Are you saying that you were unaware that the founders didn’t want another Church of England? The establishment clause in the constitution makes that abundantly clear. Also, I’m surprised you didn’t learn that in your history class when you were a kid.
However, you do make a good point about studying the commentary of all the founding fathers.
The Ten Commandments posted in the Supream Court. Doesn’t start a religion. Doesn’t regulate a religion. Doesn’t prohibit people from practicing a religion. Doesn’t persecute anyone. Doesn’t force anybody to practice a religion. It simply expresses certain religious values which you can either agree or dissagree with. It is in no way government imposing it’s will on the people.
I agree with you. However, look at it from my perspective. Ten Commandments posted in courthouses and schools. “Under God” in the pledge. “In God we Trust” on the money. My state’s motto (Ohio) is from the Book of Matthew: With God, all things are possible. I could go on and on.
The message seems pretty clear if you’re open to looking for it. If you don’t adhere to all of these things, then you’re “different.” Frankly, the government should keep its hands out of religion all together, and vice-fucking-versa.
What does it add to include all of these things?
If it’s so “trivial” and people like me are getting huffy for no reason, then answer me this–how would you feel if our money said “In devils we Trust” on the money? After all, “devils” can be as vague as “God,” and even more so, I’d say.
So how about it?
Quix
And yet, it is the prevalence of those public symbols (however low-keyed) that prompts comments such as expressed in the other thread:
[I don’t think it’s great leap for a god-fearing, patriotic christian american to assume that
a) atheists are not patriotic and
b) atheists would want religion banned.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2232099#post2232099)
Now, I am not yet sure whether those are the sentiments of kevlaw or those are sentiments that kevlaw is quoting of others, but I can assure you that there are a great many people in this country (including the current President’s father) who have expressed the notion that an atheist cannot be a good citizen. The public display of the Ten Commandments, the addition of “under God,” and the substitution of “In God We Trust” goes a very long way to enshrining those utterly idiotic sentiments in the public consciousness.
Ignoring the gaffe of separating “Allah” from “(Judeo-Christian) God”, I should also point out that this assumption fails for many of the world’s religions.
There is no single top-tier “god” character in Buddhism, for instance, nor in Shinto (the native religion of Japan), nor Chinese ancestor-worship. IIRC, Wiccans have a duality god-goddess pair at the top of the supernatural list, and Scientologists believe in space aliens or something equally esoteric. Taoists think the idea of god is a silly one, though not in the same way atheists do.
And that’s just off the top of my head.
So, Joel, care to tell all us atheist-Buddhist-Hindi-Scientologist-Wiccan-Chinese-Shintoites out there what deity we should be substituting for “god” in the Pledge of Allegiance? 
If you don’t beleive in a god, then you just ignore things like “In God We Trust”. If, during Hanakkah City Hall put up a Menorah, I wouldn’t look at it and go, “I’m a Christan, I feel excluded.”, I’d just look at it and go, “Oh, how interesting.”.
If I was athiest, and I passed a school that had a billboard that said God Bless America I would just think something like “What Rubbish” or something like that, not “God Bless America?? I’m gonna sue.”.
In short, why can’t everybody be just like you and take their religion casually?
No. More like, some people are too easily offended.
You mean like the Christians who are making death threats against the guy that brought the lawsuit and wishing for him and his daughter to go to hell?
Hey, Joel. Why can’t you just ignore the Muslim religion being made the officially-sponsored religion of the United States government? Heck, that might even make the terrorists happy and those who don’t like the government being involved in religion can just ignore it.
There’s this neat little thing, you might have heard about it over the years, called the Constitution. Fortunately, the 9th Circuit knew all about it and made their decision based on it.
I haven’t heard about that, but the people who are doing that are totaly wrong and are obviously extreamists who’s actions are unexcusable and need to be brought up on whatever charges you can file in, California isn’t it?
—Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government.—
This, to me, is more the point of separation than anything. What person could hate their religion so deeply as to want to cede religious authority to the government? All of the great separation cases have been won not by atheists alone, but with the majority support of religious people who hated how trivialized government endorsement of religion was, and how dangerous.
How can an act of Congress that adds a religious test (in their conception) to a then mandatory pledge of allegiance NOT be an example of a SOCAS violation?
Further, if a judge posts the Ten Commandments over his desk, and I come into court and have to take the alternative oath, can I really be guaranteed a fair trial?
Why should we want divisive lies on our money and in our motto? Everyone is supposed to be part of the “We”, and yet not all people Trust in God. The whole POINT of such utterances is not to exalt god, because anyone can do that anytime they please already. It is to exclude others: basically to piss all over the Constitutoin like a dog marking territory. How could anything be more spiteful than that?
Apparently you haven’t really read what I wrote. I know that the constitution prohibits establishing any religion, or making any existing religion a federal or state religion. And by the courts ruling, then money and the declaration of independance are unconstitutional as well.
The problem is that many of us are aware that they are not extremists. There are dozens of stories from the last few years of “good Christians” going out of their way to abuse, intimidate, threaten, and even harm people who do not believe that God should be mixed into governmental activities. Even other Christians have been attacked for holding for a separation of church and state.
When two presidents of the United States can claim that athiests should have no part in the citizenry of the country–and no “Christian” leaders call them on their remarks–it is a pretty strong evidence to me that the inclusion of “under God,” “In God We Trust,” and the Decalogue on public walls has had a negative effect on the country. Permitting those violations has encouraged people to believe that Christianity is the de facto national religion (as opposed to the happenstance of being the belief of a numerical majority) and that Christians hould be allowed to do offensive things, simply because they are in the majority.
Wow Apos, so those who want to express some sort of religious view are hateful, spiteful and unpatriotic?
Joel:
Please avail yourself of a calendar. Any old one manufacture in the last two hundred years will do. The Declaration of Independence can’t be Constitutional because, get this, it was adopted BEFORE (avail yourself of any decent dictionary of the English language and compare the definition of BEFORE with the definition of AFTER) the Constitution.
Oh, and yes, the words “In God We Trust” really are unconstitutional on the money; the money itself isn’t.
Of course people who think like that are exteamists. Abusing, intimidating, threating, and harming others because of beleif of seperation of church and state doesn’t make one a good Christian. It makes them horrible people who give Christianity a bad name. These people are inexcusable.
This country is the rule of the majority while protecting the minority. So if the majority want to, for example, say a graduation prayer, that’s their right. The right of the non religious minority, or minority of a different religion is to not participate. If the majority harrass or harm anybody in the minority they should be punished. However, by suing the school and not allowing the minority to pray, the minority has now imposed its will onto the majority. I’ll try to make an analogy. When people look at some of the filth that is on tv and try to get it off the air, the defenders cry “Censorship” and use arguments like “If you don’t like it, then change the channel.” Now, the loose sexual morals of a show like, Freinds for example, offend me, and the kind of behavior tv and the movies endorces in general makes me feel excluded because I don’t believe in things like sex before marage. But does that mean I have to right to sue?
Expressing religious beliefs is fine. Forceing them is not. It seems to me the obvious thing to do, since even though the Pledge is about patriatism and not religion, it still has the under God part, so the pledge should not be manditory. Therefor, people who want to say it can, and those who object don’t have to. And if anybody gives an objector a hard time, once again, they should be punished somehow.
No. Those who want the government to express some religious views tend to be hateful, spiteful, and (to the extrent that they want to trash the Constitution) unpatriotic.
Both Presidents Bush have publicly stated (HGWB, explicitly) that athiests cannot be good citizens. What are the odds that they could deal fairly with a citizen who was on record as being an athiest. Now bring that down to the level of a circuit judge, where personality is rather more likely to play a part in decisions made in public: what are the odds that a citizen who happens to be athiest will get a fair hearing before such a judge?
If a child is in a school room or a parent attends a graduation, they cannot change the channel. They are forced to endure the religious expression of others in a place that they have a legitimate right to be (and where the student is required to be).
Your earlier example of being forbidden to wish someone “Merry Christmas” on public property would be an improper restraint. It is the personal expression of an individual and should be protected.
Shoving God into a classroom is not the same thing.
You claim that the child can opt out. How? This MB has multiple stories of posters who were told by teachers that they had to participate in one fashion or another. And even if the child is allowed to not participate, their very act of withdrawal will mark them as “different” and invite the scorn and tauntings of their fellow students. Not extreme taunting, typical taunting.
However, if the school respects the Constitution and does not impose that religious act on the classroom, the child is free to make his or her own friends and enemies without having the school become an agency to promote such actions.
Uhm, did the judge say that only the “under God” part was uncostitutional, or that the whole pledge was? From my understanding, he (the judge that wrote the lead opinion) said that it was the whole pledge that was made unconstitutional because those two words were added. Using that same logic, then money was made uncostitutional when “In God We Trust” was added.
If I’m wrong, and the two out of three judges didn’t delcare the whole pledge unconstitutional, somebody please correct me.