humanism running rampant

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
"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

Yes, actually you can.  The only people who have a "for us, or against us" attitude are the extreme branches of the  monotheistic religions.  The rest of society can be quite neutral (and even indifferent) towards religion.

Just because you cannot be neutral towards religion, doesn't mean that the rest of society is in the same boat.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by GraftMeIn
I don't know, for me this seems to remove all meaning from the pledge, at least that's how my eyes see it.

Meaningless, huh?  You realize that this clause was only inserted into the pledge in 1954, right?  So without the clause, the pledge is meaningless?

So the pledge of allegiance was meaningless during World War I?  All those battles, and all those people who died?

How about World War II - Pearl Harbor, the beaches of Normandy, etc.  Was the pledge of allegiance meaningless then as well?

How about the Korean war, and all the people who died there - was the pledge of allegiance meaningless then as well?

I hope you realize how nonsensical your position is.  The pledge has plenty of meaning behind it. 

If you cannot find meaning in it without this little clause, then that's because you view everything through the lens of religion.  The rest of society doesn't see it that way.

 I wonder if they will continue to change it everytime someone disagrees with what it says.

Removing an unconstitutional part of the pledge is not the same as "disagreeing with it."

The bigger picture I see here is a country that no longer wants to follow the ways of God, but wants to follow the ways of man.

A strange thing to say, considering the history of this added little clause, and how it got introduced into the pledge in the first place.

 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Mallory Knox


And so what if they did? What if those men had been Buddhists, would you pray to Buddha every day because THEY did?

Indeed.  Blackhawk's argument is very strange.  First, he admits that the federal govt made no such laws.  But then,  we're supposed to be impressed because several of the state legislatures made restrictive laws about religion (which were later repealed, by the way).

So my questions are:

1. So what?  Unreasonable and unconstitutional laws have existed in state constitutions before - against mixed race marriages, for example - so I am not sure why you consider the state constitutions to be a positive showcase example for your point;

2.  Those establishment laws were repealed - so your argument is out of date;

3.  The Founding Fathers were a diverse bunch of people - so you cannot make a generalization about all of them, based upon what a few of them did;

4.  The most influential Founders (from the standpoint of the Constitution) were Jefferson and Madison, neither of whom supported state religions;

And finally, I'll leave you with this to think about.  Excerpts from some of Madison's letters, showing what he thought about such state establishments in the 13 Colonies:

It is true that the New England states have not discontinued establishments of religions formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced toward the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to religion or good government.

But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious
features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn sufficiently proved that it does not need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).


And another:


The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion
(Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).