Pledge Unconstitutional

oops sorry, guess I should have included girls in that statement.

Ok maybe I lived in a "conservative" area of the country (TEXAS)
but I was listening to a radio program earlier, and heard not one person that called insupport this decision.

Here's something.

Ask a Muslim if they believe in a God. Ask a Buddist if they believe in a God. Ask a bunch of different people of different religious beliefs if they believe in God. All will say yes.

Too bad indoor plumbing is NOT a religion, we'd get believers all over the world, and I bet there would be FEW arguments!

(how much do you want to bet, though, the "head" of all the Indoor Plumbing Churches would be FEMALE, and the Holy Scepter would be a toidy brush?)



Peace be with you,
~VOW

Originally posted by VOW
Too bad indoor plumbing is NOT a religion, we'd get believers all over the world, and I bet there would be FEW arguments!

(how much do you want to bet, though, the "head" of all the Indoor Plumbing Churches would be FEMALE, and the Holy Scepter would be a toidy brush?)



Peace be with you,
~VOW

Click to expand...

 

LOL!!!! 

Ok maybe I lived in a "conservative" area of the country (TEXAS)
but I was listening to a radio program earlier, and heard not one person that called insupport this decision.

Click to expand...

Which is why I think it will get appealed, just too many people are ticked about this and I don't think Dubya can afford to lose the support of his precious religious right followers.

I too live in Texas and there are many of here that are happy about this, mind you, my colleagues at work aren't very religious.

 

ok i just thought of this, if the pledge is written out is the word god starting with a capital letter or lower case.

the Christian god is reffered to as God
and i think the general term for a superior being of other religions is god.

hmmm just wondering.

Originally posted by A Sheep
It's in Mirriam Webster as the definition for religion so I'll use it,

Click to expand...

Then you should also know that the 2nd definition is the one that is the non-standard one.  For obvious reasons.

and it does not say that the 2nd one is to be used in your created context.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does.  If you look in the front of the dictionary (a real dictionary, with pages to read) it explains the differences in definitions.

But have it your way - so if someone says they're on a crusade to paint their house, you really truly think they're on a military campaign - right?

 This is all semantics anyway, and you know that.

Click to expand...

No, it's the proper use of English.

 atheism is a religion just like buddhism, etc. your deity just happens to be nature.

Click to expand...

Wrong.  Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). 

Originally posted by TheBear
Belief in God is not 'Religion' in the legal sense.

The Constitution makes it clear that no religion is to get favored status over the other religions. Basically, that the government shall not establish a religion. Period.

Click to expand...

Already addressed and refuted in other threads.

I think it quite amuzing that the same people who want to shove 'alternative lifestyles' down our throats, who becry "FREEDOM OF SPEACH!!!!", don't really want it to apply here.

Click to expand...

Nobody said you couldn't enjoy freedom of speech.  But your freedom of speech doesn't include creating unconstitutional infringements on everyone else.

And, the double standards just keep on coming.

Click to expand...

Yes - christians want one standard for themselves, and another standard for everyone else.

 

John

 

  [/QUOTE]

how come it's always grouped christians, can't it be some christians.

it's kinda like me saying all athiest are rude, but we know that this isn't true!

Originally posted by TheBear
Belief in God is not 'Religion' in the legal sense.

The Constitution makes it clear that no religion is to get favored status over the other religions. Basically, that the government shall not establish a religion. Period.

I think it quite amuzing that the same people who want to shove 'alternative lifestyles' down our throats, who becry "FREEDOM OF SPEACH!!!!", don't really want it to apply here.

And, the double standards just keep on coming.

 

John

 

 

Click to expand...

 

Dude,

 You are so mistaken. When has anybody ever try to "shove alternative lifestyles down [your] throat"?

 What people are fighting for is for these alternative lifestyles to not be discriminated against. In other words, recognize that gay people are people with equal rights.

 The only double standards are those practiced by those people, like some of the ones here, who maintain that this country was formed for freedom of religion ... as long as that religion is Christian, that is.

  Jeff

 

Btw, please re-read the quote that Sauron posted:

The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.

The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "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."

The court cited recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that said students cannot hold religious invocations because it violates the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Jeff

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet
BTW, as an atheist associate of mine once put it: Atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Click to expand...

correct atheism is not a religion but it is a belief about religion.  Just like theism.  They are both beliefs about religion. 

Oh and there really is no such thing as a non-belief.  Atheism is a BELIEF that there is no gods or supernatural powers. 

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: [URL='Look up "]odlessness"' href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=godlessness">godlessness[/URL]] [ant: [URL='Look up "]heism"' href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=theism">theism[/URL]] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=src>href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=00-database-info&amp;db=wn">Source: <CITE>WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University</CITE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

theism

n : the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods [ant: [URL='Look up "]theism"' href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=atheism">atheism[/URL]]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=src>href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=00-database-info&amp;db=wn">Source: <CITE>WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University</CITE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

So a belief in god in itself is not a religion it is just a belief about religion.&nbsp; There are some religions without a god so a belief in god is not necesarry for a religion.&nbsp;

Just thought this might clear things up some.&nbsp;

Originally posted by Blackhawk


correct atheism is not a religion

Click to expand...

Good, you agree that atheism is not a religion. Excellent.


Inasmuch as Mathematics, then, is a belief in the effectiveness of math, Linguistics is a belief in the principles of language, and Etymology is the belief in the derivations of words, then yes, atheism is the belief that there are no gods.

BTW, instead of quoting dictionary definitions of atheism by uncertain sources (most of whom are likely not atheists), gee, perhaps you might want to defer to&nbsp;actual atheists on the subject? (Kind of like how I'd defer to mothers about whether childbirth is painful or not.)&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

Further comments:

"Webster" means nothing. The name is in the public domain, and that means anyone can publish a set of definitions and call it a Webster's dictionary. In any event dictionaries use multiple definitions, and those who cite them selectively as authorities on what any word means are misconstruing the purpose of dictionary making to begin with. Citing a single definition for a term, including "religion" does not settle the issue at all. The definition cited above is highly equivocal at best.

Bear: You appear to be advocating a non-preferentialist position, i.e. taking the view that aid to religion in general is okay, but that aid to one religion over another is okay. There are two problems with this.

1) During the time that the constitution was written several states had already tried giving aid to more than one church, and the movement to adopt principles like that of the establishment clause included opposition to those arrangements as well.

2) Reference to God still leaves some people out; Polytheists, Goddess worshipers, and unbelievers in general. Thus public references to God do encompasss more than one religion, but they also exclude others. Hence, such policies effectively use the power of the government to skew the balance of religion in the country. That is what the establishment clause was meant to end.

If the pledge is intended as a ritual affirming loyalty to America, then the inclusion of religious imagery (no matter how general) in that pledge will, of necessity, mark abnyone who cannot go along with that imagery as less than American. That was the original purpose behind the extra wording, and it was and is contrary to the spirit of the establishment clause.

Free speech? Not at issue here. We are not talking about a policy banning religious speech by individuals; we are talking about a policy that used a government institution to promote such speech. When people speak on behalf of government entities they incur responsibilities beyond those that they have as individuals. The free speech clause is a red Herring in that regadr.

The view that Atheism is a religion is itself rather suspicious to begin with, but the notion that this promotes such a religion is rediculous. No-one is being forced to affirm a Godless nation; a government entity is simply being prevented from including references to God as an obligatory pledge/prayer in its policies. The day someone forces students to affirm the principles of the Humanist Manifesto there will be substance to this turnabout strategy, but when Christians are prevented from using the government to spread their own beliefs the charge is completely out of place.

Originally posted by Blackhawk

Oh and there really is no such thing as a non-belief.&nbsp; Atheism is a BELIEF that there is no gods or supernatural powers.&nbsp;

Click to expand...

In practice, many atheists have no such belief; you might be happier calling them "agnostics", but in practice, the word gets used for both the lack-of-belief and the active disbelief positions.

There certainly is such a thing as a non-belief. I have a belief that I94 is mostly an east-west highway. I have a disbelief that I35 is mostly an east-west highway. I have a non-belief that San Diego has more than a million people; I don't believe it to be true, but I don't disbelieve it, because I am fully aware that I have no idea what San Diego's population is.

Ack, the definition I was referring to was a page or two up, not the one in Blackhauk's post, whichy just beat my post in (I can't seem to edit right now, sorry for clarifying things the long and tedious way).

Brimshack,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You totally rock!

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

Originally posted by Brimshack

If the pledge is intended as a ritual affirming loyalty to America, then the inclusion of religious imagery (no matter how general) in that pledge will, of necessity, mark abnyone who cannot go along with that imagery as less than American. That was the original purpose behind the extra wording, and it was and is contrary to the spirit of the establishment clause.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm in wholehearted agreement with this. God is not served by making people who do not believe in Him swear false oaths.

( not to get off-topic, but happy birthday, Seebs! )

ACK! I made another stupid error. My initial statement to Bear should have said; "You appear to be advocating a non-preferentialist position, i.e. taking the view that aid to religion in general is okay, but that aid to one religion over another is NOT." I think I'd better tinker with my computer before I post again, I make way too many mistakes to fly with out an edit option.

Thanks Jeff, and Happy Birthday Seebs. See y'all when I'm in better operating condition.