BlueTalon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Code, think of the 1st Amendment in terms of the mid 1700's. The framers wrote what they wrote for very specific reasons. The prohibition against establishing a religion was aimed specifically at Congress. Why? Several of the soon-to-be states had official religions, that you could name, that had specific beliefs and rituals. That (state religion) was NOT prohibited in the Constitution. In other words, it's not OK at the federal level but it IS OK at the state level. Fast forward to today. Sticking the phrase "under God" or "in God we trust" in a pledge or on a coin doesn't come anywhere close to the threshhold of establishing a religion. The fact that you (or anyone) are incapable of naming a religion that might be established by those phrases is indicative of the fact that there isn't one being established. You appear to be operating under an erroneous definition of the word "religion". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you define "religion" as "belief in God". That's an incorrect definition for two reasons. First, "belief in no God" is an equally legitimate definition, as the key is the belief, not the object of the belief. Second, "belief in God" does not rise to the level of specificity necessary to establish a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 how many people here would be upset if the pledge said "under no god". is it against you're religion? is it fair to specify no god? of course its not fair. then why is it fair to specify there is a god? leave it out, and specify nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Didn't McCarthy, as part of his self titled purging, integrate "under G-d" into the pledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Here's the play by play...In general, the left and right probably don't really care because they realize that the kids in question have no idea of the meaning of what they are saying anyway, BUT... the right thinks is should be required because they think the left doesn't want it to be required, whereas, as the same time, the left is against requiring it to be said because they think the right really thinks it's important... Thus, something that isn't really a big deal becomes one. Yeah, this partisan sh!t is a real pain in the arse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Code, think of the 1st Amendment in terms of the mid 1700's. The framers wrote what they wrote for very specific reasons. The prohibition against establishing a religion was aimed specifically at Congress. Why? Several of the soon-to-be states had official religions, that you could name, that had specific beliefs and rituals. That (state religion) was NOT prohibited in the Constitution. In other words, it's not OK at the federal level but it IS OK at the state level. Fast forward to today. Sticking the phrase "under God" or "in God we trust" in a pledge or on a coin doesn't come anywhere close to the threshhold of establishing a religion. The fact that you (or anyone) are incapable of naming a religion that might be established by those phrases is indicative of the fact that there isn't one being established. You appear to be operating under an erroneous definition of the word "religion". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you define "religion" as "belief in God". That's an incorrect definition for two reasons. First, "belief in no God" is an equally legitimate definition, as the key is the belief, not the object of the belief. Second, "belief in God" does not rise to the level of specificity necessary to establish a religion. Come on man. You are REACHING. Explain to me how "belief in no god" is a legitamate definition of religion. And if you're interested, here is the definition of religion: re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn) n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. I think "God" falls into this definition pretty firmly, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 JRockster, you not only missed the point, you provided your own refutation. "Belief in God" and "belief in no god" both fit the definition #4 you provided: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Here's another one, from Merriam-Webster (#4): "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." The atheists who are out to get God off our money, God out of the pledge, crosses off of hilltops, crosses off of city emblems, etc. fit these definitions to a "T". They HAVE a cause, principle and activity they pursue with zeal and conscientious devotion, and a cause, principle, and system of belief they hold to with ardor and faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 JRockster, you not only missed the point, you provided your own refutation."Belief in God" and "belief in no god" both fit the definition #4 you provided: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Here's another one, from Merriam-Webster (#4): "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." The atheists who are out to get God off our money, God out of the pledge, crosses off of hilltops, crosses off of city emblems, etc. fit these definitions to a "T". They HAVE a cause, principle and activity they pursue with zeal and conscientious devotion, and a cause, principle, and system of belief they hold to with ardor and faith. And here you have, in a nutshell, The Religous Right's non-sensical argument for State-Sponsored Religion #4: All beliefs or behaviours are religions, therefore it's impossible to avoid a religion, therefore using the Government to promote the majority religion is OK. (In fact, failing to mention religion at all is a religion, labled (by the Religous Right) "secular humanism". Therefore, if a school fails to mention religion at all, then those awefull secular humanists are "forcing their religion" on innocent schoolchildren. (By not taking an official position on religion.)) (FWIW, the others are: The First Ammendment doesn't say the government can't mandate prayer. It just says they can't declare Southern Baptist to be The Official Religion of NASCAR (so to speak). (But they can fund the Southern Baptists just fine.) Well, the government can force Christianity on people, as long as they don't specify whether they're promoting Protestant or Methodist. Well, the Government isn't forcing kids to undergo religous indoctrination. Any eight-year-old with the moral strength to stand up against his teacher and his entire school class, and who doesn't mind, say, getting beat up at recess because he's a freak, well, that's his decision. It's completely "voluntary". (The government isn't "forcing" a religion, they're just ordering a state-apointed authority figure to encourage the other kids to do so.) Edit: Numbered points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Larry, come on. Failing to mention a religion is not a religion -- but actively suppressing all religion is. Be accurate when you characterize what's happening. Also, read my post at the top of the page. The 1st Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from passing any law that establishes a religion. It could not have referred to the states, as some of the states already had state religions. The act of declaring the pledge unconstitutional because it contains "under God" does not have a basis in the Constitution -- it makes the Constitution stretch in ways which were never intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Larry, great post. Blue Talon, here's the problem. One nation under "God". That is clearly indicating a religion or religious beliefs being present, you are saying that our nation is under a singular supreme supernatural being, so that pretty much eliminates wiccans, atheists etc... If you believe that there are more gods than one or NO god at all, you are excluded. The "one nation under god" line wasn't there in the beginning, it doesn't need to be there now. It's not hard to understand, religious freedom. That means there ISN"T a state sponsored religion, it means that no one religion is right, in terms of government and that is how the forefathers intended it. If that wasn't true, the originals settlers would have never left England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Larry, come on. Failing to mention a religion is not a religion -- but actively suppressing all religion is. Be accurate when you characterize what's happening. Funny, The Liberal Media must be suppressing the news of all the churches being burned by people out there suppressing religion. There isn't anyone out there "actively suppressing religion". Not even the whackjob who's bringing this suit. What there are, are people "suppressing" attempts to get the government to promote religion. (Just like they did in this case.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Larry, you have this habit of misconstruing things -- whether my remarks, or contexts, or definitions. The pledge has been around for decades, crosses on hills have been around for decades, etc. In no way does that constitute establishing religion, by any definition. Neither you, nor Coderama, nor anyone else can even name the religion supposedly being established. There are no Christians or Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses or anyone else going around and saying there is now a state religion, and this is what it is, because there is a cross on the hill over there. It isn't happening. Also not happening is any city council declaring that the official religion of the city is now __________. (And if it's not happening, then the cross on the hill/cross on the emblem/word "God" can't be causing it.) What IS happening is a bunch of anti-religious zealots are trying to remove all vestiges of Judeo-Christian religion from public life. That qualifies as suppression. Your insistance that churches aren't being burned, therefore religion isn't being suppressed is a non sequitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Separation of Church and state, eh? So saying God in something state run is against the law? Separation of church and state means that the Church can't run the state. This was installed by the founding fathers because they didn't like how the Kings and Queens of England were influenced so heavily by the church. Some felt that whoever was in charge was just a puppet for the Catholics. Now people hear the word God said in a pledge that elementary kids don't fully grasp, jump up and down and yell SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! Separation of church and state is for the decision makers, people of power and people in charge of the government of this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 This is one of those issues that if someone put a piece of paper in front of my face that said "sign this paper to take "under god" out of the pledge of allegience" I would sign it in a heartbeat, but other then that, I don't really care enough about this single issue to make a fuss over it. My opinion is to take "under god" out of the pledge, but I am not caring to much over it being there. Anyone who went to school knew how little students cared and/or paid attention during the pledge, as it was usually 1 or 2 students actualling reciting, while the rest mumbled jibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Code, think of the 1st Amendment in terms of the mid 1700's. The framers wrote what they wrote for very specific reasons. The prohibition against establishing a religion was aimed specifically at Congress. Why? Several of the soon-to-be states had official religions, that you could name, that had specific beliefs and rituals. That (state religion) was NOT prohibited in the Constitution. In other words, it's not OK at the federal level but it IS OK at the state level. The Supreme Court has, over the last two hundred years, applied the Bill of Rights in large part to the states as well as the federal government. This was not a certain proposition (indeed, during the time of the Framers majority thought probably would have limited them to the federal government), but it is pretty well accepted today with some limitations. Given that neither states nor the federal government can unlawfully abridge free speech under the first amendment, why should we permit states to establish religion but not Congress? Fast forward to today. Sticking the phrase "under God" or "in God we trust" in a pledge or on a coin doesn't come anywhere close to the threshhold of establishing a religion. The fact that you (or anyone) are incapable of naming a religion that might be established by those phrases is indicative of the fact that there isn't one being established. I am somewhat baffled by why folks think it is ok to force religion of any type of anyone. Personal beliefs and worship absolutely should be respect, but what is with the need to prostelytize in today's society? I sometimes long for the era where religion was the topic you did not broach. Does saying "under God" help somehow? Mind you, I think the issue is silly, I say the pledge every Wednesday for lunch at Kiwanis and see God Bless America to boot and enjoy it, but it is a private meeting not a government sponsored one. I for one think religion and politics are oil and water and should be handled utterly separate. You appear to be operating under an erroneous definition of the word "religion". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you define "religion" as "belief in God". That's an incorrect definition for two reasons. First, "belief in no God" is an equally legitimate definition, as the key is the belief, not the object of the belief. Second, "belief in God" does not rise to the level of specificity necessary to establish a religion. I think this is a decent argument and the one that gives me pause regarding the language in the pledge. The argument requires one to read the anti-establishment clause somewhat strictly per its original language and it ignore intervening precedent that has construed the clause to require a broader "separation of church and state". Again, I really do not understand the heat over the issue ... but my grandparents always said our country started to fall apart when school prayer was outlawed. I personally picture the lone Jew or Muslim sitting in a class of Christians while prayers are made ... but that is me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Neither you, nor Coderama, nor anyone else can even name the religion supposedly being established. Now comming onto the field for "The Right": Nonsensical point #2 (from my list, above). "Gee, those words were forced in, by Congress, to promote Christianity, (Congress said so, at the time), but they didn't specify which Christian religion they were promoting." Also not happening is any city council declaring that the official religion of the city is now __________. Also comming in to substitute: Point #1. "Congress made this change specifically for the purpose of promoting Christianity, but they didn't use the word 'official religion'." What IS happening is a bunch of anti-religious zealots are trying to remove all vestiges of Judeo-Christian religion from public life. Close. Whet's happening is (I'll agree with your description, and I think you're correct as to their motives) "a bunch of anti-religious zealots are trying to remove all vestiges of any religion from the Government." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Separation of Church and state, eh? So saying God in something state run is against the law?Separation of church and state means that the Church can't run the state. This was installed by the founding fathers because they didn't like how the Kings and Queens of England were influenced so heavily by the church. Some felt that whoever was in charge was just a puppet for the Catholics. Now people hear the word God said in a pledge that elementary kids don't fully grasp, jump up and down and yell SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! Separation of church and state is for the decision makers, people of power and people in charge of the government of this country. Yep, you're right. Clearly, what they meant to write was "The church shall make no law providing for the creation of a nation." It was just a typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Separation of Church and state, eh? So saying God in something state run is against the law?Separation of church and state means that the Church can't run the state. This was installed by the founding fathers because they didn't like how the Kings and Queens of England were influenced so heavily by the church. Some felt that whoever was in charge was just a puppet for the Catholics. Actually, it worked both ways. After Henry established the Anglican church because the Pope would not approve his many wives, the government and church became completely intertwined. Many of the folks leaving England left purely to be able to practice their religion without interference and repression from the state sanctioned Anglican church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Bill of Rights Amendment I 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. Which Religion is the Congress establishing with the *States* allowing 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance... Christianity: 2.1 billion *"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God" * Islam: 1.3 billion ("If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah (God) never will It be accepted of Him" (Soorah Aal'imraan 3:85) Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion (nothing) Hinduism: 900 million (Most forms of Hinduism are henotheistic religions. They recognize a single deity, and view other Gods and Goddesses as manifestations or aspects of that supreme God.) Buddhism: 376 million Buddhism is unique amongst the religions of the world because it does not have any place for God in its soteriology primal-indigenous: 300 million http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_539.html Different Countries = different god / gods African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million (Ancestors and Inquices Kongo-derived religions are based on veneration of named ancestors (Nkuyu), water spirits or remote ancestors (Simbi), nature spirits or remotest ancestors (Inquises), and the high god (Nzambi Mpongo). Sikhism: 23 million (There is only one God, God is without form, or gender Everyone has direct access to God, Everyone is equal before God ) ------------------------------------------------------------ I've changed my mind, they are right, I'm tired of saying the pledge of allegiance one Nation under the Sikhism God. Or did we not say the work Sikhism so maybe it was Hindu or Indigenous or maybe Jehovah or Islamic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Which Religion is the Congress establishing with the *States* allowing 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance... 1) As has already been pointed out, the Constitution applies to the States, as well. (It's called "The Supreme Law of the Land".) 2) The *States* didn't write "The pledge", nor did they insert religous indoctrination into it. Congress did. 3) And, when Congress did it, the people supporting it stated, on the record, on the floors of Congress, that they were doing it for the purpose of promoting Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 1) As has already been pointed out, the Constitution applies to the States, as well. (It's called "The Supreme Law of the Land".) 2) The *States* didn't write "The pledge", nor did they insert religous indoctrination into it. Congress did. 3) And, when Congress did it, the people supporting it stated, on the record, on the floors of Congress, that they were doing it for the purpose of promoting Christianity. Actually, I went and dug into this to refresh my memory. The Bill of Rights was originally limited to the federal government. This was changed by the 14th Amendment (passed in the wake of the Civil War). Part of the 14th Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In practice, the Supreme Court construed this amendment has porting most of the bill of rights to application not only to the federal government, but also the respective states as well. Thus the state/federal argument had merit in 1864, but really does not apply today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Bellamy died in 1931 and didn't live to see Congress add "under God" to the Pledge in 1954 as an antidote to godless communism. His son, Ellis said, argued against editing what had become an "American classic." http://www.bennyhinn.org/yourlife/InTheNews-One-Nation-Under-God/History-of-the-Pledge-of-Allegiance-Holds.html 1) As has already been pointed out, the Constitution applies to the States, as well. (It's called "The Supreme Law of the Land".) 2) The *States* didn't write "The pledge", nor did they insert religous indoctrination into it. Congress did. 3) And, when Congress did it, the people supporting it stated, on the record, on the floors of Congress, that they were doing it for the purpose of promoting Christianity. So it had nothing to do with Communism and had to do with promoting Christianity to us? The Pledge of Allegiance" is 113 years old. It was written in 1892, to celebrate Columbus' discovery of America and the country's public school system. It was written by Francis Bellamy. He and James B. Upham worked for Youth's Companion, a Boston-based nationally circulated magazine. Their descendants have argued about who wrote the Pledge, but Ellis believes the evidence clearly shows it was Bellamy, a former Baptist minister with an interest in Christian socialism. Upham came up with the original Pledge salute. The original salute began with a military gesture, the right hand, palm down, raised to the right eyebrow. Then, at the words, "to my flag," the right hand was raised skyward, with the palm up. Over time, people didn't turn their palms up and, by the 1940s, the gesture looked a lot like a Nazi salute. Congress changed it in 1942. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 As Al Michaels would say "this is a bugaboo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Actually, I went and dug into this to refresh my memory. The Bill of Rights was originally limited to the federal government. This was changed by the 14th Amendment (passed in the wake of the Civil War). Part of the 14th Amendment states:"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In practice, the Supreme Court construed this amendment has porting most of the bill of rights to application not only to the federal government, but also the respective states as well. Thus the state/federal argument had merit in 1864, but really does not apply today. That's what I was taught in High School, but not the reason I was given. The explanation I was given was that there are two clauses in the Constitution. One says, basicly, that "Anything that's not mentioned here, is prohibited to the Feds, and reserved for the States". The other says, basicly, that The US Coinstitution, and federal laws, are the supreme law of the land. The net result, as explained to me, was that anything not mentioned was the state's business, but that anything that was prohibited, was prohibited to the states, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 As Al Michaels would say "this is a bugaboo" Who you callin a bug? (I'm also imagining Howard Cosell, using a different word that ends in -aboo.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 I did find this though: IF true the Knights are definately Catholic... In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there. What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge: It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people... The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future? Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all... If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes. Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: '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, born and unborn.' A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.' http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.