Reciting Pledge of Allegiance in public schools ruled unconstitutional. Discuss.

[MaxTheVool]

@cosmosdan

It is a reasonable request. It would be reasonable for the Yankee fans to respond with, "Sorry, although we support your right to cheer for any team you like and don’t require you to sing that part of the song because of that respect, since we are the majority, we have decided to leave it in.

Would it? Might makes right and all that, but is it reasonable/fair/nice/good/American/right to use one’s power of majority to insert divisive language into the town song (or any other symbolic but nonbinding governmental text)? Should we put something about being white into the pledge? After all, whites are a majority in the US. And all the founders were white… (clearly, we constitutionally COULDN’T. But if we could, should we? Would it just be a fine and reasonable example of majority rule?)

Looking just at the words contained in the 1st amendment I believe that it is designed to prevent the federal government from establishing an official specific religion, period. So is the presence of UG in the pledge unconstitutional? I’d have to no. I think it walks up to the line and teters on the brink but doesn’t cross it. A reference to JC would cross the line which is probably why it has never succeeded.

Two things:
(a) at this point, if we’re just trying to go by the actual language of the constitution, with no reference to the many ways that that language has been intepreted, and the buildup of case law since then, and so forth, then we’re in a LOT of trouble. For instance, the basis in constitutional law for ruling that miscegenation laws are unconstitutional is something that it would be VERY difficult for a rational and uninterested observer to derive just from the actual text of the constitution. It’s quite established that the establishment clause does NOT just mean “Congress shall never pass a law stating that there’s an official state religion for the United States. But it can do lots of other similar things.”

(b) Why is a reference to God different that a reference to JC? There is some set of belief systems (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Southern Baptist, etc.) which believe in the divinity of JC. Many others do not. There is some set of belief systems (all of the above, plus Judaism and Islam, probably) which believe in the divinity of a singular God. Many others do not. What’s the difference? Or is it the difference between just saying “Under God” and something like “one nation, which believes in God because he exists and all, indivisible…”? I mean, it’s easy to look at all of your fellow religious people of different faiths, say “well, we all believe in the same God”, and bask in how accepting of diversity you are, except that Americans do NOT all believe in the same God.

That’s a different question than should it be in there? It becomes a question of what is best for all citizens and not about what is fair or unfair or the desires of a small group vs. the majority. In that respect I think it would be best for it to be taken out.

So you agree with me then? I’m still puzzled.

I don’t see it that way. I think it says we are a country of predominantly theists, which happens to be true. The 1st amendment had established freedom of religion long before the pledge was around. So the understanding is that we are a nation with a majority of theists who support freedom of religion for all. That’s a fact, not oppression.

Uhhhhh… what? This nation has always had a large theist majority, I agree. That was true before the pledge. That was true back with the no-UG pledge. That is true with the UG-pledge. That would be true if we removed UG from the pledge. This nation has also always had a respect for religious tolerance, and has done a reasonable, but not flawless, job of living up to that respect. You seem (as far as I can tell) to be arguing that removing UG from the pledge would actually DECREASE religious tolerance. Are you in fact arguing that? If so, please flesh out that argument…

Another option is to say the pledge in it’s original form if you are so inclined. The other activities I mentioned was freedom of religion. If you don’t like Minigolf {Christianity and/or Judism} pick whatever you like.

And now we come back to the coercion/peer pressure argument. But we’ve already been here. Suffice it to say that I see a HUGE difference between, say, the army having no official religion, but providing chaplains of many major faiths as a service, totally optional, to its soldiers, and the army saying “ok, grunts, here is your official schedule. Monday to Friday: learning to kill people. Saturday: relaxing. Sunday: Going to church at 9 a.m. Oh. That last one is optional.”

I do understand your objection. I imagine you would object much more if it was made mandatory. I sure would.

Indeed. I’m not trying to say that UG-in-the-non-mandatory-pledge is the worst thing ever. Mention of Jesus in a non-mandatory pledge would be worse, as would UG in a mandatory pledge, as would atheists being burned at the stake, or denied voting rights. But saying “oh, it could be worse” doesn’t make it right. Separate but equal was a lot better than SLAVERY, but that didn’t make it right.

For me the fact it isn’t mandatory is the recognition of others rights to worship as they choose.

But don’t you see how grudging and condescending that is? “Well, the American Pledge of Allegiance, as said by Americans, involves Under God. Because America is a nation Under God. We recognize and respect all religious faiths, this is optional, actual mileage may vary.”

no big deal. It just seemed a bit of a contradiction

Ahh, I see what you’re getting at. Well, for the record, I was trying to say that the issue of what limitations should be put on teachers is a tricky one. It’s a tricky one now. It would be a tricky one if UG were removed. Removing UG would not make it particularly trickier, so its trickiness is not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

[cosmosdan]

@MaxTheVool

Would it? Might makes right and all that, but is it reasonable/fair/nice/good/American/right to use one’s power of majority to insert divisive language into the town song (or any other symbolic but nonbinding governmental text)? Should we put something about being white into the pledge? After all, whites are a majority in the US. And all the founders were white… (clearly, we constitutionally COULDN’T. But if we could, should we? Would it just be a fine and reasonable example of majority rule?)

I think the question would be is it ideal, or are we sure this is the best choice?
That would be no. Is it reasonable to expect the majority to assert themselves in some way? Yes I think so.It isn’t a matter of might makes right. It’s a matter of what we can reasonably expect from humans. Would you call your race reference here an extreme example?

Two things:
(a) at this point, if we’re just trying to go by the actual language of the constitution, with no reference to the many ways that that language has been intepreted, and the buildup of case law since then, and so forth, then we’re in a LOT of trouble. For instance, the basis in constitutional law for ruling that miscegenation laws are unconstitutional is something that it would be VERY difficult for a rational and uninterested observer to derive just from the actual text of the constitution. It’s quite established that the establishment clause does NOT just mean “Congress shall never pass a law stating that there’s an official state religion for the United States. But it can do lots of other similar things.”

You’re right here and not being a student of legal precedent I hadn’t really thought of this. I expect boundary lines to change as our culture changes sometimes for the better and sometimes not. I was aggravated when Bush decided tax payers money could support faith based charities. Evidently the legal precedent you see as very clear on this issue is not so clear to others. Make no mistake, if they take UG out of the pledge it’s A okay with me.

(b) Why is a reference to God different that a reference to JC? There is some set of belief systems (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Southern Baptist, etc.) which believe in the divinity of JC. Many others do not. There is some set of belief systems (all of the above, plus Judaism and Islam, probably) which believe in the divinity of a singular God. Many others do not. What’s the difference? Or is it the difference between just saying “Under God” and something like “one nation, which believes in God because he exists and all, indivisible…”? I mean, it’s easy to look at all of your fellow religious people of different faiths, say “well, we all believe in the same God”, and bask in how accepting of diversity you are, except that Americans do NOT all believe in the same God.

Yes I know and believe I’ve made it clear already.

So you agree with me then? I’m still puzzled.

I agree that removing UG as being sanctioned by the government is the best choice to serve our diverse citizens. I don’t agree that it’s clearly unconstitutional.

Uhhhhh… what? This nation has always had a large theist majority, I agree. That was true before the pledge. That was true back with the no-UG pledge. That is true with the UG-pledge. That would be true if we removed UG from the pledge. This nation has also always had a respect for religious tolerance, and has done a reasonable, but not flawless, job of living up to that respect. You seem (as far as I can tell) to be arguing that removing UG from the pledge would actually DECREASE religious tolerance. Are you in fact arguing that? If so, please flesh out that argument…

No No! I’m saying that the pledge as is reflects how America is. I don’t think the pldge will have a great effect on religious tolerance one way or the other. Personnaly I find it infuriating that Christian fundamentalists try to claim some twisted kind of spiritual dibbs on the country. What I hope doesn’t happen is that the battle over what I see as a minor issue causes more division.

Indeed. I’m not trying to say that UG-in-the-non-mandatory-pledge is the worst thing ever. Mention of Jesus in a non-mandatory pledge would be worse, as would UG in a mandatory pledge, as would atheists being burned at the stake, or denied voting rights. But saying “oh, it could be worse” doesn’t make it right. Separate but equal was a lot better than SLAVERY, but that didn’t make it right.

I agree. I believe we should keep striving for improvment or in these times to prevent regressing. What I would stress is that we look at the actions of individuals and groups rather than focus on their religious beliefs or lack of them.

But don’t you see how grudging and condescending that is? "

I don’t see it that way but I understand how some people might.

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

Since most atheists I have met start with a position of “I do not see a need for a god” with no “system” behind that lack of belief, I found your claim that not believing in Santa was also a “system” confusing. I am afraid your clarification has just added to my confusion regarding your point, but I am not a principle in this part of the discussion, so I will bow out for a bit without pursuing it.

Thank you for being so gentlemanly. But I would like to pursue this a little further, if you’d like to. I was a little frustrated about the focus on a phrase I used which was purely incidental. I could have just as easily had used “Is Atheism primarily a belief set that…” or “Is Atheism primarily a belief that…”“Is Atheism primarily a philosophy that…”, but I was focusing on what came after the phrase. Given that more than one person commented on this, I think I should have used another phrase. Given the examples I just offered, would any of them been more clear, or should I say, less problematic. For me and what I was trying to convey, they are all synonymous. Am I missing something?

Additionally, when you say “…most atheists I have met start with a position of ‘I do not see a need for a god’”, doesn’t that imply that for all queries that a person had, that a non-theistic explanation was available and sufficient? If so, isn’t the set of things they believe which obviate a god-entity a belief set, or philosophy?

And what would your thoughts be on what I had asked earlier: what came/comes first: the belief that there is no Creator? Or the rationalistic look at the world?

[magellan01]

@John Mace

…the “beginning of everything”. We may someday figure it out, but then again, we may not. Our brains evolved as a response to problem solving here on earth. If our suvival as a species is necessitated on understanding the “beginning of everything”, then perhaps the ability to understand that will evolve. But there is nothing that says our brains have to be capable of understanding everything (or any particlular thing). It just may be beyond human comprehension, or we simply may never be able to come up with the right test or theory, even if just by trial and error.

Certainly we have been able to understand much that is beyond our need in terms of survival, but that doesn’t mean we have to be able to understand everything.

Kind of like solving the mystery of “Lost”. It simply may not be possible.

What you’ve described seems to fit more with agnosticism than atheism. Would you agree with that?

[magellan01]

@Mr2001

How do you explain the beginnings of your Supreme Being? I doubt you have a more satisfying explanation than I do to explain the beginnings of the universe. I’m content to say there’s no possible explanation and move on to more practical questions, just as I’m sure you don’t spend too much time worrying about where God came from.

For me, one of the reasons I believe in a Supreme Being is that it would be the only thing that could operate outside the laws causality. It is the only thing that could be eternal, i.e., not have been caused by something else. I have no idea what the Higher Order is, but I think it willed something to happen and we are part of the result. Whether an important one or an insignificant one is another question altogether.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Brane theory eliminates the need for a first cause. Not that that a need for one has been demonstrated anyway.

[Ms2001]

@magellan01

For me, one of the reasons I believe in a Supreme Being is that it would be the only thing that could operate outside the laws causality. It is the only thing that could be eternal, i.e., not have been caused by something else.

Who says it’s the only thing? If God can violate causality, why can’t I?

Perhaps I have the power to violate causality, and I created the universe billions of years before I was born, but then I forgot how to use this power, and indeed forgot that it ever happened until just now. That seems just as plausible.

[tomndebb]

@magellan01

Additionally, when you say “…most atheists I have met start with a position of ‘I do not see a need for a god’”, doesn’t that imply that for all queries that a person had, that a non-theistic explanation was available and sufficient? If so, isn’t the set of things they believe which obviate a god-entity a belief set, or philosophy?

And what would your thoughts be on what I had asked earlier: what came/comes first: the belief that there is no Creator? Or the rationalistic look at the world?

This may be the whole issue of world view.

Until physicists decided, a few years ago, that there was not enough dark matter to support an assumption of a universe contracting to a Big Crunch after its current expansion from the Big Bang, in a cycle that repeated over and over, the possibility existed that the universe “just was” forever. (And with Hawkings Big-Bang-as-Singularity equations, one might conclude that the universe “just is” for a somewhat shoter duration. And before the discovery that the universe was expanding, the universe as “just is, forever” was a tenable position.) Now, having grown up in (and continuing to adhere to) a tradition of a belief in God as Creator, I tend to believe that the universe had an origin and that God played a (pretty big) part in that origin. However, what if the origin was wholly irrelevant to me? What if the universe (prior to Hubble’s discoveries) simply “was” or (prior to the dicovery of insufficient dark matter/mass) the universe appeared to expand and collapse forever or (subsequent to Hawkings’s singularity) it popped into existence for no paricular reason? I would not need a “system” of “belief” to accept that; I would simply take the evidence (such as it was) that that was the reality of all physical matter.

Or, to draw an analogy from the Christian tradition. I have stood by, bemused, while people passionately devoted to a belief in Pre-Tribulation Millennialism battled it out with adherents to Post-Tribulation Millennialism. I have no belief in the Millennium or Tribulation–they were literary devices for a particular 1st century work of Christian encouragement in the face of persecution. My Jewish friend has even less concern for such discussions, because he does not even believe that the Revelation of John was inspired by God, and my Buddhist friend does not even believe that the God whom my Jewish friend and I worship (however differently) exists. Discussions regarding the Pre-Trib and Post-Trib events are not only irrelevant to my Buddhist friend, they are, pretty much, outside the scope of things that may possibly be relevant.

If a person begins with a notion that there is no need for a god (which I incorrectly thought conveyed the affirmative answer to your question “what came/comes first: the belief that there is no Creator?”), then any consideration of beliefs that derive from a belief in a Creator are simply outside their ken.
Questions regarding a creator or a first cause or anything similar or related are simply irrelevant to their lives, in much the same way that worrying over whether 144,000 people or some other number of people will be saved before or after the Tribulation (that I do not even belive will occur) is irrelevant to my life.

[magellan01]

@Mr2001

Who says it’s the only thing? If God can violate causality, why can’t I?

Perhaps I have the power to violate causality, and I created the universe billions of years before I was born, but then I forgot how to use this power, and indeed forgot that it ever happened until just now. That seems just as plausible.

Well, if you created the universe before you were born, as you said, you created the universe. That is to say, you caused the universe.

[magellan01]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Brane theory eliminates the need for a first cause.

I don’t think it does. Do you care to expand on your assertion?

[MEBuckner]

@magellan01

What you’ve described seems to fit more with agnosticism than atheism. Would you agree with that?

You might want to check out An Introduction to Atheism. The short answer is that it depends on how you define your terms; both atheism and agnosticism have varying definitions. The position John Mace described is perfectly compatible with “weak atheism”, which (despite the wussy-sounding name) is probably the position of more self-described modern atheists than not; it’s also compatible with some definitions of “agnosticism”. However, since he did say “We may someday figure [the beginning of everything] out, but then again, we may not”, this arguably is incompatible with the purest form of “strict agnosticism” which says that such questions are in principle unknowable.

Not to be too hostile, but you should beware of insisting on an equation of “atheism” with “the positive certainty that God don’t exist, no way!” (and insisting that all the self-described atheists you meet are “really agnostics”). It’s roughly like those atheists who insist that “Christian” must be synonymous with “snake-handling person who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and there are no more dinosaurs 'cause they wouldn’t fit in the Ark”. (“Oh, you don’t believe all that? So are you like a Unitarian or something?”)

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

However, what if the origin was wholly irrelevant to me?..I would not need a “system” of “belief” to accept that; I would simply take the evidence (such as it was) that that was the reality of all physical matter.

@tomndebb

I have no belief in the Millennium or Tribulation–they were literary devices for a particular 1st century work of Christian encouragement in the face of persecution. My Jewish friend has even less concern for such discussions, because he does not even believe that the Revelation of John was inspired by God, and my Buddhist friend does not even believe that the God whom my Jewish friend and I worship (however differently) exists. Discussions regarding the Pre-Trib and Post-Trib events are not only irrelevant to my Buddhist friend, they are, pretty much, outside the scope of things that may possibly be relevant.

Whether it is wholly irrelevant to you is, for lack of a better word, irrelevant. There are the facts of the “origin”, or any other event, whether you choose to ponder them or not. (Although they may be foerever out of our reach.) But once you think about something, e.g., the “origin”, and take a position on it you are stating a belief. I have never thought about why some fezes have little tassels on them. By once I venture a theory—to keep birds from landing on them—I sign on to a belief set. (In this case, a set of one.)

@tomndebb

If a person begins with a notion that there is no need for a god (which I incorrectly thought conveyed the affirmative answer to your question “what came/comes first: the belief that there is no Creator?”), then any consideration of beliefs that derive from a belief in a Creator are simply outside their ken.

Do you think that a person can actually begin “with a notion that there is no need for a god”? Doesn’t that require both a rudimentary understanding of what “god” is (so that he can render it unnecessary) and an belief that things are adequately explained by other means?

@tomndebb

Questions regarding a creator or a first cause or anything similar or related are simply irrelevant to their lives, in much the same way that worrying over whether 144,000 people or some other number of people will be saved before or after the Tribulation (that I do not even belive will occur) is irrelevant to my life.

Again, if I asked you to take a position on it, and you attempted to, it would no longer be irrelevant to your life. Any (serious) answer will reveal part of your belief set. I think that the only way for you to maintain “irrelevance” would be to answer along the lines: “I don’t know, I don’t care to know.”

By the way, did my offering of substitue phrases help or further confuse communication?

[tomndebb]

Again, if I asked you to take a position on it, and you attempted to, it would no longer be irrelevant to your life. Any (serious) answer will reveal part of your belief set.

Well, to the point, how any atheists have you seen assert a position on the origin of the universe?

It seems to me that a very large number of atheists have no concern for that issue. If a scientific description of the origin is discovered, fine, if not, so what?

[MEBuckner]

@magellan01

They also didn’t take the opportunity to say: “We the people of the United States, having broken with the archaic trappings of both royalty and religion…” or “We the people of the United States, answerable to our fellow man and no other…” Such a sentiment would have been astounding at the time. Surely, if they intended such a break from tradition they would have mentioned it.

I think the “striking” thing would be that if you are correct, and they intended the document to be evidence of a government totally divorced from religion, that they would not have used the preamble to declare this new and novel idea.

Curious. Are you saying that because the preamble says “We the people…do ordain and establish this constitution” instead of “We the people, having broken with the archaic trappings of royalty” that therefore the constitution ISN’T an anti-royalist document? Surely simply by virtue of saying “the people…do ordain and establish” it is implicitly yet very, very clearly republican and utterly opposed to monarchy. They DID use the preamble to declare the new and novel idea of breaking with the archaic trappings of royalty; and they did so without having to throw in anything about “we establish this constitution, and no king can tell us what to do, so there!”

I think you are misunderstanding what I am contending the Founders did, and also what I think government ought to do. I would be as opposed to a constitution which talked about “breaking with the archaic trappings of religion” as I would one which talked about “acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government”. I don’t want a pro-monotheist government OR a pro-atheist government; I want a secular government, which confines itself to forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the liberties of all citiziens–including the liberty to believe in whatever religions or non-religious systems they choose, and to publically profess those beliefs.

The preamble is both anti-royalist and in favor of secular government simply because it doesn’t say “In the name of our dread sovereign Lord, by the Grace of God the King, Defender of the Faith, etc.” It is not an anti-religious document, it is a secular document, as it should be. The Founders did not and should not have said anything about either “acknowledging God” or “breaking with the archaic trappings of religion”; they confined themselves to those things over which government properly has jurisdiction, without meddling in things which ought to be left to the individual consciences of free people. Congress should have had the wisdom to do likewise.

[Ms2001]

@magellan01

Well, if you created the universe before you were born, as you said, you created the universe. That is to say, you caused the universe.

Indeed. Now as long as we’re entertaining theories that rely on violating causality, there’s really no difference between Mr2001 creating the universe, God creating the universe, and the universe simply having existed forever with no cause, except the relative silliness of each theory. None of them are testable or make any predictions, and to someone who’s only concerned with measurable reality, they’re all irrelevant.

[magellan01]

@MEBuckner

Not to be too hostile, but you should beware of insisting on an equation of “atheism” with “the positive certainty that God don’t exist, no way!” (and insisting that all the self-described atheists you meet are “really agnostics”).

I appreciate your admonition. If I did what you say, it was inadvertent. I have been trying to extract what people (atheists) believe. Much of what I’ve gotten is what they don’t believe. I have tried to prod more information, but as your helpful email points out, there seems to be much nuance and overlap, which makes confusion unsurprising. This is no doubt magnified in a thread like this, where multiple people argue the same point, while I doubt any two of them believe the exact same thing and would even define the terms the exact same way. Sometimes when I ask a poster I am involved with to clarify something, I get an answer from someone else. I know they are just trying to be helpful, but if you and I are discussing good and evil and ask “how would you define evil”?, it doesn’t do much good to have that answered by a third party.

[magellan01]

@Mr2001

…to someone who’s only concerned with measurable reality, they’re all irrelevant.

Agreed.

[MEBuckner]

@magellan01

I appreciate your admonition. If I did what you say, it was inadvertent. I have been trying to extract what people (atheists) believe. Much of what I’ve gotten is what they don’t believe. I have tried to prod more information, but as your helpful email points out, there seems to be much nuance and overlap, which makes confusion unsurprising. This is no doubt magnified in a thread like this, where multiple people argue the same point, while I doubt any two of them believe the exact same thing and would even define the terms the exact same way. Sometimes when I ask a poster I am involved with to clarify something, I get an answer from someone else. I know they are just trying to be helpful, but if you and I are discussing good and evil and ask “how would you define evil”?, it doesn’t do much good to have that answered by a third party.

The thing is, atheists really DON’T “believe anything”, all they do is “lack a belief in something”. I don’t mean we’re all soulless, empty nihilists, or that our every thought is defined by our lack of belief in God, just that atheism as a category is simply the lack of something. You can talk about what Secular Humanists believe, or what Objectivists believe, or what Marxist-Leninists believe, but beyond the “not having a belief in God” there just isn’t anything that reliably unites atheists. Heck, an atheist could believe in ghosts and psychic powers and reincarnation; an atheist could certainly believe that UFO’s are emissaries from the Galactic Federation here to usher in a universal age of peace and harmony and the government is covering this up out of a misguided desire to prevent panic and “culture shock”. (I’ve been an atheist my entire life, but I actually believed something along the lines of that last one, back when I was about 8 years old.)
Some atheists have tried to claim that there is such a thing as Atheism with a capital “A” and some sort of defining characteristics beyond “not having a belief in God”, but they haven’t really gotten anywhere with it.

(Just FYI to everyone, I didn’t send you any e-mails, just the posts in this thread.)

[ambushed]

@magellan01

The Constitution does not mention God because it was a practical document. Even it’s preamble is practical and to the point: “We the People of the United States, in Order to…” gets right to it.

I’ll just be emotional for a second, okay? THAT IS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS!

There, I feel better. Sorry.

Do you honestly think the absense of a reference to God was not a significant issue at the time? That it was left out by such a casual reason as “practicality” or any other casual reason?

No, my friend, the absense of a Nod to God in the Constitution was extremely deliberate and was fought over tooth and nail! The Framers knew exactly what they were doing: they left out God because they were very deliberately founding a secular State, exactly as their Enlightenment ideals demanded. There were a great many ratification debates about that deliberate omission, but the Framers stood rock solid on their Enlightenment ideals. And so did the great majority of the populace, to the point where two-thirds of all voters – almost alll of them Christian – voted for a “Godless” Constitution knowing that it was a “Godless” Constitution founding the first nation free of religuous provenance.

This was no casual thing, this founding of our Country without claims of being diviinely founded or guided. It was a vital decision not reached without wrenching dissent. Dissent that lost.

And it was primarily the doing of Thomas Jefferson, whose deliberately Godless Virginia Constitution was explicitly chosen over any other states’ constitution, all of which had religious trappings until the early 19’th century.

To see some of the Framer’s rejection of the roles of God and religion in our new country, see Article 6, Section 3. It was, not to try to avoid a pun, revolutionary.

[ambushed]

I forgot to empasize that the “Godless” Virginia State Consitution was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the D of I, who casually used the word “Creator” only in the following way: he referred only to their Creator, not our Creator (as so many people so wrongly think).