by Kenneson 16 Replies latest jw friends
The House, today, citing the religious origins of the U.S., signed a bill to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges attemping to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God." The bill passed 260-167. Next, it goes to the Senate. Do you think this is a right decision?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_go_co/pledge_protection
I'm not sure. I think that it should be allowed if parents let their children, I really think it should be up to the family. What is the origin of the pledge of allegiance?
I don't think it does any good making a law requiring people to say the pledge or not to say it. It should be a personal decision. The problem comes in when children might be required to say it without any explanation as to why it is being said and what it means. Why are children required to say it (with exceptions) and not adults.
Can you imagine if at the beginning of each work day, we had to gather together before the flag and recite some words.
I noticed on other threads, that other countries besides the US, don't have an issue because they don't have a pledge.
I grew up in a military family and the captain said that reciting the pledge does not prove someone is a good citizen, that any communist could say the pledge but still be a danger....
So I pay my taxes, obey the laws to the best of my ability, vote, campaign on special issues such as child abuse laws, help my neighbors, etc.
It is too bad that some people can't just get an exemption for their child regarding the pledge if they object to saying "under God."
Blondie
I agree with Blondie. People shouldn't be forced to either say it or not. Bringing up a court case to remove it from all schools because one person is offended is just a waste of tax payers money. However, I also feel that the House passing this bill is a big waste of time and money and just another election year campaign.
There are so many other more important issues happening in the country but Congress wants to waste time and money with stupid stuff like this. Just today I heard a story on NPR about how many of the Katrina FEMA trailer parks are now full of drug dealers.
I agree that it should be optional. What I don't understand is why those who oppose the Pledge do not feel the same way? They don't have to pledge if they don't want to. But why should those who want to pledge be forced not to do so just because some are opposed to it? Sounds like tyranny of the few, in my opinion.
Nobody should be forced to recite "pledge" or to sing an anthem if that is their choice. To do otherwise would contradict the very premise of a "free society".
As for the "under God" line, that should certainly be removed. Similarly, the Canadian national anthem has the line "God keep our land", which is equally archaic and should be replaced.
There are hundreds of thousands of atheists or non-religious citizens in both countries to which these "lines" mean absolutely nothing and/or are offensive, given what the concept of "god"
may or may not represent to them. Even if the majority believe in some form of the supernatural, the line is still ridiculous: what "god" is it referring to? YHWH? Buddha? Vishnu? Allah? Wiccan deities? It simply makes NO sense in a pluralistic society which claims to accept ALL beliefs, including the right to "non-belief". Keep the CHURCH out of the STATE. Period.
pledge Pronunciation (plj)
n.
1. A solemn binding promise to do, give, or refrain from doing something: signed a pledge never to reveal the secret; a pledge of money to a charity.
2.
a. Something given or held as security to guarantee payment of a debt or fulfillment of an obligation.
b. The condition of something thus given or held: put an article in pledge.
3. Law
a. Delivery of goods or personal property as security for a debt or obligation: a loan requiring a pledge of property.
b. The contract by which such delivery is made.
4. A token or sign: "fair pledges of a fruitful tree" Robert Herrick.
5. A person who has been accepted for membership in a fraternity or similar organization and has promised to join but has not yet been initiated.
6. The act of drinking in honor of someone; a toast.
7. A vow to abstain from alcoholic liquor: ex-drinkers who have taken the pledge.
v. pledged, pledg·ing, pledg·es
v.tr.
1. To offer or guarantee by a solemn binding promise: pledge loyalty to a nation. See Synonyms at devote, promise.
2. To bind or secure by or as if by a pledge: pledged themselves to the cause.
3. To deposit as security; pawn.
4.
a. To promise to join (a fraternity or similar organization).
b. To accept as a prospective member of such an organization.
5. To drink a toast to.
v.intr.
1. To make a solemn binding promise; swear.
2. To drink a toast.
Is anyone under 18 years of age capable of making a legally binding guarantee or promise?
If not, then what actually is the purpose of the Pledge in public schools? Is it an element of Fascist indoctrination?
I never liked the Pledge as a JW, and I still don't like it.
Dave
Even if the majority believe in some form of the supernatural, the line is still ridiculous: what "god" is it referring to? YHWH? Buddha? Vishnu? Allah? Wiccan deities? It simply makes NO sense in a pluralistic society which claims to accept ALL beliefs, including the right to "non-belief". Keep the CHURCH out of the STATE. Period.
Why does it have to refer to a specific god? As you stated if the majority of people do believe in a supernatural being, then it would be more offensive to remove it just to not offend the atheists. I am an atheist but I think that even a Hindu or Musilm would think about their god(s) if they recited "under god" in the pledge.
It is not a Church and State issure period. All church and state issues stem from the influence of a specific religion into government. However, saying "under god" does not promote chrisitianity or any specific religion.
But, once again I will state that have the goverment debate over such an issue is completely insane and a waste of taxpayer's time.
I too think that this is a waste of time & money. However, with a judicial branch, in the U.S. out of control, there needs to be some sort of check on what they can or can not do. The last time I read the Constitution, there is no where that states that the judicial branch should make law.
