Would it help that I do know people who have been directly affected by it? Who have had the shit kicked out of them at recess in schools because of their refusal to take part in supposedly voluntary religious activities?
As I said before, I’m not wrapped that tight, and I don’t care what our nation is under in the Pledge of Allegience, but for you to blithely state that it’s a petty thing is disengenuous at best as it’s plenty … um … not-petty to Christians.
That’s not how principles work, is it?
It is, actually. If they got rid of it tomorrow it wouldn’t bother me one bit, and it wouldn’t bother the vast majority of Christians. How many Christians are in the United States? How many care enough to raise a stink about it? That number is infinitesimally small and shrinking as the older people who do care continue to die off.
It’s a small but vocal group of people that care, and they’ll get over it sooner or later, just like they’ll get over abortion being legal, guns being protected by the Constitution, government-run health care, and whatever other hot-button issue you can come up with. And as hot-button issues go, this one is pretty low on the hierarchy because it’s nothing more than words. It costs you nothing.
You have two cats side by side-one facing to the left, and the other to the right. If you pet them both from from left to right, one cat will have no problem, but the other will soon get ticked off.
Only if you think fighting for the Constitution is silly.
Of course it’s not ruining my life, but it also wouldn’t ruin my life if my children were forced to say Islamic prayers every day at school.
You know what bugs me about “under god” in the pledge and “In God We Trust” on our money and in our national motto? It’s that if you make the case that the government is supposed to be secular and not have prayer time and religious indoctrination in schools, then the average Joe seems to always point out the pledge and motto in support of his view that this is a Christian country.
I can always point out that those are cases of what the court views as ceremonial deism, which basically means that they’re viewed as religion-content-free, because if they were viewed as being religious the court would be left with no choice but to strike them down. But this is a nuanced argument and most average Joes won’t get the point.
Did you hear the news story in Soddy Daisy, Tennessee recently? There was a Christian prayer being conducted over the PA system before every football game. When they were told they had to stop, a local parent said
Isn’t that cute? There are layers of misunderstanding right in that little quote, but it shows what I think is the harm that the pledge and the motto do to our country.
Abortion is not unconstututional.
If the Pledge said “under the gods,” the religionists would lose their minds, so so don’t try to belittle people as being petty if they don’t want your particular religion shoved down their throats by the government.
In college, my wife once did an ethnology on some local Lakota Sioux teenagers. On of them (and I was able to independently verify this from multiple other sources) was actually beaten up by a teacher for refusing to Pledge allegiance (which ran counter to his tribal religious beliefs).
Maybe it wouldn’t bother you, but I don’t believe for a second that it would not bother the majority of Christians.
I also think a significant number of our fellow countrymen would raise quite a stink if “under god” were removed from the Pledge, either by the courts or the Congress. Remember, a great many people went a bit crazy trying to amend the Constitution to allow a flag burning ban.
A Christmas list is just a a Christmas list until you substitute "God " for “Santa.” Then it’s a prayer.
Maybe then we should build a tithe into federal and state income taxes and local property taxes, to be distributed proportionately among all religious groups.
The income tax and local property tax would still have a “primarily secular purpose” and no single religion would benefit to the exclusion of others, so would that pass Constitutional muster?
As for the Pledge, I suspect that “under God” is sneaking past the founders’ intent and retaining a scant ceremonial presence in public life because the phrase (along with “In God We Trust”) is sufficiently vague and watered-down as to be considered harmless. If they gave it more than superficial thought, this could hardly be pleasing to vociferous religious proselytizers.
I agree with the Christian posters that the phrase “under God” in no way promotes religion or acknowledges the existence of a mono-theistic God. I also agree with them that since this is the case there is no harm in removing it.
Wait, that’s not what they are saying?
I also agree with conservatives who say we should use the original version of the pledge.
lee’s thread has raised my consciousness.The author of the opinion is Sandra Lynch, the Chief Judge of the First Circuit. While I don’t agree with lee that bias is shown when referring to a group that contains both males and females with a male pronoun, I think that when there is a single, known person, and that person is female, it’s appropriate to use “she” rather than “he.”
As to the rest of your critique… it seems clear you don’t agree with the court’s decision.What more can be said?
Not really, no. There’s nothing Holy Writ about Lemon. The test it proposes is not obvious from the Constitution’s text. I don’t agree it fails, but if you believe the Supreme Court will uphold these decisions, then the Court has every right to modify Lemon as they see fit.
If we’re going to sit here and argue that the Constitution means something other than what the Supreme Court says it does, then wait in line: I am aggrieved by Griswold, Roe, and Casey, all of which predate this case, so I am going to declare that they are actually wrong and unconstitutional.
Not too useful, is it?
Not really, but it does give us insight as to your beliefs about such matters. You are very good at showing us the legalities, but adding your personal opinions about those legalities gives depth to the conversation, don’t you think?
No, I don’t, unless we’re debating the passage of some law that will change the landscape at issue.
It’s my personal opinion that Griswold was poorly reasoned, and that Roe was a fucking disasterous hodgepodge of reasoning.
But now we have too much caselaw built up on Griswold to simply zap it. As Matthew warns, it’s a foolish man that builds his house upon the sand.
All of that is my opinion, and utterly irrelevant.
Please define the “public sphere”. Are broadcast television and radio stations and cable TV channels part of the “public sphere”? Is the Internet part of the “public sphere”? Are highway billboards part of the “public sphere”? Are Borders bookstores and Amazon.com part of the “public sphere”? Is TIME magazine part of the “public sphere”? Are stump speeches given by candidates for public office part of the “public sphere”? Are those letter board signs in front of churches part of the “public sphere”? Are the insides of churches part of the “public sphere”? Are people’s front laws or the bumpers of their cars part of the “public sphere”?
In other words, it’s part of their persecution complex. They define not being able to tyrannize and assault others as being persecuted and oppressed.
Oh, and we aren’t talking about “religious people”. We are talking only about Christians. This is an attempt to push Christianity specifically on people. It was Christians who put it into the law, Christians who defend it, Christians who beat children for not pledging loyalty to their god. It’s not “under Shiva”, or Buddha, it’s under* God*.
And yes the courts disagree with me. But that is because they are corrupt. They are willing to make ridiculous assertions like this ruling in order to help support Christianity.