He also appears to want to treat this thread as a rant, rather than a discussion.
dreamer’s position in this matter does not appear to be supported by either the Constitutional facts or by the real world events that surround this issue when handled by people who demonstrate the closed-minded ignorance of the Presidents Bush. The point of the last couple of exchanges, however, has been that dreamer appears to be willing to discuss the issue. If we’re exchanging information with the intent to fight ignorance, keeping the discussion closer to facts and farther from emotion can only help.
Bullshit. I’ve got paragraphs and paragraphs in this thread dedicated to logical illustrations of why the govt. putting one religion above others goes against one of the greatest fundamental principals of our wonderful little democracy. I may rant a bit, but some of these Christians around here want their religion endorsed by the government above any other religion, while others claim that atheists can’t be patriotic. The whole thing does disgust me. It is such unpatriotic behaivior to feel that your religion should be given special treatment by the government. A disgrace to the founding fathers, IMO.
We are all supposed to be allowed to have equal freedom to choose our religion (including the choice to choose none). Folks like dreamer and the president would gloss over this fundamental right because, wink wink, nod nod, everyone knows that even though we pretend to be non-biased, we are really a Christian country and anyone who feels differently is unpatriotic. This type of attitude really is one of the things that I find the most disturbing among religious folks. They don’t want equality, they want special treatment. Unfortunately, they are getting it.
Dreamer, you didn’t answer. How would you feel if they put the words “Hail Allah” on money? Would you fight against such a move by the government? Why?
Bullshit. I’ve got paragraphs and paragraphs in this thread dedicated to logical illustrations of why the govt. putting one religion above others goes against one of the greatest fundamental principals of our wonderful little democracy. I may rant a bit, but some of these Christians around here want their religion endorsed by the government above any other religion, while others claim that atheists can’t be patriotic. The whole thing does disgust me. It is such unpatriotic behaivior to feel that your religion should be given special treatment by the government. A disgrace to the founding fathers, IMO.
We are all supposed to be allowed to have equal freedom to choose our religion (including the choice to choose none). Folks like dreamer and the president would gloss over this fundamental right because, wink wink, nod nod, everyone knows that even though we pretend to be non-biased, we are really a Christian country and anyone who feels differently is unpatriotic. This type of attitude really is one of the things that I find the most disturbing among religious folks. They don’t want equality, they want special treatment. Unfortunately, they are getting it.
Dreamer, you didn’t answer. How would you feel if they put the words “Hail Allah” on money? Would you fight against such a move by the government? Why?
I must say that calling athiests unpatriotic is really stupid. Athiests have fought and died for their country. More significantly, undermining seperation of church and state- a principal our country was founded on- is extremely un-american. In closing, to promote anti-american laws while at the same time calling people, some of whom have fought and died to protect your freedoms, unpatriotic is just vile.
a) The court ruled that the PofA as it exists in federal law could not be recited (I agree so far) and
b) the PofA as it exists in federal law is not the real PofA
So are you not god-fearing? Not patriotic? Not christian? Not american? Because unless you are not among the group that can be thus described, you clearly should be assuming that an atheist cannot be patriotic.
To get it right, point B should read “the PofA as it exists in federal law is an unConstitutional expression of such a pledge”
If you are going to try to go back and claim that a person who objects to that corrupted version is refusing to be patriotic, we are all going to stand around and laugh at you as if you did not undersand what you were trying to say.
The objection made by the plaintiff was that his daughter was subjected to an unConstitutional entanglement of church and state. There is no reecord that the palintiff objected to a recitation of any pledge. As I already noted, the Supreme Court already ruled that no student could be compelled to recite the PoA in school back at the height of WWII–in a case brought by a bible-believing family.
Well, according to tomndebb I should not be posting my “emotional” view of anything since my “position in this matter does not appear to be supported by either the Constitutional facts or by the real world events”.
But since you have asked me to answer you I will go ahead and say that after being involved in this discussion and others involving God and religion, I’ve come to the decision that maybe the IGWT should just be taken off the dollar rather than have so many angry citizens fight over it. The same goes for your “Hail Allah” question. I’d rather everything “religious” be off the currency rather than see every day on the news all the Christian right organizations and who knows who else, fighting over it.
If if has to come to the point where any mention of God has to be taken out of government, school, libraries, or anywhere else, then so be it. That hardly means he does not exist there anyway.
As it happens, posting an emotional support for an argument will, in Great Debates, generally win you no points while collecting a bit of scorn. That just tends to be how this Forum operates. However, it should be noted that I have only claimed that you are factually in error, not that you have let emotion cloud your view and not that you are incapable of discussion.
What would have to happen to make it constitutional ? Would it be constitutional if the appeals court were to stay its judgement ? If the full 9th circuit says it’s constitutional ? If SCOTUS says it’s constitutional ?
Are you appealing to law ? Or a higher authority ? If it is to the law, then maybe we should stay our debate until the law has had its final word ? Assuming that you will accept the final word, of course.
I didn’t say that all atheists want to outlaw religion. But it doesn’t take all of them. It only takes some of them. Do you believe that there are no atheists who want to ban - or at least restrict religion ?
I am appealing to logic and history. (The Supremes are quite capable of making bad decisions and I will not be surprised if they overturn the 9th Court’s decision.)
Logically, the imposition of these religious phrases is not supported by a reading of the 1st Amendment.
Historically, the use of these phrases has tended to support the feeling among some peoples that they should have the right to draw invalid conclusions regarding the patriotism of their fellow citizens based on an inappropriate standard of religious belief.
and I asked what would make it constitutional. If it is not the supreme court and it is not congress and it is not the president what is it ? Do we all get to apply our own logic and our own reading of the law ?
Sure there are individuals who are atehist who want to restrict/ban/destroy/whatever religion. So? There are religious people who want to restrict/ban/destroy/whatever atheists and evn other religious people who don’t share the same religion. Does that make religion or rewligious people a threat to the U.S.? (Because I can provide citations where those religious people are already acting–and there are a lot more of them than there are atheists.)
Consistency with the Constitution. A bad court decision could make it legal, then we would simply have to hope for a better court decision in some future time to make it Constitutional.
The Supreme Court in the 1940s found Executive Order 9066 to be Constitutional. That did not make it right (or Constitutional), it only made it enforceable.
Absolute baloney. JDM has already provided quotes which prove the contrary. Jefferson himself authored Virginia’s bill establishing religious freedom, and expressly stated that freedom from religious coercion applied to everyone, Christian or not.
Besides which, in Jefferson’s letters to John Adams, he implicitly denies the deity of Jesus. Jefferson was no Christian (though he admired Jesus as a philosopher).
So if Jefferson had wanted to establish a state church, well, you might be surprised and disappointed at the church he would’ve picked.
I suspect that we have exhausted this particular strand of this thread. Permit me to recap so we can tidy some of the other strands. Please correct any errors in my summary.
We have agreed that all branches of the government at this time hold that the Pledge of Allegiance is legal - although you are hoping for a better decision at some future time. They (will probably) also say it is constitutional but you believe that they do not have that authority.
We have agreed that there are strong precedents for atheist rulers banning religion when they come to power. You claimed that those precedents were not relevant to the USA because
a) the fact they were atheist was secondary to the fact that they were communist and
b) those countries were different from the USA. It would be difficult - according to you - for a democratic, pluralistic country with a religious majority to elect an atheist leader.
I quick scan back up the thread shows that I left a few questions unanswered…
From Tomndebb,
You yourself mentioned Salvador Allende. I’ll take your word for it that he was an atheist. From what I can gather from a little research, he was elected democratically by a population that is, according to the CIA World Factbook, Roman Catholic 89%, Protestant 11%.
Francois Mitterand was democratically elected by a population that is, again according to the CIA, Roman Catholic 90%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%.
As I pointed out before, Neil Kinnock came close (very very close) to being elected by an electorate that includes Anglican 27 million, Roman Catholic 9 million, Muslim 1 million, Presbyterian 800,000, Methodist 760,000, Sikh 400,000, Hindu 350,000, Jewish 300,000 in a population of 59,647,790. (Don’t know why the CIA makes us figure out the percentages for the UK but not France… Grrr). Call it 60-something percent.
and there was a 9% decline between 1990 and 2001 in the number of Americans who self-identify as Christians.
So we have precedents for modern, pluralistic countries to elect atheists as their leaders and we also have a clear trend that modern, pluralistic countries are turning away from Christianity. Given that evidence, I think it would be reasonable for god-fearing christians to expect an atheist government in the foreseeable future.
You also asserted that
Unfortunately many people, especially god-fearing christians, do not base their fears on sound principles. I maintain that it is not a great leap for GFPCAs to expect a growing atheist movement to want to restrict their rights to practice religion. As I said before, there are strong precedents. Despite the protests of those nice atheists at the Straight Dope, I expect there are many atheists who would be very happy to see religious practices restricted. I’ll find some if you like.
BTW Queen Al.
I sympathize - I had to go all the way to www.google.com, enter Neil Kinnock atheist and hit “I am feeling lucky”.
Also, grendel72
Same question to you that I asked of Tomndebb, what will your view of the constitutionality of that change be when the legal system says it is constitutional ?
And finally, Tomndebb,
Are you arguing that religious people are not a threat to the US ? Or that atheists are just like religious people ?
