Ask yourselves, fellow Congressmen, who would pledge allegiance to such a country? A Godless country? There’s a reason this phrase was put into our Pledge of Allegiance, there’s something that it means, and there’s something that this country stands for that’s represented by this Pledge. It is for these reasons that I stand in FIRM negation of the bill to Strike the Words “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Fellow Congressmen, my first contention is that we must not forget the reason that we changed our Pledge to read “Under God”. IT was not always so! During the Cold War, It was implemented to separate us from the Godless, Communist Russians, the oppressive dictatorship that forbade religious icons, prayer, and worship. We set ourselves apart, then, as a nation that accepted ALL religions, that allowed for ALL worship, a safe haven for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, a nation of freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

Have we changed our minds?

Will we strike it now, and put ourselves back at that same level as the oppressive regime of Stalin, Lenin, Hitler? Deny our constituents and fellow citizens the things we, as a government, once set out to protect? Do we… COULD we, ask them to Pledge their Allegiance to a nation like that? I think not. I think, I BELIEVE, I have FAITH that you WILL make the right decision. I have faith, that you will vote to negate this so-called bill to “Amend” the Pledge of Allegiance. I, for one, will NOT abandon those who elected ME to represent them! For these reasons, I NEGATE this bill to Strike “Under God” from the pledge of Allegiance.

-Abyss
 

<Also wonders when Abyss became a congressman, but chooses not to ask.>

--Pop
 

My main issue is that I don't believe taking it out is the same as never having put it in. Just because the wording after the fact would be the same, doesn't mean these would be identical solutions.

I don't think it should have been put in -- but I wasn't alive then, and I can't really understand the impact it had back then. However, I don't think it should just be removed, with the assumption that "reverting to its the original text" will wind the clock back 50 years and make everything hunky-dory. As I said before, it could be like the Cub Scout Promise -- there's a point where each person inserts his own name. Nobody needs to be offended that someone else is saying something different. So make the pledge have that moment, where one can say "under God," "under Muhammed," "under hydrogen," or remain silent, or whatever the heck else they might want to say.

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and that has been interpreted as a "separation of church and state," a phrase of which agreement on a definition is entirely absent. Because of that phrase, I think it was inappropriate to put the words "under God" in the pledge.

However, the amendment continues with "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which I think precludes the subsequent removal of the phrase, at least without raising myriad questions (which it has).

But hey, I'm no lawyer.

--Pop
 

I do like Papa Moose's copmromise, though. It seems like something that everyone can agree to.
 

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited October 20, 2002).]
 

I'm not going to bother replying to your post since you killed your point on your own.
 

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited October 21, 2002).]
 

So is optimism an undesirable trait?

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited October 22, 2002).]
 

It's not necessarily undesirable, but it certainly shouldn't be used to justify law.

The Allah of the Muslims is no more like the Jesus of the Christians than the Yahweh of the Jews. They share certain ancient texts and a Zoroastrian view of the afterlife, but that's about it.

And speaking as someone who DOESN'T believe in a god that could be called "God," I find the addition of "under God" to the pledge to be unnecessary and mildly offensive.

 

I could just as easily say that I would find removing "under God" unnecessary and mildly offensive. That proves nothing.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited October 22, 2002).]
 

Yes, it is. It's legally established as our national pledge of allegiance, in the same way that "In God We Trust" is legally -- and wrongly -- stamped all over our money.

Whether or not you find the REMOVAL offensive, frankly, isn't the issue; you wouldn't've had occasion to find it offensive if Congress hadn't pandered to the masses by sticking it in there in the first place.

I know this is a CLASSIC and somewhat broken analogy, but consider for a moment how you'd feel if you had to pledge allegiance to one country "under Satan" or "under Allah" or "under Buddha."

 

Kinda stupid ain't it? So was your point

Edit: I was referencing jon boy, not tom...

[This message has been edited by somedeadguy (edited October 22, 2002).]
 

"Whether or not you find the REMOVAL offensive, frankly, isn't the issue."
To quote somedeadguy, thank you for killing your own point.

On a side note, I find it funny that critics of the "under God" clause find nothing wrong with pledging allegiance to a flag.

And by the way, somedeadguy, please try to avoid red herrings and ad hominem attacks in your arguments.

Anyway, it's been fun, guys, but I can see that this argument is going nowhere. You cannot convince me that I'm wrong, and I can't convince you that you're wrong.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited October 22, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 26, 2002).]
 

Would that have been a good case for not adding it in the first place, back in the '50s?

 

Again, consider how you'd feel if you had to pledge allegiance to one country under Satan. Sure, you aren't FORCED to forswear the Christian God, but wouldn't you be a little ticked?

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited October 28, 2002).]
 

-------

As for sources on whether "under God" was designed to ostracize non-Christians: there are LOADS. Do a quick Web search, actually, and you'll find dozens of documents -- including the original memos calling for the motto "In God We Trust" AND the addition of "under God" to the pledge. You'll find that the basic STATED intention was to re-emphasize the role of America as a Christian society in an era when "godless Communism" was seen as a major threat -- and to deliberately ostracize those "dangerous" separatists who, by virtue of not belonging to the majority religion, could be assumed by inference to sympathize with the "enemy."

In fact, the federal appeals court that struck down the "under God" insertion recently based a large part of its opinion on letters and memos written by the people -- like Eisenhower -- who were instrumental in its addition. The appeals court agreed with the plaintiff that it was clear, from the texts, that the phrase and motto were intended by their proponents to promote a specific religion at the expense of others.

 

(oh god, I sound intellectual. Someone shoot me. )
 

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited October 30, 2002).]
 

BTW, surely you don't think "under God" can be used to refer to the many gods of the Hindu pantheon, or to the godless spirituality of the Buddhists?

 

You know the fundamental problem with all arguments? It's almost entirely a game of semantics, not of logic. You find the term "god" non-universal. That's your perception of the word. I think most people would define "god" far more universally than you do.

But here's why those phrases should be left in. Removing all reference to deity in anything associated with the government would in fact be an establishment of atheism. As long as the American people are a (mostly) God-fearing people, the government of the nation, being an entity created by the people, will reflect the beliefs of the people. Religion cannot be separated from the government. That would establish a national atheist "church" in all but name. But the government must also draw a line and not single out a specific religion for endorsement or persecution, as I have pointed out several times before.

As I said before, this conversation is going nowhere. Keep arguing all you want, but nothing you can say could possibly convince me that I am wrong.
 

Easy.

1) Documents written by the people behind the original addition of the phrase make it clear that they intended to endorse a certain perception of god. Furthermore, the term "god" in the most obvious sense refers specifically to a monotheistic god, which limits the application here to a very narrow subset of religions -- and, even if you're willing to define the term broadly to include polytheistic pantheons, excludes animist, spiritualist, and humanistic traditions.

2) The pledge did not originally contain the phrase "under god." In that form, no one considered it an endorsement of atheism. The removal of an endorsement for a philosophy does NOT constitute the promotion of an opposite philosophy, especially when several alternative philosophies that are NOT opposites are equally available.

I understand that this last point is difficult for you to understand, as one of your premises -- a false one -- is that the absence of a state-promoted religion constitutes a promotion of atheism. This is a common argument among the zealous, who fail to understand the distinction -- and who perceive "atheism" as a form of coherent religious philosophy opposed to their own way of life.

I'll admit that I never expected to change your mind; from the very beginning of this thread, I attempted to refer people to earlier and more cogent threads on the other side of this forum, where this topic was discussed at greater length and, frankly, depth -- mainly because it's been my experience that those who care deeply about the presence of the phrase "under god" do so because they perceive it, against all logic, as one of the last bulwarks of religious civilization in a world drowned in anti-theistic bile. Since these are internally-supported beliefs and don't rely on any actual evidence, they're impossible to counter.

Just on the off-chance, however, I figured I'd give it a shot.

2. You completely missed my point on this one. If the government hunts down and removes any reference to god or religion, then it has become an atheistic government.

Lastly, thank you once again for proving that atheists, who think they need nothing more than logic, are still prone to all the same logical fallacies as the rest of the world. Thank you for assuming I don't understand you. Thank you for calling me "zealous." Thank you for assuming that you know my perceptions of atheism better than I do. And most importantly, thank you for illustrating once again how logic can be used to attack or support any belief, regardless of whether that belief is correct.

I believe we've both said everything we have to say. Let's just shake hands and go our separate ways.
 

And yes, intent DOES matter -- at least according to the courts, who really do have the final say.

2) The government does not need to hunt down or remove all references to god or religion, and neither am I asking it to do so; it can simply remove the ones that it artificially and wrongly added during a period of shameful zealotry, and I'd be happy to call it a day. There are already PLENTY of references to god and religion in American society; I shouldn't worry about suddenly becoming an oppressed minority any time soon.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited November 01, 2002).]
 

~*~*~*~

Join the civil war: thread! Fight for your freedom!
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/forum/Forum1/HTML/001439.html

~*~*~*~

This post has been brought to you by... JuniperDreams... JuniperDreams, a small dose of craziness, everyday!

[This message has been edited by JuniperDreams (edited November 04, 2002).]
 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Eisenhower was not Congress. His intentions are not on trial. And even if the "under God" phrase was added with that intent, that doesn't necessarily translate into law. The Brady Bill was intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary states: In dubio haec legis constructio quam verba ostendunt. [(When) in doubt, it is the construction of the law which the words make plain (that matters).]

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 04, 2002).]
 

The motives behind any bill are indeed relevant, although I agree that the letter of the law is significant in itself. In this case, I'd argue that the letter of the law, as well, constitutes an establishment of religion, insofar as "under God" is clearly a sentiment expressing subservience to a monotheistic deity.

I'm actually amazed that you don't agree, and fail to understand why. I can't help wondering if there's any text that COULD have been added to the Pledge that you would consider a violation of the First Amendment -- or, barring that, simply rude and offensive to non-believers. I used the example of "under Satan" earlier, which you never actually acknowledged; is that a valid distinction? Does the mention of a SPECIFIC God constitute establishment, or would you be okay with "under Satan" as long as the pledge itself was non-binding? And if a generic god is all it takes to make things okay, why don't you think that the Judeo-Christian adoption of the word "god" for THEIR god (particularly given the intent behind the authors of the bill) makes it obvious that the term is not, in this case, generic in any sense?

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited November 04, 2002).]
 

Tom, you said this and it made me wonder how they fooled you. Generally I thought you were smart. I'm sorry but that statement is wrong. The intent IS to shelther children from a mention of the word "God". The fact they make the statement that they don't want it in the their official federal documents, mottos, and other institutional settings is the way they're disguising their real purpose for removing that particular phrase from the pledge. Technically, it is their right to do so because it does create a constitutional contradiction. But, I will not stop practicing my belief that our nation and all others are under God and I will still say under God whenever I recite the pledge. It is my right to do that, just as it is their right not to. I am against this because I am a believer in God, but if the court decides to remove that particular phrase, there is nothing the American people can do about it because the plaintiffs(the atheist MINORITY) finally have an applicable and valid disguise to get rid of the "under God" in out pledge which they have longed to do for years.

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 14, 2002).]
 

By the way, how do you know that this atheist minority is actually conspiring to keep children from hearing the word "God" by removing it from the pledge? Do you think that they're trying to create little atheists by doing so? Do you really think that having the phrase removed from the Pledge would accomplish this?
 

You're still defining god as "monotheistic" or more specifically "Christian." Look up the word in a dictionary. I looked it up in Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, and the Oxford English Dictionary, and only the OED acknowledges any real connection of the word to Christianity, saying in the first definition that it has been "modified by the influence of the Christian use." The second definition explicitly defines the word as the Christian God. However, that's still not a clear-cut endorsement of the Christian God.

The fact that you are amazed that I don't agree with you only shows that you can only comprehend your own arguments. It implies that you have a limited worldview and can't understand things that fall outside it. I realize that that's a rather personal attack, but you don't seem averse to using them.

Since you want a response to your "under Satan" argument, here you go: Satan is the name of a specific being. "God" obviously has a much broader definition, as witnessed by any dictionary. Thus, using "under Satan" would show clear favoritism to a particular religion, while "under God," though "modified by the influence of the Christian use" can still be applied to any supreme being or supreme reality, regardless of the personal beliefs of the authors of the bill. And once again, the issue isn't about the phrase being rude or offensive. Nothing in the Bill of Rights says you have the right not to be offended.

I could also point out all of my arguments that you simply ignored, but I would prefer to end this, not drag it out.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 04, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 08, 2002).]
 

Wetchik: This is not a nation run by minorities. This is a representative democracy, meaning that it is a government of the people. That boils down to a government of the majority. Is it always fair? No. Is it better than the alternative? You betcha.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 04, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 05, 2002).]
 

Wetchik: No, I don't have it all wrong. I know that the majority wants the phrase left in. I am part of that majority. You say that democracy doesn't decide things, authority does. Well, we elected the people in authority (except for the justices, who were appointed by someone we elected). That means we have a say. Elected officials who do things that the electorate doesn't like tend not to be reelected. Of course, this is in the hands of the courts, so it's not directly in the hands of the people. So should we just sit back and let it happen without telling the courts how we feel?
 

We have the right not to say it, although conservative elements of the government have, in the past, tried to take that right away too.
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 05, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 05, 2002).]
 

Tom: Everybody knows the majority isn't always right. Everybody knows that's why we have checks and balances and elected officials instead of a direct democracy. However, I haven't seen any evidence that shows that the majority is wrong in this instance.
 

Well, just speaking personally, I know it offends ME.

 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 05, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 05, 2002).]
 

Frankly, while I have no problem with schools teaching ethics, philosophy, or theology in general, I draw the line at the general advocacy of given religions -- something that I believe the pledge constitutes.

(By the way, Wetchik, Congress DID approve the current text of the Pledge and the addition of "under God" in 1954, although Eisenhower made quite a flowery speech when he signed it into law. The Pledge of Allegiance (and other "official" national mottos and effects) is a legislative thing.)

-----

"I don't see what makes your argument any better than mine."

For one thing, removing something that was added erroneously in the first place should be easier to justify than adding or removing something that has ALWAYS existed. For another, I rush to ask what purpose "under God" serves for you in the pledge, and what harm was done to the beliefs of Christians in this country during the many, many decades in which it was NOT in the pledge.

Here's a useful editorial: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited November 05, 2002).]
 

I still don't know what proselytization means .

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 05, 2002).]
 

Nobody ever said harm was done to Christians before the phrase was added. However, removing the phrase would be a victory for the atheist minority. It would be contrary to the principles of democracy.

Wetchik: "Proselytization" simply means to try to convert others to a belief or doctrine.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 06, 2002).]
 

-------

Jon Boy, that's where you've reached your impasse. You don't grant that the addition of the phrase was a mistake in the first place, and so therefore can't understand why removing it constitutes a fix of that mistake and not some brand-new activism.
 

quote:

---

No, I CAN understand why you think it was a mistake, but your reasoning is based on a very specific and limiting definition of "god" which ignores the primary definitions listed in dictionaries and which you use to falsely draw a conclusion of an established religion.

---

It really does depend on which dictionaries you reference. Many other online dictionaries draw a specifically monotheistic distinction between the capitalized and non-capitalized forms:e.g., the Cambridge and American Heritage series. It's worth noting that many of the online versions are abbreviated in form, such as the "Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition," which you probably accessed at www.m-w.com. If you look at more comprehensive editions in the Webster series, the distinction is more clearly drawn.

(You might enjoy OneLook, an online metatool that references most online dictionaries. However, remember that these are still often limited in application.)

quote:

---

Funny. I could say that removing "under God" offends me, promotes atheism, and intends to establish a national policy of atheism. I don't see what makes your argument any better than mine.

---

Hmmm. If I were to want to establish atheism as a national policy, I'd change the pledge to "one nation, under no god." Leaving it open, rather than specifying whether we are or are not united under belief or disbelief, seems to be a non-committal position.
 

Plus, you still haven't proven that the pledge establishes any state religion. Here's an example: In addition to a national pledge, we have various other national symbols and whatnot, like a national bird. Does this mean Congress is violating my free speech by telling me that I must favor the eagle over all other birds? No. It's simply Congress's opinion, just like the pledge. It has no legal force to establish a system of beliefs.

Claudia: The disparity among dictionaries only shows that we cannot limit the definition to a Christian God, despite the intentions of the creators of the phrase. If lexicographers can't agree how to define a word, how can we?

Also, I realize that my argument that removing "under God" would establish atheism is rather weak. However, it would acknowledge that the atheist minority has the power to tell the government what to do in some situations. As Orson Scott Card might say (and I'm not saying he agrees with me on the pledge thing, because I don't know), it would bypass Congress and give the courts the power to "amend" the Constitution. Read his latest article "The Rule of Law" on www.ornery.org. (Once again, I'm not trying to drag OSC into this, I'm simply saying that it was a good essay and I think it supports this particular argument of mine.)

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 07, 2002).]
 

I suspect, Jon, that this is the major sticking point for you.

Out of interest, why are you opposed to granting atheists and other minorities their constitutional rights? Which right of yours is threatened by this?

---------

As for using "contradictory" examples to support my argument, I was merely making you a small concession by agreeing that "under God" could, most generously, refer only to a generic monotheistic god. However, I think it's clear from the underlying text that this is not the case, and it's intended to specifically refer to the Judeo-Christian God. Even were it broadly interpreted to mean ANY sentient monotheistic god, however, that still eliminates a good portion of the world's religions.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited November 07, 2002).]
 

Praytell, what rights are you talking about? The right to not be offended? That's certainly not a right. Your right to practice religion or the lack thereof as you see fit? You've still got that one. And it's not any particular right of mine that's threatened; it's the entire democracy.

What does sentience have to do with the definition of God? I don't recall seeing that in any dictionary. Are you just trying to further restrict the definition?

I'd like to see you respond to the rest of my last post rather than just see you pick at the same things as usual while ignoring the rest.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 07, 2002).]
 

It depends, I believe, on the situation. Can you give me an equivalent hypothetical? It's actually hard for me to imagine one, as atheism is inherently less of a monolithic force.

For example: not hanging a picture of Jesus in a public school is not an establishment of atheism. On the other hand, hanging a picture of Jesus IS an establishment of Christianity. It's hard for me, as a consequence, to flip the situation around in the same way that it's hard to prove a negative; merely the ABSENCE of something doesn't constitute an endorsement of the negative.

"Praytell, what rights are you talking about?"

Specifically, the right not to have a government seek to establish religion. Expecting patriots to pledge allegiance to a monotheistic god certainly constitutes establishment, IMO.

"What does sentience have to do with the definition of God? I don't recall seeing that in any dictionary."

I'd argue that the concept of god implied by this definition is one that includes the assumption of sentience, and it's one of the reasons that the term "god" is itself questionable. It's the reason the phrase "higher power" or "ultimate force of nature" might be more acceptable to more religions, as it leaves out the connotation of sentient will involved. (Of course, you can argue that both those phrases are clumsy AND ridiculous compromises, and I'll agree; that's one of the reasons no form of the phrase should be in there in the first place.)

------

I was under the impression, by the way, that I HAVE addressed all your pertinent points. Which ones do you feel I've missed?

------

Out of interest, is the REAL issue just that some Christians are unwilling to concede the rightness of this position for fear of creating the impression among some people that atheists have scored some rhetorical "point" by officially reminding the country that we are NOT legally a Christian nation?

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited November 08, 2002).]
 

I realize that the mere absence is not endorsement. However, it's the atheist statement made by removal that creates an endorsement.

You have no right not to have government seek to establish religion. The Constitution only says that Congress can't make a law that establishes religion. It says nothing about "seeking" to establish religion, and you still haven't shown that the pledge is a law that establishes religion. No one is expected to say the pledge (at least, not by the government--having someone else expect you to say it doesn't matter in the slightest). Being expected to say the pledge would violate the freedom of speech. Furthermore, you're not pledging allegiance to God. If I remember correctly, the pledge goes "I pledge allegiance to the FLAG . . . and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands." Saying that the republic is under God is not swearing allegiance to God.

And once again, with your definition, you're making all sorts of assumptions. You're loading the word "god" full of meaning and then using that meaning to say that the phrase is illegal. Your definition is completely subjective and is not conveyed by the word itself unless one chooses to see that definition.

As to my previous arguments, how about the second paragraph of the post I mentioned? And how about the third paragraph in my post from November 4, 6:50 PM, and my post from November 3, 9:13 PM?

As I've said before, I'd really rather just end this. It's going absolutely nowhere, but whenever I say something like "Let's just keep our own beliefs and go on with our lives," you just keep the argument going.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 08, 2002).]
 

----

I'd argue that swearing allegiance to a republic UNDER god implies that the republic is, in fact, subservient to god, and that one's allegiance is owed to god by way of the republic "beneath" it.

-----

As for my definition of "god" being subjective: as I've pointed out, I'm using not only one of the dictionary definitions BUT the dictionary definition clearly intended by the framers of the original bill. You continue to argue that intent is irrelevant; I'd say that in this case -- establishing a working definition -- intent is VERY relevant, as the best way to figure out the intended meaning of a multifaceted word is to look at the intentions of the people who used it.

-----

I'd say you've already come up with something that I don't consider an endorsement of atheism, but which you do: the removal of an endorsement of Christianity. I've already given several reasons why this does NOT constitute an endorsement of atheism, but I'll try to present the concept one more time.

Let's assume, just for a moment, that Christians did in fact get a law passed that was grossly unfair -- even by your standards -- to the other religions of this country. Atheists successful lobby the courts to have this law struck down. Is this an endorsement of atheism?

------

Finally, I think you're drawing an artificial line between "establishment" and "seeking establishment." As you've pointed out, the government could actually do a LOT of things that wouldn't technically "establish" a state religion but would nevertheless make life very uncomfortable for minority religions -- like, say, requiring Christian theology classes in public high schools. From a strict interpretation, these theology classes wouldn't actually PREVENT people from worshipping another God, and thus might not be considered "establishment" -- but the courts have clearly indicated that they're close enough to establishment in intent that they're not permitted. I'd argue that the phrase "under God" is in much the same vein, and that the theoretically optional nature of the pledge (which has itself been established only by court order, mind you) is little defense.

 

[Edit: because I was stupid]

[This message has been edited by blacwolve (edited November 09, 2002).]
 

So you believe that we were only a nation under God from 1954 to 2001?

 

It's just that, to my mind, America's actually a REMARKABLY moral and moralistic country, and I have little patience for the claim that we're somehow sliding into Hell. America goes through phases of devout fundamentalism and relative agnosticism, and I think we're actually heading into a fundamentalist period at the moment; as a result, it's hard for me to sympathize with anyone who thinks we're backsliding.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited November 09, 2002).]
 

2. Your system of logic is based on a different fundamental truth than mine is. I can understand the rationale for your arguments, but you don't seem to understand mine. No matter what argument I use, you immediately perceive it as illogical and inconsequential. Thus, as long as we have opposing worldviews, this argument will go in circles as we debate the meanings of words, something that can never be defined to satisfaction. We could cut through all the layers and try to prove or disprove that God exists, but then we'd really be at an impasse because logic doesn't really apply at that point.

3. You are misinterpreting the first amendment. You say that intent is more important than definition when it comes to the pledge, but then you base your definition of "establishment" and court interpretations, not on the intent behind the law.

"I'd argue that swearing allegiance to a republic UNDER god implies that the republic is, in fact, subservient to god, and that one's allegiance is owed to god by way of the republic 'beneath' it."
Now you're basing an argument on a subjective interpretation of "under." This argument has no logical foundation.

"intent is VERY relevant"
Interesting that you say that. As you probably know, between the beginning of the Reformation and the founding of America, England underwent a series of civil wars as different religions sought to gain control of the government. This led to many people leaving England and settling in America. When the Bill of Rights was written, it was decided that messes of that sort should be avoided. Thus, they included a law preventing Congress from establishing religion or preventing its free exercise. Since the pledge has no legal force to establish religion, it cannot violate the first amendment. The pledge is simply Congress's opinion, just like any other national emblem. It reflects the beliefs of the majority, who believe that this is a nation under God.

"Atheists successful lobby the courts to have this law struck down. Is this an endorsement of atheism?"
No. If the law is unfair, then it should be struck down. However, you cannot prove to me that the pledge in its current state is unfair, because your entire argument is based on definitions of words. Also, I see no one suffering or losing rights because of the pledge. Being offended and feeling like the government is telling you what to believe (based on the way you interpret some words) are not the loss of rights.

Now it's my turn to ask you: What exactly are my standards, in your opinion? Judging by many of the things you've said, you seem to hold them in disdain. I'd like to know what you actually think my standards are.

blacwolve: Are you accusing me of idol worship?

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 09, 2002).]
 

"1. How does the pledge establish a state religion? How does it have any legal force to establish a national system of beliefs, especially when no one is forced to say it?"

While the currently optional nature of the pledge certainly softens the power of the "establishment" argument (and it's worth noting, by the way, that this is one of the reasons that the pledge is now optional instead of mandatory in most school systems), it has been mandatory even in the recent past. The phrase "under God" was intended by its authors to promote Christianity, and inserted into the pledge -- which was mandatory at the time -- specifically to endorse that religion. This kind of religious promotion is considered by the courts to be a form of establishment, as demonstrated by ample legal precedent.

"2. Your system of logic is based on a different fundamental truth than mine is. I can understand the rationale for your arguments, but you don't seem to understand mine."

What's odd is that I'd say exactly the same thing about you; I was under the impression that, while I understood the rationale for YOUR arguments, you were completely in the dark about mine.

"3. You are misinterpreting the first amendment. You say that intent is more important than definition when it comes to the pledge, but then you base your definition of 'establishment' and court interpretations, not on the intent behind the law."

That's because I'm not a strict constitutionalist. I am, in fact, a liberal, and believe that the Supreme Court has not only the right but the duty to re-interpret the Constitution to reflect the evolution of society.

"Now you're basing an argument on a subjective interpretation of 'under.' This argument has no logical foundation."

Doesn't it? Out of interest, what definition of the word "under" in the phrase "under God" would NOT have the meaning that I've suggested? Are you arguing that, perhaps, the phrase is meant to imply that God is floating somewhere in the sky above Kansas?

"No. If the law is unfair, then it should be struck down. However, you cannot prove to me that the pledge in its current state is unfair, because your entire argument is based on definitions of words."

The difficulty we're having is two-fold. For one thing, I'm not as dismissive of definitions as you are. If we're arguing about what is, after all, just two words, the intended meanings of those two words should be very relevant; I'm surprised and confused that you don't agree. Moreover, you've tried to defend the phrase "under God" using the claim that removing it would just be a way of promoting atheism -- but then, when I broaden the hypothetical, admit that you'd never consider the phrase to be "unfair" in the first place. (In other words, you're simply assuming that atheists and others who oppose the phrase "under God" are just being petty, and are unreasonably unwilling to consider their point of view.)

"Now it's my turn to ask you: What exactly are my standards, in your opinion?"

In my opinion? I think you're afraid that the nation is under attack by an areligious minority that's seeking to oppress you by striking at the core religious values which, in your opinion, make up the strong heritage of the country. As a consequence, you're unwilling to concede any issues favored by that minority because, to your mind, they are merely an insidious -- and, even worse, whiny -- enemy. As a religious man, you cannot emotionally understand why someone might object to swearing allegiance to a country under God -- although intellectually, you recognize that the phrase does indeed promote your Christian God; as a consequence, you have to engage in a bit of hair-splitting in order to avoid sounding like a hypocrite, when I suspect what you'd really like to just admit is that, yes, the pledge DOES endorse and promote Christianity, but all us heathens should live with it as long as we're not forced to go to church on Sunday.

 

"What's odd is that I'd say exactly the same thing about you."
That really is odd. I understand you but feel you don't understand me, and you understand me but feel I don't understand you. We're kind of talking past each other because of our very different beliefs. I suppose I'll just have to convert you to my religion so we can understand each other . . .

"That's because I'm not a strict constitutionalist."
I guess that just goes back to the whole "we have very different beliefs" thing and "it's up to the court to decide" thing. It all depends on how conservative or liberal the Supreme Court is.

"Out of interest, what definition of the word 'under' in the phrase 'under God' would NOT have the meaning that I've suggested?"
Try the entry for "under" at www.dictionary.com.. I think definitions 6-10 and 13-14 could all be used (some better than others, of course), but only a couple imply subservience. Once again, it depends on how the court wants to define it. I'm not necessarily dismissive of definitions; I just believe that you can't base a logical argument on something as open to interpretation as definitions (at least not as long as we don't agree on those definitions).

Do I think atheists are being petty? At least a little bit. The majority of the country define God differently than I do. Do I feel as though the pledge is trying to force me to conform with mainstream Protestant beliefs? No. Of course, my beliefs have much more in common with mainstream Protestantism than yours do, so that's not a logical argument. I just say that to try to help you understand where I'm coming from.

"I think you're afraid that the nation is under attack by an areligious minority . . ."
Yes, I do. You've got that part right. However, I'm not worried about the heritage of the country as much as am worried about the overall moral state of the country. Though I still think this is one of the most (or maybe THE most) moral country around, I think we're starting to slip. I think it's getting to the point where political correctness is taking over and traditional religious values are being pushed aside out of fear of offending.

However, I do emotionally understand why someone would object to the pledge--I just don't believe the objections are all that valid. Similarly, you don't think my emotional objections are all that valid. Watch closely, because I'm about to put my foot in my mouth big-time: Does "under God" promote Christianity? Yes, because of the strong Christian culture in America and the intent of the authors of the phrase. But that's still pretty subjective. The words only have the power to convey whatever meaning you put into them. If you wanted to define "God" as whatever ultimate truth or reality you believe in, you could do it. You don't strictly interpret the Constitution, so why should you have to strictly interpret the pledge? You choose to interpret the phrase in a restrictive and offensive way. With a liberal interpretation of "under God," I think you could be fine living with it so long as it doesn't establish the U.S. as a Christian state (which I still don't think it does, but that relies on my definition of "establish," which is different from yours).

Now here's the real question (well, ONE of the real questions): were they right to put it in the phrase in the first place? Maybe not. The entire current problem wouldn't even exist if they hadn't changed it. I don't think it was really wrong to put it in, but I think the fact that there's such a debate over it shows that it comes too close to establishment for at least some people. The authors of the Bill of Rights didn't draw firm lines saying "this side is establishment, and this side isn't," so some people see "under God" as going to far, while others don't. However, I still believe that removing the phrase now would push the line too far in the wrong direction (at least, my opinion of the wrong direction).

I hope all that clarified what I'm trying to say.

While I'm rambling on, I'd just like to apologize for all the sarcastic and rude remarks I've made in the course of this discussion. I get a little too emotional when arguing, so you haven't seen the best side of me.

In summary, it's all in the hands of the courts to decide if it's to stay or go. We can't achieve anything here as long as we define everything so differently. I'll just keep praying that my side wins, and you can keep doing whatever atheists do.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 09, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 11, 2002).]

Stupid typos. . . . I can't rest until I've fixed them all.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 13, 2002).]
 

"The pledge was amended subsequently by the substitution of the words “the flag of the United States of America” for the phrase “my flag.” The newly worded pledge was adopted officially on Flag Day, June 14, 1924. By joint resolution of Congress the pledge was further amended in 1954 by the addition of the words “under God.” "

This means that congress and the Eisenhower adminstration changed the pledge. And, however unfair you might want to call it Jon, Tom is technically correct. It does violate the first amendment. You might be thinking why, but I'll save you some time to tell you. Since you used a dictionary to look up the word God, then use the same one to look up the word establish:
"An arranged order or system, especially a legal code or country motto."

I think the pledge qualifies as a country motto don't you? Given the fact that we were required to say it as children, that means it is an establishment. But what kind of establishment is it? Well to answer that, we must find out WHAT it establishes. It establishes that we promise our loyalty(pledge allegiance) to our flag and country which are both under God. If the Eisenhower adminstration and congress esablished the pledge, and it establishes that our country is under God, then by transitive logic, Eisenhower and congress established that our country is under God and that violates the first amendment. I may not like it because of my christian beliefs, but this is true and I can't defy our constitution because after all, the bible says follow the laws of the land so long as they don't interfere with your faith.

PS Jon, try not to attack the person and/or their wording of their posts so much, but rather attack their arguments. It was rather annoying when you kept saying the false statements about Tom contradicting himself.
 

"2. esp. The ‘establishing’ by law (a church, religion, form of worship). (See ESTABLISH v. 7.) a. In early use, the settling or ordering in a particular manner, the regulating and upholding of the constitution and ordinances of the church recognized by the state. b. In 17th-18th c. occasionally the granting of legal status to (other religious bodies than that connected with the state). c. Now usually, the conferring on a particular religious body the position of a state church."

"ESTABLISH v. 7:
7. From 16th c. often used with reference to ecclesiastical ceremonies or organization, and to the recognized national church or its religion; in early use chiefly pass. in sense 2 (esp. in phrase by law established, i.e. ‘prescribed or settled by law’), but sometimes with mixture of senses 3-5. Hence in recent use: To place (a church or a religious body) in the position of a national or state church."

Put together C from "establishment" with definition 7 of "establish," and it becomes clear that the pledge does not establish a religion, because no particular religious body has been given the position of a state church. Tom's argument that "under God" violates the first amendment only works if one uses a very strict and limiting definition of "God" and very loose definition of "establishment." This would violate both the intent of the authors of the first amendment (to prevent a state church), and the intent of the authors of the "under God" phrase (to promote, not establish, Christianity and faith in general).

PS: Attacking someone's misuse of words is not attacking the person. It IS attacking their arguments.

And when did I say you're not supposed to strictly follow the Constitution? I seem to remember defending strict interpretation of it and opposing Tom's liberal interpretation. If I advocated liberal interpretation, please show me where I did so.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 11, 2002).]
 

I think the government has caused the pledge to be recognized and accepted don't you? If you don't, too bad for you because that is a straight fact. This is going nowhere so I will not reply to any more posts. If you really can't bear to argue with me anymore, email me at nickmayo@attbi.com ok? I can't say I like the fact that they're taking it out but you don't understand, they are offended at the "under God" and we don't need it in there. Isn't enough that YOU and I believe that our nation is under God instead of saying it in our pledge? We should act as if our nation is under God, not just state it in a pledge.

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 11, 2002).]
 

No one is disputing whether the pledge has been recognized and accepted. The issue is two-fold: What is establishment of religion, and does the pledge establish a religion? I understand perfectly well why they want to take "under God" out. I just feel they have no truly legal grounds. I can bear to argue with you as long as you want.
 

Why would any Christian or Jew find that acceptable?
 

I believe that it is unjust for any democratic civil government to foster one set of religious beliefs over another. I am convinced that this sentiment was what inspired the framers of the Bill of Rights in writing the first amendment. Even if it was not, I still consider it unjust for the government to foster a particular religious society or belief.

Do you disagree with this sentiment? If not, can you explain to me how it can be considered just for the majority to create laws which foster the majority religious sentiment at the expense of those held by a minority however small?

If you do agree with this sentiment, then the only relevant question is whether the pledge of allegiance fosters a particular religious point of view over others.

It is undeniable that some individuals in the US consider the "under god" phrase in the pledge of allegiance to be an important expression of their religious sentiments while others (both theists and athiests) consider it contrary to their religious sentiments. Even if reciting the pledge is not required, by endorsing the pledge as an official expression of patriotism the government is in effect fostering the idea that one religious view is more patriotic than others. By allowing time at public schools and other government sponsored events to be dedicated to recitation of the pledge, the government gives an advantage to those who consider the wording of this pledge an appropriate expression of their patriotism while in effect labeling those who can not in good conscience support the wording of the pledge as "unpatriotic". In my opinion, that is unjust.

I know many individuals who find the wording of the pledge offensive to their spiritual believes who none the less have a fervent devotion to this country.

Including the phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance is as offensive to all those who find it inappropriate to equate religious sentiment with patriotism as adding the phrase "without god" would be to you.

Explain to me how it is just for the government to endorse the religious views of one group in the pledge and not those of the other.

[This message has been edited by The Rabbit (edited November 11, 2002).]
 

I understand pledging allegiance to the flag is a symbolic act. I also understand that in religions where people pray or meditate to statues and icons, that they are not praying to the statue they are praying to the higher power represented by the symbol. Never the less, this is an act specifically proscribed in the 10 commands which are generally revered through out the Judeo-Christian world. Look up the word allegiance. Ponder the definition. As I understand it, when I pledge allegiance to the flag, I am accepting the flag as my lord. Tell me you can not under stand how someone might find that to be breaking the commandment not to worship graven images? Explain to me how pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth could not be seen in this way?

[This message has been edited by The Rabbit (edited November 11, 2002).]
 

"2. The relation or duties of a liege-man to his liege-lord; the tie or obligation of a subject to his sovereign, or government."

That doesn't mean you worship the flag or the government as your God. Somebody said earlier that it's commanded to serve one's country, but I don't know where in the Bible that is. If anyone knows, please supply the reference.

As said before, the purpose of the first amendment was to prevent the establishment of a national church (as in "America is officially Catholic," something like that). And since when is it unjust for a democracy to state that the vast majority acknowledge the presence of a supreme being? This is a democracy, meaning a government of the people. The people have expressed that they are mostly of the Judeo-Christian system of religion. How is that unjust? The only "injustice" anyone has received is being offended, and that's hardly an injustice.

The pledge most certainly does not foster a particular religious point of view over others. "God," even in its strictest Judeo-Christian sense, still encompasses a gigantic system of beliefs. The phrase "under God" also does nothing to say that Judeo-Christian beliefs are better than any other; it is merely a statement of the dominant faiths of the people.

That said, it's perfectly just for the government to state the beliefs of the majority. Please show me where in the Constition or amendments it states that if one view is presented by the government, all views must be presented. This is a democracy, not a communism.

PS: You have no idea how amusing I find it that I've been attacked by Christians and atheists alike.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 12, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 13, 2002).]
 

Jon, I actually agree with most of your post -- but I'm not going to let you get away with that one.

 

First, on the optional nature of the pledge.. Here is a story about a student PADDLED for standing silently, with fist raised, in protest of the pledge (protest being protected speech). This is one about a student who refused to stand, and was punished with detention.

Here is another case of discipline against a student.

---
The US had NO PLEDGE for 120 years; these years are also the same years that conservatives always harken back to as the "Golden Age" of the USA.

The pledge was a poem by a Socialist Christian, which was then given to a leftist magazine publisher, that he might use it to sell flags to schools. The original never mentions God, in fact, it was definitely socialistic in tone. It was modified slightly, before becoming the official motto of the USA. Then, for 40-50 years, students would pledge allegiance, Nazi-style (literally), and no one had problems, except the Jehovah's Witnesses, who were punished for refusing it. Of course, that meddlesome group, the USSC, in 1943 said you couldn't force the religious to pledge (funny, now it's the atheists/agnostics who want this). Then, in a period of Commie paranoia, the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, started adding it. The politicians, siezing on this opportunity, added it federally.

---
I am a Christian, who is offended by the addition of the phrase to the pledge. I don't believe that God is steering this country, merely some of its inhabitants. I believe that patriots are patriots because of their acts for the state, not because of their metaphysics. It is unnecessary to have that line, and offensive to the memory of the many atheist/agnostic patriots who have given their lives for this country.

By removing the two words from the pledge, you allow the public to formulate their own reasons why this country is great; this certainly does NOT preclude the idea that it is a nation under god that makes it so (though I would not agree, I think god has some interesting things to say to some people). Like CT said, the opposite of the "under God" phrase would be "under no God". Omission of both phrases supports neither.

Only the insecure of faith need to codify their belief, in order to have a crutch in their weak moments.

God doesn't care about nations (remember "Render unto Caesar.."?), He cares about individuals believeing and acting in a Christian way.

-Bok

[This message has been edited by Bokonon (edited November 12, 2002).]
 

Like I said before, removing "under God" doesn't literally establish atheism, but it furthers the idea of the separation of church and state, which was unintended by the founding fathers and certainly seems atheistic to me. It will push the definition of the first amendment further in the direction of liberalism, making mention of God even more taboo.

"Only the insecure of faith need to codify their belief, in order to have a crutch in their weak moments."

What do you call the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount? Those certainly sound like a codification of beliefs to me. Please try to keep this discussion free of libelous statements like that.
 

Exodus 20:4-5 read

quote:

---

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."

---

I recognize that many members of modern Judeo-Christian churches do not interpret this commandment literally or else they view it as anachronism no longer relevant. My interpretation is however hardly as twisted as you imply and has in fact been espoused for millenia by many Jewish and Christian (and Islamic) factions. My objective in making this point, was not actually to pursuade you that pledging allegiance to the flag is a sin but to point out to you that it is not only athiests who find the wording of the pledge offensive.

The words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance are reminiscent of the wording used to establish the devine right of kings and to many people imply the US government is endorsed by God. That implication is offensive not only to many athiests but also to many religious people.

You completely ignored my more serious post. Removing "under god" from the pledge is not the same as inserting "without god", it is in effect a neutral statement. Leaving the "under god" in the pledge implies that those individuals who worship a god that they perceive as "over" this nation are more patriotic than those who do not. This implication fosters one religious point of view above others and is therefore unjust.

The fact that the majority may like the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance is irrelevant. The responsibility of the government is to be fair to all of the members of society and not only to the majority.
 

-Bok
 

If so, why does it follow that, "The highest percentage of people who say the pledge are Protestants, therefore anyone who says the Pledge is a Protestant or else is having Protestant beliefs thrust on them."?
 

"That implication is offensive not only to many athiests but also to many religious people."

As I've said repeatedly before, you have no rights protecting you from being offended. I'd be offended if the phrase were removed, but that's completely irrelevant.

As for the rest of that post, please refer to everything else I've posted on this subject. I think you'll find I've already answered your arguments.

The fact that the majority likes "under God" is VERY relevant. This is a democracy. The government's responsibility is to serve the people. The people wrote a Constitution that they decided to live by. That Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state church. The pledge does not establish a state church. I've already said all that before in previous posts. And anyway, can you even define "fair" in a way that everyone can agree on? Europeans seem to think it's fair to have national churches. How would it be unfair in America? (Not that I'm advocating it; I'm just showing that standards of fairness vary greatly.)

Bokonon: First off, the topic here is whether the phrase "under God" should be left in the pledge, not preaching religious doctrineor accusing others of being weak.

Secondly, look up "codify." It means to reduce something (usually laws) to a general system or code. Since the Ten Commandments were replaced by Jesus' teachings (specifically the Sermon on the Mount, and more specifically the two great commandments he gives: to love God and love your neighbor), let's look at that. Everything boils down to loving. That's a codification of beliefs. Are you saying that I'm weak or that I'm not striving to be better if I live by that rule and try to love everyone?

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 12, 2002).]
 

Bok, no matter how secure your faith is, you still and always will need God and Jesus as a crutch. You should read more of what Paul wrote. Everybody is insecure of faith. Even Jesus said if any one of us has faith the size of a mustard seed(we're talking teeny), then we could move mountains. So, tell me who is not insecure in faith(besides Jesus).

PS. I know I said I wouldn't reply anymore but I can't stand when people quote non-biblical proverbs contrary to the christain belief and call themselves christian.
 

That was what I was pointing out.

-Bok
 

P.S.: We're drifting a little off-topic. Let's try not to turn this into a theological discussion.
 

I'm not saying you are weak although my opinion (and it is solely my opinion), that some how feeling that the pledge is bad if returned to a form more accurate to its original form, then I'd say either you are rather weak in faith, or you have so little faith in the viability in the Christian faith. If you think keeping the modified pledge is going to keep people Christian, then we haven't done a good job educating these wavering Christians, and perhaps we should look for something more meaningful to bring people into the fold, rather than a superficial pledge that is not Christian canon by any means.

In your response to Rabbit, I find it interestingly that you take the Bible as both literal (graven = carved/sculpted) and figurative (allegiance doesn't always mean lord/servant), in order to keep your argument consistent. Picking and choosing semantics to suit your needs is easy to do.

-Bok
 

quote:

---

Like I said before, removing "under God" doesn't literally establish atheism, but it furthers the idea of the separation of church and state, which was unintended by the founding fathers ...

---

Hmmm. But what about Thomas Jefferson's clarification in the letter to the Danbury Baptists? Or James Madison's memoranda, Webster's introduction to the Blue-Backed Speller, Jefferson's letter to the Attorney General, and the general text of the debate of the Constitutional Convention, etc.?

The intent to separate religion from government, as well as a distate for public declarations of religiosity, seems pretty well-documented among many of the founding fathers. I'm not sure I know what you mean. Why do you think that this was not their general intent?

[This message has been edited by ClaudiaTherese (edited November 13, 2002).]
 

By that logic, it would be okay to put "one nation, under god, pro-abortion, in favor of socialized health care" into the pledge, since a majority of Americans support all those statements.

 

Hell, I say go further...let people have their own pledges that they make up themselves and that applies to them accurately, if they like. Have that and make the pledge completely optional, and it removes any objections to my mind.
 

quote:

---

"one nation, under god, pro-abortion, in favor of socialized health care"

---

... traffic-scofflawing, premarital-sex-having, believers in divorce ...

*grin
 

Here's your statement:

quote:

---

Yes, I do. You've got that part right. However, I'm not worried about the heritage of the country as much as am worried about the overall moral state of the country. Though I still think this is one of the most (or maybe the most) moral country around, I think we're starting to slip. I think it's getting to the point where political correctness is taking over and traditional religious values are being pushed aside out of fear of offending.

---

This shows that you feel the pledge is some moral/religious crutch, who's mere existence staves off, at least a little, complete moral implosion.

If you didn't feel this way, you wouldn't care about the pledge at all.

I didn't mean the crutch statement to be so antagonistic, as in some extra-special sin. But it seems to me to be wrong, in light of the history of the pledge, to be strongly defending the pledge for a moral/religious purpose.

-Bok

EDIT: I would just like to boint out that the application of "traditional values" has had no better or worse track record, societally than "politically correct" applications (of course, politically correct includes anti-slavery, women voting, but also the Prohibition; all these were argued from a position not unlike current "political correctness", and similar resentment existed against the proponents). Political correctness may be a new term, but in reality it's an age-old idea.

[This message has been edited by Bokonon (edited November 13, 2002).]
 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I defined "allegiance." Since one sense of allegiance is "obligation to a country," that's clearly the more literal definition. Calling the government my lord is more figurative. I see nothing inconsistent with my definitions here.

ClaudiaTherese: I haven't read all of those, but it is my understanding that the founding fathers wanted to specifically prevent the establishment of a state church and to generally keep religion out of politics. It's debatable whether the pledge constitutes politics. And even then, there's no law against religion being involved in politics, only in the legal establishment of a religion.

Tom: I never suggested it's okay to expect people to adhere to any pledge. In fact, I've stated a few times that requiring anyone to say the pledge would violate free speech. I'll give my allegiance to the government if they deserve my allegiance, and I think the same goes for anyone. And anyway, even though we know the majority's not always right, whose morals are we all going to accept? Mine? Yours? We kind of have to accept the majority's morals. Of course, that's why we elect people who are allegedly smarter and more moral than we are.

Bokonon: Let me clarify that statement that you quoted. I don't think the pledge is propping up the nation's morals. I don't think our morals will collapse without the pledge. However, I think the crusade to remove all references to religion or deity from government is an indicator of declining morals.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 13, 2002).]
 

Why? Do you believe morality is synonymous with religion?

 

What is the problem with the government remaining silent on this issue?

-Bok
 

Since the pledge doesn't violate the first amendment, taking it out is unnecessary. I think it could start a trend that would lead to violations of the first amendment going the other direction--persecution of religion (of course, that's not likely to happen in the near future, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about it). It would also expand the powers of the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution and judge the constitutionality of laws (which powers were assumed, not given in the Constitution). I believe that the Supreme Court does not always act in the most moral way--if they can use the fourth amendment to "prove" that abortions are constitutional, what else can they do? I think that covers your questions, Bokonon. (And apology accepted.)

"Do you believe morality is synonymous with religion?"

Of course not. I'm not calling you immoral because you're an atheist. But for the reasons stated above, I think that removing "under God" is immoral.

I kind of agree with phoenix646 that the pledge probably shouldn't have been changed in the first place; in fact, I find the idea of requiring everyone to pledge allegiance (which used to be the case) to be socialistic. Maybe adding "under God" helped to distinguish us from the Communists, which I think was a good thing, but I'm not sure it was worth all the problems it's caused since then. However, I do agree that my beliefs won't be harmed if it's taken out, and conversely, the beliefs of those opposed to it shouldn't be harmed if it's left in. But like I said, I'm not just worried about my moral state.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 13, 2002).]
 

We do not live in a democracy Jon Boy, we live in a constitutional democracy. The significant difference is that we have agreed that there are certain rights, among them the free exercise of religion, which the majority can not choose to eliminate or reduce.

I believe that is an abuse of power for a civil government to foster one religious system over another. Since it's inception, the first amendment has been widely assumed to protect against such abuse. If this was not the intent of the founding fathers, it should have been.

You have stated that the first amendment is merely a prohibition against establishment of an official state religion and nothing more. By this do you mean that it is acceptable (either under the constitution or your personal ethical code) for the government to take any action that might promote a particular religious belief so long as it stops short of actually making an official US religion? Nothing in the following list would actually legally establish an official religion. Do you they would all be constitution? If not, where would you draw the line and how do you justify drawing that line.

• The US government adopts a policy that only Christians can hold civil service jobs.
• A state decides that only Baptists will be allowed to teach in the public schools.
• A state decides that athiests will not be allowed to teach in the public schools.
• A public school fires a teacher because she joins Wicca.
• The US government declares that athiests can not be given a security clearance.
• A public school provides a class room for a Catholic priest to teach a class but will not provide a class room for an Muslim Imam.
• A school provides an opportunity and microphone for a student to voice a prayer at an official school function with the restriction that they may not mention the name of Jesus, Jehovah or Allah in the prayer.
• Congress passes a resolution declaring the US to be a christian nation.
• Congress passes a resolution declaring the US to be a God fearing nation.
• The government offers tax credits to citizens who are members of a qualified church.
• The government provides a grant to churches that teach the high spiritual value of wilderness.
• The government provides a grant to churches that teach respect for human life.
• The government provides a grant to churches that help the poor.
• The government funds a media campaign to improve the image of Judaism.
• The legislature passes a resolution recognizing that christian churches promote good citizenship. (But does not offer the same support to other churches).
• The government endorses a campaign equating church attendance with patriotism.
• The government endorses a campaign equating faith in God with good citizenship and patriotism.

  Where would you draw the line?

[This message has been edited by The Rabbit (edited November 13, 2002).]
 

"I believe that is an abuse of power for a civil government to foster one religious system over another."

The key words here are "I believe." What you believe has no bearing on the laws of the land. I've already explained what the first amendment literally means (and if you're going to use literal definitions, you had better be consistent), so I won't explain again.

"If this was not the intent of the founding fathers, it should have been."

It's too bad the founding fathers didn't have you on hand to tell them what to do. If that's what their intent should have been, then they should have said it in the Constitution.

I have NOT stated that the first amendment is nothing more than a prohibition against the establishment of a state religion. Reread my previous posts. I have stated that the first amendment also prevents religious discrimination.

As for your list, I would draw the line at anything that violated the Constitution and its amendments. Most (if not all) of those violate the first, ninth, or fourteenth amendments.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 13, 2002).]
 

quote:

---

I've already explained what the first amendment literally means (and if you're going to use literal definitions, you had better be consistent), so I won't explain again.

---

I so no reason that literally interpreting the Bible requires one to literally interpret the constitution. Why do you think one should be consistent between these two. What is more it was you who insisted that the literal interpretation of grave images limited it only to things carved from stone? I was argueing that the scripture should be extened to imply all symbols made by human hands.

quote:

---

It's too bad the founding fathers didn't have you on hand to tell them what to do. If that's what their intent should have been, then they should have said it in the Constitution.

---

You are right, it doesn't matter what I believe the founding fathers meant. It also doesn't matter what you believe the founding fathers meant. In fact it doesn't really matter what the founding fathers wrote. The founding fathers established a way to resolve such disputes -- they relegated it to the Supreme Court. The founding fathers knew that controversies would arise over their intent and instead of writing thousands of pages to clarify their intent, they relegated that the responsibility to the Supreme Court. By definition, the constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. So by the constitution itself, it is not the precise wording of the constitution that matters either, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court that matters. The opinion of the Supreme Court has since the adoption of the Bill of Rights been that the first amendment prohibited government endorsement of religion. End of argument.

Beyond that, I believe that the responsibility of any decent government should not be limited to doing what people wrote over 200 year ago but should include doing what is just. It is unjust for the government to foster a religious society. Do you disagree with that? If so, how do you justify it? I have read many statements by the founding fathers and think that was their intent. If you insist, I can find and post their statements. You state repeatedly that this was not their intent but have yet to present any evidence to support your statement.

But in truth, I don't see that it really matters whether the founding fathers wanted to build a strong wall of separation between church and state or not. What matters is whether or not it is just for the government to foster one religion at the expense of others. I can think of no compelling ethical reason to do what a bunch of guys who lived over 200 centuries ago thought we should. Ethics demand that we pursue fairness and justice and protect the natural rights of our citizens. Intent is irrelevant.

Also, having read the 9th and 14th amendments I'm not sure how anything on the list I posted violates either of those amendments.

Please tell me where you would draw the line and why?
 

"The founding fathers established a way to resolve such disputes -- they relegated it to the Supreme Court."

Really? I see a sentence in Article III, Section 2 which reads: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." That's cases UNDER the Constitution. I don't see anything saying they can judge the Constitution itself. The powers of judicial review are not found in the Constitution; rather, they were the creation of some supreme court justice in the past (I forget which, and it's late, so I'm not going to look it up right now). End of argument.

"In fact it doesn't really matter what the founding fathers wrote."

Well, it sort of does matter, because what they wrote is the supreme law of the land.

"I believe that the responsibility of any decent government should not be limited to doing what people wrote over 200 year ago but should include doing what is just."

I asked Tom before, but maybe you didn't read it: Whose standard of "just" are we going to use? Yours? The issue here is not one of justness, but of legality. Your ideals of justness and fairness are completely irrelevant.

"Please tell me where you would draw the line and why?"

I already said I don't feel qualified to judge those. The topic here isn't "What are Jon Boy's definitions of what is legal or ethical?", but "Does the pledge violate the Constitution?" Any other discussions are not relevant to the topic.
 

In other words, laws should be reviewed based on how they uphold the intent of the freedoms established in the Constitution, NOT in how well they literally fulfill them.

In other words, not being required to quarter soldiers in your house should ALSO mean that you can't be required to quarter soldiers in your shed. It's a simple extension.

By the same logic, "establishing" a state religion can easily be extended to offering things like tax rebates in exchange for conversion -- even if people are still legally ABLE to remain agnostic.

 

quote:

---

ClaudiaTherese: I haven't read all of those, but it is my understanding that the founding fathers wanted to specifically prevent the establishment of a state church and to generally keep religion out of politics.

---

So, if you were to learn (based on accurate historical documents) that the intent of the founding fathers was different than you had been led to believe, what would this mean to you?

If you were to learn that the founding fathers intent was consistent with a broad interpretation of the first constitutional amendment, how would that change your views?
 

However, even though I allow for some simple extensions, I still see far too much stretching and twisting of intent and literal meaning in order to "prove" that the phrase "under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional. You have to say that the first amendment refers to all government statements, mottos, etc., not just laws. Then you have to define "establishment" in very broad, vague terms. But you also have to be very limiting in how you define "God" and in how you view the intents of the authors of the phrase. It just seems a little self-contradictory that you give such great weight to the words and motives of a non-binding pledge but such little weight to the supreme law of the land.

Note: I would agree that tax rebates in exchange for conversion would violate the first amendment. A tax rebate is a law, and that law concerns religion. Even though it's not true establishment, one could easily argue that it infringes on the free practice of those who aren't of whatever religion the tax rebate targets.

ClaudiaTherese: Please refer to the end of my last post. My views are not on trial. Even if the intent of the founding fathers was as you said, the letter of the law still trumps it. We must follow the supreme laws of the land, not documents expressing the opinions of the people involved in putting together those laws.
 

I think the relevant quote here is "Thou Shalt have no other Gods Before Me."

As long as your allegiance to God comes before your allegiance to Country, then I don't see a contradiction. You are not worshipping the country, you are merely agreeing to obey the laws and defend the country from its enemies. Possibly being a constructive member of society is also part of this deal, but That is very different from the worship of a deity.

so basically my argument has two opposite premises.

1.) The connotation of the "allegiance" is more important than its denotation, and the connotation does not imply worship.

2.) If you feel that "allegiance" denotation is more important, then so long as God comes first, it doesn't matter whether you have allegiance to your country.

I wonder, Rabbit, would you say that you have allegiance to your parents? Is this not as contradictory as the Pledge of allegiance?

 

First off, I'll let you know my opinion:

The 1954 LAW written by congress which added the words "under God" to the pledge, was absolutely and unquestionably unconstitutional.

Now, if the pledge was something like "This land is your land" by Woody Guthrie, which is a popular song, and demonstrates a patriotic attitude, but which isn't endorsed in law by the government, it could include any words anyone wanted it to. But the pledge was established by law to be an officially endorsed recitation.

Now, if you've been listening to the legal pundits in the media who've been prophesizing the overturn of the 9th district ruling, the case boils down to 2 possibilites:

1 The phrase "under God" isn't religious.

2. The phrase is a "de minimus" violation of the constitution, and therefore should remain, because it isn't causing any problems.

Well, as has been shown here with the cases of children being disciplined for refusing to recite the pledge, it is obviously causing problems. And frankly, the idea that a law is illegal, but it's ok anyway, undermines the concept of law entirely. But I have another case that I think is relevant.

In 1987, then vice president and presidential candidate George Bush spoke to a group of reporters at Chicago's Ohare airport.

Asked what he would do to win the atheist vote, Old George replied: "I don't know as how atheists can be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God"

Now, this phrase doesn't exist anywhere else in our law, so how did Bush reach the conclusion that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens? And the consequences? Should I apply for a green card? Do I risk deportation? In fact, this is the same kind of reasoning Hitler used to show that Jews weren't germans. I find it genuinely scary that the President of the United States could be so ignorant of the law, and use this ignorance to suggest stripping 14% of the american population of its citizenship.

The other issue, which I also find very important, is that the old phrase "One nation Indivisible" was the most important, and became especially poignant after September 11, when we suddenly realized how little all our petty differences really mean.

[This message has been edited by Glenn Arnold (edited November 15, 2002).]
 

1. The pledge is not a law. The fact that it was established by Congress does not make it a law. Laws are binding and are enforced (yes, I know--some kids are forced to say the pledge; that clearly IS illegal). If the pledge is law, then anything else established by Congress is a law and thus is binding. For example, what if I express the opinion that the robin makes a better national bird than the eagle? If the establishment of the eagle as national bird were law--and as such, binding upon citizens--then my opinion would be illegal. Obviously, this is a somewhat silly example, but it still illustrates the point. If the pledge is a law, then you should probably focus your attention on your rights of free speech first.

2. The fact that the pledge causes problems doesn't make it illegal. Spam email causes problems, but it's still protected speech.

3. What George Bush said is completely irrelevant. Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski." Do his words supersede fact?

3. Look up the word "unquestionably."

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 15, 2002).]
 

You yourself admited (more or less) that the reason you feel so strongly about keeping "under God" in the pledge is because of a general concern about moral decline in the country. I must conclude therefore that you believe that keeping "under God" in the pledge fosters religiousity or at least morality.

Since the wording of pledge of allegiance was established by law, it is an example of government fostering a particular religious idea. In doing so, it over steps the just power of government and violates the most common interpretation of the 1st amendment.

Clearly you see no problem with that. What I want to know, is how the government establishing the pledge of allegiance (including the under god phrase) differs from the items in the list that I posted earlier and which you have tacitly dismissed as irrelevant. The final one "government endorsing a campaign equating faith in God with patritism and good citizenship" pretty well describes the "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

The list was intended to make a clear logical point. Many of the items on the list would be viewed by most americans as egregious violations of the first amendment. Others might be seen as acceptable to many. if you find some acceptable and other unacceptable, please explain your reasoning. It is privotal to the debate at hand. If you can find a clear distinction between the type of this laws which justifies some while implying that the others are violate the 1st amendment, then you have a case. If the difference is only in the magnitude of government intrusion into religious life, then I would argue that no clear line can be drawn and thus all should be considered unconstitutional.

So far you have given absolutely no evidence or reasoning that defends why you believe that the "under God" phrase is constitutional beyond insinuation that the founding fathers did not intend "separation of church and state".
 

". . . . liberty and justice for all, born and unborn."

" . . . equality, liberty and justice for all"

If you (or any one else) wants to continue saying "one nation under god", it is your right to do so.

What the supreme court declared unconstitutional was the official use of the pledge containing those words at government sponsored activities (such as in schools).
 

I can't see any logical connection other than the fact that conservatives seem unable to argue any point with out ultimately bringing in Bill Clinton's moral defects.

Use better reasoning or give it up.
 

How the pledge differs from those items you listed ISN'T relevant. We're not exploring the establishment clause in all its applications: we're exploring the legality of the pledge's current state. And can I ask what you mean by "tacitly dismissed"?

"I would argue that no clear line can be drawn and thus all should be considered unconstitutional."

Try applying that philosophy to all laws. Pretty soon, everything is illegal.

"So far you have given absolutely no evidence or reasoning. . . ."

If you don't see the obvious pick-and-choose, word-twisting games that have to be played to argue that the pledge is unconstitutional, or if you don't see that the supreme court is overstepping its authority, then I really don't know what else I can say that you would find rational.

"If you (or any one else) wants to continue saying 'one nation under god', it is your right to do so."

If you want to leave out "under God," it is your right to do so. If you don't even want to say the pledge, it is your right to do so.

"What the supreme court declared unconstitutional was the official use of the pledge containing those words at government sponsored activities (such as in schools)."

If the pledge is unconstitutional, then so is the motto "In God we trust;" the practice of saying, "so help you God," when swearing people in; and any other mention of God or religion in any government-sponsored activity. Can you really justify and support such an anti-religious witch hunt? Even Tom said we don't need to go that far.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 16, 2002).]
 

As for why I used that example, it's because I though it was a very obvious example of a president saying something that wasn't factual. This has nothing to do with Clinton's morals, nor was I trying to bring in his moral defects. I was illustrating a point.

Please stop generalizing all conservatives in a negative way. It's a hasty generalization and a personal attack, both of which are logical fallacies.
 

While I agree we don't need to act to remove all references to God or higher power from government, I do want to point out that I think swearing "so help you God" is pretty unconstitutional, too.

"As for why I used that example, it's because I though it was a very obvious example of a president saying something that wasn't factual."

I'd argue that the distinction here is that Clinton, lying about his relationship with Ms. Lewinski, was being inaccurate about his personal life; Bush, by arguing that atheists shouldn't be permitted to vote, was making a political statement. And I'm much more comfortable with PERSONAL inaccuracies and lies than inaccuracies about POLICY -- especially when it's coming from a would-be president.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited November 16, 2002).]
 

quote:

---

ClaudiaTherese: Please refer to the end of my last post. My views are not on trial.

---

No, but they are critiquable. Any personal opinion expressed on a public forum seems to be open to critique by definition, since there's no other reason for posting it (unless you intend merely to inform the unenlightened masses, and neither of us are egotistical enough for that *grin).

I was just wondering what that meant to you, since by citing that claim in support of your argument, you seemed to be claiming it was an important point.

quote:

---

Even if the intent of the founding fathers was as you said, the letter of the law still trumps it. We must follow the supreme laws of the land, not documents expressing the opinions of the people involved in putting together those laws.

---

So ... I'm still confused. Are you arguing that the "supreme laws of the land" represent an infallible and unchanging set of rules which are not subject to interpretation? Or if they are 1) fallible and/or 2) subject to change and/or 3) subject to interpretation, then isn't that up for debate?

I feel a little dumb: what exactly is the claim I cited that you're referring to?

No, the Constitution isn't infallible and it is somewhat subject to interpretation. However, the only legal way to change it is through amendment, not through supreme court rulings. Changing the amendment is a power that was given to the people and Congress.

When it comes to interpretation of the Constitution and amendments, I simply think that my interpretation involves the least amount of word-twisting, gives the most weight to the documents that deserve it, and doesn't give more power to the Supreme Court than it should have. I think I'm right, but that doesn't mean I think I'm "absolutely and unquestionably" right.
 

I have read your posts, and they have no merit. What you need to do is read some SCOTUS rulings on the 1st amendment, not argue with me.

You are right that "unquestionably" was the wrong word, but only because many people are not well educated enough to understand the law.

Every columnist educated in law that I've read on the PoA case admits that if "under god" is religious in nature, that it violates the 1st. Their reason for arguing that it be overturned is that it simply isn't illegal "enough" to justify eliminating what they consider to be an important phrase. This is the meaning of "de minimus," which was the reason given by the one dissenting judge.

With regard to G. Bush Sr.'s comment, I was not suggesting that he was lying, nor was I suggesting that his word was law, only that the inclusion of "under God" has been interpreted by people who should know better, as justification for stripping atheists of their citizenship. That is clearly harmful. Look at Mcarthy era damage. (which is really what we're discussing here)

Tom, just as a note: The addition of "so help me God" in reciting the Oath (or affirmation) of office is not by any means unconstitutional. The constitution specifically refers to it as an "Oath or affirmation" each and every time it is written. An Oath is a religious promise, while an affirmation is a secular one.

This is reinforced by the 1st amend: "congres shall make no law... prohibiting the free excercise (of religion)" The president is allowed to make a religious statement. He is not, however, allowed to impose his religion on the rest of us.

One thing that really has me upset is Dubya's promise not to put anyone on the supreme court that will not uphold "under God." This constitutes a "religious test" for judicial appointments, and is a direct violation of the president's Oath of office, where Bush swore to uphold the constitution. I used Oath in this case, because rather than giving the affirmation, Bush *swore* "so help me God"

The constitution expressly forbids any religious test for any office of public trust. (which also puts a damper on "in God we trust" on money, although I'm not sure paper money constitutes an "office" it is very definitely an issue of public trust)
 

It's good to finally have someone here who can impartially tell everyone what is right and wrong. Apparently, you're the only one around here who's educated enough.

"I have read your posts, and they have no merit. What you need to do is read some SCOTUS rulings on the 1st amendment, not argue with me."

Funny. I've read your posts, but I don't see any merit in yours. I can honestly say I don't care too much what the Supreme Court's opinion on the matter is. The Supreme Court's power to reinterpret the Constitution is, ironically enough, unconstitutional. Maybe they should make a ruling about the legality of judicial review itself.

Should I even ask why the opinion of columnists matters?

(I also think it would be funny to make a comment about the "fact" that no liberal can argue any point without ultimately calling President Bush "Dubya," but then I decided that no one would realize it was a joke.)
 

Jon, wouldn't you agree that we need at least ONE governmental body entitled to interpret the Constitution?

 

But the power to interpret the Constitution without rewriting it IS important. Consider, for example, some of the specific wording of the various Amendments, much of which only vaguely applies to the modern era; should we REALLY try to rewrite each Amendment every time a question comes up about how it applies today, or should we be able to try to interpret the message of the existing Amendment?

 

Yes, but it's not the Supreme Court's power. It's the power of the lawmakers.
 

Pretty lame, Glenn.
 

[This message has been edited by Ralphie (edited November 17, 2002).]
 

You know what's funny? I was a newbie over in the Writers Workshop, decided to browse on over here and see what was going on, saw the pledge debate, and jumped right in. Someone should warn the poor newbies.
 

The Supreme Court's JOB is to interpret the constitution. That is, in the absence of the original authors, the supreme court *judges* what the language of the constitution means.

The act of amending the constitution is the act of changing it. This is beyond the SCOTUS's control. It is reasonable to argue, for example, that the various SCOTUS rulings on prayer in school are invalid, because they overreached the extent of interpretation, and in effect, wrote new law. In fact, I think that those rulings were a stretch, since the constitution does not define teachers or school districts as "congress." But the ability of the SCOTUS to interpret beyond the specific wording of the constitution is well recognized by history, and accepted by government. I'm not arguing that point.

But with respect to acts of congress, the wording of the 1st is very clear. "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." When congress makes a written law adding the words "under god" (to anything) it is a violation, unless the words (somehow) are not religious in nature. You keep arguing that the PoA is not a law. Neither is a religion. But the PoA was established by law. And that's not in question. Congress can no more establish a pledge which respects the establishment of religion than it can establish a religion itself.

As far as my reference to "dubya," there is obvious confusion with respect to George H. W. Bush vs. George W. Bush. I had previously made reference to the father, who has no such nickname, but due to the nickname, "dubya" is easily identified.

Why should you care about columnists? Notice I said "every columnist educated in Law." Greta Van Susternen (sp) George Will, Thomas Sowell. etc. Many of these are conservatives, who would love to simply argue that the case is "ridiculous" but who have enough legal background to know that the case is valid. It would undermine their authority as legal columnists if they didn't refer to the law to make their arguments.

Now, perhaps you have some legal insight that they haven't thought of, that might extend the short list. Or you'd like to comment on whether "under god" is a de minimus violation, or a non-religious statement. But arguing that a law written by congress isn't a law written by congress makes no sense.
 

The Supreme Court ASSUMED it was their job to interpret the Constitution. The fact that it's recognized and accepted doesn't make it legal. The pledge is recognized and accepted, but you claim it's illegal. Since acceptability and recognition cannot be used to construct a logical argument, we must rely on what the Constitution itself says.

"You keep arguing that the PoA is not a law."

The problem is that there are multiple definitions of what a law is, and they don't all agree with each other. One definition is that it is a body of rules binding on its members. This would exclude the pledge. Another definition is that a law is simply a piece of enacted legislation, which would include the resolution that created the pledge. However, even with that definition, your case for saying that the pledge establishes religion is still very weak, since it relies entirely on subjective definitions and not on logic.

The funny thing about my joke about your reference to "dubya": I said I didn't think anyone would get it, and it seems my prediction was right.

"It would undermine their authority as legal columnists. . . ."

What authority? The authority to express their opinion? I'm not questioning that.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 18, 2002).]
 

That phrase has been interpret since the writing of the constitution to mean that the Supreme court has the responsibility of interpreting the constitution. In fact I have read critiques of the constitution written during the constitutional convention and the period during which the original states debated its ratification with discuss this point specifically. Your arguement that it is unconstitutional for Supreme Court to interpret the constitution is without merit and in fact directly contradicts what is written in the constitution.

Your said:

quote:

---

Try applying that philosophy to all laws. Pretty soon, everything is illegal.

---

Actually this is pretty much exactly what the courts do. It is an established logical process for interpreting the meaning of a law. If you can find away of interpreting the first amendment that would not set a precident for any other case -- then you have a point but since every legal decision (particularly those made by the supreme court) is refered to in making further legal decisions only a complete fool would attempt to interpret the constitution with out considering how that interpretation might influence other decisions.
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 18, 2002).]
 

"That phrase has been interpret since the writing of the constitution to mean that the Supreme court has the responsibility of interpreting the constitution."

This is circular reasoning. The supreme court interpreted it to mean that they had the power to interpret it. It's completely without logical or legal foundation. I'd also like to point out that the court started by merely assuming they could judge the constitutionality of laws, not alter the meaning of the Constitution itself. Read Orson Scott Card's recent essay "The Rule of Law" on www.ornery.org. Also read this: http://www.constitutioncenter.org/sections/basics/basic_1d.asp. Notice how the court simply assumed they had the power, rather than deriving it from legal means.

I actually don't have much of a problem with the court deciding if laws are constitutional. It prevents the abuse of power in case Congress and the President ever decide to try to pass unconstitutional laws. What I do have a problem with is the power to change the meaning of the Constitution through court rulings. That simply bypasses the amendment process and takes power from the real lawmakers. This is a representative democracy, not an oligarchy. Only the people and their representatives can make the law.

"In fact I have read critiques of the constitution written during the constitutional convention. . . ."

Irrelevant. What does someone's opinion of the law have to do with the law itself?

And I don't even get what you're saying in your last paragraph. How does that relate to my quote? If you're saying that since there is no clear line, everything's illegal, then you're saying that everything is illegal. This is obviously false.

Wetchik: The supreme court IS trying to change the first amendment by changing its meaning. If they say it means something else, then they have made a de facto change.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 18, 2002).]
 

I said that the framers of the constitution and critics of the constitution interpeted that phrase to mean that the Supreme Court had the power to interpret the constitution during the debates surrounding the writing and ratification of the constitution.

If you look in the Websters dictionary and the OED both offer seven definitions for establish. Which of these definitions is the correct one? The first among those given in the OED reads:

quote:

---

1. To render stable or firm. [{dag}] a. To strengthen by material support (obs.). [{dag}] b. To ratify, confirm, validate (obs.). c. To confirm, settle (what is weak or wavering); to restore (health) permanently; to give calmness or steadiness to (the mind). [{dag}] d. catachr. To calm (anger), to settle (doubts).

---

Certainly this definition would support a much stronger wall of separation between church and state than websters definition number 6.

quote:

---

: to make (a church) a national or state institution

---

Which definition should we use? Well the founding fathers knew that disputes over the meaning of the constitution would arise and they made provisions for what to do in these cases. They made it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to decide. Even during the life times of the founding fathers, they were not looked to as the final word in interpreting the constitution, that duty was left to the courts.

Your statement that the Supreme Court has no right or responsibility to interpret the laws is contradicted by the actual wording of the constitution, the debates surrounding the writing of the constitution and over 2 centuries of historic precidence.

Under any case, the simple fact that we disagree on what is meant by "establishment" in the first amendment is proof that there is a need for some person or body to hold the power to decide which if either of our interpretation is valid. If you would like to amend the constitution to give that power
to some one other than the Supreme Court, you have the right to try but until such an amendment passes it is unreasonable to argue that the Supreme Court is violating the constitution.
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 18, 2002).]
 

Two questions.

If it is not the supreme court's job to interpret the constitution, just what is the purpose of the supreme court?

What do you call a document, written by congress, voted on by congress, and turned over to the president to be signed, which establishes a new wording to a pledge which children are required to say in school?

 

When it comes to definitions, the most specific one is the best. It doesn't make sense to stretch it as far as possible, because that would lead to abuse.

"They made it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to decide."

Did you even follow that link I provided? This argument is becoming ridiculous. History makes it clear that this power was not originally given to the Supreme Court.

Wetchik: It's not the Supreme Court's place to change the meaning of the Constitution. They are making amendments in fact if not in name. This is an abuse of power.

It looks like you added a bit to your second-to-the-last post, so I'll respond to that too. It sounds like you're basically arguing for the same thing as me, but in a different way. I believe "under God" is not a violation of the first amendment. However, if the Supreme Court expands the meaning of the first amendment so that "under God" becomes unconstitutional, then that is an abuse of power by the court. Since we can't really decide what interpretation is correct, we need to stick with the most literal meaning. This means that the pledge is perfectly legal.

Glenn: This is the Supreme Court's job: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html. I don't see anything about interpreting the Constitution in there.

As for your definition of law, I already admitted that there are multiple definitions of "law." If a piece of legislation is enforced, that's a law in the stricter sense. However, forcing anyone to say the pledge clearly is unconstitutional. That doesn't mean that the pledge is unconstitutional, only the requirement to say it.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 19, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 19, 2002).]
 

Your arguments and those provided by your link are completely contraditor to the facts as I know them. If the constitution does not give the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the constitution -- to whom does it give this authority.

Clearly history has shown that some one must have this authority because we do not agree on what the words written in the constitution mean.

And finally, I have never said that the Supreme Court had the authority to alter the meaning of the constitution. What they have is the authority to decide what the words written in the constitution mean. There is a difference and as I pointed out previously one word like "establishment" can have a multitude of meanings. You do not have the right to decide which meaning should be applied to its use in the constitution -- the Supreme Court does.

[This message has been edited by The Rabbit (edited November 19, 2002).]
 

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state ;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

(I've left in in its entirety in case there's a context issue)

The SCOTUS has the power to judge cases and controversies that arise under the constitution. Specifically granted under the constitution. If you don't like the word "interpreted" because the authors didn't use that word, then we can simply go to the original language.

Do you agree that the SCOTUS has the right to judge whether the constitution allows congress to pass a law establishing the words "under God" as part of the Pledge?

And to avoid another post, what should their decision be? And what impact should it have?

In 1950 the Pledge of Allegiance was a statement of patriotism that could be said by every single American with pride, without modification or omission.

By 1956, after some hysterical mob justice, this was no longer true.

Whether it was ruled constitutional or not, I submit that this was not right, fair or just. I agree that removing it now will not be perceived by the masses as a redress of a wrong, but rather an attack on religion, and as such I doubt I'll ever see the Pledge restored to something that once again applies equally to every single American. But I keep hoping.
 

While I agree with your basic statement, the Jehova's Witnesses had already successfully sued the U.S. Government over the Pledge, arguing that their religious beliefs were undermined by having to recite a pledge (in their minds) to a "graven image." This ws prior to 1950.

While the original statement "one nation indivisible" was no doubt intended to be inclusive of everybody, not everybody agrees that a pledge should be recited at all.

The ruling on the case was that students could not be forced to recite the pledge, and could leave the room if they desired.

More recent rulings, especially regarding teacher led prayer, have found that even if a teacher does not require a student to join in (a prayer in this case) the student will surely feel coerced to join in, and therefore teachers should not be allowed to conduct ceremonial prayer in school.

Before anyone jumps on me with the "prayer should not have been banned in school" argument, the supreme court has consistently pointed out that anyone can pray in school. To prevent them from doing so would be in violation of the freedom of religion clause of the 1st amend. (and a couple others, too) What has been restricted is the ability of school officials to conduct prayers that students may feel coerced to participate in.

I think it's high time the court used some of the PR technology available to reiterate this distinction. If people are told on those terms that prayer has not been "banned" in schools, it could do a lot to ease the tension if the pledge ruling is upheld. And I for one, hope that it is.
 

I agree that someone should be in charge of seeing if Congress is living up to that responsibility. Let me clarify, because I don't think I've been completely clear. I don't see any harm in the Supreme Court saying, "This law violates the Constitution." What I have a problem with is when the Supreme Court stretches the meaning and then says, "This law is unconstitutional." I think that when they say the pledge is unconstitutional, they're broadening the definition of "establishment" past its logical meaning. I'm not saying that I have the right to decide what "establishment" means; I'm saying that it's illogical to use any definition other than the one that fits the best.

Glenn: The Supreme Court was given power to judge laws under the Constitution, not alter the meaning of the Constitution itself. That's what they've done by extending "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" to mean "church and state are separated."

The Supreme Court didn't assume the power to judge the constitutionality of laws until several years after the ratification of the Constitution. The key case that solidified this power was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (I think). However, I really don't have a problem with them saying that a law is or isn't legal. I hope I made that clear enough above. So what should their decision about the pledge be? They should let it stay, but with the qualification that no one be forced to say it. What impact SHOULD it have? I'm really not sure, other than letting people pledge or not pledge however they want.

Chris: You can strip the religious weight from both sides, but you haven't stripped your own bias. Words like "hysterical mob justice" and the allegation that it wasn't "right, fair or just" show that you're coloring the entire issue with your own feelings, not logic.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 19, 2002).]
 

quote:

---

Chris: You can strip the religious weight from both sides, but you haven't stripped your own bias. Words like "hysterical mob justice" and the allegation that it wasn't "right, fair or just" show that you're coloring the entire issue with your own feelings, not logic.

---

So remove my opinions and give me yours. One year the Pledge could be said by every American, regardless of their religious beliefs (unless their religious beliefs prohibited taking any Pledge at all). The next year it could not. Why exactly would this be right, fair, or just?
 

Chris: My opinions can be found in my previous posts. And I'd like to call into question your use of the words "right," "fair," and "just." Everyone has different standards of rightness, fairness, and justness. You can't base a logical argument off of your perception of what's fair.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 19, 2002).]
 

Why should Americans want a Pledge of Allegiance that represents less than the largest percentage of Americans?
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 19, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Chris Bridges (edited November 19, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 19, 2002).]
 

1. Should "under God" have been added to the Pledge in the first place?
In my opinion, no. It restricts the previously all-encompassing Pledge so that it no longer covers the largest majority of Americans possible.

2. Does "under God" violate the First Amendment's stricture against establishing a state religion?
In my opinion, probably not. It's still vague enough so that it can be claimed that no specific religion was intended. I still consider it a mistake, though, as it does establish an environment of religious belief in a secular patriotic statement.

3. Does saying "under God" in the Pledge have an effect on schoolkids? Does leaving the words out have an effect?
Most of them, probably not. For many kids "God" has become, through repetition, essentially a null word.
For those who devoutly believe in a god, or for those who devoutly believe in other gods, or whose religious beliefs do not allow the utterance of the word "god" in public, or for those who devoutly believe there is no god, yes, it can make a difference. In school, anything that sets you aside from the group can be used as a weapon against you. Kids can be cruel, and this can offer ammunition. Of course, so can praying over your meal at lunch, wearing the wrong religious symbol around your neck, etc.
By the way - it's been said, again and again, that the students can just omit that phrase if they don't believe in it. What if the teacher doesn't?

4. Should the phrase "under God" be removed from the Pledge?
In my opinion, yes, for lots of reasons besides my own agnosticism.

I resent the implication that if I don't believe in God, I'm not as good an American.
I don't like the reinforcement of the concept that God likes us best, because it adds an arrogant feel to our dealings with other countries. If we define ourselves by our religion, even our majority religion, then conflicts with other religious countries will have an "our god vs their god" basis and no compromise would ever be possible.
I don't like the thought that we have god-given rights. We enjoy the rights we have because people were willing to fight and die for them, and if we think those rights are granted to us at birth then we're less likely to defend them as ferociously as we should.
Replacing our inspiring, all-inclusive country's motto E Pluribus Unum ("Out of Many, One" with In God We Trust was another massive mistake, and one that also came out of the godless commie witchhunt.

5. Should the "under God" phrase be removed by court decision?
In my opinion, no.
You're perfectly right in the statement that removing it now is not the same as never having added it. There is no way the phrase could ever be removed now without it being perceived as an attack on God. While I support its removal wholeheartedly, I think it could only happen if a clear majority of Americans demanded it. I don't see that happening any time soon. This saddens me like you wouldn't believe.
 

And if I DO have four or five arguments, it's because people are raising so many related questions in an effort to circumvent the original question: Does the pledge violate the Constitution? Since I've already discussed all those questions, I'm not going to repeat myself. However, there is one thing I'd like to address:

"I resent the implication that if I don't believe in God, I'm not as good an American."

This may be a stupid, uneducated question on my part, but aside from occasional stupid comments from politicians or regular folk, do you actually run into this opinion very often? I have a hard time believing that there are very many people out there who view faith and citizenship so synonymously and criticize those who disagree. I don't believe I've ever witnessed it. If you have, please fill me in.

I'd also like to ask you about your beliefs about rights. You say that if a right is given at birth, then we're not as likely to defend it. I really don't see how you've come to that conclusion. Would you disagree that the right to live comes with the fact of being alive? Does a newborn have no right to live because it has no capacity to defend that right? Conversely, the defense of a supposed right does not mean that such a right exists.

But I'd like to take your statement about rights and extend it. If rights are not universal, but only exist if people are willing to fight and die for them, then there is no universal right and wrong. Thus, it CANNOT be wrong to leave "under God" in the pledge as long as the people define it to be right. The concept of relative truth destroys itself.
 

quote:

---

You've completely lost me again, Chris. Are you saying those are MY arguments?

---

quote:

---

This may be a stupid, uneducated question on my part, but aside from occasional stupid comments from politicians or regular folk, do you actually run into this opinion very often?

---

quote:

---

I have a hard time believing that there are very many people out there who view faith and citizenship so synonymously and criticize those who disagree. I don't believe I've ever witnessed it. If you have, please fill me in.

---

quote:

---

Would you disagree that the right to live comes with the fact of being alive?

---

If rights were so integral to our being, why did we have to have a war and a constitutional amendment to grant those rights to blacks? Shouldn't they have had them all the time? If so, how could they be taken away?

quote:

---

If rights are not universal, but only exist if people are willing to fight and die for them, then there is no universal right and wrong.

---

quote:

---

Thus, it CANNOT be wrong to leave "under God" in the pledge as long as the people define it to be right. The concept of relative truth destroys itself.

---

And sometimes there are issues upon which the majority is flat wrong, and there must be ways to address them. The founders of our country were wise enough to include protection for the minority opinion, and methods to bring it up. Otherwise we would not have had black emancipation, women's suffrage, or any of the other situations where the majority opinion was ultimately overruled. I don't place the Pledge in this company, however, this is only in response to your question about relative truth.

To go to your stated question: Does the pledge violate the Constitution?
In my opinion, no. The change was made legally and supported afterwards. The fact that I think it wrong and exclusionary doesn't override that.
I don't think the country was in its right mind when the change was made, however, so I must wonder how binding it was

[This message has been edited by Chris Bridges (edited November 20, 2002).]
 

You are comparing something like this to black discrimination and womens suffrage? The reason why the majority was overruled then was because they majority was causing great suffering. I don't see how the "under God" phrase in the pledge causes great suffering. You were right when you said it was wrong to put "under God" in 1954, but to take it out now would only mean one thing: Atheists and agnostics want to get "brainwashing" out of our schools. It does not establish a offical religion just by saying "under God" in the pledge, but it can be shakily argued that the requirement to recite it establishes a state religion. The only arguable point is that the enforcement of daily recitation establishes a state religion.

Will this debate never end?

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 20, 2002).]
 

Sorry about your experiences of being unfairly judged. I'm still somewhat surprised by it, and I'm also surprised that I've never noticed such persecution before. I live in Utah, which is an incredibly religious and often judgmental place. Maybe it's just because I'm not experiencing it. It's easy not to notice things that don't affect you.

"If rights were so integral to our being, why did we have to have a war and a constitutional amendment to grant those rights to blacks?"

Because the people in power weren't giving them their inborn rights. By your reasoning, blacks only acquired the same rights as whites after they fought for them. Before fighting for those rights, they had no rights. At least, that seems to be what you're saying. And I should point out that your definition of "rights" is still convoluted. You're saying something is a right if you (or others) fight or die for it. So basically, if I attack someone with a gun and I kill him, then I had the right to do so because I was willing to fight for it. I think you're confusing the words "right" and "freedom." They're far from synonymous.

"There is the right and wrong that the peoples of the world have agreed upon, drawn from observation and history and philosophy and religious stories. These rights vary wildly from country to country, of course."

You're still saying that rights are relative because they vary. Sure, there's some overlap, but that doesn't make them universal. At the risk of sounding like I'm arguing for relativism, let me just restate that rights must be universal and intrinsic, but they aren't always recognized. Of course, "having" the right doesn't mean you're free to exercise it. Also, being able to do something doesn't give you the right. Anyway, we're drifting completely off the subject, so let's save that discussion for another day.

"Does the pledge violate the Constitution?
In my opinion, no."

Then what are you even arguing for? If you say it's constitutional but morally wrong, then you should be trying to convince me why your morals are right, from which it would follow that we need to further amend the Constitution.

"I must wonder how binding it was."

It's not binding at all. It's just a pledge. Anyone who tries to bind someone to it is violating free speech.

Wetchik: Unfortunately, I don't think this will ever end. It really is unfortunate, because I'm really tired of this argument.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 20, 2002).]
 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Here is what it means in more simple terms:

“Congress can’t make laws in regard to an organization or institution, and they can’t stop people from practicing their own religion.”

Chris you spoke of mathematical logic earlier, well here is some of mine:
1. If, organization and institution are synonyms of establishment, and the pledge is neither an organization nor an institution, then the pledge is not an establishment (transitive property if a=b and b=c, then a=c but this is the inverse of transitive property).
2. There was no reason to add it in the first place, but that doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional.
3. You can’t argue that establishment in this context is not a noun because the part of speech after “an” is always a noun. That’s basic grammar and it doesn’t take SCOTUM to realize that. Anybody can make that interpretation of the amendment.

Considering all these, on what grounds can you call the pledge unconstitutional? You can’t. This should end the debate quite nicely.

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 20, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 20, 2002).]
 

Regarding the question of whether belief in God is equated with patriotism, refer back to my first post.

The President of the United States said that he "didn't think atheists could be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

All this flag waving and "God bless America" stuff isn't trivial. It's why "godless commies" were investigated by the "committee of unamerican activities" and, as Chris pointed out, it's why "under God" was added in the first place.

I have often wondered how frequently "hate crimes" are acted against atheists. I was beat up as a kid for my atheism. (but it didn't have anything to do with patriotism) As you pointed out, if you aren't on the recieving end, you might not notice it. But it's everywhere.

I am bewildered by the opinion that "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the establishment of religion" is INTERPRETED to mean merely that congress shall not establish a state religion. First, Jon Boy argues against the SCOTUS interpreting the constitution, and then wetchik argues that all the 1st means is that congress shall not establish a state religion. If that's what they meant to say, then why didn't they just say it?

The word establishment means "the act of establishing or condition of being established" (American Heritage). The 1954 law established the words "under god" in the pledge. How on earth anybody can think that's in accordance with the constitution, is beyond me.

Congress made a law. That's not in question. And that law establishes the words "under god" in an officially sanctioned pledge. It doesn't matter whether the "pledge" is unconstitutional, the LAW is unconstitutional.

Wetchik, Micheal Newdow is a hero to most atheists. He didn't start this, congress did. In fact, Red Skelton's famous comment about "I hope they don't call the pledge a prayer, so they can't say it in school" only indicates that theists knew it was questionable language, back in the 1960's. For us, this thing has been festering for too long. In my opinion, Micheal Newdow did the right thing.

quote:

---

You are comparing something like this to black discrimination and womens suffrage?

---

quote:

---

You were right when you said it was wrong to put "under God" in 1954, but to take it out now would only mean one thing: Atheists and agnostics want to get "brainwashing" out of our schools.

---

quote:

---

You're saying something is a right if you (or others) fight or die for it. So basically, if I attack someone with a gun and I kill him, then I had the right to do so because I was willing to fight for it. I think you're confusing the words "right" and "freedom."

---

quote:

---

Anyway, we're drifting completely off the subject, so let's save that discussion for another day.

---

quote:

---

"Does the pledge violate the Constitution?
In my opinion, no."

Then what are you even arguing for? If you say it's constitutional but morally wrong, then you should be trying to convince me why your morals are right, from which it would follow that we need to further amend the Constitution.

---

quote:

---

"I must wonder how binding it was."

It's not binding at all. It's just a pledge.

---

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 20, 2002).]
 

"First, Jon Boy argues against the SCOTUS interpreting the constitution."

No, I argued against them changing its meaning through their interpretation. Maybe I wasn't entirely clear. If they can judge the constitutionality of laws, then they have to interpret what the Constitution says in order to decide if the law is in accordance.

"If that's what they meant to say, then why didn't they just say it?"

That IS what it says. Congress shall not make a law that deals with the establishment of religion. How is that unclear?

"That law establishes the words 'under god' in an officially sanctioned pledge."

You're misusing the word "establish." Remember that when used with religion, "establishment" means something more specific.

Chris:

"I tend to see humans as a mammal with a bigger brain, with no more 'inherent' rights than any other creature."

I really don't see how that goes together with your belief in ideals, but I really don't want to get into that.

And I'm really not trying to say, "It's constitutional, so you should just accept it." I'm saying that I sincerely don't believe it's wrong, and I believe the Constitution backs me up.

"That part was sarcasm, based on my belief that the collective mind of the US at that time was impaired."

I suspected it was sarcasm, but I treated it as a serious statement because I wasn't quite sure. I think the collective mind of the U.S. is impaired right now. I suppose history will prove which of us was right.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 20, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 20, 2002).]
 

I don't believe I have insinuated at any point that the Pledge is law, and I'm a bit confused where that popped up.

My point was, and is, that for the first 50 years of its existence the Pledge could be said, with pride and without omitting any words, by any American. The last 50 years it could not. So far I've seen no reason why this should be considered right.

Regarding the tediousness of arguing over what words mean, that's precisely why the SCOTUS "interprets" the constitution. You and I look at the same words, and we see different meanings.

The justices are supposed to be well educated enough in legal history and the convention of legal language to be able to determine what the law means in the context in question. That's what interpreting means. The history of the 1st includes many references by the authors of the constitution that make this issue more clear than the circular arguments going on here. The 9th district ruling was not made for political expediency, that's for sure.

Chris,

I think the thread is muddled enough, that our wires are getting crossed. I am arguing that the 1954 law that established the words "under God" as part of the pledge is unconstitutional. If you're getting accused of arguing that the pledge is unconstitutional, it's probably because someone is not addressing their responses to me.

Jon Boy:

"That IS what it says. Congress shall not make a law that deals with the establishment of religion. How is that unclear?"

It's not. Go back and look at my original post, where I said that the arguments for overturning the 9th district ruling were based on the idea that "under god" is not religious lauguage. If God isn't a religious concept, then adding "under God" isn't a violation, if it is, then Congress made a law that deals with the establishment of religion. Therefore, it's unconstitutional.

'That law establishes the words 'under god' in an officially sanctioned pledge.'

You're misusing the word 'establish.' Remember that when used with religion, 'establishment' means something more specific."

I'm using the dictionary definition, My dictionary doesn't mention religion at all.

Establishment: 1. the act of establishing or condition of being established 2. A business or firm including it's members, staff and possessions. 3 an exclusive or powerful group in control of society or a field of activity.

Establish: 1. To make firm or secure 2 To settle securely in a position. 3. To cause to be recognized or accepted. 4. To found or create.

It seems you are trying to use definition 2 above and calling religion a business. I couldn't agree more on that topic, but regarding the constitution, it's clear that the word establishment is a verb, not a noun. Otherwise they would have said: "Congress shall make no law respecting religious establishments." or "Congress shall not establish a state religion."
 

To set up; found. See Synonyms at found1.
To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.

To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They established me in my own business.
To make firm or secure.
To cause to be recognized and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.
To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.
To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established the innocence of the accused.
To make a state institution of (a church).

Establishment(noun)[only a noun, can't be a verb]
es·tab·lish·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh-mnt)
n.

The condition or fact of being established.
Something established, as:
An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
An established church.
A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
often Establishment An established social order, as:
A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 21, 2002).]
 

I'm not at all sure that this is true, Wetchik. Your logic would mean that the national motto could be "America: Land for Christians Only" and it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, I thought I'd pointed out earlier in this thread -- and you had already accepted -- that the pledge IS law. The Pledge of Allegiance HAS been signed into law. Really. Legislative branch and everything. Presidential signature. It's a law.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited November 21, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 21, 2002).]
 

Tom: Wetchik's logic still doesn't allow a motto like "America: Land for Christians Only" because that motto would violate the first amendment in a different way. It would abridge the free exercise of religion by non-Christians.
 

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 21, 2002).]
 

I'm surprised you would argue this, Jon. If the national motto were "American: Land for Christians Only," but no other laws were passed to prevent non-Christians from worshipping their pagan deities, how would that abridge the free exercise of religion for non-Christians?

Surely that's not establishment or abridgement, right? Surely it's just a statement by the majority that they believe this is a Christian country, and that non-Christians don't matter -- but since no actual laws are passed ENFORCING this, surely that's not a problem?

 

What Tom mentions there is *exactly* the issue. A national motto that says, "America, for christians only" but has no laws that prohibit non christians from living here is a very good analogy for a pledge that says "one nation under god" but doesn't require that the sayers of the pledge actually worship a god.

I fear that YOU are the one who hasn't had anything new to add for a while.
 

Wetchik,
Your dictionary says "can't be a noun"? baloney.
I gave you my reference, American Heritage.
Here's another:
Websters unabridged. Establishment 1. The ACT of establishing etc.
Yes. Websters talks about establishing state religions under "establishmentarianism" as well as some references in establishment, but they are examples of the meaning. The example: "the establishment of a state church" could just as easily have been "the establishment of a state postal service"

In either case, it's a verb, as described by Webster's first definition, "The ACT of establishing"

Verb: any of class of words functioning to express existence, action, or occurrence. (American Heritage)

I guess you would say "run" is not a verb, because you can say "I had a good run today" And no, I couldn't say "I'm going to RUN you" either. Does that mean run isn't a verb?

The constitution isn't talking about religion that has been established, it is talking about whether congress can establish religion. The 1st prohibits congress from acting to establish religion.

Answer me this question: Can you honestly say that the 1954 law inserting "under God" into the Pledge did not "establish" "under God" as part of the Pledge?
 

Glenn: I think Wetchik is saying that "establish" isn't a noun, and he's right. Some verbs like "run" are also nouns. "Run" is an intransitive verb, so that's why you can't say "I'm going to run you."

"Can you honestly say that the 1954 law inserting 'under God' into the Pledge did not 'establish' 'under God' as part of the Pledge?"

You're confusing the issue here. You're saying that establishing ("putting into law") "under God" in the pledge is the same as establishing ("making a state institution of") a church. (I got those from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=establish, definitions 4 and 6.) You're trying to apply transitive logic, but it doesn't work here.
 

Why?

 

A motto is a brief statement made to express a principle, goal or ideal. A pledge is guarantee of allegiance by a solemn binding promise. In my mind it would actually be WORSE to recite the pledge of allegiance, which is like a verbal contract with the government, stating that it was under a deity I did not believe existed or had any affiliation with the government than it would be to simply live in a country that had a maxim attached to it giving the rest of the world the impression that I'm something I know that I'm not.

One is simply influencing the opinions of those who hear it whereas the other is a heartfelt expression of how YOU feel.

Tom's example is actually the lesser of two evils, and in my mind makes the point perfectly.

[This message has been edited by Ralphie (edited November 22, 2002).]
 

We're not talking about evils here. We're talking about whether the pledge is legal in its current state.

"No more dodging, Jon."

You guys are the ones trying to circumvent the real issue with hypothetical situations, distorted definitions, and faulty logic. You're trying to lead me off the subject, pin me down, make me say something that you think supports you, and then claim you've won. It ain't gonna happen.
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 22, 2002).]
 

Tom: What's this now? Jon Boy won't play your games, so you're trying to pin down someone else?

Since the first amendment states that congress cannot make a law that benefits an etablishment of religion, and your theoretical motto would benefit Christianity, then I would say no. I see your point. Your theoretical motto, if it was required to recite it like the pledge is now, would be a violation. The fact that there are recitation requirements on the pledge now is a violation. But the actual words of the pledge are not. I fail to see how the phrase "under God" benefits Christianity over other religions in this country. I hope this answers your question. Do you want to know why I even have this position? It's because of the reason why this is even a legal issue. It is an attack on Christianity. If it is removed, that is what everyone will think. Give me a reason you want it removed besides calling "under God" brainwashing or an all out attack on all forms of religion in our country. You want to hear an interesting fact? Guess where all of our country's morals came from? When the Constitution was being written, Continental Congress was using the Bible as a cross-reference. So, if you do remove "In God We Trust" off of our money and remove the phrase in the pledge, it will have done little to remove all influences of religion in out country. I think that is your motive for doing this. Ok, I'll stop, I got way off into a tangent sorry.

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 23, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 23, 2002).]
 

Wetchik's support of the Pledge seems much more fragile than yours, and based largely on -- of all things -- dictionary definitions. Obviously, that kind of Constitutional interpretation is so narrow as to be useless, and I believe a demonstration of its uselessness is in order.

By arguing that a national motto cannot, BY DEFINITION, violate the Bill of Rights (due to its lack of general enforcement and "establishment"), Wetchik implies that the content of the motto is absolutely irrelevant to its constitutionality. Therefore, a phrase which would be blatantly unconstitutional in another legislative act -- like "America: For Christians Only" -- would be acceptable as a motto, since a motto cannot constitute establishment or infringement.

Even the phrase "America: Only Rich White Landowners Can Vote" would be constitutional, because -- while untrue and in opposition to the spirit of the Constitution itself -- it would not be legally binding and thus neither an establishment nor an infringement.

Your reaction to this argument is apparently to dismiss it altogether as a "side issue" irrelevant to the discussion. From what I understand of your posts, your position seems to be that "America: For Christians Only" is BLATANTLY offensive, and thus infringement -- but "under God" is NOT, for some reason, and is thus constitutional. I find this a little incoherent, to be honest, as infringement has nothing to do with blatant offense. If "under God" is constitutional only -- as you and Wetchik have argued -- because the Pledge does not count as "establishment," surely "America: For Christians Only" passes the exact same standard, as it ALSO -- by Wetchik's own dictionary definitions -- is not "establishment."

---------

Okay, I wrote all that while Wetchik was posting a flurry of new information. Here's my reply:

Your response -- that a motto counts as "establishment" if it's designed to promote a specific religion -- is PRECISELY the logic used by the Federal Circuit Court when it ruled to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge. Ample documentation was provided, as I've said before on this thread, that the motivation behind the inclusion of this phrase was the SPECIFIC promotion of Christianity. Moreover, the defense of the phrase even today often takes the form of Christian support; you'll notice that members of non-Judeo-Christian religions are suspiciously rare in the pro-pledge camp. The Circuit Court found that, given one of the specific meanings of a capitalized "God" in our society and the specific intent of the framers, the phrase "under God" WAS clearly intended to promote Christianity. By your own admission, and by the same logic used by the court, this constituted "establishment."

"Guess where all of our country's morals came from? When the Constitution was being written, Continental Congress was using the Bible as a cross-reference."

They actually used SEVERAL texts as cross-references, but I'll certainly concede that the Founding Fathers were familiar with the Bible and generally accepting of its codes of behavior. Given that the vast majority of the moral codes provided in the Bible predate the Bible by literally thousands of years, however, I think this kind of logic is more than a little dodgy. Moreover, this argument specifically consists of the "America was founded as a Christian nation, no matter what the Constitution says, so you're attacking the foundation of the country if you want to change that" claim which is, at its heart, not only flawed but also potentially harmful.

I can't help but note that both you and Jon Boy oppose the removal of "under God" because you worry that it would constitute a "victory" for atheists seeking to expunge God from government altogether; give 'em an inch on a reasonable argument, the logic seems to be, and who knows how far those atheists will go?

This is a perfect example of a slippery slope fallacy -- and, moreover, a very simplistic and somewhat vilified portrayal of non-Christians in this country.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited November 23, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 23, 2002).]
 

Here, again, you're wrong. At the moment, I live in downstate Illinois -- and I specifically picked that phrase because, in an argument I recently had with a very Baptist shopkeeper, she suggested that we change our national motto to PRECISELY that phrase.

Why? Because America was founded on Christian principles, because America will remain strong only as long as its people are strong in Christ, and because it hurts the souls of the good Christians in this country to have to associate with people who are hurling themselves head-first into Hell. We should kick out all the non-Christians, or at least make sure they can't vote; phrases like "under God" and "In God We Trust" keep people reminded of how important God is, she argued, and keep all the hell-bound in their place.

She pointed out that most of the country feels the way she does; after all, everyone she voted for on the local ticket won, as did her state and congressional reps (but not governor) -- and, after all, the country's got a born-again President (the son of another good Christian) who knows and loves God. And we'll be a great country as long as he still does.

In fact, she pointed out, the best thing the country could do is put Christ in charge; after all, with all the non-Christians gone, how could anything bad happen to God's own country?

Lest you think I'm exaggerating, I want to reiterate that these were her EXACT opinions. And they're not rare down here, either. It's not some weird, wacko minority. A LOT of people throughout the Midwest feel this way, and a lot of politicians feel compelled to pander to them -- even if they don't feel so devout themselves. (Consider the ridiculously unanimous vote to condemn the Circuit Court's decision on the Pledge, which is completely unprecedented in history; Congress never saw fit to unanimously condemn ANY judicial decision in HISTORY, even the obviously bad ones like the Dred Scott case -- but they DID condemn this one, because to not appear to be a Christian zealot in this country is the kiss of death, politically.)

-------

BTW, I don't agree that the Pledge is constitutional; I just agree that by only the dictionary definitions you've provided, the Pledge would seem to be constitutional -- regardless of its content. Luckily, I'm not quite so narrow in my interpretation of the Constitution.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited November 23, 2002).]
 

I never claimed they were original. I only claimed they were logical. And as for the validity of your point, we could make up hypothetical situations that could be used to logically argue that just about everything is illegal.

"From what I understand of your posts, your position seems to be that 'America: For Christians Only' is BLATANTLY offensive, and thus infringement -- but 'under God' is NOT, for some reason, and is thus constitutional.

I never said that constitutionality was based on offensiveness, and I never said that "under God" offends no one. I've repeatedly stated that being offended is completely irrelevant. I do believe that "under God" does not constitute the establishment of religion. I believe that a motto like "For Christians Only" would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

"I can't help but note that both you and Jon Boy oppose the removal of 'under God' because you worry that it would constitute a 'victory' for atheists seeking to expunge God from government altogether."

I also oppose it because I believe the Supreme Court has assumed far more power than they ever should have had, and I believe it is leading to abuse.

Wetchik said: "It seems you believe that the constitution is the country's authoritive inanimate dictator."

Actually, I would say (somewhat jokingly, of course) that you believe that the Supreme Court is the country's authoritive dictator. Obviously, the court's opinion of the Constitution is authoritative. Also, court rulings can only be overturned by further court rulings, so this power is unchecked. The court can change the original meaning of the Constitution however they like and use that to strike down or allow things that wouldn't have been struck down or allowed in the past. If the first amendment is really that vague or inapplicable in modern times, then we need further amendment.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 23, 2002).]
 

Why? How does "For Christians Only" substantially prevent non-Christians from practicing their religion?

 

Court rulings can be overturned by amending the constitution. Don't forget that.

I know I'm going to get an argument from Jon Boy here, but the fact is that the SCOTUS has found that teacher led prayer in public schools violates the 1st, because it coerces students to pray. I know of three such cases, and only one was brought by an atheist. The other two (bringing a clergyman in to speak at a graduation and providing a microphone for students to say a prayer before a football game) were brought by religious minorities in their given communities.

The SCOTUS' argument is that the school is government agency, and that leading a prayer establishes a religious environment that the students are forced to participate in.

Now, my particular feeling on these rulings is that they are questionable, for a couple of reasons: One, school isn't congress. That's basic wording. two, it violates the teacher's freedom to practice his/her religion, especially when, as in christianity, prostyletizing is considered a requirement.

But the pledge is much more clear cut. You refuse to answer whether the law established "under god" as part of the pledge, because you want your meaning of establishment to be the only meaning possible. Not only is this not the case, but it's not the primary meaning listed in my two dictionaries, and it's not the meaning used by the SCOTUS. Likewise, there is no religious requirement to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

History is against you. Unfortunately, politics is with you. Now which argument do you think they'll use, de minimus, or ceremonial deism?

Glenn: I realize that a new amendment would negate previous court rulings. However, don't you think it would be more logical to remove ambiguity from the Constitution and THEN let the court make its rulings?

I did answer whether the law "established" "under God" as part of the pledge. Look at the last paragraph of my post at 4:19 PM on November 22. You're trying to use the word "establish" to mean two different things: putting something into law and making a state institution of a church. Whether it's the primary definition doesn't matter--it's whether it's the most FITTING definition.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 23, 2002).]
 

You're correct. That's entirely what I'm trying to do.

Now, would you please explain the actual difference between "America: For Christians Only" and "under God?" How is one "oppressive," and the other not?

 

The original pledge is defintitely constitutional. I still would say that "America: Land for Christians only" violates the first amendment because it would make non-Christians feel coerced to be Christians. If you read my previous post, then you would know that I believe it is oppressive and immoral(even though it might be constitutional.)

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 23, 2002).]
 

Tom, please keep the implied insults to yourself please.

I interpret the words of the constitution narrowly because have a very narrow and specific meaning. Kind of like the words IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT!
 

"I don't define the Constitution narrowly at all, which I believe is a good thing -- because it makes it possible for me to justify not wanting a national motto like 'America: For Christians Only.'"

That's possibly the most illogical thing you've said so far. You're ignoring the most fitting and logical definition of the wording of the law in order to support your FEELINGS.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 24, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 24, 2002).]
 

Actually, that's exactly what YOU'RE doing. In saying that "America: For Christians Only" is unconstitutional, but "under God" is NOT, you're basing that purely on a feeling that the former is somehow more oppressive than the latter, despite the fact that neither actually mandates worship.

The difference is that a loose interpretation of the Constitution makes it possible to say, quite easily, that the former phrase clearly violates the INTENT of the Founding Fathers, even if it falls within the limits set up by the Constitution, and it's possible that the second one does not.

--------

Wetchik: Of course not. Don't be silly.

 

I'm also justifying my feelings, but I believe I am more justified because my argument is more logical, since it relies on a more literal interpretation of the law and not one that I've twisted to support myself. Your interpretation of the first amendment simply has no logical basis unless we assume it's a fact that religion and government should never touch.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 24, 2002).]
 

Out of interest, where did I ever state my interpretation of the First Amendment? I don't recall ever interpreting it here for you, and you seem to be making an assumption -- that I don't believe religion has any role in government -- which is completely erroneous.

 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 25, 2002).]
 

So if murder were legal, and some people wanted murder made illegal because they knew some serial killers that they personally disliked and wanted to hurt, would that mean that we should keep murder legal just to prevent these peoples' "victory?"

If a law is flawed -- and was created for impure motives -- then it should be removed from the books, irrespective to which political group it hands an ephemeral "win."
 

And how much have you dodged or simply ignored? My argument may not be perfect, but it's certainly got more of a basis than yours.

"Out of interest, where did I ever state my interpretation of the First Amendment? I don't recall ever interpreting it here for you, and you seem to be making an assumption -- that I don't believe religion has any role in government -- which is completely erroneous."

Your interpretation is implicit. I wasn't assuming that you believe that religion has no role in government. I was only saying that the only logical basis for your argument would be to assume as fact the necessity of a much stronger separation of church and state than that described in the Constitution.

"It constitutes a blatant promotion of a specific religion."

Remind me again: what specific religion does it promote? All of Judeo-Christianity? Even just Christianity by itself isn't specific.

"If a law is flawed -- and was created for impure motives -- then it should be removed from the books."

The fact that we're having this debate shows that the Constitution is obviously flawed and needs further amendment. If the pledge is so morally wrong (but very arguably constitutional), then the Constitution should be changed.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 24, 2002).]
 

I'd also like to hear your explanation of what the logical foundation of your argument is. Since you're stretching words beyond their logical meaning, any claim that the pledge establishes religion is invalid.
 

"But, if it was removed now, it would be an attack on Christianity because the only reason there is a problem in the first place is most atheists and some agnostics want religion completely removed from all types of mottos, laws, documents. The fact that it is [supposedly(edit)] unconstitutional is only a disguise of their true motive."

Removing "under god" is not an attack on Christianity. It is a defense from Christianity. "Under god" was specifically put into the pledge for the purpose of:

* The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual. - H.R. 1693, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1954)*

This statement, as well as George Bush Sr.'s serves to prove that the reason "under God was placed into the pledge was to deny atheists our right as equal citizens of the U.S.

Jon Boy's arguments are equally specious. Sorry guys, you're wrong. And it's obvious why you're wrong. You simply want your version to be true.

But I'm smart enough to realize that closed minded people like you aren't willing to look at it from any but the narrowest and self serving viewpoint. Removing "under God" hurts no one.

I guess I'll go away again.

 

Is Christianity actually attacking you? With no evidence to support you, that's an incredibly weak and illogical argument.

"Jon Boy's arguments are equally specious."

Do I have any reason to believe that yours aren't specious?

"Sorry guys, you're wrong."

Well, I can't argue with logic like that.

"You simply want your version to be true."

And you don't simply want yours to be true?

"But I'm smart enough to realize that closed minded people like you aren't willing to look at it from any but the narrowest and self serving viewpoint."

Give yourself a pat on the back. You hit the nail right on the head. I'm just narrow-minded and self-serving. I'm not at all interested the integrity of the Constitution. You saw right through me. You're obviously right, because you instantly stigmatize anyone who disagrees with you.

"I guess I'll go away again."

Come back when you can contribute something other than slander and circular arguments.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 25, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 25, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 25, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 25, 2002).]
 

Does that make sense? Let me summarize.

Separation of church and state = Bad.
"Under God" in Pledge of allegiance = Constitutional.
First amendment = Mostly good, but could use some further amending to clarify. Until then, it's best to stick to the law rather than twist it so that it means what we want it to mean.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 25, 2002).]
 

I just don't believe that religion and politics CAN be or SHOULD be fully separated, unless you expect politicians to remove religious beliefs from themselves when making political decisions. That's just not possible, and it would persecute those who didn't forsake their beliefs. I think we need a certain degree of separation between church and state, but not to the extent of declaring the pledge, oaths of office, and prayers in school to be illegal.

Don't worry. It seems like we still agree.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 26, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 26, 2002).]
 

Jonboy, the founding fathers made the constitution intentionally vague, and they also intentionally made the amendment process pretty difficult. The two go hand in hand. This is why the document has lasted for 200+ years. Other countries have had to throw out their constitutions and start from scratch.

Take the Texas State constitution. It's been amended hundreds of times. every other election it seems that there is a new amendment on the ballot.

The flexibility of the constitution is an asset.
 

Don't state your OPINIONS as if they're facts please.

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited November 26, 2002).]
 

But I am sorry. Next time I'll be sure to add a disclaimer saying "This is Mack's opinions."
 

And sometimes, it is an enemy. Take the second amendment, for example. A peoples' "right" to bear arms is being called into question by a surprising percentage of Americans.

I blame poor education.

I stand in favour of a peoples' right to bear arms, because I know my history.

[More to come.]
 

I think that people should have the right to bear a firearm, and I also think that the concealed carry license is a good thing.

I did a quick search on google, and came up with the following link:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

quote:

---

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

---

If most criminals aren't buying their guns from reputable law abiding dealers, then outlawing guns will do next to nothing to curb firearm related crimes. Thus, it is reasonable for the average citizen to be able to purchase a firearm for protection.

Now this opinion probably isn't terribly surprising coming from a texan(me), but it's the way I feel about it. Personally, I will probably never own a gun. I don't think I could ever bring myself to shoot another human being, but if I were to buy a gun, I would make damn sure I knew how to use it and that I achieved fair proficiency using it to minimize the capacity for an accident.

I don't think getting rid of guns is the way to go. Instead, let's educate the consumers, and work on getting rid of those illegal dealers.

[edited to correct grammar and capitalization]

[This message has been edited by BootNinja (edited December 02, 2002).]
 

Did that offend you so much that you have to be sarcastic toward me every post now?
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited December 04, 2002).]
 

[Cont. previous post]

If the people who stand for gun-control laws also stand in favour of a "flexible" interpretation of the Constitution, we have a problem here.

A "flexible" view of the Constitution, without actual amending done, defeats the entire point of the Constitution itself. The Constitution's role is to RESTRICT government, to keep it in it's rightful and important position: to protect the people from each other. A strict interpretation of the Constitution by the government fulfills the government's highest priority: to protect the people from itself.

If a strict interpretation is favoured, weapons should never be needed in civilian hands.

However! If the Constitution is not adhered to, to the letter, the government now no longer protects The People from itself, and they (we) are left defenseless against the most powerful and successful government since Rome.

It is important to see weapons, not as a defense against fellow man (though such is often their use) , but as a failsafe against corruption and a defense against a lawless government.

-Abyss

[This message has been edited by Abyss (edited December 05, 2002).]
 

Sadly, I don't see weapons that way.

 

Violence is one of the most easily justifiable sins; killing in self-defense, after all, is hardly a sin at all, right -- and it's so easy to consider something self-defense.

 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited December 09, 2002).]
 

...you know arms MEANS guns, right?...

It's not the right to wear sleeveless shirts.
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited December 10, 2002).]
 

Now, typically, the government protects you from itself. That's the way it should be, so that no one can take advantage of a naive public like the United States public.

But should a "flexible" view of important restricting documents like the Constitution be accepted, the government stops protecting the public and starts taking advantage of it, stealing from it, oppressing it, and the only way to get it to stop...

...is to possess arms with which to oppose it.

(By arms I mean firearms, not the limb that comes down from the shoulder. Not that those aren't important, rather that the Framers wouldn't really have expected the government to take them away.)
 

The truth, Tom, is that the reason an "armed" populace couldn't stand up to the military is that the military has superior weaponry, superior war-waging technology.

Why does the military have this technological advantage? Because of people like you, Tom, who warn of the soul-stealing effects of modern firearms.

When the government cycles into oppressive mode, who do you think will be remembered as the revolutionary heroes who toppled the tyrants, us "up in arms" Steels' or you "guns steal my soul" TomDavidsons?

[This message has been edited by Steel (edited December 16, 2002).]
 

Well, no.
If people like ME had any influence, we wouldn't have a military, either.

But it's because of people who think that it'd be a mistake to let common citizens own tanks and heat-seeking missiles -- i.e. the vast majority of people in this country -- that the American citizenry doesn't stand a reasonable chance of overthrowing the government without a military coup.

 

I beg to differ. A group of CIA agents can take out an entire platoon BECAUSE of their training. Weaponry isn't the only big advantage. The training is a huge advantage. You would have to be a fool or really belligerent to say that's false.

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited December 17, 2002).]
 

Why would you not want a military? How would you defend yourself against terrorism or flat-out invasion? The entire country could be put into slavery and nobody would be able to stop the ones who would do it.
 

[This message has been edited by Wetchik (edited December 18, 2002).]
 

Bottom line. Stupid, or naive.

Now, being against WAR, that's a different story. i think everybod is against war. But no military action? That's just bottom-end stupidity right there.
 

"If people like ME had any influence, we wouldn't have a military, either."

That's what I'm talking about, right there. Normally, I'd call that stupid, moronic. But, since tom seems like a clever guy, I'll chaulk it up to naive optimism.

Naive optimism can be dangerous, Tom. That's where communism starts.
 

Let's say the choice was yours to make, and you choose to disband the military and be killed in the ensuing invasions.

Also think of the rest of us, who didn't choose that, who don't beleive that, and have to die right alongside you.

Foolish naivete, Tom. That's all it is. You need the army as much as I do, but you're refusing to admit it.

Stupid or naive.
 

If you were king, Tom, would you run things differently? No guns, no soldiers?
No military power, no police men? No nuclear weapons?
It's a wonderful dream, TomDavidson. But how long would you stay king?

-Abyss

[This message has been edited by Abyss (edited January 13, 2003).]
 

They could get a whole lot of really hard workers.

*steps out*

[This message has been edited by James Tiberius Kirk (edited January 13, 2003).]
 

The trick is in being willing to die, which is the hard part.

 

Tom, you forgot to add unrealistic. Most people wouldn't die for their country.
 

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited January 14, 2003).]
 

The very precious few would die for something. Most value their life more than anything else. It's in our sinful human nature. To bring Christ into it, he teaches up to not be afraid to die if the cause is right.
 

You can verify it yourself. I did.

Quoted material begins:

However, here, as best I can reconstruct it, is an account of the
Amendment's history. See http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwac.html

Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison June 8, 1789

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor
shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on
any pretext, infringed."

Amendments Reported by the Select Committee July 28, 1789

"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed."

This Select committee wording was then considered by the House in
August 15, 1789

"Between paragraphs two and three insert `no religion shall be
established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed'"

There was then a proposal to add "national" before "religion".

We're then told:

"Mr. Livermore was not satisfied with that amendment
[the proposal to add "national" before "religion"].
He thought it would be better if it were was altered, and
made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws
touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."

The proposal to add "national" was withdrawn. Then

".... the question was taken on Mr. Livermore's motion, and
passed in the affirmative, thirty-one for, and twenty against."

Then, in the House on August 21

"On motion of Mr Ames, the fourth amendment was altered so as
to read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to
prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe on rights of
conscience." This being adopted, the proposition was agreed to."

The above is all the record says, no account of the debate or
reasoning is given.

The above was passed to the Senate, which considered it on
Sept 9, 1789. The Senate record says:

"Proceeded in the consideration of the resolve of the House of
Representatives of the 24th of August, ...

"On motion to amend article the third, to read as follows: "Congress
shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship,
or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, ..."

Again, no debate or reasoning is recorded.

Mon Sept 21 Senate and House agree to send delegations to meet
to resolve the differences on several amendments. They come up
with the final wording as follows, which both Senate and House agree
to and pass to the States. Again, neither the Annals nor Journals
give any account of why the various changes were made.

"Art. III. 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."

[Note, it is article 3 because 2 and 1 didn't pass the States, so
article 3 become the 1st article in the BoR.]

No doubt we can all read into the above what we see fit given
our biases :-)

With my own biases I'll say the following. First, most of these
wordings are far broader than simply preventing Congress instituting
an established Church. Note the repeated phrase "nor to infringe
on the rights of conscience".

Second, it seems the word "establish" was used in a fairly
general sense, not just refering to an Established church, since
they talked about establishing "articles of faith" or "a mode of
worship" also. One could argue that a Bill requiring teachers
to lead students in saying "I pledge allegiance to ... one nation
under God" is establishing a mode of worship.

Third, note that the very broad phrasing "no laws touching
religion ..." passed the House by a clear majority. Thus,
there was a lot of support for very broad interpretations.

Given all of the above, it seems to me that, unless they all changed
their minds at the last minute, which seems unlikely, they did intend
a broadly interpreted 1st Amendment that told Congress to steer
clear of passing any law on the subject of religion.

You pull out the phrase "nor to infringe
on the rights of conscience." If the government could not infringe on the "conscience" of any religios group, my brother could go out on a boat, rape and pillage the country side, and the government couldn't put him to trial as long as he claimed Odinism. To outlaw rape and pillage, why, to an Odinist that's denying them an Afterlife! That would be like outlawing chasity and virtue to a Christian!

However, we also know that rape and pillage are wrong. People who do such things must be punished. Therefore, this phrase does not appear in the first amendment, and is also not particularly useful in this little debate.

You say: "One could argue that a Bill requiring teachers
to lead students in saying ' pledge allegiance to ... one nation
under God'is establishing a mode of worship."

Well, yes, teachers forcing students to say that WOULD be forcing religion upon the kiddies. But the Pledge I know doesn't read anything like that.

"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."

Nowhere in this carefully worded Pledge is one forced to worship a God. Oh, He's mentioned, but as an abstract quality of our good Nation.

No one is forced to 'pledge allegiance to one nation under God', but everyone should pledge allegiance to Our Good Republic.
 

Would you support changing the wording of the Pledge, then, to read "one nation, under the laws of nature?"

 

Yes, we had this argument, and I left it, because you were not willing to accept that the the wording meant anything other than that the government can't make any laws regarding religious establishments.

As I said before, your argument has no merit.

The history of the amendment clearly shows that the framers meant that:

"No religion shall be established by law"

"congress shall make no laws touching religion"

"congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship"

And finally codifies these in the final form:

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

Where "respecting" means "having anything to do with" and "an establishment of religion" means no "religion, articles of faith or mode of worship shall be established"

The wording is intentionally broad, and the 1954 law placing "under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional.

Do you want to go back to discussing "de minimus" or do you want to argue that God isn't a religious concept?

Steel: The pledge requires that the speaker pledge allegiance to a republic which is: "one nation under god." That is an article of faith.

To require that an atheist acknowledge the existence of God is to force him to say "My belief system is wrong". Would you like to be forced to say "I'm wrong" every morning?
 

quote:

---

2. esp. The ‘establishing’ by law (a church, religion, form of worship). (See ESTABLISH v. 7.) a. In early use, the settling or ordering in a particular manner, the regulating and upholding of the constitution and ordinances of the church recognized by the state. b. In 17th-18th c. occasionally the granting of legal status to (other religious bodies than that connected with the state). c. Now usually, the conferring on a particular religious body the position of a state church.

---

Clearly, the pledge of allegiance doesn't do any of these things. Any other definition of "establishment" is illogical.

And once again, I find it funny that everyone has a problem with "under God," but no one has a problem with requiring children to swear loyalty to the government, which is obviously a violation of free speech.
 

No I wouldn't like to be forced. Schools can't force you anymore. They might pretend to be able to, but they can't.

 

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited January 31, 2003).]
 

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/3568704.htm

These URLs will probably wrap, so check that the entire address is valid.

Yes, students are often required both to stand and to recite the pledge, despite a Supreme Court Ruling Prior to the addition of "under God" in 1954 that declared the pledge to be optional. The suit was brought by the Jehova's Witnesses.

I know when I was a kid if someone was slow to stand up, the teachers always said: "Stand up, Stand up, we HAVE to recite the pledge". Not once was I informed that it is optional.

As far as "requiring children to swear loyalty to the government". Yes, Jon Boy, I agree with you whole heartedly. Also Suntranafs. Students are of course, being taught, and most people agree that teaching loyalty or patriotism is a good thing, but in my opinion, children should not be required to recite meaningless words when they are too young to understand them, simply as a mode of indoctrination.

Obviously there are those who disagree. The big difference is that even the first amendment does not give children the right to disobey the teacher, and recitation is a standard method of pedagogy. So for those who argue that the pledge should be required (God or no God) I will say that I disagree, but that without a better legal precedent, that is merely my opinion.
 

In repose to banning it5, or explaining it: why bother? It takes up a total of 2 minutes a day that kids spend sleeping anyway. The last thing we want is to have to listen to the intellect of a child confined into a grown man’s body that was my principal actually spend MORE time talking to us. It’s not like we’d listen anyways. I’m just telling how it was, there’s no point in changing anything about it.

 

Likewise, "... and to the republic, for which it stands" became clear eventually, but the statement is disjointed. It would have made much more sense simply to pledge allegiance to the Republic of the United States of America: One Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

If I were going to add "under God" (which I wouldn't), it would be at the end.

As long as I'm fantasizing, I would rewrite it as a ceremony: "Please face the flag and pledge allegiance (to our country)." The flag is a point of reference, not what we are pledging allegiance to. "place your hand over your heart" (added ceremony)

I'm unclear as to the comments about my statement about meaningless words. Yes, I meant that unless we understand the words, they are meaningless. Suntranafs, what happened two or three years ago?

I would suggest that the pledge be something of a rite of passage. Children are too young to serve their country in any real capacity. What does it mean for a kindergartner to pledge allegiance to the flag? However, by about 6th grade, I would think the average student should have enough social studies behind them to understand the meaning of what they are saying, and the idea that as adults, they may be called upon by circumstance to serve their country in some capacity. So about 6th grade is where I would begin asking them to recite it. Kind of like confirmation.

You blow me away, Glenn.

You assault the Pledge as it is; a set of words, to you, meaningless, which instill the foundation of patriotism in children.

You suggest that rather than an optional expresion of support for our country at a young age, an indoctrination ceremony for older children. A Confirmation.

As long as we're re-writing our pledge, why not take a look at some other American fundamentals?

Picture: Beautiful Arnold-America!

We pledge allegiance to the Republic of the United States of America: One Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Maybe Under God.

The Anthem of Arnold-America: "America, America, Over All."

Who performs this indoctrination ceremony, this solemn pledge? Why, Arnold Youth, an organization reaching out to the youth of our nation. The boys aren't just saying words... why stop with the pledge? Why, Arnold Youth is like a Boy Scouts for today's world. Camping trips, badges for reaching goals, the whole deal; what makes Arnold Youth so revolutionary, so appealing an idea is that the goals are different. Arnold Youth prepares young boys (and girls) for the rigors of today's world; no knot-tying and granny-helping for these boys. These boys smile when they get their first Covert-Ops badge. High Explosives, Lethal Combat; why, these kids are ready to serve when their country calls. When their Republic calls. Good old Uncle Arnold.

Because, in sixth grade, these boys are ready. They're ready to pledge allegiance to their country. To serve her, heart and soul. They understand what they're saying. At that age, they understand their commitment to Arnold-America.

To the Republic.

Under God?
 

In all seriousness, the pledge itself was written as a document for devoted Communists. What made it American was "Under God".

If you want to talk about history, let's look at that.

In Abyss's first post, he mentioned that "Under God" was added to seperate us from the Russians. Given, the Russians are buddy-buddy with us now, but Communism is still bad. Communism is still wrong. Aren't we accepting the faceless, Godless aspect of Socialism if we reject the portion of the pledge that was put in to show that we don't accept it?
 

Then I suggested that they not be required to recite the words until they had enough background to understand what they are saying.

Then I suggested a rewording that clarifies the meaning, rather than the disjointed form that the pledge now takes. I also suggested that the pledge be to our country rather than to a piece of cloth that represents our country, which is the meaning of the pledge as it now stands.

As far as an indoctrination goes, that is exactly what it is now. What I suggest is that children be released from that indoctrination until they are old enough to confirm that they beleive what they are being asked to say.

"We pledge allegiance to the Republic of the United States of America: One Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Maybe Under God."

Yep. And I didn't think of it until you put it on the page, but putting "under god" at the end allows it to be optional, just as "so help me God is optional in the presidential oath of office.

"The Anthem of Arnold-America: "America, America, Over All."

No way. Where'd you get that idea? My irony meter just blew a fuse.

"Because, in sixth grade, these boys are ready. They're ready to pledge allegiance to their country. To serve her, heart and soul. They understand what they're saying. At that age, they understand their commitment to Arnold-America."

Ok then smart guy, when will they be ready? Are you suggesting doing away with the pledge entirely? Fine with me. Regardless, I think it makes sense to understand what we are talking about, which you obviously didn't take time to do when you read my post.

Reed: America was founded as a secular nation, long before communism was even codified. Adding "under God" is just one step in a long line of attempts to introduce religion into our government. By no means was adding "under God" the only thing that makes it an American pledge.

No.

 

P.S. Why do you feel that way, Ender's Star? Not that you might not be right .
 

Well, the official stance is that by age eighteen people are ready to go to war.

The real issue behind your statement that they ARE old enough is the discrepancy as to when children become adults. You point to about the sixth grade. 12 years old?

I would argue about the same. However, practically no one is willing to give 12-year-olds voting rights. I, personally, would not be willing to give voting rights to 12-year-olds.
 

Sure, although it amounts to just pointing out the obvious: failing to promote something does not constitute an endorsement of its competition.

A stance on the pledge says nothing about one's stance on the tenets of socialism.

If Pledge as stands = yes, then Socialism is bad = yes is a valid _logical_ statement.

However,

If Pledge as stands = NO, then Socialism is bad can logically be true OR false.

If you assume the first statement as fact, you STILL can't, logically, in the case of believing the pledge should be changed, make a statement either way.

And if you just ASSUME changing the pledge equals accepting socialism, then YOU have to prove causation, or at least a strong correlation.

Put another way, just because I dislike Buicks, doesn't mean I like Toyotas. Maybe I like Audis instead?

--
This is completely aside from any historical argument about the pledge.

(While it is true the pledge [in a form never recognized by the US govt., mind you] was written by a socialist, the reason it was written was so that a friend of his could use it for the patriotic, and capitalistic, purpose of selling lots of USA flags to schools through his magazine.)

-Bok
 

I didn't say that children would be old enough to "do their duty" at 6th grade, I said that children would be likely to understand what they are saying, and could make their own decision about saying it. That's what confirmation means. They sure don't understand what the pledge means when they are in kindergarten.

Rereading your post (and mine) it seems you equate "serving your country" with war. Have you ever heard the expression "civil duty?" This can mean anything from reporting a crime, to serving on the school board, to paying your taxes, to running for government office. I consider being a school teacher doing my civil duty, since recruiting teachers has been declared an national priority.

If you're hung up on war, that's not my problem.
 

Why does government exist?

Well, the government has many obligations in todays world. But in the past, say, why would government have been invented?

Why, for the same reason everything else has: war... and peace. Imagine one tribe, organized, and violent. Raiding other villages, stealing food, raping women. What are the rest of the people, organizationally challenged, going to do about the gang thats raping their women and stealing the fruits of their long labours? Why, they have to form a united front. Join a tribe for protection. Group together.

The cheif obligation of the government is to protect it's people from outside forces.

And what of the stalkers of the night, the theives and rapists and murders who walk within the tribe?

The next obligation of government is to protect the people from each other. From murder, theft, and rape from within the community.

And consider the Cheiftain. What of the Cheiftain who taxes too heavily, thusly stealing from the people? The Cheiftain who puts to death innocent people, without a hearing, thusly murdering the people? The Cheiftain who orders the villager's wives to come to his bed, and thusly himself is raping the people?

The third, least considered obligation of government is to protect the people from itself, the government.

These are the governmental obligations, and the community's obligations. All other obligations are variants thereof.

If a twelve year old is old enough to become a full-fledged member of the community, to have a say in government, he is bound to protect the community as well.

In my school and in my community there are people who are frightened of war with Iraq, because they fear the draft. They say that they will move to Canada. I beleive them. I also pity them.

I do not approve of the war Bush has proposed, and I don't like his reasons.

But if and when they start to draft, I won't wait for them to call my name. I'll volunteer. Because being part of a country, being part of a community, means that you have to give back as much as you get.

America has given me so much, Glenn, and I beleive it has given you a lot too. We have an obligation. I won't stop my neighbors from moving to Canada with their tails between their legs, and I won't try to stop you.

But I sure as hell won't write.
 

Do you believe that children should be taught to say the pledge?

 

-Bok
 

Glenn Arnold. At any age. If they do not understand it when they are taught it, they will come to understand it, and if they disagree, no longer be required to say it. If they retroactively resent having been forced to say it, they are similar to men who resent their parents for having them circumcised when they were young.

Pledging allegiance doesn't hurt young people. It has a capacity to hurt old people, but only stupid ones.
 

----

Nick, I want the Pledge changed to reflect the fact that this is not, in actuality, a country under any God.

 

EDIT: I didn't address who that post was to!

[This message has been edited by Nick (edited February 10, 2003).]
 

Your comment is roughly equivalent to me saying that you want the invisible car out of your living room. Do you believe there is an invisible car in your living room? Do you want it removed?

As far as bigoted atheists having animosity toward religion, I wonder where you get such ideas. There are belligerent atheists, of course, in much the same way as there are belligerent fast-food restaurant managers, warehouse employees, toll collectors, etc. But being an atheist does not make one belligerent.

There are of course, belligerent theists as well. Does being a theist make one belligerent? Is that why Christians hate Jews, or Muslims? Or why Protestants hate Catholics? My experience is that most people would like to try to get along with each other. There is no religious requirement for this. Hatred exists in all walks of life. It does not require a certain state of religious belief, for hatred to exist.

Now as far as atheists wanting the pledge returned to its original wording, that is simply a matter of not wanting to be forced (or coerced) to say something that we don't believe is true. We would no more want the pledge to say "one nation with no God" than you would.

It simply isn't appropriate to put a comment on the existence of God into a pledge to a country that is supposed to represent its entire population, when roughly 14% of americans don't beleive in God. There's also this little problem with the constitution, you see.
 

[This message has been edited by Nick (edited February 10, 2003).]
 

Because unlike the existence of God, there's firm scientific evidence that suggests the truth of evolution.

If you want to teach God in schools, first do me a favor and provide some proof of God's existence.

 

As is well documented, Charles Darwin planned to study for the ministry, until he was offered the opportunity to sail around the world on the Beagle. Having learned about evolution (he did not originate the concept) he codified his theory of natural selection, and started a series of observations and experiments in evolution which kept him busy for the rest of his life. Still, he maintained his belief in God.

Most theists accept evolution as fact. Yet a relatively small but vocal group would have us beleive that belief in evolution destroys faith in God. And somehow, this always is brought back to atheists. As though we somehow started a vast conspiracy of disinformation.

Why do we teach evolution in schools? Because it is the foundation of biological science, which has been shown in millions of experiments and observations, to work. Because it has been used as a tool throughout history, to breed useful crops and livestock. Because it promises an understanding of human physiology which will allow medical discoveries, which have cured and will cure the most insufferable diseases, and improve the quality of life for all mankind. Is that a good enough reason?
 

On what grounds do you accuse me of supporting indoctrination?

You are suggesting that children be taught to recite a pledge before they are capable of understanding it. If they grow to disagree, ONLY THEN they are entitled not to say it? This is exactly what indoctrination means: get them while they are too young to understand, and maybe they won't question it when they get old enough to think critically.

BTW, the root(s) of all civic duties is food, shelter and clothing. (or if you prefer, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) War is fought over these, not the other way around. A good government seeks to avoid war, which destroys life, rather than supporting it.
 

-Bok
 

One of the major sticking points in the controversy over evolution, is the definition of the word theory. THE theory of evolution (mutation, and natural selection), is considered a scientifically proven fact. "Evolutionary theory," is a set of behaviors that govern evolution, and is fleshed out remarkably well, but not yet fully examined, because it is very complex.

Think of it like this: The term "Music Theory" describes a set of physical relationships which can be used as a tool with which a composer can make music. Both harmonics and rhythms are mathematically defined, or proven to be true. They are not "guesses," yet they are called "theory." There is also number theory, probability theory,and set theory (math), digital theory (computer science), economic theory, game theory, etc.

Likewise, anyone can use evolutionary theory to develop (for example) a yellow rose from a red one. Or breed a short beaked pigeon. Or a miniature version of your favorite breed of dog. Follow the rules of evolutionary theory, and it works.

Really? *blink* How did they put that?

 

[This message has been edited by Nick (edited February 12, 2003).]
 

Bull. There is a lot of evidence that supports evolution, but it is no more frim than the evidence that supports God. I am not an atheist, but you are not a prophet. The existence of some form of a higher power is far more conclusive and well documented than evolution. You simply choose to beleive the "scholars" who document evolution over the ones who document God.

Don't get me wrong: I think evolution is a natural process, and should be taught in schools right along side, say, volcanic eruptions or chemical processes. The problem I had was with your defense of it; a bigoted stance that has a tendency to offend.

I think evolution is true, but I do not pretend to know that it is true.

On a friendlier note... Bokonon, it was really just a conversation starter. But since you asked, yes, I feel that there is definently a connection between amending the pledge and accepting atheistic Communism; We put it in to clearly demonstrate the differences between free capitalism and oppresive Communism. "We set ourselves apart, then, as a nation that accepted ALL religions, that allowed for ALL worship, a safe haven for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, a nation of freedom, liberty, and justice for all. Have we changed our minds?"

To repeal it now would be to consent to Communism, to say " *sigh* We were wrong, maybe Stalin was right. Sorry about that, Russia, China, North Korea, we didn't know what we were thinking."

We can't allow that agreement, that consent, that foothold for Communism.
 

How many biology teachers have you had?

"Ok, let me rephrase. Evolution is not proven yet."

Yes it is. That's what my post said. The argument that because evolution is a theory that it isn't proven, is false, because most people (even science teachers) don't have a clear understanding of what the word "theory" means. That's what I was trying to clear up. I wasn't trying to twist your words. Evolution has been shown to work. That means it's proven.

But evolution theory cannot predict (for example) how many generations of selective pressure are needed to produce a certain change due to recombination, or whether a certain mutation will occur at all. But it can predict within a reasonable margin of error, how often mutations do occur.

In the same way meteorological theory can predict the weather with great accuracy, given all the data needed to create a weather model, but usually fails to predict the weather with 100% accuracy, because it simply isn't possible to gather 100% of the necessary data.

As Tom Davidson points out, abiogenesis is not covered under evolution theory, so a biology teacher has no business making an argument for it. Also, it cannot be proven that God did not alter the equation to allow abiogenesis to occur, or apply specific selective pressure to bring about certain species intentionally. This is sort of what "intelligent design" is about.

One argument against intelligent design comes from biologists, on the grounds that it can not be represented in scientific terms. That is, in order to be represented as a hypothesis, it must be able to show that it is true or that it is false. Their argument is that since there is no such test, intelligent design cannot be presented as a scientific topic.

There are some atheists, however, (such as myself) who think that intelligent design should be introduced for exactly that reason. Subjecting a belief to scientific scrutiny can never be a bad thing.

The other argument against intelligent design is simply that because it is a religious concept, it shouldn't be presented in school and should only be presented in some other context. This argument comes from both sides of the fence by the way; there are quite a large number of theists who don't want government getting back in the religion business.
 

quote:

---

Evolution has been shown to work.

---

No, I'm afraid it hasn't.
 

The theory of evolution -- and, for that matter, the law of natural selection -- stands up as well as pretty much any other scientific theory of the last hundred years. There are whole principles of biology -- principles that WORK, mind you -- built directly upon that foundation.

What it HASN'T shown is that natural evolution was not fiddled with by some superior being -- and, heck, there's no real way to demonstrate that.

So if you want to believe in a God that oversaw human creation, go right ahead; there's nothing in evolutionary theory that prevents you from doing so. But if you're afraid to accept basic scientific principles because you're afraid they chip at your belief in God, let me be the first to suggest that this means your God is too pathetically small, weak, and limited to really be the God of this majestic universe, a universe in which Earth is just one statistically insignificant dot.

 

We apparently seem to have evolved from a common ancestor some millions of years ago, though.

-Bok
 

EDIT: Grammar

[This message has been edited by Nick (edited February 13, 2003).]
 

Evolution has NOT been shown to work - no clear example of speciation has ever been presented, and no conclusion can be drawn from the EXTREMELY incomplete fossil record. These are clear to the casual observer who thinks briefly on the subject.

That said, I think evolution is a nifty theory, and consistent with what we know about nature. It's certainly hard to find other theories that are consistent with what we know about heredity and genetics.I'm perfectly willing to use it as a working basis for my understanding of the world.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with religion - it has more to do with thermodynamics, IMHO.

We live in a world of things far stranger than one where God might or might not have had anything to do with the origin of life. Either explanation (from the scientific point of view) is equally valid because no data exist to prove either. That's the limit of scientific inquiry.

As for philosophy - a much more interesting question involves God and dice. Hash that one around for a while. Then contemplate how little we understand of our universe. Then stop yelling at each other over things that are at best poorly understood by the brightest humans around.
 

In all fairness, Nick, I can't think of a scientific theory that can be backed up with 100% evidence.

 

[This message has been edited by Nick (edited February 14, 2003).]
 

Most of the nitty-gritty details of how gravity actually works aren't facts, either. IMO, this is one of the coolest things about science.

On the other hand, sometimes you have to look at the structure of a theory and say, "Okay, this is the best-looking theory out there, and fits almost all the facts we have. So we'll run with it until we find something better."

 

First off, I made a mistake in the previous post. It wasn't Steel who claimed to have multiple biology teachers. It was you. So how many biology classes have you had?

"I don't believe in evolution. It's as simple as that. So please stop telling me that my belief is wrong when it can't be backed up with 100% for sure evidence."

Do you lack belief in evolution, or do you disbelieve in evolution? The two are not the same. The first means that you have not come to a conclusion, and the second means that your have.

Am I telling you that your belief is wrong? Or am I giving you information with which you may reach a conclusion? Being open minded means that you are willing to accept new information, and process it, even if it may controvert your existing beliefs.

That's the way science works. Part and parcel of basic science is setting up your hypothesis to see if it can be logically destroyed. In fact, every Ph.d has to go through a process called "defending their thesis" in which a bunch of other Phd's do everything they can to tear his doctoral work apart. If they can, he has to go back to the drawing board and make it defensible. If they can't, they say: "congratulations Dr. Jones" and have a big party.

Are you saying you are not sure enough of your thesis to allow it to be subjected to such scrutiny?

Stradling: In the 150 or so years since Darwin codified the theory, no examples of macro evolution have been directly observed (depending of your definition of macro evolution). But many examples of speciation have been presented, and many conclusions can be drawn despite the extremely incomplete fossil record.

Evolution has to do with thermodynamics? Or did you mean thermodynamics has more to do with religion (than evolution)?
 

If the quote your offer had been my only argument in favor of evolution, I would agree that the syllogism you offer as an analogy is roughly correct. However, due to the mechanisms of dialog (especially internet dialog), what you are arguing against is merely a summary of a previous argument. I based that summary on several previous posts, including this one:

"Why do we teach evolution in schools? Because it is the foundation of biological science, which has been shown in millions of experiments and observations, to work. Because it has been used as a tool throughout history, to breed useful crops and livestock. Because it promises an understanding of human physiology which will allow medical discoveries, which have cured and will cure the most insufferable diseases, and improve the quality of life for all mankind. Is that a good enough reason?"

I should perhaps also throw in the argument that evolution theory supports and is supported by genetic theory, and that the human genome mapping provides an amazingly detailed history of human evolution.

Likewise, despite the attempts of "creation scientists" to discredit evolution, there has not been a single counterexample that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

And finally, I should return to my original argument, which is that the word "theory" is misunderstood, since "the theory of evolution," and "Evolution theory" don't mean the same thing. Evolution theory is a collection of Laws; most notably, Darwin's Law of natural selection, also the laws of recombination, etc. (Thanks to Tom Davidson for reminding me of that)
 

I don't think evolution is responsible for any of those.
 

Your comment about believing in evolution strikes me as odd. On the Pro evolution side, we usually base our arguments on science, not beliefs. Belief is the domain of religion.

Look at Nick's arguments. They all boil down to: I don't believe in evolution.
 

Why?

 

A lot of the skulls(which is most of their evidence) have been found to be hoaxes.
 

Here are transitional fossils for vertebrates.

So far, no absolute “link” between ape and men have been found, but there seems to be a clear arrow pointing in that direction.

[This message has been edited by AndrewR (edited February 18, 2003).]
 

Neither, for all of the theories about their existence, have we ever seen a quark. Do you believe they exist?

 

ha!

say it with me... quark!
 

My problem with evolution is that the "clear arrow" is really more of a dotted line. It's full of breaks, which seems to indicate that a species can almost spontaneously evolve into a higher species. Even with transitional fossils, the transitions are pretty abrupt. In other words, it's continual but not continuous. Shouldn't the evolution of a species be so smooth that there generally aren't any true markers to point to and say "this is a new species now"?

More importantly, did that last sentence even make sense?

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited February 19, 2003).]
 

Which means there are only a few billion fossils.

Which means that no one expects that a complete record exists.

Admittedly, it would be great if it did. If thousands of examples of one species were found, and then suddenly jumped to thousands of a completely different species, that would say quite a bit about what actually happened.

Or better yet, if no fossils were found, then suddenly billions of fossils of all different kinds of species, and then suddenly a huge decrease in the number and types of fossils, that would tell another story, too.

Instead, we find fossils sorted, not by size or mobility, but by shared characteristics, where an animal that has one characteristic (such as a modified jaw-bone) is similar to an animal found later with many of the same characteristics, but with some different ones (such as a primative ear where the jaw-bone was), with another that share similiar characteristics but with further modifications (now the primative ear is a more sophisticated one). These apparent gradual changes are very difficult to explain except by the idea that the animals gradually changed: i.e. evolved.

So it would be great if there was a continuous record of the different types of animals that existed. But we can only work with the information that we are given.
 

Yeah, no crap. That's what I was saying. Yet scientists who try to argue with creationists (<<<duly recognizing the fact that there happens to be a group that call themselves creation scientists.) are doinf just that: Counter-converting. Logically, and therefore scientifically, you cannot argue with a premise. Now that evolution is widely accepted, arguing with creationists is unscientific and unproductive. It actuallyhelps them be recognized, and adds fuel to their fire. After all, it can only give legitamcy to their point that evolution is religion and not science.
In other words, from a purely scientific and logical standpoint, if the creationists are right, there's no point in arguing with them, and if they're wrong there's a legitimate reason for Not arguing with them.

From my personal perspective, our evolutionionary theories are probably, by and large, woefully inaccurate and full of holes. However, this is more than overidden by the fact that they are the work of thousands of scientific geniuses and are the best we've got. (<<< For reasons described above, I really don't want to start an argument here about how God is a F*** of a lot smarter than thousands of brilliant scientists.) Just my 2 cents.

From a historical perspective, and faith in the human race: Creation, not "Evolution" was the original theory. People such as Darwin, and though this might seem a tangent, Copernicus, were severely persecuted for their ideas. Historically, humans rarely swim against the stream unless they believe they are in the right, so I doubt it's at all fair to say the devil had a hand in it. Furthermore, it seems readilly apparent that they would not have risked persecution if they did not have overwhelming scientific evidence. I won't say more, because I don't want to have an argument, except this parting taunt: JANE GOODALL, apes talk, and if we're the only ones created in God's image, who's image are certain aliens (who are morally superior and vastly more inteligent than us, and who undoubtedly exist somewhere in God's infinite Universe) created in? If you do simply say they don't exist you lose nearly all my respect for your imagination. If you say "Who's Jane Goodall?" or "What? Apes Don't talk!" I will merely consider that your education has been neglected.
 

Go sutranafs! Wooo!

Sut-ra-nafs! Sut-ra-nafs! Sut-ra-nafs! Sut-ra-nafs!

Wooo-hooo!
 

quote:

---

If you do simply say they don't exist you lose nearly all my respect for your imagination. If you say "Who's Jane Goodall?" or "What? Apes Don't talk!" I will merely consider that your education has been neglected.

---

Aliens don't exist.

Who is Jane Goodall?

Ape don't talk.

Did I ever say that? I don't think I did. If I did, this quote takes it out of context. Hold on, I'll go check to see if I wrote this, ever...

...

No, no that was Nick. Check page eight.

I said:

"'...Because unlike the existence of God, there's firm scientific evidence that suggests the truth of evolution...'

Bull. There is a lot of evidence that supports evolution, but it is no more frim than the evidence that supports God. I am not an atheist, but you are not a prophet. The existence of some form of a higher power is far more conclusive and well documented than evolution. You simply choose to beleive the "scholars" who document evolution over the ones who document God.

Don't get me wrong: I think evolution is a natural process, and should be taught in schools right along side, say, volcanic eruptions or chemical processes. The problem I had was with your defense of it; a bigoted stance that has a tendency to offend.

I think evolution is true, but I do not pretend to know that it is true."

Most importantly!:

"I think evolution is true, but I do not pretend to know that it is true."
 

I believe evolution is very possible, even likely. I dont know. I like to remind myself constantly that I dont know much of anything. This is a good place to do so. But what I think I know, is God. Im not going to preach or anything, but I believe God made us, in some form. If anything is interesting about my opinion, its this: 'God created us in his image'. Put simply, I believe his image is ever-changing, and thus we go through evolution. It has been proven for scientific fact that genes control every aspect of this, and there are random mutations, that could signify evolution. Thats enough scientific proof for my simple mind to see that there is a great chance of it being true.
 

God's image is ever changing? Why? Or is that just one creationist/darwinist compromise theory?