Lady MacDuff

My sister, who isn't particularly religious but watches the Fox News channel nightly, really let me have it last night with regard to the Pledge thing. When I told her I agreed with the judge, she started right in on me saying something like (and this is my best recollection, not word for word),

"Just because you atheists don't have a religion doesn't mean you can stop everyone else from having one. The Constitution says people can have whatever religion they want, but you want to take away people's rights to have any religion at all. If you atheists want to live outside the mainstream, you'll just have to teach your kids to have some backbone and deal with the flack thet'll get for not saying the Pledge. Don't take away others religious freedoms just to shelter your kids from religious exposure and embarassment for being a minority."

Again, that was not exactly word for word, but an approximation with all the main points. I tried to debate with her for a while, but she has a real zeal for argument that I can never compete with (she is much more aggressive than me).

My question: what are some really solid, intelligent arguments I can have handy the next time she (or someone else) wants to argue about this with me? Arguments that will also make me sound extremely smart and witty would also be welcome!

Spazmatic

First amendment. Don't use vague words and concepts like "freedom of religion". Nail everything down into the concrete. So, the part that you'll need is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It just happens that state-sponsored recitation of the concept that our nation is "under God", recitation by government-employed teachers in institutions of education is very much in violating of that clause. That is, not surprisingly, difficult to prove, and will require some mobilization of logic and rhetoric to do so (as is the case with interpreting ANY document), but the key is to bring everything down as concrete as you can. Cite Supreme Court rulings, the writings of Jefferson and Madison (most obviously the Danbury letter), and other, similar concrete sources.

Now, onto a similar point that you have just made me remember. If anyone here knows Hebrew, perhaps you could help me out with something. I understand that there is no word in Hebrew for sphere, and have known it for a while. But, the professor who told me that also told me that the word used in Isaiah 40:22, normally translated as circle, is not the word normally used in Hebrew texts to refer to spherical objects. If someone could help me out with this, and bring up some texts that I could use as evidence, if indeed it is the case, it would be greatly appreciated.

himynameisPwn

Well, you can start by pointing out government established religion is the exact opposite of freedom of religion. The government is establishing any religion that believes in one God. Notice how the constitution doesn't say 'of a religion', but 'of religion', implying that even establishing more than one religion isn't ok. Also, let her know that government separate from religion gives people more freedom. The individual cand and should express their religious beliefs without the government forcing some on them.

Tell her, this is not just for atheists, but for buddhists, agnostics, and any polytheists out there. If she tries to bring up that this is a christian nation, tell her about James Madison who wrote the establishment clause, and in the treaty of tripoli, which he signed, it specifically says "The United States is not a Christian nation." If she tries to play it off as a trivial battle, tell her if you don't fight for your rights people will take them away and that every little thing counts especially since most atheists have no rights as it is. If she sites the declaration of independence, tell her that Jefferson meant the deist god(there are no mentions of god of any sort in the constitution, and the declaration only mentions a creator and natures god), so therefore this is a deist nation and she is also oppressed because they are forcing the deist god on us.

Spazmatic

I still feel I qualify as a deist though I may not literally follow the old deist beliefs, but I'm pretty damned close. So, tell her that I, about as damnably close to a deist as most modern people can get, objects to this on the grounds of the Establishment clause, though it is, theoretically, espousing a God kind of like mine. Kind of.

"My own mind is my own Church." - Thomas Paine. You can use that too, cuz it's true for deists, and then you can tell her that the deist Thomas Jefferson would never have wanted this bullshit put in our pledge.

ksagnostic

Straight to the point...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

When the Congress of 1954 inserted "under God" into the pledge, they clearly exceeded an established constitutional limit on their authority. It is a pity, really, that no one challenged them at the time (but it is certainly understandable why no one dared). One can talk about teachers as agents of the government, but in my opinion this is CLEARER than most church and state school issues. Congress themselves blatantly violated the first constitutional limit on their legislative authority.

At least, that's my opinion.

It should be a slam dunk, but unfortunately it won't be. There are far more Drummunds in the world than Arroways.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Spazmatic

Drummund? Arroway? Me lost.

And, there is no such thing as a slam dunk argument. If there was, the world would be one peaceful place. Everything is relative.

ksagnostic

Reference to CONTACT, particularly the movie. Drummund, played by Tom Skerritt, takes advantage of Arroway's (played by Jodie Foster) politically unpopular non-theism by trumpeting his belief in God in front of every camera he could find.

Sure there is, when both sides of a debate it recognize it. It doesn't come up often, but it does happen. Besides, reread what I said, I didn't say it was a slam dunk argument. I said that it should be a slam dunk argument, if the participants confined themselves to the constitution. Of course, I labeled the statement as my own opinion.

Autonemesis

(off topic, moved it to <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000336" target="_blank">The 9th did not outlaw the Pledge</a>)

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Buffman

kstreet

I recommend that you carefully read through this URL and take down quotes that you may not be able to commit to memory. I realize that any verbal confrontation between siblings can get rather dicey. However, you should always keep in mind that a good offense if the best defense, and have the facts and logic on your side. It will be your ability to make her accurately and calmly justify her claims in light of the testable facts/evidence that will help turn the tide of the discussion. Do not allow yourself to loose your cool or to be intimidated. No matter the volume or emotion involved in the discussion, the facts do not change.

<a href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm" target="_blank">http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm</a>

Should you wish to feel more comfortable with your debating skills, I would recommend that you spend some very profitable time reading and learning the information contained at:

<a href="http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html" target="_blank">http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html</a>

I won't wish you luck because luck has very little, if anything, to do with one's presentation of the strongest argument supporting their beliefs/opinions.

SanDiegoAtheist

Point out to her that if the pledge read:

"One Nation, under No God, Indivisible..."

It would be just as unconstitutional. It would be anti-monotheism, and thus constitute an infringement upon the rights of believers.

"One Nation, Indivisible" is NEUTRAL, as far as religious content goes - it neither supports, nor attacks any religion or non-religion.

"One Nation, Under God, Indivisible" is quite definitely pro-Monotheism, even if the "God" is left unspecified. That's where it runs afoul of the establishment clause of the first amendment. It is definitely an infringement upon the rights of non-monotheists, and a statement in support of believers.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist