Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 09-16-2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyfingers quoting an article

The high court "has affirmed time and again that such official acknowledgments of our nation's religious heritage, foundation and character are constitutional," Gonzales said in a statement a day after the ruling by U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton in San Francisco. "

Someone needs a refresher on 1954 Congressional activity. Somehow, it wasn't necessary for the pledge to mention "our nation's religious heritage" until after the national obsession with 'godless, materialistic' communism.

crazyfingers · 09-16-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Springer

The idea of a government-mandated belief, religious or otherwise, I find odious and contrary to the principles on which this country purports to be based. Also, this official belief is obviously false.

Well, that's why the Supreme Court in 1943 ruled that requiring a person to say the pledge against his will is unconstitutional. That's why nearly all state laws that require the Pledge in school also include an individual opt-out provision.

The argument now is whether it's enough to allow a student to opt-out. I certainly contend that it is not enough. The state has no business telling a person to make an affirmation, a religious one especially, regardless of whether the student can decline to make it.

It may be worthwhile to read the orignal pledge decision in the first Newdow case. The legal reasoning on the issue above is quite good.

Link to Decison

Alonzo Fyfe · 09-16-2005, 06:59 PM

I would argue that opting out is not sufficient, because the text itself is morally objectionable.

Look at the words, "with liberty and justice for all." Clearly, these are meant to endorse liberty and justice, and to cast any who would not endorse liberty and justice in a negative light. That is putting it kindly. Actually, the purpose of the phrase is to promote the idea that those who oppose liberty and justice are worthy of the highest level of contempt.

Francis Bellemy, who created the Pledge, included the word 'indivisible' to endorse the concept of Union, and to cast any who promoted the separatist ideas that made the Civil War possible in the same type of contempt.

No greater absurdity has crossed human lips than to say that including the words 'under God' is not meant to promote belief in God and to communicate the message that those who do not accept God are no different than those who would promote civil war, tyranny, and injustice.

The defender claims, "Oh, the Pledge is not meant to promote theism over any other views."

Right.

Sure.

Than the Pledge is not meant to promote the Union over separatism, Liberty over tyranny, or justice over injustice either.

No child shall be forced to sit in a class while the teacher not only tells his friends, daily, that those not 'under God' are the moral equivalent of those who would promote civil war, tyranny, and injustice. Then, to make matters worse, the children are then encourage, enticed, bribed, and cajoled into repeating these claims about those who sit silently in class.

Opting out is not sufficient.

The message itself is contemptible.

Which, by the way, became the topic for today's entery in my Atheist Ethicist blog.

Alonzo Fyfe
Atheist Ethicist Blog

edb · 09-16-2005, 08:46 PM

crazyfingers wrote:

Quote:

It may be worthwhile to read the orignal pledge decision in the first Newdow case. The legal reasoning on the issue above is quite good.

Link to Decision

Excellent arguments :thumbs:

Some excerpts:

Quote:

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God�? is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation “under God�? is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase “one nation under God�? in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation “under God�? is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,�? a nation “under Vishnu,�? a nation “under Zeus,�? or a nation “under no god,�? because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. Furthermore, the school district’s practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the Pledge.

Quote:

[B]y statute, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag describes the United States as ‘one nation under God.’ To be sure, no one is obligated to recite this phrase, . . . but it borders on sophistry to suggest that the reasonable atheist would not feel less than a full member of the political community every time his fellow Americans recited, as part of their expression of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he believed to be false.

Quote:

Although the defendants argue that the religious content of “one nation under God�? is minimal, to an atheist or a believer in certain non-Judeo-Christian religions or philosophies, it may reasonably appear to be an attempt to enforce a “religious orthodoxy�? of monotheism, and is therefore impermissible. The coercive effect of this policy is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren, and their understanding that they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school, their teacher and their fellow students. Furthermore, under Lee, the fact that students are not required to participate is no basis for distinguishing Barnette from the case at bar because, even without a recitation requirement for each child, the mere fact that a pupil is required to listen every day to the statement “one nation under God�? has a coercive effect. The coercive effect of the Act is apparent from its context and legislative history, which indicate that the Act was designed to result in the daily recitation of the words “under God�? in school classrooms. President Eisenhower, during the Act’s signing ceremony, stated: “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.�?

There are still some in the government that can think reasonably, with intelligence and understanding. Thank you Judge Alfred T. Goodwin :notworthy

Agemegos · 09-18-2005, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dryhad

What, you mean those commandments that talk about loving thy neighbor?

Nope, I'm talking about the Ten Commandments. And particularly about the 2nd or 3rd, depending on whether you follow the Catholic and Orthodox count or the Christian count.

"Love thy neighbour" was once suggested as an alternative to the Ten Commandments. It would have been a good change.

Dryhad · 09-18-2005, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Nope, I'm talking about the Ten Commandments. And particularly about the 2nd or 3rd, depending on whether you follow the Catholic and Orthodox count or the Christian count.

"Love thy neighbour" was once suggested as an alternative to the Ten Commandments. It would have been a good change.

Oh, right. For some reason I thought it was in there. Nonetheless, there are a number of commandments that fundies convieniently overlook.

Paul2 · 09-19-2005, 05:09 AM

Ok i read the first page, and skipped the rest. Did anyone say why i should give a shit about this? It's meaningless words in a meaningless pledge, for fucks sake.

EverLastingGodStopper · 09-19-2005, 05:15 AM

The US government should not be indoctrinating public school students with theism. You should care about this issue if you are concerned about the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. If you are not concerned about religious liberty and freedom of conscience, I don't know if anyone on a message board can convince you to become concerned.

The Pledge issue not meaningless to the atheist parents who do not want their children to be taught what to think about any gods. My kids never heard of "god" until going to school and being instructed to say that they were "under God." My rights, to raise my children with my religious beliefs, have been violated.

Alonzo Fyfe · 09-19-2005, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul2

Ok i read the first page, and skipped the rest. Did anyone say why i should give a shit about this? It's meaningless words in a meaningless pledge, for fucks sake.

My claim is this:

'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance is meant to promote monotheism in general, and Christianity in particular, and denigrate those who do not share this view.

Those who deny this will also have to deny that 'indivisible' is meant to promote union and denigrate separatism, or that 'with liberty and justice for all' exists to promote liberty and justice and to denigrate tyranny and injustice.

It is wrong to force students in a public school to sit silently while school officials perform a daily ritual that denigrates their beliefs, stating publicly (and coercing other students into repeating) the claim that non-monotheism is the moral equivalent of treason, tyranny, and injustice.

Alonzo Fyfe
Atheist Ethicist Blog

crazyfingers · 09-19-2005, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alonzo Fyfe

My claim is this:

'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance is meant to promote monotheism in general, and Christianity in particular, and denigrate those who do not share this view.

President Eisenhower agreed with you.

“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.�?

President Eisenhower, 1954, while signing the act that inserted "under God" into the pledge.

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

09-16-2005, 06:59 PM	#103
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	I would argue that opting out is not sufficient, because the text itself is morally objectionable. Look at the words, "with liberty and justice for all." Clearly, these are meant to endorse liberty and justice, and to cast any who would not endorse liberty and justice in a negative light. That is putting it kindly. Actually, the purpose of the phrase is to promote the idea that those who oppose liberty and justice are worthy of the highest level of contempt. Francis Bellemy, who created the Pledge, included the word 'indivisible' to endorse the concept of Union, and to cast any who promoted the separatist ideas that made the Civil War possible in the same type of contempt. No greater absurdity has crossed human lips than to say that including the words 'under God' is not meant to promote belief in God and to communicate the message that those who do not accept God are no different than those who would promote civil war, tyranny, and injustice. The defender claims, "Oh, the Pledge is not meant to promote theism over any other views." Right. Sure. Than the Pledge is not meant to promote the Union over separatism, Liberty over tyranny, or justice over injustice either. No child shall be forced to sit in a class while the teacher not only tells his friends, daily, that those not 'under God' are the moral equivalent of those who would promote civil war, tyranny, and injustice. Then, to make matters worse, the children are then encourage, enticed, bribed, and cajoled into repeating these claims about those who sit silently in class. Opting out is not sufficient. The message itself is contemptible. Which, by the way, became the topic for today's entery in my Atheist Ethicist blog. Alonzo Fyfe Atheist Ethicist Blog

09-19-2005, 05:09 AM	#107
Paul2 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,088	Ok i read the first page, and skipped the rest. Did anyone say why i should give a shit about this? It's meaningless words in a meaningless pledge, for fucks sake.

09-19-2005, 05:15 AM	#108
EverLastingGodStopper Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 16,665	The US government should not be indoctrinating public school students with theism. You should care about this issue if you are concerned about the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. If you are not concerned about religious liberty and freedom of conscience, I don't know if anyone on a message board can convince you to become concerned. The Pledge issue not meaningless to the atheist parents who do not want their children to be taught what to think about any gods. My kids never heard of "god" until going to school and being instructed to say that they were "under God." My rights, to raise my children with my religious beliefs, have been violated.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.