Not forcing religion.

[coastie]

Originally posted by Brimshack
En Gaurde Coastie,

OK, I started to rehash some old arguments, but let me back up and just ask two questions:

1) What does it mean for the country to be "under God"?
2) Since this is a question about the Bill of Rights, which is explicitly intended as a set of restraints which prevent congress from enacting certain kinds of legislation, how is the principle of majority rule relevant to this decision?

1. What does it mean to me? Or what does it mean to my neighbor? Or What does it mean to my co-worker?

That's what we tried to figure out to no avail the first time this came up. This is not so much a public issue as a personal issue. Personally, I think that money is what the country is currently under.

Under God, to me, meant that God is the final authority, but that would get me laughed out of Senate, so that obviously isn't the case as we Christian optimists would hope.

I do not know the history of the decision to put it in or take it out. I thought it had just always been in there up until the decision to take it out was made. I'm not surprised at all by the decision.

2. Honestly, I didn't put too much thought into that little quip. It was meant more as a joke than an argument, so, once again, I spoke before I thought.

However, I do not see it as forcing religion, but I can see how if it said "under Allah" I definately wouldn't have said it because that would be a form of idolatry and therefore a sin for me.

As for atheists having a problem with it. It seems like this is more an issue of principle than discrimination.

Zach

 

[Job_38]

Originally posted by Havoc


Except that you don't have the word of God, you have a book which you believe is the word of God. Until you prove that the Bible is actually God's word you cannot use the Bible to prove anything about God.

Havoc

 

 Prove to me that you have thought or that I have thought right now.

 

[Brimshack]

Coastie:

I would ask what does it mean to you, but I would add that unless a concensus can safely be reached with other Americans,the meaning of the term is either exclusionary to those who will opt out or it co-opts people into spuuorting something they do not believe (or both, as the case may be).

I agree, money is the total social fact for American society, which means that in many respects it performs much the same functions that God would have in ancient Hebrew society.

The notion that God is the final authority needs further clarification. If this simply means that we understand God to be the source of everything without actively translating political questions into a search for His intent, then the issue is largely symbolic, and the objections are merely to inappropriateness of a symbolic establishment. If on the other hand, you mean that God's apparent will should serve as the actual basis for decisions, then that is a case for actual Theocracy, and our disagreement is far more strident.

As to the issue of froce:

1) That isn't the primary issue in cases arising under the establishment clause. If a practice does coerce then it is against the establishment clause (and the free exercise clause too), but this is merely a sufficient condition for a violation of the clause, not a necessary one.

2) There are several respects in which the pledge does coerce;

a) Implicit coercion. Students choosing to opt out are likely to face discrimination for doing so.

b) Teachers are still required to lead the pledge, and so someone is coerced to participate.

c) This is a ritual performed in public institutions, which is to say that Americans who do not support belief in God are forced to pay for the practice. What could be a more obvious case of coerced religious practice than the government forcing you to pay for a quasi-prayer directed at a being you do not believe in?

 

[Brimshack]

I made some stupid mistakes. See edit (sufficient and necessary) and the second option in interpreting the God as authority argument.

 

[coastie]

I would ask what does it mean to you, but I would add that unless a concensus can safely be reached with other Americans,the meaning of the term is either exclusionary to those who will opt out or it co-opts people into spuuorting something they do not believe (or both, as the case may be).

Or niether... I've also heard that it was an insignificant or meaningless clause used simply to embody patriotism.

I agree, money is the total social fact for American society, which means that in many respects it performs much the same functions that God would have in ancient Hebrew society.

I'd object to saying money in the pledge too... more for principal than anything else though.

The notion that God is the final authority needs further clarification. If this simply means that we understand God to be the source of everything without actively translating political questions into a search for His intent, then the issue is largely symbolic, and the objections are merely to inappropriateness of a symbolic establishment.

God IS the final authority. That is why no one would ever elect me to be president (that and the fact that I'm short, sarcastic and have no money).

His intent is my intent. God leads the way. However, our country has free will and is not run under the thumb of God. While other nations have professed to be "doign God's will" they were unable to escape from the will of men, so I'm not sure if that is or will ever be a tangible objective.

. If on the other hand, you mean that belief in God should serve as the actual basis for decisions, then that is a case for actual Theocracy, and our disagreement is far more strident.

That's an understatement since you would actually have to have belief (AND trust) in God to agree with me on that.

That isn't the primary issue in cases arising under the establishment clause. If a practice does coerce then it is against the establishment clause (and the free exercise clause too),

I didn't even know if something had actually happened to cause this or if this was just found unconstitutional with no one seeking restitution. That, I am happy to hear.

but this is merely a sufficient condition for a violation of the clause, not a sufficient one

???

Implicit coercion. Students choosing to opt out are likely to face discrimination for doing so.

I don't think I said the pledge of allegiance any more after 7th grade. not to say that it isn't said anymore, but I just thought it was pushed on the way-side. What kind of discrimination? Something like the teachers having them sit in the hall or something?

That is inappropriate practice. Has this ever been made an issue before? I don't remeber having and students in my classes that had anything against it. But who knows... you're pretty oblivious to the world when you're 12.

Teachers are still required to lead the pledge, and so someone is coerced to participate.

Requiring anyone to say it seems strange in this day and age whether or not it has any mention of God in it. Sounds like patriotic brainwashing to me. Not that some military-scum like me is adverce to that sort of thing

This is a ritual performed in public institutions, which is to say that Americans who do not support belief in God are forced to pay for the practice. What could be a more obvious case of coerced religious practice than the government forcing you to pay for a quasi-prayer directed at a being you do not believe in?

Forced to pay? Sounds a little harsh. Honestly, could we have not made it against the law to force someone to say it. There are other rights being infringed upon here other than just the one mentioned.

For arguments sake... What if it had been decided that legislation should be in place to restrict anyone from being forced to say the pledge of allegiance (which is literally a promise and if someone's intentions are not to pledge allegiance to anything but themselves anyway, what difference does it make if they say it or not?) It woudl have saved a heck of a lot of heart ache.

I would have no problem wihth a teacher sayign I don't want to say it in class

1. because you are forcing kids to pledge allegiance and they probably have no idea how much wieght that type of covenant carries. and

2. because they are making a convenant to a nation that professes to be Under God, which (by my definition at least) isn't.

 

[coastie]

but this is merely a sufficient condition for a violation of the clause, not a necessary one.

Understood... I don't think that that changes anything in my post though.

 

[Brimshack]

"That's an understatement since you would actually have to have belief (AND trust) in God to agree with me on that."

I would also have to trust the mechanism used to translate His will into actual legislation. That's an even tougher sell than the belief in God. This is where I trot out a list of horribles claiming to have been committed in the name of God, and claim that your doubts about the tangeability of the objective are an end-game argument. No Nation will ever be able to tell the difference between His will and that of the humans who claim to be doing it.

Sufficient, not necessary, sorry it's late.

More likely the discrimination would come from the kids, not because they care about the issues, but because anybody who sticks out is fair game.

truth be told, I would just as soon the pledge was out of the schools altogether. It lends a militaristic quality to civilian institutions. But the issue is of course that in making provisions for students to opt out, I haven't heard about any provisions for those who were to lead such rituals to opt out.

Taxes are not voluntary. people have been forced to pay for this ritual whether they believ in God or not.

 

[Brimshack]

The point is that since coercion is only a sifficient condition for failure to pass the establishment clause, and not a necessary one, the emphasis on coercion is actually beside the point.

 

[coastie]

I would also have to trust the mechanism used to translate His will into actual legislation. That's an even tougher sell than the belief in God. This is where I trot out a list of horribles claiming to have been committed in the name of God, and claim that your doubts about the tangeability of the objective are an end-game argument.

I can't disagree with you on this. How do you know who a true man of God is and how much should you trust anyone given the authority to interpret God's wishes?

Truth be told... past leaders don't have the best track record in this issue.

No Nation will ever be able to tell the difference between His will and that of the humans who claim to be doing it.

Not until God explicitly gives all mankind an order will that be accomplished. I can't see that happening in my lifetime... but you never know. I'm really don't know if the Bible says anything about a country ever fully coming under God's rule. I can't see that ever happening... at least in my lifetime.

More likely the discrimination would come from the kids, not because they care about the issues, but because anybody who sticks out is fair game.

With that instance... Mulletts should also be outlawed.

truth be told, I would just as soon the pledge was out of the schools altogether. It lends a militaristic quality to civilian institutions.

Darn IT!!! I agree As much as I love that little facit of patriotism, it seems it has run it's course and is not a neccessary (nor really wanted) practice anymore.

But the issue is of course that in making provisions for students to opt out, I haven't heard about any provisions for those who were to lead such rituals to opt out.

It hasn't?

Don't you think that should first have been discussed?

If they had just said that it cannot be required anymore, many teachers would opt out to avoid contraversy and it would add a few more valuable minutes to their education.

Let's see... 2 or 3 minutes a day for 200 days for 12 years... that's a lot of added time. Just a thought.

As long we are taking the "under God" literally, we should take the rest of the pledge literally. Can we really force a child, a minor to make a pledge?

Rather than changing the pledge and causing further eruption of contraversy, maybe it should have been banned from schools as an illegal practice.

Taxes are not voluntary. people have been forced to pay for this ritual whether they believ in God or not.

Is that a play on "under Money" and "In money we trust"?

I see your point, but taxes are far different than forcing someone to make such a significant pledge that is beyond their understanding. Even it they do understand the weight, they deserve the right to decide if they want to make a pledge of allegiance.

It's one thing to do it voluntarily or when you are joining the military (in which case your rights have been waved), but a love for country can be established free civilians simply by treating them right and making this country about them and not the leaders or the campaign contributers.

The point is that since coercion is only a sifficient condition for failure to pass the establishment clause, and not a necessary one, the emphasis on coercion is actually beside the point.

So why was this made an issue... obviously it was used in the decision, and obviously, someone had a problem with it. I think that coercion was a huge part of this.

 

[Brimshack]

Mullets are of course voluntary, but I am open to the prospect that parents who give their kids such a haircut could be prospecuted for child abuse.

(Okay, that was a joke!)

I have absolutely no problem with removing the pledge altogether. I like the argument that children shouldn't be asked to make a pledge in the first place because they are too young to understand the consequences. And while I wouldn't calculate the added lessons in such a direct manner (there are diminishing returns to class-time productivity, and that would through off simple addition of the minutes) I do like any argument that reminds us that such an activity should take a backseat to actual educational activities.

On coersion, it was used precisely to the degree that coercion is a sufficient cause to warrant a violation of the establishment clause, but that wasn't the bulk of the decision, and quite literally EVERY denial of coercion that I have read coming fromChristians makes n reference to the relevant passages in the decision. They are simply straw man arguments, intended to show that the decision is consistent with the principle of free exercise.

 

[Brimshack]

Are you working on a monster post or something?

 

[coastie]

And while I wouldn't calculate the added lessons in such a direct manner (there are diminishing returns to class-time productivity, and that would through off simple addition of the minutes) I do like any argument that reminds us that such an activity should take a backseat to actual educational activities.

That was partially tongue and cheek, but yes, if the atmosphere is non-conducive to learning, then there is a problem. If the pledge of Allegiance ever does cause a problem, it definately must take a back seat to education.

On coersion, it was used precisely to the degree that coercion is a sufficient cause to warrant a violation of the establishment clause, but that wasn't the bulk of the decision, and quite literally EVERY denial of coercion that I have read coming fromChristians makes n reference to the relevant passages in the decision. They are simply straw man arguments, intended to show that the decision is consistent with the principle of free exercise.

I don't like to "what if" because that is a never ending argument. It goes on and on and you can "what if" anything to death (i.e. what if the mother was a teenager, got the mumps compounded by mad beef and that flesh eating bacteria then found out that her lover was actually cheating on her.)

The answers do not lend themselves to reason and accomplish nothing. What if a kid is punished? What if a teacher doesn't approve?

Then get rid of the whole darn thing. There will always be contraversy surrounding this, and no summation will ever be able to adequately portray all of the "what if's" in court.

I don't like being required to have our children tauaght evolution in school (especially as fact), because that goes against my religious beliefs.

How does that apply?

We can't all be made happy, but I believe that a much wiser decision would have been to throw the whole thing out rather than give up on the whole idea.

My wife didn't have to say the pledge of allegiance to become a citizen, she was sworn in by a judge. There were other ways around it, but instead this has become an issue of "Chalk one up for the home team".

 

[Brimshack]

I'm not sure what what if you are responding to, but our disagreement is rapicly disintigrating. I am not opposed to scrapping the whole pledge. Perhaps we should find another topic to battle about. We could go on the teaching evolution in the schools topic, heh, heh.

 

[coastie]

It'll come down to another value assessment... those are interesting conversations but always end in "agreeing to disagree".

 

[Susan]

Are you working on a monster post or something?

You might say that hehe -^.^-

LOL

 

[Susan]

Actually my post was much smaller.

I was simply going to say that BOTH the Pledge of Allegiance and evolution should be there on an opt-out basis, with no punishment for those who opt out.
That way, no one is offended, those who want either or one can get it, those who don't want either or one can not get it.
Simple now if only people would do that

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Susan
Athiesm does not cure religious terrorism, but instead causes irreligious terrorism

In the signature.

This is a rather bold acusation. Would you mind explaining how atheism causes terrorism?

 

[Brimshack]

Coastie: We may disagree, but if you choose to construe that as evidence that I have agreed to disagree with you, …then I would have to disagree.

Susan: I'm frightened.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

Yeah, I can't even remember the last time I saw an atheist fly a plane into a skyscraper.

However, doing it in the name of "God"...

No matter how much the politicians try to downplay religion's role in the events of September 11th, the religiously generated hate will always be there. Islam is not primarily a religion of violence, granted, but nor is it of peace. The same goes for every other religion. It makes it so much easier to kill if the cause can't be found.

 

[coastie]

Coastie: We may disagree, but if you choose to construe that as evidence that I have agreed to disagree with you, …then I would have to disagree.

LOL... I was referring to the evolution in schools issue.

So from this cryptic statement I conclude that you do not want to disagree with me? Or that we are in agreement?

As you sit with baited breath for an extremist blurt of ignorance from me... I have to declare a stalemate.

What was it again that we disagreed on?