Pledge Declared Unconstitutional

[Prosperity]

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.

Dude what you are doing is intellectually dishonest and you know it.

First of all your original definition was flawed.

Belief in no God is not belief, belief in nothing is not belief, it means there is no belief.

I don't believe in anything=I believe in nothing

Both sentences say and mean the same thing, both are a lack of belief.

belief in supernatural god or otherwise without emprical or logical proof=religion

we don't even need a crap dictionary we can both agree this is the case

it may not be organized religion but it is religion

An atheist does not believe in God, in fact a consistent one would not believe in anything without some sort of proof. That is what atheism is about, being skeptical and requiring evidence.

How passionate someone is does not determine their belief. I will passionately defend 1+1=2 and scream on hill tops to do it, but that does not make it a belief. The key to belief is the lack of reason. It isn't even saying something like "I believe in you" because in that case you don't believe you are just putting confidence into something that has shown to be reliable due to evidence.

[BlueTalon]

Dude what you are doing is intellectually dishonest and you know it.

First of all your original definition was flawed.

Belief in no God is not belief, belief in nothing is not belief, it means there is no belief.

I don't believe in anything=I believe in nothing

Both sentences say and mean the same thing, both are a lack of belief.

belief in supernatural god or otherwise without emprical or logical proof=religion

we don't even need a crap dictionary we can both agree this is the case

it may not be organized religion but it is religion

An atheist does not believe in God, in fact a consistent one would not believe in anything without some sort of proof. That is what atheism is about, being skeptical and requiring evidence.

How passionate someone is does not determine their belief. I will passionately defend 1+1=2 and scream on hill tops to do it, but that does not make it a belief. The key to belief is the lack of reason. It isn't even saying something like "I believe in you" because in that case you don't believe you are just putting confidence into something that has shown to be reliable due to evidence.

At first you were just wrong, but then you got funny! Tell me you brain-farted when you wrote "The key to belief is the lack of reason"!

About the other stuff -- you have fallen into a trap common to atheists. (Lest I get bombasted by some of you, it's not ALL atheists that fall in the trap. It just happens to be a phenomenon common to some atheists.) You confuse an active disbelief with a passive lack of belief. You are either unable or unwilling to distinguish between the two. The intensity or passion derives from an emotional investment in the belief/disbelief. (For the purpose of this discussion, those two words are interchangeable. Belief/disbelief are the active, lack of belief is the passive.)

You are correct in saying that atheists do not believe in God. That's the passive construction. However, you are incorrect denying the converse: that many atheists actively believe in no God. And that belief fits the definitions of religion as presented in two different dictionaries. And if you don't like the term religion, you can substitute "personal philosophy', "worldview", "outlook", "paradigm", or any similar term -- but it's still the same thing. And that's not intellectually dishonest at all.

[Sarge]

I wonder how long it'll take these idiots from what I'm assuming is the the 9th Circus court to figure out there is no clause in the Constitution about separation of church and state?

Maybe one day the commies will figure it out. But then again, teh Soviet commies didn't figure our their system was sh!t until it fell apart around them

[nelms]

This issue is the biggest effin' waste of time I have ever seen. We have more pressing issues to resolve. Now the freakin' Supreme Court is going to have to waste its time reviewing this. What an utter waste of everyone's time.

[PokerPacker]

now, of everyone who thinks this is a waste of time, how many of you believe in a god? of course those who don't have a problem with it think its a waste of time, but to others, it isn't. it may seem to be a small case, but it sets presidence(sp?) for future church/state cases.

[jrockster21]

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:

1. 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.)
   
2. Well, the government can force Christianity on people, as long as they don't specify whether they're promoting Protestant or Methodist.
   
3. 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.

:notworthy Thanks, Larry, now I don't have to shoot down the completely illogical and asinine argument.

[Baculus]

Maybe one day the commies will figure it out. But then again, teh Soviet commies didn't figure our their system was sh!t until it fell apart around them.

I think Sarge missed the part of the thread about the Pledge of Allegiance being written by a socialist. Heh. Of course, commies and socialists aren't one and the same, necessarily. Just as a historical note for folks, and regarding the issue of the Pledge representating the idea of Statism.

Actually, the "clause" does not have to be spelled out, per se, as far as separation of Church and State. It was not the intention, nor is it desirable, for Church and State to merge. It is a bad idea, and history has proven that time and time again. It does not mean that religion has to be absent - far from it - but the Federal government does not need its nose in places of worship, or "establishment" of a State relgion, vis a vis the First Amendment. Even the private papers of the Founding Fathers, in particular Jefferson, supported the notion of the separation, since that does not mean creating a "godless" culture. Why would it? The State does not have to be involved for religion to flourish.

Personally, I think both sides are too polarized on this argument to come to a logical conclusion.

[Prosperity]

At first you were just wrong, but then you got funny! Tell me you brain-farted when you wrote "The key to belief is the lack of reason"!

About the other stuff -- you have fallen into a trap common to atheists. (Lest I get bombasted by some of you, it's not ALL atheists that fall in the trap. It just happens to be a phenomenon common to some atheists.) You confuse an active disbelief with a passive lack of belief. You are either unable or unwilling to distinguish between the two. The intensity or passion derives from an emotional investment in the belief/disbelief. (For the purpose of this discussion, those two words are interchangeable. Belief/disbelief are the active, lack of belief is the passive.)

You are correct in saying that atheists do not believe in God. That's the passive construction. However, you are incorrect denying the converse: that many atheists actively believe in no God. And that belief fits the definitions of religion as presented in two different dictionaries. And if you don't like the term religion, you can substitute "personal philosophy', "worldview", "outlook", "paradigm", or any similar term -- but it's still the same thing. And that's not intellectually dishonest at all.

Sorry BT I have not confused one thing with another. Actually I think you have fallen into one of the worse traps of all, in 1984 it was called "doublethink" and I think you have a case of this. Belief does not equal disbelief. To try to prove a paradox is true is the most futile taks there is.

I could write a whole paper on this, but I am lazy so here is my shortened response.

First of all you can't prove a negative so any statement that says "I believe there is no God," which is the correct way of saying your argument, not "I believe in no God", which as I demonstrated is a good way of saying there are no beliefs, but this is just poor sentence structure on your part, and have I had the suspicion you are trying to say belief and disbelief are the same thing. No atheists actively believe there is no God, point them out to me and I will set them, straight, not because they are probably wrong but because it doesn't make sense trying to prove a negative. Frankly I think the actively denying atheist you show is either a fallacy produced by the religious or just a misunderstanding of disbelief. There are atheist that say the "think" there is no God, but they have evidence for it like trying to demonstrate the existence of God is illogical ie square-cirlce type thing. That is not belief. since it is backed by reason. Also don't confuse active disbelief, something I have, with active belief. Active disbelief stems from a defense of reason, a good person will defend logic at every level with every fiber of his body and every neuron in his mind. Like I said, I would scream from the hill tops to defend logic (1+1=2, or A is A for the Greek crowd). While the believers would scream from the hill tops to defend faith and belief. What we share is passion, not belief. They are not synonyms, and for good reason too.

In conclusion:

No everything is a belief, anything that is backed by reason is not a belief. If you want to prove Christianity or Islam, or Hinduism, or the Davidian cult are correct I say go ahead and try, but you will inevitably fail and resort to calling "disbelief" the same thing as "belief" :laugh: Or simply go to the least dishonest argument of "I believe because it makes me feel better" Belief is the lack of reason there is no point to having faith when you have evidence, is there?

[BlueTalon]

I think Sarge missed the part of the thread about the Pledge of Allegiance being written by a socialist. Heh. Of course, commies and socialists aren't one and the same, necessarily. Just as a historical note for folks, and regarding the issue of the Pledge representating the idea of Statism.

Actually, the "clause" does not have to be spelled out, per se, as far as separation of Church and State. It was not the intention, nor is it desirable, for Church and State to merge. It is a bad idea, and history has proven that time and time again. It does not mean that religion has to be absent - far from it - but the Federal government does not need its nose in places of worship, or "establishment" of a State relgion, vis a vis the First Amendment. Even the private papers of the Founding Fathers, in particular Jefferson, supported the notion of the separation, since that does not mean creating a "godless" culture. Why would it? The State does not have to be involved for religion to flourish.

Personally, I think both sides are too polarized on this argument to come to a logical conclusion.

I think you're right about the polarization, but that doesn't mean that some of us can't have a rational discussion about it.

The problem I have is the idea that something as benign as "under God" or "in God we trust" rises to the level of establishing a church. The obvious deficits lead me to conclude that the people making the charge either know very little about church, or are anti-religious bigots. The chasing-religion-out-of-public-life is a phenomenon not envisioned by the founding fathers -- to them, government was supposed to accomodate public expressions of religion, not stamp them out.

Even the idea of the seperation of church and state has been hijacked. As you all know, the 1st Amendment has the non-establishment clause, not the seperation clause. However, just focusing on the phrase "seperation of church and state", it is obvious that what Jefferson meant when he originally wrote it is far different from what people today mean when they say it. (The idea that Jefferson and Michael Newdow would mean the same thing when saying "seperation of church and state" is laughable.)

Bac, you wrote "that does not mean creating a "godless" culture." But that's exactly what Newdow etc. is trying to accomplish.

[Larry]

Perhaps it would help you two (BT and Liberty) debate if you could agree on some simpler terms.

I remember a scene in a book. Someone is speaking to a priest about religion (and folks who say they don't have a religion.)

The speaker makes the statement (to the priest): "An athiest believes that there is no God. An agnostic believes that he doesn't know the nature of God, and he thinks you don't either." (The priest agrees.)

Using those labels, the agnostic isn't certain about this particular aspect of The Nature of the Universe. But the athiest is certain, with the same fervor as the priest.

Wher semantics really break down, is that, in that example, everyone, including the agnostic, has "a belief". If your definition of "religion" is "any belief", then algebra, the round earth, and the existance of the color blue, are all "religons".

I, personally, prefer to claim that, in order to qualify as a religion, the belief system must involve some element of faith. And I like Twain's definition of that: "Faith is believing in something that you know ain't true".

[nelms]

Sorry BT I have not confused one thing with another. Actually I think you have fallen into one of the worse traps of all, in 1984 it was called "doublethink" and I think you have a case of this. Belief does not equal disbelief. To try to prove a paradox is true is the most futile taks there is.

I could write a whole paper on this, but I am lazy so here is my shortened response.

First of all you can't prove a negative so any statement that says "I believe there is no God," which is the correct way of saying your argument, not "I believe in no God", which as I demonstrated is a good way of saying there are no beliefs, but this is just poor sentence structure on your part, and have I had the suspicion you are trying to say belief and disbelief are the same thing. No atheists actively believe there is no God, point them out to me and I will set them, straight, not because they are probably wrong but because it doesn't make sense trying to prove a negative. Frankly I think the actively denying atheist you show is either a fallacy produced by the religious or just a misunderstanding of disbelief. There are atheist that say the "think" there is no God, but they have evidence for it like trying to demonstrate the existence of God is illogical ie square-cirlce type thing. That is not belief. since it is backed by reason. Also don't confuse active disbelief, something I have, with active belief. Active disbelief stems from a defense of reason, a good person will defend logic at every level with every fiber of his body and every neuron in his mind. Like I said, I would scream from the hill tops to defend logic (1+1=2, or A is A for the Greek crowd). While the believers would scream from the hill tops to defend faith and belief. What we share is passion, not belief. They are not synonyms, and for good reason too.

In conclusion:

No everything is a belief, anything that is backed by reason is not a belief. If you want to prove Christianity or Islam, or Hinduism, or the Davidian cult are correct I say go ahead and try, but you will inevitably fail and resort to calling "disbelief" the same thing as "belief" :laugh: Or simply go to the least dishonest argument of "I believe because it makes me feel better" Belief is the lack of reason there is no point to having faith when you have evidence, is there?

Biggest load of crap I've ever read.

[codeorama]

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.

This is exactly how I feel.

Spaceman... So what you are saying is that the pledge is ok, but presidents, congressmen and other govt officials should not be talking about God or leading prayers etc... right?

Blue Talon... I have indicated over and over that yes, I agree that there is not a specific designation of a specific religion, however, by using the word "god", you have eliminated other religions and excluded the non religious. The word "god" does indicate that who ever is saying the pledge acknowledges that there is one supreme supernatural being that no one's ever seen that is ruling over all of us. It doesn't matter that it could be christian, muslim, jewish or what ever other religion worships one singular god, the point is that A religion, what ever religion, any religion, is being indicated. The specific part doesn't matter.

If a person raised their kids in a non religious environment and they go to school are are required to stand and recite this pledge with the god line included, that I may add again, was added after the fact, the child is subjected to something that they have been taught is untrue. It's not the same as a parent teaching their child that 1+1=3 and the school disproving that. Religion doesnt' belong in school because there is no answer. People make choices, if a person chooses to not believe in a magical invisible guy that pulls all the strings regarding everything in the word, why should they have to explain to their child that "you have to just stand there and say the pledge so you don't get ridiculed by the other students and teachers even though there is no such thing as this invisible super guy in the clouds".

[BlueTalon]

Sorry BT I have not confused one thing with another. Actually I think you have fallen into one of the worse traps of all, in 1984 it was called "doublethink" and I think you have a case of this. Belief does not equal disbelief. To try to prove a paradox is true is the most futile taks there is.

I could write a whole paper on this, but I am lazy so here is my shortened response.

First of all you can't prove a negative so any statement that says "I believe there is no God," which is the correct way of saying your argument, not "I believe in no God", which as I demonstrated is a good way of saying there are no beliefs, but this is just poor sentence structure on your part, and have I had the suspicion you are trying to say belief and disbelief are the same thing. No atheists actively believe there is no God, point them out to me and I will set them, straight, not because they are probably wrong but because it doesn't make sense trying to prove a negative. Frankly I think the actively denying atheist you show is either a fallacy produced by the religious or just a misunderstanding of disbelief. There are atheist that say the "think" there is no God, but they have evidence for it like trying to demonstrate the existence of God is illogical ie square-cirlce type thing. That is not belief. since it is backed by reason. Also don't confuse active disbelief, something I have, with active belief. Active disbelief stems from a defense of reason, a good person will defend logic at every level with every fiber of his body and every neuron in his mind. Like I said, I would scream from the hill tops to defend logic (1+1=2, or A is A for the Greek crowd). While the believers would scream from the hill tops to defend faith and belief. What we share is passion, not belief. They are not synonyms, and for good reason too.

In conclusion:

No everything is a belief, anything that is backed by reason is not a belief. If you want to prove Christianity or Islam, or Hinduism, or the Davidian cult are correct I say go ahead and try, but you will inevitably fail and resort to calling "disbelief" the same thing as "belief" :laugh: Or simply go to the least dishonest argument of "I believe because it makes me feel better" Belief is the lack of reason there is no point to having faith when you have evidence, is there?

If this is the best you've got, don't bother writing the whole paper.

You would not scream from the hilltops that 1+1=2, unless you are an extremely odd person or were put up to it as a frat prank.

I never said passion and belief are synonymous. What I said is that passion derives from belief. If all you had was a lack of belief, you wouldn't have the motivation to write these arguments. NoCalMike wrote earlier that he doesn't believe in God, but that he doesn't care enough about it to do much of anything -- that is a good real-world example of lack of belief. You, on the other hand, actively disbelieve in a God as much as I actively believe in one. The evidence of it is in the level of emotional investment.

I suppose it's possible to interpret what I wrote earlier to mean that belief equals disbelief, but you have to work pretty hard to get to that interpretation, and ignore the context and intended meaning.

For you, disbelief in a god is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" and "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Face it, you are a very religious guy!

[codeorama]

Biggest load of crap I've ever read.

Way to contribute to the thread... this seems to be a pattern with all your posts...

At least guys like BlueTalon are trying to provide alternate views.. your insulting gets old.

[nelms]

Way to contribute to the thread... this seems to be a pattern with all your posts...

At least guys like BlueTalon are trying to provide alternate views.. your insulting gets old.

I call it like I see it, so :stfu:

[BlueTalon]

Blue Talon... I have indicated over and over that yes, I agree that there is not a specific designation of a specific religion, however, by using the word "god", you have eliminated other religions and excluded the non religious. The word "god" does indicate that who ever is saying the pledge acknowledges that there is one supreme supernatural being that no one's ever seen that is ruling over all of us. It doesn't matter that it could be christian, muslim, jewish or what ever other religion worships one singular god, the point is that A religion, what ever religion, any religion, is being indicated. The specific part doesn't matter.

If a person raised their kids in a non religious environment and they go to school are are required to stand and recite this pledge with the god line included, that I may add again, was added after the fact, the child is subjected to something that they have been taught is untrue. It's not the same as a parent teaching their child that 1+1=3 and the school disproving that. Religion doesnt' belong in school because there is no answer. People make choices, if a person chooses to not believe in a magical invisible guy that pulls all the strings regarding everything in the word, why should they have to explain to their child that "you have to just stand there and say the pledge so you don't get ridiculed by the other students and teachers even though there is no such thing as this invisible super guy in the clouds".

That's as good an argument for school choice as any, IMO.

I would disagree that it excludes the nonreligious. Two of my friends at work are decidedly nonreligious. One of them was promoted not long ago, and in the Marine Corps, promotion to the Staff NCO ranks requires taking the oath again. This nonreligious person said the oath, and even included the optional "so help me God" portion. I asked later if it represented a change in her thinking or if it was just tradition, and she said it was tradition. I do agree that it excludes the anti-religious. But then we're back to my point about school choice.

My point about "under God" not establishing religion is simply that it doesn't qualify constitutionally.

[Larry]

Biggest load of crap I've ever read.

How can anyone argue against that stunning display of reason and logic?

[nelms]

How can anyone argue against that stunning display of reason and logic?

Obviously, you can't.

[codeorama]

Obviously, you can't.

Dude, you're just a troll...

[codeorama]

My point about "under God" not establishing religion is simply that it doesn't qualify constitutionally.

I understand what you are saying and recognize that the argument is that it doesn't specify a specific religion.

Personally, that's one of the reasons it's not as big a deal to me because "god" doesn't have to be the christian or muslim definition. I'm not an atheist, so the word isn't offensive. I'm more offended that many right wingers think it means "christianity".

:2cents:

[Prosperity]

If this is the best you've got, don't bother writing the whole paper.

You would not scream from the hilltops that 1+1=2, unless you are an extremely odd person or were put up to it as a frat prank.

I never said passion and belief are synonymous. What I said is that passion derives from belief. If all you had was a lack of belief, you wouldn't have the motivation to write these arguments. NoCalMike wrote earlier that he doesn't believe in God, but that he doesn't care enough about it to do much of anything -- that is a good real-world example of lack of belief. You, on the other hand, actively disbelieve in a God as much as I actively believe in one. The evidence of it is in the level of emotional investment.

I suppose it's possible to interpret what I wrote earlier to mean that belief equals disbelief, but you have to work pretty hard to get to that interpretation, and ignore the context and intended meaning.

For you, disbelief in a god is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" and "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Face it, you are a very religious guy!

So all passion is derived from belief? Good luck proving that. Passion is derived from caring about how right you are. I am passionate about disbelief because so many people chose to belief over evidence. And since all human progress has come from thinking or random evolution, and evolution is too slow to help me out so I have to rely on the thinkers to make my life easier. And to defend the thinkers I have to defend the process of rational thought.

Me:A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" Yes you can say that desrcibes me, but this is a poor definiton for religion, if this means religion then we might as well call everything religion. Therefore we might as well not have a word for religion.

and "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

Nope this does not describe me at all, how could I have faith in no faith? That is a paradox, therefore it is impossible.

I have the passion of a zealot, but not his illogical faith. So we are back to where we started, what makes someone religious is not passion, but the lack of evidence to support his cause for passion (ie his faith/belief). So yeah I agree religious people are likely to be passionate, but it isn't the passion that causes their religious beliefs is it? No ofcourse not, that is like saying aspirin helps ease headaches therefore a lack of aspirin is the cause of headaches. (correlation doesn't equal causality)

PS you may think defending 1+1=2 is stupid, but when so many people in the world threaten reasonable thought, maybe you should think about defending reason with as much passion as I do. If people started saying 1+1=3 or A is not A then I would be dissapointed if you didn't try to correct them.

[BlueTalon]

Code, if instead of God, it was Jehovah or Allah or Vishna, I'd be opposed. I support "under God" precisely because it's so nonspecific.

Regardless of the history of the pledge itself, it's impossible to avoid religion in the formation of, and most of the existance of, this country. I see "under God" in the pledge as a tip o' the hat to that history.

Liberty, grow up. Or pay attention. I said "passion", you twisted it into "all passion".

Also, you don't have the luxury of defining terms to suit yourself. I'm not going to bother with the rest of what you wrote until I have time to waste.

[Prosperity]

Biggest load of crap I've ever read.

Care to explain why? You probably wish you could but aren't competent enough to do it. You are a dime a dozen...next

[Prosperity]

Code, if instead of God, it was Jehovah or Allah or Vishna, I'd be opposed. I support "under God" precisely because it's so nonspecific.

Regardless of the history of the pledge itself, it's impossible to avoid religion in the formation of, and most of the existance of, this country. I see "under God" in the pledge as a tip o' the hat to that history.

Liberty, grow up. Or pay attention. I said "passion", you twisted it into "all passion".

Also, you don't have the luxury of defining terms to suit yourself. I'm not going to bother with the rest of what you wrote until I have time to waste.

If you said passion instead of "all passion" then either:

A. You still mean the same thing but you just don't feel like arguing

B. You don't have an argument, because if passion can be derived from many places what is the point of saying the passion for disbelief and passion for belief come from the same source. For example you say religious and atheist have red cars, then use that to say they are both religious, but then you get mad when I point out that it doesn't make sense and say yeah they both have red but red cars but red cars don't come from just religion.

Do you see the flaw in your post? If all passion isn't derived from religion then what is the point of trying to show a correlation, when you know there are non religious sources that could be passionate.

If you don't want to read my posts fine, this is a messege board I am not forcing you to read anything. How you use your time is up to you, but if you don't bother reading my posts why should anyone bother reading yours, and by that logic why would you even post at all?

[codeorama]

Code, if instead of God, it was Jehovah or Allah or Vishna, I'd be opposed. I support "under God" precisely because it's so nonspecific.

Ok, I see where you are coming from then, you aren't one of the bad guys... :paranoid: :laugh:

Again, I'm not going to be protesting or anything, but if there were a vote to remove it, I'd vote to have it removed, but in the grand scheme of things, I'm not losing any sleep over it.