NY Times article links to the Boneyard

[Icebear]

How is it not a reference specifically to the christian god? Being that christian groups insisted on their gods inclusion in the pledge, they sure were not considering the Jews or muslims, and certainly not any asian gods, budda etc. Again how is this not an overt reference to the christian god ? I'm not trying to bust your chops, I am though wondering how you would come to the conclusion that it is not a reference specifically to christianity. You certainly do not need to answer if you feel inclined not to.

I would be inclined to say the Judeo-Christian God since there is one God but different doctrine between those two traditions. Some would even acknowledge Allah to be the same God what is clear, however, is that it is not paganism, Hinduism or any other religion or philosophy having multiple gods or no god.

Kib, your response reminds me of the scene in God Almighty when Jim Carey can't block out all the prayers of the masses as he fulfills God's role in the movie.

 

[HuskyNan]

Even worse if that was their purpose, they failed. Because it doesn't pledge to any church's faiths or beliefs. AGAIN it is a pledge to the flag and the republic.

This is not rocket science here. Heck it's not even janitorial science. Read the pledge, it says what it is pledging allegiance to. If you want a "Godly" pledge do the Pledge to the Christian Flag.

I will try once more -

The pledge of allegiance existed for decades without the phrase "under God". At that point, the pledge was to the flag and the Republic. In the 1950's, the Knights of Columbus lobbied to add "under God" for religious reasons, which was resisted by the government for a while. However, anti-Communist sentiments of the day convinced Eisenhower and Congress to add "under God" to prove the U.S. wasn't Godless like Communist countries. Therefore, the phrase was added specifically to show the United States citizens' fealty to God.

I don't know how you can read Eisenhower's quotes and say that the phrase wasn't intended to be religious in nature, I really can't.

 

[pinotbear]

The thought occurred to me that God should be permitted the luxury of enjoying the game(s) without being interrupted by customer service calls.

why did a scene from "Bruce Almighty" just pop into my head? +1, Kibitzer!

 

[meyers7]

The thought occurred to me that God should be permitted the luxury of enjoying the game(s) without being interrupted by customer service calls.

Brilliant line Kibitzer.

 

[meyers7]

And that national pledge makes a confession of the national relationship to God

Not necessarily. It says that this republic is under God (or under a creator if you will). Doesn't necessarily say this is a Judo-Christian nation. Doesn't say that there is a relationship to God. Doesn't say that we are under God's care. Some people may interpret it that way???

One may or may not believe there is a God above all nations. One may or may not believe there is justice and liberty for all (all though again people don't seem to have a problem with this). One would have a tougher time with indivisible since we tried that once and failed. (Although some could easily say we are a divided nation at least in political, social, etc terms, if not physically).

It is an unnecessary inclusion which divides instead of joins which is the very purpose of the Pledge and one for which it was well suited for over 6 decades.

Agreed.

 

[meyers7]

Well, I don't believe in God, meyers, and to me, adding "God" makes the pledge an implicit and explicit statement of belief in something I don't believe in.

And that is your interpretation/perception which is fine.

Sometimes I say just the non-God section.

Which is an excellent idea. One I would advocate people use. Or don't do the pledge at all.

 

[meyers7]

How is it not a reference specifically to the christian god? Being that christian groups insisted on their gods inclusion in the pledge, they sure were not considering the Jews or muslims, and certainly not any asian gods, budda etc. Again how is this not an overt reference to the christian god ? I'm not trying to bust your chops, I am though wondering how you would come to the conclusion that it is not a reference specifically to christianity. You certainly do not need to answer if you feel inclined not to.

Well first I was not talking about the christian god or which god is is referring to. I was saying "it just doesn't" affirm a faith in god (any god).

Now people can interpret whichever god they chose it to reference. Or just a creator in general. While it may reflect a lot of people's belief of a Christian god, it doesn't necessarily inherently. Only people's perception does that.

 

[meyers7]

I will try once more -

The pledge of allegiance existed for decades without the phrase "under God". At that point, the pledge was to the flag and the Republic. In the 1950's, the Knights of Columbus lobbied to add "under God" for religious reasons, which was resisted by the government for a while. However, anti-Communist sentiments of the day convinced Eisenhower and Congress to add "under God" to prove the U.S. wasn't Godless like Communist countries. Therefore, the phrase was added specifically to show the United States citizens' fealty to God.

I don't know how you can read Eisenhower's quotes and say that the phrase wasn't intended to be religious in nature, I really can't.

I'll try this once more myself. Please just type out the phrase in the Pledge where it says "I pledge allegiance to God." Or "I pledge allegiance to religion" (any religion, let alone a specific one).Or "I pledge allegiance to a faith". (I realize I will be waiting awhile. )

Doesn't matter what was intended, it matters what is reality (it is what it is ). And in reality there is no pledge to any god or religion or faith. Only to the flag and the republic, of which most of us on here belong.

 

[Icebear]

I'll try this once more myself. Please just type out the phrase in the Pledge where it says "I pledge allegiance to God." Or "I pledge allegiance to religion" (any religion, let alone a specific one).Or "I pledge allegiance to a faith". (I realize I will be waiting awhile. )

Doesn't matter what was intended, it matters what is reality (it is what it is ). And in reality there is no pledge to any god or religion or faith. Only to the flag and the republic, of which most of us on here belong.

So given your argument then the pledge really has no meaning whatsoever since the words "under God" can be dismissed so easily as having none of the meaning they were intended to have upon their insertion and as accorded to them in the historical record. Logically, if there is no meaning in these words "under God" at all then there is no reasonable purpose or meaning in using any of the words in the Pledge since they can be freely changed in their meaning and have no reality or permanence and have no possible means by which to unify the nation under a pledge of allegiance.

 

[HuskyNan]

Doesn't matter what was intended, it matters what is reality (it is what it is ). And in reality there is no pledge to any god or religion or faith. Only to the flag and the republic, of which most of us on here belong.

Well, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Many people do think that what was intended matters, while you don't. I don't know that this disparate point of views can be reconciled so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I will add this bit of info, though. As part of my MBA coursework, I took several marketing classes. A very important point was presented a few times - perception is reality. If people perceive something to be true, it becomes for them their reality. Your perception is that Congress' intentions don't matter when considering the "under God" phrase in the pledge, therefore your reality is that the Pledge of Allegiance is secular. However, others' reality is that by deliberately adding the phrase "under God", the Pledge was changed from a secular pledge to a religious one.

 

[ctchamps]

I would be inclined to say the Judeo-Christian God since there is one God but different doctrine between those two traditions. Some would even acknowledge Allah to be the same God what is clear, however, is that it is not paganism, Hinduism or any other religion or philosophy having multiple gods or no god.

Kib, your response reminds me of the scene in God Almighty when Jim Carey can't block out all the prayers of the masses as he fulfills God's role in the movie.

On an intellectual level, some people delineate between doctrines and God and conclude that the differences in the doctrines are human constructs about God that remain different because of an inability to find a resolution - that there may be an inaccuracy in the doctrine they align with as well as in the doctrines they don't align with. On an intellectual level this group believes that there may be a lack of understanding, or our misunderstanding, or a lack of all knowing about God that has led to these differences in doctrines and is the basis for the uncertainty about any doctrine but not about God. This group takes the position of humility about the doctrine it aligns itself with and believes the same God exists amongst all the doctrines. And this group believes God is more flexible about things then the members of the various groups are claiming.

But on a pragmatic level, I think there is only a small percentage of believers who can incorporate this intellectual process into the core of their being. The overwhelming majority of devout worshipers associates doctrine with God and believes thinking otherwise demonstrates a lack of reverence to God. This group believes the doctrine they align with is accurate and inviolate and the other doctrines to be false or inaccurate. With each group taking this position the result is a "fragmentation" of God or the human "creation" of new "Gods".

The consequence of this certainty of "their faith" is the tension that has existed between the believers of the various doctrines throughout history. This tension has resulted in acts of hostility between the different groups under the banner of their "respective Gods".

In addition, people who are upset with the consequences of these tensions, have assigned the tension to God as opposed to the potential for flawed doctrines that may be different than God. And as people become more free to express themselves, this has led into a rebellion not against the various human doctrines but against God itself.

 

[meyers7]

So given your argument then the pledge really has no meaning whatsoever since the words "under God" can be dismissed so easily as having none of the meaning they were intended to have upon their insertion and as accorded to them in the historical record. Logically, if there is no meaning in these words "under God" at all then there is no reasonable purpose or meaning in using any of the words in the Pledge since they can be freely changed in their meaning and have no reality or permanence and have no possible means by which to unify the nation under a pledge of allegiance.

Well seeing as how "The Pledge" has been changed already numerous times throughout history intended to affect whatever/whoever's current "political" (i.e. read NOT religious) agenda, then .....sure.

How about we just do the pledge? "I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands." (assuming for some reason we want or need a pledge at all)

 

[meyers7]

Well, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Many people do think that what was intended matters, while you don't. I don't know that this disparate point of views can be reconciled so we'll have to agree to disagree.

That's fine. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. As you have noted, I do have problems with people making "non-intelligent" arguments for their disagreements. ( e.g. I don't like water because it's too dry, or I don't like potato chips because they are too healthy, or I don't like to recite the pledge because I don't think we should be forced to pledge allegiance to God.) It's just one of my pet peeves.

As for intentions, hmmm. Let's say I intend to build a road from Springfield to Hartford. I state these intentions and then build a road from Boston to Springfield. What good where my intentions if they don't become reality?

"Defense of Fort McHenry" was intended to be a poem. But the reality is now, it's a national anthem. Intentions are "all well and good" (or not in some cases), but reality is reality.

UCONN women intended to win a national championship last year, do we have our eighth championship?

I will add this bit of info, though. As part of my MBA coursework, I took several marketing classes. A very important point was presented a few times - perception is reality. If people perceive something to be true, it becomes for them their reality. Your perception is that Congress' intentions don't matter when considering the "under God" phrase in the pledge, therefore your reality is that the Pledge of Allegiance is secular. However, others' reality is that by deliberately adding the phrase "under God", the Pledge was changed from a secular pledge to a religious one.

While all that is true, when marketing and a few other things. Reality is actually reality. People will perceive things many different ways, but there is only one reality. No matter how much one perceives a god, and no matter how much one perceives there is no god, neither one affect the reality of whether there is a god or not.

 

[Icebear]

Well seeing as how "The Pledge" has been changed already numerous times throughout history intended to affect whatever/whoever's current "political" (i.e. read NOT religious) agenda, then .....sure.

How about we just do the pledge? "I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands." (assuming for some reason we want or need a pledge at all)

Exactly.

 

[HuskyNan]

While all that is true, when marketing and a few other things. Reality is actually reality. People will perceive things many different ways, but there is only one reality.

We disagree heartily on this. There are billion of shades of grey in billions of topics. Pick one, any one. Like this:

Player X (pick one - Heather Buck, Meghan Simmons, anyone) is a very good basketball player.

A fan's perception of Player X is his reality and he sees a very good basketball player. That's his reality. Your reality may be different. Just because the two of you don't agree doesn't mean that one of you is wrong, just that you define "very good basketball player" differently.

Vive le difference. It's what makes life interesting.

 

[meyers7]

We disagree heartily on this. There are billion of shades of grey in billions of topics. Pick one, any one. Like this:

I guess you are a "relative" person, where there is no right or wrong, is or isn't, truth or untruth. Things only exist as we perceive them. Black is not black, white is not white, unless perceived by someone that way. There is no reality, only perception.

For instance your child grabs a cookie before dinner after you have told them "no, what til after dinner". You question them,"I told you no cookies before dinner, why are you eating a cookie?" Your child answers, "I am not eating a cookie, that is your perception, not mine." Now what? There is no reality of them eating a cookie, there's only your word against there's, two different perceptions. You'll have to agree to disagree.

Player X (pick one - Heather Buck, Meghan Simmons, anyone) is a very good basketball player.

A fan's perception of Player X is his reality and he sees a very good basketball player. That's his reality. Your reality may be different. Just because the two of you don't agree doesn't mean that one of you is wrong, just that you define "very good basketball player" differently.

This on the other hand is an opinion. There are differences between facts and opinions. Though maybe not in your grey world.

We are not offering opinions on whether this is a good or bad pledge. We are discussing the fact that nowhere in the pledge does it say anyone pledges allegiance to any god or religion. That is a black and white fact, no matter how grey one perceives it. (because no one has yet shown me where it says "I pledge allegiance to god, or any religion)

Vive le difference. It's what makes life interesting.

It certainly does. And things are not different because we perceive them to be (because we can perceive different things to be the same), they are different because they are in reality, different.

 

[Sonny44]

Tradition!
God Bless America by Kate Smith every New York Yankee home game for the 7th inning stretch.

 

[Icebear]

We are not offering opinions on whether this is a good or bad pledge. We are discussing the fact that nowhere in the pledge does it say anyone pledges allegiance to any god or religion. That is a black and white fact, no matter how grey one perceives it. (because no one has yet shown me where it says "I pledge allegiance to god, or any religion)

It is a pledge that states specifically that this nation is under God. While I agree with that as a Christian and and pastor I do not believe that it has a place in a statement of national fealty. (That is my right as a person of faith.) It is, especially, risky and objectionable in a country where today we have political candidates running who would be glad to change this nation into a theocracy. Now more than ever it is important to object this divisive confession.

 

[Kibitzer]

Tradition!
God Bless America by Kate Smith every New York Yankee home game for the 7th inning stretch.

The 7th Inning Stretch was/is a tradition. That Yankee Stadium rite is a contrivance of Yankee management that is a weak impersonation of the National Anthem as dugouts are emptied and the congregants follow the script by removing their hats and placing their hands on their hearts to remind the viewing audience that Yankee fans are the very most patriotic fans in captivity.
The ultimate level of silliness occurred a couple years ago when a cop cited a guy who had the temerity (or necessity) to leave his seat and head for the men's room as this ritual took place.

 

[meyers7]

It is a pledge that states specifically that this nation is under God.

Ok and again, where does it say we pledge allegiance to any god or religion? Somebody please just show me.

 

[meyers7]

Tradition!

Ah yes, Tradition!

 

[Icebear]

Ok and again, where does it say we pledge allegiance to any god or religion? Somebody please just show me.

It is not a pledge to a God but is containing confessional content about a God authority over the nation. "One Nation under God" that is a statement of confession.

 

[spoop]

Ok and again, where does it say we pledge allegiance to any god or religion? Somebody please just show me.

You quote this statement, "It is a pledge that states specifically that this nation is under God", as if it is wrong, but the pledge specifically states "one nation, under God". I cannot see how in the world you could possibly have a problem with that line that IceBear wrote.

As far as I can tell, while you are correct that the pledge isn't "I pledge allegiance to God", it still seems to be an affirmation of religion. You are pledging to a nation, which is under God. If you are not religious or a not religious in a way that believes in a single God, i.e. not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. this makes no sense for you. It only makes sense for those who believe in "God" to say and is hence an affirmation of your religion, which has no place in the pledge.

Pledging to a nation that is under God seems obviously transitive. One's recital of the pledge, in order to make sense, requires belief in "God", so recital of the pledge affirms your belief in God.

 

[meyers7]

You quote this statement, "It is a pledge that states specifically that this nation is under God", as if it is wrong, but the pledge specifically states "one nation, under God". I cannot see how in the world you could possibly have a problem with that line that IceBear wrote.

As far as I can tell, while you are correct that the pledge isn't "I pledge allegiance to God", it still seems to be an affirmation of religion. You are pledging to a nation, which is under God. If you are not religious or a not religious in a way that believes in a single God, i.e. not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. this makes no sense for you. It only makes sense for those who believe in "God" to say and is hence an affirmation of your religion, which has no place in the pledge.

Pledging to a nation that is under God seems obviously transitive. One's recital of the pledge, in order to make sense, requires belief in "God", so recital of the pledge affirms your belief in God.

You're a little late to the party. They have been saying that we shouldn't force people to pledge allegiance to God or religion. I've been trying to get them to show me where the pledge does that (besides the obvious incorrect assumption that anyone is being forced). As yet they have not.

Here's another look at it. If someone says "Oh My God" (OMG), is that considered a religious statement? Does that mean one believes in God? Cause I hear people say that who are not religious nor believe in any god.

Do people believe we have justice and liberty for all? Then why don't people have a problem with saying that?

 

[spoop]

You're a little late to the party. They have been saying that we shouldn't force people to pledge allegiance to God or religion. I've been trying to get them to show me where the pledge does that (besides the obvious incorrect assumption that anyone is being forced). As yet they have not.

I've been reading this whole thread. This is precisely what I'm trying to show you.

Here's another look at it. If someone says "Oh My God" (OMG), is that considered a religious statement? Does that mean one believes in God? Cause I hear people say that who are not religious nor believe in any god.

Of course not, it's just a saying, it hardly has any meaning. Pledge allegiance to a country which is under God is far more of a serious statement. Like I said, pledging allegiance to a nation under God is definitely religious.

Do people believe we have justice and liberty for all? Then why don't people have a problem with saying that?

We don't, but it's a goal to work toward. Everyone understands that literally having 100% justice and liberty for all is not something that can be attained. No one has a problem with it because it's something that is worth getting 99% right even if we can't get to 100%. It's a giant grey area, not black and white at all. Under God is pretty black and white, it's religious. Whether or not you ignore the intended meaning and decide that it isn't endorsing the Christian God specifically, it's still religious. And IMO dangerously theocratic.

 

[Bestiarius]

The thought occurred to me that God should be permitted the luxury of enjoying the game(s) without being interrupted by customer service calls.

Seems to me that we need another revision of the Pledge wording: ..Under God, or not (your choice) with liberty....

 

[meyers7]

I've been reading this whole thread. This is precisely what I'm trying to show you.

That the pledge somehow forcing people to pledge allegiance to a god or a religion?

Sorry, it just doesn't. Still waiting for someone to show me where it pledges allegiance to a god or religion.

Of course not, it's just a saying, it hardly has any meaning. Pledge allegiance to a country which is under God is far more of a serious statement. Like I said, pledging allegiance to a nation under God is definitely religious.

Ohhh, soooo basically using the word God doesn't make something religious? But wait, you guys said it does. I guess only if certain people say it does. (and I guess you get to be one of the people who decides......pretty convenient.)

We don't, but it's a goal to work toward. Everyone understands that literally having 100% justice and liberty for all is not something that can be attained. No one has a problem with it because it's something that is worth getting 99% right even if we can't get to 100%. It's a giant grey area, not black and white at all. Under God is pretty black and white, it's religious. Whether or not you ignore the intended meaning and decide that it isn't endorsing the Christian God specifically, it's still religious. And IMO dangerously theocratic.

Keep on dancin'.

 

[spoop]

Is one really reciting the pledge if "under god" is left out? Is the constitution minus the bill of rights the constitution still? Is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban the same book with ever other chapter removed? I don't think so. To recite the pledge is to say "one nation, under god", which is to affirm religion. Hence reciting the pledge by definition is to affirm your religion. If you can pull "under god" out of the pledge and still have it be the pledge, why stop there? Why not just say "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America". If the pledge minus under god is still the pledge, so is "I pledge flag America", so is "indivisible stands", so is "allegiance to god", so is "I pledge to the and to the one under and for all".

 

[spoop]

Sorry, it just doesn't.

Great argument.

Ohhh, soooo basically using the word God doesn't make something religious? But wait, you guys said it does. I guess only if certain people say it does. (and I guess you get to be one of the people who decides......pretty convenient.)

"Oh my god" is something you say without thinking. It's in the same league as "break a leg". What the hell does that mean? I don't know, but people say it all the time and 99% of them don't think about what it means either. Nobody is saying that the word god by itself makes something religious. "I just pooped my pants, also GOD" and "Wamma damma ding dong god" aren't religious. Judging by your posts, you agree. Those lack something that the pledge has, context and actual sentence structure. In the PoA you pledge to one nation, under god. If one is saying their nation is under God, that person has to be religious, they have to believe in God, otherwise they just lied. Can't you see that?

Keep on dancin'.

LOL. I don't even understand what you mean by this. When you said "Do people believe we have justice and liberty for all? Then why don't people have a problem with saying that?" you clearly meant people don't believe we have justice and liberty for all. I explained why people don't have a problem with it. I guess your response makes sense to you. Then this is probably a sensible response:

Do people believe we have justice and liberty for all? Then why don't people have a problem with saying that?

Keep on dancin'.

 

[Icebear]

Oh my God is sacrilegious. It is use of the Lord's name in vain.