h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm an American (which I admit rather sadly), and I have to agree with the ruling on the pledge. I don't really give a hoot about organized religion, and I always thought it was ridiculous to have religion involved in the pledge. Of course, Mr. Bush has a lot to learn about seperation of religion and state. I think maybe he needs to start slowly...maybe by looking up the word "of" *snicker*

It becomes sad when even people from the US, skit Mr Bush.

JGTS

-- DoctorMO --

Thanks - I'm glad you agree!

One thing I didn't mention in the column was that the Pledge ruling prompted a lot of mutterings about the need to appoint 'common sense' judges from certain Senators. I assume that for 'common sense' you can read 'conservative', so I hope that doesn't happen. I'd have thought that the US Supreme Court in particular was quite conservative enough. It certainly looked that way at the end of the last Presidential election campaign!

Things with the Supreme Court will only get worse, I'm afraid...
I'm pretty sure that Bush will have the opportunity and duty to appoint two justices...or at least one...

Things with the Supreme Court will only get worse, I'm afraid...
I'm pretty sure that Bush will have the opportunity and duty to appoint two justices...or at least one...

I think that some senators seem to regard "common sense" as a bizarre pseudonym for "religious zealot"

How true...

Of course, those sort of things are just perpetuated by a Republican president

Lynne, one thing I'd be very interested to know is how much open criticism of Bush you get in the American media now. The impression I get from what I read over here is that for a while after last year's terrorist attacks on America, it was taboo to criticise Dubya because he was the national leader at a time of crisis - but that now it is once again becoming OK to point out what an idiot he is, and his approval ratings are no longer quite so sky-high.
I was very interested in the story of what happened to Michael Moore's book 'Stupid White Men'. It's so critical of Bush that Moore's publishers were nervous about releasing it, and tried to get him to tone it down. But he refused, the book belatedly made it into the shops... and became a #1 best-seller. Does this indicate some kind of anti-Bush backlash, or a release of resentment that had been suppressed after last September?

Well, I can only gived a biased view on this. I live in Indiana, a very conservative state. Most people I know are Republican, so they never really bashed him to begin with. I think that most people are starting to loosen up about the terrorism. One thing Americans do well is panic, but the country did come together nicely after the attack. The patriotism in this country, however, seems to be rather oppresive. I think now the country is not quite so "in your face" about being patriotic, and people don't feel frightened to speak out against stupidity in politics. The media (that I'm getting in Cornville) wasn't ever really critical. Like I said though, the state is conservative, my city even more so, and our newspaper tends to be skewed. Personally, I didn't suppress any resentment after last September, but I think some people did so they wouldn't be ostracised. It's really a combination of factors, and the typical flow of politics and public approval.

Alot of the flack will be generated by people who didn't want him in, in the first place, and because he only just got in, his integrity was questioned from day one, not sure... but he dosn't seem to be making good use of that oval office.

-- DoctorMO -

I tend to disagree with the lot of you. God-fearing people founded the United States of America. They did, however, have enough presence of mind to not declare this country a Christian country (nor a Judaic country, nor a Muslim country, nor a Pagan country). Having been persecuted for their beliefs in the countries of Europe, they declared that people have the ability to congregate with like-minded people and that the government cannot interfere with that.

The Pledge of Allegiance identifies with the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans. The vast majority of Americans believe in one God. The government does not sponsor any one religion. The government does not punish those who believe any religion.

We do not put people in jail for being atheist, we do not lock people up for being multi-theistic, and we do not deport people who worship Allah. On the contrary, we welcome them with open arms and guarantee them a place where they are free to worship without the interference of the government.

So, the Pledge of Allegiance declares we are “one nation, under God with liberty and justice for all.” Yes “liberty and justice for all.” No one in this country is forced to take the pledge. No one is forced to say the words. But even if they do not say the words or take the pledge, they are still afforded “liberty and justice”. Those are not predicated on the taking of the pledge.

Public schools in America do not teach theology. They do not instill Christian beliefs or theories on the pupils, nor Islam, nor Judaism, nor Satanism, nor Native American beliefs, nor any other belief system.

If the vast majority of Americans decided their creator was named Bob, and changed the Pledge to reflect such (i.e. “one nation, under Bob…”). I would instruct my children not to say it, but I would not cry foul and proclaim that since I don’t believe in Bob, no one can say it. Some will say this is wrong; the children that do not say the Pledge will be persecuted and made fun of. So be it. Followers of my faith have been persecuted since it’s inception, and will continue to be so in some parts of the world right up until the end of time. I believe my faith, and the faith I have instilled in my children is strong enough to withstand a little being made fun of.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not guarantee separation of church and state, not in the body nor in any of the amendments. What it says is this (in the 1st Amendment); “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

In closing, I have to wonder how Britons would feel if the song “God Save the Queen” were outlawed because an atheist didn’t like the word “God” in the song.

OK, I'm British and abouit God Save The Queen- I don't think it should be our national anthem. A national anthem should be about pride in the nation. The one we have features the elevation of a monarch above others- preposterous. It also features "God". What do God and the Queen have to do with our national pride?

Also, what's your view on the bit in the article about the student punished for standing with a raised fist instead of saying the pledge? That doesn't sound very tolerant of alternative views to me.

Also, the founding fathers had nothing to do with the pledge of alleigance. It is only about fifty years old.

The part of caineMutiny's posting that I find most disturbing is this: 'Some will say this is wrong: the children that do not say the Pledge will be persecuted and made fun of. So be it. Followers of my faith have been persecuted since its inception...'

What does this mean? Is cM seriously saying that it's perfectly OK for children with minority views to be persecuted in the Land of the Free? It certainly reads that way.

Also, if public schools in America don't teach theology, then why do I keep reading disturbing news stories about Creationists demanding that their view of the origins of the universe be given equal priority to the established scientific views on the matter in American schools?

As for 'God Save The Queen', it depends which one you mean. I'm with Egon on the subject of the UK national anthem. But I would be upset if The Sex Pistols' classic punk rock anthem of that name was banned again, because it's one of my all-time favourite singles.

Somehow, I thought you might be with me on that. And I agree with you on the Pistols. have you heard motorhead's version? It's not as good.

I'm not even going to get into the evolution vs. creation debate.

On the subject of the pledge...
No, children are not forced to say the pledge. I have a very distinct memory of being in first grade (I'm only 18) and we had a boy in our class who was a Jehovah's Witness. People of his faith do not say the pledge or celebrate holidays/birthdays. I remember thinking, as a little kid, "Why isn't he saying the pledge. He must be weird." His parents made this choice for him. Children are being forced through peer pressure if not official action, unless their parents tell the teacher their views.

America was founded on the concept of religious freedom. Many people do not believe in a single god, and I for one did not say that part of the pledge. However, that was only after I had reached the middle school level (14-15 years old). When you're young, you don't have enough information to make that sort of decision. Your parents or your school ends up making the choice for you.

I would also like to point out that the "under God" part of the pledge was added after its creation.

It's a shame that alot of 'western' countries like the US don't have Theological Classes in which anything from Philiosophy to Buda is Disscused, perhaps the kids wound't go around shooting each other.

You know somthing that always amazed me, the US says it's the land of the free, it's almost as laugable as the USR with a none classed socity.

-- DoctorMO --

Egon: The kid with the raised fist should not have been punished for that action, as long as he was not disrupting the class, which, from the information provided, it does not sound like he was. I’m sure (I really, really hope anyway) that the courts will agree with me on this one. I have never said, and did not even imply (I don’t think) that any one, of any nationality, creed, race, religion etc etc etc should be forced to say the Pledge. I didn’t mean to imply that I thought the founding fathers had anything to do with the Pledge. The Pledge is, however, more than 50 years old. About 50 years ago the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic men’s group) successfully lobbied Congress to include the ‘one nation, under God’ portion.

Ormondroyd: No, I am not saying it is perfectly okay for children of minority views to be persecuted in the Land of the Free. What I said was it was perfectly ok with me if MY children were persecuted for our beliefs, minority or otherwise. I would, however, punish my children severely for making fun of, or persecuting others because of their beliefs. They do not teach theology, which is why you read about the Creationists demanding equal time. If they DID teach theology, you would hear about the atheists, Muslims, pagans etc demanding it not be taught. And of course, I meant the national anthem.

Lynne: I can’t speak for all the schools, in all the cities, in all the states of the U.S. I can say that I have never read or even heard about children being forced to say the Pledge. In fact, Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura recently opposed legislation that would have required all children in public schools in that state to say the Pledge. It is embarrassing to find myself on the same side of any issue as Jesse Ventura. And for the young who do not have the proper information to make the decision whether or not to say the Pledge, yes, it is up to the parents to make that decision for you. We, as parents, have a responsibility to teach our kids. Part of my kids’ daily teachings involves our religion. Another part involves good moral character, doing what you say, being a person of honor etc. Another part involves the importance of family. It is our job, as parents, to rear our children to believe as we believe.

DoctorMO: I have to agree with you. There should be classes on the different religions in schools, describing what their beliefs are and how they worship. If I had the opportunity to learn other religions, I would be much less ignorant now. Why do you say calling the U.S. the ‘Land of the Free’ is laughable?

Well, caineMutiny, we agree on a few things after all. I agree that it's a very good thing for children to be taught about different religious beliefs. A friend of mine is a teacher who teaches religious studies in just that way, informing his students about the basic beliefs of numerous faiths, and I think that's great - patrticularly as we live in an area where there are lots of Muslim and Sikh people around. The type of religious education I object to is the sort that I got between the ages of 7-11: the sort that presents one religious viewpoint as being as indisputably true as the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. That, to me, is indoctrination, not education.

I'm not sure, though, that 'It is our job, as parents, to rear our children to believe as we believe.' I'm not a parent, so it's difficult for me to be sure what I'd do in that very difficult and responsible position. However, I like to think that I'd basically say to my kids: 'This is what I believe, and this is why I believe it,' on issues where there is clearly more than one rationally defensible point of view. However, I'd have no problems about saying, for instance, that killing is wrong and racism is wrong. Even as a Godless infidel, I don't think there can be much reasonable argument about principles like that!

That said, I have to admit that I'd be pretty upset if any child of mine grew up to be a right-wing conservative. If that happened, I'm sure I'd wonder where I'd gone wrong!

Hah! You sound like my mother Orm! She always wondered how she raised a Republican. I just tell her she raised me 'right'.

Your vision of what to tell your children is the way they learn. We hold our beliefs because we have examined other belief systems and found them lacking, which leads to our current set of beliefs. For this, we will defend our beliefs, which teaches the kids that our beliefs are correct because they are worth defending. So, in turn the children will believe what the parents believe IF the parents talk about those beliefs with the children.

My parents are christians, and I was christened, but they never tried to force the religion on me. I think that when parent's raise their children to share their beliefs, it is unfair on the child, as I don't believe they should really be forced to take a religious viewpoint until they've made up their own mind to believe.