The Pledge of Allegiance

[T-Bird76]

I was just arguing with a moron...wait I mean coworker (Muslim coworker) about why the Pledge of Allegiance should not in anyway be changed by removing the word God. He thinks it should be removed because the God we speak of isn't his god....Man it just got me SO DAM PISSED OFF! I can't take these people anymore coming here and trying to change our way of life. I mean this needs to just STOP! I generally have conservative views with the exception of most social issues where I tend to be more moderate to even liberal but these people need to accept that this is the United States and even though we are a mix of people we have our own culture and value system. If you don’t like it PLEASE LEAVE! With that being said please cover you’re heart and read the words of our Pledge of Allegiance.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

[RDU-JFK]

If you don’t like it PLEASE LEAVE! With that being said please cover you’re heart and read the words of our Pledge of Allegiance.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

Well said; 100% agree. At least this co-worker knows the words to the pledge of allegiance...I wish I can say the same for some "American" citizens out there reaping our benefits...

America: Love it or leave it.

[adam613]

Well said; 100% agree. At least this co-worker knows the words to the pledge of allegiance...I wish I can say the same for some "American" citizens out there reaping our benefits...

America: Love it or leave it.

What's funny is that I agree as well on the Pledge "Under God" thing, even though I consider the statement "America: Love it or leave it" to be treasonous. Who cares if America is "Under God"? One of the many great things about this country is that it doesn't matter what deity (or lack thereof) you believe in.

[T-Bird76]

Well said; 100% agree. At least this co-worker knows the words to the pledge of allegiance...I wish I can say the same for some "American" citizens out there reaping our benefits...

America: Love it or leave it.

What's funny is that I agree as well on the Pledge "Under God" thing, even though I consider the statement "America: Love it or leave it" to be treasonous. Who cares if America is "Under God"? One of the many great things about this country is that it doesn't matter what deity (or lack thereof) you believe in.

You should care; America was founded under the Christian Judea belief system. It’s that system that has formed our culture and value system. One doesn't have to believe in a god but should understand where our culture and values come from.

As for the “America Love it or leave it” It is an extreme statement but why would someone remain in a country they don’t love? The U.S doesn’t force anyone to stay here so if you’re not happy here then you should find a country with a system of Gov’t that you will be happy with. Hell I’m sure there’s a ton of people in Iran right now that would LOVE to leave Iran but they can’t. At least here in the U.S you have the freedom to leave.

[PhilDernerJr]

As for "love it or leave it", it all depends on what one's definition of "country" is. Many peopel associate their government with the country, so they may not love it, and don't have to leave if they don't care for it. If it pertains to the land itself, and the ideals by which it was built upon, I can agree with the statement much more.

I personally don't care for the "judeo-christian values" that are referenced when discussing what the country was built on. From all I read, it seems to me that they were just built on good values that you'd find in most any religion.

As for God being in the Pledge, I'm not as religious as I used to be, but I am not offended by its presence, nor does it infringe on my rights to practice a religion, or not to practice one, as I please.

People who are "offended" by even the term "God" are just confused people looking for attention or any excuse to complain about the majority of this country. It's presence does not limit or prevent anyone from practicing whatever religion they prefer, nor does it push any specific beliefs on people.

[RDU-JFK]

As for "love it or leave it", it all depends on what one's definition of "country" is. Many peopel associate their government with the country, so they may not love it, and don't have to leave if they don't care for it. If it pertains to the land itself, and the ideals by which it was built upon, I can agree with the statement much more.



Good point. I hate dealing with the IRS and government offices and such, but it doesn't mean I should be forced to leave since I don't love it. There are US citizens out there who truly hate the ideals that America is all about--these are the people who should leave.

Back on topic how is it truly offensive to have to say "under God"? It's not like we're saying Allah is stupid or anything. People who complain about this are just trying to draw attention.

On a similar note I never hear people complain about using money with "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed on the back.

[adam613]

I'll tell you what people are complaining about with regard to the "Under God" thing, or any mention of God in regard to the government. It has nothing to do with dislike for America or the values it was founded on. It's about misunderstanding (on both sides) what it means for America to be founded on Judeo-Christian ideals.

The problem is that there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian anything. The Jewish and Christian value systems are two separate entities that have quite a bit of overlap, but the term Judeo-Christian usually means just Christian. The US government is often described as being based on Christian values, especially by modern Republicans. However, freedom of religion is not a Christian value; Christianity says if you don't believe that Jesus died for your sins, you are going to hell. And if our governmental system was founded on Christian values, saying "God" on our money or pledge or whatever is an attack on freedom of religion.

(I'm not saying they're right, but under different circumstances it might be a valid concern. A lot of these people are even more critical of the religious situation in places like Iran than they are about the US; you just don't hear about it as much because they aren't as nutty for complaining about Iran.)

With regard to the "love it or leave it" thing, we have a constitutional obligation to criticize our government. That's what elections are about. Our government isn't perfect now. It never has been, and it never will be. But I feel that I'm better off here than I would be anywhere else in the world, even with Bush as president, so why would I want to leave?

[Tom_Turner]

I believe "Freedom of Religion" was meant to denote freedom to practice religion from government interference. The Separation of Church and State was to ensure people could practice their religion without fear of government oppression.

It did not mean Government would be free *of* religion - as indeed it is evident on coins/bills, Pledge of Allegiance and so forth.

Tom

[Tom_Turner]

Judeo-Christian - according to Wiki....

Judeo-Christian (or Judaeo-Christian, sometimes written as Judæo-Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, and typically considered (sometimes along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values. In particular, the term refers to the common Old Testament/Tanakh (which is a basis of both moral traditions, including particularly the Ten Commandments); and implies a common set of values present in the modern Western World.

Historical background

Christianity emerged in the century after the death of Herod the Great, the century that saw the building and destruction of the Herodian Temple and in which Rabbinical Judaism also developed. Christians use new testament scriptures, along with doctrines such as monotheism, the belief in the Messiah (in Christianity, known as Christ (??????? Christós in Greek), meaning 'anointed one'), concepts of sacred space and sacred time, and the use of the Psalms in community prayer. Christianity trancended many fundamental Jewish practices, among them the Jewish covenant on male circumcision, keeping of the Sabbath, the keeping of kashrut, and most of the Law and traditions of the Oral Torah, but see also Christian view of the Law). One of the most significant early Christian preachers, Paul of Tarsus, a converted Christian and a Roman citizen, made a point of preaching to the gentiles, in order to spread Christianity. Judeo-Christian may refer to common beliefs and customs.

Basis of a common concept of the two religions

Supporters of the Judeo-Christian concept point to the Christian claim that Christianity is the heir to Biblical Judaism, and that the whole logic of Christianity as a religion is that it exists (only) as a religion built upon Judaism. In addition, although the order of the books in the Christian Old Testament and the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is different, the books are the same. The majority of the Old Testament is in fact Jewish scripture, and is used as moral and spiritual teaching material throughout the Christian world. The prophets, patriarchs, and heroes of the Jewish scripture are also known in Christianity, which uses the Jewish text as the basis for its understanding of Judaeo-Christian patriarchs, prophets and heroes such as Abraham, Elijah and Moses. As a result a vast chunk of Jewish and Christian teaching is based on the same inspiration.

Criticism of the term

The term Judeo-Christian has been criticized for implying more commonality than actually exists. In The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Jewish theologian-novelist Arthur A. Cohen questions the theological appropriateness of the term and suggests that it was essentially an invention of American politics.[1]. It has been suggested that the term obscures fundamental differences between the two religions - Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes that "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism"[2] - while erasing continuities between them and other religions, especially other monotheistic faiths. The Slovenian postmodern philosopher Slavoj Žižek has argued in this last point that the term Judeo-Muslim to describe the middle-east culture against the western Christian culture would be more appropriate in these days[3], especially noting the reduced influence from the Jewish culture on the western world due to the historical persecution and exclusion of the Jewish minority. A Judaeo-Christian-Muslim concept thus refers to the three main monotheistic religions that root to the Babylonian civilization, commonly known as the Abrahamic Religions.

[nwafan20]

Tom, 100% correct.

"Separation of church and state" isn't even in the constitution, it was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. He actually wrote it to convince them that they government wouldn't interfere with their worship. This term was then spun and spun and spun into a modern day agenda.

[Derf]

....God we speak of isn't his god....

I probably would have said if I felt that Allah was lower than goat piss, I would not say anything as it may offend someone. You to should shut your mouth about a "GOD" out of respect for others. MY country allows you to worship whom ever you want.

P.S. I do not think that Allah is lower than goat piss, only the people who kill innocent people using his name get that tite! Is goatpiss as nasty as it sounds anyway?

[adam613]

"Separation of church and state" isn't even in the constitution, it was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. He actually wrote it to convince them that they government wouldn't interfere with their worship. This term was then spun and spun and spun into a modern day agenda.

It isn't that simple. While the phrase itself wasn't part of the Constitution, the concept has been around (and used by the Supreme Court) since the beginning. It is a necessary extension of the Establishment Clause; when this country was founded, most European countries had a national church. In order to avoid the appearance of a national (or state) church here, the functions of church and government had to be completely separated.

On the other hand, some of the modern day "freedom from religion" stuff comes dangerously close to the line of "prohibiting free exercise", so it goes both ways...

[Derf]

........On the other hand, some of the modern day "freedom from religion" stuff comes dangerously close to the line of "prohibiting free exercise", so it goes both ways...

Can you go into more detail...I really do not want to start a religous debate but am very curious by this last statement. Please word it carefully as I do not want others to start throwing rocks at your LCD panel... Just wondering what is close?

[adam613]

........On the other hand, some of the modern day "freedom from religion" stuff comes dangerously close to the line of "prohibiting free exercise", so it goes both ways...

Can you go into more detail...I really do not want to start a religous debate but am very curious by this last statement. Please word it carefully as I do not want others to start throwing rocks at your LCD panel... Just wondering what is close?

In a month or so, we'll start hearing stories about people trying to get Christmas trees removed from non-government public spaces, like shopping malls. If your protest group can get the tree removed on its own, go for it. If the tree is in a government building, it shouldn't be there in the first place. But if you use the government to remove it from the mall, that's (IMO) across the line.

[Derf]

Gocha :borat: ....Very good point! Thanks

[Tom_Turner]

Really too bad about all these people removing Christmas trees....... seems these trees and secular "ornaments" only became "offensive" in recent years.

I don't believe it is so much about being "offended" as it is a power trip to deprive enjoyment or acknowledgment of our heritage.

Perhaps to Tommy's point, I wonder just how long America and Europe can go with their idealistic philosophy of open societies (that I am 100% in favor of all things being equal), while importing large populations of people throughout much of the rest of the world that come from places where race/culture/ethnicity identity are in ascendancy with little tolerance for others... *their* "homelands"/cultures fiercely preserved, while pushing the envelope abroad to establish their native intolerance.

[NcSchu]

I'm an Atheist so the "under God" part really means nothing to me.

[adam613]

Really too bad about all these people removing Christmas trees....... seems these trees and secular "ornaments" only became "offensive" in recent years.

I don't believe it is so much about being "offended" as it is a power trip to deprive enjoyment or acknowledgment of our heritage.

It's not so much that the trees themselves became offensive, it's that the people pushing the trees became offensive. The Christmas tree was always a religious symbol, but non-Christian people didn't really start caring until the '80s, which "coincidently" is about the same time that it became clear how much power conservative Christians (many of whom don't necessarily believe in freedom of religion) have in American politics.

This isn't to say it's the "fault" of either fundamentalist Christians or those who take full advantage of freedom of religion. Like most things in this thread, the power trip goes both ways. I've heard just as much "ha ha we have our Christmas tree and there's nothing you can do about it" as "ha ha you can't have your Christmas tree in a public space" behavior. And the fact that a lot of the fears about the rise of fundamentalist Christianity haven't come to fruition doesn't seem to have changed things, for either side.

[Tom_Turner]

It's not so much that the trees themselves became offensive, it's that the people pushing the trees became offensive. The Christmas tree was always a religious symbol, but non-Christian people didn't really start caring until the '80s, which "coincidently" is about the same time that it became clear how much power conservative Christians (many of whom don't necessarily believe in freedom of religion) have in American politics.

This isn't to say it's the "fault" of either fundamentalist Christians or those who take full advantage of freedom of religion. Like most things in this thread, the power trip goes both ways. I've heard just as much "ha ha we have our Christmas tree and there's nothing you can do about it" as "ha ha you can't have your Christmas tree in a public space" behavior. And the fact that a lot of the fears about the rise of fundamentalist Christianity haven't come to fruition doesn't seem to have changed things, for either side.

I think you are right in certain cases Adam, but the Pine Trees were certainly there to begin with most everywhere, (not sure they needed any "pushing") before the so-called "culture war(s)" as its called today. Perhaps across the country the Christmas tree was an overtly religious symbol, I don't know, but in New York City it was arguably as secular as snow, or perhaps, Santa Claus :D - (yeah, I know, its still Christmas...but, its a Federal Holiday isn't it?).

Look at the "popular" culture. How many "christmas" episodes of television series have there been from the 1950s until now? Theres inevitably a "moral" theme to most of those episodes, but it never gets deeply into "Jesus".

At the time I grew up in NYC, there was no religious observance in my family, and amongst friends, other cultures (non Christian) celebrated Christmas (not that they *had* to) some Chinese and Jews etc. and most of my nominally Christian friends' folks (who did go to church) celebrated Christmas as if it might as well have been Thanksgiving or New Years. (Most of us, in public school, didn't know what a Nativity Scene was). So, I do feel, locally at least, getting rid of trees in places like New York City, is a bit of perverse muscle flexing.

Particularly as there is no shortage of, in one way or another, "govt related" pro-multicultural efforts going on concurrently...some very positive and enlightening while others, from my point of view, seem to have an aggressive and perhaps even hostile bent. (I mention multi-cultural, because my feelings on this are cultural and not particularly religious.)

In any event, projections that point to the US being half Latino in 2 or 3 decades, might provide an interesting wild card at either end of the so-called "culture wars".

Tom