Gays Mock Jesus with Last Supper Take-Off

[mAlice]

YOu fail to grasp the concept I am trying to portray.
The government saying in the pledge "under god" is suggesting to kids that there is not only a god, but that the god is superior to other non-monotheistic beliefs and philosophies and it is coercion having it in an oath they are asked to take.
The government saying "under NO god" in the pledge is the government suggesting there is either no god, or that if there is the nation is superior to monotheistic beliefs and is is coercion having it in an oath they are asked to take.

They are exactly the same violation under the First Amendment.

I understand what you're saying and agree. This is an old argument here. You may as well beat your head against the wall.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Have you considered that being offended by this only solidified who you are (an atheist)?

I have considered that being offended by this only solidified my being a patriot, civil libertarian and a Constitutionalist.

 

[Pete]

YOu fail to grasp the concept I am trying to portray.
The government saying in the pledge "under god" is suggesting to kids that there is not only a god, but that the god is superior to other non-monotheistic beliefs and philosophies and it is coercion having it in an oath they are asked to take.
The government saying "under NO god" in the pledge is the government suggesting there is either no god, or that if there is the nation is superior to monotheistic beliefs and is is coercion having it in an oath they are asked to take.

They are exactly the same violation under the First Amendment.

How can "saying anything" be a violation of the First Amendment?

 

[bcp]

I have considered that being offended by this only solidified my being a patriot, civil libertarian and a Constitutionalist.

you would think that being a constitutionalist you might eventually figure it out.
however, it still seems as if you are hanging on the mis interpretation of the constitution.
question,
why, from the very first day that this country existed did prayer exist in the schools?
if it was meant not to be, dont you think that the guys that wrote that stuff would have set it straight while they were still alive?

 

[Novus Collectus]

How can "saying anything" be a violation of the First Amendment?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

In 1954 Congress passed a law establishing a religious belief of not just monotheism, but it was also was inteded as an insult to atheists (USSR policy of atheism), but it was even suggested in speeches before Congress by some of the legislaters to be Christian in intent.

It is not what people say, it is the government and what it does is the issue and either compelling people or coercing them under violation of the First Amendment.


This is how the Supreme Court decides what is a violation of the non-establishment clause:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

 

[PsyOps]

I have considered that being offended by this only solidified my being a patriot, civil libertarian and a Constitutionalist.

And equally I am proud everytime I say the pledge with the "under God" clause in it. We are both free to say it or not. That's the beauty of it, not the demise of it.

This "art" by this gay group only solidifies who I am and who I don't want to be. However, it is rather embarrassing to be a human on the same earth as them in the eyes of God.

 

[PsyOps]

The government saying in the pledge "under god" is suggesting to kids that there is not only a god, but that the god is superior to other non-monotheistic beliefs and philosophies and it is coercion having it in an oath they are asked to take.

So you're offended by what is suggested?

 

[Novus Collectus]

you would think that being a constitutionalist you might eventually figure it out.
however, it still seems as if you are hanging on the mis interpretation of the constitution.
question,
why, from the very first day that this country existed did prayer exist in the schools?
if it was meant not to be, dont you think that the guys that wrote that stuff would have set it straight while they were still alive?

How many government run public schools were there in the early years? Besides Virginia's William and Mary college and a college or two here, I don't think there were any much less any grade school public schools. SO please, save the hyperbole.
Besides, the states had public schools after that and after the 14th amendment basically setteled the question of whether the government restrictions in the BoR, those governments were obligated to follow the law too.

Oh, and the guy who wrote the First Amendment (president Madison) was the very adamant on the seperation of church and state. He even called for the end to payment with taxpayer money of clergy in Congress.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov. (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

 

[Novus Collectus]

So you're offended by what is suggested?

I am offended by Congress passing a law that is in direct violation of the First Amendment.
I am an atheist and I would be just as offended if the pledge had an establishment that there was no god or that atheism was favored, especially in a situation where the government is in a position to coerce.

 

[Novus Collectus]

And equally I am proud everytime I say the pledge with the "under God" clause in it. We are both free to say it or not. That's the beauty of it, not the demise of it.

Yes, and the part of the First which protects your right to express your religious beliefs would mean you can still say the words in your pledge after they are removed from the text.

 

[PsyOps]

I am offended by Congress passing a law that is in direct violation of the First Amendment.
I am an atheist and I would be just as offended if the pledge had an establishment that there was no god or that atheism was favored, especially in a situation where the government is in a position to coerce.

What's the law? There is no law that requires you to cite the pledge.

 

[Novus Collectus]

What's the law? There is no law that requires you to cite the pledge.

That is not just what the First Amendment restricts the government from doing. The First says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

Are you familiar with the Lemon test? By Congress passing a law endorsing a religious belief just one violation. By having an endorsement of a religious belief as part of a government function where the participants are required to attend is another violation. By having the official favoritism of one religious belief over another present as a part of a government school function for more susceptible juveniles is coercion and yet another violation.

 

[Vince]

Yes, and the part of the First which protects your right to express your religious beliefs would mean you can still say the words in your pledge after they are removed from the text.

Why not just leave the words in and you remove them from your pledge? Why aren't my rights being violated with the removal of the words?

 

[PsyOps]

That is not just what the First Amendment restricts the government from doing. The First says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

Which religion does this establish. How exactly does this establish any state religion since you are not even required to recite the pledge?

Are you familiar with the Lemon test? By Congress passing a law endorsing a religious belief just one violation. By having an endorsement of a religious belief as part of a government function where the participants are required to attend is another violation. By having the official favoritism of one religious belief over another present as a part of a government school function for more susceptible juveniles is coercion and yet another violation.

Yes. You just provided it. Since there is no law that stipulates you MUST recite or abide by the pledge this doesn't fall under its purview. Again, which Religious believe is the government endorsing here? It has one word in there that you call into question: "God". Would this the Christian God, the Muslim god, the Hindu gods, the Greek gods? Which? Wouldn't be just as acceptable for a Muslim to recite the pledge and insert "One nation under Allah"? Fact of the matter is this is not an enforcable law. You've heard of non-binding resolutions by Congress. They are symantical statements. They have no binding in real law, so they can't be enforced. They only serve to make a statement.

And about the "Lemon test"... If you pay close attention to it you will note that 1 and 2 contradict each other. If the government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose, then how can it not inhibit religion? And how is this "excessively entangled with religion"?

 

[Novus Collectus]

Why not just leave the words in and you remove them from your pledge? Why aren't my rights being violated with the removal of the words?

Your rights would be violated if you were not allowed to say them even though they were removed from the pledge.
Removing them from the pledge removes an endorsement of a religion which is prohibitted under the First and is not a violation of your rights.
Removing the words is not an endorsement of religious belief, or an endoresment of atheism and it only returns the government to a neutral position and removes undue entabglement with religious belief.

Having the words "under god" in the pledge is the same as having "under NO god" in the pledge. Not having either of the two neither endorses nor disparages any religious belief and so therefore not only does it no longer violate the first part of the First, but it also violates no one's rights in the First.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Which religion does this establish.

Monotheism or some form of theistic belief as well as the fact that it was intended by those in Congress at the time for it to mean a Chrisitan god.

How exactly does this establish any state religion since you are not even required to recite the pledge?

The First says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" not a state religion, but rather any establishment of a religious belief.

Yes. You just provided it. Since there is no law that stipulates you MUST recite or abide by the pledge this doesn't fall under its purview.

Yes it does fall under the Lemon test, and in more ways than one. The Lemon test says the government cannot pass a law which entangles it with religious beliefs, cannot endorse a religious belief or have the law advancing a religious belief.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that in government functions where students must attend, they are considered to be coerced.
The Supreme Court has ruled where students are allowed to attend a government school function voluntarily due to equal access, but would have to remove themselves from the event because of a government endorsed religious practice, then it is coercion. (prayer before school game).

Again, which Religious believe is the government endorsing here?

Once again, monotheism and when they passed the law it was meant to have a Chrisitan meaning.

It has one word in there that you call into question: "God". Would this the Christian God, the Muslim god, the Hindu gods, the Greek gods?

The word "god" in the pledge is singular, not plural. Not only are there atheists, but there are religions which have many gods and there are religions that have no gods.

Fact of the matter is this is not an enforcable law. You've heard of non-binding resolutions by Congress. They are symantical statements. They have no binding in real law, so they can't be enforced. They only serve to make a statement.

It does not matter if it is completely enforcable or not, it mostly matters that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This was a law passed by Congress and not a non-binding resolution by a long shot.

And about the "Lemon test"... If you pay close attention to it you will note that 1 and 2 contradict each other. If the government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose, then how can it not inhibit religion? And how is this "excessively entangled with religion"?

Do you know the definition of "secular"?
I see absolutlly no conflict with the parts of the Lemon test. By neither endorsing nor prohibitting an individuals religious practice, it is being secular.

 

[vraiblonde]

Novus, no offense but you're starting to jump the shark here.

 

[mAlice]

Novus, no offense but you're starting to jump the shark here.

I was about to tell him that people with blinders on do not have peripheral vision.

 

[Thor]

Are you offended by the "under God" part of the pledge?

Doesn't offend me at all, I don't say it, neither does our daughter.

 

[bcp]

Doesn't offend me at all, I don't say it, neither does our daughter.

I detect,,, intellegence...

It certainly does not offend me that you or your daughter dont say it either.

God bless you.. OOPs, I mean,, um, well,,, whatever.