I said I disagree that the government telling children God exists is inoffensive. It is offensive to me and Breyer’s comment about “unification” is frankly laughable. An insertion of faith into public schools cannot help but be divisive.
The original phrase, “One nation, indivisible…” is already a perfectly valid statement of unity which does not offend anybody.
Just because only a “few” have their rights violated does not make it ok to violate them. Breyer is essentially stating that Americans are “united” only insofar as they believe in his God and that those who do not share his beliefs can fairly be ignored.
I believe the change if it is made, should be made legislatively, as an expression of the genuine will of the American people.
I do not have a personal stake in the phrasing of the Pledge itself, but I am concerned that the outcome of the case could cause repercussions far worse than the original harm. Especially since the phrasing seems perfectly constitutional.
My previous posts should make my position more clear.
So how does this viewpoint assimilate the historical fact that the words were inserted, by an act of congress, in order to turn a previously secular oath into one which includes ceremonial deism? The pledge was purely secular from its inception in 1892 to 1954(62 years) and it is just about to hit the 50 year mark of the version including “Under God”(signed into law Flag Day in 1954, June 14th IIRC). If we’re appealing to tradition and history I think the secular original version has a stronger claim here. Why does “Ceremonial Deism” win out over the longer-standing “Ceremonial Secularism”? Because it is the status quo? If that were a compelling reason it would never have been changed in the first place.
The court is going to have to decide if the act of congress which inserted the words “Under God” was motivated by a desire to establish some sort of non-neutral standpoint vis a vis religion. Such an establishment is verboten by the text of the supreme law of the land.
This would be a lot easier to dismiss as completely frivolous, I think, if we weren’t talking about young children in the classroom. I find the idea that kids can “opt out” to be disingenuous. Why put kids in that position when the solution is so simple?
The fact is, our government is full of references to God, and this could be considered just another instance. But in order to use this as a regular part of the school day, “under God” should be taken out.
In fact, if one really thinks about it, having “under God” in the pledge is a bit dangerous. If the country, and its laws, are “under God” one might reasonably conclude that one should disobey laws that violate one’s concept of God’s laws.
For those who think the reference to God is not specific to a religion, how about we stop capitalizing it in the pledge? “One nation, under god, …” Kind of changes the whole meaning, doesn’t it? If so, then it’s clearly a reference to the Judeo/Christian God, the only “god” who merits capital letters by convention in English.
What I want to know is, what will happen if this goes through?
I just swore an oath to join a board of the federal government. If I were an atheist, I would have used an affirmation. That was an option, a very reasonable accomodation to freedom of religion in our country.
Is that oath an federal endorsement of religion? A recognition of God? Will all believers be forced to use affirmations instead of oaths someday?
Will believers (still a vast majority of Americans) feel less bound by said affirmations than they would by the old oaths?
This might sound farfetched, but removing “under God” from the Pledge sounded farfetched a few years back, and now it looms near.
I disagree. Left up to the legislative process, the result will be a classic case of the tyranny of the majority, which has been already brought up. Since “under God” was added without the input of the citizenery, there is no reason that it is needed now.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, either. Take it away or keep it, I won’t be crying for Argentina. However, I do recognize the merits to the plaintiff’s position in this case, and I can agree with their points without feeling like a traitor to my own faith.
Believe it or not, while I believe Newdon is right, I agree that the outcome of this case may run counter to the overall goals of his mini-revolution. If Bush’s campaign uses this as fuel to get him re-elected, then the whole fight for separation of church and state may be jeopardized by his second term, and so in the long-run, the anti-status quo movement may be instrumental in making things harder for themselves. That doesn’t mean they are wrong, though.
I’m seeing a lot of arguments along the lines of “The government mentions God all the time; therefore it’s right.” If the mere fact that a thing is done were a defense as to its Constitutionality, then there would be no such thing as a successful Constitutional challenge. The government could simply say: “We’re doing it, therefore it’s o.k.”, in every case. I find that logic wanting.
Blowero, as the aggrieved party in the case, Newdow has to show why things are sufficiently bad that the government should stop what it’s doing. The burden is on him to make that case, otherwise things continue as before.
Since the Pledge is codified in law, is not mandatory, probably passes constitutional muster, and has not been found unconstitutional yet, “We’re doing it, therefore it’s OK,” actually is an excellent defense.
blowero, let me see if I can hold a mirror up to show you why I’ve got bruises on my head from banging it into the wall. This is constructive criticism only, and I don’t mean it as a personal attack.
First of all, the mere fact that you analogized the two would seem to imply that you think they’re similar in some way. Am I wrong about that?
Second, Do you see how your two statements inherently contradict each other?
First, you deny that you meant that you were comparing the two based on the fact that no physical harm happened in either situation, and that indicated that both could be constitutional violations.
Then you say that you were comparing the two based on the fact that no physical harm happened in either situation. And it seems like you were comparing the two to show that both could be constitutional violations despite the fact that no physical harm occured. (Note, that last part is my assumption, but it’s based on the fact that you posted your analogy to show how an atheist’s rights are being violated by the Pledge, so I think it’s a pretty safe assumption).
Now, it’s possible that I’m somehow not reading your posts correctly, but if you could explain how the two posts were not contradictory, I would really appreciate it.
I left out the words “slavery” and “lynchings” because I wasn’t talking about slavery and lynchings. I was talking about your comparison of the suffering of atheists with the sufferings of black people. I initially used the words “slavery” and “lynchings” to show that the two were not actually similar. I dropped the words because they were irrelevant to the fact that you were ignoring the complete history of black people in America, not “lynched” people or “slaves.”
The first part of my post was a joke. The second part was a point. Of course, you probably already knew that, because you talked about the funny “parts” being indistinguishable from the arguing “parts,” which was a shot at the arguing “parts.” So why would you contend that I was never making any point at all?
Here’s the problem with you using the Fallacy of the Extended Analogy. It only works if I’m extending the analogy. I don’t think I am. I’m trying to say that other than the fact that no physical harm occurs in either situation, that there is NO similarity between the two. I’m challenging the analogy on its face.
Please tell me how they’re similar.
This could be my fault. Let me try and explain it a little better.
I initially said that “we have to assume the majority’s position on legislation is constitutionally correct.” Where I think I’ve been unclear is in talking about the “majority” position without indicating that the courts also assume that the majority of Americans are always speaking through their legislators.
Thus, if a bill passes, we are supposed to assume that a “majority” of Americans supported it. In other words, every law is an expression of what the majority of Americans wants.
So when I said that “we have to assume the majority’s position on legislation is constitutionally correct,” it’s a shortened way of saying that we have to assume that the will of the majority, expressed through their legislators, who in turn pass laws expressing that will, are acting in a constitutionally permissible manner. In other words, “We have to assume that all laws are constitutional.”
In this case, we have to assume that the Pledge is constitutional because the majority of Americans – again, through their Legislators – passed a law changing it to include the words “Under God.” The importance of this fact is that it always puts the burden on the party asserting that his rights have been violated to show how his rights have been violated.
Again, I haven’t been clear.
My point is that Christians see the opposition to the Pledge from atheists and agnostics as an attempt to impose their religious views on public institutions.
You’re asking me to prove that atheists and agnostics are trying to impose their religious views on public institutions. But that’s not my point. My point is that religious people feel the same way about your position on the Pledge that you feel about their position on the Pledge.
I’m not saying that they’re right. I’m pointing out that’s how they feel. And the reason I’m pointing it out is because folks in this thread (and elsewhere) seem to forget that the other side are reasonable, thinking people, too. After a while, it becomes easy to ascribe to them base motives, like the idea that they’re just trying to convert America to their religion. However, their motives are usually no different than your own.
These are all seperate arguments. Whether the first three arguments are correct and/or relevant does not determine the veracity of the last argument. In addition, the first three arguments themselves aren’t valid anyway. Let me take them apart one at a time:
The pledge is codified in law, therefore “were doing it, therefore it’s O.K.” is a valid defense.
Obviously false. So called Jim Crow laws were codified in law and they “were doing it” that way, yet they were still struck down.
The pledge is not mandatory, therefore “were doing it, therefore it’s O.K.” is a valid defense.
We already covered this. Aside from the fact that this is a specious argument in that ALL children are still required to sit through the ceremony, there is no requirement that a law be “mandatory” in order to be found unconstitutional.
The pledge probably passes constitutional muster, therefore “were doing it, therefore it’s O.K.” is a valid defense.
Since the Ninth Circuit has ruled it does not, this is obviously false.
And the fourth argument, of course, is patently false. As I just mentioned, it has in fact been found unconstitutional, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The present standing of the case is that it is indeed unconstitutional.
Conclusion: “We’re doing it, therefore it’s OK” is not a valid legal argument.
Sorry, Age Quod - I’m quite serious that I want you to look up the Fallacy of the Extended Analogy. You are still trying to make connections that were not my point. And if you don’t understand why it’s disingenous to claim that I’ve compared anything to slavery and lynchings, and then conveniently forget that you used those words, then I just don’t know what to say to you. I’ve explained all this stuff over and over, and frankly, it’s just getting boring at this point. The fact is, you’re coming off as a complete idiot.
Aw nuts! Um, I’d like to apologize for putting a personal insult in Great Debates. I had been reading another thread in the BBQ Pit, and I forgot which forum I was in. I’m very, very sorry for that.
I’m trying to figure out what your point was, and you seem very reluctant to tell it to me. But as long as we’re on the Fallacy of the Extended Analogy, you’re not using that correctly.
The fallacy of the extended analogy occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over and one assumes that because two different situations were raised as examples, it has been claimed that those situations are analogous to each other in non-material respects. Because I’ve said that the two situations that you’re analogizing aren’t similar, you’re arguing that the fallacy applies.
That’s wrong. In fact, if you analogize two things, there has to be some similarity between them. That’s the definition of an “analogy.” And if the two things aren’t similar in the manner in which you compared them, then your analogy fails of its own accord.
Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. Let’s say that we’re arguing over the sky’s color.
You say, “The sky is blue.”
I say, “The sky is yellow. It looks just like a banana.”
If you then said that the sky cannot be yellow because the sky does not have skin like a banana, and does not have a stem like a banana, and does not taste like a banana, then that would be the fallacy of the extended analogy because you’re arguing that the two must be similar in all respects to be similar in one.
However, you could certainly say that the sky looks nothing like a banana. That’s not the fallacy of extended analogy. That’s challenging your analogy on its face.
And that’s what I’ve tried to do. As I understand your analogy, you’re comparing two things that are dissimilar in the manner in which you’ve compared them. I have now asked you to explain how they’re similar numerous times and you seem to be reluctant to do so. But because I’m actually very curious how you think they’re similar, I’ll ask again: How are the two situations similar? What was the point of your analogy? How am I asking you to extend your analogy?
Once again, I didn’t forget about my examples. I just haven’t confused my examples with the subject about which I was talking. You’ve taken my examples of how the situations are different and forgotten about why I was giving the examples in the first place.
Obviously, that’s pretty silly. But if it makes you feel better, I’ll withdraw that point. From henceforth, I do not contend that you said that the Pledge is as bad as the civil rights violations against blacks. Now if you would just explain your analogy, maybe we can put this issue to bed.
Sure; I’ll gladly explain it, AGAIN, if it will truly put it to bed, but somehow I fear that won’t happen.
The point was made that the pledge with “under God” in it does not “hurt” atheists. This is a stupid point, because whether it physically hurts people is not at issue. That’s why I made an analogy to blacks and whites having seperate seating areas. The segregationists made the argument that ‘seperate but equal’ didn’t “hurt” the black people. And technically, that’s true. The point is that there are ways to “hurt” a class of people without literally doing so.
I just don’t know how to say it any plainer than that. The analogy illustrates a very, very specific point, AND THAT’S ALL. If you don’t understand how analogies are used to make one point, without it having to be exactly the same in every way, then I just don’t know how to explain it to you.
If you make the argument: “Under God does not hurt you, therefore it does not violate your rights.”, I need ONLY to provide ONE instance of ANY thing which doesn’t hurt you and yet is still a violation of your rights. Only one such example is needed to invalidate the general argument. Once I invalidate the general argument, you can no longer claim that “not hurting you” is an argument that supports your case. It doesn’t have to be exactly the same; it doesn’t even have to be the same amount of damage, it just has to disprove the general argument. You can still make other arguments, of course, but that particular argument is invalidated.
Ex: “All cars are blue.”
“My car is red.” <- ONE example disproves the general argument.
You could say, “But my blue car has an automatic transmission, and your red car has a standard transmission.” That doesn’t matter; all points outside of the comparison are irrelevant. You could say “But my car is faster than your car.” It still doesn’t matter.
Both you and Mr. Moto seem to be having a lot of trouble dealing with individual arguments, and taking each argument on its own merits. You are conflating each and every argument with other, seperate arguments. As you can tell, it’s very frustrating.
That’s about all I’m going to say to you, because we are obviously getting nowhere. So you may continue to take shots at me and claim I said things that I didn’t say; I will just ignore it. I don’t want to be goaded into any more breaches of etiquette.
I admit that your post has raised more questions. Feel free to ignore them if you want, but I hope you’ll clear them up for me.
Fine. And since that’s true, then I am guilty of the fallacy of the extended analogy. Your example – seating blacks in the back of the bus – is a perfectly valid illustration of the point that someone need not have been physically been harmed to have been actually been harmed in a manner recognized by society at large and the Constitution. But it leaves me wondering what you meant in this exchange:
Do you still think my post showed that I was unable to parse simple logic? Because it sure looks to me like I was right, and you were willing to ignore what you actually meant to insult me.
If you’ve read my response to your prior posts, then you don’t. I have conceded as much, over and over again.
Your breaches of etiquette were my fault. Got it. Maybe somebody should report me to the Mods for your breaches of etiquette. :rolleyes:
The fault was mine alone, and I apologized profusely for it. I’m not sure what more you want from me, but I think this problem can best be solved by my discontinuing the conversation with you.
Something occurred to me while dragging myself thru the bickering.
How would the atheists react if the word "God’ were changed to “a higher power”?
In Alcoholics Anonymous, submission to a higher power is one of the 12 steps. Atheist alcoholics are encouraged, if they cannot believe in God, to pick something else as their higher power - the group, or something else.
In the same way, atheists who recited the Pledge (or their children) could mentally substitute whatever they liked as their higher power - the ideals of the Constitution, or the traditions of the Founding Fathers, or a sturdy self-image, or the memory of their dear departed Aunt Ethel, or whatever.
Thus it cannot be considered an establishment of religion for those who do not wish it to be so.
The same argument could be made to those who genuinely want an establishment of religion - if they want to interpret the words as saying so, they are free to do so, but they can’t force anyone else to agree. No coercion (on any side), no problem.
Or, as I said, earlier, make the “under God” phrase voluntary and be done with it.
As an atheist with a basic understanding of the AA program, it is my belief that a lot of atheists have difficulty giving up faith to “a higher power” even if it is not a deity. While some do, there are separate programs for atheists that are not faith-based. The existence of such groups leads me to believe that there would be atheists who would not be placated by such a measure.
I really, really, don’t get the sense of outrage and offense.
This nation, overwhelmingly Christian, has accorded more rights and genuine respect to atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and religious minorities of every stripe than most.
Is this genuine religious liberty repaid by gratitude and thankfulness? And a commensurate respect for the beliefs and traditions the majority of the country hold dear? Well, for many, it is.
For some, it is not.
I think some folks need to lighten up, and address some genuine issues for once. I have already said that my life doesn’t turn on those two words. Newdow’s life does, and so does the lives of some posters in this thread, which, in my opinion, is pathetic.
If militant atheists (as opposed to friendly nonbelievers) feel they aren’t accorded enough respect in this country, maybe they ought to look at the fuss they’re making over two words in the Pledge of Allegiance, which, to many Americans, looks silly. Maybe, too, they should look at the withering contempt many of their number show toward anybody who believes. It’s only natural that such contempt would generate feelings of disrespect in its target.
This is constructive criticism only, and I don’t mean it as a personal attack.