The Pledge of Allegiance

[Apex]

In the words of my 10th grade auditorium homeroom teacher one day long, long ago:  "Everyone in this room is under the protection of our American flag.  If you don't want to recite the Pledge, you don't have to, but you will stand in respect while the rest of us recite it."  He then got on with homeroom business with no further elaboration.

For the rest of the school year, the very few non-reciters always stood while the rest of us recited the Pledge.  

In my opinion, not reciting should be a personal choice,  but standing in respectful unison with others is just that.  It's not the only time in your life that you may need to show respect in a situation that you do not fully agree with.

[Felix/FFDS]

I get it. Texans think they're too good for the rest of us....

No.  It's  subtle differentiation ...

The rest of us aren't good enough to be Texans ...  if we were, we'd have moved there!

Bumper Snicker:  "American by birth, Texan by the Grace of God!"

[Fly2e]

[quote]OUTRAGE: SEPT. 14, 2005 A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

URGENT: PROTECT THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE! On June 25th, 2002, the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is

[Hagar]

It would be interesting to know what oath witnesses in the above courts are required to swear before giving evidence. Also how credible that evidence would be if they don't believe in whatever they swore to tell the truth by.

[RichieB16]

Also how credible that evidence would be if they don't believe in whatever they swore to tell the truth by.

What a fascinating point.  Doug, you seem to always give me new things to think about.  

[Hagar]

[quote]What a fascinating point.

[TacitBlue]

That reminds me of something. A freind of mine had to testify in court, and when they asked him to put his hand on the bible and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth ect... he told them that it wouldn't matter because he didn't follow that particular book but he intended to tell the truth. They wouldn't continue the hearing untill he swore the oath anyway.

According to him, this occured back in the 80s some time. They may not even do the bible thing anymore.

[Hagar]

Most of these oaths seem to depend on belief in some religion or other. This might have been fine when the majority of people in a community all believed in the same thing but this is often no longer the case. Take the chap referred to in Dave's quote. He professes to be an atheist so believes in no god. He has no obligation to reveal that unless it's relevant to the case so can choose whichever oath to take. It wouldn't matter which holy book he swore an oath on, if he doesn't believe in it I doubt he would worry about telling the truth or that taking the oath would make any difference whatsoever.

The whole thing seems farcical to me as I'm sure there are many deeply religious criminals who believe passionately in their god but still lie under oath.

[jordonj]

Ummm...just to set the historical record straight...

The Pledge as it was originally written did not include the "under God" in it.  That was, in fact, added in 1954, during the McCarthy era, thanks to a Knights of Columbus campaign.  And if you don't know about the McCarthy era, then visit this site or Google it...

At any rate, no Senate member dared voted against adding this provision during this time thanks to the fear sown by McCarthy (though it should be noted that McCarthyism did not occur in a vacuum, but I digress).

The Pledge also went through more than one change since the time it was written by Francis Bellamy (didn't know the author?  Shame on you!)

As can be found here:

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. ]

And regarding the change (adding "under God"):

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

Since the mods have joined in on this, I feel justified in pointing all this out.  Now as I see it, there are things I'd get into shouting matches over, but the "under God" part of the Pledge is not one of them...

[jordonj]

It would be interesting to know what oath witnesses in the above courts are required to swear before giving evidence. Also how credible that evidence would be if they don't believe in whatever they swore to tell the truth by.

There's a provision for that...they just ask you to "affirm" that you will tell the truth (blah blah blah).

My Dad (who is a judge) does not use "so help you God" when he swears in witnesses...

[Woodlouse2002]

If the constitution dictates that religion and the state be kept apart, and for that reason the theory of "intelligent design" is to be kept out of schools due to it's religious attachments then surely having the words "under God" in a pledge to be recited in schools is "unconstitutional" what ever that may mean.

Correct?

Or am I missing something?

[Felix/FFDS]

It would be interesting to know what oath witnesses in the above courts are required to swear before giving evidence. Also how credible that evidence would be if they don't believe in whatever they swore to tell the truth by.

I served in a jury recently.  The witnesses were simply sworn to tell the truth - no reference to deity or otherwise.  I think the trend is that the person has to swear to tell the truth on that person's own merits, or face the secular consquences thereof.  To me, that makes more sense.

[jordonj]

If the constitution dictates that religion and the state be kept apart, and for that reason the theory of "intelligent design" is to be kept out of schools due to it's religious attachments then surely having the words "under God" in a pledge to be recited in schools is "unconstitutional" what ever that may mean.

Correct?

Or am I missing something?

That is the arguement all right.

[Woodlouse2002]

That is the arguement all right.

If that is the case then what is the argument?

[jordonj]

If that is the case then what is the argument?

Depends on your point of view now, doesn't it?