yahwehyadayada

The 9th is the most overturned circuit in the country. After listening too all of the D.C. politicians running their mouths about what a terrible decision this is, what higher court wouldn't overturn it? Judges bow to public pressure all the time.

AdamWho

I don't know about anybody else on this board but the courts decision scares me. Not because it was wrong but because it will create a backlash which might cause some really stupid legislation, idiotic Constitutional amendments for instance mandating "in god we trust" or "one nation under god". The sleeping giant is not non-believers it is believers.

John Page

You mean they don't follow god's law?!!

Yes, but wouldn't it be fun to see how the legal system would deal with a case that required proof of the existence of god to determine the outcome? Just think of the turmoil deciding which non-existent god they were going to put on the witness stand.

You might even say that the evolutionary instinct leading us to prepare for (metaphorical) battle by rehearsing our arguments against superstition in this forum is justified.

Cheers, John

sandlewood

Yes…
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Pledge-Reaction.html" target="_blank">Congress reaction to the ruling.</a>
I’m not sure if you can get directly to that article without being logged in to nytimes.com.
…and then further down…
It seems to me that it kind of trivializes the Constitution. I don’t understand why our legislators are always chomping at the bit to make amendments. I remember the balanced-budget amendment. (Why make an amendment to get the government to do something they should be doing anyway?)

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

Usagi_Tsukino

Didn't "In God We Trust" get placed on our currency about thte same time as the pledge was altered? Didn't it used to just be "E Pluribus Unim" (From many, one) on our quarters and such originally?

Our dollar bill has enough mottos on it already, that don't really go well with it anyway...Aside from "E Pluribus Unim" on the back of the Great Seal, the front says "Annuit Coeptus" and "Novo Ordo Seclorum". These are quotes from Virgil and while their meaning has become blurred with time, they are seperate mottos as originally penned and mean something like "(Jupiter) favor our undertaking" and "New order of the ages". The first term was slightly altered to refer to the eye in the pyramid on the seal (Jupiter's?), while the second could also be liberally interpreted as "New Secular Order" (seclorum, refering to the world of the present, being the root of the word secular), though I admit that's kind of stretching it, lol.

Just some food for thought...if this was meant to be taken as some sort of monotheistic affirmation, you think they'd be a little less cryptic and not take a quote from a polytheistic context, lol...

Peter Kirby

I really don't like the title of this thread. This ruling doesn't make the US "officially agnostic," but rather upholds the separation of church and state. It's not like the ruling came out saying that we are "One Nation, Not Sure about God."

You might look here:

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/philo/remove.html" target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/philo/remove.html</a>

Theodore Roosevelt disliked the intrusion of the God motto on religious grounds. He said that it cheapened religion, and he considered it profane to place what is sacred on such a common object. In 1905 he commisioned an artist to design new coins with "E Pluribus Unum," the official motto of the United States, meaning "one from many."

best,
Peter Kirby

Usagi_Tsukino

Ah, thanks for the correction, I had not known that.

Ah well, was good wishful thinking at least.

John Page

Peter:

Criticism accepted regarding the ruling on the pledge. I guess I was more thinking that the Constitution essentially declares you're free to hold your own belief about religion (although I know these are not the exact words).

In this sense I believe the US Constitution is agnostic. Most other countries have a national religion and get by with religious tolerance to permit freedom.

Cheers, John

David Bowden

I wouldn't think so. Town names are often funky and their origins are interesting in an anectdotal sense. I think there's a Hell, Norway that does a brisk business in postcards, and I'm sure none of the residents care about living in Hell.

If I were founding a town, I wouldn't pick one of those names, any more than I'd pick "Allah's Mercy," "Taoville," "Satan's Throne" or "Godless Zone." (I think I'd name it after a unique local animal or something.)

But being invited to pledge my loyalty to a nation under God is not anecdotal; rather it's a very serious matter which touches on my integrity and patriotism. I cannot honestly say that I believe in an America under God, and I would not want my children to have to choose between saying and not believing, or not saying and having to defend their nonconformity with the rest of their peers and their teacher who in an elementary class setting ought to be followed and obeyed by all pupils in class activities.

I think it would be better for the old pledge to be restored, eliminating the unnecessary theistic slant and creating a pledge all Americans can say with integrity regardless of their theological convictions. If a Christian wants to add "under God," there's not stopping her. If an atheist wants to add "without god," there's no stopping her. It would be a level playing field.

Just out of curiosity: Would you think it unconstitutional for the pledge to say "under the gods," and not "under God," Atticus?

Also, would you recite that official pledge had Congress adopted it in polytheistic-friendly form?

Or: would it be unconstitutional for the pledge to say "one nation, upright and godless," and would you pledge your allegiance on those terms, if that were the nation's official pledge?

-Wanderer

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

Jamie_L

The Constitution is not agnostic - it's secular. There's a difference. The Constitution basically says it's none of the government's business what you believe, and the government has not business stating its own official belief.

As for discussion of the majority: Constitutional rights are there precisely to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If "majority rules" always trumps a right, then "rights" are just pretty words on paper that are meaningless from a governing standpoint. The liberty valued in the U.S. and embodied in the Constitution is built on the foundation of individual rights that are unassailable by the government (which in a democracy is a representation of the majority will). If we start allowing the majority to infringe on rights just because the feel like it, then pretty soon we've got no rights at all - and no liberty.

If a majority of Americans ever want to outlaw guns, you can bet conservative Christians will stand on Constitutional rights and not majority rule.

Jamie