Court: Atheists Failed to Show Words 'Under God' Harmed Their Children

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Yes, ote]originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

it was added in the 50's America's MOST prosperous time in it's History.

kind of like saying ,,thanks. God.
Yes, it was add in the 50s, but not for the reason you state. It was added mainly to further distance the US from the godless commies. Back then you got blacklisted for being an athiest.




posted on May, 10 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I think it has to do with peer pressure: a pupil in class sits, then there comes this pledge, all others stand up and recite the words - what will the pupil do, even if the pupil was never taught in more than the basics of religion?

The pupil will stand up and imitate the other pupils. Like a good puppy. Very well.

So not only the pupil learned a lesson in Sheep 101, but the pupil might ask the parents about this, forcing them into a vast discussion (if taken seriously) about individuality, respect for others, religion and such things.


So, there is no freedom in reciting the pledge. No freedom of thought, no freedom to express your own opinion about it (especially religious ideas). Say the words or else!...


There was something quite similar in German schools some years ago. In Bavaria there is a more than average level of catholicism, compared to the rest of this country. So, every school and about every public building had a crossed jesus hanging on a wall very good in view.
They were ruled to take the jesus down.
Of course, very many left him hanging.

What does this tells us? Customs stay. Even against court decisions. Just because "it will always be like it was yesterday". This doesn't help further us all.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Nice post.


While I would prefer that the kids not recite the pledge at all, because of possible indoctrination, I disagree with the parents that volunteering to say the pledge would harm him in any way. They can teach whatever they want at home. If they put their kid in public school, he's probably going to say the pledge and they should have dealt with it at home, making sure he knew he didn't have to say it or didn't have to say those words. The kid probably doesn't care at all.

And I said the pledge every day of my youth and I turned out OK.
I mean I'm an atheist and anti-nationalist, so it didn't hurt me. I didn't know what I was saying, anyway...



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I wish I had looked at your link before I posted. It's Breitbart and they always lie. The couple didn't charge that it "harmed" their child, they charged that it discriminated against him. This is from a reputable source:



An atheist family, joined by the American Humanist Association, claimed a Massachusetts statue requiring daily recitation of the pledge using the phrase "Under God" — added by Congress in 1954 — violated equal protection rights within the state constitution as well as the state's nondiscrimination laws.


Source



'Under God' Challenged in Massachusetts Supreme Court

"Every attempt to eliminate the mention of God [in the Pledge] has thus far failed, but the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will hear arguments on Wednesday [Sep. 4, 2013] seeking removal of the two words for a new reason: discrimination.


Source

In my previous post, I said that I didn't see how it had harmed the child. But is it discrimination? I think so. Pledging to one's country is one thing. Adding a specific deity into the mix discriminates against those who don't worship "god".

The first link says reciting the pledge is mandatory (probably a school rule), but the kids are free to opt out, as far as I understand.

I wouldn't put my kids in public school if you paid me.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Is there something inherently wrong with pledging allegiance to your country's flag? It is not a legal binding contract.

Look at the symbolic pictures of the flag being raised on Iwo Jima, The raising of the flag over the wreckage of the WTC.

The flag is the symbol of our nation. Pledging allegiance to the flag doesn't mean to the gov't or to anything else.

Don't like it, go pledge to somebody else's flag.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

Is that the same as when your country goes and bombs brown people they say god bless america.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

I will await your reply to Sremmos80:



Are you saying the US has not dropped bombs on innocent women and children?
What do you think happens in war?
That is not being cynical, that is being realistic.


How do you misconstrue cynicism with realism? I really don't understand...



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

Is there something inherently wrong with not pledging allegiance to your country?

I think nationalism can be wrong, we are all people of this world, not of the individual countries that mankind created .

But this is about the "under god " part.

The part that was added in the 50's, as a way to separate us from those evil atheist commies..
Those days are gone, we don't persecute religions anymore, nor favor them.
Why do we still have the addition in there?



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
In my opinion, the schools should have to prove positive effect to keep the pledge of allegiance. I see it as nothing more than nationalistic brainwashing. I pledge allegiance to my humanity, not any flags or countries. I have lived in two countries so far, and neither really gave me a whole lot of benefits. They both sure consume a lot of my income though.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
So god was added in the 1950s, why was it added, maybe to cater to the majority of americans even if there founding fathers did not want any religion in any part of government.



But yea damn those atheist lol

You do realize the Pledge was not even formally recognized until 1942, and was not even called the PoA until 1945. So within 12 years of the Pledge becoming formally recognized the words Under God were added. It is not, as you make it seem, something created on the 1700's and altered hundreds of years later.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What did i make it seem like, why the need to add god, to please who?



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What did i make it seem like, why the need to add god, to please who?


To make ourselves look better than those abominable commies. It was all about appearances.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

And that is now outdated by 50 years....
Seems like it is time to change it back to the OG and make it more constitutionally friendly.


That way the ones that want to add it can, or they can just deal with it not being in there.
It's not that big of a deal right?
That is a two way street



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: AfterInfinity

And that is now outdated by 50 years....
Seems like it is time to change it back to the OG and make it more constitutionally friendly.


That way the ones that want to add it can, or they can just deal with it not being in there.
It's not that big of a deal right?
That is a two way street


America is not done with "appearances" yet.
edit on 11-5-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

So walk the grey line of unconstitutional to keep up with appearances?

I doubt the USA has a chance of turning commie, where is the money in that??

Take the under god out, it wasn't in there in the first place. Whats the problem? If it is so easy to just not say it, why can't people just add it?
Then everyone is happen, you can still say under god freely, but it is not part of the pledge.

But i guess that just makes to much sense



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

whats really disgusting is that they are trying to use children to promote an ideology that THEY hold.

Its vile to say the least.

Like a kid really gives a damn about any of this nonsense. Please.

More over sensitive immature adults force feeding others their ideology like a crazy preacher in Vegas...



And this sort of crap is why atheists are increasingly viewed as assholes without a cause....

edit on 5 11 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: BobAthome

Are you saying the US has not dropped bombs on innocent women and children?
What do you think happens in war?
That is not being cynical, that is being realistic.



So we should leave the dropping of bombs on innocent women and children to them?

Saddam Hussein's mustard gas bombs on the Khurds, that was just playing around for fun, right?

Syria, you know, that party is just a riot. Come on over, bring your rockets and have a good time with us.

Hamas, "hey, let's buy missiles but not food, our kids don't need no stinkin' food when they got rockets"...

Are any of these groups enough to make you want to stand up and stop them? You are fighting your own country on the principle that you are just a rebel and do nothing to defend the innocent women and children over there. You know you can, if you are a missionary, an aid worker or in the military. Three avenues to help people, but do you?

The Peace Corp, are you educated and have you thought about joining them?



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
This does seem like an attempt to get some compensation more than anything. They'd best not let their kids join the scouts, when I used to go the scout leaders were extremely defensive about religion and you can't be a scout unless you promise to 'do your duty' to God, even though they'd happily sing lame camp songs about beastiality... Strange people. I doubt many kids realise the religious aspect of it until they have to learn the promise, by that time they've made friends and probably want to stay (not me though, I hated it).



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I agree, but just to play devils advocate....

What if every drink you ordered came with an olive and the bartenders reply was,

"just take them out if you don't like 'em*



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
It's not the harm "Under God" may do to atheist children, it is the harm it does to the children of the religious.
Brainwashing. Conditioning children into an illogical, unrealistic and un-empirically supported belief, which has resoundingly corrupted masses and lead to some of the most atrocious atrocities on record.

No, it is not our children we are worried about. It is yours.
It is time that we should be actually making this world a better place and up there, with politics and economics, to be abolished/ revised, is most definitely religion.





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join