I guess I can understand how it might appear silly and unessecary. Steve’s observation is probably correct. So what do you do to express national pride and patriotism? Should we drop the national athem too? I think the concept of what America is is evolving but patriotism is still a good thing. Reciting the pledge as a youngster helps instill that initial sense of who we are.
Well, your extremely long post has befuddled me. From this opening statement (30 of the 56 words that are original to you in the entire post) and the context of our exchange you seem to want to make the point that the Founders didn’t believe in a Creator. Yet, the vast majority of quotes you so diligently provided have the Founders acknowledging a Creator, thereby refuting your own point. I would like to point out each instance of this, but the exercise became tedious. Also, it seems that there is a word-count maximum. So, I’ll try to use the allotment efficiently.
Let me point out, for future reference, that he who posts the most quotes does not win a prize of some sort. Especially when said quotes are incomplete, devoid of context, or immaterial to the discussion. Also, just because you find a bunch of quotes on some website—particularly en masse—doesn’t mean they have been scrutinized and it doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility of knowing their context and validity. That said, concerning the quote above:
-
Context might help: Tripoli (the first country to declare war against the US) along with the other Barbary States had been demending tribute from us and accosted our ships. Their were two previous Truces that lapsed or were ignored. Prior to the Treaty, the Barbary States had been attacking ships from what the perceived as Christian nations: England, Spain, The US, and others. The Treaty was in large part to secure the release of Americans that were threatened to be sold into slavery. To save the sailors, secure safe passage for American ships, and not instigate a Holy War between Muslim and Christian Nations, a Treaty was drafted. It matters not a little that we were in the inferior negotiaing position. So if language was used that was humbling to the Americans, that should not be surprising.
-
governement of the United States ?United States. The governement at this point was but a decade old. To imply that prior to it’s formulation that there was no history of those states (colonies) is deceptive and manipulative of the facts. (I’m not accusing you. I know you just copied and pasted.)
-
The phrase “Praise be to God” appears several times in the Treaty.
-
Additionally, in doing a little research it seems that this phrase might not even be in the actual Treaty. As per the Yale Law School Avalon Project:
“As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all.”
I direct you to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm#n6
I include all these points simply to point out that simply pasting a quote may not tell the whole story.
And now for the rest of the quote, in which you’ll see he is making the exact opposite point you were implying it made:
Adams:
“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,’ !!! But in this exclamation I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly [a minister and a schoolteacher, mentioned earlier in the letter]. Without Religion, this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.” - Letter to Jefferson, April 19, 1817
*Yes, it also seems that is was in a letter to Jefferson at a much later date. This might be wrong, as I found numerous instances citing both. I tend to accept the latter as it feels like the correspondence he had with Jefferson. And the earlier date puts him at just 20.
You included this because…? Did you think I was unaware of it? It simply steers us to the debate over what is meant in the Establishment Clause. If you look at the context: Jefferson was assuring The Danbury Baptists that under the Constitution, freedom to practice the religion of one’s choosing would still be considered an inalienable right. This differed from the Connecticut Constitution, which gave the state the power to legislate on religous matters. Keep in mind that the Congregationalists were the ones with the power in Connecticut.
This shown Jefferson to be a Deist, which is the point I thought you were trying NOT to make. (A not-unexpected pitfall of pasting and copying a bunch of quotes en masse.) He simply doesn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus. Old news.
Ditto. In fact, you’ve included a number of quotes like that, so I’ll move along.
Okay, here’s more from Madison, also from Memorial and Remonstrance. I’ve bolded some pertinent parts.
Madison:
"This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator…It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign."- Memorial and Remonstrance, June 20, 1785
And this:
Madison:
“WHEREAS the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution of the two Houses, have signified a request that a day may be recommended… as a day of Public Humiliation and Prayer… it is especially becoming, that the hearts of all should be; touched with the same, and the eyes of all be turned to that Almighty Power, in whose hand are the welfare and the destiny of nations: I do, therefore, issue this my Proclamation, recommending to all who shall be piously disposed to unite their teams and voices in addressing, at one and the same time their vows and adorations to the great Parent and Sovereign of the Universe, that they assemble on the second Thursday of September next, in their respective religious congregations, to render him thanks for the many blessings he has bestowed on the people of the United States; that he has blessed them with a land capable of yielding all the necessaries and requisites of human life, with ample means for convenient exchanges with foreign countries; that he has blessed the labors employed in its cultivation and improvement; that he is now blessing the exertions to extend and establish the arts and manufactures; which will secure within ourselves supplies too important to remain dependent on the precarious policy, or the peaceable dispositions of other nations, and particularly that he has blessed tire United States with a political constitution founded on the will and authority of the whole people, and guaranteeing to each individual security, not only of his person and his property, but of those sacred rights of conscience, so essential to his present happiness, and so dear to his future hopes: - that with those expressions of devout thankfulness be joined supplications to the same Almighty Power, that he would look down with compassion on our infirmities, that he would pardon our manifold transgressions, and awaken and strengthen in all the wholesome purposes of repentance and amendment; that in this season of trial and calamity, he would preside, in a particular manner over our public councils, and inspire all citizens with a love of their country, and with those fraternal affections and that mutual confidence, which have so happy a tendency to make us safe at home and respected abroad ; and that, as he was graciously pleased, heretofore, to smile on our struggles against the attempts of the government of the empire of which these states then made a part, to wrest from them the rights and privileges to which they were entitled in common with every other part, and to raise them to the station of an independent and sovereign people; so he would now be pleased, in like manner, to bestow his blessing on our arms in resisting the hostile…If the public homage of a people can ever be worthy the favorable regard of the Holy and Omniscient Being to whom it is addressed, it must be that, in which those who join in it are guided only by their free choice, by the impulse of their hearts and the dictates of their consciences; and such a spectacle must be interesting to all Christian nations; as proving that religion, that gift of Heaven for the good of man, freed from all coercive edicts, from that unhallowed connexion with the powers of this world, which corrupts religion into an instrument or an usurper policy of the state, and making no appeal but to reason, to the heart and to the conscience, can spread its benign influence every where, and can attract to the Divine Altar those free will offerings of humble supplication, thanksgiving and praise, which alone can be acceptable to Him whom no hypocricy can deceive, and no forced sacrifices propitiate…” - Washington, July 23, 1813
Note that toward the end Madison is making the point that religion can not be coerced. Also note the number of acknowldgements of a Divinity.
Your point for including this? It shows Franklin as eschewing Christianity (I assume), but makes the point that he was a Deist, that he believed in a Creator. Againl, I thought you were trying to make the opposite point.
The only reponse I’ll make regarding your T. Paine quotes is that I’ve already acknowledged him to be hostile to religion., which is the point of what you supplied.
I will now offer some quotes in response to yours. Just to prove the point made by SteveG1. Although I will not edit mine as severely as you have (or the site you got them from), so you can have a more accurate understanding of the author’s intention through context.
Washington:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?” - Farewell Address, 1796
Washington:
“Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant, who humbly prorate myself before Thee…Bless O Lord the whole race of mankind, and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son, Jesus…Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens…To the distinguished character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian.” - Prayer At Valley Forge, September 17, 1796
Adams:
“Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, bu it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.” - Letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776.
Adams:
“The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
Adams:
My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exultation in my own existence, 'tho but an Atom, a Molecule Organique, in the Universe; are my religion. - Letter to Jefferson, September 14, 1813
Adams:
'…it is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publickly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and preserver of the Universe.” - Massachusetts Constitution, Article II, 1780 (written by Adams)
Adams:
“The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved Independence were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly … could unite … And what were these general principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general principles of English and American liberty … which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System…” - Adams’ answer to “the Address of the Young Men of the City of Philadelphia, the District of South Wark, and the Northern Liberties,”
Jefferson:
"Almighty God hath created the mind free…no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
Here again, the point being made is about freedom of religion. But please note the first two words.
Jefferson:
“I do not know how to prove physically, that we shall meet and know each other in a future state; nor does Revelation, as I can find, give us any positive assurance of such a felicity. My reasons for believing it, as I do most undoubtedly, are that I cannot conceive such a being could make such a species as the human, merely to live and die on this earth. If I did not believe in a future state, I should believe in no God.” - Letter to Adams upon the death of Abigail, 1818
So, your point is… yes it IS wrong and unfair, and that’s a GOOD thing because the little ankle-biters (at least the non-theistic ones) might as well learn how unfair life is ASAP?
Or maybe your point is that the guy suing has the right to do so, but is a wanker?
Yes, we should be able to exist peacefully and respectfully, which means that official state-sponsored rituals of patriotism should not favor one group over another. There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between a situation in which group A wants to do something private and group B says “what they’re doing is bothering us”, and the pledge situation, where group A wants (to keep) their beliefs and rituals built into state-approved and teacher-led public patriotic rituals.
I just went back and re-read the DofI, and it does mention god/the almighty/providence a few places. But (and maybe this is just because this is the reading that makes me most comfortable), most of the language relating to God seems more like offhand frilly language that includes God than it sounds like actual important philosophical or theological points. If Jefferson really wanted to argue “hey, we’ve got this revolutionary idea, which is that people have inalienable rights. I know. It’s shocking. But here’s the thing… guess where those rights come from, and pay attention here, because our entire national identity rests on this principle. Those rights come from GOD. That’s right, it’s due to the existence and influence of God that we have these rights. Here’s my argument why…”, he could have. Instead, it sounded more to me like when you were writing stuff back in those days, you just tossed in some “in accordance with the bounties of the almighty’s providence” and so forth.
As an analogy, if some modern day president were giving a speech during a national crisis, and got up and talked for 10 minutes about his various plans to fix things, and closed by saying “…and may God continue to bless these United States, and lead us through these difficult times”, vs if he got up and said “what’s our plan for this crisis? Well, we’re going to trust in God and hope things work out”. In both cases, he’s mentioning God and asking for divine help, but in the first case, it seems almost pro forma, whereas in the second case, it’s the entire central point. All the language about God in the DofI and constitution strike me as being more similar to the first case.
And note, by the way, that I’ve never complained about modern day presidents saying things like “…and may God continue to…”. I’m not just trying to remove all possible conceivable links between government and religion no matter how slender. I’m arguing against inclusion of references to god in quasi-mandatory patriotic affirmations being foisted upon schoolchildren.
Shackles was too strong a word, perhaps. But there is an interesting question concerning motivation of people who create things. For instance, the Boy Scouts (ignoring their current homophobia) is a generally laudable organization that teaches hard work, companionship and outdoorsmanship to young men. Now, it’s possible that the guy who founded the boy scouts was actually a militaristic nutbag who was trying to build up an army of little recruits for the draft. And it’s possible that he was a nature-oriented pre-hippy with luddite tendencies. And it’s possible that he was a pedophile who was just looking for an excuse to be near young boys. And it’s possible that he was a grieving father who was trying to give other boys the experience he couldn’t give his own dead son. And so forth. All at least plausible possibilities, all of which might lead to someone creating an organization whose core principles included hard work, companionship and outdoorsmanship. But at this point, 100+ years later, does his motivation matter? Particularly, does it matter enough that one of the core values that he definitely DID instill in the boy scouts should be flirted with just to give symbolic lip service to that motivation?
The question of where atheists and agnostics get morality is an interesting one, but probably outside the scope of this discussion. Let me ask you this: could a group of atheists in a situation identical to the one which the founders found themselves in have done what the founders did?
I’m not sure how God really helps that argument one way or the other. There have been plenty of societies in which belief in God supported totalitarianism. The early US, as you describe it, is one in which belief in God supports democracy. Certainly atheist societies could be totalitarianistic or democratic as well. And it’s not like Jefferson really came up with a structured argument where the existence of God logically proves the right of people to be free. He kind of asserts it. I can assert it just as well (if less poetically) without resorting to God.
That’s not quite right. I probably shouldn’t have brought up taste in wine. A better analogy might be this: I’m incredibly religious, and I go found a country, Voolonia. Now, the only book I ever read is the Bible, and I’m pretty suspicious of people who read anything else. Also, I believe that my religion is the One True Religion, and that if children are able to read my bible, they’ll eventually learn the truth, but my religion does not believe in trying to convert others, so I do not want to force those not of my religion to read my bible, I just want to make sure they can. That ability to read the bible is VERY important to me, so I build into the constitution of my new country a huge numbers of provisions specifying that the government will fund at least enough primary education to lead to 100% literacy. 200 years later, my country is still going strong, and the great public education and universal literacy are universally recognized as fantastically important. But the country is largely secular, with religious people being no more than a plurality. Suddenly, a debate springs up about whether children should read the bible in public schools. Note that my constitution, which I (the founder) wrote and presumably thought a lot about did NOT say that children could read the bible in public schools, and generally hinted at religious tolerance, but did not come right out and 100% say that children could or could not be made to read the bible in public schools.
At this point, to what extent should the citizens of the country be motivated by my love of bible reading? Remember, there is not one word in the entire Voolonia constitution about the bible. But, the historical record shows that the guy who wrote that constitution loved his bible, which motivated a lot of what he put in the constitution. So it’s not as irrelevant as, say, whether I like wine. At the same time, it’s something that I could easily have written into the constitution, but didn’t.
That’s a better analogy.
Which is a fairly meaningless remark. Sure, there maybe a 20-person fringe group who objects to the word “freedom” because it doesn’t also include freedom for animals, and another 20-person fringe group who objects to the word “republic” because you take away three letters and you get “pubic” and won’t someone think of the children. But that has nothing to do with the quite sizeable and basically reasonable group objecting to “Under God”. If someone complains about how you’re doing X, and you say (truthfully) “well, HOWEVER I do X, SOMEONE is going to complain”, that’s no response at all.
I can hardly claim to be a scholar of early US history, but nothing I’ve read has led me to agree with you. To a certain extent, it seems to me that since religion is such a fundamental part of the lives of people who actually are religious, then anything a religious person does is going to have religion as one of the fundamental aspects of it. Does that mean that every great thing that was ever done by a religious person is a “religious thing”? If nothing else, it seems to me that if someone as eloquent as Thomas Jefferson had wanted to write a document which showed that belief in God was a fundamental motivator for this great national experiment, by gum, he would have written such a document, and we wouldn’t be having this argument right now.
At this point I’ve kind of lost track of the question, but I think this was just a side issue.
I still think you’re making it more of a black-and-white issue than it is. For instance, while I sometimes refer to myself as an atheist in casual conversation, I think I’m really more of an agnostic. That is, I do not claim to know that there IS no God, but I believe that all the pheonema I perceive in this universe can be explained without one, and thus, by Occam’s Razor, I assume there isn’t one, and live my life based on that assumption. There are also people who believe in various varieties of powerful unifying/creative forces but who wouldn’t want to refer to them as God, and many other variations therein.
And really, the question of religion vs philosophy here is a bit silly. Even if you came up with a 100% effective argument and I said “wow, that was some argument there, ok, you’re right, belief in God can be philosophical without being religious”, that wouldn’t at all change my stance on the pledge.
One of the absolute core principles of the US is that people of all belief systems and ideologies and religions and rituals and cultures and backgrounds are welcome as equal American citizens. Having words built into the pledge of allegiance which are incompatible with the beliefs of significant portions of the populace is wrong, regardless of whether it’s constitutional or not. Even if there were a clause in the constitution saying “Congress may, if it likes, insert the phrase ‘under God’ into the pledge of allegiance”, I would argue that congress should not do so, even though it would obviously be constitutional.
Which doesn’t mean that I’m not claiming that it’s unconstitutional as it is now, just that that question is really outside my area of expertise.
Fair enough… Then Bob goes and talks to Sue
Sue: Bob… did you learn anything about Joe’s religious beliefs?
Bob: I sure did
They CLEARLY did not intend an areligious society, nor am I (or any sane person in this thread) arguing for one. The question is whether the intended an areligious government.
A fair argument… of course, there are LOTS of cases in the constitution where they were maddeningly vague. Ahh, “equal protection” and “due process” and
“in order to form a well-regulated militia”, how we love thee.
Personally, speaking not as a constitutional scholar, I think that it makes no sense for the constitution to say “ok, you can’t actually establish a state religion, but you’re free to go ahead and insert loving praises to Jesus Christ into every offical document. And you can’t limit citizenship based on religion, but it’s perfectly OK to cover every inch of every courtroom wall with crucifixes”.
We need nested quotes here to make the context clear… what a pain. Basically, way back in post #284 you said
Which sounded to me like you were basically saying “well, I’m trying to imagine what it would be like to be in your place, and when I imagine it, it doesn’t seem so bad, so hey, it’s not a big deal”, to which I was responding by saying “well, some number people who actually ARE or WERE in that situation actually HAVE claimed it was bad enough that it IS a big deal”.
Well, yes, for me. I wasn’t trying to win the argument by assertion, just point out why I’m wasting time arguing about it. There’s an interesting distinction between Big National Issues like abortion and ones like homelessness. Homelessness is probably a MUCH bigger problem for the US than abortion, but it gets much less vocal debate, and I think that at least part of that is that the abortion debate could actually result in something happening, ie, abortion being made illegal. It’s not like homelessness could just be made illegal, so it’s a less appealing argument to argue, in some sense. The pledge argument is a particularly appealing one because it’s quite possible to imagine the entire situation actually being resolved and then hey, presto, situation finished, we can wash our hands of it and move on. Debates are more appealing when resolution is at least imaginable.
Fine, then we’ll alternate every 10 years… in 2010, we’ll change the pledge to say “under no God because God doesn’t exist” for 10 years, and let the little Christian boys and girls learn the important lessons of choicemaking. Then in 2020, we’ll switch back again, and so forth 
Just a small note: The words contained in the Declaration of Independence have exactly zero to do with the wording of the Constitution (to include all of its amendments). The latter document is the governing law of the United States.
I think your observation that “the times” played some role in the language is undoubtedly correct. It’s just a matter of to what degree. Regarding your proposed preamble to the DofI, it seems terribly redundant. When that document was revelaed I wouild guess that it had the exact effect that your version would have to today’s ears. I think what he says is exceedingly explicit. Also, keep in mind, these men were writing for the ages. They thought/hoped they were starting the next great society, looking back to Greece and Rome. The language had to take a high-minfded, confident road.
You’re reaching is straining me. Anything is possible. I think that your hypothetical assumes that this primary “motivation” wold be in some way offensive or antithetical to our positive image of the Scouts. Is that right. If so, I’d say it depends. If it turns out that they find thirty skeletons of young boys buried under his house, then they should attempt to divorce themselves from their founding as much as possible.
Strike that. I’m not sure of what your actually asking. Maybe this will answer it anyway. If someone has a noble idea and founds an organization, and that organization flourishes, then is seems perfectly fitting and appropriate that if this organization were to craft a pledge of some sort, that they would pay a degree of homage to that seed idea.
Maybe that’s a question better answered by an Atheist. I think it depends on the degree to which Atheism is in conflict with Natural Law theory. It strikes me tthat they are in direct conflict, but I could be wrong and welcome correction. The problem is, as we’ve touched on, concerns those inalienable rights that we were endowed with. For an atheist, who/what does the endowing? And without that entity, there is no higher order.
I thiink the first part of this is like an argument against the value of screwdrivers because peolpe sometimes turn them around to bang in nails. Anything can be contorted. But the value of a thing should be quantified in the best case scenario, not the worst.
I would be very interested in seeiing you assert it. Seriously. Give it a shot. Your mention of poetics briings up an interesting issue: to what degree is strength of Jefferson’s writing in his words, and to what degree is it in the ideas he expressed?
It depends. If they were to take the time and to pay homage to their country and you through something like a Pledge, they should include those things that you thought instrumental in the founding of Voolonia. To do so they would probably look at the official documents, as well as your other writings: personal letters and such.
Well, this gets to a knot of a question: when should the majority rule the minority and when should the minority be protected from the majority. And at what percent does a fringe group become a solid minority. On the one hand, we are somewhat of a democracy. On the other we respect and try ot protect individual rights. My take is that unless someone’s rights are being violated, let the majority rule. Even if it’s a majority of one. I don’t think this is perfect, but I see no other template for as solution. (Of course, this does nothing to settle whether soemone’s rights are, in fact, being violated.)
I think that is exactly what he did. I truly cannot see how someone can read the D of I and have any question about our Founder’s belief in a higher power or not see the the were espousing the natural law philosophy that the right s we enjoy exist on a higher strata than man. Most arguments along these lines (which much to your credit you haven’t attempted to do) try to sweep the D of I under the rug and point to The Constitution as it’s lacking of “Creator” language.
Good. I find myself getting lost, too.
Sounds like your an Agnostic to me. So there’s hope for you yet.
WHY NOT? I thought this whole discussion was based on your objecting to the PLedge on religious grounds. Should I stop typing now? I know these discussions rarely sway someone, but to have it etched in stone kind of saps me of my ability to delude myself that maybe, just maybe, this will be the one time…
They’re equal as long as their beliefs do not conflict with American law. For instance, Sharia law practiced by some Muslims says that stoniing is the punshment for certain crimes and transgressions. Some of that faith also condone clitorectomies for young girls. We see it as mutilation. There is a degree to which oyu must coform to or (or any) society. The degree to which we should expact that from our new immigrants is an interesting debate for another time.
Sorry, when in Rome… Yes, they are equal under the law, but all societies have norms. Expecting them to change themselves to accomodate you is quite self-important. If you start walking around in swim fins and a propeller hat, you are equal under the law, but don’t ask me to change the regulations regarding the size of steps because they are not accomodating to your big, flappy feet. But I do think you have the right to expect them to be tolerant and accepting of your rites and mores, assuming they are not crimes by or laws.
One final note on that paragraph. What do we do about the D of I? It was written way back when, it is the philosophical foundation of our country. What does/can one do if they don’t agree with it?
I didn’t follow you here.
I don’t think that’s right. Per my reading of the Establishment Clause, they simply intended that individuals would have the freedom to practice their own religion. I do not think they intended that to mean that everyone had the right to be shielded from religions that were not there own. Today though, we have Christmas plays banned (goodbye Bob Cratchet), carols, and my favorite, in one school district I know of the children were prohibited from wearing red and green around the holiday. Do you think that the Founders, assuming your more right than wrong about what they believed, would have been okay with this?
Resist…resist…resist—oh the hell with it. Minor hijack: for people to believe that the 2nd amendement was intended to allow guns solely for the benefit of having a well-regulated militia, those people then also have to believe that the founders were telling Americans—many of whom lived in rural areas and hunted for food—that if you do not belong to a militia you have no right town a gun. Now I’ve never even owned a gun, but that is whacky. Sorry, back to our little talk.
Excellent point. And that is wherer I think the misunderstanding lies. Again, if you take the Establishment Clause to mean—and only mean—that the government cannot declare a national religion, the rest makes more sense. In other words, you can have prayers in court, in school, in the public square, you just can’t declare one for the state. I think there were three reasons for this:
-
The Founders (no, not all) had great respect for the religious institutions. But they understood that a relationship with God (Deists included) could not be forced or coerced. To have one be a member of a particular denomination by accident (by citizenship) would have been viewed as offensive to both the individual and God.
-
Membership in a church at that time usually meant tithing: a percent of you bounty was given to the church each year. Understanding that they wanted to uphold the religious freedom that brought the first settlers to the American shore, they saw that tithing to the state church, which you may not be a member of was very problematic. This is one of the very issues that concerned the Baptists in Connecticut when the wrote to Jefferson. Every inhabitant of the state had to tithe to the powerful Congregationalist Church. The Baptists went to the state and the resolution was that they could petition to be excluded from the tithing on a parish by parish basis. I assume theis issue had been raised earlier, as well, as to be able to effect the actual founding. If not, I retract it as a reason.
-
Some colonies already had state religions. All had the ability to do so. So there was the potential for direct conflict between a state and a national church.
I don’t want to look it up, but I recall I did say something like that. You countered with something. Then I responded with “You are right.” Why are you objectinig to my admitting fault and agreeing with your point?
I couldn’t agree more. Here to I think my words were “You are right.” I’ll have to be careful of agreeing with you if it leads to further argument.
Which would be fine if that expressed the founder’s beliefs. How about this: We say the Pledge as is, and the teacher says something to the effect. “Well, now we’re going to have a moment of quiet time for each of us to think, on our own, about how they got here.”
Max, I’ve cut a lot of your comments. I did so out of respect for other posters, as we tend to have posts that are quite long. I tried to keep enough of the comment or question so we all don’t get lost. I hope I struck a good balance.
Not quite. I think it’s drastically overstating the case to use the word coercian, as if there’s considerable pressure on the child to believe in God from these two words in what is a statement of patriotism. As you said in your response to magellan01 almost pro forma. There is no attempt to convert anyone. It doesn’t require that anyone agree to a particular concept of God. It seems the one who feels compelled to sue chooses to interpret it as a concept of God he objects to. I wonder why.
I think you’ve exagerated by a huge or two. The problem is that group A, is the American public which is very diverse in it’s beliefs. The pledge as is honors those diverse beliefs just as much as a pledge with “under God” left out does. Not all citizens can have it their way. Considering all the ways in which our religious influences permeate our public life, even in the halls of government it seems an unnessecary extreme to rule this unconstitutional.
The 1st amendment is subject to interpretation. The DOI may be used in understanding the intent of the founders. Of course we must also decide how important the intent of the founders is in present day.
Whatever you want. Why, in your country of freedom and individuality, do you express national pride and patriotism through robotic daily group repetition of a pledge?
I don’t think people too young to understand the meaning of a pledge or oath should take it at all. It renders it meaningless. That is, provided you feel the need to have one.
As adults we stand and sing the national athem at ball games and other functions. The purpose isn’t to deny individuality with any robotic function, rather to remind us that with our individuality and human rights we are still part of the same nation. I don’t see that as bad or stupid or useless. A reminder that with all our diversity we’re in this together.
It is simply a beginning through ritual. Nobody expects them to understand the intricacies of democracy and citizenship. As I said before. It merely establishes a sense of identity. “I am an American” The details of what that means comes later.
Could this be done in other ways? Sure. A better way? Possibly. I believe a sense of responsibility toward our nation and our fellow citizens is a positive thing. Do you disagree?
Hands up any non-Christian who felt excluded/forced to act Christian at Christmas celebration in Public schools. raises hand
looks like he changed his mind since then.
The above was written in the year 1817, and is only a partial quote of the following: The Founders’ Constitution Memoranda on the first amendment
Another waste of time.
Making our children perform loyalty oaths rubs me the wrong way. This sort of indoctrination is very Soviet. On the brightside, it’s become mostly meaningless to them. Robotic was a good way to describe it.
Raises hand
And the point is…?
I suspect that the point is that there is a general trend in many parts of the country to impose Christianity on the population. While many people are willing to see the PoA as a bit of harmless Ceremonial Deism, people who have already felt persecuted are going to see the “under God” phrase as an extension of that perscution.
(This larger topic was behind my earlier altercation with lekatt, when he linked opposition to the phrase to a “war” betwen believers and unbelievers.)
Right, but whether or not people feel persecuted by the “under God” phrase, or indeed, even whether or not they actually are persecuted by it, isn’t relevant as to whether or not it’s unconstitutional.
I’m just connecting dots, not making the argument.
As noted earlier, I think the PoA fight is a tempest in a teapot. (I think it is more troublesome that we a have public loyalty pledge of the sort that I associate with authoritarian regimes than to worry about minor textual points inside them.)
Interesting, but we’re not talking about Christmas are we?
Out of curiousity how exactly were you excluded or forced?
Interesting. How were you forced or excluded?
I grew up in the northeast and never felt any of that kind of imposition in my schools or within the community. What parts of the country comprise the many you speak of? What specifically is done to impose Christianity?