Pledge of Allegiance

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I wouldn't characterize the phrase as any more or less meaningful than any of the other phrases of the pledge. Each of them convey enough meat to provide for many, many diners and just as many dinners.

While the roteness of the pledge may cause many eyes to gloss over and ears to drone out, the solemnity itself is enough to give a thinking mind pause. From pause comes thought, from thought action.

If you've seen the Pledge recited by first graders (as I have), you'd realize there's not a lot of "solemnity" involved.

Originally posted by vistesd
So, if a school decides to go with it, it's reasonable to suppose that the majority of parents there felt it was appropriate (the opposite should also normally hold). A minority may feel "socially castigated" -- but that's going to hold in all kinds of situations (and I don't think you need the Pledge to be socially castigated at school). Should scho haps to be able to weave their particular religious beliefs into the social/legal fabric.

If I opposed such a class, it would not be on the basis that Catholic kids would be "socially castigated". Considering I've spent the vast majority of my school life with textbooks (as do most students worldwide -- my brother didn't even know that people in Columbus's time did not believe the Earth was flat until recently -- and he's in University!) that characterized the Catholic Church as an enemy of science, progress, human rights, philosophy etc. etc., I don't think social ostracism is either a necessary outcome or as severe as it's made out to be.

Assuming that the purpose of the class is to proselytize rather than just inform students about various religions and their doctrines, I would oppose it on the basis that it is mandatory and violates the right to religious expression (which includes non-participation) of the Catholic students. Where there is a mischaracterisation of the Catholic faith (e.g. idol worship because they "pray" to statues), I would also oppose it on the grounds of being factually incorrect.

LH

PS: Oh, and in neither of the the countries I come from, grew up in, currently work in or talking about is Catholicism of sufficient "majority status" or "political gravitas" not to need protection.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you've seen the Pledge recited by first graders (as I have), you'd realize there's not a lot of "solemnity" involved.

They do get a little squeamish at times, but the seeds are in there, nonetheless.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LH: If the United States was founded with an explicit belief in a Creator as a foundational belief, then I see the inclusion of "God" in the Pledge as a recognition of that historical fact

This is changing an apple into an orange.

Is it? Isn't that exactly why it was included in the first place?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
So you have no problem with the idea that non-Christians MUST lie if they want to repeat this country's national statement of patriotism?

It is the only question I have and so far nobody seems to want to answer it directly.

TheSkipper

Why are they lying if they are simply recognising the fact that the country was (if it is the case) founded on theistic/deistic principles?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Is it? Isn't that exactly why it was included in the first place?

Your post is unclear; what is the "it" in the second sentence?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your post is unclear; what is the "it" in the second sentence?

The phrase "under God".

Apologies for the ambiguity.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why are they lying if they are simply recognising the fact that the country was (if it is the case) founded on theistic/deistic principles?

The Pledge of Allegiance isn't a historical recital, it is intended to be a pledge of allegiance. Your reading of it is strained.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The phrase "under God".

Apologies for the ambiguity.

Then I disagree about why "it" was ADDED, not included. It was clearly added during the Cold War to contrast the God-fearing US with the godless communists and give ideological support to the Cold war mentality.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Pledge of Allegiance isn't a historical recital, it is intended to be a pledge of allegiance. Your reading of it is strained.

Is it? I asked you earlier if that wasn't the reason it was included in the Pledge back in 1954; you never answered the question.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then I disagree about why "it" was ADDED, not included. It was clearly added during the Cold War to contrast the God-fearing US with the godless communists and give ideological support to the Cold war mentality.

How do you add something into a text without including it?

Was the Cold War the reason given by Congress or the President for including it?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How do you add something into a text without including it?

Was the Cold War the reason given by Congress or the President for including it?

Whatever; your semantic crap bores me. It is relevant, however, that the original Pledge had no such wording. Whatever their stated public rationale (and I believe there were statements contrasting the US with atheistic Communism) the reason given was the primary one not a sudden interest in the religious beliefs of the Framers.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I disagree that the purpose of a theocracy (in the broader sense of a State with a State religion) is to impose control over the expression of people's religious beliefs. A theocracy may try to exercise control over people's actions based on religious principles -- but how is that any different from any other form of government that uses fundamental p ...[text shortened]... h "thought crimes" as at least potentially dangerous, if not criminal.

I disagree that the purpose of a theocracy (in the broader sense of a State with a State religion) is to impose control over the expression of people's religious beliefs. A theocracy may try to exercise control over people's actions based on religious principles -- but how is that any different from any other form of government that uses fundamental principles to control people's actions through laws and statutes?

I think we’d have to agree to disagree here. When a theocracy (and I accept your broad sense) tries “to exercise control over people’s actions based on religious principles,” they are trying to impose particular religious beliefs, whereas “fundamental principles” can cut across religious lines. Of course societies try to control people’s actions through laws and statutes—but in a democratic system (of whatever “stripe” ), those laws and statutes are not removed from public debate. If a theocracy does not want to remove them from public debate—or at least restrict that debate according to religious doctrine—then what is the purpose of a theocracy?

(Apologies if that sounded a little sharp -- I hope you take it in the right spirit.)

I took it both in good spirit, and as a useful reminder of how our personal histories bear on how we weight some of these issues. And “weighting” is where the argument tends to be—there is always the question of individual freedom versus the public good, whatever the system, and I don’t think one can really put that question into “one size fits all” principle. With that said, I likely tend to weight individual freedom (and as part of the public good) higher than you do. What I look for is a dynamic system of checks and balances. (I am not an anarchist.)

What stops the majority community of a democratic nation voting in an extremist government that uses its police forces against minorities?

It happens. The goal is to minimize the possibility. A broadly pluralistic society, in which the broadest number are politically franchised, makes it more difficult.

Yes, I agree that a theocracy designed to promote religious pluralism is counterintuitive. But why is religious pluralism a particular good to be aspired for?

I’m not sure I understand the question. What I am promoting is maximal religious freedom within a pluralistic society. I think the clear counter-question is: “How far would you [that’s a general “you”] go in restricting religious pluralism, and for what purposes?”

The question you should be asking is - why is a theocracy a theocracy? I see two reasons - either a religion is part of the foundation of the nation; or it was adopted as state religion at some point of time.

Neither of which means that a state must/should remain a theocracy—even as it may recognize its cultural history; how positively people recognize such a history would likely depend on—well, on how positive that history was. I think you made a similar point once, when affirming Hinduism as part of the cultural history, and current culture, of India, though it is not your religion.

The rest of this paragraph hinges partly on the question of whether the society you’re talking about has a pluralistic history (as does, for sometimes the worst reasons) the US—or whether one wants to restrict pluralism generally, in order to preserve either social “purity” or social cohesion. I am not saying that there have never been theocracies that recognize and tolerate religious pluralism (the so-called “golden years” of the Spanish caliphate come to mind).

But I find the way you, BdN and RW simply seem to simplistically assume secularism=good; theocracy=bad more indicative of an anti-religion bias than the product of critical thinking.

I can’t speak for RW or BdN, but this is a total mis-characterization of my position. I am not supporting a society that says “No religion,” if that’s what you mean by secular. Nor do I see secularism-theocracy as the dichotomy; that’s highly simplistic. I don’t have an anti-religion bias. I have a bias for honoring and respecting other people’s religious beliefs; I am quite willing (as you know) to argue them—and there are undoubtedly some beliefs that I do dis-respect, as particulars. I do dis-respect attempts at religious repression—whether done in the name of some anti-religious “secularism” or theocracy. The surest way I know of—not a guarantee by any means—is to keep church and state as separate as possible (I have certainly never argued that religious folks should be disenfranchised from the political process—and issue on which I once took your side, if you remember).

With regard to your footnote and the Al Qaeda example: what al Qaeda would be attempting would be the overthrow of a democracy to establish a theocracy. I oppose not only the violent means, but the aim as well.

________________________________

With all that said, I affirm what No.1 said above. The words in the pledge are not the biggest issue in the book. They are, in this thread (and at least for me) simply a focal-point from which to argue the larger issues.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How do you add something into a text without including it?

Was the Cold War the reason given by Congress or the President for including it?

The legislative history of the 1954 act stated that the hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism."

http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499

You were saying?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If I opposed such a class, it would not be on the basis that Catholic kids would be "socially castigated". Considering I've spent the vast majority of my school life with textbooks (as do most students worldwide -- my brother didn't even know that people in Columbus's time did not believe the Earth was flat until recently -- and he's in Univers ...[text shortened]... ufficient "majority status" or "political gravitas" not to need protection.

Assuming that the purpose of the class is to proselytize rather than just inform students about various religions and their doctrines, I would oppose it on the basis that it is mandatory and violates the right to religious expression (which includes non-participation) of the Catholic students. Where there is a mischaracterisation of the Catholic faith (e.g. idol worship because they "pray" to statues), I would also oppose it on the grounds of being factually incorrect.

Well said. 🙂

PS: Oh, and in neither of the countries I come from, grew up in, currently work in or talking about is Catholicism of sufficient "majority status" or "political gravitas" not to need protection.

The situation for Catholicism has been the same here (in fact, if not in degree); and that is why I argue for separation of church and state. Catholicism likely today has much more “political gravitas” here than in the past, but that could easily change to the point where that separation is a principle source of protection.