No, but the constant historic violation of an amendment might suggest that you’re reading the amendment incorrectly, and there’s really no violation.
Law isn’t developed in a vacuum. Is there another justice who dispenses with those precedents altogether? If so, does that justice represent the majority opinion or the minority opinion?
Yes and no, but mostly no. We don’t have much experience with the governement establishing a religion, as was not only common but S.O.P. in the 18th century. The main difference is that they experienced it firsthand, while we just read about it in history books. Establishing religion did not then, nor does it now, nor did it ever mean a few vague references to a generic deity. You will certainly be able to find a few individuals who didn’t hold that view, but “ceremonial deism” has been practiced contiuously in this country since its inception. The phrase may sound awkward to your ears, but don’t get hung up on it. All it does is give us a way to describe the myriad ways in which religion and government **have **mixed over the years. The restrictions of what is allowable may have been tightened over time, but they have never excluded all religious reference. Not once in our history. Am I wrong about that?
Expunging religion completely would indeed be setting a **new **precedent and ignoring over 200 years of established legal precedent. That might or might not be a good thing to do, but it certainly isn’t an obvious thing to do. And it’s up to the proposer of the new precedent to make the convincing argument as to why it should be adopted.
What, in your view, **is **allowed under the establishment clause? If you have some concrete examples that are qualitatively similar to having “under God” in the pledge that any sitting SCOTUS has ruled unconstitutional, I’d be interested in hearing about them. And surely you know that time and time again, the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of actions that smack more of religion than those two words in the pledge-- eg, having a
eg, the practice of having paid Congressional Chaplains, **and **starting sessions with a prayer. In fact, the SCOTUS itself opens all its session with “God save the United States and this honorable Court.”
Sorry, hit the submit too soon. 
While these beliefs may be the beliefs of the majority, for me, they are there because they were the beliefs of the founders. They believed that this amazing thing they had carved out of thin air was due in large part to the Creator, Supreme Beiing, Grand Architect, etc. For me this is a patriotic statement. Some say to take the "under God, out. You can, but it wouldn’t improve it as a patriotic statement, The way I see it, if these men didn’t believe the way they did, there might not have been a new country. Or it might have had a much shorter run.
They were very conscious of a higher order. This can be seen in the natural law language in the Declaration of Independence. They were also aware that there were other religions and made an attempt to accomodate them. When Washington ordered that inhabitants of the no-man’s land of Westchester County, NY had to take an oath of allegiance, he made accomodations for Quakers, who are prohibited by their religion from doing so. Similarly, the higher order referred to in the DofI doesn’t use the God of any religion, but the acknowledgement of a God of all religions.
So, for me, (and I am absolutely not religious) the words “under God” make the pledge even more of a patriotic statement, as it brings us closer to the ideas and ideals of the founders.
Again, it’s not important that it “fit” with any religion. The criterion should be, if it is to be a purely patriotic excercise, that it fit with the founder’s beliefs.
There is another reason I think it does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. I mentioned this the other day. Not only does it not “establish” anything, but it most certainly doesn’t establish any religion. I think, similar to the mention of a higher order in the DofI, it is a statement of philosophy: that there is something greater than us. Think about it, without this belief would there have been a DofI of such power? Would it have been such a mandate?
Thinking about this as I do, I believe that if I were an atheist that saying the words wouldn’t bother me. I’d be pledging allegiance to the country (not God, as was mentioned earlier). And I think I would be happy to do so because I’d be happy that this country, in which I can be an atheist without pain, was founded. I would be grateful (as I am) that the country was founded with the acknowledgement that men have been endowed by their Creator with certian inalienable rights. After all, I benefit from those rights every minute of every day.
The founders are irrelevant. First, they didn’t put “God” in the pledge, that was 50’s Red paranoia. Second, the founders supported slavery and genocide against the Native Amercans and second class status for women. We have advanced far beyond them; just because they believed a certain way doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Plus, many of them hated organized religion; what could be a better example than forcing children to swear in the name of a god ?
“An atheist without pain” ? We’re not being rounded up and shot, but being harrassed and insulted constantly isn’t much fun.
We the people don’t have rights because some thug-god gave them to us; we have rights because generations of people fought for them, both in the military and legal sense. Giving God the credit is frankly insulting to our ancestors.
You already dismissed the facts with your remark about “technically.” No rudeness, just a description of your statement there.
Let’s try again, though, shall we?
Where, exactly, did you get your misinformation regarding the word Allah and the religion of Islam?
So? In my experience, while “God” would be the English translation of “Allah”, Muslims still say “Allah” when speaking English. They don’t translate it. I’m quite willing to admit if I’m wrong about that as I don’t consider my personal experience with Muslims to be the end-all, but it’s quite unneccessary to berate me about it. You’ve obviously got quite a chip on your shoulder.
You said, “What planet did you derive that malarkey from?” You’re going to continue to sit there and tell me that was “just a description?” Are you really that obtuse?
No thanks. We’ll try again when you can learn to be civil.
I read through the thread and didn’t see a link to Karlton’s opinion on this. Here’s a link.
The one part I found interesting was on page 18:
(This is later refuted when said that he concludes that while “ingenious, it cannot prevail” because the teachers aren’t paid hourly).
The meat of the document falls on pages 24-25:
The founders are irrelevant in a patriotic pledge? Now, they may not be a necessary part of an expression of patriotism, but to say they are irrelevant is a stretch. As far as their failings, we may have, as you say, “advanced far beyond them” in what we practice, but I wouldn’t make the same claim about our ideals. “All men are created equal” is an ideal. The fact that we are more true to that ideal today than we were 200 years ago is a testament to the strength and righteousness of that ideal. Back in 1776 that was a novel statement for a government to make.
Regarding your statement that many of the founders “hated” religion leads me to believe you haven’t read much of what they wrote. True, Jefferson, Franklin, and others were not devout church-goers or members of a particular relgious flock, but hostile? I think not. The only founder that I can think of who was hostile to religion was Thomas Paine, as expressed in his Age of Reason. Which, by the way, earned him the condemnation and/or rebuke of people like Franklin, Sam Adams and many, many others.
But this, for the purposes of the discussion, is a moot point. The words “under God” do not point to a particular religion. Even those founders who didn’t buy into a relgious doctrine, were Deists, which I maintain is a philosophical position, not a religious one. And one which supporters of a strong seperation between the church and the state have argued adamantly. As Deists they believed in a non-denominational Grand Creator. It is an arelgious belief, but one fully in sync with the natural law philosophy that imbue our founding documents.
I agree with the implication that we should not force children to “swear in the name of a god”. But the pledge does NOT do that. One pledges allegiance (or swears an oath of loyalty) to the flag of the country—remember the first sentence. It goes on to embrace the republic which was created and the union that was williingly formed by thirteen colonies. Where does the “liberty and justice for all” come from? Well, the founders—including the author of the Declaration of Independence—believed that those concepts existed above the laws of man. That we didn’t fight to create them, but rather, we instituded governements among men to secure what was rightfully ours, what was God-given.
So then, I take it you would disagree that certain truths are, in fact, self-evident, “…that all Men are created equal. That they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Is that correct?
The Founders can be made to seem violently anti-religious, if you carefully pick the right quotes. They can be made to look extremely devout by using the same trick. Cherry picking. What they were fully against was the idea of a State religion. They were against the sort of repression and persecutions that happened in Europe due to the State or King telling people what their religion (or lack of it) will be. It is entirely possible and likely that none of them cared what church you go to, or if you go to church.
Of course. I don’t belive in a creator; we evolved. Therefore I don’t believe that he/she/it endowed us with anything. I believe we endowed our rights on ourselves.
Wrong again. Plenty of religions don’t believe in a God; and deism is most certainly a religion.
As far as the FF and religion, here’s some quotes :
John Adams (the second President of the United States)
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”
From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”
Additional quotes from John Adams:
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”
“The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”
“…Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States)
Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
From Jefferson’s biography:
“…an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ…the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”
Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom”:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry…The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia:
“Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?”
Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”
“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear…Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”
“Christianity…[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man…Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”
“…that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”
James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)
Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise…During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”
Additional quote from James Madison:
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
Benjamin Franklin
From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”
From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“…Some books against Deism fell into my hands…It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”
Thomas Paine
From The Age of Reason, pp. 8–9:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of…Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”
From The Age of Reason:
“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
From The Age of Reason:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”
From The Age of Reason:
“What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder.”
From The Age of Reason:
“Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has beside no meaning…Those who preach the doctrine of loving their enemies are in general the greatest prosecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches.”
From The Age of Reason:
“The Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it — not to terrify but to extirpate.”
Additional quote from Thomas Paine:
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”
Ethan Allen
From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”
'Twas civil. Too bad you don’t like having your misinformation described as misinformation.
That was prescient! Any stock picks?
Agreed. They did feel strongly about belief in a Creator, though. As Tom Paine found out after his Age of Reason.
I have no problem with people disagreeing, as I already said, but if that’s your idea of civil, I’d really hate to see your idea of rude. Everyone else seems to manage to disagree in a civil manner; I’m not sure exactly what your problem is. Since you obviously can’t disagree with someone without being rude, I’m done with you.
How do you figure? The founders did some great things, but they also died 200 years ago and did some awfully stupid things. When we’re discussing a pledge that was written in the late 1800’s (wasn’t it?) and modified in the 1960’s, why should a determining factor be the personal philosophy of the founders? Why is that any more relevant than, say, what food they liked, or what kind of music they listened to? If there’s going to be a pledge (and would the founders have wanted that? they were the founders, they sure as heck could have written a pledge of allegiance if they thought one ought to exist) at all, it ought to be the one that best expresses the ideals of the US today, which are descended from, but not carbon copies of, the ideals of the founders.
Is “I believe in God” a religious statement? Yes or no?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed, due to their intelligence and self-awareness, with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Sounds fine to me, and I’m sure as hell no Thomas Jefferson. Why can’t atheists write powerful and flowering prose, and come to brilliant realizations about the human condition? And your emphasis on how theistic the founders were might mean more if it weren’t for the fact that EVERYONE was theistic back then. The way people go on and on about the theism of the founders, you’d think that only 5% of the population of Europe and the European colonies were theists, but it happened to be from among that 5% that all the founders came, which would be at least SOME kind of evidence for a link between theism and US-founding. Was the percentage of non-Christians and atheists higher among the founders than among the US population in general? I’d be interested in hearing an answer to that question.
Irrelevant, as many people who are atheists have already posted that saying the words does, in fact, bother them.
Honestly, I just don’t see how this issue is even arguable. Lots of people in the US don’t believe in God. They are given two choices when the pledge is said: (1) lie about their core personal philosophy, or (2) visibly distance themself from a daily communal patriotic ritual. How is that in line with the ideals of the USA?
If you are a member of a polytheistic religion, can you use “under gods”?
Nah, I got nothing 
Check out the Reflections on Ramada web site. Do a search for “God” and search for “Allah” and tell us what you find.
Because if drafting a patriotic statement we can do no better than to look at our founding. That was the time that a group of men had the idea to create a nation based on equality and the natural rights of man, rather than power and nobility. That was an unbelievably new idea. It was the first time a victorious General refused to assume the “throne” he was offered. Instead, he went back to Mount Vernon. When George III heard of this he said (something to the effect) “that if he does that he will be the greatest man of our time.”
The Pledge was modified in 1953.
Are you kidding? The personal philosophy of these relatively few men were—and are—the philosophical underpinnings on which our nation was built. This can be seen in the philosophical tract called the Declaration of Independence and the laws we live by: The Constitution.
I think the most benign (least coercive and dictatorial) pledge would be one much like what we have. One that gives people the opportunity to acknowledge the philosophical principles that lay at the country’s foundation. Would they have wanted a Pledge? Who knows? I think they might have liked the idea, but would have made sure it was not mandatory. I do not thiink the idea is to make a Pledge current. I think the challenge was to find principles so fundemantal to the concept of the United States that it would be timeless. It then acts not only as a Pledge, but as a connection to the country’s inception and the men responsible. It aacts as a common denominator for all Americans of all times.
Now nothing is stopping us/you from writing our own Pledge. You can say it every day. If people think is is good, they might say it too. If it was great, maybe it couldlive side by side, or replace, our current one. I think a “current” Pledge will run into trouble though, is that the very things that make it current today will eventually make it dated. I’ll vote for one Pledge that is timeless. Whether it contains a mention of God or not is a different issue.
Asked devoid of context, as you have asked it, no. I take it as “I believe that there is a God” or “…a Grand Architect”.
For us, or any two people, to have this discussion we both will have had to ask ourselves “How did we get here?” Any answer to that will immediately fall into one of two categories: there is a God and he played a role in it, or there is no God and we are the result of natural forces (evolution). Those are philosophical positions. Is there a God or not? The Atheist says no. The Theist says yes.
The Atheist’s work is done. But the Theist has more decsions to make. In order:
- Should I honor this God?
- If so, how?
- Is religion the answer?
- If so, which one?
I’d say that only if someone gets to question #4, does it he become a person of religion. (I guess an argument could be made that answering “Yes” to #1 might do it.) Whether there is a God, Creator, Grand Creator, Supreme Being is a fundemental, perhaps the fundemental question. “No” leads to Atheism. “Yes” leads to Theism, which may or may not then lead to the doctrine and practice of a particular religion.
You cuold, but I think it would be difficult. Appealing to a higher authority starts them off in a headier place. But the question misses the point. Even if you could write a more eloquent, more beautiful passage, it won’t be the passage that started a nation on its way.
Interesting question. I don’t know. I don’t think it matters for our discussion, as the men in question thought long an hard on the issue (as we can see from their writing) and were not Theists by default. All were, I think, raised in a flavor of Christianity, whether it was Anglican, Episcopalian, or other. Many then made the conscious decision to move away from their formal religious practices and adopted a Deistic belief (to varying degrees).
You are right. And they shouldn’t say them.
There are things about this country I am not happy with and Im sure everyone feels that way. My choice is to try to change it or not. I can spend every hour of every day trying to correct something that I see as a flaw. But I think the things that bug me aren’t so important that I’m going to devote my life to changing them. But if the issue was that important, the Revolution, the Civil War, labor laws, suffrage, civil rights, I like to thiink I wold have found the time. Right now I chose to not spend my time as a modern-day Sisyphus. And because I do chose so, I try not to whine about those things that bug me.
If I felt as some Atheists do about the PLedge I think what I would do is stand and say the Pledge minus the phrase I find untrue. Either that or stand silently. I think both of these ways would allow me to feel part of the group, acknowledge the heritage of a country that I appreciate, and be true to myself.
Why be cryptic? Just tell me your point.