tomndebb, if a president or judge has an agenda then it doesn’t matter if they display some religious symbols or not, they’ll follow the agenda. If you have, for example, an extremist Christian on the bench, then it doesn’t matter whether or not he/she has a bible around, or the ten commandments, or whatever. If they’re extremist, their displaying religious words or symbols comes from that. Not the other way around. Just like if you have a staunch atheistic judge who wants to wipe out religion from public places, it doesn’t matter if his court room looks traditional, or if he/she puts up symbols like the Darwin Fish and posters putting down religion. If a judge is biased one was or the other, it’s his/her mindset that determines how he/she acts.
You want to talk about being marked as different? When I was a kid, I was easy to pick on, picked last in school sports, and so on. Does that mean that my constitutional rights were violated and I had a right to sue the school? Kids are forced to do a lot of things they don’t want to do because they’re kids and don’t have the full rights of adults. Now, religion shouldn’t be shoved down their throat’s, but the pledge isn’t about religion, it’s about patriotism. And if you want to outlaw the pledge because of non participants being outcasts, you’ll have to outlaw a whole bunch of things.
First, outlaw sports to protect the kids who are picked last, and the kids who aren’t good at them. Let’s see, get rid of honor students because those who don’t make the honor roles are left out. Now without sports, cheerleaders aren’t needed, and you protect the feelings of those who didn’t make the cheerleading squad. And then there’s the various school clubs that not everybody can get into. Close them down too. The kid who didn’t make the chess club feels left out too. And all that would eliminate school assemblies because the kids who are forced to attend, but have no school spirit or aren’t into sports are forced to sit around and listen to a bunch of sports talk about school teams for which they care nothing about. I bet they feel a bit left out too.
And, will all that, and cutting out a few more things, we can have a school free of kids that feel different.
Joel, do you often have to go pick up the baby from the back yard after throwing out the bathwater?
It is about patriotism as cast in a specific mold to counter “godless communism” and has been specifically used by two separate (sort of) presidents to bolster their claims that non-religious people do not have a right to share in this country.*
The discussion is not about finding people who have “felt excluded” for any of hundreds of real and imagined reasons and trying to make the whole world featureless so that no one ever “feels” left out.
The discussion is about a specific act, implemented by Congress as a proclamation that only certain people meeting certain criteria are worthy of being considered citizens.
- George H W Bush: I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
George W Bush: The decision “points up the fact that we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God,” said Bush, who has been battling with Senate Democrats to force quicker action on his nominees to fill federal court vacancies. “Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.”
(Contrast the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. )
Joel, you seem to be purposfully sidestepping, or worse, purposfully obfuscating the point.
The point is that The Constitution clearly states that the GOVERNMENT cannot support any religion.
As stated elsewhere in this thread, an act of Congress added the words “under god” to the Pledge in 1954. It’s not the Pledge as a whole that is unconstitutional, it’s leading students in a public affirmation including the words “under god” that is. Saying the pledge without those two words is not unconstitutional.
The father who brought this suit has a daughter in the 2nd grade. Arguing that a second grader has the “option” of just not saying those words is just plain silly. A child that young is “being taught” to say a pledge including religious ideals that the father does not agree with. A young child does not have the capacity yet to understand or challenge these concepts. It is indoctrination, plain and simple. Just because it is not emphasised (in most cases), just because most people don’t really care if the students say it or not, just because most adults recognize it is a meaningless statement that everyone virtually ignores and is thus no big deal does not change the fact that the government is supporting the concept of “god” (whatever that means), and is therefore sponsoring religion.
The arguments about kids “feeling left out” or “being picked on” only serve to try to explain to those otherwise oblivious to these facts that it is not a “harmless” excercise. Even if I were to agree with you that your other examples of kids being left out, etc. were a bad thing, and even if I were to agree that those things are bad and we should not allow them to happen, that is still far different from saying that The Constitution prohibits them. It does not. Including the words “under god” in a school sponsored pledge, however, is prohibited by the Constitution.
If you really feel strongly about including those words, the proper channel would be to support an appropriate ammendment to the Constitution.
Why do you keep bringing up the Bushes? Is that all you can argue about?
Your understanding is lacking, then, Joel. The current case indicated the words “under God” are the unconstitutional sponsorship of a religious view by the government. In an earlier case the Supreme Court decided that forcing a child to recite the pledge (way back before it even mention deity) was unconstitutional.
No, but they are the clearest example that your attitude that people should just not make a big deal about the issue is bogus.
[ul][li]Congress passes a law that enshrines submission to (some) God as an act of patriotism.[/li][li]People who do not share a belief in that God object to being told that they should have their children told that they should be submissive to that (for them imaginary) God.[/li][li]You claim that they should just ignore the phrase.[/li][li]George H W Bush declared that every “good” and patriotic American would say the Pledge–he made a campaign issue out of it.[/li][li]George H W Bush further declared that an athiest could not be a good citizen.[/li][li]George W Bush has announced a new litmus test for appointments to the judiciary that are de facto “religious Tests” as forbidden by the Constitution.[/ul][/li]Now, are you still going to claim that atheists should simply ignore the issue? Do you actually believe, along with Bush senior, that Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, and numerous other people were not good citizens?
I bring up the Presidents Bush because they are excellent examples of the hatred and lack of toleration that this unwarranted phrase encourages. You say “some people are too easily offended.” But the presidents say: “some people are not good citizens.” By ignoring what GHWB and GWB are doing, you are permitting the intolerance that you demand of the people who are being discriminated against.
IIRC, Bush said that he would only allow christians to be elected as judges on the supreme court. Is this legal? Does it even matter?
It seems to me that there’s no real way to enforce a separation of religion and politics, when almost all politicians are christians, and atheists are treated as outcasts.
That should be George W Bush.
Let’s just make it easier for Joel: we’ll petition the government to change the Pledge to read “one nation under Satan.” Then, when Joel gets to that phrase, he can just ignore it and not be offended!
What? Joel’s upset already? Geez, some people are too easily offended…
But, as others have pointed out here, “good Christians” fail miserably in straightening out such “horrible people.” In fact, they rarely try and often the chastisement is in the form of, “Well, I think they are wrong, that’s not what Christianity is about, but …”
The point of view that you express in this thread is the very reason why the separation of church and state is invaluable to me.
Hehehe, no rjung you haven’t upset me. You’ve cracked me up.
tomndebb, a question. Say there is no, “In God We Trust” printed on money. No, “Under God” in the pledge. ETC…
Do you think that it’s those things that cause people to think differently? For example, do you think that the Bush’s wouldn’t have said what they said? If people believe something, it doesn’t matter what’s printed on money or what’s in the constitution, they’re gonna believe it. Saying “Under God” or reading “In God We Trust” doesn’t cause bias, the people with bias already had it. And if they make the pledge or money an issue they’re just justifying their actions, and if the money and pledge didn’t have anything religious on it, they’d use something else for justification.
“Under God” is just a statement that you can either agree or disagree with. It doesn’t say that atheists are bad. There are people who believe that, but guess what, take out those two words, and they’ll still believe it. There were people who believed it before the words were inserted.
Those phrases do not cause anyone to believe anything. On the other hand, they support a mindset that encourages the offensive statements such as those the presidents made. Just as the phrase “Separate but equal” validated and justified segregation in the minds of many people, placing “under God” in a government sponsored pledge of loyalty validates (in their minds) the notion that a person who is not “under God” is not loyal or patriotic.
I have, indeed, heard people who wish to see state-imposed prayers put back into schools claim “God is even in the Pledge of Allegiance.”
So. Why do you see a need, in a government-authorized pledge, to impose a religious belief on other people?
To your second point: No. I do not believe that either Bush would have so cavalierly acted as though only believers in God could be citizens had “under God” not been deliberately inserted into the PoA in 1954 as a deliberate rebuke to “godless communism.” With their mindeset, they have equated the “godless” and the “communism” (when they are, in fact, separate) and they have continued their Cold War mentality that anyone in either category is “bad.”
Without that background to support their unthinking beliefs, they would not have had an reason to equate atheism with a lack of patriotism.
Since I’m getting off of a break and need to get back to work, all I have time to say is, you made some good points there, and I totaly agree that forcing religion on anybody is wrong. I don’t see expressing religious beleifs as imposing them, but I completely understand what you’re saying. You’ve given me something to think aobut…oop, now I’m running late…gota go…
What about the government expressing a religious belief, Joel? Surely you’ve figured out that’s what the recent court decision was about.
Exactly. I would respect this approach.
Why not petition your members of Congress to amend the constitution? That way, the will of the majority can be determined and it can be made clear that we are a nation under God and allow state sponsored endorsements of God if that is what the majority wants. I personally think this would weaken the Constitution, but if the amendment passes, so be it.
What’s wrong with this approach Joel?
And once such an amendment passes, I shall do everything I can to get that amendment chucked. You might recall another amendment met the same fate (but not due to anything I did).
Can anyone tell me what right we have to totally ignore the free exercise right given by the constitution so that we may not offend someone? SOCS is a interpretation of the Constitution, yet the freedom to exercise is blatantly clear in it. As of now we make laws prohibiting citizens and governent employees from exercising their constitutional right. That is illegal. When a librarian cannot wear a cross necklace because it is a religious symbol is in direct violation of her right. When students are prohibited from prayer in school it is also a direct violation of their rights. The constitution does not say the government cannot support religion. It says it cannot respect the establishment of one. But it does say it must respect the exercise of religion. So it would seem that the SOCS interpretation is a in direct violaton of individual rights when you prohibit ** anyone** from exercising thier religious beliefs on public property. (and don’t get stupid and say that we prohibit the exercise when sacrifices or harm to others are exercised).
SOCS is a law prohibiting the exercise thereof,. It is a tool used for that anyways.
And from what I have seen of congress’ reaction to the ruling, if they are forced to, it is likely they will legislate the SOCS interpretation on issues like this. Because, if nowhere else in the government, majority does rule in the house of reps. And when you have 80% of the country strongly apposed to the ruling then it isn’t far-fetched.