NBC and the "Pledge of Allegiance"

[Kathryn]

Are you arguing with me? (That is a question)

No, I'm not arguing with you. I am debating with you. This is a religious debate forum.

How does one have freedom of religion not than mean they can be free from religion?

Sure you can be free of religion if you so desire. But my point is that our government protects freedom OF religion - it does not guarantee freedom FROM religion.

It's a small, but significant difference.

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?

Well, of course. Never said otherwise.

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.

Your English teacher would strangle you for this sentence. Sorry, but I can't decipher what exactly you're saying that it seems I think.

So I'll just tell you what I think as plainly as possible. I don't think religious preference or a lack thereof makes any American inferior or superior or with more or fewer rights than any other American.

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.

If I was trying to say that, I would just say it. I didn't say it because I don't believe it. In fact, why would you think I was saying that? Please show me ANYTHING I've said that even slightly implies that.

Wow.

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.

Any American can refuse to say all or part of the pledge. No one is forced to say it by law or edict.

 

[Kathryn]

.

excuse me, when did i mention the pledge?

Hmmm, I thought we were discussing the pledge. That is, after all, the topic of the entire thread. You didn't have to specifically mention it in order for it to be a relevant part of our discussion. It's what the discussion is ABOUT.

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..

This is a hilarious rant, though I doubt you meant it to be. I am not responsible for ANY of those things and couldn't give a rat's *** whether they're included or not.

 

[Sententia]

Sure you can be free of religion if you so desire. But my point is that our government protects freedom OF religion - it does not guarantee freedom FROM religion. It's a small, but significant difference.

Again how does one have freedom of religion not than mean they can be free from religion?

The guarantee that a citizen can practice any religion of their choosing even those that would contradict each other includes the choice of not practicing any religion.

If I was trying to say that, I would just say it. I didn't say it because I don't believe it. In fact, why would you think I was saying that? Please show me ANYTHING I've said that even slightly implies that.

Its the pledge in general. The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is supposed to be "an oath of loyalty to the national flag and the Republic of the United States of America". It was amended to include the words "Under God" and as such fails in its original purpose and is little more than another silly prayer.

Clearly not all Americans that would pledge their loyalty to United States believe in god. Imagine if it said "Under Allah" or "Under Thor".

 

[waitasec]

classic red herring...

Freedom of religion did NOT mean freedom FROM religion.

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...

For starters, I haven't argued a single whit about including "under God" in the pledge.

excuse me, when did i mention the pledge?

Hmmm, I thought we were discussing the pledge. That is, after all, the topic of the entire thread. You didn't have to specifically mention it in order for it to be a relevant part of our discussion. It's what the discussion is ABOUT.

ad hominem....hmmm, wonder why?
does the pledge even mention religion?
oh yeah that's right, you did...:yes:
right now, i could care less of what you think about the pledge...
i quoted this...

Freedom of religion did NOT mean freedom FROM religion.

so kathryn, what do you mean by this? that people have to put up with religion even though they are not religious? how is that not saying
those who adhere to religion can exercise this freedom while those that do not adhere to religion are subjected to it? it is a double standard you know...

 

[Draka]

so kathryn, what do you mean by this? that people have to put up with religion even though they are not religious? how is that not saying
those who adhere to religion can exercise this freedom while those that do not adhere to religion are subjected to it? it is a double standard you know...

I don't understand why it appears so hard for some people to understand what Kathryn is saying. Look, everyone has freedom of religion. That statement alone means that everyone has the freedom to decide what they do and don't believe in and no one is forced or expected to go to a certain church or believe a certain way. You have as much a right to not believe in any concept of deity as she has to believe in a monotheistic deity and I have to believe in a panentheistic/polytheistic view of deity. No one, however, has a right to be free from being exposed to different religions. You will always be exposed to different beliefs, just as others are exposed to your criticism of those beliefs. You have no right to be free from my personal expression of my religion by insisting that I not wear my pentacle in public or even have a ritual in a public park. You have no right to not be exposed to Kathryn perhaps praying beside you on a bus. Religion, in some form or another, will always be around you and you will always be exposed to it BECAUSE people have freedom of religion to believe and worship as they desire. I have freedom of religion to believe how I want, but I do not have freedom "from" religion because that would impede others' freedom "of" religion. I hope you understand this concept now, or are some still going to insist that "of" and "from" are the same thing?

 

[doppelganger]

No one, however, has a right to be free from being exposed to different religions. You will always be exposed to different beliefs, just as others are exposed to your criticism of those beliefs. You have no right to be free from my personal expression of my religion by insisting that I not wear my pentacle in public or even have a ritual in a public park. You have no right to not be exposed to Kathryn perhaps praying beside you on a bus. Religion, in some form or another, will always be around you and you will always be exposed to it BECAUSE people have freedom of religion to believe and worship as they desire. I have freedom of religion to believe how I want, but I do not have freedom "from" religion because that would impede others' freedom "of" religion. I hope you understand this concept now, or are some still going to insist that "of" and "from" are the same thing?

Well, to be clear, the Constitutional clause in question protects neither "freedom OF religion" or "freedom FROM religion." It protects against the Establishment of any religion through the artifice of government. So you're right that there's nothing in the Constitution that protects you from having to listen to differing religious viewpoints. There IS however, something that protects you from having to listen to them from the government or government officials acting in their official capacities.

Thus, mandating students at government funded schools to profess belief in monotheistic deities seems like it violates the Establishment Clause.

In addition, there is the "Free Exercise Clause" which prohibits the government from interfering with one's religious beliefs and practices. Again, this does not protect you from other people in general professing what they believe, but it does protect you from the government telling you what you should profess to believe or practice.

 

[waitasec]

No one, however, has a right to be free from being exposed to different religions. You will always be exposed to different beliefs, just as others are exposed to your criticism of those beliefs.

that isn't what i'm saying. not at all. of course i will be exposed to it that is obvious. what i'm talking about is being subjected to it...not being exposed to it, it's why this thread exists in the 1st place...the OP complained that "under god"was omitted from the pledge...the pledge is for americans not for religious americans..."so help me god" at the end of the nationalization oath is not for those who are religious who happened to be new citizens..."in god we trust" isn't just for those who have money and are religious...
do you see what i mean? anything having to do with uniting americans should never have anything to do with "any god" whatsoever...it is unconstitutional...if we keep keep these things neutral it includes all those who call themselves american...
:rainbow1:

 

[waitasec]

Well, to be clear, the Constitutional clause in question protects neither "freedom OF religion" or "freedom FROM religion." It protects against the Establishment of any religion through the artifice of government. So you're right that there's nothing in the Constitution that protects you from having to listen to differing religious viewpoints. There IS however, something that protects you from having to listen to them from the government or government officials acting in their official capacities.

Thus, mandating students at government funded schools to profess belief in monotheistic deities seems like it violates the Establishment Clause.

In addition, there is the "Free Exercise Clause" which prohibits the government from interfering with one's religious beliefs and practices. Again, this does not protect you from other people in general professing what they believe, but it does protect you from the government telling you what you should profess to believe or practice.

this i wholeheartedly agree with 100%
:clap

 

[Willamena]

A small bit about the pledge from Wikipedia (much is left out)

. . . . . . The phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §7 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942."

SOURCE
​

What raises my eyebrow is that it required a "joint resolution of congress" to enact an amendment to a flag code.

 

[Draka]

that isn't what i'm saying. not at all. of course i will be exposed to it that is obvious. what i'm talking about is being subjected to it...not being exposed to it, it's why this thread exists in the 1st place...the OP complained that "under god"was omitted from the pledge...the pledge is for americans not for religious americans..."so help me god" at the end of the nationalization oath is not for those who are religious who happened to be new citizens..."in god we trust" isn't just for those who have money and are religious...
do you see what i mean? anything having to do with uniting americans should never have anything to do with "any god" whatsoever...it is unconstitutional...if we keep keep these things neutral it includes all those who call themselves american...
:rainbow1:

Which seems silly that you were trying to argue this point with Kathryn then because she never said otherwise. You guys got on a "of" and "from" kick that went totally off the Pledge. In fact, when she mentioned it (the Pledge) you pointed out that you guys weren't even talking about that. If you were, then say that. Of course the government is supposed to be secular and should not have religious things incorporated within it. That much has been said all over this thread...and even by Kathryn herself. What went on with her past that point was beating a dead horse that wasn't even in the race.

As to your point...that's simply called separation of Church and State. Not Freedom "from" religion anyway. So harping on the point that freedom of religion and freedom from religion were the same thing...was pretty nuts. At least in my observing opinion.

 

[waitasec]

Which seems silly that you were trying to argue this point with Kathryn then because she never said otherwise. You guys got on a "of" and "from" kick that went totally off the Pledge. In fact, when she mentioned it (the Pledge) you pointed out that you guys weren't even talking about that. If you were, then say that. Of course the government is supposed to be secular and should not have religious things incorporated within it. That much has been said all over this thread...and even by Kathryn herself. What went on with her past that point was beating a dead horse that wasn't even in the race.

As to your point...that's simply called separation of Church and State. Not Freedom "from" religion anyway. So harping on the point that freedom of religion and freedom from religion were the same thing...was pretty nuts. At least in my observing opinion.

i quoted the part i reacted to which is freedom of not freedom from.
my original response was it is all about freedom in any capacity when dealing with religion...and that is why i didn't respond to the rest of her post...
i wanted her to explain how she reconciled the idea that when it comes to religion, only those that practice religion have freedoms while those who do not have to put up an shut up. it is for this very reason there was a time, up until recently, that an atheist couldn't testify in court...it's these things that i take issue with...not praying on the bus or even having a prayer group in school...that's fine by me.
there is a notion running around out there that says this country was based on "christian principles", how could it not? why is christmas a federal holiday and why does congress open their session with prayer to the christian god..? all those other things i listed undermine individual freedom...and why did the OP say people should get fired for deleting "under god" in the pledge?

as far as kicking a dead horse...i reacted to kathryn...i'm all for anyone joining in the party but i cannot read everyones post that are being displayed that isn't a apart of the discourse i'm involved with...that's how i operate.

 

[Draka]

i wanted her to explain how she reconciled the idea that when it comes to religion, only those that practice religion have freedoms while those who do not have to put up an shut up.

I never once saw her say that at all. I think you twisted things to try to make out like she said that. You put words in her mouth she simply did not say.

Everyone has freedom to believe what they want. Including atheists. And everyone must "put up and shut up" as you put it, when it comes to accepting that others believe differently, including those who are of a majority religion. No one has to "put up and shut up" when it comes to making sure the government adheres to its own constitution though.

Kathryn did not say you must accept god being referenced in the government. She did not put "In God We Trust" on our money or "Under God" in the Pledge. She even said that if you don't like it then you are free to do something about it. Corning her and putting words in her mouth is simply not going to accomplish anything but making you look argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.

Now, speaking as someone who wasn't even IN the particular conversation (I commented and responded to others in the thread but not in this go around) I can't help but notice one hell of a "jump on Kathryn" thing going on and I simply did not see one thing she actually said that really warranted such a response.

People want to jump on someone here? Jump on the ones who profess that this is a Christian nation with Christian ideals. Jump on the people who insist that "Under God" should be in the Pledge. Kathryn has said neither.


Oh, and to Kathryn, sorry. Not to insinuate that you can't defend yourself, but I just thought this whole thing was getting a bit more than absurd and just couldn't hold my tongue.

 

[waitasec]

I never once saw her say that at all. I think you twisted things to try to make out like she said that. You put words in her mouth she simply did not say.

Everyone has freedom to believe what they want. Including atheists. And everyone must "put up and shut up" as you put it, when it comes to accepting that others believe differently, including those who are of a majority religion. No one has to "put up and shut up" when it comes to making sure the government adheres to its own constitution though.

Kathryn did not say you must accept god being referenced in the government. She did not put "In God We Trust" on our money or "Under God" in the Pledge. She even said that if you don't like it then you are free to do something about it. Corning her and putting words in her mouth is simply not going to accomplish anything but making you look argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.

Now, speaking as someone who wasn't even IN the particular conversation (I commented and responded to others in the thread but not in this go around) I can't help but notice one hell of a "jump on Kathryn" thing going on and I simply did not see one thing she actually said that really warranted such a response.

People want to jump on someone here? Jump on the ones who profess that this is a Christian nation with Christian ideals. Jump on the people who insist that "Under God" should be in the Pledge. Kathryn has said neither.


Oh, and to Kathryn, sorry. Not to insinuate that you can't defend yourself, but I just thought this whole thing was getting a bit more than absurd and just couldn't hold my tongue.

draka i appreciate what you are saying...
i'm not jumpin on kathryn per se...looking back i can see how different people reacted to the same thing i reacted to.

this is what she posted and i will highlight what i responded to

Sure, why not?

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.

did she mention those who do not adhere to a religious doctrine are exposed to this same freedom?
no she didn't...the set up to that was that atheism was a rare mindset, i want to know what that has to do with the tea in china...
which is why i responded with what i said, because contrary to what she said, there are those who do not adhere to any religion... and are subjected to these very real things that i have presented.

and consider what doppelgänger said so well...

Well, to be clear, the Constitutional clause in question protects neither "freedom OF religion" or "freedom FROM religion." It protects against the Establishment of any religion through the artifice of government. So you're right that there's nothing in the Constitution that protects you from having to listen to differing religious viewpoints. There IS however, something that protects you from having to listen to them from the government or government officials acting in their official capacities.

Thus, mandating students at government funded schools to profess belief in monotheistic deities seems like it violates the Establishment Clause.

In addition, there is the "Free Exercise Clause" which prohibits the government from interfering with one's religious beliefs and practices. Again, this does not protect you from other people in general professing what they believe, but it does protect you from the government telling you what you should profess to believe or practice.

:rainbow1:

 

[waitasec]

"NBC must remedy this abuse by airing a series of public service announcement(s) with the entire Pledge of Allegiance," read an e-mail blast sent Tuesday from council President Tony Perkins.

"Please join me in contacting NBC and demanding that the network air a daily public service announcement with the entire Pledge of Allegiance."

The Washington-based Family Research Council says its mission is to advance "faith, family and freedom in public policy and public opinion." The group is best known for its strong objections to same-sex marriage and abortion. It's a powerful political force among conservative evangelicals.

check out some of the responses
"JAMES
i am surprised the liberals haven't submitted a bill to change the words to under..satan."
June 23, 2011 at 9:05 pm

JustJosh
Our Founding Fathers added God to the pledge in 1954, and I will NOT stand by and let y'all devil worshippers restore the pledge to its Constltutionally-correct format! Gays, too... Definitely something about them gays!

June 23, 2011 at 8:58 pm |




NBC apology on Pledge of Allegiance doesn't satisfy Family Research Council – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

 

[blackout]

They have absolutely nothing at all to apologize for.

If it was ok for the Knights of Columbus (and others)
to ADD 'under god'
when it was not in the official pledge,
then it's just as ok for NBC to leave it out now.
Besides which,
they are in the constitutional right.
(regarding the Establishment Clause)

 

[Revoltingest]

An apology might be in order just because they cut out a portion of the event without notice.
After all, TV stations announce that they've altered movies to fit time slots & other standards.
Meh...no big deal. Bowdlerizing is normal.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I wonder if NBC edited out the last sentence of Obama's speech last night?

He closed with, "God bless America".

 

[tumbleweed41]

I wonder if NBC edited out the last sentence of Obama's speech last night?

He closed with, "God bless America".

Just an expression of his personal beliefs.

Whereas the inclusion of "under God" in the Congressionally mandated Pledge of Allegiance is a Federal endorsement of monotheistic religions.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I wonder if NBC edited out the last sentence of Obama's speech last night?

He closed with, "God bless America".

Or maybe he just says that to hide his Islamic beliefs





(kidding)

 

[waitasec]

Or maybe he just says that to hide his Islamic beliefs





(kidding)

you know there are those who actually believe that...

it bugs me that he does it though...