setback for atheists

[gridfaniker]

one nation under God (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=us&sid=atYRSfJC_lgM)

[builder]

I was listening to this on the radio. They were saying that this was one of the worst cases that could have made it to the supreme court. Trying to associate the pledge as a prayer was sure to fail. Even I know just because the word GOD is written somewhere doesn't make it a prayer.

[FreakOnA_Leash]

I was listening to this on the radio. They were saying that this was one of the worst cases that could have made it to the supreme court. Trying to associate the pledge as a prayer was sure to fail. Even I know just because the word GOD is written somewhere doesn't make it a prayer.

But if you happen to not believe in God, does that mean you aren't part of the nation? Personally it doesn't bother me either way, but I can definitely see the point. There are many people with many beliefs that live in this "nation" that don't necessarily believe in God.

[ECILAM]

Good thing I'm an infernal heathen. I hate setbacks.

[builder]

You're right Freak. But just because it's said doesn't make it a prayer and that's what this lawsuit was about. They said the word GOD in a pledge was the same as praying. It's not. I'm not a believer. I have my own beliefs that don't jive with Christianity on many levels. If people want UNDER GOD removed from the pledge, money, etc, they need to show different reasons why than this weak one. It's a setback now because there's gonna be precedent.

[hasbeen99]

I don't think the line in question is actually forcing people to pledge allegiance to God. :thinking:

[vpkozel]

I don't think the line in question is actually forcing people to pledge allegiance to God. :thinking:

They are pledging allegiance to the flag. Duh.

[Superfluous_Nut]

They are pledging allegiance to the flag. Duh.
...and to the republic for which is stands. they then go on to pronounce a belief that this republic is "under god" which would imply that they believe in a god and that god is more important than the nation.

[Miss tery]

Actually the whole pledge thing is kind of scary.

[vpkozel]

...and to the republic for which is stands. they then go on to pronounce a belief that this republic is "under god" which would imply that they believe in a god and that god is more important than the nation.

Which would be entirely consistent with the phrases that the Founders used to tell King George to shove it up his arse.

[VOR]

Actually the whole pledge thing is kind of scary.

Only if you're a true beliver in lemon oil.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Which would be entirely consistent with the phrases that the Founders used to tell King George to shove it up his arse.
that's fine. i don't mind people saying it or believing it. i would just prefer they did it on their own time and their own nickle. and i certainly don't like the idea that you MUST say it (whether you believe it or not). nor do i like the idea that a public school teacher would lead the class in a recitation that in effect "teaches" that god is the supreme ruler of everything.

[vpkozel]

and i certainly don't like the idea that you MUST say it (whether you believe it or not).

But you have no problem with dictating that you MUST NOT have the option to say if you want to, right.

If you don't want to say the words "under God," don't. If you do, do.

It really is that simple.

[slydevl]

That is the problem with most of our current laws regarding religious expression. "MUST NOT" is against the current interpretation of the 1st just as much as "MUST" is. In fact, taking the actual words of the 1st and not the "seperation of church and state" reading that uneducated people have been duped into accepting as their mantra, I would say it reads stronger against prohibition than establishment.

[VOR]

That is the problem with most of our current laws regarding religious expression. "MUST NOT" is against the current interpretation of the 1st just as much as "MUST" is. In fact, taking the actual words of the 1st and not the "seperation of church and state" reading that uneducated people have been duped into accepting as their mantra, I would say it reads stronger against prohibition than establishment.

Not really, it has already been determined that the government is soverign and in the meta activites of the government the constitution is in many application not applicable. So it's up to parents ot develop the morality of their kids not the schools or the courts or the dot or the police department or the military. which are all agents of the government with no offical religion. It is just people who want to co-opt the constitution for their own purposes who get very explicit about the 1st amendment when it suits (teachers evangelizing) their purpose and trample it when it suits their purpose (homeland secuirity). Neocons are such assholes.

[Superfluous_Nut]

But you have no problem with dictating that you MUST NOT have the option to say if you want to, right.

If you don't want to say the words "under God," don't. If you do, do.

It really is that simple.
honestly, i think it's a waste of time to recite the pledge every day. i wouldn't begrudge students a moment before class starts to have a prayer or pledge or whatever it is they want. i don't like the idea of a teacher telling students that god rules over everything.

[vpkozel]

i don't like the idea of a teacher telling students that god rules over everything.

Quite a nice jump there, Mr. Beamon.

The declaration clearly states that the rights we hold dear are granted by God - so to say that we are one nation under Him is clearly consistent.

The question to be asked is "Does the phrase 'under God' constitute a law 'respecting an establishment of religion' and does does taking it out mean that you are 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof'?"

[VOR]

Quite a nice jump there, Mr. Beamon.

The declaration clearly states that the rights we hold dear are granted by God - so to say that we are one nation under Him is clearly consistent.

The question to be asked is "Does the phrase 'under God' constitute a law 'respecting an establishment of religion' and does does taking it out mean that you are 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof'?"

You know this who argument is stupid when you go to catholic school and a nun leads the pledge everymorning, and makes you sing the staspankledbanana.

[gridfaniker]

You know this who argument is stupid when you go to catholic school and a nun leads the pledge everymorning, and makes you sing the staspankledbanana.

dukey stole VOR's password.

[hasbeen99]

Actually the whole pledge thing is kind of scary.

It certainly would be much more so if the government ever tried to hold us accountable to it. :saywhat:

[hasbeen99]

...and to the republic for which is stands. they then go on to pronounce a belief that this republic is "under god" which would imply that they believe in a god and that god is more important than the nation.

I don't know if I agree with that. I still see, via the sentence structure and punctuation, that the allegiance being pledged is to the republic. The statement that the republic is "under God" is stated as a matter of fact, not allegiance.

Now I can see where atheists could be motivated to contest that statement, but I don't see the merit of the argument being made that reciting the pledge means one has to believe in God to be an American.

[hasbeen99]

That is the problem with most of our current laws regarding religious expression. "MUST NOT" is against the current interpretation of the 1st just as much as "MUST" is.

Great point.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Quite a nice jump there, Mr. Beamon.

not sure what you mean by this. i'm simply trying to be clear in what i think is appropriate and what i think is inappropriate. are you saying that a teacher reciting the pledge is not telling the children in her class that god comes before the nation in some aspects?


The declaration clearly states that the rights we hold dear are granted by God - so to say that we are one nation under Him is clearly consistent.

and? it's your right to say it. i don't care. it's your right to tell people you believe it. i wouldn't mind a teacher saying she agrees with it, tho i'd rather she didn't go there. a teacher is an authority figure. everything she says is supposed to be adhered to by the students in her class. no questions. i think it's wrong for a teacher to delve into religion. i don't mind a history lesson that talks about what other people believed, unless i guess it gets a bit slanted -- like all she ever teaches is about mormons, for example.


The question to be asked is "Does the phrase 'under God' constitute a law 'respecting an establishment of religion' and does does taking it out mean that you are 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof'?"
it's close enough for me. as for the free exercise issue, like ALL rights, there are limitations. we all recognize that schools are special places -- your 2nd ammendment right is revoked in school zones, your free speech right is curtailed (particularly if you're a student there), etc. why be surprised that free worship would also be curtailed in school?

[vpkozel]

it's close enough for me. as for the free exercise issue, like ALL rights, there are limitations. we all recognize that schools are special places -- your 2nd ammendment right is revoked in school zones, your free speech right is curtailed (particularly if you're a student there), etc. why be surprised that free worship would also be curtailed in school?

So, when is your right to "separate church and state" limited?

[Superfluous_Nut]

I don't know if I agree with that. I still see, via the sentence structure and punctuation, that the allegiance being pledged is to the republic. The statement that the republic is "under God" is stated as a matter of fact, not allegiance.

Now I can see where atheists could be motivated to contest that statement, but I don't see the merit of the argument being made that reciting the pledge means one has to believe in God to be an American.
i'm not saying that one has to believe in god to be an american. i'm saying that the pledge makes the statement that our country is "under god". i take this to mean that god comes first in some way. that god is more important. that our country owes something to god, and thus WE owe something to god.

i don't care if people believe this, i just don't want a public figure of authority to tell people they have authority over that this is "a matter of fact" (as you suggest). it's a matter of belief and i don't like teachers teaching belief systems.

[Superfluous_Nut]

So, when is your right to "separate church and state" limited?
i wish that was a right.

[slydevl]

So, when is your right to "separate church and state" limited?

Oooops.....guess that argument only works when you agree with what is being limited.

[vpkozel]

i wish that was a right.

??????????

[hasbeen99]

...i just don't want a public figure of authority to tell people they have authority over that this is "a matter of fact" (as you suggest). it's a matter of belief and i don't like teachers teaching belief systems.

Fair enough. :)

[Superfluous_Nut]

??????????

i wish that there was a seperation of church and state enumerated in the bill of rights.

then we wouldn't have "in god we trust" on our money, the president wouldnt' say "god bless america" or even mention god, etc.

i guess my freedom FROM religion is limited by your freedom to worship, if you're looking for a limit to my rights.

[vpkozel]

i wish that there was a seperation of church and state enumerated in the bill of rights.

then we wouldn't have "in god we trust" on our money, the president wouldnt' say "god bless america" or even mention god, etc.

i guess my freedom FROM religion is limited by your freedom to worship, if you're looking for a limit to my rights.

You have a right not to have a State religion (or lack thereof). You have a right not to be denied any position because of your religion (or lack thereof). You have a right to worship freely - as long as your worship does not impose on someone else's rights (e.g., human sacrifice). You have a right to never be persecuted for your religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

And no one is looking to limit YOUR rights - what they are looking to do is interpret the Constitution in the spirit that it was written.

[Reznor]

would wasting your time on something you don't believe in not be considered an imposition though? I'm on the fence on this one, just playing devil's advocate here. I really see no reason to change the pledge, but it should be voluntary in schools.

[Superfluous_Nut]

would wasting your time on something you don't believe in not be considered an imposition though? I'm on the fence on this one, just playing devil's advocate here. I really see no reason to change the pledge, but it should be voluntary in schools.
exactly. and they already changed the pledge -- "under god" was added in the 50's (i think).

[Superfluous_Nut]

You have a right not to have a State religion (or lack thereof).
or lack thereof? i'm not sure what you mean by that.

[vpkozel]

or lack thereof? i'm not sure what you mean by that.

That having religious void is in fact "respecting an establishment of religion"

[El Bastardo]

Anybody know what the pledge said before they changed it?

[vpkozel]

Anybody know what the pledge said before they changed it?

I think they just added the "under God" part.

[BigVito]

I think they just added the "under God" part.Yep. Wasn't "In God We Trust" added to the currency around 1900 or so? What caused this? I understand the "Under God" was in reaction to godless communism but never understood the context of the addition to currency.

[vpkozel]

Yep. Wasn't "In God We Trust" added to the currency around 1900 or so? What caused this? I understand the "Under God" was in reaction to godless communism but never understood the context of the addition to currency.

Ask and ye shall receive......

Wait, does this make me a god? Not God with a big G mind, you just one with a little g. I think it does. Please note and refer to me as appropriate.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

[gridfaniker]

I really see no reason to change the pledge, but it should be voluntary in schools.

It is. The kids have the option of reciting it.

[VOR]

yeah they have since the quakers raised a stink long ago. Some just don't tell anyone about it and it become manditory by default.

[BigVito]

Ask and ye shall receive......

Wait, does this make me a god? Not God with a big G mind, you just one with a little g. I think it does. Please note and refer to me as appropriate.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
Naw, I think it makes you a "google." Good stuff. Thanks.

[magnus]

It seems as if the idea of the atheistic push is to keep religion from being in anywhere but the church itself and people's minds. I've heard atheists complain about "Happy Holidays" signs. The money, the pledge, those things are not infringements.
The separation issue is a matter of not being controlled by a religion, nor a state controlling/starting a religion. Looking at the issues in the Middle East, in Asia regarding religion, it seems as if it's where it should be. I don't believe it was made to protect atheists from having to encounter things they don't want to see mentioned.

I also don't think that the President loses the right to be a religious or spiritual man just because he's President, since that was brought up. I don't think teachers have to squash every last piece of their own spirituality to be teachers, but if we're going that far, we could take a lot of political bias out of teaching at the college level while we're at it.

[Reznor]

It seems as if the idea of the atheistic push is to keep religion from being in anywhere but the church itself and people's minds. I've heard atheists complain about "Happy Holidays" signs. The money, the pledge, those things are not infringements.
The separation issue is a matter of not being controlled by a religion, nor a state controlling/starting a religion. Looking at the issues in the Middle East, in Asia regarding religion, it seems as if it's where it should be. I don't believe it was made to protect atheists from having to encounter things they don't want to see mentioned.

I also don't think that the President loses the right to be a religious or spiritual man just because he's President, since that was brought up. I don't think teachers have to squash every last piece of their own spirituality to be teachers, but if we're going that far, we could take a lot of political bias out of teaching at the college level while we're at it.
Nice way of putting it, especially the part about it not being made to protect atheists from having to encounter those things. I just wish everyone could be more tolerant, whether it's religion, lack of religion, sexuality, race, whatever. That's why it bothers me so much to see people attacked for those reasons, there's really no sense in it.

[gridfaniker]

newdow (http://maddox.xmission.com/pledge.html)

[El Bastardo]

History of the Pledge of Allegiance:
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

[Superfluous_Nut]

It seems as if the idea of the atheistic push is to keep religion from being in anywhere but the church itself and people's minds. I've heard atheists complain about "Happy Holidays" signs. The money, the pledge, those things are not infringements.
The separation issue is a matter of not being controlled by a religion, nor a state controlling/starting a religion. Looking at the issues in the Middle East, in Asia regarding religion, it seems as if it's where it should be. I don't believe it was made to protect atheists from having to encounter things they don't want to see mentioned.

I also don't think that the President loses the right to be a religious or spiritual man just because he's President, since that was brought up. I don't think teachers have to squash every last piece of their own spirituality to be teachers, but if we're going that far, we could take a lot of political bias out of teaching at the college level while we're at it.
yeah, but the thing is, when my tax dollars are put to work, i'd prefer not wasting them on christian slogans. the money thing doesn't bother me too much, really. what bothers me is the reaction one gets when they question why our currency would have a religious slogan on it. why do christians feel the need to have this on our money? if it's "not a big deal" then shouldn't it also be "not a big deal" if it's not there?

these are just symptoms of the larger battle -- just how religious a nation are we? some would prefer it to be less, others would prefer it to be more.

[gridfaniker]

yeah, but the thing is, when my tax dollars are put to work, i'd prefer not wasting them on christian slogans. the money thing doesn't bother me too much, really. what bothers me is the reaction one gets when they question why our currency would have a religious slogan on it. why do christians feel the need to have this on our money? if it's "not a big deal" then shouldn't it also be "not a big deal" if it's not there?

these are just symptoms of the larger battle -- just how religious a nation are we? some would prefer it to be less, others would prefer it to be more.


explain how the pledge of allegiance is costing you tax dollars. :huh:

[hasbeen99]

why do christians feel the need to have this on our money? if it's "not a big deal" then shouldn't it also be "not a big deal" if it's not there?

I personally don't care if "In God We Trust" is taken off our money, and I didn't care that the Alabama SSC ordered the monument featuring the ten commandments be removed. There was a HUGE uproar in the Christian community when that happened, but I was decidedly in the minority.

I have always believed the power and influence of God is not in material things, but in people. That may be the most significant, yet overlooked change to come as a result of Jesus' ministry.

[Superfluous_Nut]

explain how the pledge of allegiance is costing you tax dollars. :huh:
my tax dollars pay the salaries of people that run the school and the general operating expenses to keep the school open. whatever goes on there, is something that i'm paying for.

[gridfaniker]

my tax dollars pay the salaries of people that run the school and the general operating expenses to keep the school open. whatever goes on there, is something that i'm paying for.

Kids being given time to voluntarily recite the pledge is costing you money? It takes less than 20 seconds to stand up, face the flag, recite the pledge and sit back down. What if they were given time to voluntarily recite the old version of the pledge, without the "under God" in it. Would you be upset?

[vpkozel]

my tax dollars pay the salaries of people that run the school and the general operating expenses to keep the school open. whatever goes on there, is something that i'm paying for.

So you are saying that Christian families would have the right to demand that their flawed theory of creation be given equal time with science's flawed version? Should a history of religion be taught as well?

[Superfluous_Nut]

Kids being given time to voluntarily recite the pledge is costing you money? It takes less than 20 seconds to stand up, face the flag, recite the pledge and sit back down. What if they were given time to voluntarily recite the old version of the pledge, without the "under God" in it. Would you be upset?
yes it is. i don't mind if they congregate prior to class and have their little ritual. if they were required to recite a pledge without "under god" i would question to rationale. if they were given class time to voluntarily recite a pledge, i would still consider it a waste of money, tho without the religious aspect, it might fall on this side of acceptability.

[Superfluous_Nut]

So you are saying that Christian families would have the right to demand that their flawed theory of creation be given equal time with science's flawed version? Should a history of religion be taught as well?
if you could find an unbiased source for a history of religion, i would think it's a valid topic for study. but i think that's more a college level course (like ancient history is generally).

i think it's best not to teach religious theories in public schools. how would that christian family feel if little johnny is told that "day" doesn't litterally mean "day" in the bible. what if they believe it really does mean "day"? would they complain that it wasn't the right version of the bible interpretation? what about other religions and their creation stories?

evolution is a worthwhile subject. there's plenty of scientific evidence and that's where it should be taught -- in a science class. students would learn about how it came to be and the arguments against it. i remember learning the different theories of selection including ones that we believed at the time were bogus. in a sense, i was taught the evolution of the theory of evolution. religious arguments were presented as well, insofar as they were based on science (like explaining old bones were remnants of the great flood).

i don't recall ever learning the big bang theory in public school, tho. no learning the origin of life.

[gridfaniker]

yes it is.

It ain't costing you shit.