I still don’t get how half of those who want “under God” in the pledge say it’s just a ceremonial thing, and not a big deal, and the other half argue that to take it out would cause horrific strife. Those two arguments don’t seem mutually consistent.
Blowero, it seems strange, I’ll admit. And I’m on record as saying that it’s no sweat to me if the two words in question are removed.
I believe the words represent ceremonial deism only, and not an establishment of religion. Therefore, they cause little offense be their presence, and no violation of anybody’s rights.
Their removal, however, would be seen by many as an attack on their culture and faith. We’re talking about folks, mind you, that feel plenty besieged already. There is a wide cultural gulf in America, and this would only widen it.
Sorry, for the late response, but I just checked back in, and blowero has said a number of things that need clearing up. There are a lot of things I want to say, but I’ll stick to the highlights.
I’m confused how you were “addressing his contention” without addressing his argument, but I think I see where you went wrong anyway. Martin Hyde never said that atheists are “what’s wrong with America.” He said that whiny, oversensitive people are what’s wrong with America. Whiny, oversensitive atheists were a part of that group, but the group was not limited to atheists.
:eek: Are you sure you want to say that sitting in the back of the bus didn’t hurt blacks? I’m willing to bet some folks on this board would dispute that.
Well, you have now.
I would love to hear you explain how what I said above is “completely incorrect,” especially considering that I never said “they” are not infringing on your rights.
I’m starting to suspect you’re just disagreeing with everything I say.
Regardless of what you may have heard, “God” =! “white people,” in life or the law. In life, God is an immortal, omniscient, infallible being who has power over everything and everbody. Meanwhile, white people are mortal, have a tendency to start wars for dumb reasons, dress poorly, and look terrible on the dance floor.
With re: to the law, racial discrimination and the establishment of religion, the two face completely different tests. When it comes to race, the government cannot differentiate between people without the class being narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental need. Very few laws that distinguish based on race survive judicial scrutiny.
That’s not true with religion. I’ll spare you a discussion of the Supreme Court’s test on violation of the estabishment clause because there are lots of different tests, and they’re all pretty confusing. But surely we can agree that the government mucks around in religion – it puts up religious displays, and invokes religious beliefs, and uses religious imagery, and says the word “God” an awful lot, and for no apparent reason – and the Courts rarely hold that it violates the establishment clause.
I concede. You’ve won me over with your compelling logic and creative argumentation. I bow before your persuasive use of “nuh-uh.”
The United States Supreme Court. From Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1993) (citations omitted and emphasis added):
And Christians would say that they aren’t advocating supporting Christianity in public schools, and that they don’t want the government to endorse their religion. It’s the same argument and the same reaction. It’s just coming from the other side of the fence.
Yes, how dare I? Where do I get the balls to engage you in a substantive discussion of the issues? How dare I attempt to help you to see the other side of the issue? How dare I call you out when you make factually incorrect statements, or when you mischaracterize others’ arguments, or when you fail to support your position with any logic?
Maybe someone should report me to the Mods.
No, no, no - you’re twisting my words. YOU referred to his arguments regarding the pledge and acted as though THAT were what I was addressing. But I wasn’t addressing that; I was addressing his blithe assertion that atheists are “what’s wrong with America.” Honestly, dude - how you can keep fucking it up like this is just unbelievable.
Atheists who object to state-sponsored religion are not “whiny” and “oversensitive”. Back to my analogy, this is the the very same tactic as white people in the 60’s saying, “It’s not black people who are the problem; it’s those uppity niggers.”
Not physically, no. It hurt them in the same way that state-sponsored religion hurts atheists; by treating them as outsiders in their own country. The point is that to say “Having ‘under God’ in the pledge doesn’t hurt atheists” is tantamount to saying “Sitting in the back of the bus didn’t hurt blacks”. And kindly don’t extend the analogy past what I have said - thank you.
You, sir, are a liar. I did not equate the “‘suffering’ of athiests and agnostics” with “folks that had to endure slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow laws.” Pretty pathetic from someone who throws around phrases like “You’re better than that.” Apparently, you aren’t better than that.
Oh, now it’s hair-splitting time, I see. No, you didn’t say it, you made it a conditional, i.e. “If you disagree with the majority, but they’re not infringing on your rights, then that’s tough for you.” But the majority is infringing on my rights, so since your antecedent is wrong, the conditional part of the sentence is wrong as well. Thanks for making me write all that out just to satisfy your silly nitpicking.:rolleyes:
Well, I’m waiting for you to say anything that I can agree with.
And that is the Fallacy of the Extended Analogy. If you aren’t familiar with that fallacy, please look it up. I did not say that God was equivalent to white people. You have just demonstrated your utter lack of reasoning skills.
Um, apparently you missed the part of this thread where I explain in great detail why “the majority wants it that way” is not a valid argument in a representational democracy such as ours. YOUR response was pretty much “Yes it is.” I was lampooning you.
Sorry, I don’t see your words “assume that he’s correct because he’s in the majority” or anything close to them, anywhere in that cite.
I don’t know how to respond to this; it’s just a bald assertion. You say “It’s the same argument”, yet provide no reasoning for the assertion. I would say “No, it’s not” again, but then I’m sure you would attack me. So what I’ll say is, give us some actual reasoning, and I’ll get back to you.
If you think having a pledge that is neutral in content with respect to religion is somehow an endorsement of atheism, I’d be very curious as to what possible reasoning you might have to back that up.
You think that’s what you’re doing, huh?:rolleyes:
Once again, he never said that atheists are what’s wrong with America. He said that “overly sensitive” people are what’s wrong with America. If you think otherwise, then please quote the portion of his statement where he said that atheists are what’s wrong with America. Otherwise, please stop referring to imaginary posts.
If your point was that someone need not have been physically harmed to have their rights violated, I will gladly concede the point. Of course, I never said that you need to be physically harmed to have your rights violated.
But other than the fact that any “harm” wasn’t physical, I cannot see how merely being confronted with the words “Under God” is similar to being forced to sit in the back of every bus that you ride. For example, one is a violation of your constitutional rights, while the other is (probably) not. One was certainly enforced as a means of keeping one sector of society relegated to second class citizenry, while the other is not. Participation in one scheme was mandatory, while the other is not.
It’s like arguing with the guy from Memento!
You just compared the suffering of atheists and agnostics to the suffering of blacks who were forced to sit at the back of the bus. Maybe you can tattoo that on your arm or something.
Got it. When you say I’m “completely wrong,” you mean that one part of my post will be wrong (in your mind) when applied to an imaginary fact situation, even though all relevant authorities disagree with you.
In fact, I was not saying that the majority wasn’t infringing on anyone’s rights. I was saying that “the majority feels this way,” is a perfectly valid argument because it switches the burden to those opposing the majority’s beliefs. Obviously, you’ve drawn something from my post that I never said.
You’re focussing solely on part in which I was trying to be funny and using that as a reason to reject my actual argument.
My point was that the two things you’re analogizing shouldn’t be compared that way. Just because some racial classification was found to be discriminatory does not mean that the same act would also be an establishment clause violation (and I think I’m being very generous to your “analogy” here). The standards don’t work that way. So neither the acts (classification based on race vs. government establishment of religion) nor the Amendment implicated (5th and 14th vs. 1st) nor the tests for what’s constitutionally permissible (“narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interest” vs. a number of tests) are even similar.
Really? Because I bolded it. In fact, more than one place says that we have to assume the majority’s position on legislation is constitutionally correct. Or what did you think the SC meant when they said “A statute is presumed constitutional”? In fact, the quoted language goes farther than what I indicated and says that we have to assume the Legislature acted rationally, even if their actions were – viewed objectively – complete and utter bunk.
For Pete’s sake, show that you’re not totally blinded by the venim you’ve been spitting and concede the obvious.
Are you missing my point or ignoring it?
Here’s your argument: “Putting the words ‘Under God’ in the Pledge is hostile to my religion.”
Here’s their argument: “Removing the words ‘Under God’ from the Pledge is hostile to my religion.”
Your perception: “They want to words left in to reflect their religion.”
Their perception: “They want the words taken out to reflect their religion.”
Same argument; different sides. Both sides think the other side is trying to influence children to adopt their religion. Both sides think their version is perfectly harmless and totally constitutional.
Obviously, I was wrong about you. You’re not above tasteless personal attacks. You’re not above misrepresenting other people’s arguments. You’re not even above misrepresenting the facts themselves. Please forgive me for wasting your time by trying to pull you back from the dark side. It won’t happen again.
There are not enough :rolleyes: in all the world.
How about substituting for “Under God” a phrase like “in which people are free to believe in any religion they choose, including no religion”? Would something like that satisfy all parties?
It doesn’t prescribe or even imply a state religion, yet it recognizes that Americans can believe in a religion if they choose to.
I don’t think it should be in there at all. But I think that if the people of the US want to have some invocation in there – whether it’s “Under God” or “Under Allah” or “Under Satan” or “Under Donald Trump’s Ass” – then I have no reason to complain. If I have a problem with the Pledge, I won’t say it and I’ll tell my kids to do the same.
You know. Sort of how Creationists deal with it when their kids are taught about evolution. Or how Catholics deal with it when their kids learn about condoms during sex ed. Or how Islamic fundamentalists deal with it when the school has “Wear Hawaiian Clothes” day. Or how Christian Scientists deal with it when their kids learn about first aid. Or how atheists in Kansas deal with it when their kids learn about creationism.
Well said.
I think, oftentimes, that some mommies forgot to teach their kids that they have no right not to be offended, or to not have their feelings hurt.
Meanwhile, another set of neglectful parents isn’t teaching their little brats not to offend people, and not to hurt their feelings.
If Newdow actually practiced tolerance in his life, instead of, literally, making a federal case out of it, we’d all be better off, IMHO.
Removing “Under God” will not further the cause of atheism. If I wanted the pledge to promote atheism, I’d demand that they add “Under No God.” But I’m not doing that.
I don’t want the government to supress religion, or help religion. I want government to remain neutral. Removing “Under God” from the pledge and restoring it to it’s original form will merely restore the neutrality that existed before 1954.
They do have the right not to be put in a postion where an agent of the government is touting a specific religious opinion in an environment which they are obliged by that same government to be present-- especially when that government agent may be endorsing a religious opinion which run counter to a child’s own beliefs or the beliefs of his/her family. A teacher in a public, state funded school does not have the right to tell my child that “God exists,” any more than said teacher has a right to tell students that God does not exist. Whether the child is forced to join the recitation is irrelevant. The Pledge amounts to a statement of fact by a state-funded teacher that one God exists.
Yes, those would be the ones who want to pray at my kid in public schools.
How is Newdow “intolerant” in his life? in point of fact, he has said that he is pleased by his daughter’s Christianity and that he has no wish to change it. He also never publicly expressed any desire to inhibit anyone else’s free practice of religion. I’m not aware of anything he has said or done which would indicate intolerance. His SCOTUS case is an attempt to restore tolerance, not take it away.
And a Christian would change it to “Under Jesus,” and a Jew would change it to “Under Yahweh” (or maybe “Under G*d”), and a Muslim would change it to “Under Allah.”
The fact that it’s not the best proffer for your particular religion isn’t the point. The point is that the removal of the words “Under God” is a step in the direction of atheism.
Quick – is “God” Christian, or Jewish, or Deist, or Muslim, or Wiccan, or what? It’s neutral between the vast majority of religions. And anyway, “neutral” is not the same thing as “absent.” Plus, I have a hard time believing that the same Founders that hired the first chaplain to preside over Congress, who opened the first legislative session with an invocation, or who wrote the Preamble to the Decalaration of Independence, or who opened the first Supreme Court with the words “Oyez, oyez, oyez! God save the United States of America and this Honorable Court,” or the President that first declared a national day of prayer and fasting (Pres. George Washington) would think that the Pledge could not contain the words “Under God.” Plus, really, who gives a crap?
For all those reasons and more, it is not “a law respecting the establishment of religion.”
Listen Mr. “please quote the portion…”, he did NOT say that. He said “most of the people in this thread”, which JUST HAPPENS to be atheists who are opposed to having “under God” in the pledge. After all your bluster, you don’t even know what he said.
Damn, blew out another irony-o-meter.
Not my point. I have absolutely no idea how you came to that conclusion. Oh, wait - yes I do. It’s because you are unable to parse simple logic.
I don’t believe I said that you said that.
O.K., but I never said it was similar. I said neither physically harms a person. I do wish you’d stop with the strawmen; it’s really getting quite tiresome. 
That is your opinion - an opinion with which I disagree.
I disagree with this as well. If it’s “one nation under God”, then how does that speak for atheists, who are not under God?
That’s silly. Of course it’s mandatory. While in theory, I guess a child could refuse to recite the words, but he still has to sit throught the ceremony. I could apply some equally silly (not equivalent, mind you) “logic” to the civil rights analogy, e.g. blacks don’t have to ride the bus, so they aren’t forced to sit in the back.
A few years ago, 60 Minutes ran a segment about a small town, majority Christian, where the public school read Christian prayers aloud over the PA system every morning. One atheist in the class objected. Their solution? They humiliated the child by making him wear earmuffs while the prayer was read. Sure, technically he’s not participating. However, the disdain for his beliefs was obvious.
Although you tried to sidetrack it as usual, you DO admit that reading “one nation under white people”, would be improper, EVEN if black people were not required to say it, right? So really, the argument that it’s not “mandatory” is specious. You only apply the argument when it’s about God-belief, and no other time. An illogical line of reasoning is not all of a sudden logical when it deals with an issue you are in favor of.
Now why did you just leave out the words “slavery”, and “lynchings”, which were part of your comparison, the comparison which I said I did not make? I’ll tell you why - because you are debating dishonestly. It’s really sad that you feel you have to resort to such tricks.
Not enough rolleyes in the world for that one, my friend.
No, you’re the expert on that.
Interesting. The parts where you are “trying to be funny” are indistinguishable from the parts where you imagine you are making some great logical point.
Let’s see, it was a joke, but now it’s a “point”. Yeah, whatever…
Fallacy of the Extended Analogy, AGAIN.
WHAT THE HELL??? The bolded part doesn’t say that at all. You’re just flat-out lying. Listen, it’s really hard to do this when you just flat-out lie about things. Please stop doing that.
Strawman. You obviously didn’t understand my request. I asked you to provide some REASONING for your assertion that both arguments are the same. But what you DID was to make up a fictitious conversation where both arguments are the same. That’s not reasoning; that’s making stuff up.
The fact that Christians may think that atheists are trying to influence children to adopt their religion, does no mean it’s true.
Now, do you have any actual reasoning as to how a pledge that is devoid of religious content could in any way be construed as an ENDORSEMENT of atheism, or are you just talking out your ass, as I suspect? Hint: just saying “it’s the same thing”, is not reasoning."
So it’s constitutional because Christians say it is? Oh, O.K. - guess you won me over.:rolleyes:
He says as he tastelessly attacks me personally.
He says as he blatantly misrepresents all my arguments.
He says as he misrepresents the facts.
What a load of sanctimonious, self-important crap. YOU are the one who is constantly misrepresenting arguments. Physician, heal thyself.
Ain’t THAT the truth.
I think in Mr. Moto’s book, “intolerance” means “disagrees with ME”. 
Spare me, please.
I have friends of many diverse backgrounds. One of my closest friends is an atheist. By hanging out with me and my brothers, he met, and later married, my Catholic cousin.
I have another friend who considers himself Buddhist. Another friend of mine is a Muslim. Still more are Christians of various stripes, some Jews, and some more atheists.
Nobody I’m close friends with, though, seems to think “under God” is a big deal in the Pledge. Even the atheists shrug it off as a reflection of the country’s Judeo-Christian history, and not a personal affront to them.
Remarkably tolerant, I’d say.
Here’s an angle that seems to be missed thus far.
I believe it would be utterly wrong for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Newdow, yet I don’t think the words are a big deal, legally speaking.
The two viewpoints are not remotely inconsistent.
I think the words represent an excellent example of ceremonial deism, the sort that long-standing case law agrees is permissible without offending the Constitution. Therefore, the Supreme Court has no reason to act. It’s as though you asked me what my opinion would be about the Bedford Falls Chamber fo Commerce rewriting the Pledge to include “…with liberty, justice, and discount shopping for all.” They don’t have the authority to do so – although, of course, they can say it however they please.
So - the words are no big religious deal, and that’s why I oppose the move.
That’s been my take on it too, sort of, Bricker. I don’t care about the words personally, but I sure don’t want to hand a victory to the atheists when the words are perfectly constitutional and relatively inoffensive.
I think the best solution would be for the Pledge to be found constitutional in its present form, but then revert to its original form by legislative change. After said change, people could use the Pledge with or without the words in question as circumstances and their own morality dictate.
This wouldn’t satisfy everybody, to be sure, but I think the remaining dissenters could be safely dismissed as cranks. The rest of us ordinary decent Americans, atheist and religious both, could then address a much more pressing injustice - namely, getting rid of the designated hitter rule.
A state endorsement of theism to captive school children is neither Constitutional nor inoffensive.
I am not “under” any “gods” and neither is my daughter.
The phrase “ceremonial deism” is a complete copout, imo. SCOTUS knows that Newdow is right on the law so they are attempting to create an arbitrary and bogus interpretation of the word “God” simply as a way to preserve their own personal prejudices.
There is nothing in the Constitution which makes any such nonsensical distinction. I don’t want the government telling my kid that God exists or that she’s “under” it. That is a pure expression of faith, not fact. Calling it “ceremonial” is utterly meaningless. Any formalized invocation of God is “ceremonial.”
As a matter of fact, calling it “ceremonial” is tantamount to an admission that the invocation of God in the Pledge is a religious exercise.
And that’s really all it amounts to, isn’t it? You just can’t stand for the atheists to win, even when they’re right. And please don’t tell me that removing UG from the Pledge is an endorsement of atheism. That’s a completely absurd assertion which implies that any statement at all which does not include “God” must also be an endoresement of atheism.
The National Anthem does not mention God. Is that an endorsement of atheism too?
Please note: I am theistic. Not exactly religious, but I believe in God.
by Age Quod Agis
In order for this to make sense, you’d have to believe the absence of religion is religion. How does that work? That’s kind of like saying the absence of evidence is evidence. Or the absence of color is color.
So was the original pledge (sans "under God) hostile to religion? Is any statement that neglects to praise God automatically anti-religion? That seems to be what you are saying, and it is that kind of hypersensitive paranoia that many (theists and non-theists alike) find so exasperating. It’s the kind of irrational thinking that causes people to interpret rules against school-led prayer as being prohibitive against all prayer. Do people really feel that they can’t worship God unless the government holds their hand?
I would agree with this perception.
If that is “their” perception, then I think they are mistaken. The whole point of this case is that the pledge should not reflect anyone’s religion. Christian, Muslim, atheist, or otherwise. Not including “under God” does not make the pledge any more atheistic than the Star Spangled Banner is. Only those people who feel overly attached to any and every reference to God will think that not including those two words sends some kind of pro-atheistic message.
I should hope that those who truly believe in God will not feel the integrity of their faith is threatened by the absence of two words that are actually so inconsequential that they were added to the original version only as politically-motivated afterthoughts. God is bigger than the pledge. And rest assured that the kids don’t care about its presence or absence. They say the damn pledge by rote anyway, and don’t even think about what they are saying.
by Mr. Moto
Isn’t this sad that this is seen as some kind of war? You don’t even care about the words, you just don’t want “them” to win.
Diogenes, I believe the Court is balancing the rights of individuals against a respect for the country’s traditions. They have already found that there is no requirement that people be forced to say the Pledge - hell, that decision ws made back in 1943, before the addition of the two words in question.
“Ceremonial deism” has been settled by the Court. It is established law. You don’t have to like it, but it is a legal standard that other things can be measured against. It isn’t a “cop-out”.
I don’t want the militant atheists to win on this one because I think, as a matter of law, they’re wrong. The precedent set by this “victory” could be used in further attacks on our country’s traditions and institutions, rather than changing the country with due respect for its past.
And please, don’t put words in my mouth, Diogenes. I have never said removing “under God” is an implicit endorsement of atheism. I personally do not care if the words are removed or not, and give notice that I intend to say the Pledge the way I’m used to saying it any chance I get, as is my First Amendment right.
I have only worried that there may be a large backlash against the decision from vast parts of the country. This backlash might deepen already worrisome cultural gulfs between secular, urban, more cosmopolitan Americans and their rural, conservative, religious cousins.
Also, Diogenes, I didn’t say the two words were offensive, I said they were relatively inoffensive. Justice Breyer, a Clinton appointee, used similar language in argument at the Supreme Court:
“Breyer says that the pledge serves the purpose of unification at the price of offending only a few.”
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097737
Since you really can’t please everybody, and the language passes Constitutional muster, what, really, are we left with?