US Pledge: Help me destroy my classmates...

[Tsukasa Buddha]

... arguments ! Today we were discussing a person's OP, which stated that the phrase 'under god' should be kept in the Pledge of Allegiance. He had no idea what he was talking about. At all. Unfortunately, everyone in the room seemed to agree with him, so I am writing a response for tomorrow's class. I can easily take care of the '150 yrs old' argument, but there are a few that I cannot refute so easily.

One of his arguments was, "Why should we change it just because of the opinion of a small minority?" I know this is wrong, and I feel angry just hearing it, but I can't seem to put it coherently into my paper. Also, one of my classmates said, "Well, I think this just gives separation of church and state a bad name, when it should really be used for topics such as gay marriage and abortion." I was thinking of labeling it as a red herring, as the reputation does not invalidate the argument, but I feel that I should try to directly respond to it as well. They also tried to label me as disrespectful to America and veterans etc. The oddest one was the argument that, "They are just words. You don't have to give any special meaning to them." I have no clue...

But nobody responded to the Establishment Clause argument, so I plan to use it as my trump card. On the other hand, I could just label everything everyone said as red herrings, as the entire issue was Constitutional. But that would not be fun ...

[Grammatron]

It's not a 150 year old argument.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Grammatron

It's not a 150 year old argument.

Oh, that was what he said, and what my classmates echoed. That's why I said he had no clue.

[Grammatron]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Oh, that was what he said, and what my classmates echoed. That's why I said he had no clue.

I'm afraid I don't follow.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

... arguments ! Today we were discussing a person's OP, which stated that the phrase 'under god' should be kept in the Pledge of Allegiance.

You might want to start with the fact that the pledge is fascist and unamerican and was written by national socialist Francis Bellamy.

Quote:

"Why should we change it just because of the opinion of a small minority?"

The phrase "under god" was added at the behest of an even smaller minorty. The "Knights of Columbus" (or something like that).

[Grammatron]

Originally Posted by Tony

You might want to start with the fact that the pledge is fascist and unamerican and was written by national socialist Francis Bellamy.



The phrase "under god" was added at the behest of an even smaller minorty. The "Knights of Columbus" (or something like that).

Yes. Although I would recommend toaning down it a bit from Tony's colorful language :P

No need to get intol legalities, just explain the history of the pledge and how, when and why the 'under god' was added. That alone should counter any argument they have.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Grammatron

Yes. Although I would recommend toaning down it a bit from Tony's colorful language :P

No need to get intol legalities, just explain the history of the pledge and how, when and why the 'under god' was added. That alone should counter any argument they have.

To add to what Gram has said, it would also help to present the pledge as it was in it's original form:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Quote:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

No mention of America or god.

Also, check out the salute (very similar to a "Roman Salute") Bellamy originally intended to be displayed whilst reciting the pledge:

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Grammatron

I'm afraid I don't follow.

(Hm, maybe I should start typing more) He said in his OP that the pledge was "over 150 years old." I thought iy was incorrect at the time, and it shows that he clearly did not do any research.

Originally Posted by Grammatron

Originally Posted by Tony

You might want to start with the fact that the pledge is fascist and unamerican and was written by national socialist Francis Bellamy.



The phrase "under god" was added at the behest of an even smaller minorty. The "Knights of Columbus" (or something like that).

Yes. Although I would recommend toaning down it a bit from Tony's colorful language :P

No need to get intol legalities, just explain the history of the pledge and how, when and why the 'under god' was added. That alone should counter any argument they have.

Ah, but hyperbole and grand statements are my specialty when it comes to these essays . Yes, a history lesson does seem in order, as even my teacher seems to be incorrect on a few matters...

But wow, Tony, I never knew about any of that information about the pledge ! I think I will bring in a visual aid...

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Tony

national socialist Francis Bellamy.

He was a socialist, not a national socialist. Quite a difference.

[Zep]

Heil Kennedy?
Heil Johnson?
Heil Nixon?
Heil Carter?
Heil Reagan?
Heil Bush?

[Luke T.]

A prayer is said at the opening session of Congress. It says "In God We Trust" on our money.

Just sayin'.

Have fun.

If you want a kickass statement about the separation of Church and State, use the quotes I use from Alexis de Tocqueville on here so much.

Quote:

On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. My desire to discover the causes of this phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy it I questioned the members of all the different sects; I sought especially the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different creeds and are especially interested in their duration. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I was more particularly brought into contact with several of its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted. To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and explained my doubts. I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.

Then explain this was said by de Tocqueville 174 years ago to explain the difference between why religion was dying in Europe and thriving in America.

Then point to the modern day examples of the Middle East where there are several nations where religion and state are intimately united (instead of religion and the spirit of freedom being intimately united as in Alexis' quote above) and how unbelievably screwed up it has made the whole situation over there. People committing atrocities in the name of their god with state sanction. "They hate us for our freedoms!"

Then to drive that point home, hit them again with Alexis:

Quote:

I am fully convinced that this extraordinary and incidental cause is the close connection of politics and religion. The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government.

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity; cut but the bonds that restrain it, and it will rise once more.

Source.

Plus, you will earn major points with your teacher for quoting from Alexis de Tocqueville.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Ah, but hyperbole and grand statements are my specialty when it comes to these essays .

The problem is that unless everyone understands you're using hyperbole, your opponents will recast your statements as being simple errors of fact. Then you suddenly find yourself on the defensive: "No, that's not what I meant..."

Quote:

Yes, a history lesson does seem in order, as even my teacher seems to be incorrect on a few matters...

Make sure you are 100% certain of your facts before you go straightening out your history teacher in class. A lot of teachers don't like being shown up by high school seniors in front of the rest of the class, and some have even been known to retaliate later on. It never hurts to be courteous and respectful when correcting your teacher.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Tony

The phrase "under god" was added at the behest of an even smaller minorty. The "Knights of Columbus" (or something like that).

Yes, it was the KofC. And the KofC is an American Roman Catholic society for men. So that dovetails nicely with Alexis de Tocquevilles discussions with Catholic priests in the quote in my last post, at a period much closer to the founding of our nation.

[aerosolben]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

The problem is that unless everyone understands you're using hyperbole, your opponents will recast your statements as being simple errors of fact. Then you suddenly find yourself on the defensive: "No, that's not what I meant..."

Quite so. In a situation like this, your case is only as good as your weakest argument. Unnecessarily overreaching conclusions will only distract your audience from the more salient points.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

The problem is that unless everyone understands you're using hyperbole, your opponents will recast your statements as being simple errors of fact. Then you suddenly find yourself on the defensive: "No, that's not what I meant..."

Make sure you are 100% certain of your facts before you go straightening out your history teacher in class. A lot of teachers don't like being shown up by high school seniors in front of the rest of the class, and some have even been known to retaliate later on. It never hurts to be courteous and respectful when correcting your teacher.

Yes, I do try to make it as clear as possible when using hyperbole. However, there is always that one person who seems to have a problem with understanding that when an essay starts out with "Why America is Evil: Part I" there is a lot of satire and hyperbole to follow (Hm, maybe I need to make a warning label). And I am way too nervous to do a direct challenge to my teacher. I will probably quote a primary source and leave out the fact that I will be correcting the teacher's statement from the day before.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by aerosolben

Quite so. In a situation like this, your case is only as good as your weakest argument. Unnecessarily overreaching conclusions will only distract your audience from the more salient points.

Well, this is going to be a rebuttal, so perhaps I should go for a more straight and to the point format... And, unlike my previous essays, this audiences will be by a vast majority against me.

[Glen.Nogami]

If you all still say the pledge of allegiance before class, you could try the original salute and defend it as the "will of the writer of the pledge," assuming you can find a source linking that picture or salute to the writer.

[Checkmite]

Darned KoCs....

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

One of his arguments was, "Why should we change it just because of the opinion of a small minority?"

Why should they have originally changed it just because of the opinion of a large majority?

If you believe a government with enumerated powers, and none other, with strictly defined limits on what it can do, is a good thing, you have an answer.

If you believe whatever the majority of people want is OK to do because "the people voted for it" is the legitimizing factor in law creation, you have no answer.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Tony

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...llegiance2.jpg

I like the "hand on heart" better than the "salute."

DR

[Grammatron]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I like the "hand on heart" better than the "salute."

DR

Originally it was both.

[Cello Man]

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.

[CBVan]

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?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Bwah ha ha. I win !

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 . And my teacher... did not really respond... So I think I will count it as a 'forfeit.'

[Cello Man]

Rock on! Wish we had video of the fun that must have ensued...

[Brown]

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):

Quote:

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.

You may also wish to peruse ideas discussed in this thread.