Buffman

pug846

But for me, I just don't see it as that big of a deal.

The current controversy over Pres. Bush's State of the Union speech about the Iraq-Niger nuclear materials connection would seem to be identical to your view about the "UG" part of our PofA...at least according to administration spokespersons. ("Much ado about nothing.") However, that is often the claim made by the propagandists when their intended public manipulations are exposed to factual, verifiable, critical analysis.

The specifics of the Pledge's "under God" inclusion are well known to those who frequent these forums. What isn't as well known are all the historical items/events/efforts that led to (created/conditioned) the environment that allowed the statement to be included in our Pledge, and a concurrent similar phase on our currency(paper money) and as a new national motto, by an overwhelming concurrence of our elected officials. (Note: Elected officials who have just done the identical damage to our constitutional rights and protections by the ill-advised and propagandistically biased resolution that reaffirms those same phrases included by our secular(?) government of the 1950's.)

I hope the following article will help to broaden your view and understanding of how each of these individual words and phrases are used, over time, to bring about the legal and social changes to the American psyche sought by specific supernaturalist believers; and how they have continued to be oppressive (tyrannical) to those who are not members of that majority.

http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/oct98/oct98c.html

(Extracts)
The United States is not--or at least has not been--a secular polity. This consideration serves as an appropriate segue into the body of this essay, which details the various forms of discrimination faced by "unbelievers" 5 in the U.S. today. The description will take two forms: first, a comprehensive assertion of the rights unbelievers should have but presently do not, drawing upon a recent declaration of unbelievers' rights by a prominent Freethought organization; and second, an exploration of several pertinent examples of American discrimination against unbelievers. Finally, in conclusion this essay reaffirms and defends the separation of church and state as construed by Madison and Jefferson, and attributes our backsliding from strong secularism to a tyranny of the majority--one of James Madison's greatest fears.


However, in the case of discrimination against unbelievers, the First Amendment has been repeatedly circumvented, or simply ignored. The thoughtlessness and intolerance of the American religious majority have brought us to a point at which things must change. In the final analysis, the fundamental point is that we have agreed in this country not to discriminate against anyone based upon belief--any belief, or any conviction. It's time to start living up to this promise. It's time to repair Jefferson's wall.
(End extracts)

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2001/artsept2001.html

I think it fair to say that the current American political administration governs by Faith rather than Fact because they have the support of the religious sect majority. Thus, they sincerely believe that they already know all the answers and merely seek and use anything that corroborates those answers... whether founded in fact or fiction.

EverLastingGodStopper

No one is going to stand up for our rights, unless we do it ourselves. And in the context of this topic, Newdow is doing it for us all, and it behooves us to present a united front as people who support his efforts to help rid America of its theocracy.

Buffman, thank you so much for sharing those links and excerpts. Those of us who may write LTEs or engage in other activities pertaining to the Newdow/Pledge case are well served by your excellent research.

Buffman

Thank you.

This has been an especially interesting and informative topic. Many educational points of view have been expressed. That is a positive and welcome discussion.

Having recently lost well over 2000 reference URLs because of major PC problems, I am pleased when I can recall a few of the more useful ones for folks to review.

GaryP

Thanks Buffman, And Welcome Back!

pug846

While it’s clear there are areas of inequalities for the non-religious (and for members of nontraditional religions), I don’t see it as that big of a deal. *shrugs*

Buffmann said:

Lets look at some of these tyrannical forces at work:

(from the article)

Oh dear lord! Those horrible people! Regardless of what anyone thinks about “blasphemy laws,” they aren’t exactly be used to oppress in any sort of meaningful way.

The bastards! You mean they have (unenforceable) language in their constitution, which no one of course ever reads, that states that atheists can not hold office? How do we deal with such bigotry?!

Of course nearly anything qualifies as “religious,” but this is one of the few areas that I would concede the non-religious get the short end of the stick. (At the same time, I don’t see the draft being reinstated anytime soon, so this is really moot.)

---
In the end, I don’t think a lot of this is that big of a deal. (I certainly don’t think the phrase “Under God” is that big of a deal.) I realize people have different priorities than myself, but I’d rather spend my time fighting for groups that face real discrimination and real obstacles to being successful. I think I would feel just a tad bit silly complaining to a gay, disabled, or poor person about the discrimination I face and how kids say a pledge each morning that is against what I believe in. At the end of the day, I can still marry and adopt if I chose. I don’t have to worry about not being able to attend places or get jobs because I’m in a wheel chair. And I don’t have to worry about starving to death or not being able to afford decent medical care.

EverLastingGodStopper said:

You are either woefully ignorant about what constitutes a theocracy or…well…I don’t know what else. You clearly are woefully ignorant about a theocracy. Using the phase “theocracy” in the same sentence as “America” is insulting to people around the world who live in real theocracy and have bigger worries than some unenforceable language in a document no one reads.

Buffman

pug846

While it's clear there are areas of inequalities for the non-religious (and for members of nontraditional religions), I don't see it as that big of a deal. *shrugs*

Your analysis and conclusions are not unexpected. For most humans, things are no "big deal" until they negatively impact directly on their own lives. A war, thousands of miles away, is not likely to be a big deal unless one is sent to fight in it...or the price of gasoline becomes too high to afford and the national economy goes in the dumper because of it. Environmental pollution is no big deal until you are the one becoming polluted. But these are physical big deals. I am interested in the psychological big deals. The covert mental "little deals" that lead to the overt physical big ones.

I note that you judiciously selected "blasphemy laws" to counter my use of the "tyranny of the majority" expression in order to support your "shrug." Fair enough! The blasphemy laws on the books are seldom, if ever, enforced. So why do they continue to remain the law after innumerable reviews to rid ourselves of outdated legal statutes? Who are the folks keeping them active if they are never going to be used? Why?

Oh dear lord! Those horrible people! Regardless of what anyone thinks about blasphemy laws,they aren't exactly be(ing) used to oppress in any sort of meaningful way.

Neither were the Sodomy laws until used to arrest two gay men in their private home/bedroom. Did you merely shrug when you heard about that? If you are confined to a wheelchair, do you merely shrug when you hear about proposed changes in the Acts found here?

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/cguide.htm

I have spent many decades attempting to better understand how the areas of inequalities for the non-religious came about and why those inequalities (biases/prejudices/ discriminatory acts) continue to be supported in view of the more current, verifiably accurate, knowledge. One of my findings is that too many folks merely "shrug-off" propaganda and psychological conditioning because they are unaware of how it has been used to achieve that very response. (Just another thought for your consideration.)

pug846

Buffmann said:

And your analysis is typical of the two cent arm chair psychology that goes on here at the II.

Did you even bother to read my post before you got on your soap box?

I do think things like humans dying in wars is important. I do think things like homosexual rights are important. I do think things like rights for the disabled are important. I do think things like attempting to provide the poor opportunities is important. I’m not gay, disabled, or poor. I see things like war as a big deal because it is. I see things like “Under God” as not a big deal because it isn’t. Besides a bunch of hand waving, grandstanding, and then a link to a pitiful list of so-called discrimination you’ve done nothing to change my mind that the under god inclusion is that big of a deal. I’d rather spend my time helping groups that face actual discrimination. When homosexuals can adopt, women get paid as much as their male counterparts, the disabled have reasonable accommodations, and the poor have decent opportunities, then maybe, maybe, I’ll turn my attention to getting rid of some unenforceable language in a constitution or statue or trying to change the probably never ever to be used again draft regulations.

Who really cares all that much? As I mentioned in my last post, that isn’t meaningful discrimination. Show me laws that will not allow secular people to marry, adopt, etc. Those groups face discrimination. Having to “deal” with inactive, inconsequential laws is not that big of a deal.

Again, did you actually READ what I wrote?! Yes?! No?! I actually think those other groups face real discrimination so no, I didn’t shrug. The sodomy laws, unlike the “Under God” pledge, is being used to discriminate against homosexuals. Not because of the law itself, but it is used as justification for denying homosexuals the ability to adopt and marry. It quite frankly sickens me that you think you have it just as bad. Ooooh! We have nasty language in some unenforceable statues. Waahhhh. Poor us. How do we get up each morning? Oh wait. We don’t have to face a wage gap. We can marry. We can adopt. We don’t have to worry about being denied a job because it would be a slight inconvenience to a business to make sure we had access. We aren’t denied health care.

Ah, psychological condition. You’re lucky number four. In the last few months I’ve been told that I would just change my mind if I hadn’t been psychologically conditioned, but since I have, I just don’t see the Truth. If you want to spend your life understanding these “inequalities” then be my guest. But for me, it’s not that big of a deal and I’d rather not waste my time.

dspeers

Tautology. What if the coins all said "Under Allah"? If we allow the religious majority to dictate belief (and legal/civil practices based on that belief), then you must allow for the potential for Muslims to become that majority and change things like the national motto ("In Allah We Trust") and so on.

The civil rights of the minority are always a big deal. That's why we have the Bill of Rights.

"What difference does it make if I have this loaded gun pointing at your head? Noone would ever pull the trigger and it's not hurting you. It's not a big deal!" Matters of constitutional interpretation are a big deal, despite your lack of regard for the constitution.

pug846

dspeers said:

Really? Wow. Thanks. What’s the “dot” thing at the end of the sentence? Please, teach me more.

Obviously, it’s a tautology, but when read in context, I was simply re-enforcing my point: other things, like not being able to adopt, etc. are big deals. Words in our pledge are not. If a number of things in this country were to change, then perhaps removing the words would be something in my top 10 million priorities. Sadly, I do not see those other changes taking place any time soon.

Well, clearly we disagree about the first statement. I think things like words in a pledge, while quite possibly “infringing on the rights of a minority group,” are not that big of a deal compared to a litany of other meaningful infringements. I provided a small handful of examples above.

At this point, I might very well pay the next person that can respond without question begging.

Lets review. I think certain things like the words “Under God” in the pledge are not that big of a deal. I think other things are. I’ve provided examples ad nausea. While I have not fully articulated my standard, through example, I think I’ve made clear what I do think is “important.” I don’t feel the need to rehash. Whether the issue affects me does not change my characterization from “not a big deal” to “a big deal.” Again, I’ve provided a handful of examples of issues I find important and none of them having anything to do with me.

There are tons of issues that come up each Supreme Court’s term that I don’t particularly care about; if you’re honest with yourself, I’m sure you would admit the same. Yet, that doesn’t mean you have a “lack of regard for the constitution.” It simply means you have priorities and you do not think every issue is that big of a deal.

Kevbo

pug846: this becomes a very big deal once you realize the scope and power of the resurgent politoreligious movement we call the Religious Right. These people are genuinely upset that America is not a Christian theocracy. These people are not a small fringe group, they currently have their supporters in such political positions as the President of the United States and the United States Attorney General. The Religious Right would have no problem with laws that outlaw atheism, and these are the people who put things like "Under God" into our pledge and "In God we Trust" onto our money. If we don't toe the line and stop them with the petty stuff, pretty soon our appeasement will look pretty foolish once they begin shoving some more overtly religious legislation down our collective throats. If we learned anything from World War II, it's that the appeasement of a motivated tyrant does not work. If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk.