Falwell wrongly labeled 9th Circuit Court "the most overturned of all the appellate courts"
In his televised Sunday Sermon November 6, Baptist pastor and Moral Majority Coalition founder and chairman Rev. Jerry Falwell advanced the misleading claim that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is "the most overturned of all the appellate courts." But during its 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court reversed higher percentages of decisions appealed from three other Circuit Courts. Moreover, during the previous three terms the 9th Circuit's reversal rate was almost identical to the national average for federal circuit courts.
During its 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court reversed 84 percent of the cases it chose to hear from appeals of 9th Circuit decisions, compared to a 73 percent average reversal rate for all circuit courts of appeals.* But the high court reversed 100 percent of the decisions it heard from the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals.* Moreover, as Media Matters for America has documented, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate was slightly lower than the national average for all circuit courts during the 2003-04 Supreme Court term (76 percent for 9th Circuit vs. 77 percent nationally), and only slightly higher than the national average during the 2002-03 term (75 percent for 9th Circuit vs. 73 percent nationally) and the 2001-02 term (76 percent for 9th Circuit vs. 75 percent nationally). In previous years, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate has exceeded the national average, most notably during the 1996-97 term, when the court's 95 percent reversal rate had exceeded the national average of 71 percent and "earned the Western circuit [the 9th Circuit] its reputation as the nation's 'most reversed,' " according to a July 3, 2004, Sacramento Bee article.
While it is true that the Supreme Court has reversed more decisions by the 9th Circuit than by any other circuit court in terms of numbers alone, the 9th Circuit has a far bigger caseload than any other circuit (including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). During its 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court reversed 16 decisions by the 9th Circuit, out of 19 cases from the circuit.* During the same term, the Supreme Court reversed seven decisions from the appellate court with the second highest caseload, the 5th Circuit, out of a total of 11 appeals it heard from that circuit.*
Falwell also labeled the 9th Circuit "the number one court of wackos and idiots in the land," and accused it of "[doing] some terrible things in recent times," specifically referencing the court's 2002 ruling that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional because the words "under God" violated the constitutional separation of church and state. (The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the 9th Circuit's ruling, stating that the plaintiff, the father of an elementary school student, lacked standing to sue his daughter's school because he was a non-custodial parent.)
Falwell also falsely claimed that the judges of the 9th Circuit are "[a]ppointed by governors and by federal officials." They are, in fact, like all federal appellate judges, nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Media Matters has previously noted attempts by Falwell to dismiss the 9th Circuit as a left-leaning court that "[gets its] rulings overturned almost every time." Falwell also called for "doing away" with the 9th Circuit Court, an apparent reference to attempts by Republican lawmakers to split up the 9th Circuit.
From the November 6 Sunday Sermon, broadcast by the Liberty Broadcasting Network:
FALWELL: I'm proud, I'm thankful, I'm grateful to God that I was free-born -- born an American, August 11, 1933 -- and that I've grown up and lived in and raised a family in such a free nation. And it saddens me that in the last 40 years, nine justices, unelected justices, have by majority systematically, categorically began [sic] to throw God out of the public square, eliminate the value of life, born and unborn, and to bring this nation into secularism like Cuba, like Russia, like China -- something that America is not, for we were founded as one nation under God. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals out in California, without question, the number one court of wackos and idiots in the land, has done some terrible things in recent times. Appointed by governors and by federal officials to that post, they are the most overturned of all the appellate courts because of their radical rulings. They have just recently ruled that "under God" makes the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
"While it is true that the Supreme Court has reversed more decisions by the 9th Circuit than by any other circuit court in terms of numbers alone"
The 9th Circuit Court, as you admit, has had more cases overturned that any other court. Period. End of story. This ridiculous campaign to somehow obfuscate the truth makes a whacko like Falwell look good.
leatherhelmet - Wednesday November 9, 2005 07:36:50 PM EST
No one has to try to MAKE Falwell look like a kook, Falwell IS a kook. Ancient history notwithstanding, and assuming this isnt supposed to be a history lesson the truth is that in the last few years the 9th is NOT the most overturned of appeals courts
[i]"While it is true that the Supreme Court has reversed more decisions by the 9th Circuit than by any other circuit court in terms of numbers alone"
The 9th Circuit Court, as you admit, has had more cases overturned that any other court. Period. End of story.[/i]
Only to a very dim bulb. The 9th Circuit is huge, by far the largest in the country, and hears far more cases than any other circuit.
The statistics in the article are as technically true as Falwell's and as equally misleading.
The data that really matters is turnover rate of cases, not the turnover rate of cases appealed to SCOTUS. The Ninth Circuit terminated 11,595 cases in 2003-2004 and 16 overturned in 2004-2005. If those numbers represented the same year, it would mean an overturn rate of 1.38 per 1,000 cases.
This would correct the overturn rates for the caseload of the various circuits and give a decent representation of how "wrong" the Courts decisions are. It would still not correct for the difficulty of the cases heard, but it is a MUCH better measure than either the total count of overturns by SCOTUS or the rate of overturns per case heard by SCOTUS.
"While it is true that the Supreme Court has reversed more decisions by the 9th Circuit than by any other circuit court in terms of numbers alone"
The 9th Circuit Court, as you admit, has had more cases overturned that any other court. Period. End of story.
Only to a very dim bulb. The 9th Circuit is huge, by far the largest in the country, and hears far more cases than any other circuit.
Thanks mmfa! The info you provided proves that the 9th Circuit was reversed at a higher rate than the "all court" average ELEVEN times during the twelve terms from 1992-2004.
What the hell could Falwell have been thinking?
From 1992 to 2003, the average percentage of Ninth Circuit Court decisions overturned by the Supreme Court was 73.5 percent as compared to an average of 61 percent for all other courts combined.
It was about time that Falwell and company were shot down by mmfa. Outrageous.
Just goes to show that if you twist statistics hard enough, you can get the outcome you want. Falwell can pick a year (or a group of years) and prove his point. MMFA can pick a year (or group of years) and prove their point. I think what the interesting statistic is is the average reversal rate, seems rather high to me. Do believe the 9th Circuit Court needs to be divided because of the case load, it could probably stay busy just hearing cases out of the "Granola" state.
"For all the overheated and dire predictions the 'under God' phrase has in no way led to establishment of an official state religion.Thus the 9th Circuit decision is a cure without an ailment." - LA Times
That's what the LA Times had to say about the 9th Circuit banning the pledge of allegiance. A great example of "activist courts".
the ninth circuit did not "ban the pledge of allegiance". more right wing spin. they said that the phrase "under god" must be removed. and under god was inserted by congress in the 50's. the pledge was written in the 1890's without it. it is also a fact that no one can be forced to say the pledge, so said the supreme court in 1943, because children were being expelled for not saying it.
mefirst,
The first Congress (which adopted the First Amendment with its anti-Establishment Clause) passed the Northwest Ordinance, stating: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
While prohibiting an "establishment" of any particular religion, for two hundred years the government has generally encouraged the practice and the free exercise of religion...that's why the 9th was soundly spanked by the SCOTUS.
Uh, no. SCOTUS got it wrong IMHO. And so do you. Free exercise of religion...you read it to mean christianity...I read it to mean the religion of your choice...free exercise thereof. Consequently, the favoring of one over the other is unconsitutional...therefore the 9th Circuit Court's decision was correct.
- the favoring of one over the other is unconsitutional. - piratebatter ================================================================ The separation of church and state is a treasured idea but it does not follow that there should be a separation from religion by the government.
That would reject the fundamentals of our government. The founders believed in a creator God that was the source of unalienable rights and our constitution was established to protect those rights.
The principle behind separtation protects the state from the authority of the church...and the church from the authority of the state.
mills:
So how far should the government go in adopting religion, and REJECTING officially OTHER religions?
We know about "Under God" in the pledge, organized prayer in schools, displaying the "Ten Commandments" in public buildings -- those are just the STARTING PLACE.
How much further do you think the government should go in promoting "Christianity" while declaring all other citizens have no right to be free of official government religious coersion?
- How much further do you think the government should go - tex ================================================================
I was very clear...The principle behind separation protects the state from the authority of the church...and the church from the authority of the state.
A government, freely elected, is free to endorse and even promote religious beliefs...you are not obligated to follow.
"A government, freely elected, is free to endorse and even promote religious beliefs...you are not obligated to follow." --Mills
------------------------------------------
What kind of a religion is so weak and insecure that it needs the government's help promoting it? I am glad our country isn't like that. Your idea's underlying assumption appears to be that religion needs support in some way from the government. Just some sort of Religious Socialism, I suppose.
So, unlikely though it may be, if Congress and the presidency suddenly were occupied by Muslim adherents, and they wanted to have the government endorse Islam, you'd be okay with that?
That's big of you.
In some small communities Muslims are in a position to dominate local school boards. If our courts follow the kind of logic that self-servingly suits Christians over religious minorities, there is little to stop the Muslims from using the same arguments to further their own religion over the rights of the Christian minority in their community.
Considering Islam is the fastest growing Religion in America, this could become an interesting issue. I wonder if Christians will appreciate the irony of it all when/if they become the minority.
I doubt it would go over real well. Why, there might be thousands of converts to a real separation of church and state among christian fundamentals.
Mills:
You say, "I was very clear...The principle behind separation protects the state from the authority of the church...and the church from the authority of the state."
RESPONSE: You're on the right track here. Government can't be "destroyed" by religion ... there have been theocracies in history (Iran is one), and government doesn't care. Government will promote whatever its leader(s) decide.
Religion, however, can be destroyed by government. First, government will PICK A WINNER, and all other religious lose out. If "Christianity" is the current government favorite, then government practices discriminate against all other religions, and imposes on those who wish to worship as THEY please -- rather than state directed -- or to not worship at all if they choose.
So, the government endorsing of religion is EXACTLY the action of "establishment" which our founders strictly prohibited.
You say, "A government, freely elected, is free to endorse and even promote religious beliefs..."
RESPONSE: Not if the Constitution PROHIBITS the government doing so ... and it DOES.
You say, "... you are not obligated to follow."
RESPONSE: Do you think religion is so WEAK that it needs government promotion to exist? Or do you think government is so weak, that no matter what it does, it cannot COMPEL its citizens fo follow? Either way, you show a gross misunderstanding of two of the most important institutions in everyone's lives.
If ALL citizens are "not obligated to follow" a lead established by the government, then the government has no business ESTABLISHING that standard. This is the fundamental meaning of "Equal Protection Under the Law". Remember that? It's from the same Constitution that prohibits government from promoting religion.
- the same Constitution that prohibits government from promoting religion. - tex ================================================================
You're lost at sea again. The Constitution prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The document guarantees the freedom of religion...not the freedom from religion.
Our founders knew well the importance of religion in our attempt at self-government...a set of ideals that we are all created equal by God, that we are all endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. These rights cannot be taken away by any man-made government.
The argument is not about christianity, deism, or any other religion. Any democracy is free to "promote" anything that the elected officials choose...even religion. But the Constitution guarantees you will never be subjected to state established religion...nor will the state ever be subject to religious control.
As long as the Constitution stands, your fear of religion is unfounded.
"You're lost at sea again. The Constitution prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion." --mills
--------------------------------------
Please use the exact language if you are going to use quotes. The Constitution does not say what you say it does.
Ammendment 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.
open_mind,
Where is the conflict in what mills wrote and your exact wording from the Constitution?
There is none.
You may not see it, because your interpretation is similar to his.
If there is no difference then why change the language and use quotes? You at least see that, don't you? It gives a false impression that his argument is using precise language from the Bill of Rights when it is actually an interpretation of those words.
open_mind,
The intent is identical - there shall be no establishment of state sponsored religion and nobody is prohibited to exercise their right to do so or not.........that's it.
"The intent is identical - there shall be no establishment of state sponsored religion and nobody is prohibited to exercise their right to do so or not.........that's it." --tommy
-----------------------------------------
Thank you for unknowingly demonstrating the point. You cannot make your argument without inserting words. Where does the First Ammendment say "state sponsored"? That is pure interpretation. Thank you for at least having the decency to avoid misleadingly using quotes to make your argument.
open_mind,
Cool - have it your way......it's not an interpretation. It says "Congress" - Congress makes laws, that is state sponsored.......you are just playing semantics that do nothing to further the discussion.
Of course, it says congress. Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have a point to make? You have switched tactics from original intent to strict constructionism. I guess whatever is convenient for you. Do tell.
open_mind,
You are losing me here - what exactly is your point or your contrary position?
"You are losing me here - what exactly is your point or your contrary position?" --tommy
-------------------------------------------
Don't think I didn't notice that I asked you first. Nonetheless, is it safe to say that when the Constitution was written, it was assumed that the Legislative Branch would make law and the Executive Branch would carry them out?
Article II of the US Constitution does not grant the Executive Branch authority to make law, but many times they do it anyway in the form of policy and executive orders.
The courts have recognized that these have a very similar effect to law and are treated similarly by the courts.
Also, the Fourteenth Ammendment has been successfully argued to bring the states under the equal protection of the Constitution as well. Requiring states to respect the US Constitution as a minimum protection for all US citizens.
mills,
Very well said - this hysteria that some promote with respect to religion and their paranoia that they will somehow be forced into some theocracy is ridiculous......but is bandied about here all the time.
It's a hollow, baseless fear at best.
mills - Thursday November 10, 2005 04:25:10 PM EST
The Constitution prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The document guarantees the freedom of religion...not the freedom from religion.<<
Wrong I notice you put the A in the wording that is NOT there in the first amendment. It doesnt prohibit establishing A religion it prohibits establishing religion, therefore it in fact DOES guarantee a freedom from religion not a freedom from being ESPOSED to religion but from government established religion in ANY sense.
I don't understand these little word games you are playing....the Constitution clearly says Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit anyone's free exercise thereof - that's it.
The differences or impressions you are giving that I, or mills, are somehow twisting it is totally invalid...not the case and I think you are grasping straws, that aren't there.
tommy,
The wording is very important here. This argument is made many ways. One of the main ways the argument is expressed is through a strict literal reading of the words. Surely you know this. Don't pretend naivity.
OK, so what about what I said is inferred and not in the Constitution? - give me an example instead of dealing in abstracts.
Again, you feel the need to insert words like "state sponsored" to make your argument. Do you even realize those words aren't there?
open_mind,
Are you being intentionally contrary here? Anytime Congress passes any law it is state sponsored in the context that I was using it for. There is nothing in conflict here.
If you feel better then leave it out and make your argument that way. It doesn't matter.
Your tactic of inserting it in is leading you to specious conclusions that aren't supported in the case law. It would take an eggregios act of judicial activism to ignore such well established precedent and adopt your radical position.
mills - Wednesday November 9, 2005 09:41:13 PM EST
No, you are wrong, if it were meant to ban the establishment of a specific religion it would read no establishment of A religion but it doesnt it says no establishment of religion
- it says no establishment of religion - solon ================================================================ Of course that's what is says but that does not mean a government free from religion. Our founders built a government that viewed God as sovereign. Laws were made by men to protect those God given, unalienable rights.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” This is the foundation for the constitutional rights of equal protection and due process.
Absent the idea of a government that believes God created man...there can be no absolute rights secured by the government. Equal protection and due process are then defined by those in power.
Our founders were religious men who wisely made laws that protected those beliefs. There was clear intent that our government would not establish any religion that held authority over the people...not the intent that our government rule in a God-less manner.
Absent the idea of a government that believes God created man...there can be no absolute rights secured by the government. Equal protection and due process are then defined by those in power.
I don't believe in God and I still manage to acknowledge the authority of the government. Believing in God doesn't make rights any more absolute. What happens when you claim our rights are God-given is that you give the religious elite the ability to define equal protection and due process.
"Creator" is not exclusively God. Quit trying to make the two absolutely synonymous. The fact that they used Creator instead of God shows the interest of the founding fathers to not show preference to a specific religion. "Under God" plays favorites as does your continual use of God in place of what was origianlly written, "Creator". The only reason the 9th Circuit was (possibly) wrong is becuase you don't HAVE to say the pledge of allegiance.
Since we're on definitions...Please distinguish "God" and "Creator"
You can believe God was your Creator. You can also believe your parents, the earth, Allah, Brahma, etc. were your Creator(s). Creator is a bit more encompassing. God would have been more exclusive.
This is very Deistic language. Jefferson also substituted self-evident from the original draft that said sacred. Remember, it was the Age of Reason. Thank God for them. If the Constitution was written even 100 years later, the Right might have valid arguments on this subject.
"Absent the idea of a government that believes God created man...there can be no absolute rights secured by the government. Equal protection and due process are then defined by those in power."
This is the same as saying if there were no God, man would have no morality, (I prefer the term ethics). Baloney!
Morals, or ethics, are the concensus ideas in a society which are agreed upon as being to the good or to the bad of society; they don't require a god to validate them, and, societal morals have been multivarious over time.
Even lawless criminal gangs have codes of behavior within their group, because humans, being intelligent, know that behavior unmediated by any prohibitions can lead to destruction of the group. Murder is bad and prohibited not because God makes life "sacred," but because the free exercise of a right of each to murder each would lead very quickly to the extermination of all.
The idea that all men are created equal is simply the recognition that all humans are born alike, as helpless infants, and no intrinsic priveleges do or should apply to a select minority. It's a recognition that a just society cannot presume to judge one man better than another, one woman worthy of greater social or legal priveleges than another. WHO is to judge? How can we trust the fair or accurate judgement of those who might appoint themselves the curators of human privelege? There is no just or sure way to effect such a system, other than to take as a given the innate equality of all persons under the law.
While many of the founding fathers did possess greater or lesser degrees of reliqious faith, it does not follow that they intended for their spiritual ideas to be intruded into the civic sphere.
As for the idea stated in the quote at the head of this post. . . Well. . .OF COURSE due process and equal protection are defined by those in power! It's manifestly so even now in our own society. However, the Constitution was intended to mitigate this reality to the degree possible and practical, given humankind's propensity for hierarchies. Look at the pretzels the Bush goons are tying themselves into to justify denying equal protection and due process to those in our captivity whom we label "terrorists."
by robert1014 - Thursday November 10, 2005 11:29:25 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well said, robert!
mills - Thursday November 10, 2005 09:30:50 AM EST
it says no establishment of religion - solon
Of course that's what is says but that does not mean a government free from religion.<<
It certainly means a government that doesnt establish religion, you said it mean only that the government couldnt establish a specific religion or something to that effect, it does NOT mean that it means the government had no business establishing religion, period. Your statement is a strawman, government is made up of people, NOT only religious people the founding fathers made certain that was true by putting it expressly in the constitution, but people none the less and to the extent those people are religious the government is not free from religion nor would I want it to be, to that extent. However the freedom of NON religious people must also be protected, the founding fathers did that expressly by saying there could be no religious test for office.
The founding fathers were products of the enlightenment. Ben Franklin once said lighthouses are more useful than churches. Jefferson said he knew of no example of a priest ridden society remaining free. Europe had washed its shores in religious wars and the founding fathers wanted to be sure religion was not enshrined in or by government.
mills are you aware that congress declared in the treaty with tripoli that america was not a christian nation? john adams signed that treaty. so much for the founding fathers.
Mills,
I don't think the SC spanked the 9th Circuit. They believed the father did not have standing because he did not have custody of his daughter. As I remember it, they didn't address the merits of the case itself in their opinion.
The only real implication from that decision was that apparently parents without custody do not have any standing on issues regarding the upbringing of their own children.
"A great example of "activist courts"."
And what exactly is your definition of an "activist court"?
- And what exactly is your definition of an "activist court"? - losingfaith ================================================================
Read the entire thread. An activist court...enacting cures without an ailment...pretty simple.
Didn't Rush come out with the same talking points earlier in the week? Irony or coincidence?
I also enjoy hearing a preacher describing his fellow man / God's creatures as "wackos" and "idiots." Very nice from a man of God.
- "It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that the most liberal Court of Appeals in the country threw out this American tradition. This court has proven time and again its inability to correctly interpret the laws and values of our society. In fact, the Supreme Court recently overturned 29 of 30 cases it reviewed from the Ninth Circuit. - Congressman Hefley
Scoot over Jerry, you've got company...and by the way...you're right.
"This court has proven time and again its inability to correctly interpret the laws and values of our society." --Jerry Falwell
------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court is there to interpret values of our society? You think that is correct? Sounds like an excuse for Judicial Activism to me. I can't find any mention of such language in Article III? Which part of the Constitution is that in? Does Jerry Falwell know of an Article VIII that is missing from all published versions of the Constitution?
The 9th also found that a "statistical disproportionality" in the racial composition of prison populations constitutes a form of discrimination in violation of the 1982 Voting Rights Act. Their remedy...allow jailed felons the opportunity to vote.
No wonder they're overturned so often...mmfa is all wet on this one. Once the 9th is split up and stocked with appointees from Pres.Bush this "most overturned argument" will be over.
I dont think being overturned more often is a sign of a problem in the court. What do you want from an appeals court? For them to try to guess how the current makeup of the court will interpret something and rule that way or have a judicial independence. Give THEIR interpretation then let the SC have the final say. The makeup of courts change, ONE said seperate but equal was ok another said it wasnt. Being overuled isnt proof they are wrong. I agree with piratebatter, I think the SC got the pledge ruling wrong. I dont think it will hurt anything one way or another but by a strict reading of the first amendment, which is what conservatives SAY they want, not bowing to tradition which is what mills is NOW asking for, its hard to justify that ruling
The reversals of 9th circuit decisions by the GOP-dominated Supreme Court is hardly fodder to call it a bad circuit. In fact, there has been 25 years of bad law made by ultra-conservative Reagan-Bush I appointees, inflicting severe harm on civil liberties, free speech, privacy rights, and many other important issues that affect Americans. These district and appelate court judges know who put them there and will rule the way they are told. Their agenda, and that of the Federalist Society, (right-wing judge organization) is one of expansion of government control and police powers over private citizens (RICO statute and Patriot Act), favoritism of large corporations over individuals (tort reform), and especially a clampdown on the First and Fourth Amendments.
Unfortunately, Clinton did not counterbalance these conservative appointees during his term in office, due in large part to the blocking of many of his nominees by the Orrin Hatch-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. Now Bush Jr. is adding many more questionable judges to the federal circuits.
In many respects, the 9th circuit has earned a badge of honor when its (appropriate) decisions have been reversed by the 5-4 SCOTUS cabal. And let's not forget the hideous reversal of the Florida State Supreme Court decision, which ruled that the recount in 2000 in Florida could continue and was then overturned by the treasonous 5 on SCOTUS. We can look forward to much more of the same with Scalito and Roberts.
I sure hope a Democrat wins the next presidential election.
The principles upon which this country were founded, insofar as they concern religion, are exclusively these: religious liberty and the seperation of church and state. Any statement in contradiction of this fact, particularly those extolling our "judeo-christian heritage", is pure b.s.
Bigjohnny wrote:
"The principles upon which this country were founded, insofar as they concern religion, are exclusively these: religious liberty and the seperation of church and state. Any statement in contradiction of this fact, particularly those extolling our "judeo-christian heritage", is pure b.s."
Let's talk about that so-called "religious liberty". First of all,it's clear now what religious beliefs floated over here on the May Flower along with our "Founding Fathers." The type of belief,consistant with the Christian Identity Movement is one of the reasons why it was very easy for them to lay claim on a county that was already inhabited by someone else.After all, their religion teaches them that they are the only children of God and the earth belongs to them.The "FOUNDING fathers" religion also made it very easy to enslave many Africans,because after all,the earth belongs to them and all the non-whites are here to serve them.I'm so sure."
As far as Separation of Church and state goes,they know not the difference and have been trying to define that meaning since day one.
- What happens when you claim our rights are God-given is that you give the religious elite the ability to define equal protection and due process. - oldschool3212 ================================================================
Nope. The principle of God-given, unalienable rights protects all people...even the non-religious. Those rights cannot be abridged by anyone...even those you define as religious elites.
Pretty smart, those founding fathers.
My point was that the rights don't have to be God-given to be unalienable and absolute. Our existence is sufficient to necessitate the acknowledgement and enforcement of our civil rights by the government. God doesn't have to be a part of this. When you make God a part of this, you are telling people they have to believe in God.
- My point was that the rights don't have to be God-given to be unalienable and absolute. - oldschool ================================================================
Nope. If you don't believe in a higher authority than man you will always be subject to the whims of man...thus your rights are not unalienable and absolute.
Our constitution gives you the right to your beliefs because of our founders belief that rights were from a higher power and not subject to a change of government.
Our constitution gives you the right to your beliefs because of our founders belief that rights were from a higher power and not subject to a change of government.
by mills - Thursday November 10, 2005 10:17:37 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hmm..so I suppose that would preclude changing attitutes about rights...for instance there's no way that the government would endorse an entire racial group being regarded as slaves with no rights at all, but then later recognize that they are free people entitled to the same rights as everybody else? No higher power would let that happen in the first place, right?
You just made the point. It was government that allowed slavery and then changed its mind that slavery was wrong. God always had the same view...All are created with certain inalienable rights, etc.
Your reasoning is circular. Clearly the concept of "inalienable" rights comes down to a decision made by the government, whether you say those rights are from a higher power or not.
Nope. It's not a "decision" by the government. Government recognizes that there is something greator than it and it puts the idea on paper. The Government putting the idea on paper or changing it on paper neither creates nor destroys the inalienable right.
The Government putting the idea on paper or changing it on paper neither creates nor destroys the inalienable right.
by tbrett - Thursday November 10, 2005 10:59:04 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm sure that was very comforting to all those people held as slaves for the first 90 or so years of our nation's history.
I'm sure it wasn't. Comforting or not, it's still true.
I'm sure it wasn't. Comforting or not, it's still true.
by tbrett - Thursday November 10, 2005 11:40:10 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But saying that the rights came from a creator clearly didn't compel the government to act any differently than they would have if they had said the rights came from any other source. That being said, it's always hard to argue with someone who claims to know what God thinks.
I agree with some of your points. God gave the people inalienable rights. The people (religious and non-religiuos) create the government with their own free will. There is no direct connection between God and government. The people are the intermediaries.
This is a direct contrast to the structure of many fuedal governments in Europe at the time. In those governments the leader was chosen by God (divine right of Kings and all that). In our government our leader is chosen by the free will of the people, who are presumably responsible for their own conscience.
Where in the Bible--since, practically speaking, when we talk of religion here, we're talking about the Judeo-Christian tradition--is slavery explicity repudiated? The Bible tells tales of societies in which slavery was a social norm, and accepted as such.
Just because the Bible tells "tales" of slavery and society accepting it doesn't mean God accepted it or that God didn't create all of us to be free.
I would suggest to you that slavery is repudiated in the Bible's most core of admonitions, the golden rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Clearly, no one in their right minds would wish themselves to be placed into bondage or slavery. Secondly, while I am in no way condoning slavery, many master/slave relationships were like that of almost family. Many slave owners treated their slaves very well considering the circumstances and the realities of that time. This could explain why many slaves remained within the households of their masters even after they were freed. There were other circumstances of course, like what possibly could a 40 year old person, who had been enslaved his or her entire life do upon gaining freedom. Slavery is a travesty and a black mark on the history of man, no question so don't send me hateful rebuttals if you don't mind.
I would agree that it is repudiated by the Golden Rule. However, in the Old Testament slavery was clearly used as a punishment from God for not doing what he said. An apologist would conclude that since God did it, it was for the best. How else were the people of the Bible to learn the value of obeying God?
open_mind, Yes, a misguided apologist might do so, of course. No one, not one of us has it ALL correct. We simply do the very best that we can. I'm sure there are some that could and would apologize away slavery and racism, and some of those would be committed Christians, unquestionably. There are some that consider the current welfare system to be a form of bondage or slavery. I have my own thoughts and beliefs that I am comfortable with. I am also mindful that my thoughts and beliefs, just might be wrong, just as yours might and anyone else's might as well. After all, we are only human. I try to remain receptive to another perspective, and try to be tolerant of someone else's mistakes, or my perception of their mistakes as I'm sure that you are.
However, in the Old Testament slavery was clearly used as a punishment from God for not doing what he said. An apologist would conclude that since God did it, it was for the best. How else were the people of the Bible to learn the value of obeying God?*******
Good parents sometimes allow their children to suffer the consequences of their actions to teach a lesson. I would imagine, God is no different. The Bible teaches that people are the most free when they follow God. So it follows, if God allows people to experience physical slavery in the Old Testament, in the New Testament where it is taught that Jesus brings freedom, they have an idea of what being a "slave to sin" really means. So it's not necessarily the value of obeying God (if there is a God, surely he could force us to obey) but rather teaching the value of freedom.
Our rights come from Nature's God. Not the God of the Bible as many would have us believe. Nature's God was a Deistic belief in a God of Reason. Deists believed the Bible had some insight into the reason of God, but was not necessarily a definitive authority. The Bible is filled with much that is irrational. Jefferson even compiled his own Bible where he stripped out much of the illogical/supernatural parts. It is quite interesting to read.
I've always found it interesting that Jefferson and many of his contemporaries were actually followers of the philosophy of Jesus, even those who questioned the veracity of Jesus' divine birth as Ben Franklin and Thomas Jeferson did. They valued Jesus’ message and teachings. Who couldn’t? I also find it quite the phenomena that right wing religious conservatives stress Old Testament teachings so much and place such little emphasis on Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament. Isn't following the teachings of Jesus the part that make Christians Christian?
Yes, in fact, Jesus says he brings a "new covenant." In other words, the old law is superseded by the new message he brings. In effect, he renders the Old Testament null and void, as regards its spiritual dictates.
Nope. Jesus said he didn't come to abolish "the law" but to fulfill it. The Bible doesn't teach God's mind was changed about "the law" between the old and the new testament...But rather the old way of covenant/relationship with God and the new way.
tbrett,
You are right. However, He spent considerable time going after the hypocrites who had strayed too far from the essence of what God wanted for them.
Although Jesus said he was the "fulfillment of the law", there are some pretty big differences in philosophy from what He said and what is said in the Old Tesatment. "An Eye for an Eye" was de-emphasized and "Turn the other cheek" was emphasized. Compassion was stressed over "tough-love". Jesus would be considered an ultra-liberal reformer for his time.
I think Jesus would not have much difficulty finding hypocrites to go after even today when most churches emphasize the teachings of the Old Testament and Paul in the New Testament more than they teach about Jesus and the Gospels.
Jesus would be a left-wing liberal today.
Ryooki,
Your right.He would be called all kinds of names by the Radical right.I could just imagine him on the floor of the Senate screaming "HYPOCRITES" Given his nationality, he'd also be on the terror watch list.Aww Snap!
Mills doesn't seem to know that the framers of our constitution were very secular Deistic Anglicans. The constitution was based on English common law, Roman legal principals, and ideas of the Enlightenment.The Great Seal (eye above the pyramid), designed by Jefferson, is Masonic. The Pledge of Allegiance was, interstingly written by a Christian Socialist. The words "under God" were included in the pledge after an extensive lobbying campaign by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus. The attempts to turn this country into a theocracy and enforce Christianity certainly contradict the secular democratic ideals of the Founders.
It seems as if some Christians need to have their beliefs affirmed by the belief that all good people share the entirety of their beliefs. Faith is a very personal thing and you shouldn't need external affirmations to support it. I was once told on this website right here at MMFA by a Christian Conservative that I shouldn’t call myself a Liberal and a Christian because many Liberals were atheist. How does the fact that another person is an Atheist influence my very carefully thought out and adopted belief system. I don’t get it.
Lynn, I am also a liberal and a Christian. There is no contradiction in that at all. Jesus was one of the greatest liberals of all time. I am sure you find liberal inspiration in the Gospels as I do. The fairness of the Golden Rule, the compassion of the Sermon on the Mount, the idea that the strong should protect the weak (and not exploit them) are all deep foundations of my liberalism.
I have found what I believe to be a profound difference between liberal Christians and conservative Christians on one question that is very important: Do you believe everything Jesus said was true because He was the Son of God or do you believe He is the Son of God because of the profound and amazing logic of His words? I believe most liberals believe the latter and conservatives believe the former. Just something I've noticed. Wonder if anyone else agrees on an anecdotal level or not.
Rev Falwell's comments, from the (televised) pulpit, about the Federal Judiciary (specifically, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals), are no example of government practicing religion (he holding no office of government), but is only an example of religion practicing politics; and so it's no violation of the first amendment...
...but it could rub the IRS the wrong way.
Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena found out recently that practicing politics from the pulpit could cost your church it's tax-exempt status.
It seems that Rev. George F. Regas had apparently preached an antiwar sermon to All Saints' Congregation, from the pulpit, two days before the 2004 presidential election; what Mr. Bacon, as Rector of All Saints, found out was that IRS regulations [Section 501(c)(3)] forbid political activity for certain tax-exempt organizations, which include charitable groups, schools, boys or girls clubs and churches; and how he found this out was that the IRS sent him a letter telling him so, and threatening his church's tax-exempt status (read about it here [link to www.commondreams.org])
So in the case of Rev. Falwell, either his church enjoys tax-exempt status, or he's engaged in political activity: but it can't be both, or the IRS would be sending him a letter saying so.
...unless of course he's so close to the administration, as to be it's "friend" (you know, a "friend of the devil"?); in which case he's immune from such letters (and the threats they contain); and as a "friend of the devil", he's not much of a Christian Reverend I say; more like just another...
(televised) politician
...in violation of IRS Regulations, Section 501(c)(3)
Political rants and ramblings are fine, but the Holy Scriptures are Divine...
[Ma 22:35-40} Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
[Lu 11:45-46} Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
[Lu 11:52-54] Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
Personally I think using a book that contradicts itself as frequently as the bible as part of any argument is foolhardy.
If religious individuals want to talk about god all day long, feel free, you have that right... Go to church, go to bible camp, go to Sunday school... Knock yourself out.
I draw the line when these same people try to legitimize their belief or status as the "majority" by forcing it on our government or in other peoples lives.
The framers clearly did not want religion to enter into the governments domain, so stop pushing.
- What kind of a religion is so weak and insecure that it needs the government's help promoting it? - open_mind ================================================================
That is the classic strawman. I have nowhere inferred or stated that religion needed help from the government. Our government, from our founding fathers forward have supported religion.
They have supported the fact that our inalienable rights come from God...a higher being than us. They made sure that our Constitution protected all from Christians, Deists, Muslims, atheists or any other sect.
Our elected officials have the right to promote religion. They have the right to promote atheism. They do not have the right to "establish" any religion that compromises or controls our God-given unalienable rights.
mills - Thursday November 10, 2005 04:48:15 PM EST
Our elected officials have the right to PERSONALLY express whatever they want. What they do NOT have the right to do as the Supreme Court consistantly says, is put the imprimituer of the GOVERNMENT behind their personal religious beliefs
Our elected officials do NOT have the right to do as the Supreme Court consistantly says, is put the imprimituer of the GOVERNMENT behind their personal religious beliefs....by solon -
*******************
solon, Just exactly what elected official is doing this and how?
Congress did exactly that in the 1950's when they changed the Pledge to reflect their personal preference of monotheism. All the while knowing that many states required recitation of the Pledge at the time.
Our elected officials have the right to PERSONALLY express whatever they want. What they do NOT have the right to do as the Supreme Court consistantly says, is put the imprimituer of the GOVERNMENT behind their personal religious beliefs-by solon ?
****
I agree with you Solon. And with respect to the Pledge as was mentioned in the article it would appear that by our elected officials passing a law that changed the original pledge to include the words "under God"it would appear they did just what they were not allowed to do. It seems that those who are arguing for "under God" to be removed from the pledge should focus their argument before SCOTUS on the idea that the original violation was when congress changed the words--it seems pretty straight forward that they passed a law "respecting the establishment of religion"
BTW I don't see the problem with the pledge but I do think the ones who are wanting it changed back have the law on their side.
lostlogic,
There is absolutely nothing about "under God" that establishes a religion of any kind, or prohibits anyone's free exercise? Show me where that phrase violates the Constitution in any way. And I ask you the same as open_mind - please give me a concrete example instead of abstract and theory or about how if offends some people.....you, nor I, are not guaranteed not to be offended.
tommy - Thursday November 10, 2005 05:20:49 PM EST
So your argument is that saying our country is 'under God' doesnt in anyway establish religion? Do you think an Athiest would see it that way? I think saying our country is under God is pretty much establishing a subservience to God which seems to me to fits a textbook definition of establishing religion. What is the argument it doesnt?
solon,
Your argument is really that an atheist may be offended in some way and you may be right, but we are not protected in any way from that.......look up the word establish in any dictionary and a simple phrase of "under God" in no way rises up to that definition.
tommy - Thursday November 10, 2005 05:35:15 PM EST
No that isnt anywhere NEAR my argument. I agree with you that we have no right not to be offended. My argument was and IS, that saying we are a nation 'under God' is saying we are subservient to God, I am saying that is a virtual textbook example of establishing religion. I brought in the Athiest to pinpoint a type of citizen who certainly does not SEE this, as I dont though I am not an athiest, as anything other than establishing religion. What is the argument that saying our nation is under (subservient) to God is NOT establishing religion?
My argument was and IS, that saying we are a nation 'under God' is saying we are subservient to God,
*************************
solon,
It absolutely does not say subservient - talk about an inference that is totally not there.....that's a doozy.
tommy - Thursday November 10, 2005 05:42:59 PM EST
Oh give me a break, what exactly is under SUPPOSED to mean in this context. That God is physically floating around somewhere 'over' our country?
solon,
Give me a break - it could infer respect or deference - a host of things, but to say subservient is manipluating the argument, and you know it.....and it still is not the issue anyway.
The only way "under God" would be unconstitutional would be if the Constitution said "there shall be no mention of religion.....". You and I both know it does not say that, it clearly says "establish" - a far different and less restrictive term.
tommy - Thursday November 10, 2005 05:51:38 PM EST
You must be kidding UNDER means only respect or deference? You would have no problem with someone telling you that you were UNDER your wife (please refrain from the adolescent inferrences here) as you would just see it as meaning that you respect your wife and show her deferrence. No way in the world that will fly, its a disengenuous argument
"Your argument is really that an atheist may be offended in some way and you may be right". --Tommy
---------------------------------------------
This is not about offense. Everyone in this country has an equal right to the protections under the Constitution. Some are not more equal than others as you would appear to prefer.
There is absolutely nothing about "under God" that establishes a religion of any kind, or prohibits anyone's free exercise? Show me where that phrase violates the Constitution in any way. And I ask you the same as open_mind - please give me a concrete example instead of abstract and theory or about how if offends some people.....you, nor I, are not guaranteed not to be offended.-by tommy
***
Tommy
Did you even read my post?
I don't think anywhere in my explanation I made any reference to offending anyone.
As I believe I pretty clearly laid out the case. When congress passed the law that changed the pledge to include the words "under God" they violated the first amendment by passing a law respecting the establishment of religion. I did not say they were passing a law that respected the establishment of A religion--that is how you changed the wording. The actual wording doesn't isolate it to just A religion; it reads OF religion. I don't think you can tell me with a straight face that God is not a religious being. If the words were "under a creator" I may see your point since the creator need not be religious in nature it could actually mean nature, itself, as the creator but they didn't use creator they used GOD.
lostlogic,
You are still not showing me where the phrase "under God" meets the definition of establishing religion.....you want to ignore the word establish because it clearly means more than two simple words in the Pledge.
There is no establishing anything, that is the crux of the argument - not "a religion" or not.
You deflect intentionally?
You deflect intentionally?-by tommy
***
No Tommy just because you don¡¯t like the answer because it goes against something you believe with your whole being doesn¡¯t mean it is deflecting. I have now answered your question twice. If you don¡¯t think God is a religious being then I could see where you are having a problem understanding this but I am pretty sure you know that God is a religious being so I can only assume you don¡¯t want to understand so instead you make this silly accusation that someone who is giving you a detailed and direct answer to your question is deflecting.
Perhaps this may make it clearer for you the violation of the first amendment is not a pledge that no one is forced to say containing ¡°under God¡±. The violation is congressed passed a law changing the original pledge and did so by establishing that we are a nation ¡°under God¡± which means we are a nation under a religious being..
lostlogic,
Of course God is a religious term, I have never said otherwise....but you still refuse to answer my question.
How do two simple words "under God" rise to the level of establishing religion? That fact is, it does not.
How do two simple words "under God" rise to the level of establishing religion? That fact is, it does not.
by tommy
****
What do you think ¡°establish¡± means?
It means to cause to be recognized and accepted. I am pretty sure saying this is a nation under God is recognizing God and accepting that we are under God.
lostlogic,
Look up establish in the dictionary - the only reference to recognition or acceptance is to gain fully. It also means to institute permanently by enactment or agreement... to make firm or stable ...to bring into existence... to put on a firm basis ....to put beyond doubt.
The words "under God" are no where near these definitions, even as acceptance or recognition.
"The words "under God" are no where near these definitions, even as acceptance or recognition." --tommy
---------------------------------------
Is English your second language? That is the only way you can't get that.
Look up establish in the dictionary - the only reference to recognition or acceptance is to gain fully. It also means to institute permanently by enactment or agreement... to make firm or stable ...to bring into existence... to put on a firm basis ....to put beyond doubt. The words "under God" are no where near these definitions, even as acceptance or recognition.-by tommy ?
***
Now Tommy I think you know enough about me to know I would not give you a definition of a word without looking it up.I know there are people here who like to make up their own definitions--I am not one of them.
I gave you the verbatim definition from the dictionary. Which was "to cause to be recognized and accepted" I did not leave any words off the definition. Are there additional definitions listed--of course they are but this is one of the definitions so it clearly applies.
If you want to argue this was not the definition our founding fathers were referring to when they used the word I think you are simply speculating. If we read the words as written all definitions must apply and "to cause to be recognize and accept" is one of those definitions so it too must apply.
The 1st amendment clearly says "congress shall make no law respecting [a recognition and acceptance] of religion?
By congress passing a law that added "under God"to the pledge they violated the 1st amendment.
The 1st amendment clearly says "congress shall make no law respecting [a recognition and acceptance] of religion?
***************
lostlogic,
You are right, we cannot assume what the framers meant in the world establish - so I will go with yours for the sake of the argument. What exactly does the phrase "under God" have to do with you being forced into recognizing or accepting religion? I can't see it? It's not there? You have every right to leave those words out if you choose, that is your freedon to exercise your rights as outlined in the Constitution.
You are right, we cannot assume what the framers meant in the world establish - so I will go with yours for the sake of the argument. What exactly does the phrase "under God" have to do with you being forced into recognizing or accepting religion? I can't see it? It's not there? You have every right to leave those words out if you choose, that is your freedon to exercise your rights as outlined in the Constitution.-by tommy
***
The phrase "under God"isn't the problem per se. The problem is congress passed a law changing the pledge to include those words. As I said the violation is not having the children say it because they don't force anyone to say it--so no one is making the children recognize and accept religion. The problem is congressed passed this law that put these words that clearly recognize and accept God--which we have agreed is a religious being. If congress hadn't passed this law then the I think the argument would not exist but congress did pass it and in doing so violated the first amendment.
You see the problem isn't the pledge the problem is the law congress passed. If the change came about in a different way other then through congress passing a law then the argument would be moot--but it didn't--and it's not.
lostlogic,
Congress passed the law but it did not go anywhere near the establishment of religion or prohibited anyone's free exercise at all.......that is the point. You have an issue with a law that did not violate anything.
You keep saying it established religion in some way, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Can you be specific here because you keep circling the wagons with abstract language with no practical application or exapmles.
You have an issue with a law that did not violate anything. .-by tommy
***
As I said at the start--I do not have a problem with the pledge--I simply recognize that those who do, have the law on their side. I have no dog in this fight so I look at it form a non-emotional stand point and can recognize where the violation occured and why.
"The phrase "under God"isn't the problem per se. The problem is congress passed a law changing the pledge to include those words. As I said the violation is not having the children say it because they don't force anyone to say it--so no one is making the children recognize and accept religion." --lostlogic
--------------------------------------
California state law requires a patriotic observance of some sort (I don't know what the exact wording is) in the morning. Most schools say the pledge. The Supreme Court has on many occasions accepted that children are impressionable. They succomb easily to peer pressure. The court has established a difference in what is considered adult and child behaviour.
Although we may not remember what it was like to be children, they are under great pressure to be considered normal. Thus, even if their parents did not want their children to say "under God", peer pressure would usually prevail and create a circumvention of parental directives. This is called the normative effect. And it has been recognized in the past by the SCOTUS as a type of coersion. The case has merit along those lines as well.
open_mind,
The only way your argument has any merit is if the child is being forced into a religion and it's establishment.....clearly that is not the case. So the peer pressure argument against saying it is irrelevant here.
Gotta run kids though, my time here is gone......everyone enjoy your evening and be safe........Ciao.
"The only way your argument has any merit is if the child is being forced into a religion and it's establishment" --tommy
----------------------------------------
Unfortunately for you, the SC and lower court rulings don't share your view. To my knowledge they haven't written anything like what you say in a majority decision. Maybe if Roy Moore ever makes it to the SC, you might have one sure jurist who shares your extremist view.
I regard it as coercion. Coercion is a kind of force. If an atheist child is coerced through this peer pressure to say about 200 or so times a year that there is a God and we are under Him, it is directly contradicting what his/her parents are teaching the child. It would be just as wrong if the state made monotheists say there was "no God" every morning. The state should be neutral in matters of religion because the rights of an atheist are just as valid as the rights of a monotheist. This is not at all about "offense" as you consistantly mischaracterize it. If you don't believe in that, that is fine, but you are going to have to write your bigotry into an ammendment and ratify it.
Your argument is entirely self-serving. You just wish to enshrine your own point of view in the public square. If you were a little more secure in your belief system, you would see how foolish that is. God is present whether you bid Him or not to paraphrase Jung.
Feel free to respond to my other statements, but I would really like you to answer this question: Is it okay for the state to tell children things and have them recite things pertaining to the nature of God that directly contradicts what the parents are teaching their children at home in that regard? Do not feel constrained to answer yes or no, but please answer as best you can.
"I regard it as coercion. Coercion is a kind of force. If an atheist child is coerced through this peer pressure to say about 200 or so times a year that there is a God and we are under Him, it is directly contradicting what his/her parents are teaching the child. It would be just as wrong if the state made monotheists say there was "no God" every morning. The state should be neutral in matters of religion because the rights of an atheist are just as valid as the rights of a monotheist." -open_mind-
open_mind, if saying the Pledge of Allegiance as is, with "Under God" included, is not offensive to 85% of the students, wouldn't the more realistic solution be for the child who is being raised as an Atheist, to simply not include those words as he or she is reciting the Pledge, rather than removing it all together? Of course the rights of the minority should always be of concern, but not at the expense of the majority when there is a sensible and easy way to handle it.
"open_mind, if saying the Pledge of Allegiance as is, with "Under God" included, is not offensive to 85% of the students, wouldn't the more realistic solution be for the child who is being raised as an Atheist, to simply not include those words as he or she is reciting the Pledge, rather than removing it all together? Of course the rights of the minority should always be of concern, but not at the expense of the majority when there is a sensible and easy way to handle it." -JuiceD
--------------------------------------
That remedy is not sufficient. It would only serve in many cases to further ostracize a child whose parents want the kid to be raised as an atheist.
The problem with your argument is that you mention the word offense. Being offended has nothing to do with it. This is about rights. The 15% have the exact same rights as the 85% do in your example. The majority can't just wish or vote away the rights of the minority. The government needs to come to a position that sufficiently respects the rights of all 100%. As the Pledge puts it: with liberty and justice for all. Not most.
The other problem with your argument is to presume the government is siding with the minority over the rights of the majority. That is simply false. If the government was siding with an atheist's point of view it would change the pledge to say "one nation, under no God". I hope you see that taking "under God" off and restoring the Pledge to its 1950 version is the best compromise here. It is neutral and should satisfy all parties by favoring niether.
"The majority can't just wish or vote away the rights of the minority. The government needs to come to a position that sufficiently respects the rights of all 100%." -open_mind
open_mind, while I can go along with the compromise you suggested concerning the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm not sure this reasoning could be adapted or even feasible on other issues. Which means it could only be used selectively, as here with the Pledge of Allegiance. It would be virtually impossible for the government to respect the rights of all 100% of it's citizens on every issue or even find an acceptable compromise. So using your argument, you only get to pick and choose when this would apply. Other situations are bound to come up, how for instance would we handle an Atheist objecting to "In God We Trust" being displayed on our currency? Or being asked to put their hand on a bible in a court of law? How do we compromise?
Having read both yours and lostlogic's posts, I agree this seems to be more of an adult issue, and quite honestly if they removed "Under God" from the Pledge I wouldn't be devastated. I'm just wondering if we begin there, what's next?
Having read both yours and lostlogic's posts, I agree this seems to be more of an adult issue, and quite honestly if they removed "Under God" from the Pledge I wouldn't be devastated. I'm just wondering if we begin there, what's next?
by JuiceD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As anyone with even a passing knowledge of history knows, "Under God" was not part of the original pledge. The pledge was written around 1890. Under God was added in 1954 during the McCarthy era. They should've left well enough alone.
"As anyone with even a passing knowledge of history knows, "Under God" was not part of the original pledge. The pledge was written around 1890. Under God was added in 1954 during the McCarthy era. They should've left well enough alone."-hahaistot-
Yes haha, I'm aware of that.
What about our currency? Putting one's hand on a bible in court, singing "God Bless America"?
Perhaps "they" should have left well enough alone, but as history reveals, they didn't. Do we wipe it all away? I guess we'll have to see how it all ends up.
I'm tired, so I'll let you mull that over.
Good Night :)
"What about our currency? Putting one's hand on a bible in court, singing "God Bless America"? Perhaps "they" should have left well enough alone, but as history reveals, they didn't. Do we wipe it all away? I guess we'll have to see how it all ends up. "
-----
JuiceD,
IGWT on our currency is unconstitional, remove it. A person is not required today to put their hand on the bible in court. Singing "God Bless America" is a choice that anyone who wants to sing it is free to, it is not the national anthem.
Just wipe away where government is infringing on people's freedom of religion.
phreak,
It is diffucult to reason with people like that.Untill they realize that untill they put Jesus Christ back into their hearts,nothing they do in this country will prosper at all.True Christianity is in the heart.Not on buildings made with stone.Nor is it on money.The agruments that so called Christians make for bombarding the The people of the United States of America with scriptures on buildings, songs in schools,and plegdes to decorated pieces of cloth on a pole have nothing to do with having a relationship in Christ.These same people,I fear, will stand before Jesus on Judgement day boasting about laws they overturned and who they voted for and Jesus will say to them"Depart from me.(I) never knew you."The Bible already predicted we will have people like this in the last days.Ladies and Gentlemen.May I present,The Scribes and Pharasees of The 21st Centry... The Republican Party of the United States of America.
JuiceD:
You say, "quite honestly if they removed "Under God" from the Pledge I wouldn't be devastated. I'm just wondering if we begin there, what's next?"
RESPONSE: You have that "slippery slope" thing down, but you have its application backwards. The proper way of looking at this government adoption of religious dogma is, if we BEGIN with "Under God" in the pledge, what's next?
We already KNOW what's next. What's next is the Ten Commandments, Christmas displays, prayer in classrooms, the teaching of creationism in place of evolution, government funding of religious-run institutions ("Faith-Based", chosen selectively by government officials) ... the list is long of those doctrines and symbols that a particular group ... evangelical Christians mainly ... wish to impose on the rest of us using the power of government.
Best not to let it start with "little, really inoffensive" things. The Constitutional ban is clear: Keep Government OUT of religion.
One thing I wonder if you've considered ; GOVERNMENT applying religion BY ROTE trivializes religion, makes it "generic" and unspecial. GOVERNMENT placing GOD on dirty dollar bills does nothing to express His glory, and everything towards cheapening His image. The very arguement that one application by government or another might be "inoffensive" is an affront to GOD, because if "GOD" is so generic as to have no particular meaning to a particular religion, the bottom line is that government has taken God and given Him no particular meaning.
WHY anyone who believes in and worships GOD, would want the government cheapening and triviliazing HIS name, I can't imagine ... unless the GOAL is to destroy religion altogether.
Conservative Christians (good capitalists) who would be outraged if McDonalds introduced a "GOD burger", are gung-ho to having the government "cash in" on His name.
Government can perform its duties in a purely secular fashion, and nobody's any the worse. Why pollute religion by assigning THAT task to politicians?
Tex, I'm going to have to answer you tomorrow. I'm much too tired, so I'll just say Good Night. :)
by tex - Friday November 11, 2005 12:43:47 AM EST ------------------------
The things you referred to the Evangelicals will try to implement regardless of whether "under God" is in the Pledge or not. It's not a chain with a starting point (IMO). The phrase has been there for 50 years, do you think the religious right has had much success with the things you are worried about? or is it just a lot of noise? I'm not aware that evolution is in trouble as a science any time soon.
Good morning Tex, sorry to leave you hanging last night, but it was way past my bedtime and your post was rather long and detailed so I wanted to tackle it with a clearer head in the morning.
The tone of your post seem to indicate that you might think I'm a member of the religious right, let me assure you I'm not. I suppose I'm not surprised that you don't know much about me even though I've been posting here since the Fall of 2004. I don't post often, and I'm more inclined to just read. You and I have exchanged posts in the past, many in fact were simply me cheering you on. I'm a registered Democrat and have been since I first began voting. However, like solon who likes to say he's a Liberal, but not a Democrat, I'm a Democrat, but would not label myself a Liberal. I am more in the centrist or moderate camp.
Tex, I'm old enough (50 looms in the not too distant future) to have a pretty good memory of how many of these issues were simply a part of our lives, without question. Other than school prayer, I don't really recall anyone up in arms over the Pledge or what was written on our money, or even the displaying of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.
You wrote: "You have that "slippery slope" thing down, but you have its application backwards. The proper way of looking at this government adoption of religious dogma is, if we BEGIN with "Under God" in the pledge, what's next?"
The fact is "Under God" has been in the pledge for a good many years (51). The things you mentioned it could lead to either already have been in place as long, if not longer than the insertion of "Under God", or have already been removed. So your "slippery slope" doesn't really apply here. If, we were just now talking about adding "Under God" to our Pledge, then you'd have a point.
You wrote: "Best not to let it start with "little, really inoffensive" things."
But we're not "starting" with something. "Under God" has been a part of the Pledge since 1954. How you can define this as the "beginning" of a "slippery slope" doesn't make sense to me.
I've never given much thought to "In God We Trust" appearing on our currency. Perhaps it doesn't belong there, and never did, but I'm just curious as to why it's suddenly an issue at this late date? Or have people been debating and arguing about it from the start and I simply wasn't aware of it?
Tex, the First Amendment to the Constitution did not stop the Pledge from being changed in 1954 by Congress to include "Under God". Is that amendment being interpreted differently in 2005?
Perhaps you know more about the subject than I do. But the only slippery slope I see is the one opposite to what you wrote. It begins with the Pledge, then works backwards to cover things that have already been long established (right or wrongly).
Will this bother me personally? Not really, though I consider myself a Christian, I'm not the church going kind. If the Pledge didn't have the words "Under God" or if "In God We Trust" disappeared from our currency, I'd probably never even notice. Money doesn't stay in my hands long enough to read it ;)
I've got an idea. Let's change the pledge to "one nation under Allah". Allah is just another word for God. You don't mind having religion in the pledge so it shouldn't be offensive to you. And if it is, well, you can just not say it.
"I've got an idea. Let's change the pledge to "one nation under Allah". Allah is just another word for God. You don't mind having religion in the pledge so it shouldn't be offensive to you. And if it is, well, you can just not say it." -phreak-
phreak, If I lived in a country where the population was 85+% Muslim, and Allah was in their Pledge of Allegiance, and I didn't believe in Allah, or God or anything, I'd simply not recite that portion of the pledge. Or is that too easy?
"phreak, If I lived in a country where the population was 85+% Muslim, and Allah was in their Pledge of Allegiance, and I didn't believe in Allah, or God or anything, I'd simply not recite that portion of the pledge. Or is that too easy?"
Really? How convenient that you live in a country where the majority has the same religion as you and you are not in that position.
I think if you were born and raised in a country that you loved and felt strongly about, a country where you grew up being told that you had freedom of religion, and a country that you can't pledge allegiance to because you don't agree with the religious tones of the pledge, you might feel a bit different.
The pledge used to be something that brought Americans together. Since the Fifties, it is something that divides Americans based on their religion. And this view is not just that of Atheists, but also of many Christians that worship differently than the majority.
Thomas Jefferson got it: "Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
by phreak - Friday November 11, 2005 12:10:41 AM EST ----------------
Just out of curiosity, do you view the "under God" being in the pledge the same as "In God We Trust" on our currency. Or is there a difference. Are you offended by any of it or just taking a stand against on principle? Thanks in advance for your response.
Just out of curiosity, do you view the "under God" being in the pledge the same as "In God We Trust" on our currency. Or is there a difference. Are you offended by any of it or just taking a stand against on principle? Thanks in advance for your response.
by bruce1ace - Friday November 11, 2005 12:18:16 AM EST
----
I think they are both unconstitutional and are violations of the First Amendment. Because of that, I find them both offensive.
by phreak - Friday November 11, 2005 12:37:13 AM EST --------------------
Thanks for your response. I did some searching and it doesn't appear that the Supreme Court has ever had to rule on the matter, although lower courts have upheld the "In God We Trust" motto a few times. Perhaps the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to rule on it some day.
bruce1ace, I believe you are right that the Supreme Court has not ruled on it. To me it is clearly unconstitutional. But if the SCOTUS did hear it, I have no hopes that they would decide to remove it.
"Really? How convenient that you live in a country where the majority has the same religion as you and you are not in that position.
I think if you were born and raised in a country that you loved and felt strongly about, a country where you grew up being told that you had freedom of religion, and a country that you can't pledge allegiance to because you don't agree with the religious tones of the pledge, you might feel a bit different.
The pledge used to be something that brought Americans together. Since the Fifties, it is something that divides Americans based on their religion. And this view is not just that of Atheists, but also of many Christians that worship differently than the majority."-phreak-
*******
Religious tones? We're talking about two words. Two words you don't have to recite unless you wish to. As I told open_mind I could accept a compromise on this, but I get the idea that as far as your concerned, it's your way or no way. Do you object to "In God We Trust" on our currency as well?
Yes I suppose it's "convenient" that I live in a country where most of us share the same religious beliefs, but if I hadn't, then I would have adjusted.
But that's me. I just don't think this particular topic is worth getting too worked up over. There are so many more important things. If you get a chance please read my post to open_mind.
*************************
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.
*****************************
Just Two words. Don't say them unless you want to.
"Religious tones? We're talking about two words. Two words you don't have to recite unless you wish to. As I told open_mind I could accept a compromise on this, but I get the idea that as far as your concerned, it's your way or no way. Do you object to "In God We Trust" on our currency as well?"
-----
If it is just "two words" then you should have no objection to having them removed from the pledge.
And as far as I am concerned, it is not my way, it is the constitutional way. I don't think "compromising" on the First Amendment is an option.
And yes, "In God We Trust" is also unconstitutional.
********************
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
Doesn't get any clearer than that.
Good Night phreak
I guess we won't agree on this, but I respect your opinion.:)
This is called the normative effect. And it has been recognized in the past by the SCOTUS as a type of coersion. The case has merit along those lines as well.-by open_mind
***
I am aware of the argument you are making here. I just don¡¯t think it is a very strong argument nor is it the best argument to use before SCOTUS IMHO.
As I opined before it seems the original passing of the law to insert the words ¡°under God¡± is text book for violating the 1st amendment. It requires no interpretation and simply falls under the exact wording of the amendment.
"I am aware of the argument you are making here. I just don¡¯t think it is a very strong argument nor is it the best argument to use before SCOTUS IMHO." --lostlogic
-------------------------------------------
Why do you find it uncompelling? It is precedent. It has been a part of the majority decision in several cases already including striking down teacher-led prayer, which I believe is directly on point in this case. Do you think this SC is willing to disregard this precedent?
Why do you find it uncompelling? It is precedent. It has been a part of the majority decision in several cases already including striking down teacher-led prayer, which I believe is directly on point in this case. Do you think this SC is willing to disregard this precedent?-by open_mind
****
First off I will admit to a bias in that I think this issue is much ado about nothing. I know when I was a child in school reciting the Pledge I took little notice of the words. This is really an adult issue I would imagine most school age kids don't understand what the fuss is about. So I don't personaly beleive in the whole coercion argument.
So I guess when I am looking at what would be a compelling case in an issue I do not even agree with I am looking at a strict reading of the amendment that even your most conservative judge can not ignore. It appears that the new appointments to SCOTUS will be conservative and the majority will then be a conservative majority and I think if one appeals to a strict reading of the amendment and do not allow for the wiggle room you allow with proving coercion then you have a better chance of getting the result you want.
As for respecting precedent--some do some don't. Give a judge with a conservative agenda a chance to find a weak link in this case and they will exploit it and use it as an excuse to rule against it.
I am not saying I'm correct in calling the other argument weak--it was really just my take on it. I try to understand an argument even when I don't agree and I try an see if I think they have a legitimate point--when I look at the original passing of the law I see a straight forward case. When I look at the argument you mentioned I see a wishy washy argument that could go either way--again just my opinion.
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. You have a good point the new SCOTUS may ignore precedent on the matter. I suppose it is better to stick to the argument conservatives would understand better.
I agree that this is much more of an adult issue. The kids couldn't really care less. The main problem I have is that the government is putting itself in a position where they are promoting a point of view directly about God that is anathema to what some parents are teaching their children. Can the SCOTUS support the persistent government undermining of values that have usually been reserved for parents?
The 1st amendment clearly says "congress shall make no law respecting [a recognition and acceptance] of religion?
By congress passing a law that added "under God"to the pledge they violated the 1st amendment.
by lostlogic - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:18:34 PM EST
Actually, the first amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or the free exercise thereof. You left out some important parts.
ciaoancora - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:29:02 PM EST
important but not relevant to what was being discussed unless you are saying your FREE excersice demand an establishment for US.
You can't be serious. Lostlogic just substituted the definition of establishment in its place. Haven't you ever taken algebra?
Haven't you ever taken algebra?
by open_mind - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:37:29 PM
Yes, and I've had shots for it too. I was more suggesting that they excluded the free exercise portion. Sorry that wasn't clear to you.
"Yes, and I've had shots for it too. I was more suggesting that they excluded the free exercise portion. Sorry that wasn't clear to you." --ciaoancora
--------------------------------
Hello there again.
It was clear enough to me. I just didn't see that that was the point she was making here. It is possible to argue the merits of the establishment clause on its own without mentioning the free exercise portion. I don't think she was trying to be deceptive.
Nonetheless, there was no harm in you posting the rest of it.
Italian is a nice touch. Does that still mean dave's a pu$$?
(-;
Actually, the first amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or the free exercise thereof. You left out some important parts.-by ciaoancora
***
No I didn't. Please note that I put the definition of "establishment"in brackets which denotes that I was replacing the original word for clarification of meaning. I didn't include the rest of the amendment, which you did not either in your excerpt, because it did not have any relevance to the discussion--we were not talking about an issue that denied anyone the free exercise of religion so why type more words then necessary. You are really reaching if that was the best you could do in finding fault with what I wrote.
"You are still not showing me where the phrase "under God" meets the definition of establishing religion" --tommy
----------------------------------------------------
So you would be just as okay with "under no God"? Would you be for that change?
lostlogic - Thursday November 10, 2005 05:16:38 PM EST
I pretty much agree. I do see that as the crux of the buscuit. To me having our children take what seems a loyalty oath seems more in line with a totalitarian government than the ideals of a free society anyway. Having said all that, I dont see any real harm however this shakes out but it DOES seem a clear violation of the first amendment
I dont see any real harm however this shakes out but it DOES seem a clear violation of the first amendment
************************
Can somebody show me how?
"That is the classic strawman. I have nowhere inferred or stated that religion needed help from the government. Our government, from our founding fathers forward have supported religion.
They have supported the fact that our inalienable rights come from God...a higher being than us. They made sure that our Constitution protected all from Christians, Deists, Muslims, atheists or any other sect.
Our elected officials have the right to promote religion. They have the right to promote atheism. They do not have the right to "establish" any religion that compromises or controls our God-given unalienable rights." --mills
-------------------------------------
If you didn't mean to infer that religion needs the help of the state then what is the real purpose of intertwining the two? Could it be to strengthen religion? I think that is a reasonable conclusion? What other purpose could there be in combining the two?
- If you didn't mean to infer that religion needs the help of the state then what is the real purpose of intertwining the two? - open_mind ================================================================
Give up on your strawman. I haven't inferred anything. I have plainly said that government has the right to support religion.
Now listen carefully...the Constitution guarantees that you will never be forced into religious beliefs that you don't support. It does not guarantee an island of isolation from seeing or hearing about religion.
mills - Thursday November 10, 2005 05:19:45 PM EST
No and no one I know is saying it does. The difference is the Government being the espouser. THAT is what the first Amendment prohibits, the Supreme Court has consistantly read it that way, and I dont know why anyone would WANT the government in the endorsement of religion business anyway
- I think saying our country is under God is pretty much establishing a subservience to God - solon ================================================================ Our founders said our rights came from a creator God. Those rights trumped any/all others.
By rejecting this natural law and the doctrine of original intent that the State "not the Creator" grants men their fundamental and unalienable rights, our rights are no longer "unalienable" and they can be regulated or even abridged by man-made governments.
Our country was established "under God" and remains that way today...thanks to a brilliant document called the constitution...which does not guarantee us freedom from religion.
mills - Thursday November 10, 2005 05:46:15 PM EST
By rejecting this natural law and the doctrine of original intent that the State "not the Creator" grants men their fundamental and unalienable rights, our rights are no longer "unalienable" and they can be regulated or even abridged by man-made governments.<<
This doesnt follow, such rights are called HUMAN rights the point is they are inherent in our shared humanity. God in no way has to be brought into this. Jefferson said he knew of no example of a priest ridden people remaining free. Clearlly he did NOT expect religion to keep us free.
And yes our constitution DOES guarantee us freedom from religion otherwise religious freedom would have no meaning. It doesnt gaurantee freedom from exposure to religion but we in no way are forced to have religion in our lives.
To suggest that there is a freedom FROM religion is ABSURD. Could you please point me to the words of the constitution that even remotely suggest that fact. If there were a freedom FROM religion, there could be no religious symbols, no religious radio or TV programs, no religious accoutrements in our dress or speech and the list goes on. That's nonsense.
ciaoancora - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:01:38 PM EST -
You make an invalid assumption one that equates freedom from religion with freedom from EXPOSURE to religion, a distinction I clearly made. IF you are forced into any acceptance or co-operation with or involvement IN religion that would by definition negate the whole concept of freedom. Which is of course choice.
Solon, The words "freedom from religion" are fairly clear. It's difficult to argue that phrase somehow has restrictions that you chose conveniently to include. If the constitution said that you were entitled to "freedom from religion" the circumstances I suggested would be true. There is the freedom "of" religion which in and of itself indicates that one is free, individually, to not follow any particular religion. But the suggestion that there is a freedom "from" religion is ludicrous. It's very possible that your intent was merely to submit that if an individual chooses to be an unbeliever in any form of diety, then I would agree fully, there is that constutional assurance. The way you phrased it is clearly not in the constitution in words or intent.
ciaoancora - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:12:41 PM EST
If the constitution said that you were entitled to "freedom from religion" the circumstances I suggested would be true.<<
No they wouldnt, to get 'there' the constitution would have to say freedom from 'exposure' to religion. THAT would violate the free expression clause. People are certainly free to express their religious belief as they wish right up to the point they are infringing on anothers freedoms. I wouldnt have it any other way.
"People are certainly free to express their religious belief as they wish right up to the point they are infringing on anothers freedoms. I wouldnt have it any other way." --solon
-----------------------------------
Right on, Solon!
solon, It seems very clear to me that to be free "from" something certainly carries an exclusionary component in the meaning. That seems very, very clear. We can agree to disagree, but I maintain that concept is not the intent or the words of the constitution, that seems to be crystal clear. In any event, its a very interesting conversation and worth the exchange.
ciaoancora - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:12:41 PM EST
Also
There is the freedom "of" religion which in and of itself indicates that one is free, individually, to not follow any particular religion<<
We have MORE freedom than that not only are we free not to follow any PARTICULAR religion we are free to follow NO religion, without that protection the freedom of religion itself would be meaningless
There is the freedom "of" religion which in and of itself indicates that one is free, individually, to not follow any particular religion<<
We have MORE freedom than that not only are we free not to follow any PARTICULAR religion we are free to follow NO religion, without that protection the freedom of religion itself would be meaningless
by solon - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:21:06 PM EST -
That's what I said or at least I intended to convey that meaning. By having a freedom of religion, it seems clear that carries with it the freedom to be an unbeliever, as I said in my post.
ciaoancora - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:32:21 PM EST
Part of the freedom for an unbeliever as I see it includes not being in anyway coerced, as a child in a classroom is, to aknowlege that our country is 'under God'.
Part of the freedom for an unbeliever as I see it includes not being in anyway coerced, as a child in a classroom is, to aknowlege that our country is 'under God'.
by solon - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:37:33 PM EST -
While I can to an extent sympathize with your concerns here, it doesn't rise to Constitutional consideration. You can't base the reading and interpretation of the constitution on some social malady as I said in another post. Fact is, constitutionally speaking, there is no constitutional guarantee that we will be free from peer pressure, or bullying in school, or selective fraternization. One could argue that if its constitutionally protected that one will never suffer peer pressure or mocking, then we will need the court to order that pretty girls go out with ugly boys with the same frequency that they go out with pretty boys and vice versa. Surely you're not suggesting the Constitution carries that assurance are you?
ciaoancora - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:44:45 PM EST
One could argue that if its constitutionally protected that one will never suffer peer pressure or mocking, then we will need the court to order that pretty girls go out with ugly boys with the same frequency that they go out with pretty boys and vice versa<<
I am not suggesting the impossible just that the government has no business adding to it. Your scenario has nothing to do with government which I strongly oppose getting into free association.
"If there were a freedom FROM religion, there could be no religious symbols, no religious radio or TV programs, no religious accoutrements in our dress or speech and the list goes on. That's nonsense." --ciaoancora
-------------------------------------------
Of course, there is freedom from religion. Everything you mentioned was in regards to personal and private expression, which is and should be protected. Freedom from religion as it is mentioned in this forum is strictly in regards to government respecting the establishment of religion. Your argument does not provide any examples that address the argument at hand.
open_mind,
There is no freedom from religion anywhere in the Constitution......I believe the framers intentionally left the word "from" out for a reason. For that implies that one should not have to be subjected to religion of any kind and that is ridiculous, and clearly not their intention.
Their intention was rather nobody be forced religion on them by any law Congress could pass, and everyone should be free to exercise their right to practice their faith or not.
Nothing about "under God" in the Pledge violates anyone's rights and that is why it remains, for unless someone can show how it does it will be there.......whether it "bothers" anyone or not.
tommy, I would agree with you for a couple of reasons. The first is the one you articulated, there is nothing about the phrase that "establishes" a certain religion. Second, the pledge is completely voluntary, so no one is being compelled to do anything.
ciaoancora - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:24:51 PM EST
Its a bit disengenuous to say that something repeated in SCHOOLS is completely voluntary. FIRST it would only be completely voluntary if the kids did it spontaneously. Second what about the kids in say fifth grade who for religious reasons. Like being Muslim or being Jewish that see this as a form of idolotry, that you cannot swear allegance to any but God? Are those kids going to be subject to the consequences of peer pressure like beatings and ostrasization?
Are those kids going to be subject to the consequences of peer pressure like beatings and ostrasization?
by solon - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:31:01 PM EST -
There is no assurance in the Constitution that you will be free from beatings and ostrasization (beatings perhaps, that falls under a different section, criminal law). I would submit to you that one cannot seek out constitutional intent and consider social maladies in the formula somehow.
solon,
To carry out your argument about school children having to say "under God" - I agree with you in part that it may be uncomfortable for the child if he or she refrains from saying it.....but the bigger point is that by just saying it in class it absolutely in no way is establishing religion due on that child, thereby violating his or her rights.
Until you can show me how those words undermine our Constitution in that context, your fears are easily remedied and unncecessary.
tommy - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:37:39 PM EST
OK you aknowlege the coercion. Then how does coercing a child to aknowlege our country is 'under God' NOT violate his rights if he doesnt believe that in his home?
I did not say it was coercion, I said uncomfortable.
The point was not the comfort level anyway - it is about what constitutional right is being violated...because there are only two in this case.
1) Is that child being forced by law to recognize establishment of religion? No.
2) Is that child being prohibited from exercising his or her free rights to practice his or her religion? No.
"Until you can show me how those words undermine our Constitution in that context, your fears are easily remedied and unncecessary." --tommy
-------------------------------------------------
Would that be the standard conservative remedy? Flip the minority the bird and a hearty "Get over it!"? I'm sorry, but that won't due. Your rights are not more important than anyone else's rights. No matter how much you wish it were so.
Open Mind--Would that be the standard conservative remedy? Flip the minority the bird and a hearty "Get over it!"? I'm sorry, but that won't due. Your rights are not more important than anyone else's rights. No matter how much you wish it were so.
response: Good evening, I disagree with your statement here in that there are issues all the time where two peoples rights are in conflict and we must choose one over the other. The obvious example is a womans right to have an abortion superceding the fathers right to have his child born. Courts decide all the time whose rights take precedence.
tommy - Thursday November 10, 2005 06:20:11 PM EST
For that implies that one should not have to be subjected to religion of any kind and that is ridiculous, and clearly not their intention.<<
So you say, I think it obvious that exactly THAT was their intention, not freedom from EXPOSURE but clearly we have the right and its ridiculous to claim otherwise to NOT be subjected to religion of any kind if that is our wish. We may have to be exposed to it, thats fine. I have no problem with people being exposed to lots of things, but to have to co-operate with, or accept religion in our lives is CLEARLY a violation of our rights, since when does anyone have the right to demand recognition or acceptance by anyone else of religion even in its most vague manifestations?
"Their intention was rather nobody be forced religion on them by any law Congress could pass, and everyone should be free to exercise their right to practice their faith or not." --tommy
----------------------------------------------
I agree with that statement 100%. Unfortunately since the Constitution was written, members of the executive branch have taken it upon themselves to essentially make law in some instances in contradiction to the intent of the Framers. It is reasonable that their actions where they effect the religious rights of people should be treated the same way as laws enacted using the prefered Constitutional process.
~~~~~~~
Nothing about "under God" in the Pledge violates anyone's rights and that is why it remains, for unless someone can show how it does it will be there.......whether it "bothers" anyone or not. --tommy
---------------------------------------------------
Again you dishonestly restate what lostlogic and I have both told you. It is not about whether it bothers someone (again using quotes as if someone had actually said that). We all enjoy certain rights under the Constitution equally. If you don't like it, push through your own ammendment to take that equality away from religious minorities and atheists and only guarantee those rights to Christians.
California Law requires impressionable schoolchildren to say a patriotic recitation at the beginning of school as I understand it. Most schools recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Requiring children to utter words that their parents do not want them to believe is the state consciously overriding parental authority. I should be the one who teaches my children about my faith or spirituality, not the government. Are you saying there is no harm that my school is directly contradicting my wishes about my childs religious beliefs? Would you feel the same way if the government said "under no God"? Would you want your children to have to listen to that every morning? Be honest.
I have to go. Will check your resonses and answer tomorrow.
Actually the government is a dead thing. The government exists by the will of the people. Not the will of God. The people are free to examine their own conscience in regards to God.
Our country was founded on reason. Our Founders understood that no one had a lock on holy piety. Only through the study of reason could one understand the nature of God. Many of the Founders expressed a strong preference for Christianity, because they thought much of it was reasonable. Do not confuse that with strong government/religious cooperation. That would be a false conclusion.
"I have plainly said that government has the right to support religion." --by mills
---------------------------------------------------
Why would they want to do that?