[Vision2020] Should Pledge Simply Read "Including all faiths...?

[Ted Moffett]

On 9/15/06, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:


> Ted,
>
> There is nothing unconstitutional about the state promoting religion. The
> state can promote religion all it wants.
>

The State can promote religion all it wants?


So apparently Donovan thinks it is OK for the government to bring prayers
back into the public schools for recitations led by teachers?  What about
Buddhist chants?  If this issue is so trivial and unimportant, why not?  The
fact of the matter is, if this was even attempted, those who disagree with
promoting Buddhism in the classroom would be up in arms.  So the issue is
not trivial, in the minds of most people in the USA.  That's why the US
Senate voted 99-0 with one Senator not voting, for a grandstanding political
moment, to demonstrate their opposition to removing the words "under God"
from the pledge.  This vote had no legal impact on the court ruling in this
case, and I can assure you that many of these senators off the record would
admit there are real constitutional issues involved in the pledge's "under
God" phrase.  They were worried about political damage if they were
associated with thinking that the "under God" phrase was unconstitutional.

Donovan writes:


> Atheism is not a religion. It might be a spiritual belief, but it is not a
> religion.
>
>
> You are right it is offensive to Atheist. But you know what, it is also
> offensive to non-atheists to take it out. So you going to offend, 95% of the
> population, or 5% of the population?
>

You conveniently ignore other religious faiths.  Why do you ignore the
deeply religious who believe in Buddha, A Goddess, or Allah?  Should not the
pledge include mention of their beliefs?  Or do you not support including
the beliefs of minorities in a pledge worded by the government by an act of
law, meant to include all?  After all, if they are only 5% of the
population, they don't deserve to have their religious beliefs included in a
pledge mandated by law to be worded a specific way to represent all in the
USA in every public school?  Is this your position?  Is it "liberty and
justice for all" to have the pledge worded to mention one religious
orientation the nation is "under," and leave out firmly held differing
religious perspectives, even if in a minority?

Why can't the pledge read "one nation, including all faiths, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all."

This would include all religions, and would not offend the few "atheists"
out there, who really are a minority of those who wish to have a strict
separation of church and state.  Most of those who wish to protect a firm
separation of church and state believe in God or some other religious
orientation:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=aboutau

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_publicschools

As a non-sectarian, non-partisan organization, AU's membership includes
Christians, Jews, Buddhists, people with no religious affiliation and
others. Democrats, Republicans and independents have joined our ranks.
-----------

Sorry, but I disagree with wording the pledge to exclude others of profound
religious faith who follow a different spiritual ideology.  I guess I suffer
from the idealistic notion that all religions and viewpoints should
be included in "one nation (fill in with appropriate phrase), indivisible
with liberty and justice for all"

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060917/9551d958/attachment.htm