Pledge Unconstitutional

[eldermike]

Sauron,

Nonsense is a strong word. I said what I said not to attack you but to say what I wanted to say. Your point about historical context is reasonable but my point wasn't about the date. Slavery was abolished on a day, a good day, the date wasn't the issue. I will not call your statement nonsense.

Blessings

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by eldermike
Jeff,

I gather you don't agree with me. And; in a nation "under God" that is your right. Ever thought about the ones that died so we can say these things. Ever wonder if they would agree with you? I have no way of knowing, do you?

Blessings

And I don't have to agree with you in a nation "not under God", too. In fact, I don't need your god at all, thank you very much. (Hint: that's why I'm an atheist. It means I don't believe in your god.)

If you have no way of knowing what these people would think, then why even bring the point up? That's the worst form of logical argument: appealing to authorities that may not even agree with you and implying that they're on your side.

And let's say that they were on your side for the sake of argument. Are you telling me that no atheist ever died for America? Because if one did, then by your argument, shouldn't we respect his wishes, too? Or do only the CHRISTIANS who die have any value in your (heretical) ancestor worshipping?

  Jeff

 

 

[eldermike]

Jeff
creating hypotheticals from what you call illogical arguments raises the bar on the worst form of illogical arguments. Let's agree to disagree. This is silly.

Blessings

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by eldermike
Jeff
creating hypotheticals from what you call illogical arguments raises the bar on the worst form of illogical arguments.

No, it was a fallback position. Your attempt to position your argument was wrong, but I figured it was simple enough to shut the logic down completely by showing that even if you could successfully position it the way you wanted, you'd still be wrong.

 Let's agree to disagree. This is silly.

Blessings

Why are you even posting here if you don't want to discuss this?

Was I supposed to say, "Amen, brother. Hallelujah!" or something?

   Jeff

 

 

[eldermike]

jeff,

It's not about not wanting to post. It's just all said.
And should you say "Amen brother" - One day perhaps <grin>

Blessings

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by eldermike
jeff,

...

And should you say "Amen brother" - One day perhaps <GRIN>

Blessings

Eldermike,

You bet. All you have to do is prove the existence of your god, and I'll be the first on line to take communion or whatever. "Born Again Not Prince Hamlet", that's what they'd call me.

Assuming you can prove the existence of your god, that is.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

 

[eldermike]

Jeff,

It dosn't work that way. I can't prove God to you or anyone. But, if you seek God, He will respond.

Blessings

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by eldermike
Jeff,

It dosn't work that way. I can't prove God to you or anyone. But, if you seek God, He will respond.

Blessings

So Christians keep telling me.&nbsp;If you seek logic, you will find that.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

 

[ashibaka]

But, if you seek God, He will respond.

Have I been seeking in an incorrect manner? AFAIK, learning about Christianity is "seeking God". It's not like I'm running away from him/her or something.

Maybe I should begin by abandoning all skepticism...

 

[eldermike]

Jeff,

I did seek logic, I became an engineer. God the came after me and I am now an engineer/preacher headed out of engineering. You never know.

Blessings

 

[eldermike]

ashibaka,
You said:

<Maybe I should begin by abandoning all skepticism...>


Well, The 12 Jesus picked first were skeptics.
Just keep looking.

Blessings

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by eldermike
ashibaka,
You said:

<MAYBE all skepticism... abandoning by begin should I>


Well, The 12 Jesus picked first were skeptics.
Just keep looking.

Blessings

&nbsp;

EXACTLY! So obviously, if God exists, precedence shows that we do not need to go seek Him. If He exists, it's been shown that He'll seek us.

Therefore, I'm still waiting for Him to seek me in the form of proof.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by eldermike
Sauron,

Nonsense is a strong word. I said what I said not to attack you but to say what I wanted to say.

I never said you were trying to attack me.

However, your statement was still nonsense.&nbsp; You claimed that the phrase "under God" was not about religion, but about humility.&nbsp;

That is patently wrong.&nbsp; The phrase was most certainly inserted for religious reasons.

If you examine the history surrounding why this phrse was inserted into the pledge in 1954, you will quickly discover that the reason was VERY religious.&nbsp; It had nothing to do with humility.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49515-2002Jun26.html

Under these precedents, Goodwin wrote, the officially sponsored recitation of the phrase "under God" -- added at the height of the Cold War for the express purpose of distinguishing American values from the atheistic norms of the Soviet Union -- amounted to not only state endorsement of religion, but also a subtle form of coercion over elementary school students.

Your point about historical context is reasonable but my point wasn't about the date.

You misunderstand what I meant when I said "historical context". I am not talking about just the dates.&nbsp; I am talking about examining the history surrounding the original decision to insert the phrase "under God" into the pledge.&nbsp; The historical context at the time, in 1954, was the desire of the US to distinguish itself from atheistic communism - as the quote above from the Washington Post article illustrates.

That is what "historical context" means.&nbsp; And that is precisely why I said your claim that this was all about humility was total nonsense.&nbsp; Because, as you examine the history, it becomes obvious very quickly that the motivation behind inserting this was religious motivation.

Slavery was abolished on a day, a good day, the date wasn't the issue. I will not call your statement nonsense.

You've totally misunderstood what "historical context" means.

 

[Blackhawk]

I have a question if the Supreme court upholds this ruling will it no longer speak about God when it opens. I forget exactly what they say every morning but I know they say "God" Also what about taking God or religous words off of state buildings and landmarks?

I do not see how this ruling will stand.

blackhawk

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
I have a question if the Supreme court upholds this ruling will it no longer speak about God when it opens. I forget exactly what they say every morning but I know they say "God" Also what about taking God or religous words off of state buildings and landmarks?

I do not see how this ruling will stand.

blackhawk

Blackhawk,

&nbsp;No, I think each instance of "God" will be a separate case.&nbsp;It's not a blanket ruling.

I do not think that the ruling will stand either, even though for it to be overturned is unconstitutional.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Wow, I was supposed to work on my book last night and today, and I've spent it completely on the Christian Forums. What an odd way for an atheist to spend time!

Jeff

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet


Blackhawk,

&nbsp;No, I think each instance of "God" will be a separate case.&nbsp;It's not a blanket ruling.

I do not think that the ruling will stand either, even though for it to be overturned is unconstitutional.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

I understand I just do not see how a court could rule against the "under God" phrase because of seperation of church and state when they use the word "god" every morning.&nbsp; It would be very hypocritical.&nbsp; But that does not mean it is not the right thing to do.&nbsp; just very hypocritical.&nbsp;

Earlier in this thread&nbsp;I was slightly playing devil's advocate and I do apologise for that.&nbsp; I do think though that the seperation of church and state is not as simple as many make it out to be on both sides.&nbsp;

We should be having much real discussion abut this issue but instead this thread has turned out to be an us vs. them thing.&nbsp; That is how most of the discussion outside of this forum has been also.&nbsp; For this thread I am responsible as much as anyone else.&nbsp; But I think that it does not have to be that way.&nbsp; If I had the time I woudl enjoy a good, honest, in depth discussion on it.&nbsp; But I will be in and mostly out for the next month.&nbsp; I do not know&nbsp;how often&nbsp;I will be able to have access to a computer until very late July.&nbsp;

But things are not so simple as to say that the constitution calls for an areligous state or that we were founded as a "Christian" nation.&nbsp; Reality is somewhere in betwen.&nbsp;

oh well I have babled more than I wanted to but I hope that this thread or other ones in this forum can be turned around so a more honest and mutual beneficial discussion can be had.&nbsp;

blackhawk

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; Bear in mind something: When it comes to things like this, the court generally waves it away with a de minimus finding.

&nbsp; That is, while it's a technical violation to have "In God We Trust" on the coins, or a chaplain in Congress, the damage done is minimal. The standard for this tends to be the old fallback: The reasonable adult standard.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Because, let's face it, it's only adults who are going to really notice the "In God We Trust" on the coins, or the chaplain in Congress. It's not really part of a kid's world.

&nbsp;&nbsp; So the courts have held that while these things are technical violations, no reasonable adult (or few, at least) would consider them really establishing a religion. The amount of "harm" is minimal, compared to the hassle of changing it, or (in the case of the chaplain) the long tradition (since the first Congress) involved.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; But here lies the problem: The courts have long held that the reasonable adult standard doesn't apply to schools and children. When it comes to children, the court has a very high bar. I've never seen the "minimal harm" argument successfully applied to a school Church/State case.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Which means our beloved Supreme Court is probably praying the ful 9th reverses itself so they can refuse the appeal. Because the panel's decision flowed very naturally and solidly from the school Church/State cases of the last decade.

&nbsp; I have heard many legal scholars say it will be reversed, but none could point to any legal reasoning other than "It's just two meaningless words. People mumble them without thought". Which, I might add, has been nicely proven false. If they were meaningless words, I wouldn't have watched several pundits undergo collective apolexy last night.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by Blackhawk


I understand I just do not see how a court could rule against the "under God" phrase because of seperation of church and state when they use the word "god" every morning.&nbsp; It would be very hypocritical.&nbsp; But that does not mean it is not the right thing to do.&nbsp; just very hypocritical.&nbsp;

I agree. I wish it were across the board. However, as a member of the oppressed underclass, I'll take what victories and recognition I can get at this point.

&nbsp;

But things are not so simple as to say that the constitution calls for an areligous state or that we were founded as a "Christian" nation.&nbsp; Reality is somewhere in betwen.&nbsp;

oh well I have babled more than I wanted to but I hope that this thread or other ones in this forum can be turned around so a more honest and mutual beneficial discussion can be had.&nbsp;

blackhawk

Blackhawk,

&nbsp; Noble goals to be sure, and I support you in that effort.

&nbsp; As for reality being somewhere in between, it depends.

&nbsp; I think the ideal situation would be as I envision: no religion is favored, but all are protected and allowed to thrive. Atheists are respected as full and equal&nbsp;members of society, but they too are not given preferential treatment.

&nbsp; But this won't happen. In the short term, the Christian Right dominates politics in this country, so things will be very heavily skewed towards Christianity.

&nbsp; As the number of people in India and China increases, the balance of power might change towards Buddhism over the next century or so (assuming we don't anihilate ourselves first), which would bring around some profound changes in our government.

&nbsp; Alas, atheists such as myself will remain the oppressed underclass, treated as baggage by society rather than as full members. We'll always be told that this is a "Christian/Buddhist/whatever" nation and that if we don't like it, we can leave.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

 

[Gunny]

Where would we be without the ACLU aka Anti-Christian Liberal Union? Answer: In a society that holds in esteem moral absolutes vs. the doctrine of diversity and moral relatavisim.

GySgt James