No.
How can it be a violation when this country was established in freedom of religion by religionists. Of course, the greater part of the population is outraged, and I am sure the war between the seculars and the religionists has just begun. Atheists have their own religion based on faith. They are just trying to make their religion the controlling one. I think it will be interesting, to see who wins in the next few years.
C-O-N-S-T-I-T…
Sure we are. I mean, we may say differently and act differently, but what’s that prove? By the way, is there anything you DON’T think is based on faith? Do you know what a religion is?
What’s your motivation for putting it that way?
But where does the pledge say “God” = true? It does not say that. You are making that up out of thin air.
It says “…one nation under God…” The government is not supposed to “establish religion”, there is nothing that says it can’t take a stance. As an atheist, I wish there was something like that. But the plain fact is there isn’t.
I didn’t say that “under God” does not mean monotheism. Quote me the part of my post where you think I said that and let’s talk about it. I only said that “under God” does not mean other gods are false. You claimed that, but did not substantiate it. If I say “I worship one God”, and you say “I worship many gods”, we both are only expressing our personal belief, not a statement of fact. If I said “I worhsip the one and only God” then I would be saying that other gods are false. But the pledge does not say that. It does not say “one nation, under the one and only God…”.
And who says a public school teacher is telling a child anything? SCOTUS rulings have made it clear that saying the pledge is volutnary.
What I find interesting in this sort of claim is the background that it is the “religion” advocates who are more likely to resort to violence against people who do not share their faith, including defamation, vandalism, and actual physical harrassment. The people who are calling for a true separation of church and state are on the side of such “Christian” values as tolerance and respect for one’s neighbor while the people who are calling for the the mixing of religion with government have, historically, resorted to violence (including arson and murder), vandalism, harrassment, and the abuse of innocent children for the crime of being raised by the “wrong sort” of parents.
It is my religious background (with an awareness of history) that spurs me to fight this attempt to impose religion on people who do not share the beliefs of the majority.
lekatt, seems to have no problem with using violence to impose the will of the majority on others, since he supports the people who have traditionally resorted to violence.
!820s - 1850s and 1870s: Catholics attacked, murdered, and burned out of their homes and churches for daring to ask to bring their Douai-Rheims bibles to school instead of using the state apporved Authorized Version.
1880s - 1970s: Indian children removed from their families and placed in orphanages or foster homes where they are forbidden to practice their traditional religions, being forced to adopt Protestant Christianity.
1880s - 1930s: Jews throughout the South are forced to hide or move as various “Christian” movements sweep the region. (During the same period, Catholics are also subjected to harrassment, but on a somewhat smaller scale.)
1980s - 1990s: Several families who ask that prayer not be imposed on their children in public schools are threatened, harrassed, subjected to vandalism, and beaten. The victims? Fundamentalist Christians (with a respect for the Constitution) in Tennessee, Catholics and Mormons in Texas.
Now, lekatt will simper that those actions were not right and not representative of the country. He is wrong. They occurred because the people in those places and times felt that the country was “established in freedom of [the majority’s] religion by [bigoted] religionists” who believed that this was a “Christian” nation and they had a right to impose their beliefs on all who lived among them. When we do not clearly separate religion and government, we hand to the bigots a weapon to be used against everyone who does not believe the same way. (Note how often the organizers of “keep God in the pledge” rallies and organizers of prayer in school both resort to claims that this country was “founded as a Christian nation.” That is not a coincidence.)
It seems clear, to me, that the First Amendment simply prohibits the governement from adopting a formal state religion. You’ll recall:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
How does acknowledging a nameless God run afoul of that statement?
The theist view (used as a broad category) expressed in The Pledge and throughout many of the founding documents and letters is a philosophical one, NOT a religous one. It begins in the attempt to answer: Why are we here? The founders (Christians and Deists alike) believed that there was a Creator. Atheists believe there is not. That is a difference in scientific philosophy. It has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
Now those who believe that there is a Creator may take an additional step and devise a religion around their respective concepts of God (or Gods), or they may not. It could be Jesus, Jupiter, Zeus, Ra, Odin, or infinite others. The First Amendment prevents any one of these from becoming the formal national religion—that’s it! It is certainly possible to believe in the existence of a Creator (a God) and believe that that God is completely divorced from every religion known to man. Or divorced from the practice of religion althogether, maybe even hostile to it.
While one may argue, albeit I’d say incorrectly, that the First Amendment prohibits the acknowledgement of our religious tradition in schools and courthouses, it certainly does not carve out special consideration for those with no religion. The fact is that the founders of this country believed that the ideals they built the new nation on were derived from a Supreme Being. You’ll recall: “… separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s GOD entitle them…”, and “…that they are endowed, by their CREATOR…” [bolding mine].
You say you feel like an outsider. If you do it is probably simply due to the fact that you chose a minority belief. Your belief may be correct, but if you hold a minority position it certainly isn’t shocking that you may feel excluded. And the more strongly you identify with the minority position you take the more excluded you will feel. This is true of any minority opinion, not just atheism.
Diogenes the Cynic:
It depends what you mean by the governement. If you mean what the Founders created, sure they do. They thought that their monotheistic belief was a reason that The US would outlast the golden civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome. They were carving a new idea of society of of thin air. It was their creation and they were free to endow it with whatever they thought would be beneficial. They embraced Natural Law and the Christian God from whom they believed it sprang forth. Realizing that that there were different strains of Christianity, as well as other religions, they made sure that the concept of religous freedom that caused the Pilgrims to sail for America was protected. Hence, the First Amendment, and the prohibition of a state religion.
So if 1% (and I’m being generous) of those who disagree with you act badly, stupidly or hatefully, it’s okay to condemn the whole group and their opinion. Never mind that there are a greater number of people on the opposing side that are acting as “Christian” as you and those on your side. How very tolerant of you.
“California judge” meaning “Judge, in California”, not “Judicial Representative of the State of California”, as was explained in the link I had provided.
Right. In the link, but not in your words. I get to listen to a lot of hoopla about “those awful California judges” and it’s usually about a federal judicial decision for which the state of California gets the blame. Just a pet peeve.
Now that’s out of the way, here’s my take on the recent court decision: it’s the correct one. And I’m saying that as a believer in a particular deity. Additionally, everything connected with a public school having a daily pledge of allegiance ceremony reeks of coercion to me. Balking at the words “under God” is enough to make a child an outsider, a target of his supposed peer group. How much more so does balking at the entire ceremony? It’s one thing to say that it’s voluntary, but it’s another thing to look at the reality of the situation.
In this case, it was in service to letting folks know where the newsworthy event happened, when it happened.
I don’t believe I have ever read any post so far out as this one.
It really don’t deserve an answer, but if you can find anywhere I advocated any violence of any kind show it to me.
Serious query for you, then: what do you immediately think when someone says to you “New York judge?”
“The United States is in no sense founded upon
Christian Doctrine”
-George Washington
“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. My own mind is my own
Church.”
-Thomas Paine
" 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
classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of
Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and the freedom of
thought in these United States will do away with this artificial
scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of
this most venerated Reformer of human errors."
-Thomas Jefferson
“During almost fifteen centuries the legal establishment
known as Christianity has been on trial, and what have been the fruits,
more or less, in all places? These are the fruits: pride, indolence,
ignorance, and arrogance in the clergy. Ignorance, arrogance, and
servility in the laity, and in both clergy and laity, superstition,
bigotry, and persecution.”
-James Madison
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming
feature.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths,
Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in
Christianity.”
–John Adams
The founders were not Christians, did not, in any sense, base the Constitution on Christian principles. Theye were mostly Deists, not theists (which means they did not believe that God intervened in human affairs) and they emphatically did not believe that the government had any business endorsing monotheism.
A public school teacher, acting as an agent of the government, is not allowed to teach children as fact that God exists (or does not exist) or to teach them that their own religious beliefs are false. It’s just that simple. Tax payer money cannot be used for the religious indoctrination of public school students.
A judge in New York. It’s too ambiguous to determine what sort of judge it is, so I’d have to inquire further.
That’s strictly a CYA answer, IMHO. Here endeth the hijack.[/]
Strictly the true answer, in fact.
You never use the “Preview Post” functionality?
Correct. And that is why the pledge cannot be made mandatory.
OK. Let’s look at the reality of the situation.
Last time around, in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed with Mr. Newdow that the Pledge containing the words “under God,” was a religious indoctrination of his child that violates the First Amendment. I have no idea whether they will hear this version of the issue en banc, or choose a different panel. In any event, I think it’s very likely that if the Ninth Circuit does not endorse their earlier ruling, then the issue is dead, and the inevitable Newdow appeal will not be heard by the Supreme Court.
However, let’s assume that the Ninth Circuit is likely to endorse their previous rationale on this issue. I think an appeal to the Supreme Court is certain, and I think a grant of cert is very likely. Considering the Fourth Circuit, for example, has answered this exact question in the negative, there would be a conflict in the circuits to resolve.
How will the Supreme Court vote?
We know nothing about the successor to Justice O’Connor, but I cannot imagine a Bush pick that would vote to uphold the Ninth on this issue. In that vein, I am reasonably certain that CJ Roberts will vote for ceremonial deism. And even if we imagine that Justice O’Connor remains on the bench (her resignation is not effective until her successor is confirmed) she joined Justices Rhenquist and Thomas in a concurring opinion in Elk Grove v. Newdow that said they would reach the underlying merits and decide that the school district’s policy of having its teachers lead students in voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance does not offend the Establishment Clause.
It’s unclear whether Justice Scalia’s reasons for recusing himself will apply to this case. If he votes, I believe it’s safe to conclude that he would vote with the justices mentioned above.
Based on Justice Kennedy’s dissent in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, I believe he will vote with the justices mentioned above.
Roberts: Overturn Ninth Circuit
Kennedy: Overturn Ninth Circuit
O’Connor (or replacement): Overturn Ninth Circuit
Scalia: Overturn Ninth Circuit (or recusal)
Thomas: Overturn Ninth Circuit
Even assuming the most reasonable favorable view of this case, I think a 4-4 split is the outcome. This would leave the Ninth Circuit’s rule in place but not affect the rest of the country.
And that’s the most favorable outcome. More likely, in my view, is at least one other justice from the Breyer/Stevens/Ginsburg/Souter cadre will vote to overturn. I think this will be a political calculation from them, if it happens.
I like this quote because it shows the difference between true Christianity and religious doctrine.
Most of our founding fathers believed in God, and believed in the fundamental teachings of Christianity.
But a lot of people cannot separate spirituality and religious doctrine.