~*~*~*~

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!

"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).]

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?

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.

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).]

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.

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

I still don't know what proselytization means .

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.

-------

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.

---

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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.

----

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?

------

[Edit: because I was stupid]

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.

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?