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

Great Debates
81

I have not condemned any group and I have not claimed that lekatt has personally advocated violence at any time.

The fact that both of you can try to dismiss the actual point I made with different strawmen while hiding from addressing the actual point I did make says a lot about the way in which you are willing to embrace tyranny in the name of majority rule (as long as you are in the majority, of course).
The actions that majorities of people will undertake or will accept when undertaken in their name are shaped by the ways in which the public mythology is expressed. If the public mythology is expressed as “we were founded as a Christian nation” (or, in an analogous fashion, if the public mythology holds that people who are not white are less than fully human), then the majority will more easily tolerate the actions of minorities of their members acting in harmful, and even unlawful, ways.

I am sure that the overwhelming percent of whites in the nation, or even whites in the South, never participated in a lynching between 1866 and 1930. However, it was the accepted attitude that blacks were inferior (supported by many silly appeals to ethnology or pseudo-philosophical tracts and even misreadings of the Bible) and that it was a legitimate exercise of the majority to take steps to let them know their place that permitted some tiny minority of whites to lynch several thousand blacks during those years.

I doubt that anything resembling a majority of people actively tried to burn down Catholic churches or Catholic neighborhoods. However, it was the appeal to our (Protestant) “Christian” foundations of this country that permitted those actions to be perpetrated over many years, with no groundswell of condemnation by the majority to prevent it reappearing over and over. In fact, it was not until enough Catholics had immigrated and they had become a substantial percentage of the population that such attacks finally died down (with the immigration acts and the Palmer raids at the end of WWI being the last futile effort to prevent Catholics from achieving that percentage of the population).

All the same laws and Constitutional principles and appeals to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence were in place when tiny groups of haters perpetrated persecution and violence on other people, yet those lofty words did nothing to protect the blacks, Catholics, Jews, Asians, or any other group that has been persecuted because the tiny groups of persecutors always cloaked their actions in appeals to the common understanding that blacks or Asians were inferior or that this nation was founded as a (Protestant) Christian nation.

When you advocate enshrining those attitudes in law, you are probably not actively advocating violence. You are simply setting the stage on which some other person can advocate violence by appealing to your (purportedly) neutral “will of the majority.”

If I were Jewish or Muslim, I would be greatly concerned to see appeals to our “Christian” heritage as similar appeals have historically preceded religious persecution.

The point is not that every person who is Christian is a potential persecutor or that any person has to deny their own heritage. The point is that the Law of the nation and its official declarations must be sufficiently separate from the religious beliefs of the majority so as to not encourage repeats of previous persecutions.

And since lekatt, himself, describes this situation as

I would hope that he would have the intelligence to step back and see just what he is (implictly) advocating. (Not that I have much hope for actual contemplation from that quarter.)

82

Making the Pledge optional is not a solution because you still have a teacher teaching theism as fact.

83

-George Washington

I think what you are refering to here is a passage from the Treaty of Tripoli, which is often attributed to Washignton. If so, you’re quote is incorrect, and incomplete. It should read,

“As the **government of the **United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion,” and should be follwed by “,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” [Bolding mine]

I think you would agree that that changes things considerably: in order to avert a holy war with the states from which the Barbary Pirates hailed and to have US ships continually “pay tribute” to them, Washington, pointed out—accurately—that the “government of the United States” was not founded on the Christian “religion”. That is not the same as the idea of U.S. not being founded upon Christian principles.

Your quote from Thomas Paine, contrasted with this one, demonstrates that he understood there to be a philosophical stance (a belief system) that embraced the conept of a God, yet did not necessitate adherence to a religious doctrine.

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.”
-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

I will refrain from overwhelming you with quotes from other founders. Jefferson is your best advocate. Although he was a devout follower of the teachings of Jesus (the man), he did eschew formal religion as a matter of personal choice. As far as Adams, it would not bolster your position to depend on him to argue for it. For every quote you can offer there are twenty where he makes the opposite point. By the way, can you tell me where your Adams quote is from?

Do you have any support for this? Also, which of the founders do you think were Deists and not followers of Christianity?

84

False statement.

“Not that I have much hope for actual contemplation from” you either.

Here you condemn all those who advocate religion as being prone to violence, and

Here you engage in guilt by association.

No doubt you will “simper” something or other that I can dismiss in advance.

Let’s see - Newdow is an atheist, atheists killed millions in the Soviet Union and Kampuchea, ergo anyone who wants to remove “under God” from the Pledge supports mass murder.

Ridiculous.

85

I don’t know what you mean by “…says a lot about…”, but how am I willing to embrace tyranny?

It seems that much of your argument is that if a thing has been used for ill in the past, and may be used for ill in the future, that we should get rid of it. And the “it” I’m talkiing about here is not religion, but the state acknowledgement of the role religion played in the formation of the country. According to that logic we should eliminate guns, knives, baseball bats, even words.

As far as the foundation of this country, are you really saying that it was not based in large part on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values? Or are you of the opinion that we should “skew” the facts surrounding our founding because the truth may cause is problems?

86

It’s not being taught. It’s an openning ceremony to start off the school day. No child is ever tested on the factual basis of the pledge.

87

Shodan, you don’t score points by lying and deliberately misquoting or quoting out of context posts that are directly above the one you are posting where everyone can see your deliberate misstatements.

I have not claimed that lekatt personally advocated violence, so your claim is a lie.

No, I do not. I point out that in the context of the separation of church and state in the U.S., those who have engaged in violence in regard to religion have all been drawn from the ranks of those advocating the mixing of state and religion. I made no assertion regarding believers in general.

I do, indeed, link lekatt’s attitudes with those who have resorted to violence to impose particular religious beliefs or actions on those who believe differently. I have also presented historical evidence demonstrating how that happened. If that is guilt by association, then lekatt (and everyone else who is willing to tolerate such a mixing) is guilty.

I specifically noted in my historical recounting that the majority of people did not resort to violence. They simply adopted an attitude that let the tiny minority who did act violently believe (correctly) that that violence would be tolerated.

Now, you can try to twist my statements any way you wish, but if you are simply going to snipe falsehoods from the sidelines, then you are really doing nothing to carry forward this discussion.

88

What “Judeo-Christian beliefs and values” was this country founded on? Are the assertions that government derives its power from the consent of the governed and that the people have the right to alter their form of government–by violent revolution if need be–Judeo-Christian values?

Are the principles that there should be no religious tests for holding office and that the government should not interfere with the free excercise of religion Judeo-Christian values?

89

I am not opposing the role that religion played in the history of the country or the accurate presentation of how that role actually occurred.

I oppose generic claims that this was “founded as a (Protestant) Christian country”–rather than the more accurate “most of this country’s founders were Protestant Christians”–along with the official mixing of the government into the promulgation of religion, such as endorsing a pledge of allegiance that makes note of a monotheistic deity (with a clear historical implication that it is the Christian God), the placing of “In God we trust” on our money, the placement of officially led prayers in schools, and other similar actions.

Our history should correctly note the role that religion played during the settlement of this country, with churches often being the central building around which towns were formed, the role that many churches played in the growing abolitionist movement, the role that churches played in establishing schools and promoting education, and the religious ideals that informed many of the most prominent leaders of the country.
That history, however, had better recognize that religion has been used as a weapon to deny some groups the right to live and work in this country, that particular beliefs were used as weapons to condemn people, (branding Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson atheists, for example), that it was used as an incitement to inflict harm and death on fellow citizens, that it was used as a means to impose disproportionate taxes on unfavored groups.

If you simply claim that this country was “founded as a (Protestant) Christian country and look how wonderful it is” while hiding the ways in which religion contributed to the worst as well as the best events in our history, then you really are denying history.

90

I agre to no such thing. It says that the US is not fopunded upon Christianity and therefore has no enimity to Muslims. How does that change anything?

Yes it is. It’s EXACTLY the same thing. There isn’t a single “Judeo-Christian” principle or idea or thought anywhere in the US Constitution.

I didn’t say the founders were atheists, I said they were Deists. Deists believe in God as a creator but do not believe he intervenes in human events.

He did not believe in the divinity of Jesus or in miracles or that God interevned in human events.

And as a matter of personal belief.

I got it from wikiquote.

Here’s another one from Adams that’s right on point for this discussion.

The Deism of the founders is well documented. Here’s a little page to get you started.
Here’s another

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Franklin and Paine, to name a few.

91

Teachers do not teach theism when they salute the flag.

There are some religions that for religious reasons don’t eat pork. Should we remove all the pork from the supermarkets so they won’t be offended. No, they have a choice of buying or not.

A student has a choice of saying the pledge or not. That is enough.

Quit trying to make a federal case out of it. <g>

92

Does anyone in this thread believe that if the Ninth Circuit rules as they did before, the Supreme Court will vote to uphold them?

93

I don’t. And that applies to the existing court and the one that will emerge once Bush has filled the two vacancies.

94

Not me. I’ve already said I think they’ll hide behind Ceremonial Deism.

95

No, they teach it when they say we’re one nation “under god.”

96

I can’t see any connection between your links and the founding father’s beliefs.

97

That’s the point.

98

So, if a teachers says:

then they are “teaching” deism? How on earth do you come to that conclusion.

99

I think you need to quit trying to associate me with violence. Why do you and other moderators keep attacking me personally?

I intend to make my beliefs heard with my vote.
This is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Below is how they voted in a poll in 2003.

The first number is approved, second, disapprove, and third no comment.
The inscription “In God we Trust” on U.S. Coins. 90% 8% 2%
Non-denominational prayer at public school ceremonies. 78 21 1
Monument of the Ten Commandments in a public area. 70 29 1
Monument of the Qur’an in a public area 33 64 3
Federal funds for social programs run by Christian organizations 64 34 2
Federal funds for social programs run by Islamic organizations 41 56 3
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_st5.htm

The people have spoken.

100

Because the teacher is stating as fact that we are “under god.” Just because a kid doesn’'t have to chant along doesn’t mean it’s not still an endorsement of theism by the government.

All you have to do is turn it around. Would a teacher have a right to start every class by saying that God does not exist? How is it possible to hear the phrase “under god” as anything but a statement that God factually exists?