to “under god”, they did so specifically to make the point very clear, atheists are unpatriotic.
In reality, it was the immoral despotic leaders of Communist countries who were the real villains, the ones who sought to obliterate religion in deference to the absolute and unquestionable dogma of the sovereignty of the state.
We narrowly escaped that catastrophe. Unfortunately atheism has been blamed for the near destruction of civilizations and equated with being unpatriotic and immoral in the United States ever since.
Enough already!
I remember the Pledge before “under God” was added. There was no one who objected. Now there are many who object. It has caused Americans to be devided on the issue. Return it to the original. The next thing will be crosses replacing the stars.
Marilyn said: Today there are an estimated 4,818,239 or 16% of United States citizens who are not affiliated with any religion, and an estimated 8 to 10% of those, or roughly 2,710,260 who identify as atheist or agnostic.
Marilyn, while you got the percentages right, you might be pleased to know there are way, way more nonreligious people than what you calculated. Either you think the US only has 30 million people or you skipped the section on decimals in the 3rd grade. Try 48 million and 27 million, respectively. Now a test question: 1/3 of the world’s population is nonreligious. How many people is that and where does that group of people rank in terms of belief groups?
You think enforced daily recitation doesn’t equate to brainwashing and indoctrination? Americans are imbued with National Patriotic fervour because of this daily recital of national superiority; this, apparently, gives them the right to impose their way of life on others. I view, sometimes with amusement, sometimes in amazement, when I see people with hand over the heart whilst reciting words reinforcing the concept of racial, national and even religious superiority gazing adoringly at a coloured piece of rag on a pole.
You reckon daily inculcation from childhood hasn’t indoctrinated you? Gimmeabreak.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au