Feather

Don't bother, Fiach. Understanding that is like trying to understand the opposite sex--futile and frustrating.

I just accept that they are and attempt to thwart them in my little way.

Fiach

In the UK, there is no separation of church and state. The Queen is head of the Church of England, Scotland, Wales, and N.Ireland.

But we had an unsavoury record in Ireland, a disgraceful record. Catholicism was suppressed and became a symbol of Irish Nationalism. I understand why Irish in the Republic cling to catholicism as a national symbol like the Harp. Actually most of them are only nominal believers and many don't bother to attend church, except for the women?

In America, I don't know exactly, but I think it goes back to the fact that many of the original colonies were founded by religious refugees (i.e. dissenters too fanatical to accommodate in England's or Holland's relatively unsuppressive states.) They went over to America not for religious freedom but to escape from religious freedom. The Puritans came to found a government resembling the Taliban more than the UK except during Cromwell's Dictatorship.

America was founded by many as a colonial Theocracy more extreme than anything in Europe. Later religious dissenters also rather fanatical came from France, various German principalities, Russia and Russian Jews, Polish Catholics fleeing Prussian Protestants and Russian Orthodox. They tended like the Irish to identify Catholicism with Polishism. Irish emigrants to America also took their hatred of everything English (can't blame them) and Catholicism was part of being Irish.

Fiach

Shake

So, anyone know who the Republicans were who voted against? Also, who were the ones who merely voted 'Present'?

Stephen Maturin

According to the roll call I found at http://thomas.loc.gov/, no Republicans voted against the resolution. The representatives voting "present," all Democrats, were:

--- PRESENTS 15 ---
Ballance; Delahunt; Payne;
Berman; Hinchey; Sanchez, Linda T.;
Blumenauer; Lofgren; Schakowsky;
Capuano; Miller, George; Waters;
Conyers; Olver; Watt.


The twelve representatives who didn't vote at all (10 Reps, 2 Dems) were:

--- NOT VOTING 12 ---
Bonilla; DeLay; Hyde;
Buyer; Dreier; Renzi;
Collins; Gephardt; Udall (CO);
Cox; Herger; Young (AK).

Fiach

This is a constitutional issue. It is not something that should be voted upon whichever way that vote would go. We know that the majority of modern Americans believe America and God are inseparable. But their constitution by those Deists who founded the USA, named it the United States of America (Paine), and wrote the secular humanistic Constitution (Madison) which has no mention of god or gods.

What the Bill of Rights does say, is that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment OF RELIGION."

This clause if reviewed by a court of fullly evolved Homo sapiens cannot escapt the meaning of the clause. Adding "under God" during the McCarthy Social Psychosis was clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Putting "In God We Trust" on the Money a while earlier was equally unconstitutional. Nobody had the guts to fight it then.

It is not a matter of voting on it. Freedom is not something depending on approval of a voting majority. A Republic is not supposed to be Mob Rule or a Tyranny of the Majority. If they want to destroy the separation clause, they need to have a constitutional convention to turn America from a Secular Republic to a Theocracy.

Fiach

gilly54

I sent her a quick e-mail prior to the House vote, saying that I hoped she would respect CSS and vote against this resolution.
Here is her reply:

"Thank you for contacting me about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' recent ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. I appreciate the opportunity to hear your point of view, and like you, I strongly support the separation of church and state.

I, like many legal scholars, believe that in this particular instance, the Ninth Circuit made an erroneous decision. In the end, the courts will resolve this issue."

Attached to the letter was a copy of HR 459:

http://www.house.gov/abercrombie/pledge.allegiance.htm

:banghead:

Fiach

Congress is not going to act. They can read the polls. Christians are 86% of the American Population. Many of them want an outright "Christian Nation" formally Chrsitian. What rights non-christians will have is open to wide speculation. We are to be definite second class citizens. Legislation will all be contrary to separation of church and state despite your member of parliament givng lip service to it. Do place any bets on the outcome.

Your constitution is supposed to protect the rights of believers and non-believers even if a popular majority desire a Christian Theocracy and their political prostitutes in parliament reflect their views to be re-elected.

Sadly, if your courts lack the integrity to support the 9th court, your religious freedom is on its way to extinction.

Fiach

{edited by Toto to fix tag}

Fiach

"…one nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Notice the contradiction created when Eisenhower in 1954 added "under God."

If America is "under God," that implies exclusion of those not under God: Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, and Polytheists (Hindus, Pagans, and Wiccans.) If those who are not under God are excluded, then America is not “one nation.” It is two nations, a Theistic/Christian Nation, and a non-Theistic nation of second-class subjects.

If those who are not under God are excluded, then America is not indivisible. It is purposefully divisible into a ruling class of Theists and a subject class of non-theists.

And finally, if those who are not under God are excluded, then America can not possibly give liberty and justice for all. It must give more liberty to Theists/Christians, than to non-Theists. Christians can put Christmas Crèches on State property, and the 10 Commandments in Schools and courthouses. In that atmosphere an Atheist cannot expect equal justice.

One solution is to drop the "under God" and restore the original pledge that was not self-contradictory. Add in place of "under God," this revision, "under one God, many Gods, or no gods" with liberty and justice for all.

Fiach

atheist_in_foxhole

The xians are really going to regret all of this "under gawd" crap when some other religion takes control. Muslims are already the majority in a few towns in Michigan and New Jersey, and it's only a matter of time before they start demanding that government honor their deity as well.

Fiach

Are you Yanks going to have to say, "one nation, under God and Allah, indivisible (chuckle), with liberty...."

Fiach