Freethought & Rationalism Archive

clark · 03-06-2003, 12:34 PM

The following was sent to me by Mary Ellen Sikes of the Institute for Humanists Studies and the Washington Area Secular Humanists . An article about it apparently ran in the Times Picayune, New Orleans' daily newspaper, but was overshadowed by Mardi Gras.

Quote:

From the WASH activism list:

On Monday, 3 March 2003, Senator Mary Landrieu (LA) introduced Senate
Joint Resolution 7 (S. J. Res 7).  This bill has now been referred
to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

S. J. Res 7 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States to provide an exemption from the Establishment Clause of the 1st
amendment with respect to referencing "God" in the pledge of
allegiance and on U. S. currency.  The text of the bill appears
below.

Although no senators from Maryland or Virginia are on the Judiciary
Committee, I encourage everybody to contact committee members and their
own senators to provide their opinions on this proposed amendment.

Steven

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative
to the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on United States
currency.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring
therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents
and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years after
the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. A reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance or on United
States currency shall not be construed as affecting the establishment of
religion under the first article of amendment of this Constitution.

`SECTION 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.'.

It's worth noting that this was introduced by a Democratic senator.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

crazyfingers · 03-06-2003, 12:45 PM

Sometimes it's hard to know how to respond with out swearing.

Would trying to force ones religion onto someone else be described as evil?

PandaJoe · 03-06-2003, 12:59 PM

So, in other words, they are admitting it does in fact violate the Establishment Clause?

Ab_Normal · 03-06-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PandaJoe
So, in other words, they are admitting it does in fact violate the Establishment Clause?

Thanks! I wasn't looking at it that way - that angle does make me a little happier.

RufusAtticus · 03-06-2003, 02:04 PM

The Amendment would have little effect.

Newdow II hasn't declared the 1954 pledge in violation of the first amendment, but rather the government encouraging minors to say it.

crazyfingers · 03-06-2003, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
The Amendment would have little effect.

Newdow II hasn't declared the 1954 pledge in violation of the first amendment, but rather the government encouraging minors to say it.

However at some point the 1954 pledge law will go to the SC and if they are honest will have to rule that the addition of Under God to the pledge was and is unconstitutional.

Of course whether they are honest is a huge question. Lets hope it doesn't go to the SC until after the Scalia,Thomas, etc.. block are gone and we get some honorable people in there.

Alonzo Fyfe · 03-06-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crazyfingers
Would trying to force ones religion onto someone else be described as evil?

I do not think that it is the forcing one's religion onto someone else that counts as evil, specifically. The law does not make failure to belong to the required religion a crime.

But it is wrong, to be sure, to have children pledge each day to consider atheism to be one of the great enemies of the Republic, on the same level as rebellion, tyranny, and injustice.

And it is wrong, to be sure, for any country to adopt as its most significant guiding principle -- the "motto" that most signifies what the country stands for -- that nations be divided into "we" citizens who trust in God and "they" citizens who do not.

These are not legitimate acts of a fair and just government.

Shadowy Man · 03-06-2003, 02:52 PM

SECTION 3. The Pledge of Allegiance shall now be:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, divisible, with liberty and justice for some."

kempe · 03-06-2003, 08:21 PM

This amendment would change a (probably) 6-3 (5-4 if we're lucky) decision into a 9-0. It wouldn't change the result. The majority of the supremes will say something about ceremonial deism, history and traditions, blah, blah, blah, and government coerce children into participating in a religious activity. Check out the dissent in the latest from the 9th (sorry I don't have the cite at hand). It'll probably read something like that.

Mind you, it sucks. Its wrong. But this is the same institution that decided Dredd Scott and Plessey. Most of the time they do a decent job. Several of them just have major blinders on regarding things outside of their experience.

Melkor · 03-07-2003, 06:42 AM

No, more like this:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, divisible, with liberty and justice for all, as long as they're Christian."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2003, 12:45 PM	#2
crazyfingers Contributor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 13,699	Sometimes it's hard to know how to respond with out swearing. Would trying to force ones religion onto someone else be described as evil?

03-06-2003, 12:59 PM	#3
PandaJoe Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bloomington, Indiana Posts: 188	So, in other words, they are admitting it does in fact violate the Establishment Clause?

03-06-2003, 02:04 PM	#5
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	The Amendment would have little effect. Newdow II hasn't declared the 1954 pledge in violation of the first amendment, but rather the government encouraging minors to say it.

03-06-2003, 02:52 PM	#8
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	SECTION 3. The Pledge of Allegiance shall now be: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, divisible, with liberty and justice for some."

03-06-2003, 08:21 PM	#9
kempe Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 12	This amendment would change a (probably) 6-3 (5-4 if we're lucky) decision into a 9-0. It wouldn't change the result. The majority of the supremes will say something about ceremonial deism, history and traditions, blah, blah, blah, and government coerce children into participating in a religious activity. Check out the dissent in the latest from the 9th (sorry I don't have the cite at hand). It'll probably read something like that. Mind you, it sucks. Its wrong. But this is the same institution that decided Dredd Scott and Plessey. Most of the time they do a decent job. Several of them just have major blinders on regarding things outside of their experience.

03-07-2003, 06:42 AM	#10
Melkor Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The Void Posts: 396	No, more like this: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, divisible, with liberty and justice for all, as long as they're Christian."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.