• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

humanism running rampant

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
As a child I could never honestly recite the pledge because it made me endore the idea of a god - which I believed to be false.  I'm very that the courts finally ruled that it's unconstitution for the government to push monotheism in a pledge.

This is a great day for religious freedom!!!!
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
We first consider whether the 1954 Act and the EGUSD’s policy of teacher-led Pledge recitation survive the endorsement test. The magistrate judge found that “the ceremonial reference to God in the pledge does not convey endorsement of particular religious beliefs.” Supreme Court precedent does not support that conclusion.

 

[4] In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation “under God” is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase “one nation under God” in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. “[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.” Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60. Furthermore, the school district’s practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the Pledge.

 

. . . [5] The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (O’Connor, J., con-curring).

 

Justice Kennedy, in his dissent in Allegheny, agreed: <I>y statute, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag describes the United States as ‘one nation under God.’ To be sure, no one is obligated to recite this phrase, . . . but it borders on sophistry to suggest that the reasonable atheist would not feel less than a full member of the political community every time his fellow Americans recited, as part of their expression of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he believed to be false.</I> Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 672 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Consequently, the policy and the Act fail the endorsement test.


The analysis is flawless and quite correct.
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
53
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟30,425.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by crazyfingers
As a child I could never honestly recite the pledge because it made me endore the idea of a god - which I believed to be false.&nbsp; I'm very&nbsp;that&nbsp;the courts finally ruled that it's&nbsp;unconstitution&nbsp;for the government to push monotheism in a pledge.

This is a great day for religious freedom!!!!

Great day for religous freedom?&nbsp; I think it is a great day for the ones who want a totally areligous government but not a great day for religous freedom.&nbsp;

blackhawk
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
53
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟30,425.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. “[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.” Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60."

The problem with this is how is this going to be done. It can't. You can't be neutral towards religion.

blackhawk
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by Blackhawk


Great day for religous freedom?&nbsp; I think it is a great day for the ones who want a totally areligous government but not a great day for religous freedom.&nbsp;

blackhawk

&nbsp;

No!&nbsp; It's only a bad day for those who what to use the government to&nbsp;force religion onto everyone.&nbsp;

The government must be be neutral on&nbsp;religion.&nbsp; Would you feel the same if the pledge said on nation under Allah?
 
Upvote 0

D. Scarlatti

Well-Known Member
Jun 3, 2002
1,581
88
Earth
✟2,620.00
Faith
Atheist
An excellent decision. Read it. Every sentence relies on solid Supreme Court precedent.

The presence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance fails every test of the establishment clause that has ever been applied.

It's a vestige of the McCarthy era and never had any business being accepted as a required expression of patriotism. All Americans, and especially conservatives, should respect the Constitution and resist the government's involvement in any professions of religious&nbsp;belief whatsoever.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by Blackhawk


The problem with this is how is this going to be done. It can't. You can't be neutral towards religion.

blackhawk [/B]

Yes you can.&nbsp; You can not bring it up. You can not address it.&nbsp; The pledge with out the "under God" part was neutral.
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
53
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟30,425.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by crazyfingers


&nbsp;

No!&nbsp; It's only a bad day for those who what to use the government to&nbsp;force religion onto everyone.&nbsp;

The government must be be neutral on&nbsp;religion.&nbsp; Would you feel the same if the pledge said on nation under Allah?

&nbsp;

Sure but it does not say Jesus.&nbsp; In fact it can be argued it could not even meana more New age kind of God or even Pantheism.&nbsp; It just says god like The declaration of independence does.&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by Blackhawk


&nbsp;

Sure but it does not say Jesus.&nbsp; In fact it can be argued it could not even meana more New age kind of God or even Pantheism.&nbsp; It just says god like The declaration of independence does.&nbsp;



<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Crazy formatting</SPAN>
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
53
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟30,425.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by crazyfingers


Yes you can.&nbsp; You can not bring it up. You can not address it.&nbsp; The pledge with out the "under God" part was neutral.

How do you not address religion?&nbsp; What does the governement do when it has to judge a religous person or when it has issues with a religous organization?&nbsp; What does it do with cults that are destructive?&nbsp; This whole court proceeding shows that one can't just not talk about it.&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
53
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟30,425.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"The DoI says "creator". It is also not something that the government endorses as an OFFICIAL pledge of allegiance. The DoI is simply an historical document that has no force in law. You do know that the DoI is not part of the Constitution or part of law?"

I do know that but I am just showing that the government has never been religous neutral and will never be that way. Oh wait the government does not endorse the DoI as official?

" I find it unfathomable how any honest person can insist that it's appropriate for the government to have an OFFICIAL pledge that endorses monotheism."

Which it does not.

"Again I ask you, how would you like it if it said “One nation under Allah” or “One nation under the Invisible Pink Unicorn”"

How does this have anything do with it? The pledge does not say which god to worship or what kind of god. It does nto speak about Christianity or Judiaism. It does not even say that the "god" is personal or intelligent. Heck it could be nature.

blackhawk
 
Upvote 0

A Sheep

Stop the suffering in Iraq
Mar 10, 2002
3,492
1
✟6,046.00
Bad examples there mr.crazyfingers. AFAIK, none of the founding fathers believed in allah or an "invisible pink unicorn", in contrast to the number of the founding fathers that believed in a single diety (either the Christian true God, or a God that left after creation). As well as the current beliefs of the US population, many, many more US citizens believe in the true Chrisitian God, then allah, or a unicorn, or as in the atheistic/humanistic religion "no gods". Why should we endorse your religion with few adherents instead of the Christian one with more adherents??? Don't even try to pull the old "atheism is not a religion":

Taken from Merriam Webster:
Religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" that is Atheism, thank you very much.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by Blackhawk


&nbsp;

Sure but it does not say Jesus.&nbsp; In fact it can be argued it could not even meana more New age kind of God or even Pantheism.&nbsp; It just says god like The declaration of independence does.&nbsp;

Trying this again, those fonts are strange.

The DoI says "Creator".&nbsp; The DoI is also not an official pledge of allegence. It is not part of the Constitution and not part of law.&nbsp;

It's unfachomable that an honest person would believe that it's appropriate for the Government to push monotheism in a pleadge of allegence.

Again how would you feel if the pledge saud "One nation under Allah" or "One nation under the Invidible pink Unicorn"?
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟33,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by Blackhawk

"Again I ask you, how would you like it if it said “One nation under Allah” or “One nation under the Invisible Pink Unicorn”"

How does this have anything do with it? The pledge does not say which god to worship or what kind of god. It does nto speak about Christianity or Judiaism. It does not even say that the "god" is personal or intelligent. Heck it could be nature.

blackhawk [/B]

We all know EXACTLY what god they meant when they altered the pledge during the red scare and the MaCarthy era.

&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0