US Pledge: Help me destroy my classmates...

Ask your classmates some hypothetical questions:

In some parallel universe, let's say that the majority of people in the USA were Muslim, with a small Christian minority. If the Establishment Clause still exists in this parallel universe, then Christianity isn't outlawed in this country, but Islam is for all intents and purposes the dominant force in the country nonetheless.

Would they be OK having "In Allah we trust. Slay the infidels wherever you find them" on their dollar bills? Even if holy war isn't officially sanctioned by the government, would they buy the argument, "The phrase is there simply to honor our hertiage"? Christians would resent the religious favoritism. Would they be comfortable having to swear upon the Koran in court before giving testimony? Should their elected politicians have to swear on the Koran before taking office, even if they're not Muslim?

In this hypothetical universe, the Christians would be the ones pushing for a secular government.
 
Man. I'm not doing the pledge Monday because the guy was socialist.
Yaaaay, capitalism!
Also, I don't believe, so why should I immitate belief by saying such a pledge?
 
Bwah ha ha. I win :D !

I started out with the history, and then showed a picture of the original salute. They were all so entertained, that they seemed to forget that they were arguing against me just the day before... Or perhaps my facts beat out their 'facts.' I also added in the 'bizzaro world' scenario with "The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him" added in :D . And my teacher... did not really respond... So I think I will count it as a 'forfeit.'
 
Consider the approach I proposed in this thread. If there is to be a nationally prescribed loyalty recitation, it should be true. And "under God" in the Pledge is untrue, except as a matter of faith (and in matters of faith, the government should keep its hands off):
Is inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge a correct recitation? After all, if I'm making a solemn promise, shouldn't I be pledging truthfully rather than falsely? So: is it correct to say that this nation is "under God?"

Well, it's not scientifically correct. There is a general consensus that the existence of one or more deities is a matter of faith, not science.

It's not governmentally correct. God has no standing in U.S. Government. There is no "Department of the Almighty," no office in Washington DC from which God directs any governmental affairs. God does not propose any legislation, he does not enforce any laws, he does not decide any contested cases. For that matter, God has no authority to overturn an action of even the most insignificant bureaucrat. There are plenty of self-appointed spokesmen for God, but they have no special standing to direct the course of governmental affairs.

It's not constitutionally correct. The Constitution does not declare that the nation derives any power or authority from God. Rather, government has a strictly secular source: power derives from the People, not from the Almighty. The founders of the Constitution may (or may not) have been religious men, and they may (or may not) have had religious motivations, but they went out of their way to engineer a government that is secular.

It's not historically correct. Since the adoption of our Consititution, our nation has never been officially under religious authority. On the contrary, all official authority in the country has always been secular.

It's not aspirationally correct. Sure, this country aspires to be a nation "with liberty and justice for all," but this nation does not officially aspire to be "under God." This nation does not aspire to theocratic rule. Quite the opposite, we aspire to religious liberty, in which the government cannot urge religious beliefs upon us.

If the presence of "under God" in the Pledge is not correct in any of these senses, then it does not belong in the Pledge. How can the government endorse a pledge, a solemn promise, that contains a known falsehood?

Recitation of "under God" makes sense only if it is religiously correct, and on this point, there is a sincere difference of opinon. As a general rule, the government should not take any action supported solely by the notion that it is religiously correct. Determining what is and what is not religiously correct is not government's business.
Click to expand...
You may also wish to peruse ideas discussed in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom