You are wrong. My appeal to authority is not fallacious.
It’s wise to remember that “appeal to authority,” while identified as a logical fallacy, is not always a fallacy. In Stephen Downes’ excellent summary, he points out:
(Emphasis added).
The Supreme Court is the body with the ultimate authority to decide what the Constitution means. I may - indeed, I do - disagree with the wisdom of their decisions at times, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution means what they say it does. Other lower court judges may disagree, too. That, too, is irrelevant. For the purpose of defining what the Constitution means, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. Period.
Reasonable people may certainly disagree over the meaning of the phrase “establishment of religion.” But what it means legally has been determined by the highest authority capable of doing so. They may, of course, change their interpretation later, and then the Constitution will mean something else. But right now, the appeal to authority in this argument is correct.
Do you find it blasphemous that the Declaration of Independence speaks of the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God and of being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights? Do you find it blasphemous that the Declaration also speaks of “a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence”?
Do you find it blasphemous that article VII of the Constitution mentions ratification done on the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven?
For heaven’s sake, make the words “under God” voluntary. Thus Congress is neither establishing a religion, nor interfering with the free practice thereof.
This will also piss off the militant atheists without appeasing the militant religionists, and is therefore the best possible solution.
The “fact” that there is a God is a belief, based on faith. That is a religious statement. It cannot be proved or disproved by science. And the “fact” of God’s existence is not agreed upon by all religions; in fact, “God” is a Judeo-Christian concept that is a minority view world-wide.
And “God” obviously doesn’t mean “the deity that you worship, regardless of the name you call it or the language you use.” Try telling that to the Muslims who have declared holy war on the U.S. Infidels. And no matter how encompassing you feel “God” is, it cannot include atheists and agnostics; it’s a pretty big stretch to include Buddhists and Pantheists, and impossible to include any religion that worships plural gods.
Just try replacing “under God” with “under no God” and see how you feel. BTW, that would be equally offensive to me, on principle. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits it.
What ever happened to the “I lift my lamp beside the golden door” concept of welcoming people from other countries, religions, and beliefs? Are we trying to exclude non-Christians now, as official policy?
And you continue to fail to see the government/private difference. A statement that God exists by the government, an oath expected to be recited by the general populace on many serious occasions, even if not forced upon them, carries a whole lot more weight than the private statements by the First Church of New Age Dolphin Worship. And the same document that protects the Dolphins’ beliefs prohibits government from recognizing Dolphins as the official religion.
No, I don’t have a link to the Dolphins. You’ll just have to take them on faith.
As soon as I really understood it, I hate it. I was an atheist then. I’m not now, but I still feel the pledge is cheese with a quasi-fascist rind.
Apparently the God words were added in '54. With or without them, the pledge is idiotic. I pledge my allegience to a FLAG?! WTF! It’s a piece of cloth.
Oh, and to the Republic for which it stands. No, not to that either, really. I pledge myself to goodness and truth, and that’s about it.
Maybe we could make a new pledge that would better match the current political fashion:
I pledge allegience to the Great White Father George W. Bush, and to the Fascist Plutocracy for which he stands, one Empire under Halliburton with private jets and tax cuts for the few.
And how does the process of the justices changing their interpretation begin? It begins with people like us calling into question whether their interpretation is the correct one. Supreme Court justices are not infallible gods.
If everyone took your attitude of “Well, they’ve ruled; that’s it,” then bad Supreme Court precedent would never get overruled.
If religion is basically the belief in supreme beings, how can you hold the view that endorsing the belief in “God,” which applies to about three religions, does not endorse a religion? Is it because it’s endorsing three religions instead of one?
If a Christian can’t understand why we atheists could object to the current pledge, just substitute the words “under Satan” for “under God.” No imagine how you’d feel if the government school coerced your kid to say this each day. “Oh, it’s just a ceremonial mention of Satan. It’s not an endorsement!”
You DO realize that we’re not discussing the merits of the pledge itself, but rather whether it should include the words “under God”. You did understand that, didn’t you? Because that’s what the issue is.
Then I’m wondering why you are arguing in this thread. Let’s just take “under God” out and be done with it. Sounds like we are in agreement.
Oh, cute. You wouldn’t care if they took it out, but only if the legislature did it. Of course you know perfectly well that all legislatures in the U.S. are at least 90% Christian and there’s no way that would ever happen. Talk about your disingenuous arguments…
Your petty smears aside, I have no problem with religion’s place in society, I only have a problem with its place in government. Sadly, many Christians* do not understand the difference. It’s really funny to me how some Christians are so intent on enforcing their beliefs on everyone that they even went so far as to have public school children recite them every morning. Then if anyone objects, you say we’re hostile and contemptuous. It is to laugh. It’s also hilarious that people now say, “Oh gee - it’s just a ceremonial thing; it doesn’t really have any religious meaning”, but then start having panic attacks when the appeals court says to take it out. If these arguments weren’t so obviously contrived, maybe I could see your side of it, but they’re just patently insincere.
I am using “Christian” in the broad sense of those who believe Jesus was the son of God, inclusive of Catholics.
I absolutely agree that there’s value in arguing that the Constitution should be interpreted differently. What I objected to initially was:
I pointed out that reasonable minds may differ on the point, and, in fact, the Constitution currently has a meaning that is at odds with the “no reasonable basis” speaker.
It was then pointed out that courts make mistakes, and that to assert the Supreme Court’s prior rulings are correct is a fallacious appeal to authority. I responded that although it was an appeal to authority, it was legitimate and not the sort of appeal encompassed by the fallacy.
Which brings us to this exchange.
The Court’s ruling is the final authority, and appealing to it as the current state of the law is absolutely correct – but it in no way suggests that efforts to change the Court’s views should be abandoned.
I don’t understand. What is the harm in taking it out? Surely you don’t think we’re all going to hell in a handbasket if kids say the pledge without “under God”, do you? People keep arguing that it’s not that important, so how could there be any harm in taking it out?
While I’m sure you and I agree on the overall concept, CurtC, I would like to play Devil’s Advocate here.
Proponents of retaining UG in the Pledge retort that those words represent a history lesson, confirming that the Christian God played a big part in this country’s history. So substituting “under Satan” doesn’t work as a counter-argument.
But the “history lesson” claim could be used for almost anything. “Under Jesus” would work, “Under witch trials”, under the New Deal, the Great Society or imperialist wars fits, too.
I think it’s pretty stupid to claim that any two words (especially those) make a history lesson, that a history lesson should be part of an oath, and that kids will see those words and run for a history book to see what they meant to Jefferson or Washington.
If anything, history teaches us that they were inserted in the 1950s for exactly the reason Newdow wants them out, as a religious indoctrination by the dominant, ruling religion, to counter the godless Communists, Atheists and anyone else that doesn’t have the right kind of thinking.
Another thing: analogies are not logically sound. So blowero’s analogy cannot logically be used to prove anything, because he has not shown that every element of his compared cases are identical.
By the way: how exactly is Newdow making his case using his daughter? Can you sue on behalf of an unwilling party?
Because it’d throw the next election into George Bush’s lap? Other posters before myself expressed this opinion… while I hadn’t thought about it this way previously, I am inclined to agree.
For most of those examples, I do. They think to dictate the Mind of God or the Will of God? Anno domini doesn’t bother me, since it merely refers to a (wrong) historical date.
The entire “civil religion” imposed by Fundies on the USA is spiritually indistinguishable from the old civil religion of pagan Rome, wherein worship was considered identical to patriotism.
Likewise, you and I both know that the “God” the Fundies want to be plastered all over the place is the Fundy “God”, certainly not consonant with my own Church’s theology.
“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” If our country truly is “God’s nation”, then we must be the Kingdom of Heaven, with direct apprehension of God at all times to all people. Of course, this is not the case, and the idea that we are somehow making ourselves more “Godly” by blindly mouthing “God” slogans everywhere is simply vile. Are we not warned against “vain repetitions”? Are we not warned that those who make a great display of their prayer and piety get all their reward for it in this life, but the faithful are instructed to pray in a closet and make no grand show of it?
Thus, anybody who makes a big deal of throwing about public displays of “Godliness” is actually violating a direct commandment from Christ.
I worship the Lord, I do not worship the Declaration of Independence. Likewise, I do not worship the Constitution. These are merely documents of men. Thus, to get huffy when (albeit probably unintentional) blasphemies are pointed out in them is nothing short of outright idolatry. If you are a Christian, abandon your idolatry of mere documents.
Just as a side note to this discussion, I would like to try to explain how the phrase “under God” came to be inserted in the Pledge in 1954.
It was a time of considerable political hysteria. After winning WWII, and before they had time to relax in the comforting glow of peace, the Allies found themselves suddenly and surprisingly confronted with a terrible new enemy that openly boasted they would conquer the world. Countries were turning Communist at an alarming rate.
An official timetable for projected world conquest was published that showed the final date as 1973. I have here a Goldwater campaign brochure dated 1964 listing the countries that had gone Communist and when. The brochure implies that not only is the world domination actually happening, but it is frighteningly ahead of schedule.
The specter of living under Communist rule was a major topic of conversation. Bomb shelters were built and drills held. Doomsday books were written: “Alas, Babylon,” “Failsafe,” even the movie, albeit tongue-in-cheek, “Dr. Strangelove.” In my own neighborhood, the adults formed a study group, sort of an anti-communist “Cell” and some people thought we might have to retreat to the wine cellars (i.e., bunkers) for the last fight if it got worse.
I have a book in front of me, The Naked Communist, by W. Cleon Skousen, copyright 1958, edition 1961. This was a mainstream book, not as rabid as the John Birch Society rantings. There is a list of “Current Communist Goals”, 45 points that the author said should be opposed because to not do so would make us all Red. Here are some of the Goals:
This seems pretty extreme, doesn’t it, especially in hindsight when we know that the 1973 date came and went, and the 1989 date of communist self-destruction is more important. But this illustrates the thought processes and fears of the time, no less real than the prospect of 4 more Bush years is now.
The Naked Communist says materialism is the Communists’ secret weapon, and defines the best weapon the West has as Christianity and Jesus Christ (no, the book wasn’t published by a church, and that’s important to note, too). Now what could be a better way to save our country from sure destruction than to insert our own secret weapon, God, into the Sacred National Loyalty Oath and make sure that all children say it daily? That’ll show them Commie bastids we mean business and as we all know, God cannot be on the side of a godless conspiracy!
You can if the party is a minor and you are the parent or guardian. In this case, that status is slightly clouded by the parents’ separation which gives Mike less than 100% custody.
Many people fell the Supremes will use this as an out to avoid deciding the underlying issue.
