Pledge Unconstitutional

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet
Those quotes scare the snot out of me. I was especially freaked out by former President Bush's comment that atheists should not be allowed to be citizens.

By the way, Thomas Jefferson: secular humanist.

   Jeff

 

 

I thought he was a deist.  maybe I am wrong. Just asking.  He definitely was not a Christian though. 

 

[RufusAtticus]

Here is what I sent into two local papers, with some modifications.

I would like to pledge my support for the recent US 9th Court of Appeals decision that the 1954 version of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion (Newdow v. US Congress). The Pledge plainly and obviously promotes a religious message, as demonstrated by both the 1954 law and the public outrage that this decision has created. This was not always the case. Originally the pledge stood for patriotism, but that was not enough for ‘50s era McCarthyism. It was modified in 1954 to include the words “under God” in an effort to declare America as a Christian nation. Our government wanted to sponsor the misguided belief that one must believe in God to be a patriot. This of course is against everything out country stands for and is an affront to our non-believing veterans. (Yes, Virigina, there are foxhole atheists.) If the constitution clearly prohibits religious tests for office (Article VI), why do we have this religious test of patriotism?

Election-year politicians and close-minded members of the public would like to make this out as an assault on American values, but they do not realize that there is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion. The real assault comes from those who seek to abolish the plurality and secularity valued by our founding fathers. Because of them, not the non-believers, government-sponsorship of the Pledge has been ruled unconstitutional. If they would have just not tried to turn us into a Christian nation, our government would still be able to encourage patriotism in this manner. “[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796-97).

I support the rights of all Americans, and I hope you will too. Once again we are “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Today is a good day to be an American.

 

[TheBear]

I am being censored! What ever happened to 'Freedom of Speach?

My Constitutional rights are being trampled. I think I'll get an ACLU lawyer. Just think of the publicity, the money, the endorsements...........the FAME!

 

[RufusAtticus]

Umm...What was that?

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Umm...What was that?

Re-read post #280.

 

[RufusAtticus]

What does #280 have to do with whether "under God" is government establishment of religion, in volation of my rights? Your response, #283, only shows that you truely have no response at all.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by Blackhawk


 

I thought he was a deist.  maybe I am wrong. Just asking.  He definitely was not a Christian though. 

Jefferson's religious philosophies were supposedly quite complex, so he may indeed have been a deist, or a deist at one time and then a SH, or visa versa. I actually saw one web site that maintained that he was an Objectivist!

   Jeff

 

[eldermike]

Jeff,

Can I suggest to you that instead of using a few verses from OT as a method of rejecting God, that instead you read the commentaries on these scriptures. There are many available and you can read them online. It's better for me to let the explanations of the great commentators speak than to try to do justice to this in this forum.

A few comments about mixing God's judgments with Christian values:

I accept the nature of God because He's God. If I didn't believe in God I would have to likewise accept the nature of nature. I may wish either to be different, but that is......that, I guess. Rejecting the nature of something real will not make it go away.

You commented that the values Christians hold are not actually the values of scripture. Well, if you study scripture you will find that God Judges and the passages used in your post are judgments of God. We are in fact told not to judge. So IMHO, Judith Hayes's makes the same mistake as many atheist do, mixing God's nature and Christian values and then illogically rejecting God. We are created in the image of God, but we are not God. Again God judges correctly, we judge alone and thus incorrectly. The nature of God is revealed in scripture as also the values of Christians are revealed, they are not one and the same. God is God and I am but a sinner, saved by the grace of God.

Christian values are a design feature, we take to it easily, even with different cultural/economic influences. Atheists' values are widely varied, which is inline with natural laws. Could this be a separation from the designer?

Blessings

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by TheBear
Well, I guess we are interpreting the same info, differently.

The fact is, the phrase, "under God", was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. If the Congress truly wanted to make this some kind of religious state, they would have had ample time to implement such a scheme, decades ago.

That's a logical fallacy. By the same argument, if we had wanted to invent the lightbulb, why did we wait until Thomas Edison did it? We had plenty of time to invent the lightbulb before Edison came around.


 

The beauty of the Constitution, is that it is a living Constitution, designed to move in one direction, but always with room for improvement. Also, like it or not, grid-lock was desinged in the Constitution. In many House proceedings, grid-lock is a good thing, designed so that nothing is feverishly or impulsively passed, without a thorough hearing from all sides.

... and the beauty of the Bill of Rights is that it's not a living document. It was intentionally made to not be moved so that people didn't come around later and try to define away our rights, such as what occurs when we try to make the US a Christian nation.


 

And, even with all the possible corrupt politicians; with all the media, political watchdogs, and the internet, not much will go unnoticed by an alerted general public, for very long. Especially, something on the magnitude of making the USA a religious state!

John

I think you're very naive, but I honestly hope that you are right. I'm pretty sure you're not, but here's hoping ...

   Jeff

 

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by eldermike
Jeff,

Can I suggest to you that instead of using a few verses from OT as a method of rejecting God, that instead you read the commentaries on these scriptures. There are many available and you can read them online. It's better for me to let the explanations of the great commentators speak than to try to do justice to this in this forum.

If the scriptures were written by God, and God is perfect, then I shouldn't need commentaries, should I? Or are you saying God's prose is imperfect, and thus in need of intrepretation?


 

A few comments about mixing God's judgments with Christian values:

I accept the nature of God because He's God. If I didn't believe in God I would have to likewise accept the nature of nature. I may wish either to be different, but that is......that, I guess. Rejecting the nature of something real will not make it go away.

So let me get this straight: you're saying that you would dash an infant to pieces or "rip up" a pregnant woman? You're saying that these acts are not immoral?

Wow. The idea of Christian nation scares me more than ever now.

You commented that the values Christians hold are not actually the values of scripture. Well, if you study scripture you will find that God Judges and the passages used in your post are judgments of God. We are in fact told not to judge. So IMHO, Judith Hayes's makes the same mistake as many atheist do, mixing God's nature and Christian values and then illogically rejecting God.

Why is it a mistake? It make be breaking your alleged God's law, but that doesn't make the logic any less valid. It may ***CENSORED*** Him off, but the comparison is still a valid comparison.

And very few atheists I know reject God on moral reasons. Most reject God on logical ones: that there is not enough convincing evidence that such a deity exists. However, I have met a few people who've said that if such a God existed, He'd be immoral and they would not worship Him.

I do agree with them, by the way. If your alleged God did exist, He would not measure up to my moral code. He may be able to kill me, and He may be able to punish me, but this would not make His actions right, any more than the strength of the Nazis made theirs right.

 

 We are created in the image of God, but we are not God. Again God judges correctly, we judge alone and thus incorrectly. The nature of God is revealed in scripture as also the values of Christians are revealed, they are not one and the same. God is God and I am but a sinner, saved by the grace of God.

Sorry, but I must discount this a canned speech. It doesn't seem to have any bearing on the conversation.

Christian values are a design feature, we take to it easily, even with different cultural/economic influences.

You have not proved this assertion. Until you have, it is only your opinion, not to be treated as fact.

 

 Atheists' values are widely varied, which is inline with natural laws. Could this be a separation from the designer?

That's one explanation, yes, though not the most likely one, in my opinion.

    Jeff

 

 

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
What does #280 have to do with whether "under God" is government establishment of religion, in volation of my rights? Your response, #283, only shows that you truely have no response at all.

Two seperate issues. 1) Post # 280; it has never been demonstrated how the phrase "under God", in the Pledge of Allegiance, is a government establishment of any religion. 2) Post #283; a tongue in cheek, yet true comment about me not being allowed to say the phrase, "under God", a violation of my first ammendment rights, freedom of speach. Have I made myself clear enough, now?

John

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by TheBear


Two seperate issues. 1) Post # 280; it has never been demonstrated how the phrase "under God", in the Pledge of Allegiance, is a government establishment of any religion. 

John

I disagree. I think it's been made very clear, but that you simply don't want to recognize it.

Instead, we're getting lots of sophistry to "explain" how really "under God" includes atheists and Wiccans as well because, you see, we can just translate it in our heads.

This is, of course, a complete crock.

In fact, if you'd be so kind as to just look at the original intent of the act, as signed by the President himself, you'll see they were extremely clear on this point: the purpose of this act was to send a big "up yours" message to atheists.

You can not be any clearer than this.

What you're doing is the equivalent to walking into a room, finding Bob stabbing someone to death with a knife, listening to Bob tell you that he just killed that person, and then saying, "No, Bob, it wasn't you. It was someone else. Now let's go find him."

I'll repeat: the President of the United States himself declared that the intent of this act was to show that we do not support atheists in this country.

You can rationalize this any way you want, but in the end, President Bob is still holding the bloody knife.

    Jeff

 

 

 

[TheBear]

Jeff,

I wish you would stick to the topic, and refrain from your condescending and belittling remarks towards me. We may not agree on certain concepts, but I would never lower myself to name calling, belittling or sarcasm.

Again, what religion has been established as the official religion of the United States? When did the United States become a religious state? I want documented proof, not speculation and conjecture.


John

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by TheBear
Jeff,

I wish you would stick to the topic, and refrain from your condescending and belittling remarks towards me. We may not agree on certain concepts, but I would never lower myself to name calling, belittling or sarcasm.

I would, but in that post I wasn't. Or at least not intentionally. I'm sorry if you felt I was attacking you personally, but really, I was attacking your arguments, which I felt were flawed.

Again, what religion has been established as the official religion of the United States? When did the United States become a religious state? I want documented proof, not speculation and conjecture.

Then please be so kind as to read what the President said when he signed that act. That is documented proof, not speculation and conjecture.

What religion has been established? Your sophistry can argue that it's extended to all Judeo-Christian religions as well as Muslim beliefs, but I strongly believe (but this I can not prove) that it is Christianity.

How many presidents have we had? How many of them were not Christian?

How many presidents have we had in the last 100 years? How many of them were not Christian?

If you claim that this is not a society heavily biased towards Christianity, then I think you're either lying to me or to yourself, but I can't tell which.

   Jeff

 

 

[TheBear]

You seem either unable, or unwilling to make the distinction between a President's personal beliefs, and legislation which would establish a particular religion as an 'official' religion.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by TheBear
You seem either unable, or unwilling to make the distinction between a President's personal beliefs, and legislation which would establish a particular religion as an 'official' religion.

I think you're being naive again; either that or disingenuous. A public statement made by the President of the United States while he is acting in an official capacity is much more than a "personal belief". In that capacity, this man is the spokesperson of the United States of America. When he goes to other nations, he is speaking with them on behalf of our entire nation.

If he tells Israel to go jump in a lake, the missiles won't just be flying at the White House. If he signs a treaty, the treaty is binding for all citizens of this country.

I repeat: what the President says or does while acting in an official capacity (such as signing an act) is not just his "personal opinion".

   Jeff

 

 

 

[Morat]

  Just a note, since I've seen this implied many times: Neither the ACLU, nor the normal Church/State groups like AU, were involved in the suit.

   I'm fairly sure they'll file amicus briefs for the appeal, though.

   Frankly, this whole mess seems clear: Were Congress to insert the words this year, it would be struck down. It's only saving grace was that it was done 50 years ago.

   Heck, I still haven't seen a legal argument for why it's Constitutional besides "What harm does it do?". As I noted, de minimus arguments generally get short shrift when schools are involved.

 

 

 

[eldermike]

Jeff,

One of us is right.
Thanks for the courtesy exchange.

I can't resist one more canned speech. You have heard that their are no atheist in fox holes (I am sure you believe there was and is). There is a good reason for the fact that there are at least, very few. When we are brought to a "crisis of belief" logic begins to seem less of a driving factor in our thinking. We actually begin to feel in place of think. The bible reveals that God seeks our hearts and then changes our minds. By using the reverse end of the process one can't know the presence of God. Perhaps it's one of our survival tools, designed in, that in a crisis, we feel more and think less.

God Bless

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by TheBear
You seem either unable, or unwilling to make the distinction between a President's personal beliefs, and legislation which would establish a particular religion as an 'official' religion.

I think he's made it pretty clear.  You wanted proof of the intent to specifically name the Christian god in the pledge? Fine.

He's already told you where you can find that proof.  But you've decided not to go and read that president's statement on the topic. Why?

Instead, you repeat your question, pretending that it hasn't been answered.

I think you owe us an explanation as to why you are avoiding reading that president's statement on the topic - is it because you see checkmate coming in one move?

 

[coastie]

So what do you do when your country turns it's back on God?

Bear, gunny, all you navy guys... what do us military guys who have sworn allegiance to this country do when it turns it's back on God?

Are Marines still going to believe in God, Country, Corps, Self?

I really have no opinion on the matter, possibly because I have become calous to the spiritual degradation of our nations populace as a whole. I'm sad but not surprised.