No school pledges

[thudd]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
It doesn't hurt me to do it and it means a lot to other Americans.

I have even learned that God's last name is not "Damn" when in front of my best girlfriend. [/B]

Well, that's fine, I'm no bible burning activist either. My argment and irritation is not with christians, or whatever, it's the use of force (law) to promote and/or endorse a religion. I am not offended, threatened, or injured by people's beliefs or ceremonies and traditions, that is not the point. It is the behavior of the state that concerns me. Politics/government can work just fine without picking and choosing or homogenizing a religion, and believe me no god needs PR help from Washington/Sacramento. It's about choice. believe in a divine being , or don't. The state should only be neutral. Who could be offended by NOT having 'in god we trust' or 'so help me god' thrust upon them... 'I promise to tell the truth (period)' 'Ten cents.' The added references to 'God' do not change the meaning or the value of either, it serves no purpose other than unmitigated promotion of a specific belief system. But having them mandated by force of law is very, very offensive to some. Why bother with it, just get rid of it!
db

 

[vraiblonde]

I thought the "under God" part was taken out of the pledge a long time ago? My kids said it without the "under God" part when they were in Elementary school.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by demsformd
The statement "under God" endorses a certain religious belief system. It is not religiously blind to endorse a certain god or to even declare that there is a god. There is not much of a precedent as to whether saying "under God" is the establishment of religion. There is plenty concerning school-sponsored prayer but not as to what defines prayer or what establishes religion. I feel that the under God clause of the pledge does establish religion in our schools. Why doesn't the pledge say that we are living under no god or under Buddha? It is clear that the writter of that clause was inferring the presence of a supreme being and in this case the Judeo-Christian diety. Since the state of California requires that teachers lead their students in the pledge, they are thus endorsing religious beliefs of Judeo-Christian morals. Thus I feel that the decision that the California panel came down was legally and constitutionally justified.

Interesting observation and it seems that you are totally in alignment with the 9th Circuit decision and their interpretation of the law as they see it. But as noted by the dissenter in that decision, would this also make our currency, the national motto, and the Great Seal of the United States and many items unconstitutional (because they contain the word “God”)? Will songs like God Bless America, America the Beautiful, and the forth stanza of the National Anthem disappear from any government event? If you can’t say God, doesn’t this make any previous court case requiring the witness’s swearing in by placing their hand on the bible and uttering the phrase “so help me God” unconstitutional, thereby resulting in reversal of every court case heard? Furthermore, would the FCC be required to ban all religious programming from the airwaves because they are under the direct control of a Federal agency and thus imply the endorsement of that religion by the government?

I think that Judge Fernandez said it best when he stated, “Judges, including Supreme Court Justices, have recognized the lack of danger in that and similar expressions for decades, if not for centuries, as have presidents and members of our Congress.”

“In short, I cannot accept the eliding of the simple phrase "under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance, when it is obvious that its tendency to establish religion in this country or to interfere with the free exercise (or non-exercise) of religion is de minimis.” To which he clarified this statement by stating, “Lest I be misunderstood, I must emphasize that to decide this case it is not necessary to say, and I do not say, that there is such a thing as a de minimis constitutional violation. What I do say is that the de minimis tendency of the Pledge to establish a religion or to interfere with its free exercise is no constitutional violation at all.”

I guess this one will be up to the Supreme Court to decide, and what are the concluding words that open the session? “God save the United States and this Honorable Court!” Will they dare say them?

 

[thudd]

Originally posted by Ken King
uttering the phrase “so help me God” unconstitutional, thereby resulting in reversal of every court case heard? Furthermore, would the FCC be required to ban all religious programming from the airwaves because they are under the direct control of a Federal agency and thus imply the endorsement of that religion by the government?

Ken, you silly, silly man... in a better society, The FCC would stay neutral. Praise god, or don't, on your licensed radio station, doesn't matter... Say 'so help me god', or don't, the courts would be neutral. Say 'under god', or don't... Schools, neutral... And no where, no how, would uttering 'god' be illegal or banned, except for agents and agencies of a government as a requirement of their position or authority... and by no stretch of any interpretation would criminals be turned out of jail beause of the witness' being required by the state to utter 'so help me...' And of course, money would not be 'unconstitutional' it would be merely changed over time to money-neutral.
Hang on to some reality Ken.... we on this side aren't the one's endorsing theo-political anarchy... rather, it is you gentle folks on your side that insist on pouring a frosting of useless, volatile, specific, religious drivel over a neutral, benign, unoffensive, common sense alternative.

And don't even get me started on the side-issue of the 10 commandments in courtrooms...

db

 

[vraiblonde]

As an aside before Ken goes ballistic lol, I always thought it was paradoxical that there would be "In God We Trust" on money.

 

[Ken King]

So Thudd, the only time the word God is unconstitutional is when it is used in the Pledge of Allegiance at schools?

Because you do not believe in a God or divine being doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional for me or this government to believe in it. Nor does that belief establish a religion because I am sure my belief in a power greater than myself and this world is probably quite a bit different than those of persons from established religions.

My biggest concern/issue with this entire ordeal is that Mr. Newdow has expressed that he (via his daughter) is being harmed by the words. Yet the mother of the child says that the child isn't harmed, believes in God and participates in reciting the pledge. If the word can be used in the courts, on our money, as our national motto, what is wrong with it in the Pledge of Allegiance and where is the damage this man says he is suffering?


Vraiblonde,

Ballistic, me? Whatever are you talking about?

 

[Kain99]

I'm starting to think, that Warron and Thudd are plants!

 

[thudd]

Originally posted by Ken King
So Thudd, the only time the word God is unconstitutional is when it is used in the Pledge of Allegiance at schools?

Because you do not believe in a God or divine being doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional for me or this government to believe in it. what is wrong with it in the Pledge of Allegiance and where is the damage this man says he is suffering?


Vraiblonde,

Ballistic, me? Whatever are you talking about?

First, Ken, the government can not 'believe' in god, only individuals can, and I have absolutely no problem with that. The case I am making is that our government is about laws, justice and protection of rights. It should not be, and is constitutionally prohibited from endorsing religion... The schools can require the recitation of the pledge of allegiance, fine, take out the under god part, no difference in meaning, no offense taken.
Believe in god, fine, believe in trees, witches, or prophets, or cows... whatever, fine... the state remains neutral. Actual damage is not relevant, legally or morally. What damage, other than self respect was incurred by requiring certain persons of color to sit in the back of the bus?.... there was no actual damage, just a deep, troubling, immoral, institutional predjudice and ignorance. The fact that god is on money, the pledge, and the courtroom walls is the fault of self-serving self -agrandizing zealots. It harms no one physically,but it insults and discriminates against many.
watch your tv-evangelist, distribute your pamphlets I'm all for it, knock yourself out... but a century ago the states stepped in to take control of schools... it is at that exact point that mandating religious utterances, though 'harmless' (to you) should have ended. That it didn't isn't proof of it's divine rightness. I am all for choice Ken,diversity, all for it.
Religion has it's place.... plenty of places... the school is a place of opportunity for all WITHOUT PREJUDGMENT, PREDJUDICE, or DISCRIMINATION. "Thou shalt have no gods before me,' Under God' and 'in god we trust' are all singular and specific in meaning and intent, inflammatory, discriminating and absolutely unnecessary to the goals of any state run venture.

db

 

[vraiblonde]

I checked out Thudd's website - he's Angelphish's husband.

 

[thudd]

Please don't bring me into this
angelphish

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by thudd
Please don't bring me into this
angelphish

Angelphish! You seem so sweet and innocent!

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by thudd
Please don't bring me into this
angelphish

Too late! I have to deal with my husband posting - now it's your turn!

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by thudd
First, Ken, the government can not 'believe' in god, only individuals can, and I have absolutely no problem with that. The case I am making is that our government is about laws, justice and protection of rights. It should not be, and is constitutionally prohibited from endorsing religion... The schools can require the recitation of the pledge of allegiance, fine, take out the under god part, no difference in meaning, no offense taken.
Believe in god, fine, believe in trees, witches, or prophets, or cows... whatever, fine... the state remains neutral. Actual damage is not relevant, legally or morally. What damage, other than self respect was incurred by requiring certain persons of color to sit in the back of the bus?.... there was no actual damage, just a deep, troubling, immoral, institutional predjudice and ignorance. The fact that god is on money, the pledge, and the courtroom walls is the fault of self-serving self -agrandizing zealots. It harms no one physically,but it insults and discriminates against many.
watch your tv-evangelist, distribute your pamphlets I'm all for it, knock yourself out... but a century ago the states stepped in to take control of schools... it is at that exact point that mandating religious utterances, though 'harmless' (to you) should have ended. That it didn't isn't proof of it's divine rightness. I am all for choice Ken,diversity, all for it.
Religion has it's place.... plenty of places... the school is a place of opportunity for all WITHOUT PREJUDGMENT, PREDJUDICE, or DISCRIMINATION. "Thou shalt have no gods before me,' Under God' and 'in god we trust' are all singular and specific in meaning and intent, inflammatory, discriminating and absolutely unnecessary to the goals of any state run venture.

db

Really, have you ever read the Declaration of Independence or any other early historical documents? The belief in God is well rooted in our country and government's history.

And what religion does the words "Under God" establish? Monotheism is not a religion. So please do tell what religion this has established?

 

[Tonio]

Ken, of course the Founding Fathers believed in God, some of them as Deists instead of as Christians. And sure, that belief informed the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. That doesn't mean the Founding Fathers wanted to make that belief a requirement for citizenship.

Belief in God does constitute a religious belief, because there are many religions in the US whose believers worship more than one god. Or, those believers worship a divine power that doesn't fit the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of a Supreme Being.

I certainly agree that Michael Newdow is a publicity-hungry weenie. He needs to get a life. But he's still right that "under God" doesn't belong in America's official statement of patriotism. Unlike Mr. Newdow, I believe in God. But like Mr. Newdow, I don't think that believing in God should have anything to do with loyalty to America. That's the whole issue. Christianity and Americanism are not the same thing. England fought several civil wars over this kind of issue, and I would dread that happening here.

You know why "Under God" is in the Pledge and "In God We Trust" is on our money? Congress in the 1950s was trying to prove that the US was better than those atheistic commies who were running the Soviet Union. In my opinion, that never needed to be proven. America was superior not because most of us believed in God, but because we could follow any religion we wanted.

 

[jimmy]

Darnit!!...I had all this stuff I wanted to say on this topic but, wow, Thudd and Tonio have pretty much hit everything on the nose...Religion not a requirement of Patriotism, the prudence of a religiously-neutral government in this country, the real reason behind all the "God God God" on our money, in our songs, pledge etc...wow...nice work guys...

 

[Ken King]

Tonio,

No one, I repeat, no one is making it a requirement of citizenship to believe in God. Just as no one should be forced to deny their belief or the history of our nation and what they believed when this country was founded. It’s a two-way street and you can be a citizen regardless of what your religous belief is. At what point will removing the term God infringe upon the right to believe (free exercise) that is also a protection of the First Amendment? Has anyone looked at it from that perspective or is it that only those that find religion offensive have the right to air their grievance?

The State of California has required teachers to start the day with a patriotic declaration (reciting the pledge meets this requirement). The United States of America does not “force” anyone to recite it. The law 4USC4 deals with how it will be recited but does not require anyone to do so,
Sec. 4. - Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, ''I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

That is it, show me anywhere in any law where you are forced to say it? Even the California law allows for students to remain silent during the recital. Now if there is any Constitutional violation it is within the construction of the California law and not the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Motto, the Great Seal, or any other reference to God made that are now being trageted.

As to the “In God We Trust” showing up on money, it first appeared on coins prior to the turn of the 20th century and was mandated on all money (paper and coin) in the 50s due mostly to the reasons you state but that isn’t even the issue here.

 

[Penn]

I'm not going to post any URLs for this reply(('cause I'm having bad luck with 'em), but I felt fairly sure when the original colonists fled to this country in 1607, it was to escape religious oppression?

I also thought the religion they brought with them was the Judeo-Christian belief. So that is why, through the centuries you see these beliefs and their mottos firmly rooted into our society, and into both state and federal legislatures.

So, I suppose if the original founders, those seeking religious freedom were Islamic, we'd see those mottos on our money and in our legislative system, instead.

However, the founding fathers brought with them the Judeo-Christian religion, and that is our "base" faith in this country.

The ironic part of it is-- we don't persecute believers of other religions here, unlike some other countries in the Middle East and Asia.

Oh, and one more thing; didn't all 535 members of Congress assemble in front of the Congressional Building, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance enmasse, right after the California court rendered their decision? Probably the first time in 50 years or so the entire Congress stood together as one body behind a belief.

I just wanted to bring that up for thought.

 

[jimmy]

Ken,

I think the communist issue was put in there as a counter to the notion that these references to God are a "part of our history" and engrained in the fabric of our country etc...

I think the issue here though is that those that don't want "God" references out of our government point to the lack of true "harm" that them being there causes someone who is not Christian or religious at all.

Surely you can simply choose not to recite it or choose not to be offended every time you pass a $5 to the cashier at McyD's. But my point is that there is no reason FOR it to be there at all. You can make the argument that it doesn't hurt anyone, and you'd be wrong as I'm sure there's plenty of people to be offended by just about anything, but simply not changing it in order to not buck the status quo is not a sound argument.

Removing it does as 'little' damage to those that aren't offended by it as keeping it in does to those that are. What needs to be at issue here is the principle of the matter since we're all in agreement that no one is really being injured by these references and certainly everyone has a right to ignore them.

But what you all haven't done is shown any reason that they should be there in the first place, save the fact that they simply already are.

 

[Tonio]

Good answer, Ken. I'm not suggesting that anyone is being forced to believe in God. I'm concerned more with the implication of mixing religious and patriotic messages.

Upon hearing "under God" in the official Pledge, reasonable people of all faiths might assume that only someone who believes in God can be a true American. That implication comes very close to being a state religion, and is wholly against the spirit (as well as the wording) of the First Amendment. God is not an American.

How would removing "under God" from the Pledge be an infringement on someone's religious beliefs? I don't understand your point. Are you saying that some people explicitly believe that America was founded as some new Holy Land for God's chosen people? It's one thing for people to believe that for themselves. It's another for them to push for that as the only acceptable form of patriotism.

Now, I can agree that Puritans were influenced by the Chosen People concept. But from my reading, they and the Maryland Catholics were more interested in seeking refuge for religious persecution in England. They were persecuted because they weren't following the official state religion.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by jimmy
Ken,

I think the communist issue was put in there as a counter to the notion that these references to God are a "part of our history" and engrained in the fabric of our country etc...

“Notion that these references to God are a ‘part of our history’”? Are you implying that they aren’t engrained in the history of this nation? If so you need a refund from whatever schools you have attended.

I think the issue here though is that those that don't want "God" references out of government simply don't see the harm that it does someone.

What harm is there? You admit that, at best, it is very minimal but specifically what is that harm?

But what you all haven't done is shown any reason that they should be there in the first place, save the fact that they simply already are.

Our elected representatives have decided that these words should be there, that they do not endorse any specific religion by adding them to the pledge, and that our nation’s roots are directly tied to a belief that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are derived from the Creator.

Ever recall reading the following, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” With the above words in mind, declare the cause that would require the words to be removed? Simply being offended, when many aren't, doesn't seem to support re-writing what those we have entrusted with the task have determined should be there.