Leave it to San Francisco

[Tonio]

Since when does the appearance of bias become an infraction of legal procedure or Constitutionality?

I wasn't using the analogy to make a Constitutional argument. My purpose was only to say that governmental endorsement of one faith over others is not desirable or preferable.

Inclusion of the word God in the pledge neither establishes a religion nor does it interfere with anyone’s rights regarding how they choose to believe or if they believe at all. Recognition of a higher power, a deity, of natural wonders, or of nothing is not impacted by the addition of that text. However, any attempted blocking or banning of the use of the term is indeed a violation as it prohibits the free exercise of a religious belief in the existence of a God and that my friend is explicitly protected.

I disagree. You might have a point if we were discussing the phrase "God Bless America," which is based largely on the beliefs of Americans as individual citizens. There's nothing official about that phrase. But the Pledge is the official statement of patriotism as adopted by Congress. That's why the Pledge should be religion-neutral. Sorry, but I don't see how keeping the Pledge religion-neutral violates anyone's free exercise of religion.

 

[Ken King]

But the Pledge is the official statement of patriotism as adopted by Congress. That's why the Pledge should be religion-neutral. Sorry, but I don't see how keeping the Pledge religion-neutral violates anyone's free exercise of religion.

How about the phrase "In God We Trust" which is our official national motto? Is it okay to use it in this instance but we can't say God in a non-mandatory pledge? And just to comlpete the argument what religion is "established" by the use of the term?

 

[Tonio]

How about the phrase "In God We Trust" which is our official national motto? Is it okay to use it in this instance but we can't say God in a non-mandatory pledge? And just to comlpete the argument what religion is "established" by the use of the term?

It's my understand that "In God We Trust" was put on our money at the same time that the Pledge was amended to include "Under God." And yes, I think that "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional, at least in the spirit of the First Amendment.

And what religion is established by referencing God? Technically, any monothestic religion. I suspect the Congressmen who included these God references in the Pledge and on our money were thinking specifically of the Judeo-Christian God, but I don't know that for sure.

I've heard the claim that belief in God isn't necessarily a religious belief, or that all religions believe in God. I disagree. First, there are plenty of Americans who subscribe to polytheistic religions like Shinto and Wicca and nontheistic religions like Buddhism and Taoism. (As an aside, athiests can talk all they want about not believing in religion, but I consider athiesm to be a religion.)

Second, I think that claim does a disservice to Christianity because it seems like a watered-down version of Christian doctrine. ("The Bible -- now sweetened with Splenda!")

Third, belief in God is inherently a religious belief, because faith is belief in things that can't be measured or quantified. As I said in one of the Religion threads, when it comes to the existence of a God or gods, or whether there is life beyond death, the human race will never have objective proof one way or the other. So those questions will always me a matter of personal belief, in my view. Some Americans believe in a God, some believe in many gods, and some believe in something else.

 

[Ken King]

It's my understand that "In God We Trust" was put on our money at the same time that the Pledge was amended to include "Under God." And yes, I think that "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional, at least in the spirit of the First Amendment.

Paper money yes, coins no. The earliest coin I know of that it is on is the 1864 two-cent piece.

And what religion is established by referencing God? Technically, any monothestic religion. I suspect the Congressmen who included these God references in the Pledge and on our money were thinking specifically of the Judeo-Christian God, but I don't know that for sure.

I've heard the claim that belief in God isn't necessarily a religious belief, or that all religions believe in God. I disagree. First, there are plenty of Americans who subscribe to polytheistic religions like Shinto and Wicca and nontheistic religions like Buddhism and Taoism. (As an aside, athiests can talk all they want about not believing in religion, but I consider athiesm to be a religion.)

Second, I think that claim does a disservice to Christianity because it seems like a watered-down version of Christian doctrine. ("The Bible -- now sweetened with Splenda!")

Third, belief in God is inherently a religious belief, because faith is belief in things that can't be measured or quantified. As I said in one of the Religion threads, when it comes to the existence of a God or gods, or whether there is life beyond death, the human race will never have objective proof one way or the other. So those questions will always me a matter of personal belief, in my view. Some Americans believe in a God, some believe in many gods, and some believe in something else.

It still does not establish a religion, even technically. It simply shares commonality with many differing people's beliefs. To include, I am sure, the many like I that adhere to no specific religious group yet we believe in a God, Gods, or a higher power or essence of life. That belief establishes no religion nor do the words in the manner used. Furthermore they do not deny or disparage anyone's beliefs that might be differing including the atheist, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, Wicca, or any of the many major religious groups.

And while we're at getting rid of God everywhere in the country I guess we should scrap the national anthem too because, while many are unknowing of the complete work, the final stanza contains the phrase "In God is our trust". What do you suspect was Key’s intent of that inclusion or Congress’s when they made the song the national anthem? I bet this must really chap your ass.

 

[Tonio]

It still does not establish a religion, even technically. It simply shares commonality with many differing people's beliefs. To include, I am sure, the many like I that adhere to no specific religious group yet we believe in a God, Gods, or a higher power or essence of life. That belief establishes no religion nor do the words in the manner used. Furthermore they do not deny or disparage anyone's beliefs that might be differing including the atheist, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, Wicca, or any of the many major religious groups.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. In my view, the worlds religions don't really have much commonality between them. Even within Christianity there is no agreement about the nature of the Trinity. There's no way that goverment can acknowledge any kind of commonality among some religions without contradicting others.

And while we're at getting rid of God everywhere in the country I guess we should scrap the national anthem too because, while many are unknowing of the complete work, the final stanza contains the phrase "In God is our trust". What do you suspect was Key’s intent of that inclusion or Congress’s when they made the song the national anthem? I bet this must really chap your ass.

Getting rid of God everywhere in the country? I never said I favored any such thing. Government is not the same as public life. Government isn't supposed to have an opinion on whether God exists. Religion is a private matter, not a governmental one.

And yes, I was aware of "In God is our trust" in the National Anthem. (Years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote a wonderful essay on the artistic merits of the anthem) I don't agree with the phrase in principle, but I don't think it's a big deal. Why? Because unlike the Pledge, which is recited every day by children, the remaning stanzas in the anthem are not commonly heard in public.

 

[Ken King]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. In my view, the worlds religions don't really have much commonality between them. Even within Christianity there is no agreement about the nature of the Trinity. There's no way that goverment can acknowledge any kind of commonality among some religions without contradicting others.

The commonality is that many religions, religious people, as well as many others do believe in a God. They may call it something different, allude to it as a higher being or natural power, but the commonality is there.

Getting rid of God everywhere in the country? I never said I favored any such thing. Government is not the same as public life. Government isn't supposed to have an opinion on whether God exists. Religion is a private matter, not a governmental one.

You didn't say that explicitly, but let's see - you want God out of the pledge, off of our money, and you don't agree with the phrase in the National Anthem in principle (whatever that means), seems like you do indeed favor getting rid of the word or shall I say being exposed to it.

And yes, I was aware of "In God is our trust" in the National Anthem. (Years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote a wonderful essay on the artistic merits of the anthem) I don't agree with the phrase in principle, but I don't think it's a big deal. Why? Because unlike the Pledge, which is recited every day by children, the remaning stanzas in the anthem are not commonly heard in public.

And are you aware of the SCOTUS decision of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette from 1943 which ruled that those children that choose not to say the pledge can opt out and cannot be punished for doing so? Meaning a state or school system cannot force anyone to say it, so does this now make it no big deal for you too?

Because some do not like a thing does not in and of itself make the thing unconstitutional. You have not shown that the term establishes a religion only that you think or feel that it does and many court decisions on the matter hold a countering opinion to yours. And that is the challenge (the establishment-clause) being brought upon the SCOTUS by this new case which I believe will fail once under review as in no way do the words establish a religion even though they may be considered religious.

 

[Tonio]

The commonality is that many religions, religious people, as well as many others do believe in a God. They may call it something different, allude to it as a higher being or natural power, but the commonality is there.

My point is that government isn't supposed to reflect any religious belief whatsoever, but to remain neutral and impartial. I see much of this as a limited-government issue. Government simply doesn't have a compelling interest to reflect the majority's religious beliefs.

I still believe that not every religion accepts the idea of a single higher power. I believe in God myself but I don't belong to a specific faith, so I can't speak for Wicca or Shinto or animism or any other religion.

I believe government should be neutral on moral and cultural issues as well. State governments didn't have a compelling interest in making adultery illegal. I favored eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts, partly because government will never be able to satisfy everyone's idea of what "art" and "culture" are.

You didn't say that explicitly, but let's see - you want God out of the pledge, off of our money, and you don't agree with the phrase in the National Anthem in principle (whatever that means), seems like you do indeed favor getting rid of the word or shall I say being exposed to it.

Those items are government entities, which I see as the crucial difference. We're not talking about public squares. If one religious group wants to use the square for a holiday display, then the square should be open to all religious groups.

you don't agree with the phrase in the National Anthem in principle (whatever that means)

I was referring in that comment to a philosophical principle, not a constitutional one. I think it's dangerous for any nation, especially a democracy, to mix religious faith and patriotism, for a number of reasons. Governance in a democracy involves compromise between different points of view. Faith is very much about absolutes, so many (not all) of the faithful see compromise as giving in to immorality or to evil. Plus, I think it's somewhat arrogant to claim, as some fundamentalists in all religions do, that their country is special in God's eyes or that God is on that country's side.

 

[vraiblonde]

If one religious group wants to use the square for a holiday display, then the square should be open to all religious groups.

I'd agree with that except that there are so many nutties out there with their hippie-psycho cults they call religions that pretty soon you'd be overrun with obscenities and perversions, and nobody wants that (except obscene perverts).

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a multi-culturalist. I think when people come to America, they should conform to our Judeo-Christian values. And when some hippie-psycho tries to convince me that Wicca is a legitimate religion, I laugh in their face. Unfortunately, that whole 70's "I'm okay, you're okay" crap took hold and we have a lot of 50-somethings that cringe at the thought of being judgemental or discriminating and spend their whole entire life trying to fight the power because they think it makes them cool.

I'll be glad when those people start dying off so we can quit with this nonsense.

 

[Larry Gude]

Multicultural my ass...

I'm at BWI Sunday, picking up my baby and I'm in the mens room, taking a wiz and here's one of them damn recordings;

"Don't let nobody put no bomb in your luggage without your knowledge or we'll mess up your luggage and that's too bad..."

Then...

En Espanola...

"afvnpaqefbvpenfbaenfbanb[aern[dcnv[nfg'nfs'hnsfnS"I "rfb'SDFNb'FISNb'"

I'm like, 'You know what? Why would a country condone public communication in a launguage that the vast majority of the people who've been here for awhile DON'T UNDERSTAND???"

There's nothing wrong with Spanish. I wish I spoke it. That way, when I'm taking a wiz at the airport, I'll know WTF is going on because I suspect that there is NO WAY to say "Don't let someone put a bomb in your luggage without your knowledge..." in Spanish.

Point being, aren't we taking things too far when the locals don't know what is being said in public? Signs? Recordings?

 

[Ken King]

My point is that government isn't supposed to reflect any religious belief whatsoever, but to remain neutral and impartial. I see much of this as a limited-government issue. Government simply doesn't have a compelling interest to reflect the majority's religious beliefs.

Says who? That interest is displayed in religious holidays recognized by both the states and the Fed. The only legal limit on the government (Congress) is that they cannot establish a national religion nor can they prohibit the free exercise of religion.

I still believe that not every religion accepts the idea of a single higher power. I believe in God myself but I don't belong to a specific faith, so I can't speak for Wicca or Shinto or animism or any other religion.

Nor do they have to. It is not relevant to the issue at hand whether you believe in a single God, many Gods, or none at all.

I believe government should be neutral on moral and cultural issues as well. State governments didn't have a compelling interest in making adultery illegal. I favored eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts, partly because government will never be able to satisfy everyone's idea of what "art" and "culture" are.

Well that is fine and dandy with your beliefs, but that is not the case, now is it? Ask blacks and women if the government should have bowed out of their equality struggle which was certainly a cultural issue. And just in case you didn’t know it adultery is still illegal in Maryland, it carries a fine and is a ground for immediate divorce. Whether or not it is enforced is again not relevant to the issue.

Those items are government entities, which I see as the crucial difference. We're not talking about public squares. If one religious group wants to use the square for a holiday display, then the square should be open to all religious groups.

Yet even with the inclusion of the term God they still do not establish a religion. This is the point you keep missing.

I was referring in that comment to a philosophical principle, not a constitutional one. I think it's dangerous for any nation, especially a democracy, to mix religious faith and patriotism, for a number of reasons. Governance in a democracy involves compromise between different points of view. Faith is very much about absolutes, so many (not all) of the faithful see compromise as giving in to immorality or to evil. Plus, I think it's somewhat arrogant to claim, as some fundamentalists in all religions do, that their country is special in God's eyes or that God is on that country's side.

Religious faith and patriotism are cultural aspects of our nation. The mix is just the natural occurrence of our evolution from being a collection of colonies into an independent nation standing on its own instead of being dictated to as to what they can and cannot believe. And while it is true that there are many compromises with governing we are representative in nature and at times those representatives determine the best course even if it is not the popular one. Many times the majority has been wrong in their desires and beliefs. What the government must strive to do is ensure that all of its citizens are afforded equal protections in accordance with our laws. Such was the judicial result of the West Virginia case linked elsewhere in this thread stating that those that object do not have to recite the pledge.

 

[Tonio]

Nor do they have to. It is not relevant to the issue at hand whether you believe in a single God, many Gods, or none at all.

Ken, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that "God" is a generic religious reference. I can see why some people would see the word that way, although I don't agree. In my view, "God" as it appears in the Pledge refers specifically to the "God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob." Although Islam claims to share the same deity, I think it's meaningful that Christians like Hessian believe that the God of Islam is a false god. (Off-topic, but "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God"--Christian Arabs use it to refer to the Christian God.)

Ask blacks and women if the government should have bowed out of their equality struggle which was certainly a cultural issue. And just in case you didn’t know it adultery is still illegal in Maryland, it carries a fine and is a ground for immediate divorce. Whether or not it is enforced is again not relevant to the issue.

By "culture," I had in mind the arts and popular entertainment. I didn't have in mind the horrid laws and customs that disenfranchised blacks and women. You're exactly right that government had a compelling interest in outlawing discrimination.

What the government must strive to do is ensure that all of its citizens are afforded equal protections in accordance with our laws. Such was the judicial result of the West Virginia case linked elsewhere in this thread stating that those that object do not have to recite the pledge.

And I agree with the West Virginia case. I just don't see a compelling government interest in Congress changing the Pledge in 1954 to acknowledge one specific religious belief. As I said before, I don't see "under God" as a generic religious reference. I don't think religious belief can ever be considered generic, partly because that belief is such a personal and passionate thing. I can't speak for 2A or Hessian, but I suspect they would give you one heck of an argument if you tried to equate their God with the Islamic God.

 

[Ken King]

Ken, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that "God" is a generic religious reference. I can see why some people would see the word that way, although I don't agree. In my view, "God" as it appears in the Pledge refers specifically to the "God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob." Although Islam claims to share the same deity, I think it's meaningful that Christians like Hessian believe that the God of Islam is a false god. (Off-topic, but "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God"--Christian Arabs use it to refer to the Christian God.)

That is exactly what I am saying, that "God", as used in the pledge and as our national motto, is a generic term of inclusion and not a term of exclusion.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I can't speak for 2A or Hessian, but I suspect they would give you one heck of an argument if you tried to equate their God with the Islamic God.

I don't have a problem with Allah equating to Y'howah if Allah is the God of Abraham as Y'howah is the God of Abraham. The Arabs are Abraham's decedents through Ishmael who was Abraham's son born out of wedlock through Sarah's Egyptian handmaid Hagar. The Jews are Abraham's decedents through Isaac who was Abraham's son through Sarah, Abraham's wife. See Genesis chapters 16 through 21. Y'howah, YHWH, the God of the Jews is the God of Christians.

If Muslims see Allah as some other god, then they do not equate. I have not read the Qur'an nor do I have any desire to. It is said to have been revealed over a 21 year period beginning in 610 AD to Muhammad. The Qur'an is the only religious book to my knowledge that instructs believers to kill non believers. I found these interesting. History of Muhammad from a Christian perspective and The Qur'an and Qur'anic Interpretation (tafsir). Both agree that the Qur'an has changed over the years and was actually first compiled two to three hundred years after Muhammed died in 632 AD.

 

[Tonio]

That is exactly what I am saying, that "God", as used in the pledge and as our national motto, is a generic term of inclusion and not a term of exclusion.

And I don't agree. I believe that type of generic reference shows disrespect to the beliefs of people who belong to non-monothestic religions.

 

[2ndAmendment]

And I don't agree. I believe that type of generic reference shows disrespect to the beliefs of people who belong to non-monothestic religions.

Last time I looked, this country was supposed to be majority rule. Special interests like don't like that, so they find a court that has a judge or judges that are known to be sympathetic (pathetic) and get them to "legislate from the bench".

Like it or not, the majority of the people of the United States say they are Christians. I have this for the minorities, suck it up and quit complaining.

 

[Ken King]

And I don't agree. I believe that type of generic reference shows disrespect to the beliefs of people who belong to non-monothestic religions.

You demand religious neutrality of the government yet whine when it is achieved with a generic term, what's up with that?

 

[Tonio]

You demand religious neutrality of the government yet whine when it is achieved with a generic term, what's up with that?

You're right that it looks like an attempt at being religion-neutral. And it's possible that whoever came up with the generic approach honestly thought that it was neutral. Still, I don't see it as generic because it specifically endorses monothiestic doctrine.

Because the Pledge is official, the phrase "under God" appears to lend a government endorsement to some religions at the expense of others. The fact that most Americans believe in one god shouldn't be the government's concern. Whereas the phrase "God Bless America" is not specified by any law that I know of, and thus reflects only the speaker's personal religious belief. George W. Bush has talked about his personal faith many times while in office, and more power to him.

 

[Ken King]

You're right that it looks like an attempt at being religion-neutral. And it's possible that whoever came up with the generic approach honestly thought that it was neutral. Still, I don't see it as generic because it specifically endorses monothiestic doctrine.

Because the Pledge is official, the phrase "under God" appears to lend a government endorsement to some religions at the expense of others. The fact that most Americans believe in one god shouldn't be the government's concern. Whereas the phrase "God Bless America" is not specified by any law that I know of, and thus reflects only the speaker's personal religious belief. George W. Bush has talked about his personal faith many times while in office, and more power to him.

Regardless of what you perceive as the intent of the phrase it does not "establish" a religion which is what Congress has been banned from doing.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Regardless of what you perceive as the intent of the phrase it does not "establish" a religion which is what Congress has been banned from doing.

Exactly!

The First Amendment is only a limit on Congress and is to prevent them from establishing an official religion of the United States like the Church of England. There is no "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments. The "separation of church and state" is a Cliff's Notes memory phrase that has gotten out of hand. Nothing like reading the real document.

 

[Tonio]

Regardless of what you perceive as the intent of the phrase it does not "establish" a religion which is what Congress has been banned from doing.

I've always looked at the entire phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" as meaning the law shouldn't respect, or give preference to, one faith over others. Is that not the way the courts have read the phrase?