Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jimmy Higgins · 08-10-2002, 08:13 PM

{preaching to the choir}
The ACLJ is animated about getting that Constitutional Amendment to put the words "Under God" expressly in the Pledge. Funny thing is, that would be wrong on Constitutional grounds for two reasons.
1) It would be the first explicit mentioning of any sort of specific deity. God is not mentioned anywhere else in the Constitution.
However, the biggest reason:
2) It inhibits the rights guarenteed under the First Amendment, Free of Religion. Once the word God, not "Gods" or "not God" or "not Gods" immediately bars other religions from the same constitutional guarentee of Freedom of Religion. In it, the government is promoting monotheism. That is unconstitutional.

{/preaching to the choir}

August Spies · 08-10-2002, 08:30 PM

I love that shit where they claim it could mean any god "could mean ra, zues, allah, whatever..."

are people that stupid? The fact that God is capitalized already reduces it to monotheistic religions, which are the minority.

Alonzo Fyfe · 08-10-2002, 10:47 PM

That is why I have stated we should refer to such an amendment as "an attept to repeal the first amendment" in all public documents -- letters to the editor, interviews before the press -- wherever we get a chance to talk on this issue.

primemover · 08-11-2002, 12:51 AM

Not that it matters (it isn't going to happen), but if a Constitutional Amendment putting the phrase "Under God" in the pledge was added to the constituition, by defition it would be constitutional.

Splat · 08-11-2002, 08:04 AM

Good points primemover and Alonzo.

My gut instinct (possibly wishful thinking) is that an amendment attempt would fail. I really don't think there would be enough support from the mainstream denominations.

When things calmed down after the initial pledge uproar, a lot of mainstream churches came out in favor of separation (remember Lynn Cheney's uncharacteristic bout of clarity and reason? even the bushies were looking to soften their position). When push comes to shove, most of them know that in the long run, separation is in their best interests.

An amendment attempt would at least focus a lot of attention on the constitution and the logic & history of separation. We sorely need that, given the shoddy state of civics education in the US today.

CaptainDave · 08-11-2002, 02:57 PM

I wish I had the optimism of some of you that a constitutional amendment to protect the pledge and our national motto would fail. The biggest reason for such a hope in my opinion is the amount of time it takes to push something like this through. Hopefully enough time for the rage to settle down and clear thought to prevail.

Alonzo Fyfe · 08-11-2002, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptainDave:
<strong>I wish I had the optimism of some of you that a constitutional amendment to protect the pledge and our national motto would fail. The biggest reason for such a hope in my opinion is the amount of time it takes to push something like this through. Hopefully enough time for the rage to settle down and clear thought to prevail.</strong>

First, I would recommend NEVER calling this "a constitutional amendment to protect the pledge and our national motto." Describe the amendment in these terms and you are telling whoever may hear or read your statement to agree with you.

Call it "a constitutional amendment to repeal a portion of the bill of rights."

Call it "a constitutional amendment to end religious freedom."

Call it "a constitutional amendment to allow religious extremists to take control of the government and use it to further their ends."

Call it "a constitutional amendment to institute intolerance and bigotry as a national standard."

There is a lot of things such an amendment can be called. But it does not "protect" anything -- anything of positive value, anyway.

Second, I regret to say that I am not an optimist. It will take a lot of intelligent work to defeat such a maneuver.

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

CaptainDave · 08-11-2002, 06:40 PM

Good advice, Alonzo!

Buffman · 08-11-2002, 07:27 PM

Alonzo

Want to ad an "in" in front of "tolerance?"

sandlewood · 08-11-2002, 10:39 PM

The thing that bothers me most about this amendment thing is that they want to add an amendment to the Constitution for such a trivial thing. Such an action trivializes the Constitution. It makes me think that the leaders of our government only see the Constitution as a tool they can use to accomplish their agenda. I was so appalled to see senators threatening to make the amendment to reverse the court decision only hours after it happened. They obviously had not thought about it.

This reminds me of the balanced budget amendment. Why do you need a constitutional amendment to get the government to do something they should be doing anyway?

08-10-2002, 08:13 PM	#1
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	One Nation, under "God(s)", etc... {preaching to the choir} The ACLJ is animated about getting that Constitutional Amendment to put the words "Under God" expressly in the Pledge. Funny thing is, that would be wrong on Constitutional grounds for two reasons. 1) It would be the first explicit mentioning of any sort of specific deity. God is not mentioned anywhere else in the Constitution. However, the biggest reason: 2) It inhibits the rights guarenteed under the First Amendment, Free of Religion. Once the word God, not "Gods" or "not God" or "not Gods" immediately bars other religions from the same constitutional guarentee of Freedom of Religion. In it, the government is promoting monotheism. That is unconstitutional. {/preaching to the choir}

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

08-10-2002, 08:30 PM	#2
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	I love that shit where they claim it could mean any god "could mean ra, zues, allah, whatever..." are people that stupid? The fact that God is capitalized already reduces it to monotheistic religions, which are the minority.

08-10-2002, 10:47 PM	#3
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	That is why I have stated we should refer to such an amendment as "an attept to repeal the first amendment" in all public documents -- letters to the editor, interviews before the press -- wherever we get a chance to talk on this issue.

08-11-2002, 12:51 AM	#4
primemover Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana Posts: 22	Not that it matters (it isn't going to happen), but if a Constitutional Amendment putting the phrase "Under God" in the pledge was added to the constituition, by defition it would be constitutional.

08-11-2002, 08:04 AM	#5
Splat Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hell, PA Posts: 599	Good points primemover and Alonzo. My gut instinct (possibly wishful thinking) is that an amendment attempt would fail. I really don't think there would be enough support from the mainstream denominations. When things calmed down after the initial pledge uproar, a lot of mainstream churches came out in favor of separation (remember Lynn Cheney's uncharacteristic bout of clarity and reason? even the bushies were looking to soften their position). When push comes to shove, most of them know that in the long run, separation is in their best interests. An amendment attempt would at least focus a lot of attention on the constitution and the logic & history of separation. We sorely need that, given the shoddy state of civics education in the US today.

08-11-2002, 02:57 PM	#6
CaptainDave Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Florida Keys Posts: 119	I wish I had the optimism of some of you that a constitutional amendment to protect the pledge and our national motto would fail. The biggest reason for such a hope in my opinion is the amount of time it takes to push something like this through. Hopefully enough time for the rage to settle down and clear thought to prevail.

08-11-2002, 06:40 PM	#8
CaptainDave Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Florida Keys Posts: 119	Good advice, Alonzo!

08-11-2002, 07:27 PM	#9
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Alonzo Want to ad an "in" in front of "tolerance?"

08-11-2002, 10:39 PM	#10
sandlewood Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Jose, CA, USA Posts: 264	The thing that bothers me most about this amendment thing is that they want to add an amendment to the Constitution for such a trivial thing. Such an action trivializes the Constitution. It makes me think that the leaders of our government only see the Constitution as a tool they can use to accomplish their agenda. I was so appalled to see senators threatening to make the amendment to reverse the court decision only hours after it happened. They obviously had not thought about it. This reminds me of the balanced budget amendment. Why do you need a constitutional amendment to get the government to do something they should be doing anyway?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.