NBC and the "Pledge of Allegiance"

[Sunstone]

The distinction between freedom from religion and freedom of religion seems to me to be based on whim and not supported by the words of any notable Founder, especially Jefferson or Madison -- both of whom played key roles in the establishment of our Constitutional rights.Consequently, I live for the day the revisionist historians and their followers can back up their easy claims with hard evidence. But I only hope to live that long. I do not expect to exceed the natural life span by as many centuries as it would take them.

 

[gnomon]

The distinction between freedom from religion and freedom of religion seems to me to be based on whim and not supported by the words of any notable Founder, especially Jefferson or Madison -- both of whom played key roles in the establishment of our Constitutional rights.Consequently, I live for the day the revisionist historians and their followers can back up their easy claims with hard evidence. But I only hope to live that long. I do not expect to exceed the natural life span by as many centuries as it would take them.

May I present to you my thread in the Historical Debates section on James Monroe's Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessment.

I'm just trying to pad the post view count there.

 

[blackout]

ahhh... I found it....

In 2006, in the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, 434 F.Supp.2d 1350 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006), a federal district court in Florida ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.[25] As a result of that decision, a Florida school district was ordered to pay $32,500 to a student who chose not to say the pledge and was ridiculed and called "unpatriotic" by a teacher.[26]

 

[blackout]

There is, however, a prohibition of the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.

Thus the inclusion of "under God" seems to be a preference or establishment, by the U.S. Government of, at the very least, monotheistic religions over any other religion.

very true.

It also seems to point to the idea that there IS only one monotheistic God.

The pantheistic version?

"one nation, gOd," .....

The athiest version?

"one nation, under NO god,..."

 

[blackout]

the polytheistic version...

"one nation, inclusive of many gods,...."

 

[blackout]

The Purple Fairy version,

"one nation, under many delusions,..."

 

[Gunny]

The so called "regrettable" editing was deliberate and conscious on NBC's part, it is obvious. For me personally as a proud American citizen, I really don't like it when the words of this great nations' Pledge of Allegiance are tampered with by whom ever on public airways. To me it is almost in the same league as blasphemy, and yes this is both a legitimate and an emotional responce.

Look, if you don't like those words in this nation's oath of allegiance then do what I do, simply change the wording in your own mind like I do. I, instead of saying "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." I say "One nation under Set, indestructible, with Liberty and Justice for All." Don't try to enforce your personal beliefs upon others, it simply does not work. If the majority of the people of this nation, which btw was never meant to be a democracy= (mob rule) but was originally disigned to be a representative republic, want the wording of the Pledge changed then let them petition congress.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

Excellent and well thought-out post, sir. Thank you.

 

[blackout]

Excellent and well thought-out post, sir. Thank you.

But people are allowed to create momentum for a cause.

Just as the Knights of Columbus did
in reciting the pledge their own way,
and purposefully creating momentum
in attempting to get the phrase "under God"
put in, in the first place.

Would you have criticized them?
as you have NBC?

(of course that would be a double standard)

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree that altering the pledge is akin to blasphemy...which is also a true American tradition.

Perhaps for the immediate future, it should have, "....one nation, under water....".

 

[no-body]

I want to point out that I am not claiming that this country was founded as a Christian country, or even a religious country. However, atheism was a truly rare mindset during the time our country was being settled and our government was being formed. Freedom of religion did NOT mean freedom FROM religion. The vast majority of citizens, and political leaders, considered religious freedom - in other words, our right to practice any religion we choose freely and openly - to be a very important component to our existence, and our future, as a nation.

Probably because admitting Atheism would make you a social pariah. Many of the founding fathers where very slick in choosing Deism as their religion.

And if you really want to nitpick lets get into how "all men are created equal" really meant "all land owning white men are created equal"

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well by now I am sure that most people have heard of NBC's blatant disregard of the Pledge Of Allegiance during the US Open Golf programing by purposely editing out "under God" not once but twice. NBC says that they apologize for the "regrettable" editing. Yeah right. As far as I am concerned it is time for heads to roll at NBC.

It's more offend-able to leave it in than take it out...

Leaving it in would mean it is required to be theist in this country, leaving it out doesn't mean anything.

 

[waitasec]

Freedom of religion did NOT mean freedom FROM religion. The vast majority of citizens, and political leaders, considered religious freedom - in other words, our right to practice any religion we choose freely and openly - to be a very important component to our existence, and our future, as a nation.

i wonder how you are able to reconcile this contradiction...it's about establishing our freedoms when it has to do with religion in any capacity...period...seems perddy obvious to me.
otherwise you are implying those who adhere to religion can exercise this freedom while those that do not adhere to religion are subjected to it...

 

[Engyo]

i wonder how you are able to reconcile this contradiction...it's about establishing our freedoms when it has to do with religion in any capacity...period...seems perddy obvious to me.
otherwise you are implying those who adhere to religion can exercise this freedom while those that do not adhere to religion are subjected to it...

Many people seem to feel that they are free to expose their religion to others, but they do not wish to be exposed themselves to others' religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Would you be offended, for example, to hear me say 'one nation, under Buddha' during a recitation of the pledge?

Would it offend you to hear a devout Muslim citizen of this country say 'one nation, under Allah'?

 

[Father Heathen]

I agree that altering the pledge is akin to blasphemy...which is also a true American tradition.

Perhaps for the immediate future, it should have, "....one nation, under water....".

I find it funny how people think that desecrating the pledge by adding "under god" back in 1954 is acceptable, but reverting back to its original, intended version is some now disgraceful.

When it comes to this country's greatness, hocus pocus notions do not fit into the equation. If anything they've always been detrimental to the nations values (rights, liberty, equality, justice, etc.)

 

[Sententia]

Sure, why not?

However, atheism was a truly rare mindset during the time our country was being settled and our government was being formed.

What does that have to do with anything? It was also rare to think of black people as being free. (Amendment 1 vrs 13)

Freedom of religion did NOT mean freedom FROM religion.

How do you have freedom of religion without freedom from religion?

The vast majority of citizens, and political leaders, considered religious freedom - in other words, our right to practice any religion we choose freely and openly - to be a very important component to our existence, and our future, as a nation.

What does that imply to you? Are you saying that in order to be an American you must pick a religion? (That would be an odd thing to claim in a country with a 10-20% atheist population that prides itself on freedom)

A 2004 BBC poll showed the number of people in the US who don't believe in a god to be about 9%.[9] A 2008 Gallup poll showed that a smaller 6% of the US population believed that no god or universal spirit exists. The most recent ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion. Of which, 1.6% explicitly describe themselves as atheist (0.7%) or agnostic (0.9%), nearly double the previous 2001 ARIS survey figure of 0.9%.[29] The highest occurrence of "nones", according to the 2008 ARIS report, reside in Vermont, with 34% surveyed

The highlighted blue sentence is my own emphasis and only as a side note unrelated to my response. DAE find that interesting considering some of the recent news articles? Most notably single payer health care? ( Vermont Creates Universal, Single-Payer Health Care System | Neon Tommy )

 

[Kathryn]

i wonder how you are able to reconcile this contradiction...it's about establishing our freedoms when it has to do with religion in any capacity...period...seems perddy obvious to me.
otherwise you are implying those who adhere to religion can exercise this freedom while those that do not adhere to religion are subjected to it...

How am I implying anything of the sort? Oh, I keep forgetting - you like to shove words into my mouth.

For starters, I haven't argued a single whit about including "under God" in the pledge. It was an unnecessary addition based on fears of communism during a particularly paranoid and unstable time in our country's history, and it adds nothing of value to the pledge, and is more a divider than a unifier.

As for whatever sort of contradiction you're talking about (and I don't see one) - I don't see anyone being forced by the state to practice any sort of religion.

But if by that you mean that you might actually HEAR or OBSERVE someone else practicing their religion - well, yes, there's always that possibility in a country which embraces freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. But no one is forcing you to actively participate, any more than I would be forced to kneel in the direction of Mecca if suddenly people around me started doing so. But it would be intolerant of me to want to stop them from their own form of worship.

 

[Kathryn]

What does that have to do with anything? It was also rare to think of black people as being free. (Amendment 1 vrs 13)

I was merely discussing the general mindset of the founding fathers. Not defending it - just discussing it, since it was a topic of conversation.

How do you have freedom of religion without freedom from religion?

Do you honestly think they are the same thing?

You are free to have freedom FROM religion in your own home and on your own property. But our government only guarantees you freedom OF religion - which means that you may well be exposed to the beliefs of others as they freely and openly practice their religion.

What does that imply to you? Are you saying that in order to be an American you must pick a religion?

Errr, no. That's an odd conclusion to jump to.

 

[waitasec]

Many people seem to feel that they are free to expose their religion to others, but they do not wish to be exposed themselves to others' religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Would you be offended, for example, to hear me say 'one nation, under Buddha' during a recitation of the pledge?

Would it offend you to hear a devout Muslim citizen of this country say 'one nation, under Allah'?

personally i would prefer the original version...
one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all (not the majority or minority but for all)...if we keep it neutral we include everyone...

 

[waitasec]

How am I implying anything of the sort? Oh, I keep forgetting - you like to shove words into my mouth.

For starters, I haven't argued a single whit about including "under God" in the pledge. It was an unnecessary addition based on fears of communism during a particularly paranoid and unstable time in our country's history, and it adds nothing of value to the pledge, and is more a divider than a unifier.

excuse me, when did i mention the pledge?

As for whatever sort of contradiction you're talking about (and I don't see one) -

of course you don't...that's why you said what you said.

I don't see anyone being forced by the state to practice any sort of religion.

But if by that you mean that you might actually HEAR or OBSERVE someone else practicing their religion - well, yes, there's always that possibility in a country which embraces freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. But no one is forcing you to actively participate, any more than I would be forced to kneel in the direction of Mecca if suddenly people around me started doing so. But it would be intolerant of me to want to stop them from their own form of worship.

really?
take god off my money, my pledge and off my national anthem.
for petes sake, why does congress start with a prayer?
and of all things, why does the nationalization oath have "so help me god" in it...?
yes you are forcing me to actively participate...
stop it, because it's rude, don'tcha know...

 

[Sententia]

Do you honestly think they are the same thing?

You are free to have freedom FROM religion in your own home and on your own property. But our government only guarantees you freedom OF religion - which means that you may well be exposed to the beliefs of others as they freely and openly practice their religion.

Are you arguing with me? (That is a question) How does one have freedom of religion not than mean they can be free from religion? Americans can be American and atheist yes? Or Catholic? Muslim? Mormon? Satanist? Isn't that kind of the point? One can worship lucifer but stand in line behind one who worships jesus and both are still american?

It would seem to me that you are seeing freedom of religion as a belief that means you can pick one or not but America is religious and some of our laws might cater to the religious but the belief in god is an American belief and you might be born here but if you do not believe in god anymore than you are missing the essence of what our country is about. If you want to pledge allegiance to our country than you need to say "Under God"... If you don't say "Under God" then you are disrespecting the founding of our country. If that is what you are trying to say then it strikes me as insincere and un-american. Americans can be atheists and can refuse to say "Under God". When I was a Christian and a Jehovah Witness I was allowed to not recite the Pledge at all and not because I didn't believe in god and was still considered American.

Odd eh?