Amazing.
So Americans can no longer recite their pledge in classrooms? Wow! Do children in Taiwan recite a pledge or anything similar, such as flag raising ceremony at school?
What about customs in other countries of posters?
First, 911. Now this. What’s next? Take “under God” off US currency too? Maybe the Devil (who is really Evlis Presley unplugged) lived! Spell it backwards!
…
Pledge Declared Unconstitutional
AP/USA
SAN FRANCISCO
I remember reciting the pledge of alligiance every day in high school in the states…in Russian. This was in the mid-80’s by the way. Just one of the many reasons I got tossed out o’ that party…
We used to have to go to chapel every day and say the Lord’s Prayer. On Sunday the service was a bit longer and we got to say the Creed: “I believe in God the Father almighty, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost…” Being an atheist, I felt that in saying that I believed in all these things, I was lying, and lying is wrong, right? So I just added the word “don’t” between “I” and “believe.”
In Britain there is no way teachers would hang a national flag in the classroom and make little children recite an oath of allegiance. That would be brainwashing, wouldn’t it? As practised in countries like the USA and China.
quote[quote] In Britain there is no way teachers would hang a national flag in the classroom and make little children recite an oath of allegiance. That would be brainwashing, wouldn't it? As practised in countries like the USA and China. [/quote]Ditto New Zealand.
Some nutter Education Minister back in the 70s tried making schools raise the flag, but most principals cooperated as little as they could get away with and people who didn’t like it kept chopping the flagpoles down. Don’t get me wrong. New Zealanders are generally very patriotic. We just don’t like being FORCED to be patriotic.
Bri
I think they can still say it, but no longer “under God”. That phrase was added later in the McCarthy Era. This was part of the spate of pro-religion legislation which resulted from the anti-atheist sentiments fueled by the fear of atheism generated during the McCarthy era, including (get this) the legislation allowing religious organizations to pay substantially less for postage than other nonprofits.
Check out the history: http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.
Some quotes:
The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, cousin of Edward Bellamy, the author of “Looking Backwards.” They were Christian Socialists.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, ‘under God,’ to the Pledge.
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.
well, it’s high time that americans learn the difference between god and spiritualism, isn’t it?
“god” is supposed to imply a sense of morality and ethical behavior in the pledge right? not an anthropomorphic god who’s better than another guy’s anthropomorphic god.
it never read, “under jesus”
I think it’s time Americans dump all that crap and learn from the Taiwanese. There’s nothing ambiguous about priorities or god or patriotism here.
No such patriotic crap in Germany either, i.e. no flags or pictures of (dead) politicans or former leaders in the hallways.
So what do we about the “In God we Trust” phrase?
Well, well: another addition from the 1950’s:
In God We Trust
The use of the national motto on both U.S. coins and currency notes is required by two statutes, 31 U.S.C. 5112(d) (1) and 5114(b), respectively. The motto was not adopted for use on U.S. paper currency until 1957. It first appeared on the 1935G Series $1 Silver Certificate, but didn’t appear on U.S. Federal Reserve Notes until the Series 1963 currency. This use of the national motto has been challenged in court many times over the years that it has been in use, and has been consistently upheld by the various courts of this country, including the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as 1977.
The New York Times said in an editorial today:
‘One Nation Under G-d’
Half a century ago, at the height of anti-Communist fervor, Congress added the words “under G-d” to the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a petty attempt to link patriotism with religious piety, to distinguish us from the godless Soviets. But after millions of repetitions over the years, the phrase has become part of the backdrop of American life, just like the words “In G-d We Trust” on our coins and “God bless America” uttered by presidents at the end of important speeches.
Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California ruled 2 to 1 that those words in the pledge violate the First Amendment, which says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The majority sided with Michael Newdow, who had complained that his daughter is injured when forced to listen to public school teachers lead students daily in a pledge that includes the assertion that there is a G-d.
This is a well-meaning ruling, but it lacks common sense. A generic two-word reference to God tucked inside a rote civic exercise is not a prayer. Mr. Newdow’s daughter is not required to say either the words “under God” or even the pledge itself, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1943 case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the pantheon of real First Amendment concerns, this one is off the radar screen.
The practical impact of the ruling is inviting a political backlash for a matter that does not rise to a constitutional violation. We wish the words had not been added back in 1954. But just the way removing a well-lodged foreign body from an organism may sometimes be more damaging than letting it stay put, removing those words would cause more harm than leaving them in. By late afternoon yesterday, virtually every politician in Washington was rallying loudly behind the pledge in its current form.
Most important, the ruling trivializes the critical constitutional issue of separation of church and state. There are important battles to be fought virtually every year over issues of prayer in school and use of government funds to support religious activities. Yesterday’s decision is almost certain to be overturned on appeal. But the sort of rigid overreaction that characterized it will not make genuine defense of the First Amendment any easier.
Soldiers of the German Wehrmacht wore a belt buckle inscribed with the motto “GOTT MIT UNS” (God is with us).
http://site27663.dellhost.com/Wehrmacht/HTML%20Pages/Equipment/buckle.html
God is obviously very popular with politicians as a means of securing the obedience of the masses…
Wasn’t it a French president who said :“Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer” ?
[quote]Wasn’t it a French president who said :“Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer”?[/quote]Voltaire.
Originally posted by O’Brian:
quote[quote]I think it's time Americans dump all that crap and learn from the Taiwanese. There's nothing ambiguous about priorities or god or patriotism here.[/quote] I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. One of the things I like most about Taiwan is that it, unlike the United States, isn't particularly infected with religious bigots with political agendas. But ambiguous priorities about patriotism? Taiwan's a textbook case, if ever there were one.
quote:
Originally posted by Rascal: No such patriotic crap in Germany either, i.e. no flags or pictures of (dead) politicans or former leaders in the hallways.
But you should know, Rascal, there is a certain area around a small town called Munich (though it’s not really Germany) where class rooms basically have to be “armed” with a crucifix to “defend” the “occidental values”…
Well, not that that area has anything to do with Germany…
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html
Well, THAT was long overdue!!!
[quote=“Dragonbones”]http://edition.CNN.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html
Well, THAT was long overdue!!![/quote]
San Francisco…why am I not surprised?
news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=u … earch+News
Those wacky libs - actually one guy in Marin county - are just so oppressed.
Its terrible that those enlighten elites have to share the same planet with the rest of us knuckle-dragging neanderthals…l…poor babies…having to see us as they gaze down from their Ivy covered towers…poor dears…
To understand the plight of the non-Christian in this situation, one need merely imagine the reverse case. How would you feel if your children were required to recite a pledge of national allegiance in an officially atheist country, a pledge which required them to deny the existence of God? Or to affirm another deity? Public schools simply have no place requiring children to affirm any particular religion, or even a generalized theism in which God is affirmed, without stating the obvious, that it is the Christian god and religion being affirmed. It is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Your right to worship, or not, as you please is something I respect. Please try to show the same respect to others.
Why should I show respect to those I consider little more than puffed up barbarians doing everything in their power to destroy Western Civilization? Personally, I think they should be stuck up against a wall and shot.