RE: "under god" and your comment of "If you believe, great, if you don’t, it’s not hurting anything."
I respectfully disagree 100%. I believe there is still a law here in NC where The Pledge MUST be recited each day in school. That phrase "under god" effectively states that, as far as the State of North Carolina is concerned, there IS a god. That is a state sanctioned religious belief being drilled into kids from the time they are 5 years old.
I am a firm believer in the absolute separation of church and state. Remove "under god" because it is the beginning of brainwashing by the state. Removing it is not a declaration that there is no god or are no gods, it simply leaves the state out of it.
I was going to write something similar but you did it so much better. I refuse to say the 'under god' part, especially at things like city council meetings. We are supposed to have a separation of church and state. And notice that it's 'church' not religions as it should actually be. We are NOT all Christians. Not all religions have a church. And not all of us have a religion.
The phrase "UNDER GOD" has been challenged multiple times as a potential violation of the First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from endorsing a religion. However, courts have consistently upheld its constitutionality.
The reasoning often cited is that the phrase is considered a form of "ceremonial deism," meaning it has lost its specific religious significance through repeated use and is seen as a historical and cultural expression rather than a direct endorsement of religion. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the motto does not violate the Establishment Clause, nor does it amount to coercion or compelled speech.
I believe what the courts are saying is an acknowledgment of the nation's historical and cultural heritage. So Tom's position merely reflects what the state of the current judicial thinking. Personally, I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he talked about a wall of separation, it allows the believers and non believers to live in their own world. In other words, the state should not take a position.
Regardless of whether a Supreme Court, full of deists and believers, can declare "it is historical", the phrase flat out states that there is a god. Hey - a bunch of white guys decided that Dred Scott wasn't worthy of rights they themselves had, too. Bias will always cause a tilt to the SC decisions. It is to the SC's credit that they get so much correct even with those biases.
I guess using the "historical" angle we could have a SC ruling that Blacks votes only count 3/5th of what mine counts as.
At a time in this country’s history when we are being threatened by an authoritarian takeover, we need to keep our heads. Wasting effort on an issue may be viewed emotionally rather than logically drains energy. Religion—or lack thereof—can be fundamental to many individuals' lives. Provided beliefs are kept private and respectful, societal harmony can prevail. However, issues arise when religion is misused to disguise prejudices. The late Lee Atwater was known for using such tactics. It is important to note that the country should not be placed above individual beliefs and principles. The court decisions mentioned were made by justices with excellent credentials, whose personal beliefs and principles were not a factor. Just the LAW.
First of all, what makes you think I believe ANY effort should be made to remove "under thor" (whatever) at this precise time? I stated it should be removed, but never declared NOW. You are correct in that there are many more important items to put efforts against given the current fiasco.
We are chatting in a comment section - no real effort being expended outside of some quick typing.
However - and you knew there had to be a "however" - "Religion—or lack thereof—can be fundamental to many individuals' lives. Provided beliefs are kept private and respectful".... how is the state declaring there is a god via the requirement that The Pledge be recited to children daily private?
Reply if you so desire - I've stated my piece and pointed out where your argument is anything but a solid argument, so I am done. I respect your right to believe or not believe, as long as any mythological tenets are not forced on others (such as the state declaring there is a god). You will never find me in a classroom declaring there is no god to children, and I expect the state to have the same courtesy.
I have got to go along with Mills one this one. although,
I appreciate your clarification that you’re not advocating for immediate action on removing 'under God' from the Pledge but rather stating your position that it should be removed at some point. You're right that we’re just engaging in a comment section, not actively influencing policy, so the energy spent here is minimal.
Regarding your point about privacy and respect, I see your argument that requiring children to recite the Pledge—particularly the inclusion of 'under God'—might conflict with keeping beliefs private. While I agree that personal beliefs should not be forced onto others, I’d argue that the controversy stems more from the state’s endorsement of religious language, which could make those with different beliefs, or no one feel excluded. That said, it’s also worth considering whether the Pledge, with or without 'under God,' serves its intended purpose or whether it has become a point of division rather than unity.
I respect your stance on refraining from imposing your beliefs and the expectation for the state to show the same courtesy. While we may not fully agree, I value the discussion and the opportunity to explore these nuances. Thank you for sharing your perspective. But do not lose sight of our primary objective here, "find Trump another line of work where he can not do further injure to this country"!
I am not against religion as long as it doesn't infringe on basic human rights. However, today many religions and/or religious people do intend to infringe on rights that they don't think appropriate. The truth is that when I was in first through fifth grade we used these words in our pledge:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." And that works just fine. --Bruce Sharer, Raleigh, NC
It should also be underscored that "for all" doesn't mean only citizens. As for the "under God" conversation, it not only stands against religious liberty for non-religuous people, it also, in this masculine monotheistic usage, stands against polytheistic and deanistic religions. That's my issue with it.
I disagree with the statement that "activism, either from the left or right, eventually leads to excesses." That is a misunderstanding of activism. Without activism, we might not have abolished slavery, women might not have the vote, civil rights protections might not have been enacted, and gay marriage would never have been legalized. Without activism, we would not have an environmental movement with its protection of wilderness, fish in the ocean and lakes, and regulations regarding pollution. And much more. Changes of import always come from grassroots activism and rarely start by an elected official deciding to make changes. I believe that most people do not know what activism involves - it means standing up and speaking out, and organizing so that others who agree with you are standing alongside you. There is nothing extreme about activism. Yes, there are activists who hold extreme views, but if they are extreme their ideas will not resonate with a lot of people and no big change will occur. I think we need many more activists now to stand up for democracy!
The “under God” phrase and the “In God We Trust” phrase we see on our money and (some) license plates are prohibited by the establishment clause of the Constitution. Their proponents get away with them by arguing that they are cultural rather than religious statements. That’s absurd.
As a newly transplanted resident of NC, I very much appreciate this. I write to all my senators/rep every single day and copied portions of this in my message. But if there was ever time to be an activist it is NOW. There is no polite political debate going on in congress over policy and legislation. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis not a normal election cycle. Use 5Calls to call. Email, snail mail, post cards. Show up at offices. Demand town halls. Check out Indivisible for how to get involved. Before it is too late.
RE: "under god" and your comment of "If you believe, great, if you don’t, it’s not hurting anything."
I respectfully disagree 100%. I believe there is still a law here in NC where The Pledge MUST be recited each day in school. That phrase "under god" effectively states that, as far as the State of North Carolina is concerned, there IS a god. That is a state sanctioned religious belief being drilled into kids from the time they are 5 years old.
I am a firm believer in the absolute separation of church and state. Remove "under god" because it is the beginning of brainwashing by the state. Removing it is not a declaration that there is no god or are no gods, it simply leaves the state out of it.
I was going to write something similar but you did it so much better. I refuse to say the 'under god' part, especially at things like city council meetings. We are supposed to have a separation of church and state. And notice that it's 'church' not religions as it should actually be. We are NOT all Christians. Not all religions have a church. And not all of us have a religion.
The phrase "UNDER GOD" has been challenged multiple times as a potential violation of the First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from endorsing a religion. However, courts have consistently upheld its constitutionality.
The reasoning often cited is that the phrase is considered a form of "ceremonial deism," meaning it has lost its specific religious significance through repeated use and is seen as a historical and cultural expression rather than a direct endorsement of religion. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the motto does not violate the Establishment Clause, nor does it amount to coercion or compelled speech.
I believe what the courts are saying is an acknowledgment of the nation's historical and cultural heritage. So Tom's position merely reflects what the state of the current judicial thinking. Personally, I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he talked about a wall of separation, it allows the believers and non believers to live in their own world. In other words, the state should not take a position.
Regardless of whether a Supreme Court, full of deists and believers, can declare "it is historical", the phrase flat out states that there is a god. Hey - a bunch of white guys decided that Dred Scott wasn't worthy of rights they themselves had, too. Bias will always cause a tilt to the SC decisions. It is to the SC's credit that they get so much correct even with those biases.
I guess using the "historical" angle we could have a SC ruling that Blacks votes only count 3/5th of what mine counts as.
At a time in this country’s history when we are being threatened by an authoritarian takeover, we need to keep our heads. Wasting effort on an issue may be viewed emotionally rather than logically drains energy. Religion—or lack thereof—can be fundamental to many individuals' lives. Provided beliefs are kept private and respectful, societal harmony can prevail. However, issues arise when religion is misused to disguise prejudices. The late Lee Atwater was known for using such tactics. It is important to note that the country should not be placed above individual beliefs and principles. The court decisions mentioned were made by justices with excellent credentials, whose personal beliefs and principles were not a factor. Just the LAW.
First of all, what makes you think I believe ANY effort should be made to remove "under thor" (whatever) at this precise time? I stated it should be removed, but never declared NOW. You are correct in that there are many more important items to put efforts against given the current fiasco.
We are chatting in a comment section - no real effort being expended outside of some quick typing.
However - and you knew there had to be a "however" - "Religion—or lack thereof—can be fundamental to many individuals' lives. Provided beliefs are kept private and respectful".... how is the state declaring there is a god via the requirement that The Pledge be recited to children daily private?
Reply if you so desire - I've stated my piece and pointed out where your argument is anything but a solid argument, so I am done. I respect your right to believe or not believe, as long as any mythological tenets are not forced on others (such as the state declaring there is a god). You will never find me in a classroom declaring there is no god to children, and I expect the state to have the same courtesy.
I have got to go along with Mills one this one. although,
I appreciate your clarification that you’re not advocating for immediate action on removing 'under God' from the Pledge but rather stating your position that it should be removed at some point. You're right that we’re just engaging in a comment section, not actively influencing policy, so the energy spent here is minimal.
Regarding your point about privacy and respect, I see your argument that requiring children to recite the Pledge—particularly the inclusion of 'under God'—might conflict with keeping beliefs private. While I agree that personal beliefs should not be forced onto others, I’d argue that the controversy stems more from the state’s endorsement of religious language, which could make those with different beliefs, or no one feel excluded. That said, it’s also worth considering whether the Pledge, with or without 'under God,' serves its intended purpose or whether it has become a point of division rather than unity.
I respect your stance on refraining from imposing your beliefs and the expectation for the state to show the same courtesy. While we may not fully agree, I value the discussion and the opportunity to explore these nuances. Thank you for sharing your perspective. But do not lose sight of our primary objective here, "find Trump another line of work where he can not do further injure to this country"!
I think a great job for the Felon would be washing dishes in prison - for life.
I am not against religion as long as it doesn't infringe on basic human rights. However, today many religions and/or religious people do intend to infringe on rights that they don't think appropriate. The truth is that when I was in first through fifth grade we used these words in our pledge:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." And that works just fine. --Bruce Sharer, Raleigh, NC
That is perfect! I'm curious to know what kind of school it was.
It should also be underscored that "for all" doesn't mean only citizens. As for the "under God" conversation, it not only stands against religious liberty for non-religuous people, it also, in this masculine monotheistic usage, stands against polytheistic and deanistic religions. That's my issue with it.
I disagree with the statement that "activism, either from the left or right, eventually leads to excesses." That is a misunderstanding of activism. Without activism, we might not have abolished slavery, women might not have the vote, civil rights protections might not have been enacted, and gay marriage would never have been legalized. Without activism, we would not have an environmental movement with its protection of wilderness, fish in the ocean and lakes, and regulations regarding pollution. And much more. Changes of import always come from grassroots activism and rarely start by an elected official deciding to make changes. I believe that most people do not know what activism involves - it means standing up and speaking out, and organizing so that others who agree with you are standing alongside you. There is nothing extreme about activism. Yes, there are activists who hold extreme views, but if they are extreme their ideas will not resonate with a lot of people and no big change will occur. I think we need many more activists now to stand up for democracy!
This says it all.
The “under God” phrase and the “In God We Trust” phrase we see on our money and (some) license plates are prohibited by the establishment clause of the Constitution. Their proponents get away with them by arguing that they are cultural rather than religious statements. That’s absurd.
As a newly transplanted resident of NC, I very much appreciate this. I write to all my senators/rep every single day and copied portions of this in my message. But if there was ever time to be an activist it is NOW. There is no polite political debate going on in congress over policy and legislation. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis not a normal election cycle. Use 5Calls to call. Email, snail mail, post cards. Show up at offices. Demand town halls. Check out Indivisible for how to get involved. Before it is too late.
Hope to see you out there on May 1.
https://www.mobilize.us/indivisible/