Aclu Strikes Back

[SirKenin]

BUT, the same first amendment that allows the BSA to discriminate also bars the government from giving them preference. The 1st amendment is a dubble-edged sward in this regard.

No, you have yet to prove that. As a matter of fact, a lower court ruling in fact outlined quite the opposite.

You seem to be getting tripped up on the fact that Boy Scouts is not a religious organization in the eyes of the Law. Therefore your First/Fourteenth Ammendment arguments are inapplicable. Void.

Again. Where are your facts?

 

[crazyfingers]

Doesn't matter. Neither Court found the Boy Scouts to be a religious organization. Neither Court found the Boy Scouts to be violating the Constitution, rather operating by the Rules. Once more, both clauses of the Amendment have been satisfied.

HELLO!!!! That is NOT the Point. The point is that the government can't help them to discriminate.

Clearly I was wrong to have taken you off of my IGNORE LIST. You can not be reasoned with. YOu are back on my IGNORE LIST.

 

[SirKenin]

HELLO!!!! That is NOT the Point. The point is that the government can't help them to discriminate.

Clearly I was wrong to have taken you off of my IGNORE LIST. You can not be reasoned with. YOu are back on my IGNORE LIST.

That IS the point.

You are citing Amendments... Laws... That don't apply. You are basing your arguments on a fallacy and trying to beat them into me by repetition.

That is THE point.

 

[Philosoft]

Look up God at http://www.britannica.com/ See what it tells you.

Done. Have no idea how you think it supports your 'God does not imply monotheism' wackiness.

So, first, we can safely establish that you can not prove monotheism.

Well, no, you can't. Not from that encyclopedia page, at least.

Fourth, the use of God in a pledge has been ruled by the Supreme Court to not necessarily indicate adherance to or endorcement of religion, rather that we "presuppose a Supreme Being". Please note there is no definition of whom that Supreme Being might be.

The courts have been wrong about the pledge for 50 years. "Ceremonial deism" is one of the worst legal arguments I've heard, and I've been around lawyers my entire life. The word "God" amounts to an endorsement of monotheism, plain and simple. Only the Abrahamic religions refer to their god as "God."

 

[Philosoft]

See http://www.familydefensecouncil.com/liberty_legal_institute.htm for more information.

Holy someone-should-read-their-links-before-posting Batman. This is an Amicus brief submitted in support of the BSA, so it doesn't actually represent the findings of any court. Allow me to quote from that linked summary:

I. There is no essential difference between the Boy Scouts of America and any large religious denomination or organization.

For associational purposes, therefore, there is little, if anything, to separate the Boy Scouts of America from any large religious group.

Ultimately, this case is about freedom of conscience, a concept crucial to religious liberty. Freedom of conscience is [*9] powerful. It is in fact a major reason for the existence of our religion clauses.

Removing associational protection from a religious landscape which already has no protection from neutral and generally applicable laws would be a mistake. Religious institutions would be forced to choose between following the State or their religious conscience, their God or their government. Historically, upon such choices have governments fallen.

 

[SirKenin]

Done. Have no idea how you think it supports your 'God does not imply monotheism' wackiness.

Well, no, you can't. Not from that encyclopedia page, at least.

The courts have been wrong about the pledge for 50 years. "Ceremonial deism" is one of the worst legal arguments I've heard, and I've been around lawyers my entire life. The word "God" amounts to an endorsement of monotheism, plain and simple. Only the Abrahamic religions refer to their god as "God."

God can be any one of a number of things. In the secular world, your god can be your money, your job, your possessions, your wife. It's whatever you worship and hold in the highest esteem. How about that phat American Express Platinum or that nice little ocean-view bungalow with the Mercedes?

In this article, http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/mono.html Monotheism is described in great detail.

Monotheism means belief in "one God." Before discussing the importance of the "mono," or God's oneness, we need a basic understanding of the nature of God.

The God of ethical monotheism is the God first revealed to the world in the Hebrew Bible. Through it, we can establish God's four primary characteristics:

1. God is supranatural.

2. God is personal.

3. God is good.

4. God is holy.

It is not possible for God to be part of nature for two reasons.

First, nature is finite and God is infinite.
Second, and more important, nature is amoral.

First, there is no indication that the original "God" of the Pledge of Allegiance fit all of those criteria. Second, "God" does not emplicitly imply monotheism, and certinaly does not apply strictly to Abrahamic religions, IMO.

 

[SirKenin]

Holy someone-should-read-their-links-before-posting Batman. This is an Amicus brief submitted in support of the BSA, so it doesn't actually represent the findings of any court. Allow me to quote from that linked summary:

I realized what it was after I wrote it, some time later, and concede on this point.

By the way, you forgot the last part of the summary, which I think is important

The better approach is to respect freedom of conscience and allow a diversity of private groups, including religious groups, to flourish without State interference. Upon this fundamental freedom has this country risen to become a beacon for the world.

Also, from that same link

Ultimately, this case is about freedom of conscience, a concept crucial to religious liberty. Freedom of conscience is [*9] powerful. It is in fact a major reason for the existence of our religion clauses.

We know they have religious teachings. We know much of that comes from the organization that house the BSA troups, over 70% churches. We also know that the greatest majority of their mandate is not implicitly religious.

In this light, this does not make them a religious organization. Indeed, even in their own Amicus Brief, they couldn't present themselves unequivocally as a religious organization, although they did well at proving their similarities, which was addressed in that post where I discussed your link. In fact when they have been presented as one the Judge disagreed. More than once.

Incidentally, I've been in a troup like Boy Scouts, and I can tell you that although even the name says Christian, the Christian content is less than minimal.

 

[SirKenin]

I forgot. We don't know what God "Under God" is talking about. How do we know it's not one of the Egyptian Gods? Or Buddha? Anything but Communist Atheism, the then current threat?

 

[Philosoft]

God can be any one of a number of things. In the secular world, your god can be your money, your job, your possessions, your wife. It's whatever you worship and hold in the highest esteem. How about that phat American Express Platinum or that nice little ocean-view bungalow with the Mercedes?

Absolutely. But we're not talking about "god." We're talking about "God."

First, there is no indication that the original "God" of the Pledge of Allegiance fit all of those criteria.

Yeah, we just have no clue which God Eisenhower was referring to.

Second, "God" does not emplicitly imply monotheism, and certinaly does not apply strictly to Abrahamic religions, IMO.

Fine, give me another religion that has a god named God and we'll discuss.

 

[Philosoft]

In this light, this does not make them a religious organization.

I don't know what "light" you're talking about. The brief in your link is clearly an advocate of the BSA as a religious organization. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Indeed, even in their own Amicus Brief, they couldn't present themselves unequivocally as a religious organization, although they did well at proving their similarities, which was addressed in that post where I discussed your link. In fact when they have been presented as one the Judge disagreed. More than once.

I think at this point the best you can say is that the jury is out, so to speak. Some sources consider them a religious organization, some don't.

Incidentally, I've been in a troup like Boy Scouts, and I can tell you that although even the name says Christian, the Christian content is less than minimal.

Well, they can teach Tae Bo 24 hours a day for all it matters. Their oath requires a profession of reverence to God, and they systematically exclude non-believers. That's a religious group whether Judge Judy thinks so or not.

 

[Philosoft]

I forgot. We don't know what God "Under God" is talking about. How do we know it's not one of the Egyptian Gods?

Because they didn't have a god named God.

Or Buddha?

Buddha? A god? You might want to crack open a comparative religons book now and then.

Anything but Communist Atheism, the then current threat?

Communist atheism? What a cleverly worded cheap-shot!

 

[SirKenin]

Absolutely. But we're not talking about "god." We're talking about "God."

Yeah, we just have no clue which God Eisenhower was referring to.

Fine, give me another religion that has a god named God and we'll discuss.

Before anything else, I just wanted to let you know that I think the name God is the Christian God. Congress added "under God" in 1954 in the face of a Communist Russia invasion, and after a public opinion poll (69% yes, 29%no, 10% no opinion +/- 3% MOE March 28, 1953 Sample size 1602). It gave the Pledge of Allegiance it's own identity, setting it apart from any other Republic.

What is not clear is whether Congress' definition of God adhered to the definition provided in my previous post. But is it the One True God? That's what I'm getting at.

I believe it is. But what I also believe is that having a Pledge of Allegiance that contains "Under God", a pledge VERY much like the Boy Scouts, a majority religious population and a Legal Code based on many Christian values does not make the USA a religious organization.

In the same fashion should the BSA be treated and painted with the same brush. Indeed, they are. As proven, according to several judges, they are not counted as a religious organization.

 

[SirKenin]

Communist atheism? What a cleverly worded cheap-shot!

No, not at all. The chief religion of Communist Russia at the time this was an issue was atheism.

 

[SirKenin]

Sorry, I can't believe I almost got sidetracked on the "Under God" thing. :o

ooops.

 

[Philosoft]

Before anything else, I just wanted to let you know that I think the name God is the Christian God. Congress added "under God" in 1954 in the face of a Communist Russia invasion, and after a public opinion poll (69% yes, 29%no, 10% no opinion +/- 3% MOE March 28, 1953 Sample size 1602). It gave the Pledge of Allegiance it's own identity, setting it apart from any other Republic.

That's why the Constitution prohibits making religious decrees by majority vote. The pledge may have "identity," but a part of it is that non-believers are implicitly something other than full citizens. This is unconstitutional, and "ceremonial deism" isn't going to make it constitutional.

What is not clear is whether Congress' definition of God adhered to the definition provided in my previous post. But is it the One True God? That's what I'm getting at.

It doesn't have to be. It is specific enough that it excludes millions of non-believers, pagans, pantheists, polytheists, etc.

I believe it is. But what I also believe is that having a Pledge of Allegiance that contains "Under God", a pledge VERY much like the Boy Scouts, a majority religious population and a Legal Code based on many Christian values does not make the USA a religious organization.

Sure it does. According to the pledge, the United States is a "republic" which "stands" for a number of things - sovereignty, unity, freedom, justice, and the belief that God is somehow 'above' us.

In the same fashion should the BSA be treated and painted with the same brush. Indeed, they are. As proven, according to several judges, they are not counted as a religious organization.

I don't think the courts are united on this issue. A bunch of the internet isn't working for me right now, so I'll have to get back to you.

 

[Philosoft]

No, not at all. The chief religion of Communist Russia at the time this was an issue was atheism.

Bah. History escapes you. Stalinist communism was a warped, dogmatic, doctrinal religious institution unto itself. Stalin's idea of religion was everyone worshipping the state.

 

[SirKenin]

...must...resist...temptation...stay on track... lol

Sure it does. According to the pledge, the United States is a "republic" which "stands" for a number of things - sovereignty, unity, freedom, justice, and the belief that God is somehow 'above' us.

No, to qualify, at least according to one ruling I read, the USA would have to be primarily religious in function. I've linked to that ruling in this thread.

 

[SirKenin]

Bah. History escapes you. Stalinist communism was a warped, dogmatic, doctrinal religious institution unto itself. Stalin's idea of religion was everyone worshipping the state.

Joseph Stalin's religion was actually atheist. He worshipped the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and specifically Darwin. His goal was to remove organized religion and have everyone focus solely on him, the Grand Puppetteer. He pushed to eliminate religion and establish evolution as the curriculum in school. 4 million people died as a result of his quest. A very powerful man.

http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/miner_stalins.html

A book entitled "Stalin's Holy War".

Atheism is the core of the whole Soviet system —Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf

 

[Philosoft]

Joseph Stalin's religion was actually atheist.

No, it actually wasn't. Atheism isn't a religion.

He worshipped the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and specifically Darwin.

And he understood none of it. Actually, if you have any sources that evidence Stalin's reverence for Darwin, I'd like to see them. I'm aware that AIG and ICR both claim that Stalin read Darwin in college, fomenting Stalin's atheism. I'm looking for something rather less ideological and biased, though.

What I do know is that Stalinist Russia was ideologically committed to Lamarckism because it was said that Darwinism (and genetics, thereby) contradicted communism's dialectical materialism. Stalin even had geneticists imprisoned and killed, leading to the rise of Lysenko as the voice of Stalinist science.

His goal was to remove organized religion and have everyone focus solely on him, the Grand Puppetteer.

In other words, to organize his own religion.

He pushed to eliminate religion

That he did.

and establish evolution as the curriculum in school.

A completely wrong idea of evolution, as we have seen.

4 million people died as a result of his quest. A very powerful man.

Indeed.

 

[Philosoft]

No, to qualify, at least according to one ruling I read, the USA would have to be primarily religious in function. I've linked to that ruling in this thread.

I don't care what the courts say. The court members often have deeply-held religious beliefs that they're interested in protecting. Or they are at least unable to adequately understand the position of the non-believer. I posted an explanation why the current pledge makes the US religiously religiously non-neutral. Can you tell me how or why I'm wrong?