House OKs bill guarding Pledge from courts (page 2)

undercover

I don't think there should be a law to force people to say it nor to protect people from not having to say it. I think it should be a personal decision and no one should be judged for what they do.

I know JWs have been ridiculed and persecuted for not pleding allegiance to the flag, but despite the misguided reasons for why they did it, they have every right to not join in if they don't want to. But instead of a group forcing members to not say it, it should be each individual's decision.

Having left behind a lot of the nonsense that was JW thinking and acting, the one thing that I still do not do is pledge allegiance to the flag. I stand respectfully for it as I do the national anthem. But I do not place my hand over my heart nor recite the words.

I lived a life pleding allegiance to an organization that lied to me. I will never pledge allegiance to anything but myself and my immediate family ever again. I'm not going to blindly follow anyone or anything. I respect the governement (to a point), I obey the laws (most of em) and I do love living in a somewhat free society. But I will not blindly give allegiance or worship to any one thing or person that can be corrupt or sometimes just plain wrong.

kid-A

"However, saying "under god" does not promote chrisitianity or any specific religion".

Irrelevant. It clearly promotes "deism" and a belief in the supernatural. This implies that the 29.4 million Americans who do not believe in a god, are somehow not members of this "nation under god". Even if atheists could care less, it still does not undermine my original point that the term "god" is completely and utterly generic and nebulous without the specific religious context being provided for which said hypothetical god purports to represent. Why not simply say "One nation, of the people" ???? or something along those lines?

And secondly, if the pledge became a legal requirement for citizens, with this wording, then it most certainly would be a case of the church interfering with the state. The "State" is a secular entity, having nothing to do with "god". God, is the domain of the church.

anewme

Funny, I brought up this court debate yesterday with my new "worldly" husband. He espouses no particular religion and never contributes to any discussion on the subject of religion.
But he doesnt hate religion.

He said he felt the expression "one nation under God" should remain.
After all how long could a nation last in this climate without thinking God cared for it?
He feels those who object should refrain from that one line (after all they are offending no one)...and respect the fact that the nation is "indivisible" and stronger because of the freedoms and allowance for diversity.

XJW4EVR

He feels those who object should refrain from that one line (after all they are offending no one)...and respect the fact that the nation is "indivisible" and stronger because of the freedoms and allowance for diversity.

Wow, I seem to remember a number of liberals telling those of us that are offended by so-called "art" of crucifixes submerged in the "artists" urine to do the same. Obviously, they are either unwilling or incapable of doing what they say.

Bstndance

He feels those who object should refrain from that one line (after all they are offending no one)...and respect the fact that the nation is "indivisible" and stronger because of the freedoms and allowance for diversity.

That's a perfect compromise. Often when one negotiates a contract, one would cross out lines that they do not wish to adhere by.

This implies that the 29.4 million Americans who do not believe in a god, are somehow not members of this "nation under god"

Yes, but you will offend 270 million Americans. I am one of those 29.4 and I know for a fact I'm part of this nation. The whole point of separation of church and state was not pure secularism as we see in France (ie: forbidding Hajabs and Crosses in school). The point of it was to keep out the Churches influence from the goverment (ie: teaching bible classes in school, ten commandments displays, creationism in school, laws that require certain religious codes, forbidding gay marriage based on biblical principles).

Kenneson

The majority of the founding fathers were not anti-God, nor anti-religion. Separation of church and state was not an effort to remove God and religion from society.

DanTheMan

He feels those who object should refrain from that one line (after all they are offending no one)...and respect the fact that the nation is "indivisible" and stronger because of the freedoms and allowance for diversity.
Wow, I seem to remember a number of liberals telling those of us that are offended by so-called "art" of crucifixes submerged in the "artists" urine to do the same. Obviously, they are either unwilling or incapable of doing what they say.

An analogy so pitifully false, it made me lol

House OKs bill guarding Pledge from courts