Pledge of allegiance at UConn games

[meyers7]

It is not empty "horrors" at the mention of God for many but the casual "enslavement" or "attachment" of God to nationalistic ritual and "endorsement" of casual athletic activities or to slogans on money. President Theodore Roosevelt considered it sacrilege in that manner.

In many ways it is the use of God's name in a trivialized manner. Israel and many Jews to this day held and hold God's name as so inviolate as to never speak or write its representation. In contrast we speak as if it is such a trivial manner as not even to be worthy of notice or bother when we toss it into the midst of a public ceremony.

Good points.

 

[meyers7]

As you said,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No mention of either the terms freedom of or from religion.

thereof gets pretty close. And gets the point being made.

Sorry, but you are wrong,

Nope he's (she's) right on this one.

 

[Icebear]

thereof gets pretty close. And gets the point being made.

Nope he's (she's) right on this one.

"and the freedom of exercise thereof" is indeed close as a personal right but not as a governmental right. The government should not take actions involving these things but it is reserved to you and me. The Lemon test provides the legal measure of all these things. The event of Nebraska and PSU at their game were protected but the authority of the school to organize daily prayer is not.

 

[SubbaBub]

Coming at it from another angle...anyone here recite their marriage pledge before an athletic activity?

Pledges outside the context of the legal system of any sort are silly exercises only meant to satisfy the ego of people you need to hear such things.

I would ask the person offended by someone not submitting to removing their hat this, "Why is your sensibility more important than the other persons?" I would think it falls directly under the banner of mind your own business.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[RoyDodger]

As you said,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No mention of either the terms freedom of or from religion.

Sorry, but you are wrong, it is freedom from a government establishment of religion held in tension with a promise of the right of free exercise. The reasons were well debated among the founding fathers. Madison, particularly, gave light to the concerns in Federalist #10 which discusses factionalism including religion, as well as, the tension between democracy and a republic and the needs to protect all from the forces of factions and their attempts to power and force of action or compliance by use of government compulsion.

It is commonly referred to as "the establishment" clause.

Since the days I was in school in NYC (I graduated from HS in 1961) and was once accused by a teacher of being disloyal to the US because I refused to say the pledge of allegiance and wouldn't sing a song that included references to "God" (this was pre-Abington School District vs. Schempp-1963), I am keenly aware of the dangers that come from the government forcing particular views about religion on the public. The use of the term "under God" in the pledge of allegiance was a rather sad result of the McCarthy era when a very weak Congress had to prove to itself that they weren't Communists.

Although I suspect the courts would find that the saying of the pledge at a UConn home basketball game was not a violation of the first amendment because no one is forced to attend, it's my opinion that public institutions (of which UConn is certainly one) have no business imposing religious or political views on anyone at any university sponsored event. As I've said before, it is accepted practice to sing and/or stand for the national anthem. I have no problem with that. But when the government starts to impose any form of religion (and references to "God" are a form of religion) on an audience that was simply attending to see a sporting event, it has gone too far because it offends those who disagree and creates an atmosphere of hostility which is reflected somewhat in the thankfully civil comments on this board.

Ruskin argued that it is freedom of religion, not freedom "from" religion. Well, Ruskin, sorry it's both. The freedom "of" religion, includes the choice of not having religion. And the right to attend a government sponsored event without religious views being forced down one's throat.

 

[Bigpetunia]

What is the intended purpose of an anthem, a pledge,or any reference to a God or gods before a sporting event? Clearly, it cannot be a sincere attempt to unite us...even a cursory reading of this thread makes it clear that even among like-minded people in other areas of interest, this effort achieves just the opposite result: it's highly divisive. In the minds of folks who love this sort of thing, it is an attempt to unify people, yes, but in their particular vision, a vision that wraps itself up in flag, God and country. For those that hate it, it's an attempt to forcibly impose that vision on the rest of us, whether or not we subscribe to the beliefs contained therein. The believers, as is their wont, claim the high moral ground, brooking no suggestion that their belief system, so self-evidently and fundamentally CORRECT, should ever be subject to challenge, but then, just to charitably demonstrate their good will, graciously reassure the rest of us that it's not mandatory for us to participate if we don't wish to. It's never enough for the believers to practice their belief to their heart's content in private, where such expression of faith and belief and patriotic breast-beating is appropriate...no, we must have public demonstrations that permit each of us to show off the depth of our commitment to others. Me, I feel no such need, and I wish the rest of you wouldn't, but, like it or not (put me in the latter category), we're stuck with the pledge at games now.

 

[Icebear]

The believers, as is their wont, claim the high moral ground, brooking no suggestion that their belief system, so self-evidently and fundamentally CORRECT, should ever be subject to challenge, but then, just to charitably demonstrate their good will, graciously reassure the rest of us that it's not mandatory for us to participate if we don't wish to. It's never enough for the believers to practice their belief to their heart's content in private, where such expression of faith and belief and patriotic breast-beating is appropriate...no, we must have public demonstrations that permit each of us to show off the depth of our commitment to others.

Not sure how you are using the term believers. Actually, there are numerous believers (religious types, Christians and Jews) on the board who expressed real concern about the use of the pledge. I for one even as a pastor tried to share with the thread the numerous ways in which some Christians and Jews find the use objectionable including the 1954 addition of the phrase "under God." I did that specifically to remind us that not all believers are as homogenized as is sometimes thought. I am fully sympathetic to your concerns but caution against assumptions about believers of any sort. I have no issue with personal use of the pledge and participate regularly but do not find it helpful in the setting under discussion nor do I find any moral content to it.

 

[RoyDodger]

Not sure how you are using the term believers. Actually, there are numerous believers (religious types, Christians and Jews) on the board who expressed real concern about the use of the pledge. I for one even as a pastor tried to share with the thread the numerous ways in which some Christians and Jews find the use objectionable including the 1954 addition of the phrase "under God." I did that specifically to remind us that not all believers are as homogenized as is sometimes thought. I am fully sympathetic to your concerns but caution against assumptions about believers of any sort. I have no issue with personal use of the pledge and participate regularly but do not find it helpful in the setting under discussion nor do I find any moral content to it.

Bigpetunia can certainly speak for himself, but I don't believe he was using the term "believers" in the sense you are, Icebear. He's not attacking all believers, whether it be believers in religion or other philosophical systems, but instead the "true believers" who wish to impose their outlook on life on others. From a religious point of view, I am a non-believer, but at the same time I am tolerant of others who have different belief systems, as long as they don't try to impose their views on me. It seems to me that this is what Bigpetunia was talking about.

 

[Icebear]

I wasn't sure. I was able to read it both ways, so I wanted to make it clear.

 

[Bigpetunia]

Icebear, you are obviously a terrific person, and I have little doubt that we'd be great friends if we knew one another, and for reasons much more diverse than the fact that we share a passion for UConn Women's Basketball. Respectfully, however, I am compelled to point out that you have eloquently made my point for me. Of course I understand all too well that there is no homogeneity of belief even among those who'd place themselves in the general category of "believers." The range of belief within that broad spectrum is all over the map, as one would expect when matters of faith are involved, where no objective "proof" system exists. That is exactly why all articles of faith are so highly personal....and private. None of us require public proclamations of faith in order to reinforce our own belief system....and that is exactly why the only thing that such demonstrations serve to do is impose some homogeneous version of belief on everyone else. Tribalism, in my view, is at the root of all evil in our world. Attempts to impose belief on others, and efforts to have others participate in public proclamations of such belief, only encourages more of it!

 

[Icebear]

Icebear, you are obviously a terrific person, and I have little doubt that we'd be great friends if we knew one another, and for reasons much more diverse than the fact that we share a passion for UConn Women's Basketball. Respectfully, however, I am compelled to point out that you have eloquently made my point for me. Of course I understand all too well that there is no homogeneity of belief even among those who'd place themselves in the general category of "believers." The range of belief within that broad spectrum is all over the map, as one would expect when matters of faith are involved, where no objective "proof" system exists. That is exactly why all articles of faith are so highly personal....and private. None of us require public proclamations of faith in order to reinforce our own belief system....and that is exactly why the only thing that such demonstrations serve to do is impose some homogeneous version of belief on everyone else. Tribalism, in my view, is at the root of all evil in our world. Attempts to impose belief on others, and efforts to have others participate in public proclamations of such belief, only encourages more of it!

Yes, we very much agree. It was as Roy pointed your use of "believers" that had me confused. But then that is easy to do.

 

[boontonbomber]

alexrgct started this thread questioning the impetus for the pledge. after all of the discussion here, i would love , somehow, to hear from the interim AD himself. the reference to god doesn't bother me anymore than the super patriotism and inappropriatness of it at an athletic contest. has anyone heard any comments from the AD?

 

[ABachelor6CR]

Uconn being a "publicly funded state run institution" needs to leave out the religion and politics, those things are for individuals to accept or not accept and are not to be forced on citizens by a" state run publicly funded institution".

Go to the games enjoy the spectacle, have a good time with your friends and the rest of the fans cheering on your team, not else is needed.

Go Uconn !!!!!!!

IMHO......No one is being "forced" to do anything but one must be respectful of those who do. One must not forget that separation form church and state in the Constitution only means that the Government must not endorse one religion over another or establish one i.e. Church of England. FYI......Every Congressional (and CT General Assembly) session is opened with a prayer.......go figure..

The meaning behind the pledge

 

[mr006]

alexrgct started this thread questioning the impetus for the pledge. after all of the discussion here, i would love , somehow, to hear from the interim AD himself. the reference to god doesn't bother me anymore than the super patriotism and inappropriatness of it at an athletic contest. has anyone heard any comments from the AD?

I haven't heard any updated comments other than the initial press release. Something about he had heard it at some social function he attended and thought it would be a good idea to incorporate into the athletic events. I'd love to hear his take on how his proclamation has spawned the usual discussions (civil and cerebral here; not so much elsewhere) that has been prevalent in recent years (one comment on the ESPN board featured the ever popular "if you don't like it, move" - funny how it never occurs to people making this statement that no one is forcing *them* to stay in the US either). I did email the AD and state my views; we'll see if I get a response.

ABachelor: No one is being forced per se, but not being prone to displaying my national pride, I've found it awkward in the last 10 years not being part of the herd. There are a lot of self-appointed patriots who apparently think that if you don't take every chance to wave the flag, you don't belong in America, and worse still, a lot of them are not afraid to say so. I am not going to go to Gampel and give someone a disapproving look if they are saying the pledge, but I can guarantee that out of 10,000 people, at least one person is going to at least get The Look for NOT saying the pledge - and probably less than courteous treatment the rest of the evening. Plus, it's a sporting event - I look forward to the National Anthem (though some perfomances disappoint me), but I'm not there to take an oath.

 

[arty155]

IMHO......No one is being "forced" to do anything but one must be respectful of those who do. One must not forget that separation form church and state in the Constitution only means that the Government must not endorse one religion over another or establish one i.e. Church of England. FYI......Every Congressional (and CT General Assembly) session is opened with a prayer.......go figure..

The meaning behind the pledge

AB - Thanks for providing us this link.

 

[SubbaBub]

IMHO......No one is being "forced" to do anything but one must be respectful of those who do. One must not forget that separation form church and state in the Constitution only means that the Government must not endorse one religion over another or establish one i.e. Church of England. FYI......Every Congressional (and CT General Assembly) session is opened with a prayer.......go figure..

The meaning behind the pledge

Your use of "forced" and "must" in your opening sentence, torpedos your argument.

 

[meyers7]

Coming at it from another angle...anyone here recite their marriage pledge before an athletic activity?

Pledges outside the context of the legal system of any sort are silly exercises only meant to satisfy the ego of people you need to hear such things.

Well pledge vs vow. But anyway, yea I have no problem with saying the pledge, but see no reason for it either.

I would ask the person offended by someone not submitting to removing their hat this, "Why is your sensibility more important than the other persons?" I would think it falls directly under the banner of mind your own business.

Well it's not really sensibility, it's courtesy or respect. I see no problem with calling people out on courtesy or respect (of course for Nan, not in a rude way - would kinda defeat the purpose). As a society, courtesy and respect should be our business.

 

[meyers7]

Icebear, you are obviously a terrific person, and I have little doubt that we'd be great friends if we knew one another, and for reasons much more diverse than the fact that we share a passion for UConn Women's Basketball. Respectfully, however, I am compelled to point out that you have eloquently made my point for me. Of course I understand all too well that there is no homogeneity of belief even among those who'd place themselves in the general category of "believers." The range of belief within that broad spectrum is all over the map, as one would expect when matters of faith are involved, where no objective "proof" system exists. That is exactly why all articles of faith are so highly personal....and private. None of us require public proclamations of faith in order to reinforce our own belief system....and that is exactly why the only thing that such demonstrations serve to do is impose some homogeneous version of belief on everyone else. Tribalism, in my view, is at the root of all evil in our world. Attempts to impose belief on others, and efforts to have others participate in public proclamations of such belief, only encourages more of it!

Well citizens of this country, (and they should be the only ones reciting the pledge) should have the same belief. (i.e. in their country). Again, this is not a religious thing.

 

[Icebear]

Well citizens of this country, (and they should be the only ones reciting the pledge) should have the same belief. (i.e. in their country). Again, this is not a religious thing.

Anytime you introduce God into something it is a religious thing.

 

[Ruffian75]

I have a ticket for A & M tomorrow. I might just eat the $10 plus $6 in "convenience" and handling charges. The pledge makes me very uncomfortable. I have thought of sitting in my seat and not removing my hat, but I am sure the outrage from some would make the rest of my evening miserable.

Now I understand it is also Jimmy V night. I go to sporting events for entertainment, not to have my patriotism challenged or have a group soliciting money from me. I am certainly sympathetic with those that have cancer. As someone who has dealt with basal cells and squamous cells for 20 years with more frequency every year, I feel there are better ways to raise money than pleading at an event you go to have fun at. It is a downer.

 

[meyers7]

Anytime you introduce God into something it is a relgious thing.

Not this time. And only to the people who are clueless.

 

[Icebear]

Not this time. And only to the people who are clueless.

11 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

From the Catholic Baltimore Catechism:
11 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
By the second commandment we are commanded always to speak with reverence of God, of the saints, and of holy things, and to be truthful in taking oaths and faithful to them and to our vows.
Or from Luther's Small Catechism:
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain.
What does this mean?--Answer.
We should fear and love God that we may not curse, swear, use witchcraft, lie, or deceive by His name, but call upon it in every trouble, pray, praise, and give thanks.

Point being the not just for Jews but for Catholics and Protestants the use of God's name is not to be done casually of in vain. Therefore it is always a religious act for the faithful.

 

[Bigpetunia]

I have to keep thanking others on this thread for making my point for me...better than I could myself, and in ways that are highly predictable. Now comes Meyers7 who states, "well, citizens of this country should have the same belief." Is that so? As is always the case, when it comes to matters of patriotism, or to matters of faith, there are always those who will gladly take it upon themselves to set the standard for how the rest of us should think, and to set the bar as to how those beliefs should be publically proclaimed.

OK, for argument's sake, let's leave religious faith out of this for the moment and just focus on patriotism (Was it Oscar W. who described it as the last refuge of scoundrels?) When it comes to fealty to our country, there are many for whom their devotion is absolute, but for whom excessive displays of flag waving and forced public expressions of loyalty cross the line into demagoguery. It generates feelings of unjustified moral exclusivity and superiority in a world that suffers from way too much of that sort of thing.

I think that, true to his admirable conviction, Meyers should awaken every morning, stand by his(her?) bed, put his hand over his heart, and recite the Pledge. I'd respect that a lot. But why is his patriotic fervor enhanced by watching me, sittng in the row in front of him at a basketball game (!) do likewise, because I, in his view, should share the identical conviction, "should have the same belief."? Sure, I'm not forced to stand, to recite the pledge, to say "under God," but such impositions on our populace inevitably serve to encourage all those who think we should be of the same belief to be the arbiters of our public behavior....because, after all, these are things we all should believe.

 

[meyers7]

11 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

From the Catholic Baltimore Catechism:
11 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
By the second commandment we are commanded always to speak with reverence of God, of the saints, and of holy things, and to be truthful in taking oaths and faithful to them and to our vows.
Or from Luther's Small Catechism:
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain.
What does this mean?--Answer.
We should fear and love God that we may not curse, swear, use witchcraft, lie, or deceive by His name, but call upon it in every trouble, pray, praise, and give thanks.

Point being the not just for Jews but for Catholics and Protestants the use of God's name is not to be done casually of in vain. Therefore it is always a religious act for the faithful.

Well you are assuming the "under God" refers to the Christian or Judaism God. (which it may, but not necessarily for everyone)

Placing the word God in something does not make it religious.

But for the clueless people who think it does, one could argue saying the nation is under God does in no way curse, swear, use witchcraft, lie or deceive. Nor does take God's name in vain. Doesn't speak irreverently of him, nor is an oath or vow to him.

 

[Kibitzer]

Since we are discussing displays of (or resentments of) patriotic fervor at sports events, let me mention my discomfort at the elaborate production of "God Bless America" at Yankee Stadium, among other less renowned venues.

I consider myself to be a reasonably patriotic guy but I confess that I think it is 'way over the top to have fans and players alike stand and reverently place their hands on their hearts while Kate Smith belts out Irving Berlin's little song.

It replaces the 7th inning stretch, a truly sacred tradition.

And I recall reading about a guy getting cited by police for disrespecfully heading for the men's room to relieve himself as this ritual was unfolding.

Silliness redefined.

"Take me out to the ball game. . ."

 

[meyers7]

I have to keep thanking others on this thread for making my point for me...better than I could myself, and in ways that are highly predictable. Now comes Meyers7 who states, "well, citizens of this country should have the same belief." Is that so?

Yes, and why wouldn't it be? If you belonged to The Rotary, or Lions Club, wouldn't you expect all the people to believe in the club? Certainly some may be more gung-ho than others. Or some may have different ideas of what they want the club to do. But overall they believe in what they belong to, or why would they belong to it? If you don't believe in this country why would you belong to it?

Doesn't have anything to do with how patriotic someone might be or what their religious beliefs might be (hell this doesn't have anything at all to do with religion, why people keep bringing religion into it is beyond me). It's about believing in something you belong to. If you don't belong then it doesn't pertain to you.

As is always the case, when it comes to matters of patriotism, or to matters of faith,

Not talking about that.

there are alwys those who will gladly take it upon themselves to set the standard for how the rest of us should think, and to set the bar as to how those beliefs should be publically proclaimed.

Neither of which I am doing.

OK, for argument's sake, let's leave religious faith out of this for the moment and just focus on patriotism (Was it Oscar W. who described it as the last refuge of scoundrels?) When it comes to fealty to our country, there are many for whom their devotion is absolute, but for whom excessive displays of flag waving and forced public expressions of loyalty cross the line into demagoguery. It generates feelings of unjustified moral exclusivity and superiority in a world that suffers from way too much of that sort of thing.

Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I think that, true to his admirable conviction, Meyers should awaken every morning, stand by his(her?) bed, put his hand over his heart, and recite the Pledge. I'd respect that a lot. But why is his patriotic fervor enhanced by watching me, sittng in the row in front of him at a basketball game (!) do likewise, because I, in his view, should share the identical conviction, "should have the same belief."? Sure, I'm not forced to stand, to recite the pledge, to say "under God," but such impositions on our populace inevitably serve to encourage all those who think we should be of the same belief to be the arbiters of our public behavior....because, after all, these are things we all should believe.

Again, doesn't pertain to what I was talking about and I have no idea why you would write something like this unless you were purposely trying to be an @ss?????

 

[HuskyNan]

Placing the word God in something does not make it religious.

But it was intended to be religious (source):

In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - 2008) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part:

"Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." ​

After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time:

"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." ​

 

[Biff]

Again, doesn't pertain to what I was talking about and I have no idea why you would write something like this unless you were purposely trying to be an @ss?????

Just as a reference point here, although this discussion has gotten moderately heated, in general it's been respectful amongst the participants.

However, for your reference, calling someone you are disagreeing with "clueless" and an "@ss" is disrespectful and likely the beginning of the end of the debate on this board.

 

[Icebear]

Well you are assuming the "under God" refers to the Christian or Judaism God. (which it may, but not necessarily for everyone)

Placing the word God in something does not make it religious.

But for the clueless people who think it does, one could argue saying the nation is under God does in no way curse, swear, use witchcraft, lie or deceive. Nor does take God's name in vain. Doesn't speak irreverently of him, nor is an oath or vow to him.

There is no other God that the Knights of Columbus would have petitioned Congress to insert into the Pledge.

 

[Icebear]

"Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." ​

Which as I shared far back was the exact goal of Francis Bellamy.