Would it make any difference if it were a choir competition, and the participants were required to select from a list of Christmas carols, all of which made specific reference to God and the birth of Jesus?
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, but if the forensics contest involved a dramatic reading of the Psalm 23 there would be an issue, because that would lend support to an argument that the contest lends support towards religion (or at the very least, creates a substantial entanglement). And even if it doesn’t lend support, an argument could definitely be made that it lends an appearance of support.
Ultimately, issues of these sort are going to be subjective. Clear black and white lines can be drawn at various points, but there is going to be an example that Bricker (or any other Doper) will provide where a perfectly gray line can be drawn. And that’s where the conversation will switch from a Lemon Test discussion to a “no-aid” discussion.
Well, IMNSHO, natural selection certainly endows us with some inalienable rights: life - yes; liberty - at least for a while; pursuit of happiness - sure, the pursuit, but not the attainment.
Toasters (with all the appropriate supplementary processes and devices) endow us with the right to make toast… but not much else.
It’s always bothered me that I was pledging allegience “to the flag of the United States of America.” What is pledging allegience to a flag? How is that different than pledging allegience to the country, or government? Sure, they add, “and to the Republic for which it stands…” and that’s OK, but pledging allegience to a colored symbolic piece of cloth?
How about: “I pledge allegience to the ideals represented by the flag…” etc.?
I’d rather not pledge allegience to flags, suits of clothes, automobiles or other inanimate physical things.
If “endowed” is a metaphor that is not intended to suggest volition, do we in fact have any inalienable rights? Is there some sort of right to life that derives from natural law of some kind?
This is a hijack of my own thread, of course, but I’m curious. I do agree with Snakespirit as to the relative inefficacy of toasters in this arena.
- Rick
This is not only terribly offensive to all of us who worship the One True Toaster (giver of life, warmth and lightly-browned bagels), but flies in the face of recent scientific theories suggesting that the reason for four-dimensional spacetime may be that the Universe began when a four-slotted toaster “popped” at the end of its cycle, launching four cosmic slices of…ahhh, never mind. It’s obvious that you all just can’t handle the truth. 
That all depends.
I tend to agree with Snakespirit. However, the evolutionary process precludes the existance of any rights until said rights are necessary, or desired by those who have evolved. It’s the chicken and egg arguement.
The right to life that is derived from the natural world goes only as far as your willingness to defend it from other beings on the same, or similar evolutionary levels. No rights are completely inalienable, as long as there is a threat to those rights from an outside source, be it a gov’t, or a natural enemy.
The Declaration of Independence is a historical document and the purpose of reading it in this context is for historical edification into the origins of the United States.
The Pledge of Allegiance is something that children are asked to personally endorse by placing their hands over their hearts and saying “I pledge allegience**… Under God.”
BIG difference.
With all due respect, Bricker, I think you’ve made this too easy by making it the forensics prize – the secular purpose is too obvious and too easy to contrast to the “pledgy” nature of the Pledge.
Suppose the following instead:
Independence High School, proud of it’s name, decrees that each school day shall begin with students standing up and reciting the following:
As with the current pledge, students who disagreed with the statement for whatever reason would be excused from reciting, and even from standing, but the standing and reciting would occur nonetheless.
Obviously, no person who agrees with the current state of the law regarding the Pledge would find this improper (or maybe they would – speak up!). What are the thoughts of those who believe the 9th Circuit found properly in Newdow (or who believe that the the finding would have been correct had there not been a standing dispute)? Is the Declaration sufficiently secular in intent or historical that a statement that we are “endowed by (our) Creator” with our rights is permissible?
Directly addressing the OP, Blalron is correct when he says that
Even if you let the word “Creator” refer to the Judeo-Christian God, as the Founders intended, there’s no conflict here, any more than there would be in discussing the Mormons moving to Utah or 18th-century Puritans. Religion has been a part of history for as long as history has existed.
I’m an Atheist, but I’m hardly offended by a fellow citizen’s public expression of his religion, and I have great difficulty understanding the perspective of those who are.
The only thing I do have a problem with is the Pledge, and even then I somehow can’t get too worked up about it. What I do get worked up about is individual liberty. It’s far more important to me that all citizens be free to express their views, and almost the only view offensive to me is that any citizen might not be free to do so as a result of a government policy. (And because of the freedom to associate with those whom we choose, it’s hardly censorship or a violation of the 1st amendment if any private organization does restrict individual expressions of views. A church, for example, is perfectly free to require that membership be contingent on certain beliefs, while we would certainly not tolerate this from our government.
I’m largely a “small-l” libertarian, if you couldn’t tell. 
I was getting there.
My hypo was alarmingly similar, with “Jefferson High School” and the recitation done at assemblies, not every day, but yes – this is where we’re going with this hypo.
More food for thought. High school drama programs often put on plays in which the characters interact with and/or profess religious statements. Students are encouraged to adopt the mindset of the character(get into character) so that a person playing Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof would be expected to behave, for the purposes of performance, as an Orthodox Jew. Does the school, by producing this play, establish a postion as advancing Judiasm?
Not that I think this, nor the thought experiment in the OP, has any real relavance to repetition of a governmentally endorsed loyalty oath. One that explicitly states “I pledge”. Mayhap that bears repeating. “I pledge” The DoI was a personal pledge on the part of the signatories and those they represented. Reciting it does not make it your own. The PoA is a completely different animal.
Enjoy,
Steven
Well, shit. I apologize for ruining the fun. :smack:
Well, we’ll see if anyone bites anyway. As an atheist who believes that the Pledge, as reworded by the McCarthyites for a declared (if erroneous) non-secular purpose, is sufficiently non-secular that its routine recitation ought not occur in governmental contexts (including at public schools), I confess that I don’t have a halfway decent objection to the passage from the Declaration.