Thread: The Pledge of Allegiance (part of American schools)

DeusExMachina said Why do we Atheists get upset when you display the Ten Commandments in the courthouse or do similar stuff Nativity Scene on public ground, ... is really easy. It has nothing to do with the fact that we are Atheist, it is the fact that we are Secularists as well and displaying religious symbols, passages, statues, ... on public grounds, such as schools, courthouses and so on violates the separation of church and state. If you want to put it up on private property, fine, your land, your decision. But on public land and funded by tax money violates your precious constitution. Also we fight against these religious beliefs because they are harmful or at the very least a nuisance. Abortion and same sex marriage are only issues because of religion, so is the matter of stem cell research. And many other topics, specifically in the realms of society and science. It is because we have good evidence that belief in ancient fairy tales and genocidal desert gods is harmful to our progress as human beings. It incites violence and bigotry and glorifies ignorance and compliance. It stomps our ambitions of transcending what we are and becoming so much more. And that is a good reason to get upset about it. And just as a sidenote, Atheism can''t be a religion, it's impossible by definition. As to the whole idea of pledges in general. I find them to be outdated relics of the past. The pledge of allegiance instills useless and brainless patriotism. The oathpledge members of the military take upon entering the armed forces is useless and redundant. I have already signed a contract saying the exact same thing by that point. Why do I need to swear it in some kind of overblown ceremony? And before you ask, I am a member of the military. As for pledges of office, the same thing goes really. The position you're about to take has defined responsibilities similar to a contract so there is no need to swear it as well. Signing it should suffice. It is generally a waste of time. You could of course make the argument that those are public displays of the respective contracts and responsibilities, showing them off to the public and reassuring citizens. That is the easy way out for me. If you are swayed by a guy putting up his hand and repeating an empty phrase, you are too naive. Let them prove their convictions with actions rather than words. Instead of letting a politician off the hook with a simple oathpledge make them prove their dedication by putting their money where their mouth is. Make them show you that they care about the people. Talk is cheap. Click to expand... Thanks Deus Ex Machina, for articulating everything that I think, and probably much better than I ever could. One thing I will reiterate from your post, is that Atheism is in no sense or form a religion. 'Atheist', as it's defined simply means one who is not a theist , or one without a belief in God, or gods , however the word is often hijacked and redefined so that it can be used as a straw man. I'm not American, but Australian, and we have no pledge, and I don't think one is required. Personally, if I was American I would not take the pledge whilst the words 'Under God' were contained in it. Neither would I swear on a bible in court. Being asked to assert my sincerity or honesty - which is what it really comes down to - by lying, doesn't make sense, and I'd rather be known as an atheist than a liar. How many people do utter those words or take the pledge for no other reason than they feel pressured or 'expected' to do so? Regardless if something has been in a Language for fifty years or more, a society should be flexible enough to change with the times, and belief in a god is lessening with each passing generation. Do you really want a large and ever growing proportion of your County's population to take a supposedly unifying pledge without sincerity? What use are empty words? Not to mention those American citizens who feel as if they can't take their own country's pledge at all. If the words were omitted, it would make no difference to the ability of any believer to commit to the pledge, however it would allow those who do not believe, and cannot now pledge with sincerity, to do so. Which is the more inclusive and unifying?