It seems amazing to me that the conservative Christians I know are so upset about a Circuit Court decision regarding an abstract philosophical concept having nothing to do with religion. And that many of the atheists on this board were offended by the mistaken impression that the phrase was a reference to the Judeo-Christian God. But if it’s not any of the above, then it shouldn’t upset anybody if it’s dropped, right?
—Anyhow, it is literally true that the 9th Circuit Court decision bars school officials from leading school children in the recitation of the (one and only) Pledge of Allegiance.—
That’s not what you said. You said “it barred the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.” False. As false as saying that prayer is banned in public schools, or even barred from formal recitations. All that the decision changes is what government officials may do as part of their job in leading the instruction of children. Not what anyone, as a citizen, may do.
Do you agree that people who said some variant of “our children are being prevented from saying the pledge” were uttering falsehoods?
—They are free to recite other combinations of words, such as the former Pledge of Allegiance, but none of those can properly be called the “Pledge of Allegiance.”—
No, december. They can recite ALL combinations of words, including THE Pledge.
—Your observation that the decision was widely represented as barring the recitation of the Pledge shows how wrong-headed the ACLU argument is. Rightly or wrongly, the public understood the decision to bar reciting the Pledge. That’s what caused the strong public reaction, not the allegedly religious content.—
Nice try, but I didn’t make an observation: I corrected YOUR observation so it at least wouldn’t be factually untrue. I have no idea if it is really the reason people reacted poorly to the decision, but I have a strong hunch that the ACLU is right on this. People definately see this ruling as banning them from mentioning God in the Pledge, not just the Pledge. Further, this is the point that the luminaries harped on after their mistatement “this is one nation under god” and “I support god” etc.
—However, the courts have accepted it. It seems to be settled law.—
I can understand that this is a tricky subject, given the potential for inconsistency (again: would Scalia, for instance, agree that a bad ruling without constitutional basis and even factual error should be upheld just because it’s lasted for a while?), but what was the point of this tangent? If a court ruling cites something that is factually untrue or even poorly argued, future courts are not prevented from pointing this out and rethinking the ruling in light of it. Claims don’t become true or coherent just because courts rule on them.
—Once you accept the concept, ISTM (and IST Justice Brennan) that the phrase “under God” is a perfect example of ceremonial deism. I don’t wear a skullcap when I say the Pledge of Allegiance. Roman Catholics don’t use their rosary beads or crucifixes to say the Pledge. Muslims don’t refer to the Koran when saying the Pledge. It’s not treated as part of a religious ceremony.—
What Brennan doesn’t seem to get is that this is ALSO a problem. For many people, turning the utterance of “God” into a banal daily rote, let alone a state-led one, is just as offensive. This is the whole reason government shouldn’t be in the bussiness of leading its citizens in when and where and how to think about God. It’s OUR bussiness to say when and where and how we think about gods and religions.
Cyber: You are being disingenuous when you try to trump the discussion with, “There are religions with no concept of god” or like statements. For one thing, I am fully aware of that fact. What you do not appear to be aware of is that the word “god” means, grab your chair for this, a deity. It doesn’t mean “Hey, nothing because that dude over there doesn’t believe in a religion with a concept of divinity.” For another, your comment about my ability to make an argument is pure horse apples.
—And that many of the atheists on this board were offended by the mistaken impression that the phrase was a reference to the Judeo-Christian God.—
How could it not be? I mean, at the very least, it refers only to some conceptions of gods, most of which fall under that rubric. It certainly isn’t how other religions (let alone Deists) refer to their deity. It’s primarily how Judeo-Christians refer to their “God.” And, obviously, it WAS (if we are referencing the history of the law) a reference to the Judeo-Christian god.
But that’s not even the point. It’s not that it’s necessarily offensive (though it clearly IS offensive to some theists!): it’s that some people can’t recite the pledge of their own country without being hypocrites.
For an online reference of legal terms modern and archaic I haven’t found anything that can compare to the 'Lectric Law Library.
“What you do not appear to be aware of is that the word “god” means, grab your chair for this, a deity”
So what? Deity is another word for God. What does this startling piece of linguistic information tell us exactly?
My point is that God is not an inherently religious concept and I have expalained what I mean by that. There are religions without God and there are philosophical discussions of God outside any religious tradition. The concept of God is neither necessary nor sufficient to get a religion.
If you dispute any of this I suggest you put up arguments instead of word-games and insults.
For an interesting thought experiment, try imagining how the Court and public officials would react to the following change in the pledge: “One nation, under no God in particular …” Now, this is a phrase with a LOT of wiggle room. Says directly that no particular god is in charge here, as required by the Constitution, but leaves in the option that some god or group of gods MAY be in charge at some point or other, and also allows that no god at all may be in charge. Something for everyone, you’d think.
I don’t think such a change has any chance at all, because it doesn’t identify the Judeo-Christian god as being in charge. All this deism nonsense, ceremonial or otherwise, is just a bunch of cheap rationalizations for keeping the Judeo-Christian god’s name in the plege, on the dollar bill, and anywhere else they can put it. The Court will find against the court of appeals because its conservative majority is a bunch of cheap partisan hacks. Any rationalization they come up with will be just that.
—“One nation, under no God in particular …” Now, this is a phrase with a LOT of wiggle room. —
That would have to be “no [god] in particular.” God, capital G, is at least a particular sort of deity, if not pretty much a particular deity altogether.
“God, capital G, is at least a particular sort of deity, if not pretty much a particular deity altogether.”
Source? I have seen references to “God” meaning a whole different bunch of things. For instance the God in Spinoza’s philosophy is very different from the Judeo-Christian God.
The reference to God in the pledge is too vague to pin it down to one particular interpretation. All it says is that the US is somehow “under” this God. The people who drafted it may have had a religious interpretation in mind but there is no reason why other people can’t interpret it in other ways. So there is no reason to believe that the pledge itself is inherently a religous statement. Sure it may still offend atheists but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
OK, Apos. Under the decision, a pupil may voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but a school official may not lead such a recitation. In practice, when the P of A is recited in schools, it’s virtually always led by a school official, so this is not much of a correction.
Incidentally, the appellate court stayed the decision. The school district in question is free to continue reciting the P of A. Nevertheless, they voluntarily ceased doing so, in order to avoid any potential legal problem. So, those feared that the decision would lead to the P of A not being used have so far been proved right.
BTW several posters have argued that the P of A would be improved by removing the words, “under God.” I agree. However, the court wasn’t appointed with the power to substitute their preferred wording. Otherwise, they might be called the Supreme Editors of the United States. (Sounds like the Censors, doesn’t it?)
Well, Congress and Ike saw fit to edit the original version, adding “under God” to the half-century old ditty in 1954. If the SCOTUS has never heard a case in which they could rule on that addition, this would be their chance to correct an error like that.
The only word game here, Cyber, is you postulating that “god” does not mean “god.” I’m through with you on this subject.
OTOH, if anyone’s interested in rational and logical discourse about the subject (such as the vast majority of the posters in this thread appear to be), I’m more than interested in reading their comments.
So, God isn’t “God”? “God”, in this context, is some sort of generic diety who may or may not be identifed with Yahweh (beat Baal and Ishtar in a tag team match up, around 300 b.c.)
Piffle. God means God, and everybody here knows it. No amount of sophistic word-twisting will obviate the fact that this is a religious statement inserted into a civil pledge where, IMHO, it has no valid purpose. One can pretend that God means “Allah” or equally applies to Brahma but we know different by the simple application of common sense.
Further, it implies an utterly unfounded assertion, that we are peculiarly beloved of the Lord: He loves all His children, but is particularly fond of us, especially when we smack our siblings around and steal thier lunch money, incorrigible scamps that we are. God has no certain political beliefs, but we are assured he leans Republican. How else to explain the miracle of the butterfly ballots, the 10,000 Jews for Buchanan? How else to explain the Presidency of the Man Who Fell Up?
Well, I don’t think it does, sort of. What I mean is that, for example, I’m an atheist, and if I get upset and say “Goddamn it!”, I’m not making a religious statement. The origins of the curse are religious, of course, but the phrase itself has passed into common usage, and a person employing the phrase is not doing so to express a theological opinion. Of course, it is possible to use the statement in a religious context, but it doesn’t occur in the example above,
The same is true with the statement “In God We Trust” on currency. When I give someone a dollar, I’m not making a religious statement to that person…my possession of that dollar doesn’t imply any religious belief. Common usage has secularized the statement in that context. Likewise, it’s possible to use the statement in a religious context, even though it doesn’t above.
The same is true of the Pledge of Allegiance. “Under God” within the context of the pledge doesn’t imply any specific belief. For those who disagree, and feel that it does, there’s already a remedy, and that’s Barnette.
Suggesting that it’s meaningless is a backdoor way of maintaining the status quo in which atheist children are essentially pressured to commit perjury. We all know how powerful peer pressure is.
Ceremonial deism is an unconvincing argument to make, because it’s an issue Scalia sees fit to address publicly, suggesting he feels it’s an important issue, even going so far as to say that God should not be stripped from public life, and if he turns around when it comes time to decide, and says well, it doesn’t really mean anything – uh, hello??? Could the contradiction be any more clear?
Thanks to elucidator & anonplz for there last postings above.
& better yet, thanks to them for their last postings above!
:smack:
Damn right.
And if it’s as meaningless as some people suggest, why are so many people (e.g. US President) so worried about and committed to keeping it?
As elucidator and i have both said, it’s all sophistry.
Then I suggest that a group of us consisting of a few conservative Christians, a few Liberal Christians, a couple of neopagans, and a few atheists join together to protest formally, perhaps by filing suit to enjoin, the establishment of “ceremonial deism” as our national state religion.
Because I’m not a ceremonial deist, and neither are Jersey Diamond or Witch or David B.. Two of us are firmly committed to Jesus Christ, one can speak for herself on how she interprets “god or the gods” but I guarantee it’s not a deus otiosus to be acknowledged in passing as part of formalities, and one believes in no god, the ceremonial deus included.