Freethought & Rationalism Archive

galiel · 07-06-2002, 01:45 PM

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c107Yd4JoN::

Includes "reafirmation" of "In God We Trust" as national motto

Remember, this was passed UNANIMOUSLY.

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]

Toto · 07-06-2002, 02:02 PM

Unfortunately, links to searches at that site expire. There is no copyright problem with reproducing the text of government docs, so you might as well cut and paste:

Quote:

AN ACT
To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: `Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,'.

(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God . That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.

(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God !'.

(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God , especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.

(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: `It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this Nation, under God , shall have a new birth of freedom--and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'.

(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'.'.

(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed, and President Eisenhower signed into law a statute, that was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to read: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God , indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'.

(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national motto of the United States is `In God We Trust', and that motto is inscribed above the main door of the Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States.

(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), in which compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: `But untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.'.

(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), in which a city government's display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, stated: `There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789. . . . [E]xamples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto `In God We Trust' (36 U.S.C. 186), which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see (31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) (1982 ed.)), and in the language `One Nation under God' , as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children--and adults--every year. . . . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent--not seasonal--symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.'.

(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court's holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words `under God ,' stated `In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.'.

(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words `under God' was constitutional.

(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, (9th Cir. June 26, 2002) that the Pledge of Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.

SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD .

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

`The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God , indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Council shall make no change in section 4, title 4, United States Code, but shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Pledge for decades.

SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 302 of title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 302. National motto

`In God we trust' is the national motto.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Council shall make no change in section 302, title 36, United States Code, but shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Motto for decades.
Passed the Senate June 27, 2002.

Attest:

Secretary.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2690

AN ACT
To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

RufusAtticus · 07-06-2002, 02:28 PM

I wonder why the resolution didn't reference all the court cases which established that non-believers are protected from government sponsered religion, no matter how generic it is.

It also left off the Eisenhower's statment in which he makes it clear that "under God" in the pledge of alliegance is intended to make children pledge to to God along with the flag.

So many errors. So little time.

RufusAtticus · 07-06-2002, 02:31 PM

"(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, (9th Cir. June 26, 2002) that the Pledge of Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional."

Note how they don't actually explain why it is erroneous. Unsupported assertions are not a good way to win a debate.

"(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional."

Wow. What deep thinking our politicians have shown.

Starspun · 07-06-2002, 02:33 PM

And the nightmare comes true...

Isn't this one of the reason's the colonies declared their independance from British rule? That being government force feeding religion?
I am also curiously concerned what will be next? Most members of the house and senate are xtians (presumably), so we know whatever comes down the pipe will be from that religious viewpoint.
Does this mark the beginning of the end for the church/state separation issue?

What was the consensous on the subject on best place to live outside the US?

copernicus · 07-06-2002, 02:44 PM

Starspun, I think that we are entering a period in which people will willfully ignore the law in order to impose religious symbols and practices on the public, but it does not signal the end of church/state separation. The country is too religiously diverse for that to happen.

What I think is more likely to happen is that religious people will begin stepping on each other's religious toes over which symbols and what kinds of practices ought to be promulgated by our god-fearing nation. Perhaps it will occur to them that the people who ratified the first amendment were not all atheists or deists. In fact, church-state separation makes sense because it keeps government from getting entangled in religious disputes. There is nothing anti-religious about a secular government. People just have to realize that you can't have freedom by imposing unnecessary majority whims on minorities.

Starspun · 07-06-2002, 03:00 PM

Quote:

AN ACT
To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

This seems to be go against this passage:

Quote:

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

I realize that an act is not a law. But, how far removed from law is an 'act'? Depending on the answer to this, we might be able to pre-suppose what would come from the congress in the future. Are they going against the establishment clause in passing these acts, or, are they within their legal rights; unmindful of the minority view?

Zippy · 07-06-2002, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starspun:
And the nightmare comes true...

Isn't this one of the reason's the colonies declared their independance from British rule? That being government force feeding religion?

The true irony is that the British are now largely free from religious idiocy, while America is suffocated by it.

Hey, guys, you should have stuck with us!

Quote:

What was the consensous on the subject on best place to live outside the US?

See above!

Paul

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Zippy ]</p>

d'naturalist · 07-06-2002, 03:29 PM

Quote:

(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

*emphasis added*

Just to point out, being the proud American naturalist that I am, that the Declaration of Independence invokes the name of Nature. And please note that it refers to "their Creator", not "the Creator". My rights come from my creator, Nature.

If we're to follow the thinking (so to speak) coming from the far right, I guess this must be a "naturalist country".

So, can we find the appropriate legal precedents to demonstate the naturalistic heritage of this country? How many laws, ordinances, speeches, etc, make reference to "natural law" or the "laws of nature"?

Buffman · 07-06-2002, 03:53 PM

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson,.

THAT IS PROPAGANDA AT WORK.

The accurate story follows:

http://www.monticello.org/resources/.../memorial.html

Quotations on the Jefferson Memorial
Below are listed the quotations shown on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. When appropriate, we have also posted the passages from which the selections were taken, with the quoted excerpts in bold.

PANEL THREE:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan."

ORIGINAL PASSAGES:
"But let them [members of the parliament of Great Britain] not think to exclude us from going to other markets to dispose of those commodities which they cannot use, or to supply those wants which they cannot supply. Still less let it be proposed that our properties within our own territories shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own. The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." -- "A Summary View of the Rights of British America"

"For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed
their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ." -- Notes on the State of Virginia

"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it. . . ." -- Notes on the State of Virginia

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." -- The Autobiography

"Preach, my dear sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people."-- to George Wythe, August 13, 1780?

"It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that too of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This it is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan." -- to George Washington, January 4, 1786

(This was a booger to correct and post correctly. Scream! Still attempting to get it accurate.)

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

(UGH!) Now take a look at the context in which these "Notes on Virginia" were written and what important secular type insights were omitted.

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

(Oh, damn! Here!)

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JEFFERSON/toc.html
[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

(Help! I've fallen; and I can't get up...making URL viable...I hope. If it isn't...tough!)

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

07-06-2002, 01:45 PM	#1
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	Scary actual text of Senate "Under God" Resolution http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c107Yd4JoN:: Includes "reafirmation" of "In God We Trust" as national motto Remember, this was passed UNANIMOUSLY. [ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]

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

07-06-2002, 02:28 PM	#3
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I wonder why the resolution didn't reference all the court cases which established that non-believers are protected from government sponsered religion, no matter how generic it is. It also left off the Eisenhower's statment in which he makes it clear that "under God" in the pledge of alliegance is intended to make children pledge to to God along with the flag. So many errors. So little time.

07-06-2002, 02:31 PM	#4
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	"(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, (9th Cir. June 26, 2002) that the Pledge of Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional." Note how they don't actually explain why it is erroneous. Unsupported assertions are not a good way to win a debate. "(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional." Wow. What deep thinking our politicians have shown.

07-06-2002, 02:33 PM	#5
Starspun Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 334	And the nightmare comes true... Isn't this one of the reason's the colonies declared their independance from British rule? That being government force feeding religion? I am also curiously concerned what will be next? Most members of the house and senate are xtians (presumably), so we know whatever comes down the pipe will be from that religious viewpoint. Does this mark the beginning of the end for the church/state separation issue? What was the consensous on the subject on best place to live outside the US?

07-06-2002, 02:44 PM	#6
copernicus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 1,531	Starspun, I think that we are entering a period in which people will willfully ignore the law in order to impose religious symbols and practices on the public, but it does not signal the end of church/state separation. The country is too religiously diverse for that to happen. What I think is more likely to happen is that religious people will begin stepping on each other's religious toes over which symbols and what kinds of practices ought to be promulgated by our god-fearing nation. Perhaps it will occur to them that the people who ratified the first amendment were not all atheists or deists. In fact, church-state separation makes sense because it keeps government from getting entangled in religious disputes. There is nothing anti-religious about a secular government. People just have to realize that you can't have freedom by imposing unnecessary majority whims on minorities.

07-06-2002, 03:53 PM	#10
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson,. THAT IS PROPAGANDA AT WORK. The accurate story follows: http://www.monticello.org/resources/.../memorial.html Quotations on the Jefferson Memorial Below are listed the quotations shown on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. When appropriate, we have also posted the passages from which the selections were taken, with the quoted excerpts in bold. PANEL THREE: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan." ORIGINAL PASSAGES: "But let them [members of the parliament of Great Britain] not think to exclude us from going to other markets to dispose of those commodities which they cannot use, or to supply those wants which they cannot supply. Still less let it be proposed that our properties within our own territories shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own. The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." -- "A Summary View of the Rights of British America" "For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ." -- Notes on the State of Virginia "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it. . . ." -- Notes on the State of Virginia "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." -- The Autobiography "Preach, my dear sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people."-- to George Wythe, August 13, 1780? "It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that too of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This it is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan." -- to George Washington, January 4, 1786 (This was a booger to correct and post correctly. Scream! Still attempting to get it accurate.) [ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ] (UGH!) Now take a look at the context in which these "Notes on Virginia" were written and what important secular type insights were omitted. [ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ] (Oh, damn! Here!) http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JEFFERSON/toc.html [ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ] (Help! I've fallen; and I can't get up...making URL viable...I hope. If it isn't...tough!) [ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.