Pledge Unconstitutional

[Sauron]

Originally posted by TheBear
Show me legislation and laws that make the USA a Christian state....Please, that's all I am asking you to prove.

It isn't that simple.  It is the assumptions, preferences, etc. that exist in our society.   For example, federal offices are closed on Sunday.  Why is that? 

Several states have laws, called "blue laws", that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday.   Why is that?

In several states, children are required to start the day with "a moment of silence".  Why is that?

Christianity is given preferential treatment and special privilege, without explicitly declaring it to be the national religion. 

And, by the way, you can call it what you want, all Presidents say all kinds of things, whether it be reading something his speech writers put together, speaking from his heart, or speaking some off the cuff remarks. NONE of these 'official' words are bound by law.

The question is motivation - why did they enact this law?  What was the goal? 

And you're wrong about the comments not being part of the body of law.  When Congress passes laws, and when individual members address the floor, those speeches are permanently entered into the Congressional Record.  During a dispute about what the intent of a law is (perhaps years after the law is passed), the Congressional Record can be searched to try and figure out what the goals and expectations of the lawmakers were back when they first passed the legislation.

The only time a President can make laws, without congress' due process of the law, would be in time of a national emergency. Even these are but a few, relating to military defense and such. All other laws, or amendments to the Constitution, must go through the arduous process of Congressional review and debate.

All true, but also irrelevant to the discussion.  The question on the table is "why was this inserted into the pledge in the first place?" 

The answer to that question is found by examining the remarks made by the individuals who advocated this action.

Also note my comment above, concerning the admissibility of items such as the Congressional Record to divine the original intent of a law.

I can't say it any more clearer than that. You cannot take a President's words, and claim that he is making law as he speaks. The Constitution is a thing of genius, it does not allow for such things. 'Official' words of any President, don't make it law.

See the above.




 

 

[coastie]

It isn't that simple.&nbsp; It is the assumptions, preferences, etc.&nbsp;that exist in our society.&nbsp; &nbsp;For example, federal offices are closed on Sunday</B>.&nbsp; Why is that?&nbsp;

I don't know for a fact, but I will say that even us government workers need a day off once in a while. But I don't get Sunday's off. I wish I worked for the post office

Several states have laws, called "blue laws", that prohibit the sale of alcohol on <B>Sunday</B>.&nbsp;&nbsp; Why is that?

In several states, children are required to start the day with "<B>a moment of silence</B>".&nbsp; Why is that?

That is very obviously influenced by Christianity... but I've never lived in a state like that and I've lived in three.

Christianity is given preferential treatment and special privilege, without explicitly declaring it to be the national religion.&nbsp;

In what circumstances would that be, out of curiosity?

Zach



&nbsp;

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by coastie
I assume it's up for interpretation since nobody made a fuss over it in 1954.

That's because America was scared out of its wits by the "impending" nuclear attack from the "reds". McCarthey was on a one man systematic mission to "cleanse" America of atheists and all those with communistic or socialistic tendencies. Now with the McCarthey&nbsp;propaganda machine revving at full blast, how could&nbsp;America hear&nbsp;herself think about ANYTHING, much less the constitutional rights of her people regarding SoC&amp;S?

 

[TheBear]

It isn't that simple. It is the assumptions, preferences, etc. that exist in our society. For example, federal offices are closed on Sunday. Why is that?

It started out, and continues, at the request of the majority of the citizenry, who happen to be believers in God, and wish that one day per week be set aside for worship and fellowship. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not for the minority view alone, but for all.

Several states have laws, called "blue laws", that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday. Why is that?

See above.

In several states, children are required to start the day with "a moment of silence". Why is that?

See above.

Christianity is given preferential treatment and special privilege, without explicitly declaring it to be the national religion.

Majority rules, buddy. That's what a democracy is all about.

I'll get to the rest of your post, later.

John

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Majority rules, buddy. That's what a democracy is all about.

No, you are wrong. "Democratic" comes from the Greek meaning "people rule".

You are incorrectly intrepreting "the rule of the people" to mean "the rule of the majority of the people".


** edited **

Jeff

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Brimshack,

Thank you for your support. Unfortunately, I'm just wasting too much of my time on this forum, 'wasting' being the key word.

These guys don't see atheists as people, and can't imagine why we could possibly be offended by "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Our very existence is just an annoyance to them, and frankly, I think that if their God actually existed and blasted every last atheist off the face the Earth, they'd all heave a collective sigh of relief and think, "Thank heavens, those rif-raff have gone!"

I respect you for hanging in here, but I feel that my time here has been completely wasted. All that's happened is that I've become more depressed than ever about the prospect of a Christian nation.

Take care, and please do drop by that site I mentioned in PM.

Jeff

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Ooh, all this&nbsp;and censorship too. Now everything I've heard about this site has come true.

Good bye all.

&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

 

[TheBear]

What did you expect, Jeff? You took the time to deliberately register on a Christian discussion board, of which it's core tenants diametrically oppose yours.

 

[TheBear]

I'm going to close this thread for a while, until things cool down a bit.


John

 

[TheBear]

This thread is re-opened. Please keep comments on topic, and refrain from personal attacks.

John

 

[TC]

Unbelievable.&nbsp; Jeff, the fact that your understanding of what Christianity is all about is very evident, simply by implying thatthe last time we had a non-Christian president was Abe.&nbsp; Did you hear of some dude named Bill, and his co-president wife, Hillary?&nbsp; If they were charged with being Christians, the charges would be dropped due to lack of evidence.&nbsp; What is your qualifier for being a Christian?&nbsp; The media having cameras on you when you go into and out of a church?

&nbsp;

"...one nation, under God...", is the hiearchy.&nbsp; How is a Christian mans life prioritized?&nbsp; God, wife, children and then country.&nbsp; Collectively,&nbsp;we will leave our families and go off to war, as that protects our nation and our way of life when it is under attack.&nbsp; But tops on the priority scale is God, who is the giver of life, and the creator of the institution of marriage.



Our nation's founders recognized a Creator (ignore the evidence, but you can't change the truth), and recognized that the freedoms and liberties that they were securing were not created by man but by the Creator.&nbsp; We were given life and liberty by God, not congress.

&nbsp;

If God gave us those liberties, then only He has the authority to take them away.&nbsp; As long as our government recognizes that fact, we won't find ourselves in the grips of tyranny.&nbsp; Once the government&nbsp;causes you to believe the thin lies that have been spoon-fed to you the last few decades, we will all be in grave danger of losing that which is God-given.

&nbsp;

Athiests as well as Christians greatly benefit from the notion of "One nation, under God."&nbsp; If I were an athiest, I'd be pledging my butt off, merrily thinking that as long as the nation believes this, my liberties are secure from within.


I promise you what I say is true.&nbsp; I will do it by saying what is at the end of the oath of office in the U.S...."So help me God."
&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by TheBear
And, by the way, you can call it what you want, all Presidents say all kinds of things, whether it be reading something his speech writers put together, speaking from his heart, or speaking some off the cuff remarks. NONE of these 'official' words are bound by law. The only time a President can make laws, without congress' due process of the law, would be in time of a national emergency. Even these are but a few, relating to military defense and such. All other laws, or amendments to the Constitution, must go through the arduous process of Congressional review and debate.

I can't say it any more clearer than that. You cannot take a President's words, and claim that he is making law as he speaks. The Constitution is a thing of genius, it does not allow for such things. 'Official' words of any President, don't make it law.

John,

Courts have clearly established that the statements of politicians supporting a bill are clearly relevant to determining its consitutionality. If that purpose violates the Lemon Test, as it did in Edwards v. Aguillard for instance, then the bill is unconstitutional. With reguards to the Eisenhower's statements, here is the passage from Newdow v US Congress.

Similarly, the policy and the Act fail the coercion test.
Just as in Lee, the policy and the Act place students in the
untenable position of choosing between participating in an
exercise with religious content or protesting. As the Court
observed with respect to the graduation prayer in that case:
“What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable
request that the nonbeliever respect their religious
practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever
or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the
State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.” Lee, 505 U.S. at 592.
Although the defendants argue that the religious content of
“one nation under God” is minimal, to an atheist or a believer
in certain non-Judeo-Christian religions or philosophies, it
may reasonably appear to be an attempt to enforce a “religious
orthodoxy” of monotheism, and is therefore impermissible.
The coercive effect of this policy is particularly
pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability
of schoolchildren, and their understanding that
they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school,
their teacher and their fellow students.8 Furthermore, under
Lee, the fact that students are not required to participate is no
basis for distinguishing Barnette from the case at bar because,
even without a recitation requirement for each child, the mere
fact that a pupil is required to listen every day to the statement
“one nation under God” has a coercive effect.9 The coercive
effect of the Act is apparent from its context and legislative
history, which indicate that the Act was designed to result in
the daily recitation of the words “under God” in school classrooms.
President Eisenhower, during the Act’s signing ceremony,
stated: “From this day forward, the millions of our
school children will daily proclaim in every city and town,
every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our
Nation and our people to the Almighty.” 100 Cong. Rec. 8618
(1954) (statement of Sen. Ferguson incorporating signing
statement of President Eisenhower). Therefore, the policy and
the Act fail the coercion test.10

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Sauron


It isn't that simple.&nbsp; It is the assumptions, preferences, etc.&nbsp;that exist in our society.&nbsp; &nbsp;For example, federal offices are closed on Sunday.&nbsp; Why is that?&nbsp;

Several states have laws, called "blue laws", that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday.&nbsp;&nbsp; Why is that?

In several states, children are required to start the day with "a moment of silence".&nbsp; Why is that?

Christianity is given preferential treatment and special privilege, without explicitly declaring it to be the national religion.&nbsp;

Let's not forget that some states still have laws in the books banning Atheists from either holding office, serving in juries, or being witnesses at a trial.

 

[Caedmon]

Even if a child is given the option to decline participation in reciting the pledge of allegiance,&nbsp;merely listening to it being recited five times a week, first thing&nbsp;in the morning,&nbsp;by school leaders, teachers, and peers&nbsp;still&nbsp;exacts implicit coercion and massive peer pressure on that child to conform to Christian ideas. In my book, that amounts to proselytization.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Let's not forget that some states still have laws in the books banning Atheists from either holding office, serving in juries, or being witnesses at a trial.

Rufus, that's absolutely disturbing.

Can you give the names of the states?

 

[Pastor N.B.]

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by humblejoe
Even if a child is given the option to decline participation in reciting the pledge of allegiance,&nbsp;merely listening to it being recited five times a week, first thing&nbsp;in the morning,&nbsp;by school leaders, teachers, and peers&nbsp;still&nbsp;exacts implicit coercion and massive peer pressure on that child to conform to Christian ideas. In my book, that amounts to proselytization.

I wonder how christians would feel, if their children had to be present during Buddhist chanting every morning, five days a week.&nbsp; I'm sure they'd be bent out of shape like a flipping pretzel.&nbsp; It never ceases to amaze me how fundie christians cannot see the other side of the coin, and realize what a double-standard they constantly push on others:

"My child shouldn't have to be exposed to that false religion!"&nbsp;

"I came home the other day, and little Johnny was actually saying something like one of them Buddhist chants.&nbsp; I don't want him learning that stuff."

"I want my child to learn about religion at home - not in a group chant in grade school, where I can't control what he hears."

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by humblejoe


Rufus, that's absolutely disturbing.

Can you give the names of the states?

Arkansas and Texas come to mind. I think there are more across the South. If I can find the time, I'll look at findlaw.com and find relavent statutes.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Here is my letter to the local paper.

Ruling against pledge's 'under God' is good for America

My answering machine has a message from an anomyous good ole' boy advising me to just not say the pledge. Of course he doesn't actually address whether it is in violation of the first amendment or not. Here is the message:

Hello--uh yeah. This message is for a Reed Cartwright that runnin' through the Athens Banner Herald paper. Uh, wha you-what you believe is fine uh but my main thing is that you know that if you don't like what's in the pledge of alliegiance what you need to do is just not say it. Simple as that. Don't base your theory on the whole rest of the American population just for what you believe. So--you know--best thing for you to do is if you don't like what's in it, don't say it. I'm not trying to be a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] or nothin' but I'm just tellin' you the facts. See ya.

Of course, this doesn't capture the odd stresses and pauses in the message.

 

[TC]

Sauron, once again, it doesn't matter how the Christians would feel, this was built as a Judeo-Christian nation, not Buddhist.&nbsp; It was the Judeo-Christian values and ethics that made this nation strong; these are our roots that held us steady though the stormy years and fed us to be strong to give shade to other nations.&nbsp; Ben Franklin said the only way this experiment in society would succeed was with Judeo-Christian morals and principles.&nbsp; Which one was it, one of the authors of the Bill of Rights said that the best text book for schools was the Bible?&nbsp; Bad memory and too many books to re-read.

&nbsp;

Speaking of Budhists, or any other religion.&nbsp; Contrary to the liberal agenda of the last few decades, this nation was not intended to be a "multi-cultural" mixing bowl, but a melting pot.&nbsp; Multi-culturalism weakens, and eventually aides in the destruction of a nation.&nbsp; Ours was a strong culture.&nbsp; Now, our society is unraveling, losing its morals and courtesies of passed on by tradition for a long time.&nbsp; The last few years, because of "multi-culturalism", morals are "relative", and citizens are not American but "-Americans."

&nbsp;

Enough.&nbsp; I'd hate to have to tell my boss I'm late for work because I couldn't get off my soapbox.&nbsp; Have a good day and remember, stay out of the left lane except to pass!