School drops pledge -- Islam reason?

[Fiannan]

The following is in the article and is from the principal of the school to one of the parents:

"The Pledge contains the words, 'under God' and we have many Muslim families here. So out of respect for the diversity of religious faiths practiced by our school community (parents and families) we decided that this year the students would memorize and sing the Preamble to the Constitution. At the rehearsal on Friday they did it from memory and to a wonderful song. It was very joyful and unique. I think you, and other parents, will really appreciate the creative and new way to open the program."

And you probably thought this sort of thing only happened in England and Sweden.

School drops Pledge of Allegiance during ceremony | KATU.com - Portland, Oregon | News

[VisionOfLehi]

This stuff is just... out of control.

The Declaration of Independence

What're the going to do in the end? Change the wording of the Declaration of Independence?

Have these people of different faiths and countries not learned on what the country was founded? Have we as a nation forgotten?

God is part of it, whether they deny it or not. *shrug*

This is the pattern. The world denies, and destruction cometh. The end draws closer and closer, and we see it in the small things.

[Elphaba]

The following is in the article and is from the principal of the school to one of the parents:

And you probably thought this sort of thing only happened in England and Sweden.

School drops Pledge of Allegiance during ceremony | KATU.com - Portland, Oregon | News

First let me say, I think this is an excellent decision.

However, I am very bothered that American citizens, with a variety of religious beliefs, or none, have in the past gone so far as to bring suit so to remove the words "Under God," as it was a First Amendment violation because they were not Christians. And yet, now, to not offend Muslims, things are going to change.

If I were a Jew in that school district, I would be incensed.

The pledge as originally written in 1892 did not contain the reference to God. It wasn't until 1954 that President Eisenhower signed the bill to include the words. And that is when different religious groups, as well as atheists, were vehemently opposed to it being said in the schools, as it reflected only one religion's sensibilities, but not others'. It was, and is, a First Amendment violation.

This is because the teachers and schools, who are representatives of the government, are the ones compelling the children to say the pledge that includes the reference to the Christian god.

If the teachers and children want to say it in circumstances where the teacher is not a representative of the government, then I say more power to them.

I also believe there are circumstances in the public arena where it is fine for children to say the pledge, even though it is on government property. The difference would be that parents could choose whether their children participate or not, and the children should never be compelled to do otherwise. Usually these are sparse exercises, and should cause no undo harm to the child. Hopefully anyway.

People make this argument for the school pledge as well, but the fact is the children who do not say it are ostracized and bullied for it. There is no comfortable place where a child can decline to say it.

Having said all of the above, I think it is an excellent decision to recite the Preamble to the Constitution instead. The children will learn it, even though they wouldn't understand it right away. But it is a robust way to learn about our country's primary founding document that does not offend any religious sensibilities, as it refers to none.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

What're the going to do in the end? Change the wording of the Declaration of Independence?

The Declaration is a founding document. The pledge is not. Nothing is going to happen to it to the DoI.

Have these people of different faiths and countries not learned on what the country was founded? Have we as a nation forgotten?

God is part of it, whether they deny it or not. *shrug*

Technically, God is not a part of it. That is why there is no mention of God in the Constitution.

Additionally, the god in the Declaration is not the Christian god. It is the deist God, in whom Jefferson believed. Most of the founding fathers, who were children of the enlightenment, did not believe in the Christian God, although it varied from person to person.

Whether it matters or not will be up to you. But no one is going to change the Declaration.

And frankly, this decision takes an oath that excluded a huge number of people of differing faiths, and instead has the children recite the Preamble of our Constitution. This is a far better use of children's recitations, and shows a stronger commitment to America.

But again, why Muslims? I believe there are more atheists in the country than Muslims.

Elphaba

[VisionOfLehi]

Yeah, the lawsuit thing is ridiculous, too.

And doing it so as "not too offend." That's a load. "Doing it to avoid lawsuits because people are trigger happy," is more like it.

Also, Elph, the Pledge doesn't include reference to the Christian God. It merely states "One nation, under God." It doesn't say which God, or how to interpret that. It's the English word for God of whatever.

It's simply a reference to deity, not Christianity.

[VisionOfLehi]

Elph, I was just going to mention the Deist thing!

I know the Declaration won't change... But people don't make a fuss over that, do they?

[miztrniceguy]

i was very happy when my daughter was telling me about the pledge in school last week. she is 5 and in pre-k summer school. we were talking about the words, which i had to think about since it had been so long, and she said "what about 'under God'?. dont forget that!

[Hemidakota]

It is indeed a sad day for us and for those who pledge themselves to that GOD hundred of yeas ago, that this country will stand for liberty, justice, and for freedom. One step today is another step tomorrow, with removing anything that the Savior helped in establishing such with the founding fathers to make this country free. Without the Creator, we are back to the Book of Mormon era, when both people of Jared and Nephites turned against that living GOD, thus were removed from HIS presence.

As parents we must continuously, help to educate our children on what the Creator has done since the time of Adam until now, concerning this promise land and why it is necessary to keep HIM in remembrance.

[Dirk]

Next they will deny that there was a great flood and then that there is a Savior and then ……..

[DigitalShadow]

This story makes my head hurt. Did I miss something? How is "under God" offensive to Muslims? Did they get any complaints, or is this just standard paranoia on behalf of what they think Muslims might think? What is the rationale here? Since Christians have exclusive rights to the word "God" when it is mentioned, it can't possibly have other meaning and those heathen Muslims who knowingly worship nothingness would be offended at the mention of the "true" God.

I personally don't think the words "under God" should have ever been added into the Pledge of Allegiance, but I agree that suing over it is rediculous. Also, I think that athiests and agnostics are the only groups that could really be offended, and even then it's just more of an annoyance than anything else, most atheists have faced much worse if they make their beliefs (or lack there of) known to their peers.

True story: I remember when I was in grade school. I came to my parents somewhat frustrated that they made us say something that included "under God" and I didn't really think there was a God. My parents suggested I simply not say that part, and I thought it was a good idea so I did. Simple solution, end of story.

[Bookmeister]

Uh, I thought the Muslims had a god, too? In fact, I thought it was supposed to be the same god, since we're all "people of the book", according to the muslims.

So I'm just wondering how that could be offensive, other than politically?

[Hemidakota]

You will find majority of muslims did not read the entire Koran. I find this a major issue...

[ruthiechan]

Next they will deny that there was a great flood and then that there is a Savior and then ……..

What do you mean? People already do. . .

I wonder what the source of hte problem was. Was the Principal being offended FOR Muslims or was there really a complaint?

Some school districts in North Carolina banned the story Charlottes Web because if the pig in the story and it was offensive to Muslims, but the muslim community there didn't care. In England hot cross buns were banned because of the "cross" on the buns again because of muslims, and the muslims there were confused.

I feel that we are altering ourselves too much for peoples of other countries. If I were to move to another country people there would expect me to be respectful of that country and to assimilate myself enough to live there and communicate. They would not change things simply because I was there. . .

[Hemidakota]

Prophetic message there...it is sad to cater to any group at all.

Reminds of something that one of my children asked the other day, “Why do people who claim to be citizens of the US cannot speak English.” I simply told them - they are not. They lied. It is a requirement to speak minimal English and write it prior to citizenship. One of many elements in becoming a true citizen of the land.

[mightynancy]

Please note that the school didn't quit using the pledge, rather, they chose not to open their fifth grade graduation ceremony with it.

As parents we must continuously, help to educate our children on what the Creator has done since the time of Adam until now, concerning this promise land and why it is necessary to keep HIM in remembrance.

Exactly. Parents, not the school, nor the government.

You will find majority of muslims did not read the entire Koran. I find this a major issue...

Indeed! I'm willing to wager that the majority of Christians have not read the Bible in its entirety. It's definitely an issue, don't get me wrong. Ignorance plus zeal equals fanaticism. Edited June 25, 2008 by mightynancy

[checkerboy]

And frankly, this decision takes an oath that excluded a huge number of people of differing faiths, and instead has the children recite the Preamble of our Constitution. This is a far better use of children's recitations, and shows a stronger commitment to America.

Come on Elph. Are we really doing this dance again? I seem to be having deja vu.

Seriously though do the other faiths that are represented by the citizens in this country not believe in God. I know the Jews do. I know the Muslims do. Of course the Christians do. The Baha'I faith does also as do many Hindus. Heck even deists believe in God.* Did I leave anyone out? I believe that makes up about 90% of the population. The God mentioned in the pledge isn't specific to one religion. So really it is just the atheists that are being offended because even the agnostics aren't sure.

It gets tiring having to drag up quotes from our founding fathers and their belief that God has a hand in this country so I won't at present but I have in the past so refer to those posts.

Basically it comes down to what kind of society do we want? One that puts it's trust in God and has the morality associated with it or one that has no center in which to base it's morality on and will ultimately border on anarchy when the winds shift. Just look at the Roman Empire and what happened to it.

I know this is gonna enrage you Elphie, just remember I love you even if we don't agree.

*I know they believe that God created everything and then stepped back and took a nap, but how bout this? God had a hand in creating this country and then stepped back and let us run it. Sounds deistic to me and probably something Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with.

Edited June 26, 2008 by checkerboy

[Hemidakota]

Indeed! I'm willing to wager that the majority of Christians have not read the Bible in its entirety. It's definitely an issue, don't get me wrong. Ignorance plus zeal equals fanaticism.

You are right. I should add that one....thanks.

[Fiannan]

Remember this was an Oregon school in the Portland area. Nuf said?

[MarginOfError]

I have to agree that the Preamble to the Constitution makes a better opening than the Pledge of Allegiance as it currently stands. Public institutions should not encourage universal reference to god, gods, or lack thereof. The 'god' mentioned in the Pledge is inherently montheistic, which shows preference to monotheistic religions. Since the constitutions states that the government (Congress specifically) will make no law respecting an establishment of religion" this reference can be seen as unconstitutional.

There are two ways to remove this fault. Remove the words 'under god' from the Pledge, or revise it to say 'under god, gods, or lack thereof.'

[Fiannan]

I have to agree that the Preamble to the Constitution makes a better opening than the Pledge of Allegiance as it currently stands. Public institutions should not encourage universal reference to god, gods, or lack thereof. The 'god' mentioned in the Pledge is inherently montheistic, which shows preference to monotheistic religions. Since the constitutions states that the government (Congress specifically) will make no law respecting an establishment of religion" this reference can be seen as unconstitutional.

There are two ways to remove this fault. Remove the words 'under god' from the Pledge, or revise it to say 'under god, gods, or lack thereof.'

Oh I know, why not replace it with "The Lords of Kobol"?

Give me a break, did you know that there were states that up until 1828 had state (not federal) churches established? So what did the framers of the Constitution have in mind then?

Also, didn't it say a song about the preamble was what was used instead? Any idea of what that was all about?

[MarginOfError]

In an ironic twist, I think what the framers had in mind was that it didn't matter what the framers had in mind. The Constitution was intended to be a document that was flexible enough to accommodate changing times, because it was well understood that those writing the document couldn't anticipate the needs and circumstances of the people that would be using it 200 years in the future.

And what relevance do the states up until 1828 have? Why are we judging our current situation based on standards that are 180 years old. But if you really must, it appears that after 1828 people figured out that state churches were a bad idea and began removing them. I'm pretty sure that works against the point you're trying to make.

You do have a point about the song about the preamble. I missed that detail. Now I'm imaging the Preamble being sung in a round to the tune of Row Row Row Your Boat. It's almost enough to make me fall into the fetal position and suck my thumb.

[WANDERER]

No pledge or little ceremony to start off the day here...other than a roll call...anthemn once a week when the school gets together and that's it...it works okay. Kids of other faiths generally attend the religion class once a week with everybody else...it's a Christian one/non-denominational....the one or two not attending are generally atheist in background. I generally have about 5 kids of other faiths including Moslem who join in with the R.E class. And when the Chinese class goes off to visit a budhist temple everyone goes. It doesn't seem to be such a big deal. No idea why. Probably because the majority of kids who attend R.E don't attend a church anyway, I think I have about 4 church goers, so they're all pretty much in the same boat of not really knowing all that much about Christianity LOL.

[Fiannan]

In an ironic twist, I think what the framers had in mind was that it didn't matter what the framers had in mind. The Constitution was intended to be a document that was flexible enough to accommodate changing times, because it was well understood that those writing the document couldn't anticipate the needs and circumstances of the people that would be using it 200 years in the future.

So if the framer's intent doesn't matter then the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Flexible for the time? Okay fine...let's base our laws solely on public opinion. Then see what happens to all this liberal/left agenda. Oh wait, that's right...the Constitution is supposed to reflect the "enlightened" viewpoints of whatever left-leaning elite wants it to reflect. I guess the rest of us common people are all a bunch of gun loving religious freaks who are probably ignorant racists as well.

Want flexibility? Then what the framers set up was a process of constitutional amendments. Want the pledge thrown out? Get an amendment to alter the 1st. Amendment to make clear that no mention of God will be made, period. Go ahead...everyone is entitled to petition their legislators and get the process going.

And finally, maybe the framers were too dumb to see just how times would change and why the Constitution needed to be kinda ignored while a counterfiet interprettion is being held up as kind of a "God" for the ignorant masses -- like when the scientist in "The Island of Dr. Moroe" is killed but the other scientist hangs his body up to trick the hybreds to believe he is a God. Yeah, invoke the name of the Constitution to pacify the masses into believing if they go against leftist agendas they are insulting the founders of this nation. I guess that's the gameplan.

[MarginOfError]

Wow, you kind of blew that one out of proportion now didn't you. Perhaps you should listen to what is being said:

Applying general use of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools can be seen as a violation of the Constitution because the current reference to "God" shows respect to a particular religious institution. As such, it has no place in public institutions (such as public schools).

What's more, I stated that the problem could be remedied by removing the reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance. You might notice that the Pledge of Allegiance is not contained in the Constitution. So why would I need to amend the Constitution to toss out something that wasn't there in the first place.

As for amending the First Amendment, I have no desire to do that. I like it just the way it is. As does nearly every single liberal in the country.

[Hemidakota]

Any changes of the law would take 2/3 of states or population. This is why the liberals and the lifestylers can't make it happen. They will apply other means to alter the laws of the land. Thus, over time, usually five-years people will begin to adopt the changes. Sad....