BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist Pledge of Allegiance

But they do take it seriously, and more and more so all the time. Hence, there's no way they would ever "throw in" the Flying Spaghetti Monster for good measure.



More important issues than education? Such as what, art? In your book, the latter may be more important than the former. In mine, it is the reverse. If we allow the state to encroach upon our constitutionally protected rights, then how much longer will we be able to take freedom of speech and freedom of expression (including freedom to create expressive art) for granted? And what about science? Today all students are forced to do is repeat the pledge of allegiance, but there are communities right now where local and state politicians are contemplating teaching intelligent design and evolutionary theory side by side. If you're not concerned about state and local governments spending their time passing laws that give Christian fundamentalists more power over public school policies and curriculum, so be it. But I for one think the topic warrants a fairly significant discussion.



But you forget that words have connotations as well as denotations, and that many words have multiple meanings. Also, sometimes people use words incorrectly, so it is wise, if their use of it appears to conflict with the generally accepted definition, to ask them how they define it (which is more polite than telling them they apparently don't know the meaning of the word.)



If I recall, the way the State of Texas gets around it is by offering parents the choice of requesting in writing that their child not be required to recite the pledge. It is poorly publicized, and given the growing climate of fundamentalism here in Texas, many students who fear being singled out as a non-Christian would be hesitant to handle it in this manner.



Why don't you throw in an ad hominem attack or a red herring while you're at it? Come on, I did indeed try to draw attention to the fact that you're statement in and of itself sounded like it was based on some extreme theory of submission to state authority, but I also fully expected you to reply with more clarity in your next response.



True, but just because I choose not to take on all criticisms of government that could be classified as violations of etiquette simultaneously does not mean that any criticism in particular should automatically be dismissed. Otherwise, no one would ever be able to discuss any single without being saddled with a host of other issues, in which case my complaints about kicking in someone's door for recreational drug use could be dismissed on the basis that it wasn't very nice to force people to swear allegiance to a God they don't believe in, but that's the government for you.



That's a very good question, and one that might elicit a variety of responses, I imagine. Why don't you ask that in a separate thread and see how everyone else feels? Drawing the line between courtesy and personal conviction is always tricky, and I imagine that theists have as hard a time with it as atheists do.

Allow me to clarify. I believe there are more important issues with the pledge of allegiance than the diety reference. That's it. Nothing to do with the context or location of the recitation.



On the contrary, that's exactly why there needs to be agreement on terms before any discussion can be fruitful. Otherwise, we just talk past each other.

Once again, I apologize if I have insulted you or have in any way elevated your irritation level. It was never my intent to imply that you lack knowledge of, insight into, or skill with the English language. We may disagree about some few points of philosophy, but never about your honesty, industry, or ingenuity.



Although I may shift positions or attempt to play the Devil's advocate, I think that during my (admittedly brief) time on this forum, I believe I have been consistently individualistic, sometimes to the point of misanthropy, and definitely anti-authoritarian. I would appreciate it if you would demonstrate how the original statement derived from a theory of submission to state authority.



Oh alright. If the board gets boring before I have a chance to wite it up, feel free to go ahead.

Here in Aus, we have an Oath of Allegiance and a Pledge of Allegiance. The Oath is "under God", the Pledge omits the word "god". It's free choice which one you use. As far as I'm aware, the only time the oath/pledge is said is at Citizenship ceremonies where new Aussies commit to the country and current Aussies (there to support friends who are becoming citizens) reaffirm their commitment to the country. We're more likely to sing the national anthem (and Waltzing Mathilda) in schools and public events.

I don't know all the words to the American pledge, but the idea that school students are forced to say something like that, and that they are required to vow to a god they may not believe in is rather ridiculous.

If that part of the pledge had been there from the start, I'd chalk it up to tradition, rather like the wording on coins. Since it was added, I think, personally, that there can just be two versions. In government events, and any event where people want to pledge without mentioning God, they can use the original version. Those who believe in God and are in an appropriate setting, such as a church event, can keep it in.

It wouldn't offend me to leave it out--if I could remember--in the appropriate settings, but I'd like to have it in where it's acceptable. Why do we have to have one version?

I don't think we necessarily have to have one version, but since students recite the pledge in unison, it's easier to have everyone repeating the same thing. This does bring up a less official way of getting around the whole "under God" thing, however, which is either to mumble through or simply leave out the words you object to. This is more or less what I do on the occasions when I'm volunteering in the school library in the mornings - I face the flag, sort of place my hand over my heart, and halfheartedly recite the pledge minus the "under God" addition. As for the Texas pledge, I generally shrug it off entirely, but remain standing quietly while those around me recite it.

This always leaves me feeling a little uneasy, however. On the one hand, it seems like bad form for a school volunteer to refuse to even stand for the pledge. Even as an adult, I still hesitate to openly rebel against school rules. On the other hand, I resent the fact that students are required by law to recite the pledge. This again brings up the question of ethics vs. etiquette, but Nechochwen has already started a separate thread on that.

WOW what a great topic I guess it all depends on what exactly the United States Flag means to you and your family. My son is not currently in school but when he was he would say "One nation under many gods". In my opinion on this subject I think you can teach your children how to get along with it instead of making a big problem about it and I think it really is highly disrespectful not to stand when you see the flag. By standing you show appreciation to all the men and women who make it possible for you to say what you want to and not get thrown in the slammer We also stand for prayer even though we don't believe in one god, again we do it out of respect for others. I think somewhere along the way we have become very rude to each other and this is a perfect example.

I'm not sure I agree that forced compliance with standing to salute and swear allegiance to a piece of material merely because it is a symbol of the nation I am a loyal citizen of, especially if I'm required to utter an untruth in order to do it, is rude. Which is ruder: Passing a state law (in a nation that otherwise guarantees freedom of religion) mandating that people of other religions and beliefs systems be forced to pledge allegiance to the nation with wording that conforms to your religious beliefs alone, or quietly disobeying the law that requires you do to do?

Now, would I refuse to stand for the flag during the funeral of a soldier who served our country? No way. Would I encourage my kids to make rude noises or act disrespectfully when others voluntarily repeat the pledge of allegiance to "one nation under God"? Of course not. But I hate that my children are literally forced by law (here in Texas, at least) to do something that, in the case of my son, goes against there own beliefs system in direct violation of their constitutionally protected rights, and that even simply refraining to participate in said violation gets them accused of being rude and, even worse, could get them kicked out of public schools.

The whole thing is ridiculous. I mean, I'm all for etiquette, but the Texas school system has gone too far. And it's not just atheists and pagans who don't like the Pledge of Allegiance, there are Christians who find the pledge objectionable, too. The etiquette rationalization for this strikes me as a red herring. With all the [censored] kids get away with in school these days, are you seriously going to tell me that you think swearing allegiance to a symbolic scrap of material while uttering words that make your stomach turn is necessary in order to teach kids to be polite? I just don't buy that argument. Before the Texas state legislature passed these laws, I was fine with kids simply abstaining from the pledge if they didn't like it. But now that it's come down to forced compliance, I'm not so sure I'm happy with simply opting out any more.

(Not that I hold you personally responsible for any of this, CrochetQueen, or that I'm even suggesting that you're in agreement with the Texas Legislature. But I hope you see what I mean!)

I understand perfectly what you are saying again there are alot of things that we are certainly "forced" to do (like seatbelts, taxes, etc.) We don't all like it but some of them have very high consequences if we don't comply. I guess if you really feel that strongly about it and saying the pledge and standing for the flag means nothing to you then you have every right not to do it. I think the flag means different things to everybody.