Hmm, don’t think I even remotely wrote that, but then, it’s getting pretty clear that certain people aren’t interested so much in what I’m writing as what they think I’m writing.
In my school? Huh? Actually, most of the kids who were called themselves Christians in the last school I attended were Asian, but that doesn’t say one thing about the subject at hand. I must admit that I fail to follow your constructions, and if you think that the syllogism you are setting up is indicative of my argument then you certainly are right to be outraged. However, it is a straw man argument par excellance because that is NOT a good illustration of what I’m writing and is instead something you have created to destroy. You enjoy the undistributed middle as much as jklann it seems, but I didn’t do that, you did in your incorrect redaction. Thanks.
Please quote a fallacy I explicitly indicated as I have done for your post, and then I’ll believe you have something meaningful to add to the conversation. As it is, it seems you are full of a mixture of breathable gases whose molecules have a high average kinetic energy.
It occurs to me on rereading the last few posts that bizzman incorrectly thought I was writing about a concrete “school” as opposed to a philosophical “school”. I am not writing about any school I attended. I am instead referring to a general line of thinking that is espoused by not a majority but a fair fraction of conservative Christians in the United States. These people whom I referring to might be said to belong to a “school” of thought which would embrace the tee-shirts, the Chick Tracts, the firebrand mythology that charcterizes many fundamentalist, evangelical idealizations of Christianity. It is these very groups which lend themselves to comparison to such whacko ideas as Christian Identity religions. They, interestingly enough, have been members of both political parties in the US up until a few years ago, but now are gravitating mostly toward the Republicans.
It is simply my contention that the “God Bless America” that continues to feature in presidential speeches is still in deference to these folks.
As it is, there are quite a few Catholics, for example, who are also jumping on board this bandwagon that used to be the exclusive domain of Protestant evangelicals. Let me submit that in upcoming years we will begin to see a consolidation of political groups who are conservative religious, and it seems to me that it is expressly such groups that will insist ceremonial Deism in the form of “In God We Trust” or “One Nation Under God” should be maintained so that they can keep their perceived ideological hold on the country (and keep it safe from the Godless or those in league with the Devil). The secular state is a threat to most who listen for the “God Bless America” at the end of a President’s speech.
And, although I think Roosevelt was a fine president and what was needed at the time I’ll never forgive him for tacking “So help me God.” on the end of the Presidential Oath.
Y’know, can’t God make up his own mind? I mean, like, y’know, whether you ask God to bless something or not, isn’t He going to decide on his own? Is God some kind of obedient lapdog or something? So what’s the beef if anyone asks? If God doesn’t exist, or if God is going to make up his own mind, what’s the damage to you?
All right, JS, to make sure I don’t read things into your writing that you didn’t mean to imply, please expand upon the following points:
Do you believe that George W. Bush would end his reports on Iraq with “Allah bless Iraq” if it were not for fear of offending this huge constituency? Is this huge constituency wrong–that is, do you personally believe that it would be appropriate for the president to single out other nations for divine blessing, and to reference God by the name used in a religion which he does not practice when doing so? **
Anyone who believes that “only Conservative Christians who speak English in America are on God’s side” is both a moron and a bigot. What percentage of conservative Christians would you estimate fall into this category? Do you believe that these are the only people that respond favorably to the inclusion of God Bless America at the end of a speech? When Democratic presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton say God Bless America, should this also be construed as an attempt to appease this group?**
Are these two sentences connected? The Catholic Church also sends out a lot of missionaries. Is this wrong? What did you mean by saying that a “large number of Americans” believe that God has a White Old Man’s heart? Do you have any evidence concerning the percentage of Americans who assign racial attributes to a deity?
The US wasn’t set up as a “secular” state in particular and all this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
means was that the state wasn’t going to force you to practice a particular type of religion. As a Brit, you should know why. Every time a popish monarch was on the throne the Protestants were massacred, and vice versa. That’s why people had come here so they wouldn’t be killed for their religous views. Hope that answers your question.
Well, according to Tom Brokaw we owe our freedoms to a mythical entity that he called the greatest generation. That was also highly exaggerated, if not pure bullshit.
I don’t. But the people who insist that I must have a defective moral sense because I don’t believe in the God of the Bible do irritate me if I let myself think about their lousy hides.
Asking God to Save an entire country, (an amount of which don’t believe in Him, arent sure, or believe in another version of Him/Her/It/Them) or asking God to save His Representative on Earth who you would imagine He’d have a bit more of a vested interest in.
The second one makes a lot more sense to me.
Mind you, I am interperating “Save” as redeem/deliver, not protect/guard.
[sub](Otherwise Futile Gesture would have a very good point! :D)[/sub]
Wrong. The US Supreme Court ruled that students cannot be punished for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in West Virginia St. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). The Court’s ruling was based on free speech, and not freedom of religion. Said the Court:
The words “under God” were added to the Pledge in 1954, eleven years after West Virginia St. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette.
Only last year, a 9th Cicruit Court of Appeals panel found that the words “under God” rendered any officially led recitation of the Pledge in public schools unconstitutional. The Supreme Court quickly granted certiorari and stayed the effect of the 9th Circuit’s ruling.
Thus, there are no US Court opinions with the effect of law that currently hold the Pledge is impermissible because of the word “God.”
So your two cites are a t-shirt and a review of a Chris Rock movie?
Forgive me if I’m not blown over by the sheer weight of your authorities.
The 9th Circuit ruling was what I was referring to. I’m not old enough to remember nor have sufficient knowledge of legal history to know of the earlier case you cited. Even if it the Pledge isn’t mandated as per the 1943 ruling, I agree with the 9th Circuit’s decision that a official recitation is unconstituional. Since its still under review, and no judgement has been declared, I’ll leave it alone for the time being.
Do you have any opinions or responses to my other points?
If that’s true, then you did a poor job of referring to it. The 9th Circuit ruling never affected areas outside of the 9th Circuit, and it did not have any affect at the time you wrote your post, so your reference was wrong in almost every respect.
Well, since you asked.
No, the President doesn’t become the embodiment of the Executive branch merely by being in public. Further, if you look at the words of the 1st Amendment, it talks about Congress making “laws respecting an establishment of religion.” The President simply saying “God bless America” is not equivalent to Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion.
“Flagrant use of the word ‘God’”? That implies that there’s something wrong with it.
Your history teacher’s explanation is pretty simplistic, too. Phrases like “In God We Trust” have been found constitutional based on a doctrine called “cermonial deism.” In many decisions, the Supreme Court has used this phrase to refer to practices that appear at first glance to be religious, but are “so conventional and uncontroversial as to be constitutional.”
For example, every President since George Washington has asked Congress to declare Thanksgiving to be a day of national celebration and prayer; every Congress since the first in our nation’s history has opened with an invocation or prayer delivered by a chaplain employed by the Legislature; and the Supreme Court opens each term with the bailiff saying “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”
Similarly, in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), Supreme Court Justice O’Connor used the printing of “In God We Trust” on our national currency as an example of ceremonial deism that could not be reasonably perceived as government endorsement of religion. Said Justice O’Connor:
Id. at 693 (O’Connor, J., concurring). See also County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 603-04 (1989) (Justice O’Connor again expressed belief that national motto posed no Establishment Clause problems).
Even Justice Brennan, one of the Supreme Court’s stongest adherents of strict separation of church and state, thought that the national motto (“In God We Trust”) was ok. Said Justice Brennan:
Id. at 716-17 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (citations omitted). See also Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 303 (1963) (Justice Brennan opined that the national motto was “so deeply interwoven into the fabric of our civil polity that its present use may well not present that type of involvement which the First Amendment prohibits”).
That was probably a bit long, but I hope it helps. Anyway, welcome, and I’d encourage you to keep challenging your teachers.
I wasn’t referring to the President being merely in public and having a word with a woman on the street, but when he is acting in the official capacity of the Executive branch, he is no longer simply exerting his own opinions. The President is meant to be the singular symbolic embodiment of the nation. When he signs a treaty, speaks to diplomats, goes to war, he does not do so because his fortune teller told him to. He does it because its his duty and he does it because thats what his electorate demands of him. And as the ultimate representative of the people (disputable but thats another thread) shouldn’t he attempt to be as unbiased while acting in an official capacity? Shouldn’t other government officials and institutions act in the same manner as well?
There isn’t?
The use of the word “God” proposes a state sponsored religion. Since its not specified which religion, I’ll assume its an arbitrary creation of the U.S. Federal government. The provisions of the First Amendment are fulfilled but the Constitution does not explicitly give such powers to the government.
While it may have become convention and uncontroversial (to those you have cited and their peers), it nonetheless carried implications which others may find controversial and even unconstitutional. By having government documents carry the word “God” how is religion not being sponsored? Considering the overwhelming presence of white Christians in the U.S., those of other ethnicities and religions can feel alienated when faced with a word strongly associated with the majority white Christian population. While God is the same as Allah or YHVH, its used more often to mean God in the Christian sense than any other.
Considering the presence of the word “under God” in the Pledge has prompted the Supreme Court to look at whether an official recitation is unconstitutional, why isn’t the same scrutiny being put on the other examples? If ceremonial deism does hold a candle, shouldn’t the 9th Circuit have used it as a precedent and be done with it?