Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

VUSE g-EE-k and entirely too many other people wrote in about an Appeals Court decision holding that the Pledge of Allegiance, as recited in its current form in various public schools (often by law), is unconstitutional. The court's decision (PDF) is available.

Comments

It'd be fairly easy to change

[JDALaRose]

... remove that one pesky subordinate clause, and everything's cool.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[dejaffa]

That subordinate clause was added by Congress in 1954, so removing it would be just going back to the original version. :-)

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Lars T.]

I don't know, if the Congress changes something, and the change is (found) unconstitutional, wouldn't the original be put back in place automagicaly?

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[dbrutus]

That would occur only if this wasn't appealed. Since this has been adjudicated before and found to be perfectly constitutional, it's clearly going to be accepted by the supreme court and slam dunked down this appeals court's throat.

The phrase 'under God' is no more unconstitutional than the prayers that start off the SC, Senate, and House of Representative daily sessions. I doubt that a majority of SC justices have been guilty of unconstitutional action by publicly paid for prayer for so long.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Golias]

Not really. The court did not find it unconstitutional to include the words "Under God" in the Pledge. They simply found it unconstitutional to ask students in a public school to recite an oath that mentions duty to God.

Personally, I happen to believe the court is right on this one. A school is a government institution, and government ought not establish religion. Therefore, all religious expression, including study of religious texts (beyond examinations of comparative religions for history and sociology purposes) should be banned from the public school.

It therefore follows that public (re: government-run) schools are not suitable institutions for education, because forces external to educators (and families of students) are restricting freedom of speech and expression. The time has come to do away with the public education system. The education of children, like the feeding of children, should be 100% the responsibility of the parents anyway. Parents who fail to provide an education for their children should be found guilty of neglect. Education funding for impoverished families should be handled via AFDC and charity, rather than through a department of education. Quality control of schools could be handled just like the universities are regulated today, only acredited schools could award valid diplomas.

Under the alternative I'm suggesting, all parents would be able to decide for themselves whether to send their kids to a school that insists on the Pledge or not.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[homer_ca]

The prayer that opens a session of Congress is also not always Christian. Don't suppose you'd mind if I recited the Pledge with "under Allah", would you?

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Martin Blank]

Actually, the Supreme Court hasn't addressed it in this aspect -- read the full decision. While the Supreme Court has addressed the statements on occasion in assorted essentially offhand comments, they have never specifically addressed this question. If they had, the Ninth Circuit would never have picked this case up.

From footnote 12 on page 9130 (23rd page of 29 in the decision):

We recognize that the Supreme Court has occasionally commented in dicta that the presence of "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional. See Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 602-03; Lynch, 465 U.S. at 676; id. at 693 (O'Connor, J., concurring); Abington Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 303-04 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring); id. at 306-08 (Goldberg, J., joined by Harlan, J., concurring); Engel, 370 U.S. at 435 n. 21. However, the Court has never been presented with the question directly, and has always clearly refrained from deciding it. Accordingly, it has never applied any of the three tests to the Act or to any school policy regarding the recitation of the Pledge. That task falls to us, although the final word, as always, remains with the Supreme Court.

The three tests it mentions are also clearly covered in the decision, and the statute does fail them all significantly. Whether the full Ninth Court or even SCOTUS will see it that way may be a different story.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[DEBEDb]

There is an element of coercion with children
that is not the same for adult Congrescritters.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[BreakWindows]

In other words, some dufus has the balls to take this to court, but doesn't have the balls to just maintain silence? Or how about saying the Pledge and just not moving your mouth as everyone says "under God"--that way you aren't even really protesting and your conscience is clear.

I'm guessing you live in NYC or Los Angeles. Try being the kid who refused to praise god at Columbine High* in Littleton, CO. Or the kid who "hates Jesus Christ"* (because he chooses not to praise the same god) in a small school on the Bible belt. When a 300 pound offensive lineman whose dad is a preacher* is kicking the piss out of you for "worshipping the devel or some shit"*, you can hold your head up high with pride as he stomps on it...for you, are not a dufus.

It's not so much that the word "god" is offensive, it is the implication of schools inadvertantly forcing children to at least pretend to believe.

On a personal note, I'm glad to see it go. There was always something so creepy about "pledging allegience to a flag". Why would a flag get my allegience? Why do I need to cover my heart and stare at a piece of cloth and pledge my undying devotion to it? Too many people take things too literally and actually got caught up in that first line, to the point of ignoring the rest ("and to the republic for which it stands", but would seconds later claim we're strictly a democracy).

* -according to reports at Columbine in that fateful year, the noted phrases above were true.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[EllisDees]

The addition of "Under God" does transform the otherwise secular pledge of allegiance into a prayer. Why should it be allowed when other forms of prayer are clearly unconstitutional?

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Catbeller]

It therefore follows that public (re: government-run) schools are not suitable institutions for education, because forces external to educators (and families of students) are restricting freedom of speech and expression.


Um, "restricting" what speech and expression? You were going good there until I saw the slow inside pitch.

The court merely points out that "under God" is a religious phrase, and violates the establishment clause. It should never have been inserted into the pledge in the first place.

"Forces external to educators"? Like the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic rightist group, who lobbied to insert the phrase "under God" into a fairly sober and secular pledge in 1954?

The time has come to do away with the public education system. The education of children, like the feeding of children, should be 100% the responsibility of the parents anyway.

The right to a public education is provided by the Constitution of the United States, as I recall. A pesky document. That requirement, by the way, turned us into a glabal powerhouse, instead of an agrarian feudalism with an educated gentry with old money, and Everyone Else, the barely educated peons.

Parents who fail to provide an education for their children should be found guilty of neglect.

Shut down schools, disregard Constitution, create a pauper class. Imprison parents who can't afford kids, and take the kids away. Check!

You are going to have a lot of orphanages and imprisoned parents if affording a 10K/kid/year is the measure of their care.

Education funding for impoverished families should be handled via AFDC and charity, rather than through a department of education.

The always chopped, derided, hated, tiny stipends given to poor families just to feed and clothe them, now funding schools? Oh man, I can imagine what the school for a kid with $50 a month to pay will be like. WORSE than the hostilely underfunded schools NOW?

Quality control of schools could be handled just like the universities are regulated today, only acredited schools could award valid diplomas.

Universities, especially private ones, are financially out of control and becoming impossible to attend if you are neither rich nor gifted. The inflation in expenses is endless, and the budgets are obscure and unshared with the students. A lot of the public universities have sold their souls to college sports. They are horrible examples of controlled educational costs.

Under the alternative I'm suggesting, all parents would be able to decide for themselves whether to send their kids to a school that insists on the Pledge or not.

Ummmmmmm. Let's see, you go to a very expensive religious school, or a very poor religious school, depending on who your parents are.

I'd leave the country.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[zangdesign]

While this would be a great idea from a personal responsibility standpoint, ie., forcing people to take responsibility for their spawn, there's not a chance that this would go through.

Our society requires that middle-class parents maintain jobs, both fathers and mothers, in order to survive. Our entire culture is now centered around this idea. The fallout of the radical change that you suggest would destabilize our society well into the next century.

It would be simpler to shift to a university system for all grades above the sixth (or some other arbitrary level), wherein parents would enroll their children in a particular set of courses depending on the child's interest or (more likely) on parental desires (no escaping that). Furthermore, base all teaching certification not on an Education degree, but on a degree within the field being taught.

This proposal settles several issues: 1) employment for recent graduates within a field, 2) special interests would be better represented, 3) children would not be subjected to courses that their parents did not feel necessary.

Core courses could still be required for all levels of education, by concentrating state funding on those areas, since the State definitely has an interest in having an educated population. A combination of public/private funding could be used for all other areas - thereby allowing parents to put their money where their values are.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Mopana]

The education of children, like the feeding of children, should be 100% the responsibility of the parents anyway

While I see some merit in this, I disagree completely.
My sister became pregnant 5 months before she graduated from high school. After a short time living in the trailer owned by the deadbeat "father", and after months of near starvation, begging for money, frantic searching for decent paying jobs as well as a safe place to live, she's managed to survive. Now, about 6 years later, she lives right outside Columbus in a ghetto. Her neighbors were shot to death. She works for a house cleaning service, requiring a full 40 hours/week. On top of this she is studying to become a medical transcriptionist.
Now you're telling me that it is her responsibility to teach her child 100% of what is taught in grade school? History, English, math, science, etc, etc, etc... people go to college for four years to become specialized enough to teach ONE subject for chrissake. How can you expect a single mother to feed, clothe, manage bills/rent, provide healthcare for, do the laundry, wash dishes, cook, clean, and a myriad of other miscellaneous things a parent must do, and on top of that, provide an intensive, well-rounded education that otherwise would have been taught by four or five teachers.

Education funding for impoverished families should be handled via AFDC and charity

How would this help, exactly? Would the AFDC grant money to the parent? Time would be freed up, but you still have the problem of educating the parent. Would they then educate the parent? How long would that take? Would they be going to school for years while continuing to raise their child? How would standards be enforced? Standardized testing? Let me tell you from experience how much of a waste standardized testing is.

Do you honestly think, with the amount of support for public school funding by the government today, that the funding for this kind of project would be anywhere near enough? I doubt it. Not when so much emphasis is placed on building bigger weapons, fighting corrupt corporations, battling pharmaceutical companies, playing with social security, and protecting against terrorists. The fact of the matter is that the government, as well as a large percent of the population I'd imagine, does not place as much importance on education as there needs to be. This is the problem.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[SacredNaCl]

I'll be in a minority with this comment, and that's okay ...

I've been a person of an "other" faith just about all of my life. I've taken offense every day to things like: the house and senate chaplin ...

Now I'm not saying that our senators don't need some moral guidence (I know several that do!) -- but I strongly resent 110,000 a year for his salary, plus another couple hundred grand for his office.

I similarly resent the chaplin for my state legislature.

I also resent "In God We Trust" written on our money.

...and I have since the age of 5 always resented the words they added to the pledge of allegence in *1953* "Under God".

Seperation of church & state is the one thing I have going here that they haven't completely taken away in the Bill of Rights. Every day my faith IS under attack from right wing extremist christians. The very freedom which allows minds to explore other ideas is under attack in Overland Missouri. Every year for the past 10 years there has been a bomb threat (from the same right wing wackos who pass ordinances like the one in Overland) when we get together for our new years festival ...and every year we have to have the FBI come out and sweep the place for bombs.

So, Yes, I do mind. I do take offense. I don't want to live in "Pat Robertsons America" any more than I want to live under the Taliban. You want to worship? Fine. Do it in your home, our and about, do it in your church, your cicle, your temple, what have you ... But keep it out of our government and allow others the same "respect" you would ask when dealing with the government.

Christians would take just as much offense to the words "In Goddess We Trust" being on the dollar. Or how about "In The Gods We Trust".. Or better yet ...One Nation Under Satan? How about One Nation Under Shiva? ...

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[onepoint]

you made some very good points. I wont argue any of them becasue they make sense to me.

but there is one aspect of this thread that everyone has seemed to overlook. The ridicule ( yes you pointed it out for the student that sits down ), but surely you must recall how anybody would look to find a fault to another person, specifically if that person was a geek. Any excuse was valid. ( i'm recalling the 80's so I might not be able to relate much to this )

Bad enough ( for that student ) that someone wishes him/her to participate in the pledge, where in high school there is no opt-out policy, otherwise you'll suffer with the school pier presures. Now you find out you have the right, then you exersize it and you will suffer for it. I don't think that any group would welcome that person.

Gee even I would have to think about that sort of association and I was pals with everybody, even the weird ones. tough call for whomever does actively participate against the pledge in high school.

but I got to say one thing, If you got the balls to do that, and to mean it in your heart, then you can become anything you desire.

Onepoint

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Decimal]

Perhaps the Supreme Court will turn this ruling around. But think about it, how much more likely would they be to agree that it is unconstitutional if it instead read "One Nation, Under Allah..."?

Personally, I think the Pledge of Allegiance is sort of Nazi-like anyway. All those little children, lined up in a row and being taught mindless patriotism before many of them can fully understand what patriotism means.

The phrase 'under God' is no more unconstitutional than the prayers that start off the SC, Senate, and House of Representative daily sessions.

You never know -- this could one day be found unconstitutional as well.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Cerrian]

but there is one aspect of this thread that everyone has seemed to overlook. The ridicule ( yes you pointed it out for the student that sits down ), but surely you must recall how anybody would look to find a fault to another person, specifically if that person was a geek. Any excuse was valid. ( i'm recalling the 80's so I might not be able to relate much to this )

Bad enough ( for that student ) that someone wishes him/her to participate in the pledge, where in high school there is no opt-out policy, otherwise you'll suffer with the school pier presures. Now you find out you have the right, then you exersize it and you will suffer for it. I don't think that any group would welcome that person.

Potentially, the ridicule could blow up into something that's worse. How about discrimination for lack of patriotism? This may not be an issue in heavily populated areas, but in small towns and tightly knitted communities you can be damn sure not saying the pledge will get you some attention. How brave are you to refuse to say the pledge after Pearl Harbor, 9/11, or (insert next US tradegy here).

And to counter the previous posts, silently omitting the 'Under God' is simpily conforming to the majority (not that it is bad), but it is silent conformity where no protest or defense of one's own rights is made. Conformity of this nature is the worst since a person essentially waives his/her rights without defending them.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[identity0]

Wow, did you even read KnightNavro said before you took the quotes out of context? Here's the originals, with emphasis:

Or the kid who "hates Jesus Christ"* (because he chooses not to praise the same god) in a small school on the Bible belt


Now, it's clear(to me, at least), that the kid simply chose not to praise God, and the "good christian children" around him decided that meant he hated Jesus, God, and everything else that was good and decent - in other words, ran to unwarrented conclusions. It seems he was doing just what you described yourself as doing in the Catholic church - "just stand respectfully". How would you like it if you were sitting in your Catholic church, someone noticed you weren't praying to the Virgin Mary, and everyone got on your case about "hating Jesus and the Virgin Mary"?

As for the part about growing up in Littleton, I'm guessing that you weren't there for the fateful year when the name became synonymos with tragedy. By all accounts, the religeous ferver has increased tremendously since then, and I wouldn't be suprised if someone was singled out for not being Christian(and loudly proclaiming it).

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[EllisDees]

It is an appeal to a deity. What else do you need for a phrase to be a prayer?

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[killthiskid]

I'm quite sure that this current case will be overturned for the same reason: It has become a part of our culture and our society. I learned it as a child, as have many others, and taking something away from it would be like removing a stripe from the flag.

Kinda like how slaverly was part of the fabric of society in the South way back when? The argument that we should continue to do something today becuase it is what we did yesterday is totally lacking in thought, logic, or progress.

This decision will be overturned for the same reason that prayers are allowed at the opening of hte Supreme Court, House, etc.: It has become an accepted part of our culture.

I don't accept it as part of my culture and it is obvious, through the fact that this is in the courts at all, that someone else doesn't accept it as part of their culture. You are not everyone.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[iamwhatiseem]

Enough is enough. I am so tired of the "politically correct" bullshit that I could throw up. When will it be enough?? What do you want? Do you want a communistic style of society? Do you want to live where there is NO freedom of speech, just to be sure no one is upset? The fact is this nation is a nation under God. With 96% of the nation falling into that category, it is ludicrous to think otherwise. I for one am glad I live in America, with its religious overtures. I don't attend church, haven't for over a decade. But I am not in the least bit upset about any of this. There are FAR MORE THINGS TO BE WORRIED AND UPSET ABOUT then this. How about CEO's making 100's of millions of dollars, while we have a whole class of folks working everyday with no medical insurance, how about the fact so many corporations have moved plants that used to employ Americans, to other countries to avoid paying decent wages, insurance, and social security taxes?
Indeed, you cry pales in comparison to real problems that exist.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[arkanes]

Just because it's an "accepted part of our culture" doesn't make it okay. Trivial, obvious example include slavery, racism, gender discrimination, and genocide. All of these were, at one time, accepted as part of our culture. Cultures change. That said, it probably will be overturned, but that doesn't mean that it's RIGHT. There was no good reason to add the under God part in the first place anyway.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[arkanes]

I agree. Churches should be as tax-free as any other non-profit, with all the same restrictions.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[ShavenYak]

Do you want to live where there is NO freedom of speech, just to be sure no one is upset?

There is no freedom of speech, if a child is being forced to recite a pledge that they don't believe in. Of course, the pledge is supposed to be optional, and that is what the Court should have been concerned with, not whether the "under God" part is unConstitutional.

The fact is this nation is a nation under God. With 96% of the nation falling into that category, it is ludicrous to think otherwise.

One of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of the minority from abuse by the majority. That is why the US was set up as a Republic rather than a Democracy. Let the 96% say "under God" if they feel the need, but let the 4% have the right not to say it, and a guarantee that the 96% won't be allowed to persecute them for it.

There are FAR MORE THINGS TO BE WORRIED AND UPSET ABOUT then this.

There, I have to agree with you. We have a similar debate in the southeastern US over Confederate flags. Look, it's just a harmless decoration (just two measly words in a pledge). What's the big deal? Take the energy you spend complaining about it and put it to some use helping people with real problems and the world will be a much better place.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[ShavenYak]

Go back to where ever you came from. This is a Christian country.

Suppose this person was a Native American who didn't want to acknowledge the white man's god. How would he go back where he came from?

Seperation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution. Rather it states to guarentee the freedom of religion. Try reading it!

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

To my mind, making "under God" a required part of the Pledge would be prohibiting free exercise of religion, but so would omitting it. So, make it optional. Case closed, can everyone be happy now?

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Sinistar2k]

How about CEO's making 100's of millions of dollars, while we have a whole class of folks working everyday with no medical insurance, how about the fact so many corporations have moved plants that used to employ Americans, to other countries to avoid paying decent wages, insurance, and social security taxes?

Heh... You do know what would fix those, don't you? A communistic style of society. :)

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Yunzil]

Enough is enough. I am so tired of the "politically correct" bullshit that I could throw up.

So enforcing the Constitution is now "politically correct bullshit"? So much for America then.

The fact is this nation is a nation under God.

This is a nation. Whether it's under God is a matter of opinion, which the government should not be interfering with.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[dpayton]

I wonder if you're aware of the fact that the Continental Congress that debated over and hammered out the First Amendment was the same one that instituted those chaplins you have a problem with. The founding fathers were not trying to expunge all mention of religion from government (there are many things they did that point this out). What they were trying to do was keep corruption out of religion, and keep the requirement of a particular religion out of government.

The Church of England had been established as the official religion of England, and, seeing how that adversely affected both the church and the government, the founding fathers wanted to insure that no religion got some official governmental seal of approval. They did not want an established state religion. We do not have one. Creating a voluntary time to say the Pledge of Allegiance does not force anyone to align themselves with any religion that believes in a Supreme Being. Omit the phrase, or don't say the whole thing. That's freedom of religion.

By the way, Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase "seperation of church and state" was out of the country when the debate over the First Amendment took place. He used that phrase in a (very short) letter, and used it in a very limited sense. The Danbury, CT Baptists wanted assurances that government would not interfere with religion, and TJ was reassuring them that it wouldn't. That's all he meant by it in the letter. Others, of course, have projected their own definitions.

The term "under God" simply recognizes that the vast majority of those who founded this country did so with this guiding prinicipal; that this new country would only prosper and remain free if it was "under God". That's why any other "under X" is meaningless.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Golias]

1. I agree that most state constitutions would need to be amended before educaiton could be privitized (there is nothing in the US Constitution that insists the schools be publicly run, however.)

2. Privaite school does not necessarilly mean religious school. In fact, were there no public schools, the vast majority of private ones taking up the slack in out culture would probably not be religious. The only reason most private schools are religious now is because most of the parents pulling their kids out of public schools are doing so for religious reasons.

3. Yes, this would be an additional financial burden on families, to the tune of about $3000 - $8000 per year per child. Of course, it would also mean that taxes would plummet (especially state and local taxes, the bulk of which are spent on education).

4. Extremely poor families are still expected to feed and clothe their own kids, are they not? Education is also a basic need, which parents have a responsibility to provide. The dirtly little secret that a lot of libertarians who support this sort of move don't like to talk about is that it would require that we expand the welfare state, giving out education money via AFDC to those families who need aid in order to send their kids to school.

4. Universities are not becoming impossible to attend if you are not rich or gifted. Pell grants still exist, as do low-interest student loans. That asside, I was not holding up Universities as an example of how to manage costs (most colleges are directly subsidized by the states, so being wasteful is an easy trap for them). The reason I brought up Universities is their system of acrediting programs assures that a degree from a major university means something, and High Schools could use a similar system for validating the worth of their diplomas.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Golias]

In addition to the usual typos, I see that my haste led me to number my points 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.

Yet another shining example of what a good, solid public education can do for you. :)

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Golias]

You misunderstand. Radically. When I say that the education is 100% the parents responsibility, I mean it would be their responsibility to place the kid in a school. Feeding the kid is their responsibility, but we don't expect all parents to be farmers.

How would AFDC help? By granting money to the parent which would be used for tuition.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[killthiskid]

I'm responding to the NA so people can see his post (this is the child of that post):

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them an extremist. Precendent doesn't make it Constitutional. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and still wrong.

Thanks, NA

Now, as for you, letxa2000, you sure are hot on this issue. I'll grant you this: 'Under God' is not the same as slaverly, however, my purpose was not to compare slaverly and 'Under God', my purpose was to show how your argument is weak. I'll reiterate: doing something today because it is what you did yesterday is void of thought, logic, or progress. There, dead horse flogged.

Next up: I am not an extremist. I am EXTREMELY patriotic. I have served my country in the military. While I am not currently in the military, if I was ever needed again, I would be there in a heart beat. They won't need to draft me.

Now, here is how I am patriotic: I value the freedom of this country. I value my freedom of religion (or lack thereof). I value, very greatly, the seperation of church and state.

All of these things keep my free. Removing 'under god' is another step towards freedom. Why should you care if 'god' has been removed from the pledge? You have removed something from my life that I do not want, and you have lost nothing: you still have god. You still have your faith, your church, your friends, and your religion.

So, if the time has come, if the culture has changed, and "Under GOD" has to go, you know what I say to you? Same thing you said to me: Tough.

Woah, not very nice to be on that side of things, is it?

In a word, "tough." There are 270 million people in this country. It's impossible to please all of them all of the time. But to say that the current Pledge isn't part of American culture and tradition because a few percentage points of the population doesn't like it is to distort the definition of "culture" which, by definition, is a collective entity. The Pledge IS part of your culture even though you might not like that part of the culture.

Ya' know what? You're right, we can't please everyone. But there is a major difference between pleasing/not pleasing and actively pissing people off.

The new pledge: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...

Now that's freedom.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[NumberSyx]

Allah is a Ballish moon god

I dare you to back this up with historical data, no Christian propaganda sites, please.

$$, too

[gralem]

I'm filing a suit against all US currency! It's unconstitutional!!!

Re:$$, too

[Anonymous Coward]

How are we going to pay you if you win?

Re:$$, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, there's a difference between saying something every day before schoolchildren-- highly impressionable people whose beliefs and views of the world are not fully formed-- and making them feel all wierd, like they're not doing something they're supposed to do, if they don't say it along, and making them feel like outcasts, like everyone is different from them and there's something wrong with them, if they don't agree with the words
-- and printing a mention of God on some publicly distributed government items.

The first has an undeniable aspect of coersion. The latter, less so.

If a child sees "in god we trust" on currency, they walk away with the impression "i live in a nation more or less full of christians", which is more or less accurate. If a child has the pledge of allegience drilled into them every single day in their place of learning, they walk away with the impression "i am expected to be christian", which is wrong and a signal the government should not be sending.

I would expect 90% of the people who are upset over this decision are upset because they want the government to send the signal to children that they are expected to be christian.

Re:$$, too

[cruelworld]

Damn discordians....

this is all your doing! Isn't it!!!!!!

Re:$$, too

[FireWhenRady]

The pledge of allegiance is for the United States of America founded by Christians and predominantly just that.

Funny enough, that is completely wrong. Many of the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were "freethinkers" like Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, John Adams, John Hancock etc. who created the United States specifically to avoid the Christian hegemony in Europe. Three of the first 5 presidents were Unitarians, not orthodox Christians.

The most important influence on early American political though was the anti-clerical Enlightment of Europe and the writings of such atheists as Thomas Paine and Voltaire.

The Virginia Acts of Toleration that Jefferson fought so hard for, were advocated by a coalition of Unitarians and Baptists, neither of whom wanted the the colonial Episcopalian church to become sanctioned by the government and to forbid their own. In those days, fundementalist Christianity was persecuted badly and it was the atheists who fought hardest to give Baptists and Evangelicals (Non-conformists) the right to exist and to worship as they chose.

Re:$$, too

[howlingfrog]

You attempt the following as an illustrative paraphrasing of the post you're responding to:

...I'm getting the sense that the government doesn't want me harming that guy's family, which is obviously some sort of attack on my freedom.

Your attempt was, however, a miserable failure. This example differs from the government telling us what religion to believe in a substantial way, relevant to the discussion.

As I see it, and as there is reason to believe the Founders saw it, the role of government is to protect the freedom of its citizens. If I "rape some guy's wife and murder his daughter," I'm infringing on the freedom of that family to live their own life. If the government tells the same guy's daughter she's supposed to believe in God, it's infringing on the freedom of that family to live their own life (clearly to a lesser degree, but you get that when you use extreme examples). A government whose goal is the protection of freedom should condemn both acts.

Re:$$, too

[Rakarra]

That's ludicrous. (1) Using your logic, why don't they come back confused as to whether they should be Jewish OR Christian? (2) I would personally love to see a kid come back with such an opinion, because I would assume that they would also get out of school thinking "Gee, it wouldn't be good to grow up into a 24-year-old Californian and help Al Queda attack the country, since I'm supposed to give my allegiance to the US".

Correct, instead you'd see a kid coming back saying "God wants me to bomb abortion clinics!" Rediculous yes, but no more so than your assertion that children who don't have Christianity drilled into them at school (isn't that more a domain of the parents?) grow up to be terrorists.

Well heck, let's all just choose to do what we feel like. "The government set up laws telling me that I'll be punished for raping some guy's wife and murdering his daughter. I'm getting the sense that the government doesn't want me harming that guy's family, which is obviously some sort of attack on my freedom." NO! While I respect your viewpoint, I heartily disagree with your subjective logic.

The government should not be sponsoring religions, with the possible exception of tax-purposes.

Not Pledge, But Act Of Congress Adding "Under God"

[sqlzealot]

The court has struck down the specific 1954 act of congress inserting "Under God" into the pledge.

Eisenhower's Fault

[e1en0r]

It was Eisenhower who added the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance. You can read about it here.

Simmer down

[Torgo's Pizza]

Before the comments start to get out of hand, I'd like to point out that this will almost certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has pulled this stunt many a time before, only to have it overturned or reverse itself later.

Re:Simmer down

[farfolen]

in all likelihood, if it makes it to the supreme court level, the court will just refuse to hear it. they've made comments in previous rulings that said the actual text of the pledge wasn't unconstitutional...only coercing people to speak it (i.e. requiring it).

Re:Simmer down

[Torgo's Pizza]

Actually, they would have to hear it in order to overturn the ruling. If they refused to hear the appeal, the ruling by the Ninth Circuit would stand. Meaning children in the states that the Ninth Circuit oversees would be prohibited saying the pledge in school. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Simmer down

[Zeinfeld]

Before the comments start to get out of hand, I'd like to point out that this will almost certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has pulled this stunt many a time before, only to have it overturned or reverse itself later.

I don't see how that is so certain. In the first place the current supreme court has rulled several times against school prayer.

The principal objection raised by the government was that the courts should not be concerned with trivial infractions. It would be very hard for the Supreme Court to claim that a case was important enough to consider and then rule that it was too insignificant to bother with.

The rest of the world finds the fetish the US makes over its flag somewhat peculiar. The scenes of schoolchildren making loyalty oaths to the flag every day remind Europeans such as myself more of the types of society that Stalin and Hitler tried to impose than the values of liberal democracy.

Finally the main objection to the pledge historically has been from religious groups, in particular the Quakers. For us the pledge of allegiance to a physical object is tantamount to idol worship which we have rather strong view against. Furthermore we don't make oaths by heaven for that is of God, nor by earth as that is his footstool.

Re:Simmer down

[The Cat]

Godwin wins again.

I mean, doesn't this article just *scream* Godwin's law?

Re:Simmer down

[CaptainCarrot]

The rest of the world finds the fetish the US makes over its flag somewhat peculiar.

It is somewhat peculiar, but it or something like it was probably inevitable. Culturally, the US is much more diverse than any single European nation, although just possibly not much more than the EU taken as a whole. Since we do not share a single culture, culture alone cannot be a unifying principle. The flag is one of the more important symbols that have come to be a substitute for it.

Finally the main objection to the pledge historically has been from religious groups, in particular the Quakers. For us the pledge of allegiance to a physical object is tantamount to idol worship which we have rather strong view against. Furthermore we don't make oaths by heaven for that is of God, nor by earth as that is his footstool.

That's nice, and scriptural, but you need to explain more to avoid the impression that these objections are irrelevant. The meaning of "pledge" is on the same level roughly as promise; it doesn't quite rise to the status of an oath. Even if it did it's not being made "by" either heaven or earth, nor even God. God is mentioned as an attribute of the nation, "under God", not called upon as witness.

Re:Simmer down

[j7953]

The rest of the world finds the fetish the US makes over its flag somewhat peculiar. The scenes of schoolchildren making loyalty oaths to the flag every day remind Europeans such as myself more of the types of society that Stalin and Hitler tried to impose than the values of liberal democracy.

I am European as well, and, just like you, I was somewhat surprised to see the students pledge alliance to the flag every day when I visited the US (during a student exchange program).

What I didn't understand and that time is that for us Europeans the word "patriot" has a different meaning than it has in the US -- in the US, a patriot is fighting for what his country stands for (i.e. liberty and justice for all), not fighting for his government no matter what the government is doing.

I found this quote from Thomas Jefferson very interesting:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

In this quote, the tyrants are obviously those who seek to destroy the "tree of liberty." What you have to realize is that Jefferson was not talking about you fighting against patriots and tyrants, but patriots fighting against tyrants. Obviously, the patriots must be the good guys then, i.e. those who are defending their liberties.

Of course, the Jefferson quote is from 1787, and looking at the Bush administration's propanganda, I suppose the meaning might have changed since then.

Re:Simmer down

[HiThere]

Sadly, most americans don't understand that anymore either. And the government sure doesn't encourage such understanding.

That's what patriot used to mean in the US. It's been a number of years since I've heard it used in that way. It seems that each year more of the people feel disenfranchised, whether they are in any literal sense or not. (It doesn't make too much different whether you are allowed to vote or not when the candidates are bought and sold by the large campaign donors.) The last time I voted for a candidate that I though was a good choice was the year that I voted for Pat Paulson. The rest of the time I've either been glad that the person I voted for had no chance of winning, or I've tried to guess which was the lesser of two vile evils.

I hate and despise Bush. And I'm still not sure that Gore would have been any better. Nader would have been better, but only because he would be deadlocked with Congress all the time. A government that did nothing new would be preferable to the one that we have ended up with.

Most of this entire mess traces back to when a Judge ruled that corporations were people. They aren't. It's clear that they aren't. But that blighted decision has been allowed to stand since the Southern Pacific got it made in their favor. (Mid to late 1800's, don't remember precisely.)
There have been lots of decisions made that reinforce it, like the FCC decision that the broadcasters didn't need to supply free time to public political debates, but that's the one that's at the root of most of the current troubles. Rip it out, and... well, it's hard to say. The reinforcements may now be strong enough to stand on their own, though they wouldn't have been a decade ago.

A patriot should be someone fighting for what his country stands for. Unfortunately, these days you can't do that as a part of the military. The military fights for what the government stands for, and that diverges wildly from the principles of the founders. (Except, perhaps, for those of Hamilton and his followers. He wanted a monarchy.)

Re:Simmer down

[Dimensio]

Does Godwin's Law apply on web forum discussions? I thought that it was an observation of USENET -- are web forums a proper extension?

Re:Simmer down

[AnalogBoy]

I think my favorite quote is "those that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

The date is appropriate too.

Re:Simmer down

[Matthew Weigel]

but you need to explain more to avoid the impression that these objections are irrelevant.

First, there is the implication that God smiles upon the U.S. first and/or most. Second, there is the presence of the exact same sort of empty ritual present in religious worship.

But you say:

The flag is one of the more important symbols that have come to be a substitute for it.

And that isn't idol worship?

The meaning of "pledge" is on the same level roughly as promise; it doesn't quite rise to the status of an oath.

And what is the difference between them? Is one, or the other, less true, less wholly felt, or said such that God sees what you say less?

To someone who sees speaking the Truth at all times a holy leading, there is no difference between speaking, promising, and making an oath or pledge, except that all of the latter tend to depend upon external forces (Heaven, God, or something on earth), at which point it is inappropriate.

The only belief I think I should be expected to profess, in any circumstance, is my belief in God. I will gladly fail any expectation put upon me to profess belief in how wonderful, important, holy, or correct the United States are.

Re:Simmer down

[Zeinfeld]

I think my favorite quote is "those that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

How about Edmund Burke's coment of roughly the same era to the effect that 'it is astonishing how much noise a collection of slave owners can make about liberty'.

Re:Simmer down

[Zeinfeld]

Does Godwin's Law apply on web forum discussions? I thought that it was an observation of USENET -- are web forums a proper extension?

The ironic thing about Godwin's law is that Godwin himself is pretty notorious for starting and stoking petty flame wars on mailing lists. Basically he has a difficulty understanding that trial lawyer logic does not work too well in a context where the person being harassed has equal speaking rights.

That said, Godwin himself has admitted that in some cases comparison to Nazis is actually justified.

In Europe one of the canonical images of Facism is the picture of a teen age aryan boy saluting the Nazi flag one of Lenni Rehsenfal's images from Triumph of the Will. The canonical image of communism were the May day parades and the pictures of school children holding up placards to make pictures of Mao and Stalin.

We associate the saluting of flags with the military and the militarization of civilian life with totalitarianism.

Re:Simmer down

[texchanchan]

Re What I didn't understand and that time is that for us Europeans the word "patriot" has a different meaning than it has in the US

Exactly. Two points:

• We (Americans) have nothing in common besides being here. No common ethnicity, language, religion, political ideas, etc. The only thing we have in common is citizenship and sometimes not even that. Kind of like Slashdotters.
  
• The citizens (or subjects) of other countries expect to be defined by their nationality. Americans expect their nation to be defined by them.

I saw a talk by a non-American, come to denounce us for our sins, who berated us for flying that militaristic symbol, the flag, over everything from our front yards to car dealerships. She did not understand that we don't see the thing as military at all. Goodness no. It's just plain old not a military symbol. If anything, it brings to mind schools. The icon for a school on American maps is a tiny flag like a squared-off P.

Possibly the flag of her country is used strictly in a military context. But we have NO OTHER THING in common. So we use the flag as a unifying symbol. It just means "us", not "us and our politics" because we don't agree on politics; not "us and our religion" because we don't agree on religion; not "us and our government" because at any given time half or more of the country doesn't like the current administration. It really does symbolize the people and their ideals.

(The flag has been misused of course, but so has every symbol in the world, and they can't be judged by their abusers.)

Re:Simmer down

[CaptainCarrot]

First, there is the implication that God smiles upon the U.S. first and/or most. Second, there is the presence of the exact same sort of empty ritual present in religious worship.

First, there's no such implication. (I see no reason to support this further; it seems fair to counter your bald assertion with one of my own. Besides, it seems clear enough -- to me, anyway -- from a plain reading of the text.) Second, you need to clarify which religious ritual you're talking about. The rituals of my religion are anything but empty.

And no, a symbol that substitutes for cultural unity isn't an idol. There. You asked a question and I answered. If you meant to imply that such a symbol is an idol, you'll once again have to provide something other than bald assertion.

And what is the difference between them? Is one, or the other, less true, less wholly felt, or said such that God sees what you say less?

Yes, actually. God sees all no matter what we do, but men for their part seem to take vows more seriously when they invoke him as a witness, in general. If you're an exception to that generality, then good for you.

And you're incorrect about pledges. As a verb it means to make a promise or agreement. Although it can be enforced by the exchange of a valuable token of some kind, that's not a necessary condition of one, and in any event does not involve calling upon any higher power. An oath is sealed by calling upon some external force at witness. Someone who feels he is commanded by God to always speak the truth (this is what I take your idiosyncratic phrase "holy leading" to mean) and concomitantly forbidden to make oaths ought to be able to offer a pledge with a clear conscience. I'd think that if that pledge takes note of God's omnipotence -- aren't we all "under God" no matter where we live? -- without actually calling upon him as witness, so much the better.

It's interesting that with all this you feel no loyalty to the country that does not interfere with your freedom practise your religion, to the point where the Constitution even allows for affirmations where it otherwise calls for oaths so that persons of your persuasion need not violate their beliefs in order to take a public duty upon themselves. At the very least, some might perceive you as ungrateful.

Re:Simmer down

[mpe]

It is somewhat peculiar, but it or something like it was probably inevitable. Culturally, the US is much more diverse than any single European nation

Not exactly, in some ways, notably political parties the US is considerably less diverse than many European countries.

although just possibly not much more than the EU taken as a whole. Since we do not share a single culture, culture alone cannot be a unifying principle.

Many European countries have cultural variations, even small countries such as Belgium.

Re:Simmer down

[mpe]

It seems that each year more of the people feel disenfranchised, whether they are in any literal sense or not. (It doesn't make too much different whether you are allowed to vote or not when the candidates are bought and sold by the large campaign donors.)

Or where there are few candidates. Many people in Europe have also been showing dissatisfaction with established political parties. For some reason it appears to be a lot easier get a new political party elected in European countries than in the US. Possibly because of different rules on campaign funding and access to the media.Would something like the recent Dutch general election even be possible in the US?

I hate and despise Bush. And I'm still not sure that Gore would have been any better.

Quite likely this is why many Americans don't even bother to register to vote.

Nader would have been better, but only because he would be deadlocked with Congress all the time. A government that did nothing new would be preferable to the one that we have ended up with.

Does anyone not Republican or Democrat seriously stand a chance of being elected as US president? Effectivly the US media ignores "third party" candidates.

Most of this entire mess traces back to when a Judge ruled that corporations were people. They aren't. It's clear that they aren't.

Not only that corporations arn't treated as people, especially when they break the law. There is no such thing as a jail for corporations, a corporation can be on trial whilst conducting "business as usual". Giving corporations the same rights as real people effectivly turns them into something superior.

Re:Simmer down

[Matthew Weigel]

First, there's no such implication. (I see no reason to support this further; it seems fair to counter your bald assertion with one of my own. Besides, it seems clear enough -- to me, anyway -- from a plain reading of the text.)

I think there's more to it, particularly accounting for the development that went into it, but I'll give you the point.

Second, you need to clarify which religious ritual you're talking about. The rituals of my religion are anything but empty.

I'm sorry, I should not have said that.

But the fact remains that it is a ritual, glorifying someone or something other than God. I think that's idol worship, and I hope you can see that it inhibits my free practice of religion to be asked to do it.

There. You asked a question and I answered.

Good. All my questions do request answers. It might be that your answer illuminates a point that makes you change your mind, it might be that your answer illuminates a point that makes me change my mind, or it might just give me the information I need to continue trying to make my point.

Yes, actually. God sees all no matter what we do, but men for their part seem to take vows more seriously when they invoke him as a witness, in general.

I take your 'yes' to mean that it is less wholly felt, rather than intrinsically less true or less seen by God. In which case you are arguing that giving the pledge is important because it doesn't mean as much. See below.

If you're an exception to that generality, then good for you.

Ah! Now it's a generality, that some people might except. Does your claim, that a pledge is less than an oath, and does not interfere with the religious freedom of people who will not take oaths, still stand? My impression is that it does not.

And you're incorrect about pledges.

I am? It doesn't mean to make a promise? It doesn't interfere with someone's interest in speaking only the Truth? I can make a pledge, and go back on it, without having lied?

As a verb it means to make a promise or agreement.

Ah, no, I wasn't wrong. So a reasonable person that might be willing to admit that a better country might come along, and might be willing to ditch one imperfect country for another less imperfect country, would be lying if they took the pledge. OK.

and in any event does not involve calling upon any higher power.

Point taken. I'm afraid I didn't make both of my points clear before, that it could fail as a statement of Truth, and (erroneously) that it calls upon the power of God.

It's interesting that with all this you feel no loyalty to the country that does not interfere with your freedom practise your religion, to the point where the Constitution even allows for affirmations where it otherwise calls for oaths so that persons of your persuasion need not violate their beliefs in order to take a public duty upon themselves. At the very least, some might perceive you as ungrateful.

I'm sorry if you disapprove of my beliefs. But I think you misunderstand. How can I be loyal to a fiction? I am grateful to the people who, accepting the fiction, operating with their understanding of the ideals that other people created the fiction with, respect my resolve to practice my religion.

The people who respect my resolve to practice my religion are, in that respect, good people. Don't you agree that if they did not respect it, the blame would not fall to the nation's feet, but theirs? Why should I place blame upon one's actions at his feet, but praise for his actions at another's feet?

It's interesting that you discuss my loyalty, but defend and support offering up a promise that you don't expect people to completely support. Isn't just withholding my pledge the same as offering up a pledge I won't necessarily uphold?

As reported on the better site...

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of American schoolchildren --- including almost all adults who grew up in the US --- have for two generations recited a daily pledge of allegiance in schools. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that pledge to be a violation of the US Constitution. Social conservatives are outraged, liberals are smirking, and many of us are just stunned.

Background on the Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

And to the republic for which it stands

one nation, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian Socialist activist in 1892. Heavily promoted by the magazine The Youth's Companion, at the time one of the largest weekly magazines in the United States (it was eventually merged into the magazine American Boy, which was owned by the Atlantic Monthly), which was also involved in a movement to place American flags over every schoolhouse in the country. By 1905, a majority of the non-southern states had passed laws requiring schools to fly the flag, and it was already customary at that time to require students to recite the pledge daily. Eventually, most states passed laws requiring the daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance. (In some states, students are also required to sing the national anthem).

The wording of the pledge was codified into US law by Congress in 1942; in 1954, the wording of the pledge was changed by Congress, which added the phrase 'under God', making the line 'one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." This modified phrasing was adopted by schools across the country, and has remained intact to this day.

Background on the case

Michael Newdow, an atheist living in the state of California, sued the state on the ground that the California Education Code requirement that each school day begin with appropriate patriotic exercises including but not limited to the giving of the pledge of allegiance, and the school district's requirement that each elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance daily compels his daughter to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God," and therefore constituted a state establishment of religion, prohibited by the first amendment (and, by extension through the fourteenth amendment, to states and school districts, which are sub-units of the states). His petition asked the court to order the President to modify the pledge to delete the offending section.

The decision

The 9th circuit analyzed the law establishing the pledge of allegiance using three legal tests used in establishment cases. (The Lemon test, which has mostly fallen into disfavor but has not been explicitly repudiated, requires government conduct to have a secular purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and must not foster government entanglement with religion. The "coercion test" requires that government conduct not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise. The "endorsement test" requires that government not endorse a religion and "send a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders".). The court ruled that:

• The inclusion of the phrase under God in the pledge is an endorsement of religious belief.
• Reciting the pledge as it is currently codified is to swear allegiance to monotheism.
• The pledge as currently codified fails the coercion test.
• The inclusion of the phrase under God was *explicitly* done to promote a religious purpose, and therefore the pledge as currently codified fails the Lemon test.

The court concluded that the 1954 act adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional, and that the school district policy requiring daily recital is as well.

Future steps

The decision is only binding in the area covered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii - but would require school districts in that area to cease reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. It is expected that the school district will appeal, in which case the decision will most likely be heard by the US Supreme Court sometime next year. A copy of the opinion is here.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Stonehead]

Thanks for your lengthy explanation. I'm European, and I had not ever heard of such a thing. I think I get the context a bit. To be honest, this 'pledge' sounds very conservative and a bit like an old patriotic communist system. I mean, to indoctrinate children on schools with political and religious shit like this - I'm very happy that I've never been drilled like that! One cynic note: Saddam Hussein recently made it compulsory for all Iraqi children to know his nationalist novels..

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Dirtside]

Pardon my potential ignorance, but wouldn't this simply cause the 1954 legislation to be struck down, meaning that the Pledge in its old form (i.e. without "under God") could still legally be recited? The case was challenging both (separately) the 1954 legislation and the school district's rule that it must be recited. The district's rule is only unconstitutional IF the law it references is active -- if the 1954 law is struck down, then the district's behavior is not unconstitutional.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[MAXOMENOS]

I suspect that if the Pledge were changed to remove "under God," this whole issue would go away, at least as far as the courts are concerned.

Odds of that happening are within epsilon of zero. I guarantee you that the Family Values crowd is going to use this to hammer massive invasions of religious liberties down our throats, with Joe Lieberman (yes, the so-called Liberal) leading the way. Rationality and common sense can barely stand up for themselves against either nationalism or religious belief. Against both combined, they're practically criminal offenses.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Paradise Pete]

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, shmeumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis!

if you say it loud enough you'll always sound precanoconiosis....

Re:As reported on the better site...

[TGK]

That sounds like an excelent "out" for the Renquist Court, which would be hesitant to rule the pledge as a whole unconstitutional.

Though it's not outside the relm of possibility that Rhenquist could fail to get the votes needed to grant "cert" and would thus fail to overturn the lower court's ruling.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Dirtside]

I'm not sure why you call Lieberman a "so-called Liberal". Nobody calls him that -- he's more or less a religious zealot fascist. Just because he's a Democrat doesn't mean he's a liberal. I'm more or less a liberal, and used to be a Democrat, but when the Democratic National Committee declared something about glorifying God, I determined that they weren't representing my interests particularly well. I re-registered as a different party thereafter, though I won't say which, to try to keep people from making judgments about me based on my political party. :)

Re:As reported on the better site...

[rice_burners_suck]

Uh, pardon me... Your information is somewhat inaccurate. First, the state of California does not require reciting of the pledge. It merely requires that all students acknowledge their flag. Further, you are mistaken in the following:

Michael Newdow, an atheist living in the state of California, sued the state on the ground that the California Education Code requirement that each school day begin with appropriate patriotic exercises including but not limited to the giving of the pledge of allegiance, and the school district's requirement that each elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance daily compels his daughter to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God," and therefore constituted a state establishment of religion, prohibited by the first amendment (and, by extension through the fourteenth amendment, to states and school districts, which are sub-units of the states). His petition asked the court to order the President to modify the pledge to delete the offending section. [emphasis mine]

Now perhaps I am an ignorant son of a bitch, but I believe this is the First Amendment you refer to:

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. [emphasis mine]

Alright, let's analyse this. Congress can't prohibit the free exercise thereof. Hmmm... Where does the first amendment prohibit people from saying the word, "God?" I don't see it in there, anywhere. In fact, it says they CAN'T stop you from saying "Under God." (In "abridging the freedom of speech," eh.) Yeah. The first amendment isn't a phonebook-sized bill of crap like most legalese written today. Back then, they wrote shit with pens and paper, so they put thought into their legalese. Unlike today, when the legislative branch files a bug report with Microsoft, stating that Word crashes when they write a 10,000 word footnote. So scratch that.

Oh, and may I point out one more thing? The State of California, which ALLEGEDLY requires reciting of the pledge, is NOT the Congress named in the Constitution. Therefore, the Constitution does NOTHING to prevent the state of California from requiring the recitation of the pledge. Think about it.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Dirtside]

I'd mod you up +1 Funny if I hadn't written in this story already ;)

Re:As reported on the better site...

[dvdeug]

Therefore, the Constitution does NOTHING to prevent the state of California from requiring the recitation of the pledge

Except for a minor thing called the 14th amendment, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states (in practice and intent, if not in the plain text of the law.)

Re:As reported on the better site...

[dbrutus]

The 14th amendment sort of, kind of applies the Bill of Rights to the states. If it well and truly did that for all amendments most gun control legislation would fall by the wayside and 41 states would have their anti-private militia/anti-paramilitary statutes struck down.

Incorporation is a tricky doctrine and I'm not sure they've got it right quite yet.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Stonehand]

People who are much more intelligent and rational about public policy, and who thus prefer the rule of law over arbitrary whims of folks like yourself -- that's who. This country wasn't founded to be run by fiat.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[TekPolitik]

Pardon my potential ignorance, but wouldn't this simply cause the 1954 legislation to be struck down, meaning that the Pledge in its old form (i.e. without "under God") could still legally be recited?

Yes - if the mandating of the words is unconstitutional, it is the amending Act that is, and always has been, invalid. That means the original Act was never amended and the original words without that phrase are and always have been the correct form. It also means that if the California law requires teachers to lead the pledge according to the wording in the Federal law, they will not be complying unless they lead it in the form without the offending words.

As a side note, the effect on the United States currency would be that the printing of "In God We Trust" on the currency is clearly an endorsement of religion and the legislation requiring that would also be unconstitutional. This would mean that the printing of those words on banknotes is, and always has been, unauthorised. The money's still valid, but it would be possible to compel the US Treasury to cease including those words.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Dirtside]

As a side note, the effect on the United States currency would be that the printing of "In God We Trust" on the currency is clearly an endorsement of religion and the legislation requiring that would also be unconstitutional. This would mean that the printing of those words on banknotes is, and always has been, unauthorised. The money's still valid, but it would be possible to compel the US Treasury to cease including those words.

Not quite -- this issue has not been directly addressed. I personally agree that the same logic applies in either case, but until the courts actually say so, it ain't so. Hopefully this decision will give support to the next case to challenge "In God We Trust", but even if SCOTUS upholds the 9th Court's ruling in this case, the Treasury could not be compelled to stop printing "In God We Trust", because the law mandating those words has not itself been struck down.

Presumably. IANAL. :)

Re:As reported on the better site...

[evilpenguin]

It is particularly ironic, since one of the events that drove the first wave of British colonials to the "New World" was the Catholic/Protestant civil wars in England and the resulting requirement of "loyalty oaths."

I guess the theory was that it was okay to require a Pledge of Allegience to a "flag" and to "the Republic for which it stands." That's not the same as requiring a pledge to a specific sovereign. As an American, I still never liked it. I hold the superiority of a system of civil liberty "to be self-evident." If your freedom doesn't sell itself, maybe it isn;t freedom.

I think we have a pretty good system, but like any soceity, we have teetered between liberty and authority. From the J. Edgar Hoover era to Joe McCarthy, we had some very repressive and scary times. The main reason I have hope (and still very much love the system in my country) is that we have a terribly inefficient government. I hear conservatives saying we need efficient government. I disagree. An efficient government is a repressive government. The separation of powers does a pretty good job of bringing our system back into line.

Not that both liberal forces and conservative forces haven't messed with it. From Democrat F.D.Roosevelt attempting to pack the Supreme Court to Republican R.M.Nixon covering up a felony commited to further his reelection, we've had plenty of attempts to tilt the scales, but somehow it comes back.

Right now, I think we are heading into a rough patch. Between the pressure of big money getting legislation passed for wealthy special interests (Hollywood, anyone?) and the understandable but lamentable reverses to liberty and privacy in the name of security following 9/11, we are going to have plenty to wrangle with in the system. That the system will bring us back to equilibrium, however, I am confident.

I think this was a very good decision and almost clears the bad taste in my mouth from the attempts to get a flag burning amendment passed.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[rice_burners_suck]

This country was founded to be run by the current whims of the Party, as detailed in the Constitution, also known as 1984 by George Orwell, as evidenced by the ability of huge multinational corporations to purchase whatever laws serve their convenience at the moment from the Government, a convenient content provider of such laws. Just wait a few more years, when they start installing nanoscale biotech computers in every person's cerebral cortex to monitor all their thoughts and report their GPS location along with gigabytes of data per second to enormous central distributed computers that perform constant real-time analysis and investigation, deploying police officers to shoot you if they sense that you may, at some future time, commit a crime of any magnitude. Then we'll see who's sane. Until then, I'm sticking with the Constitution of the United States, as composed by our Forefathers, not some fake immitation Constitution of some bullshit started by a bunch of liberals and other lowlives.

Disclaimer: This post is satire.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[TekPolitik]

the Treasury could not be compelled to stop printing "In God We Trust", because the law mandating those words has not itself been struck down.

When a law is struck down for being unconstitutional, it was never valid. As long as it's inevitable that the result, if contested, would be that the law or directive authorising the printing of those words was invalid, it is and was invalid for all time.

The actual decision doesn't change the validity, it merely states it. An action taken for the purpose of compelling the US Treasury to cease the use of those words would be almost certain to succeed, and would in fact be the case in which the declaration of the law would be made.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Wrong emphasis. Let's try it this way:

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.

Like much of the Constitution, this is a masterpiece of balance. The establishment clause prevents the creation of a state church, or official government endorsement or imposition of specific religious views; the prohibition clause prevents laws banning certain religions or religious practices. The long, sad history of religious warfare and oppression in Europe is a solid argument that both clauses are needed.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[dbrutus]

It isn't a matter of the 2nd being absolute, it's not even considered binding on the states for the most part. If it were, you could get a license to carry a handgun in Alabama and NYC would have to respect that license. People could choose to incorporate a private militia in one of the 9 states where that's legal and the other states couldn't bar them from operating as a foreign corporation.

2nd amendment law is highly restrictive with few/no penumbras compared to 1st amendment law.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[GigsVT]

Where is the seperation of power when you have only two political parties in power, and they often have the same views on important issues related to freedom?

The executive branch can start domestic police organizations under the guise of the department of the treasury, and then get those organizations funded through their friends in the legislative branch. Where is the seperation of power there? The executive has grossly overstepped their limits, with the support of congress under this two-party system. The only check and balance that has any effect at all is the courts.

For examples, you only need to look as far as the war on drugs. The DEA and legislative branch and going apeshit because a majority of people in a majority of states want marijuana legal, at least for medical use. They are actively working together to crush the will of the people, and even the will of the state governments.

There is no accountability, there is no check and no balance, just authoritarian policy making with no regard to the original limited powers the federal government was supposed to wield.

So I ask you, how can you consider the system of checks and balances to work, when there are really no recent examples of an adversarial relationship between the executive and the legislative, when the only disagreement between the branches comes on trivial issues that don't directly have an effect our real freedoms, when a government drunk on power has only one goal, to expand that power by any means necessary.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[EccentricAnomaly]

Alright, let's analyse this. Congress can't prohibit the free exercise thereof. Hmmm... Where does the first amendment prohibit people from saying the word, "God?" I don't see it in there, anywhere. In fact, it says they CAN'T stop you from saying "Under God." (In "abridging the freedom of speech," eh.)

Nothing in the court ruling restricts the right to say "under god".

UNDER GOD - UNDER GOD

See... no one is stoning me. The ruling says that the government cannot force little children to say "under god"

Read the many articles.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Dirtside]

Huh? What are you talking about? Where did I say anything that contradicts what you're saying? I was talking about the fact that if the "under God" law is struck down, that will have no direct effect on "In God We Trust" unless a separate action is brought against that law. I'm fully aware of what it means when a law is struck down.

An action taken for the purpose of compelling the US Treasury to cease the use of those words would be almost certain to succeed

Actually, it has -- there has been at least one challenge to "In God We Trust" in the past, that made it to SCOTUS, and was REJECTED. That's why "IGWT" is still on our money. Now, IF another action was made against "IGWT", and this time SCOTUS agreed with it, THEN we would no longer have "IGWT" on the money. But that hasn't happened yet.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[evilpenguin]

Uh, in the Constitution, where it is specifically forbidden for the government to limit the people's right to petition the government for the redress of greivances. In Article III which allows you to petition the judiciary. In Article I which vests all legislative powers in an elected body.

If the government is tilting away from you, you become politically active. I've started writing what I think to my congressman (James Oberstar, D-MN) and to my senators (Mark Dayton, D-MN, and Paul Wellstone, D-MN). I've decided to put my money into a special interest that works on issues I care about: The Electronic Frontier Foundation.

It is not the responsbility of the parties to be ideologically at odds. It is your responsibility to get your ideology into a political party. The parties have been similarly mushy because people have been generally content with the status quo. Sure, we all like to complain, but nothing has really motivated the electorate to give the parties a shock. . (Well, my state has, but we've always been political freaks up here in the tundra. Our Democrats are members of a party called the DFL: the Democratic Farmer-Labor party. We elected one of the first nearly socialist governors in the Union from the Farmer-Labor party, a 3rd party movement that eventually merged with the Minnesota Democratic party. We also gave a big shock to both the R's and the D's by electing a third party governor, and former pro-wrestler. We've always been a little bit "anally progressive," which is to say strongly liberal with a bit of uptight Lutheranism thrown in.)

I know my original post sounded complacent, but that wasn't my intent. My intent was to remind people that the system has gone out of whack in the past and the people have brought it back in line. I'm sure the people will again. So, what I really was suggesting was that people get off their dead asses, put down the game controllers, and make some noise. Write. Contribute. Go to you caucuses. Make a noise. If you keep waiting for a white knight, he might be wearing a white sheet. To paraphrase the Bard, the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.

The separation of powers is between the office and the people. The people control who gets the office. All the money in the world can't change the fact that it is the people who ultimately decide. Meet your neighbors. Discuss the issues. Persuade. Cajole. Then stop talking and vote. Have faith that people will consider your arguments when that curtain is drawn. Have faith that most people are of good conscience and want to do the right thing. Have faith, also, that if the election doesn't go your way, that wasn't the way most of us wanted to go. It's messy. It's clumsy. But it beats just about every alternative I know.

People seem to forget that while we have more or less always been a two party system, the two parties in question are not the same today as in the past. The Republicans were an upstart and fairly radical third party. They're one of the two now. Things change. And the good thing is the only way a "white knight" with a cause can effect change is to get a whole bunch of people to go along with it. This helps protect us from that bane of history, the charismatic tyrant. We've had a few try. Some have done some serious damage. But we remain a nation of free individuals. The only power that can take that freedom away is ourselves, if we let it erode and slip away. Don't. Stop complaining and start organizing, talking, writing, petitioning, joining, contributing, building, changing the world. That's not a power government gives, it is immane. It is yours, according to Enlightenment thinking, by nature. Take it.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Chemical]

Communists didn't believe in God so if we made everybody pledge "under God" then communism would go away.

And it worked!

Thank you Jebus!

Re:As reported on the better site...

[evilpenguin]

This is not meant as a flame, but has the possibility occurred to you that the majority does not agree with Libertarianism? I know that I do not. I've never met a single Libertarian willing to concede the possibility, however. As a rule, Libertarians are the most certain people I meet. The Libertarians have a famous "questionnaire" which has questions couched in such a manner that Karl Marx would probably come out a Libertarian.

I will tell you how I sympathize with Libertarians, however. One of the fundmental beliefs of Libertarianism is a fairly strict Adam Smith economic view coupled with a pretty hardline John Locke view of property. Minimum law, minimum government, minimum taxation, etc. In theory, the modern Republican party espouses the same line. At the same time, Republicans seem to want to pass the most legislation controlling behavior and government exploded in size under the Reagan and Bush adminsitrations. A Libertarian's theoretical alignment with the Republican party doesn't work out that way.

Believe me, I have similar problems with the Democrats.

Oh, and the media didn't exclude your party (at least from the Pres. & V.P. debates). The two parties did. This began when the "debate comission" was set up instead of debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Since that time, debates have become a pathetic joke.

That aside, kudos to you for being active. These things take time. Republicanism took forty years to get anywhere (longer, if you count the rise of abolitionism as the beginning of Republican philosophy), and it took a Civil War to get them established as a permanent political force (the Republican party would probably not have become so thoroughly entrenched in the postwar North had not the South rebelled at the election of a Republican President). You have to make a committment to change that might not even come in your lifetime. The question is are you in it for the life of the nation and the betterment of the future, or are you in it because you want something now?

I'd say you're on the right track. Keep going. No offense, but I hope you don't make it! ;-)

Re:As reported on the better site...

[coyote-san]

If you think it's weird now, wait until you learn that many of our learned representatives were outraged that foreign nationals in our schools didn't want to recite any pledge of allegiance to the US. These kids aren't common, but they are present because their parents are working in the US for their overseas employer, are in foreign military units stationed at US bases or attached to Ameriacn units, are diplomats, etc.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[ArticulateArne]

Wow.

How arrogant can you Europeans get? The pledge is "political s***?" For the sake of argument, let's take out the "under God." What we're left with is basically the statement, "we like the US because everybody has a fair shot here" (at least in theory, of course. I know there are cases of injustice, and we don't claim to be perfect, but we have a system that improves itself as injustice is recognized, etc.) Why on earth would you not want your kid to learn that? "Liberty and justice for all?" Wow, that's dangerous, folks. Wouldn't want too much Liberty and Justice going on out there! The only other meaningful thing in there says that we're a united republic. All that's saying is that we have a good thing going here, and it would probably be good if we could all stick together on it.

Heaven forbid anybody like their country, or teach their kids to like their country.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Danse]

I agree with most of the social thinking of libertarians, but I'm pretty well convinced that if they ever get any kind of control, we'll all be well and truly fucked. It's not that I don't think that a lot of it is worth a shot, it's just that in reading the writings of libertarian candidates, I don't trust them to make the transition in such a way that it doesn't create serious havoc and hardship.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Danse]

It's fine if the kids understand it and want to say it. It's the fact that they are compelled to say it by agents of the state that causes problems. You shouldn't be able to force patriotism on people, especially kids. It's ridiculous to make them say something like this when they can't even comprehend the meaning and don't have enough experience or information to decide for themselves whether they even believe what they're saying. What's the point then? To get them to believe it without question?

Re:As reported on the better site...

[evilpenguin]

Yes, I would say you are spouting Libertarian certainty. I fundamentally disagree withe every single one of your positions. I'm even happy to pay my income tax (well, maybe not happy, but I understand that it is good for the economy to have excess savings spent on capital investment, and that sometimes the private sector fails to to this, leading to economic contraction).

I'm not Libertarian at all. I believe that we have "unalienable rights" and that to "secure these rights, governments are instituted among men" and that such governments "derive their just powers from the consent of governed."

I think our instutions are doing just fine at requiring the consent of the governed. I think Libertarians delude themselves that the unpopularity of taxes equals support for the gutting of government. I think they are wrong. Ask anyone "Do you like to pay taxes?" and of course almost everyone will say "No." Ask them if they would rather pay taxes and have public roads, or would they rather all roads were built privately and privately owned and you had to pay a toll to use each separate private road, and they might not say yes. You might, but I would not.

Roads are, in fact, one of the ways we got to the present size of government. Roads were highly in demand, but private enterprise was building very few of them. We talked about third parties? Are you aware that the largest 3rd party movement in 20th century history was the "Good Roads Party?" Yep. The people demanded that government get into the road building business. The construction of such roads has had immense secondary economic effects. You can argue that the roads would have been built eventually. I do not agree, and I have no way to prove such an assertion. But I would contest the notion that the expansion of government was done by "the government" for selfish or nefarious reasons. It was, in each case, responding to the democratic will.

I, for one, believe that it is vital to have a major economic actor that views each citizen equally, rather than in proportion to his wallet (no, I'm not naieve enough to believe that the wallet doesn't still get in there and pervert things a bit).

Perhaps some of the "selfish and shallow" are just not completely ignorant of macroeconomics.

I would argue that your claim "most people are basically Libertarian, but only as far as it benefits them" means that most people are simply not Libertarian. I don't know why Libertarians refuse to see this. This is precisely what I was talking about.

All that said, certainly there is plenty of room for debate about the limits of government power, about what amount of government involvement in the economy is the "right" amount, about which sorts of infrastructure are appropriate government functions. I just plain don't agree with you that the answers are "total, none, and none."

I also think there's plenty of room for talking about how we are and how we should be taxed. I'm very much in favor of moving to fees for service and consumption taxes and away from income taxes and property taxes. I'm also in favor of more spending on roads and education. I'm in favor of subsidies for broadband expansion into rural areas (similar to the rural elctrification act), and other "big government, tax and spend" programs.

And I don't mind paying taxes to do it.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Dude - you do not understand the H1-B visa issue (the fact that you didn't spell it right is also a pretty clear indication that you have not studied it in depth). H1-B visas are all about using government power to manipulate the labor market in favor of the big corps.

Here is why: H1-B visas effectively indenture their holders to their employers. The law as written requires that employers pay a prevailing wage, but there is little to no enforcement mechanism and plenty of loopholes if enforcement ever actually is attempted.

Despite H1-B being designated a non-immigrant visa most holders use it as stepping stone for a Green card because, unlike other non-immigrant visas, you are allowed to hold an H1-B while your application for a green card is in process. Those applications often take 3-4 years and are solely the domain of the employer - the green card applicant has no standing in the process - which is just messed up right there.

Thus any H1-B holder who wants a green card (and that is at least 95% of them) must not leave their current employer for fear of having to restart their green card application process from scratch. Thus, as an employee becomes more experienced and familiar with a company's processes and systems (and thus more valuable as an employee) there is less and less incentive for the H1-B holder to seek a better paying job because they would be throwing away years spend in the application process if they were to find new, better paying, employment.

That all makes for one messed up labor market, and one that is far, far from the ideals of a free market system. And don't think this situation is an accident. The megalocorps who are the employers of the majority of H1-B holders knew exactly what they were doing when they lobbied for this set of rules regarding H1-B and green cards.

Many people who oppose H1-B are also protectionist in general. But the people who do have a strong belief in the free market understand that the sword cuts two ways -- possibly hurting their own economic prospects but at the same time enabling more efficient production the stuff they consume. These people, with true libertarian beliefs are just as much opposed to the H1-B visa program as they are in favor of totally open borders without any government-imposted restrictionon on the flow of labor.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[evilpenguin]

I want to amplify a bit here. Let's go a little further with the Libertarian system of roads. Suppose you had a major landowner who owned substantial land between two urban centers, say Minneapolis and St. Paul. Suppose this person one day decided he wasn't going to let any Catholics use his roads. To whom would area Catholics appeal? Merchants have the right to refuse service to anyone. Such a landowner would be within his rights.

Now lets expand this. How well do you think Libertarianism would have served an uneducated black man in Mississippi in 1870? I guess what I'm saying is that the "free market" isn't a guarantee of any kind of social equity or justice. If we agree that are such things as "freedom," "justice," and "fairness," some sort of law and some guarantee of access to redress is required.

Without enough law to make and enforce contracts, there is no possibility but brigandism. You can get more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word. I do not want to live in such a world. Yes, autonomy is a natural state. Self sovereignty is a natural state. But we give up some of those rights to the collective entity (society, expressed in the form of a government). In return the power of the collective entity backs up our remaining soverignty and autonomy against other less scrupulous individuals.

This is an old tension, but realize that while everybody hates taxes, not everobody even realizes all the good things that government does. I'm reminded of the bit from Monty Python's the Life of Brian:

"They took our land. They've beaten and repressed us for years. And what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Pause.

"The Aquaduct?"

"What?"

"The Aquaduct?"

"Oh, yeah, well they did do that. But apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

"Sanitation."

"Irrigation." "Housing." "The wine?" "The courts"

"Oh yeah, the courts! Remember what the streets used to be like? They're probably the only people who could keep order in a place like this!"

"Alright! Alright! But apart from irrigation, sanitation, agriculture, viniculture, roads, public housing and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Of course, under the DMCA I'm sure I'm in trouble for that long paraphrased quote. Yes, government makes bad and excessive law sometimes.

Libertarians constantly remind me of the Judean People's Front...

Re:As reported on the better site...

[superyooser]

I had no idea that the "Family Values" crowd had a monopoly in Congress. "Congress took swift action to denounce a federal court decision ruling the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, with the Senate voting 99-0 to condemn the court's decision. Immediately following the recitation of the pledge, members broke out into a chorus of Irving Berlin's "God Bless America."

Note the picture. That picture is not from September 11, 2001, but from June 26, 2002. The third day of infamy.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[junkgrep]

---In fact, it says they CAN'T stop you from saying "Under God."---

Indeed: but it seems to have slipped past you that neither does this decision. You can pledge allegience to as many flags as you want, with as many "under gods" as you please! This decision doesn't affect YOUR rights in the least: it merely CEASES to infringe upon the rights of those who choose not to recite the pledge in its current form.

Nice try at confusing the issue though.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Mark Bainter]

In theory, the modern Republican party espouses the same line.

Shyeah. And in theory, so do the democrats when they want to get elected. Republicans tend to fall close (at least in theory) on the economic side, but on the social side they hit wide of the mark.

Republicanism took forty years to get anywhere (longer, if you count the rise of abolitionism as the beginning of Republican philosophy), and it took a Civil War to get them established as a permanent political force

Heh. The republican party of that day is the democrat party of today, and the republican party of today were democrats then. The two parties switched roles almost overnight sometime after reconstruction. Sadly, I can't remember the date, (I blame it on it being too early in the morning).

Re:As reported on the better site...

[mpe]

Where is the seperation of power when you have only two political parties in power,

Indeed it's rather hard to find any section of government in the US, at any level. Which is not utterly dominated by these two parties

and they often have the same views on important issues related to freedom?

Probably explains low voter registration and turnout in the US. If someone cannot find a candidate to represent their views then any vote they make is a wasted vote anyway.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[mpe]

Uh, in the Constitution, where it is specifically forbidden for the government to limit the people's right to petition the government for the redress of greivances.

How can this be made to work in a world where commercial and political special interest groups have full time professional lobbiest. Who are also very good at making sure that voices other than their own don't get heard.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[ArticulateArne]

You should not be teaching children to like (or believe) anything. You should give them the facts and let them make their own mind up.

This sounds really nice and liberal, but when you think about it, it makes no sense. Kids need to be taught; after all, they're kids, and they're not yet completely equipped to make value judgments. Parents are supposed to guide them toward the way they should live their lives.

Say, for instance, that your second grade son makes a habit of involuntarily collecting lunch money every day from his classmates. They don't like it, but he's making quite a nice living from it. How do you, as a parent, respond? If you tell him it's wrong to do that, you're telling him what to believe. If you simply tell him the facts, you're stuck with basically saying, "Son, if you keep up this way of life, you might end up in prison some day. What you're doing is not nice." And you certainly couldn't punish the kid; after all, that's coercion toward a particular belief (that stealing is wrong).

They're kids. If you leave them on their own, or just tell them "the facts" (of which they're generally pretty perceptive anyway), you get a society like "Lord of the Flies." Not where I want to live.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[evilpenguin]

Oh, I agree with you that one of the ways in which money distorts the equality of citizens is through the lobbyist industry, but nothing they do prevents your voice from being heard. I had a friend who worked in a congressman's office in his home state. Do you know how many letters on a subject it took for the congressman to want to be told about them? Five. Five letters.

There a handful of issues (gun laws, abortion, etc.) that always generate thousands of letters. Most legilation that really affects our lives (telco deregulation, DMCA, etc.) get passed without any direct input from the public at all.

So, I agree with you that the lobbyists are magnifying the interests of the few, but they are not diminishing your influence at all.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[evilpenguin]

I don't confuse Libertarianism with anarchy. I'm just saying that the expansion of government power came about through an expansion of the greivances the people petitioned the government to address. I'm suggesting that even if through some divine intervention we became a Libertarian government today, we would be back at a system very similar to the present one in a couple of generations because it was the democratic process that got us here, not some sort of government conspiracy.

This is the base fact that is continually ignored.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[catfood]

Indeed it's rather hard to find any section of government in the US, at any level. Which is not utterly dominated by these two parties

If you get two you're doing well these days. Here in .cleveland.oh.us the two parties are the Dimora Democrats and the O'Malley Democrats. Many state legislative seats are uncontested.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[mpe]

Oh, I agree with you that one of the ways in which money distorts the equality of citizens is through the lobbyist industry,

No doubt some lobby groups are actually publically funded

There a handful of issues (gun laws, abortion, etc.) that always generate thousands of letters.

Because there are plenty of organisations with views from all sides of the debate and the issue is likely to be raised in the press so people actually know about it.

Most legilation that really affects our lives (telco deregulation, DMCA, etc.) get passed without any direct input from the public at all.

Most people probably didn't know it existed at all. With most of those who did being the lobbiests who wrote it.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[evilpenguin]

You are being a bit pedantic. We have a democratic republic. It is possible to have a non-democratic republic. The "indirection" of a representative system improves the effectiveness of legislation. All you have to do is take a look at referendum states to see what kind of a mess direct citizen legislation can cause. It is the democratic nature of our republic that cuases the constant expansion of government influence, so my original remark stands as far as I am concerned.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[ArticulateArne]

And the public schools (and I'd argue ANY school) are not parents. What's your point?

I completely agree. The point is that the parent post said "you" should not be teaching children to like or believe anything in particular. The poster didn't bother to narrow the scope of the "you", and I figured it unreasonable to assume that he/she meant me specifically, since to my knowledge I have never had previous interaction with the poster. Therefore, I was responding to the idea of nobody at all teaching kids what to like or believe. I take it you agree parents should teach their kids what to like and believe, which makes me very happy.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[elmegil]

I should have said "society" not "you".

Parents are the ones who are responsible for all this. I may disagree strongly with some parents, but I cannot dispute that it is their role to fulfill or not, in whatever way suits them. To do otherwise erodes my own right as a parent to teach my children what is right and wrong.

Schools are there to educate; to teach facts and to provide a social forum to learn about other people. They're not there to indoctrinate the children in patriotism, belief in God, or whatever (unless you should choose to send your child to a religious school, but that's a whole different matter).

Re:Calm Down

[jasamaman]

No, this is a FEDERAL court, that was LOCATED in San Fransisco. It DOES have national implications.

Please note that . . . Re:$$, too

[StefanJ]

"In God We Trust" was added to US currency in the 1950s, a few years after the Pledge of Allegiance was amended.

http://www.moneyfactory.com/document.cfm/18/107

I imagine the legislations to add these were made in the same spirit as attempts to put the Ten Commandments in schools and courtrooms.

Re:Please note that . . . Re:$$, too

[MaxwellStreet]

Yep ... right about the time that all those southern states (Georgia notably) starting putting the confederate stars & bars in protest of the Jim Crow laws getting repealed.

Re:Please note that . . . Re:$$, too

[Pig Hogger]

"In God We Trust" was added to US currency in the 1950s, a few years after the Pledge of Allegiance was amended.

Actually, it's a typo. The real phrase is "In gold we trust".

Re:Please note that . . . Re:$$, too

[interiot]

Here are more details along the same lines.

Re:Please note that . . . Re:$$, too

[phyxeld]

Seems that the 50s were plauged with congressional fundies making all of the rules. Along with that eisenhower character (great general btw), we nearly had ourselves a fundamentalist government. Scary.

It was because of the Athiest Red Threat.
No, seriously!

The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.

The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." [cnn]

Re:Please note that . . . Re:$$, too

[rodgerd]

So sad, so true

Re:Please note that . . . Re:$$, too

[jag164]

Jefferson and Madison were morons. It's amazing how well off this country is when our founding fathers were just as corrupt, if not more, as the shmoes running the goverment, Enron, AA, and Worldnet today.

The melting pot people have made this country, not the gov't. Gov't is just a neccessary evil.

Re:Please note that . . . Re:$$, too

[grytpype]

Not to defend Jefferson and Madison as people, but their insistence on codifying the principal of religious toleration (which is what this whole kerfuffle is about) is, I think, one of the things that made America great.

America is not a free country in many respects, but one area where freedom is absolute is in religious belief, and we have Madison (especially) to thank for that. It was a huge intellectual leap, gotta love the Enlightenment!

Of course, some (like George II, who was saved from his coke-snorting and boozing by Baby Jesus apparently) would disagree.

Wish I had more time to write on the subject, maybe I'll post a followup later. Until then, I'll just say "Ecrasez l'infame!"

Re:Calm Down

[dalassa]

Just why is reciting the pledge every morning so important? I had to do it everyday in elementary school and it didn't make me any more patriotic. Instead it made one in the class an object of minor ridicule because she had to go outside while it was recited. I always used to make strange sentences instead of saying it as it should be and that got me more than a few notes home.

Yikes. Just yikes.

[tempest303]

I am so not looking forward to the bile-spitting, spittle-launching, uber-flamewars that this decision is going to spark online and in Real Life(TM).... it'll be like the whole abortion debate, only it'll be over something ultimately rather inconsequential.

Oh well... let the flaming begin! I'll start it off with my own cynical take on it:

Expect the 700 club, with Pat Robertson and all his "Christian" conservative pals start exclaiming that the Gov't is "repressing" religion, and that we've lost our "moral compass" or some other stupid shit.

FLAME ON!

don't panic

[rhaig]

This court is the most often overturned circuit court.

Even if they aren't overturned, I see this to be similar to the Prayer in schools ruling some years ago.

The 1954 addition of "Under God" will probably be removed if there any changes at all.

Now, for the "In God We Trust" on the money... If a Suit is filed against that, then I respond by saying, the government isn't forcing you to use cash.

Re:don't panic

[rhaig]

that's why the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to Assholes like you" is hanginh on my wall.

Not calling you an asshole, but just pointing out that you don't have to accept cash. you can just refuse to do business with a cashpayer.

Re:don't panic

[rhaig]

because you moron, I was making a counterpoint to the parent article that stated you HAVE to accept cash because it's "legal tender for all debts public and private"

I keep forgetting... "By definition, half the population is below average intelligence."

Re:don't panic

[rhaig]

so don't pay taxes.

so you're going to ask... if I'm not supposed to report my income, and not use cash, what the hell am I supposed to do?

Barter.

Re:don't panic

[Danse]

If a Suit is filed against that, then I respond by saying, the government isn't forcing you to use cash.

Doesn't matter. The government prints the money. Printing "In God We Trust" on the currency of the nation seems like an even more blatant violation of the establishment clause than the POA case.

For any who are angry...

[admiral2001]

... I ask you to consider a simple scenario. What if this gets repealed, then in 30-40 years, the major religion in the country changes to something else, like Islam. What if there would then be a successful lobby to change 'under God' and 'In God We Trust' to 'under Allah' and 'In Allah We Trust'. How would you react to that?
(Feel free to substitute 'Islam' and 'Allah' with any appropriate pairing).

I, for one, am completely for this ruling, speaking as a person who always felt uncomfortable mumbling those 2 words in grade school.

Re:For any who are angry...

[spotter]

there are many sephardic jews who grew up in Muslim countries speaking Arabic that refer to God as "Allah". Just like Jews in english speaking countries use the word God. But for the same reason the phrase "under Allah" doesn't make sense, as you are mixing english and arabic.

Re:For any who are angry...

[sckeener]

I'm all for pagans taking over....I'd love to say

one nation 'under goddess'

Re:For any who are angry...

[HiThere]

I believe that the generic word for god is something more like illah, and that allah means "the god". Possibly illah is more like "a god", however.

Anyway, it's because of this distinction that they have a prayer that goes something like:
"La illah allah" Which I believe means approximately "our god is the god". (Somehow I hear a undertone of ... nevermind. That's certainly projection on my part.)

Re:For any who are angry...

[Pig Hogger]

I'm all for pagans taking over....I'd love to say
one nation 'under goddess'

The only problem is that she's a lesbian...

Re:For any who are angry...

[dbrutus]

Any ruling to overturn the (much overturned) 9th circuit *must* be because of outside pressure and not because the 9th circuit is populated by a bunch of nutballs who refuse to do their job and judge instead of legislating from the bench.

Yeah. Right.

Re:For any who are angry...

[Tosta Dojen]

Not a stupid question at all. The answers are...no, and nothing. Critics will argue that the kids who do not participate will 'feel bad' or something like that, but participation is entirely voluntary.

In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses (in general) do not recite the pledge, because they object to the idea of pledging to a secular government. Pretty much the opposite of the current objection. Some think the gov't is being too religious, others that it is too secular.

Now, the big question is: If we are offending both groups, which one do we cater to?

Re:For any who are angry...

[Alsee]

Now, the big question is: If we are offending both groups, which one do we cater to?

MINE! :)

-

Re:For any who are angry...

[ocbwilg]

Not a stupid question at all. The answers are...no, and nothing. Critics will argue that the kids who do not participate will 'feel bad' or something like that, but participation is entirely voluntary.

Not true. There are some states that mandate the recitation of the pledge. Even in states that don't, many school districts do. And even if your state or school district makes it optional, what happens if your son's first grade teacher decides that your son is a trouble maker and gives him detention because he doesn't want to recite the pledge, or wants to recite it without the "under god" line, or in some other way deviates from what that teacher thinks he should do? I know, it sounds ridiculously far-fetched, but then again having an assistant principal checking girls underwear at a high school dance (in the presence of a police officer no less!) to make sure that they weren't wearing thongs sounded ridiculously far-fetched to me a month ago. (That's a cached Goodle page, BTW.)

Re:For any who are angry...

[sinserve]

Good for you :-)

"illah" means a god.
"Allah" is derived from "Al-Lah" and means "The God".

There is also "Rab", which means lord, and "Rabbi" which means
"my lord" [this is not the samething as the Jewish rabbi, that one means "priest",
roughly, I don't know much about jewish culture.]

Btw, everyone who thinks muslims worship a different god than christians and
jews, is dead wrong. I was raised as a muslim, and we were taught about the
three "heavenly faiths". It basically says that you are going to heaven, if
you believe in God and follow one of the three books. The books are Torat,
Bible and Quran. However, they are not downwardly compatible. A jew is required
to convert to Christianity or Islam, if he learns of either, becuase the prophets
Jessus and Mohamed came after Mosses.
A Christian would still go to heaven, as long as he has never learnt Islam, however,
the moment he learns Islam for what it is, he is required to convert to Islam. A
christian can not convert to judaism, because heaven is not upward compatible with
previous kernels (too many patches I figure.)

A muslim OTOH, doesn't need to convert to anything, and he is not expected to anticipate
the arrival of another prophet, for Mohamed was the last. Hmmm, so technically, a muslim like myself would consider himself "bleeding edge" ;-D

There other minor differences between the 3 groups also. A muslim man can marry a woman of
either faith, but a woman can't. A muslim can perform his prayer in a Church or a Synuguge.
A muslim can eat from a Jewish plate without having to ask what it is, but NOT from a christian
plate. A muslim can not address a christian or a jew, while he is on his horse (figuratively speaking I guess)
he has to come down and address them from ground level.

All other people are said to be going to hell. Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, all peacful skinny
environment friendly morally fancy shemancys are going to hell .. en mase.
OK, I really don't wanna accuse my faith (which I don't know well btw) of any wrong doing,
from what I know, all non-God believers are considered evil [this includes other christians who
believe in "prophets" after Mohamed, including mormons, and any other christian faction that
idolizes a human being, so if your church has a holly saint you pray to, other than God himself,
chances are you are considered an infidel under Islam.]

Re:For any who are angry...

[feed_me_cereal]

He's not saying anything bad about islam, he's just playing on public opinion. His point is that most people in america wouldn't be to happy about "In Allah We Trust" because, to them, the word "Allah" means the islamic god, and they don't want to be represented by it since they don't believe in it. So Allah means god in arabic, big deal, thats irrelevant because that's not how it would be pervieced by most americans. My handle when playing wolfensiten is usually "Allah" and I continually get kicked of of servers for using it. He's just drawing a paralell to the current situation. Maybe you're to dense to notice that.

Re:For any who are angry...

[n-baxley]

I believe that God is a much more generic term than Allah. I'm not up on my Islam, but Isn't Allah the name of the Islam God? The word God does not have anything distinctly Christian about it when compared to other religions. To Islamics God is Allah, to the Jews it is Yawhe, to Christians, it is a tri-un God made up of God the father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Re:For any who are angry...

[Shade, The]

> The only problem is that she's a lesbian...

Why is that a problem?

Re:For any who are angry...

[kenneth_martens]

What if there would then be a successful lobby to change 'under God' and 'In God We Trust' to 'under Allah' and 'In Allah We Trust'.

Actually, since "Allah" literally means "God", lobbying to change "God" to "Allah" would be pointless. "God" is a multi-purpose term. As far as I know, there isn't any deity in any religion named "God". (After all, what does God need with a name? There's only one of Him.)

Re:For any who are angry...

[Shade, The]

Um, that seems to be stretching the definition of "One nation under God" a mite too far.

Re:For any who are angry...

[Pig Hogger]

> The only problem is that she's a lesbian...
Why is that a problem?

Of course, it's not if you're a lesbian, too...

Re:For any who are angry...

[ipfwadm]

There's only one of Him.

I thought there were 3? Daddy, Junior, and Spook. Errr, I mean the father, son, and the holy ghost.

(For the humor impaired, it's a joke)

Re:For any who are angry...

[mpe]

The simple phrase "Under God" could be applied to almost any major religion

Only to monotheistic religions

and doesn't really suggest any particular religion or ideology.

It implies monotheism, which certainly excludes the polytheistic Hindu faith.

Good.

[MisterBlister]

Actually I wish the entire idea of a forced Pledge of Allegiance would be done away with.

The separation of church and state is one thing (which I agree with)...But the whole concept of the pledge of allegiance smacks of propaganda and indoctrination.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no commie-hippe-whatever. Hell, I don't even use Linux... But forcing kids to pledge their allegiance to flag/country/god/whatever every day just smacks of so much wrongness. Let these ideas stand on their own merits, not be points of indoctrination.

And lastly, I think if anything a forced pledge of allegiance is self-harming in that, due to having to say it each day kids view it as some form of rote punishment. The words behind the pledge are lost because they learn to recite them like robots long before they can really understand the implications of the words. Why do this?

Re:Good.

[tshak]

I wish the entire idea of a forced Pledge of Allegiance would be done away with.

Although I normally stood up in class as respect, after Junior High I rarely if ever pledged allegiance to the flag. I think it's a speratist and nationalistic attitude that is wrong. Sure, I personally hope our nation is under God, but that is not for a room of kids to be forced to recite. My Dad always backed me up if there was a problem with me abstaining from "pledging my allegiance".

Re:Good.

[Monkelectric]

I have a better idea ...I havent been in school in, almost 10 years now, but, they should let the kids decide individually to participate in the pledge on the days they are proud to be an american.

Sept 11, I was pround to be an american ... when the pres declares he can jail whoever he wants, FBI blows chunks, Enron colapses ... I'm ashamed.

And thats really the problem nowadays ... so much more to be ashamed of then proud of

Re:Good.

[ocbwilg]

Actually I wish the entire idea of a forced Pledge of Allegiance would be done away with.

Exactly. Added to your other points (which I have not quoted here), it is not uncommon for citizens of foreign countries to attend US schools. Why should a Swedish exchange student (like a good friend of mine) be forced to pledge allegiance to the US government? More to the point, why should a US citizen be forced to pledge allegiance to the US government? I'm a US citizen and there are many things that our government does that I don't agree with. I shouldn't have to blindly agree to give the government my undying loyalty if I'm not taking a public office or entering the military.

Re:Good.

[Brian_Ellenberger]

>Actually I wish the entire idea of a forced Pledge of Allegiance would be done away with. You haven't been forced to say the Pledge since 1943. See West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (USSC+)

Re:Good.

[BitterOak]

Actually I wish the entire idea of a forced Pledge of Allegiance would be done away with.

It has been. It was noted in the decision that for some time now, the pledge of allegiance is voluntary. This court, however, took rather astonishing step that declares that simply being around other students who are reciting the pledge implies that you are somehow "protesting" by not reciting it, and this puts undue pressure on students to conform by reciting it.

Although I disagree strongly with that analysis, they are, I think taking their cue from the Supreme Court which used similary reasoning in banning voluntary prayer in public schools, another decision I disagree with.

I do however agree with all who believe that no student in a public school should be forced to recite any pledge or prayer, if for no other reason than the fact that pledges really become meaningless when they are coerced.

Re:Good.

[borzwazie]

It is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled a while ago (during WWII) that it was unconstitutional to require anyone to say it.

Re:Good.

[mpe]

Added to your other points (which I have not quoted here), it is not uncommon for citizens of foreign countries to attend US schools. Why should a Swedish exchange student (like a good friend of mine) be forced to pledge allegiance to the US government?

It's not as if the Swedish government would expect pledges of allegiance from US citizens who happened to be on their territory.

More to the point, why should a US citizen be forced to pledge allegiance to the US government? I'm a US citizen and there are many things that our government does that I don't agree with. I shouldn't have to blindly agree to give the government my undying loyalty if I'm not taking a public office or entering the military.

It's also the "wrong way around", it would make more sense for the US government (or at least government officials) to pledge allegiance to the US people.
Doubt the people who originally wrote the US constitution would have any time for such an idea. Their position appeared to be something along the line that governments are like fire, good servant, poor master.

Thats awesome

[Aqua OS X]

I really really hate the pledge. I'm glad something was done about this.

"One nation under God"...ehhh gag me. And since when has the US actually lived up to "liberty and justice for all?"

Re:Thats awesome

[rodgerd]

Yeah, that's right, you tell him. How dare he try and exercise his freedoms and rights as a citizen! People didn't die to defend his right to exercise constitutional rights!

The 2 emails I sent to CNN...

[macemoneta]

1- I agree that the term "under God" should be removed from the pledge. The pledge was valid before 1954, and it will continue to be valid after the current ruling. Our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and that includes the freedom to abstain from religious belief. In order to insure that freedom, our founding fathers had the foresight to include the separation of church and state into our constitution. The reference to a deity on the pledge implies the need to believe in a god, in order to assert allegiance to our country. That was not and should not be the intent of pledge.

2- The point that many of those complaining about this judgment are missing is that this is not about religious belief vs. atheists. There are many, many religions in this world and in this country. Some do not believe in a deity, and some do not believe in a single deity. The pledge statement "under god" excludes not only atheists as some believe (still wrong), but many non-Judeo- Christian religions as well. Many people forget that their personal beliefs are not the beliefs of all, and imposing those beliefs on others is wrong. This is why we have separation of church and state.

Atheists are worse then Fundies

[jsimon12]

Newdow acknowledged that his daughter was not required to say the pledge in school. But he claimed in court documents her rights were violated when she was compelled to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic] is 'one nation under God.' "

I am sorry but atheists really freaking piss me off sometimes. All they ever want to talk about is how they "Don't belive in God" and "Don't push your religion on me". Damn it, they are worse then Fundies. This guy should have just told his daughter that she didn't have to say it and go on with life, but instead he has taken something sacred to the majority of the people in the country and pissed all over it. Oh well, whats next, American Flag bog rolls?

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[simetra]

YEAH. When they put the word God on the flag, Einstein.

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[elmegil]

This guy should have just told his daughter that she didn't have to say it and go on with life

Because we all know how easy it is in grade school & high school to do something that clearly makes you stand out (like refusing to stand and recite the pledge). Especially in the current atmosphere of you must be patriotic or you are a terrorist.

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[jmv]

With separation of state and religion, the "In God We Trust" has no reason to be there. Or why not have "In no God We Trust" or "In GodS We Trust"?

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[MrDog]

I can understand you being angry, but the real issue is whether the US ought to support/establish a particular religious belief. The Pledge clearly does. I am a Christian, but I still think that as far as the constitution goes, this is a no-brainer. What could the defense possibly be?

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[RevRigel]

In a way, it might be better for the development of character amongst the young people of the country if they had more things on which they had to take a stand of principle, even if it's unconstitutional. I always just never said the pledge, or sang the anthem.

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[ncc74656]

Especially in the current atmosphere of you must be patriotic

You say that like it's a bad thing. There are plenty of other countries in the world where the ingrates who hate America can go live. Maybe while they're there, they'll gain an appreciation for the things that motivate the patriot...assuming that they don't end up killed or locked up in jail first.

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[dbrutus]

The defense is that it is not particular to one religion, that it promotes belief over unbelief, a permissible action, if not sectarian. Do muslims believe that a state should be under God? Yes. How about religious jews or christians? yep again. If you're not promoting one religion over the other, it's constitutionally kosher.

If not, I want 200 years of refunds for the chaplains salaries that never should have been authorized for the House/Senate/SC.

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[elmegil]

Yeah, kind of like when you stand out for not wanting to participate in sex before marriage or smoking pot.

Um....no.

The teacher doesn't fornicate at the front of the class every day. The principal doesn't lead mass dope smoking sessions. There's peer pressure, and then there's adult sanctioned and enforced peer pressure. We're not talking about the former.

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[scotch]

The declaration of independence has no legal authority in the United States. The constitution, on the other hand ....

The declaration of independence is an interesting document from a historical perspective, but has not one bit of authority or relevance with the operation of the US government.

The idea that the constitution is a living document, and must be interpreted is built into the constitution. The people that wrote it are dead - what they would have thought has no legal authority either. They are not the supreme law of the land: the constitution is.

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[brad3378]

&gt ...Especially in the current atmosphere of you must be patriotic or you are a terrorist

True, but I doubt the guy would have had the balls to do this back in late september. I still think he's pressing his luck.

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[dbrutus]

The secular benefits of marriage (a religious act) are so well understood that it's also become a state act as well as a religious one. Social stability and lower criminality are general secular benefits of religious expression. This is why it's ok to promote belief over unbelief, it promotes the general social good. This is also why official US prayers (and we've had plenty) are all as generic/non-sectarian as possible. Promoting a particular religion is verboten, generic support of religion is not. And by the way, I've had Hindus explain their theology in the sense that there is a heirarchy of gods with the most enlightened understanding that they are all faces of one God though he chooses to split and present different aspects so you've got no problems from christians, jews, muslims, and hindus *at least* to the under God construction. Buddhists are free to mentally translate it as a flawed expression of Nirvana, nobody else will mind, etc.

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[ncc74656]

As opposed to every idiot and her brother shredding flags on their radio antennae, because it's the thing to do. And disrespectful to the flag to boot.

Can't argue with that. I think most of them mean well, but there's a woeful lack of knowledge about how the flag should be displayed. (Between the Boy Scouts and Air Force JROTC, I think I picked up a fairly decent grasp on the matter. It's not something that either organization spent a substantial amount of time covering, either, because there's not that much to the Flag Code.)

Most of that seems to have fallen by the wayside as we've gotten further away from 9/11. While it's nice that people aren't "shredding flags on their radio antennae," it is somewhat disappointing that we didn't see more of a long-term change in people's attitudes and priorities.

My point is that enforced patriotism leads to tyranny.

I don't know if patriotism is something that can be "enforced." However, I don't think it's unreasonable to question why somebody would choose to live in a country that he hates. (I'm still waiting for Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin to leave the country, like they said they would.)

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[Rakarra]

What I'm refuting is not the notion that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge. I am refuting the notion that the words of the constitution clearly dictate it that it should be removed.

What others have refered to so far is that the first amendment bars Congress entirely from passing any law establishing religion. Putting the Judeo-Christian "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance (especially for the express purpose of advancing that religion) clearly goes against that amendment.

Something I really find strange in all this is that, as a child, I never even thought of that "under God" as being a religious reference. I always thought it was a figurative way of saying that no other nation or governing body has control over the United States.

That's what happens when children are required to pledge oaths, but no one explains to them what they mean. You have an interesting interpretation, but the lawmakers of the 50's certainly disagree with you. The intention was to reinforce the Judeo-Christian belief and attack atheism. Those are actions that are clearly banned by the Constitution. The government has absolutely no say in which religion is valid or 'true.'

Excellent

[Deagol]

As an atheist myself, I always felt uncomfortable with The Pledge. I still find a mandatory recitation of it too close to the 2 Minutes of Hate (or whatever), but just in the other extreme.

My 7-year-old daughter, who attends public school in Utah, is always coming home with little sayings and tidbits about Jesus and god. I haven't jumped on the school or her teacher just yet, but I may if it continues.

Thers's nothing wrong with religion, in terms of personal choice. However, children are too young to contemplate the philosophical and metaphysical consequences of a religiouos faith. Hell, even many seemingly intelligent adults can't give a good reason for their faith (or for their denouncement of my lack of it).

I wish religious followers would leave children alone and let informed adults come to them when they reach an age appropraite to do so.

Re:Excellent

[Random Feature]

Then talk to your children rationally about it. Children can be extremely logical if you sit down and calmly discuss the situation.

Besides, you're in Utah - what did you expect? It's one of the last places where no matter what you think, the Mormons win.

Re:Excellent

[whovian]

I wish religious followers would leave children alone and let informed adults come to them when they reach an age appropraite to do so.

While I personally agree with this sentiment, I also know people who were raised "without religion" and have come to feel a certain degree of exclusion by society in their adult lives due to society's general christian-ness.

So, here's a question: Is there religion without society? I think so. Emily Dickinson says it nicely: "Some keep the Sabbath going to Church // I keep it, staying at Home"

Re:Excellent

[VValdo]

I understand the points. I believe in God. Others don't. According to the religion I practice I know God as one who says "Tell people, but let people use their Free will to decide". But banning the practice of religion is just the same as banning speech and other fundamental rights


Banning the practice of religion is one thing. Compelling an American child to swear their allegance to a nation "under God" is another.

Re:Excellent

[Deagol]

I still find a mandatory recitation of it too close to the 2 Minutes of Hate (or whatever), but just in the other extreme.

Why don't you just not say the phrase 'under God' ? Seems like a pretty simply fix to me.

This was not referring to the religious aspect, but more of the patriotic conditioning. School is a place to learn the facts, not be indoctrinated.

Re:Excellent

[Deagol]

I assumed nothing. I was told by my daughter that it was her teacher who stated these things.

Re:Excellent

[Deagol]

People... there are other people who feel uncomfortable when people are talking about low down scumbags in washington.... so should we not allow that. Should children be forbidden from speaking about congressmen?

It's not the discomfort -- it's the time and place.

When I dine with friends and family, I bow my head at the meal's prayer (out of repsect for the househole, not for religious reasons). I'm still uncomfortable, but it's not my place to tell people not to say grace at their table.

However, school is not the place for religious or patriotic indoctrination. School is for learning.

Re:Excellent

[Deagol]

People get upset because God is talked about in public school and say "Freedom of Religion and the right to not believe" and then get upset when a schoolboard decides that "Lord of the Flies" should not be freely available to the very same children by saying "Freedom of speech".

I'm talking about teachers stating as fact their religious beliefs during school hours. That's not cool by me.

If like-minded folk want to use time before/after school hours to discuss matters of faith, fine by me -- even if a teacher leads the meeting. But when a 1st grade teacher states matter-of-factly "Jesus loves you" to her class during class hours, that's just not appropriate.

I don't object to the beliefs of others, just their poor judgement on when and where they should express them. Would you appreciate me going to your religious gatherings and stating my atheist views as fact to you (assuming they weren't solicited)?

Re:Excellent

[Pig Hogger]

As an atheist myself, I always felt uncomfortable with The Pledge.

Use Mr Clean, then.

Re:Excellent

[Dirtside]

There's an appropriately pithy saying, by some famous humanist or atheist of the past, but I don't remember who:

"Everyone's born an atheist."

Re:Excellent

[Pig Hogger]

Banning the practice of religion is one thing. Compelling an American child to swear their allegance to a nation "under God" is another.

"Freedom OF religion" also means "freedom FROM religion".

Re:Excellent

[Deagol]

Hmm... Sounds like you'd like to take all children away at an early age away from their parents and foster care them in the state, in order to prevent "early religious indoctrination before they've come to the age of rationality."

Kindly get a grip. I simply stated that children aren't capable of grasping religion, and should wait until a more mature age to be introduced to it. Parents are free to teach their kids most anything, within reason.

Kids shouldn't consume as much junk food as they do, yet most parents feed all kind of garbage to their children. Most people indoctrinate their children into religion, often to the point where later in life they can't make a rational appraisal of their own faith. Some people instill hate (KKK, etc.) into their kids.

Should the State come in and take the kids to avoid these things? I don't believe so. However, parents should not be so selfish as to think they're not harming their kids (and, by extension, future society) in some way for doing these things.

In summary, consenting adults are free to take on any ideals they wish (within reason -- my nose, your punch, yadda...). Pushing potentially harmful ideals on a young child is morally wrong.

Re:Excellent

[jafac]

I wish religious followers would leave children alone and let informed adults come to them when they reach an age appropraite to do so

That's a TERRIBLE idea.

Which "informed" adults?

From which church?
Or which organization? (the Bureau of Logic and Truth?)
With what biases?
Armed with what information?
With what to gain by the person's conversion to whatever "faith" he or she decides on?

Assuming you mean, atheists being the "informed" adult - informed about what exactly? About the cold, hard, fact that God does not exist? Surely you don't believe that that "fact" has been proven, do you? It's as logically shaky as the absolute faith in the "fact" that God does exist.

Add to that, that religion, more often than not, is more of a cultural element, and that there's a reason people mostly tend to choose the same religion their family belongs to (because those are the people they know, relate to, and live with, and sharing a culture makes it easier to know, relate to, and live with people) - it makes much more sense to continue the age old tradition of parental indoctrination for those who wish it.

If you want to impose a state "religion" or "pholosophy" or "world-view" - certainly, shield people from any thoughts of this nature until they're 18, then send in the "thought police" to tell them about the Truth of Existence.

Or maybe a bit of wisdom from the Bible: Jesus said to come to the Father with a mind as like a child - maybe it's not that children are too young to contemplate the philosophical and metaphysical consequences of a religious faith. Maybe it's that adults are too old.

Re:Excellent

[Deagol]

Yes, anything is "potentially harmful". Religious followers who hold extreme views are far more common than other extreme views.

Me to my daughter: The Mormons believe that Joseph Smith found... yadda-yadda-yadda. They believe that you can only go to heaven (or that planet) if you're baptised. Etc.

My Mormon mother-in-law to my daughter: Joseph Smith found... yadda-yadda-yadda. You will go to hell is you're not baptised. A woman's place is in the home, subordinate to her husband, and she must overpopulate the earth with children."

I'm being sarcastic in my paraphrasing of my mother-in-law. However, you see the difference between stating the simple facts about a belief and pushing your views on a unprepared child. My daughter doesn't watch much TV (by design), yet she somehow has this notion that she must marry and crank out offspring. This is a direct result of her grandmother's teachings. I ask you, is it right to tell a little girl that her worth as a person is lessened if she doesn't marry and have kids?

I'm atheist, but I could give a hoot if my children (after being protected from institutionalized brainwashing) decide to join a religious group after they become legal adults. I believe I am right in my belief, but I'm not so arrogant and "selfish" to push my belief on my kids as fact. It's their choice to make when they're capable.

Religion is fine as a personal belief, but as an institution, it's dangerous. Recruiting young ones in hopes of gaining future tithing income to fatten tax-free coffers is sickening.

Re:Excellent

[Deagol]

Don't be an ass.

We don't let kids smoke before a certain age. We don't let kids marry, drive, drink, have sex, etc. before a certain age (or at least most of us prefer they don't).

There's a reason for this: kids aren't ready for certain things.

I hold that religion is one of those things that a child's mind cannot handle.

I won't push my atheist beliefs on my kids. It will get an equal explanation to other religions. My child may decide to follow her father's footsteps blindly, but I certainly hope that she'll choose a path later in life which is based on her own reasoning (doesn't even need to be logical) and not because some person or group pushed it on her.

Re:Excellent

[ArticulateArne]

"Freedom OF religion" also means "freedom FROM religion"

How do you figure?

Re:Excellent

[Pig Hogger]

"Freedom OF religion" also means "freedom FROM religion"

How do you figure?

Fucking jesus lord shit christ fuck almighty!!! I can't believe I have to explain that on Slashdot!!! You must be fuckingly brain-damaged by your fucking religion to ask such a question. You must be a morm^hon, are you?

Well, lemme explain, morm^hon. If you're allowed to believe whatever pea-brain crap you want, you ought to be allowed NOT to believe it, no?

Let's say I like to masturbate. I really like handling my dick, fantasizing about the turn-on du jour (today, it's blue and yellow spandex), geting it (the dick, not the spandex) hard, then vigorously stroking it until it ejaculates some sperm. Sometimes, whenever I masturbate in the shower, I also shove a finger up my asshole, and fondle my prostate from behind - presto, instant super-orgasm. Of course, this is prohibited by many religions. However, I do not see anything wrong with that.

Likewise, right now, it is summer. So I can't be bothered to wear clothing, even when I go in the park to sunbathe. Of course, this is also prohibited by many religions, and, like the above, I do not see anything wrong with that.

So, tellme, you fuckhead, why does your restrictive view (that's only due to some retardation in your brain) should be binding on ME???

Your freedom to believe whatever shit you want doesn't mean you have to force your beliefs on others. What if I FORCED you to masturbate three times a day (like I do on a good day), or have a walk in the park naked? You would be pissed-off, no? Well, that's exactly how I feel when you tell me I should not masturbate or sunbathe naked in the park.

Re:Excellent

[John Harrison]

You will go to hell is(sic) you're not baptised.

Are you sure that she says that? If so, she doesn't have a very deep understanding of her own religion. She would be more likely to say, "You won't go the Celestial Kingdom if you are not baptised. You also need to..."

What do you think the "Mormon" concept of hell is?

I appreciate your problems with your mother-in-law. Have you discussed this issue with your wife? Have you considered moving to another state? Please don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be putting a lot of blame on her.

Re:Excellent

[ArticulateArne]

Wow. I've never provoked a response like that. Almost makes me wish I'd been trolling.

While your commentary is doubtless colorful, I think we're talking about two different senses of the phrase "freedom from religion." Essentially, you're saying that you have the freedom to create your own religion which is composed of copious amounts of autoerotic stimulation. Under the constitution, you seem to be quite free to do that. However, I would still classify that as freedom "of" religion. You've chosen a religion, it just happens to be different than what most people think of as "religious."

The main sense in which I've heard the phrase "freedom from religion" used, however, is to say that people have a right not to be exposed to any religious symbology, references, etc, whatsoever. Essentially, religion has no place in public life. With this sentiment, I must wholeheartedly disagree. Freedom "from" religion flies smack in the face of the second half of the establishment clause - "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I'm not forcing you to do anything, I just want the freedom to worship as I see fit.

Re:Excellent

[VValdo]

The main sense in which I've heard the phrase "freedom from religion" used, however, is to say that people have a right not to be exposed to any religious symbology, references, etc, whatsoever. Essentially, religion has no place in public life. With this sentiment, I must wholeheartedly disagree. Freedom "from" religion flies smack in the face of the second half of the establishment clause - "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Again, I'll say-- no one is advocating religion be eliminated from public life. The point is that government should treat all religions and the lack of any religion equally.

By including "under god" in the pledge and compelling children to join in it and take this pledge, the government is, in effect, taking a side in the religious discourse.

Look at it this way-- would it be acceptible to replace "under god" with "under NO god"? Would you feel comfortable having your children swear to "one nation, under no god, indivisible"? Would such a line be appropriate?

If you can articulate why it would be wrong for the government to include this phrase, you might see the point. Because the difference between "under god" and "under no god" involves the judgement of which is religiously or spiritually correct and incorrect, and that's not a discussion the government should be advocating one way or the other.

(I don't quite understand the example two levels up either)

W

Re:Excellent

[Pig Hogger]

Oh. Sorry, I thought you were a religious butthead.

However, you seem to be unable to grasp that someone might actually be WITHOUT religion.

I am; I'm not only totally atheistic/agnostic/unpatriotic/whatever, but I don't need a religion to make myself my own morals.

When I day freedom from religion I mean that I should not be FORCED to act/talk/think according to a solely religious dictum. I don't mean not being exposed to religion at all, I mean not being forced to endure it.

Re:Excellent

[ArticulateArne]

Again, I'll say-- no one is advocating religion be eliminated from public life. The point is that government should treat all religions and the lack of any religion equally.

Thank you. That was my primary point in asking the first question, that government treating religions equally does not mean religion must be removed from public life.

would it be acceptible to replace "under god" with "under NO god"?

Well stated, and a point that is often lost on dear friends of mine. I've often mentally juxtaposed myself to an Islamic country and wondered how I would feel there when there is discussion on these issues.

So I think we agree - I won't make you pray, and you won't stop me from praying.

Re:Excellent

[ArticulateArne]

Well, if we started debating theology, you might consider me a religious butthead. (I believe God wrote the Bible, the manuscripts are infallible, Jesus was God in the flesh, Jesus is the only way to salvation, all roads do not lead to God, God created the universe (though not necessarily in six days - jurys's still out), miracles still happen, etc.)

I would posit, though, that your statment of a lack of religion is in itself a religious statement. For starters, are you an atheist or an agnostic? An atheist explicitly believes there is no god; an agnostic simply doesn't know. And, an apathetic agnostic doesn't know and doesn't care. :)

Perhaps the discussion would better be framed in terms of "worldview." A significant part of your perspective on the world is influenced by that fact that you believe that there is no God (I'm going to go with the atheist definition above). The statement that there is no God is a faith statement with presumably some evidence of some sort behind it. You cannot conclusively prove that there is no God, and I cannot conclusively prove that there is a God. Hence, we are both left in the realm of faith.

I'm glad you agree with my statement about the second sense of freedom "from" religion. I won't force you to act/think/talk from a religion, and I hope you won't keep me from exercising mine.

Re:Excellent

[BarefootClown]

Banning the practice of religion is one thing. Compelling an American child to swear their allegance to a nation "under God" is another.

In case you hadn't noticed, the compulsion has already been forbidden. In 1943, the Supreme Court decided in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that students could not be compelled to say the pledge. Quoting from that opinion, "[s]uch a statutory exaction is a form of test oath, and the test oath has always been abhorrent in the United States." So for the past 49 years, it has been unconstitutional for the State to require anybody to recite the pledge of allegiance. This decision goes further--this decision restricts the rights of those people who do wish to say it. That's a whole different matter.

Unlike your average slashdotter, I actually read the court's opinion. In the opinion, the Court recognizes that "Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge [page 4]." They also mention that Dr. Newdow went off the deep end, asking to court to order both President Clinton and the Congress to change the wording, actions which are well outside the jurisdiction of the court (page 6). He named as defendants the Southern California Unified School District, again a breach of jurisdiction, as his daughter is not enrolled there. Dr. Newdow has a history of making such challenges: in 2000, he sued President Bush over his inauguration, seeking to enjoin him from making any reference to religion in the future. When the suit was thrown out, "[i]n a last-ditch effort to salvage the suit, Newdow sought to add as a defendant Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the congressional committee in charge of the 2000 inaugural. At a hearing before the magistrate, Newdow suggested the committee could be ordered to ban clergy from the guest list or not let them speak [Denny Walsh, The Sacramento Bee." He also filed a lawsuit against then-President Clinton, Congress, and the Broward County School District for the same reason, and attempted to continue the suit even after his daughter was no longer a student in that district. That case, as well, was thrown out.

In spite of the plaintiff's whiny nature, though, there is at least a glimmer of validity to his claim. The wording alone is innocuous enough, similar to "In God We Trust," but the history of the Pledge reveals more. The Pledge originally had no reference to God; the reference was added by an act of Congress in 1954. To quote Neal Boortz:

What was the big threat in 1954? Godless Communism, that's what. Democratic Congressman Louis C. Rabaut from Michigan was the House sponsor of the bill which added "under God" to our Pledge. Rabaut testified before a congressional committee in support of the legislation. He said "the children of our land, in the daily recitation of the pledge in school, will be daily impressed with a true understanding of our way of life and its origins.
...
Rabaut wasn't the only person who indicated a religious purpose to the 1954 legislation. We also have the words of the President of the United States in 1954, Dwight Eisenhower. When he signed the legislation he said "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

--Neal Boortz, 27 Jun 2002

The phrase "under God" is innocent enough on it's own, but in context, it really does smack of State-endorsed religion. I should qualify that remark by mentioning that I myself believe in God; I am merely stating that I can understand the case made by Dr. Newdow.

Realistically, I expect the decision to be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court; they have already held that the phrasing is not unconstitutional in a similar case from Chicago (don't remember, about to go to lunch, don't want to look it up). He may have won his day this time, but public opinion, government opinion (Bush, and 99 senators, condemned the decision), and court opinion (the Chicago case) all seem to be against him. It will make an interesting case, to be sure.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court decided two other interesting cases today. Previously, random drug testing had been held to be legal only for student athletes; the case they decided today opened that up to students in any extra-curricular activities. The plaintiff in this case was in a the school chorus, and on an academic quiz team. She tested negative, but sued over what she called a "humiliating and accusatory policy FOXNews.com." Schools do not need to have any just cause for testing students. In the second case, the Court upheld the idea of school vouchers for parochial schools, striking a blow in favor of school choice advocates everywhere. Expect to hear a lot of rhetoric about this one.

Re:Excellent

[VValdo]

I did read the judgement and I know about the 1943 decision. When I said "compelling" children, I was referring to social pressure to conform, not literally forcing them to say it-- children are given the choice to either conform or protest, which is an inappropriate and difficult position to put a child into.

The phrase "under God" is innocent enough on it's own, but in context, it really does smack of State-endorsed religion. I should qualify that remark by mentioning that I myself believe in God; I am merely stating that I can understand the case made by Dr. Newdow.

Then we're in total agreement.

To those who disagree with this ruling, I only ask if you think it would be appropriate to officially add "without god" to the pledge, and if you would be comfortable simply choosing to not participate in a classroom recitation of this pledge.

If not, what is the reason the government includes one phrase and not the other, if it is not to affirm a religious position?

W

Re:Excellent

[Rakarra]

Damn! Someone's trying to burn off some karma!

On the other hand, if I had mod points, I'd probably moderate up as being funny.

Most likely will be overturned

[joncue]

The ruling was not put forth by the entire court, just by a three judge panel, with one of the panel members noting that the supreme court already found the pledge constitutional. The government will most likely ask that the entire court hear the case, where, according to NPR, the panel will probably be overturned.

Re:Most likely will be overturned

[ocbwilg]

The ruling was not put forth by the entire court, just by a three judge panel, with one of the panel members noting that the supreme court already found the pledge constitutional.

I'd definitely like to see your source on that last part. After having read Judge Fernandez's dissenting opinion I can say that I saw no such reference to the Supreme Court ruling that the pledge as it stands is constitutional. Furthermore, if the SCOTUS had in fact actually made such a ruling in the past there's very little chance that the case would have even gotten as far as it had, let alone been overturned in such a manner.

Re:Most likely will be overturned

[ocbwilg]

The source of this was "All Things Considered", the afternoon news program on NPR. I can't remember who the comentator was.

OK, here's my source:

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/newdowus62 602opn.pdf

Re:Whats so hard to understand?

[fscking_coward_2001]

I believe the US constitution *does not* say anything about "separation of Church and State", but does say that the State will not establish a religion. If you think about it, these are two different concepts, albeit closely related.

Possibly a shocker but no real surprise

[donutz]

What with kids not able to have a prayer at school, I'm not really surprised that the "under God" section of the Pledge would be called unconstitutional. Of course, we can debate till the cows come home just what the constitution means in regards to freedom of religion/freedom from religion/etc...

Anyways, I say to the Supreme Court, let this ruling stand. God has no place in school....Kids don't need God.

And what's with our currency saying "In God We Trust"? I thought there was some story about God getting pissed about people worshipping a golden calf, now he's forced to deal with his name promoting his least favorite idol? Hopefully he's still as patient as he was in the New Testament....we don't stand a chance against the wrath of the Old Testament God....

I can see it now...

[phraktyl]

...one Nation, under your choice of a single diety, a pantheon of dieties, or no dieties at all, indivisible...

Re:I can see it now...

[mshomphe]

...one Nation, under your choice of a single diety, a pantheon of dieties, or no dieties at all, indivisible...

Or how about just "One nation, indivisible"?

Re:I can see it now...

[Ralph Wiggam]

That would make entirely too much sense.

Re:I can see it now...

[kevin lyda]

how about "one nation, indivisible". like it was to begin with. what is it with you people and your primitive superstitions? are you so insecure about your irrational beliefs that you need to shove down everyone's throat?

Re:I can see it now...

[JaredOfEuropa]

Heh, how can a nation be under "No deities"?

How about: One nation under (check one)
[] God
[] Allah
[] Jaweh
[] Buddha
[] Satan
[] Linus
[] Other ____________

Seriously... let anyone call upon the deity of their choice, or not utter the "One nation" bit at all suring the pledge. Of course it'll sound less cool, with people reciting different phrases all at once.

Re:I can see it now...

[tshak]

...one Nation, under your choice of a single diety, a pantheon of dieties, or no dieties at all, indivisible, except by their religions and world views... :-)

Re:I can see it now...

[synx]

you state "ideas of being borned in to sin, accepting you're not in control of you life, and submitting your life to the will of the Lord"

as a fact.

I require you to prove this as a fact before I will believe it.

Thank you.

Re:I can see it now...

[nhavar]

it denies the atheists their right to deny God in a public manner :)

Re:I can see it now...

[mshomphe]

I know this was trying to be funny, but:

You remove God from the statement (or from government, for that matter), you don't deny the existence of God, nor do you affirm the existence of God. This is the perfect balance. Decisions of this nature are dependant on the individual.

Atheists do not have the right to tell the government to deny God; but they do have the right to proclaim their belief in the absence of God in a public manner. Just the same as any theist. However, they also have the right not to have theistic beliefs thrust on them byt their government, which is what this is all about.

Re:I can see it now...

[psych031337]

...with liberty and justice for all those who can pay for it...

Re:I can see it now...

[Pfhreakaz0id]

I like the way you just expanded your original thought without addressing his question at all. I won't slam you for not ANSWERING his question (you can't, nor can anyone else), but tell me, you pretended to answer his question, but really didn't. Isn't "pretending" just a fancy word for lying? Isn't lying a sin?

Re:I can see it now...

[Rogerborg]

• Or how about just "One nation, indivisible"?

Because that's untrue. The USA is divided on many substantial issues, including whether there should be "one nation, undivided". Funnily enough, disagreeing with this assertion is a great way to validate it.

Re:I can see it now...

[mshomphe]

Because implicitly, that says, "One nation under no god, indivisible."

No, in fact it makes no statement whatsoever about the supernatural. That's precisely what the government of the United States is supposed to say about God: absolutely nothing.

The absence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance endorses an agnostic mode of living (humanism - a secular, materialistic religion - I dare say). It says, "We do not acknowledge a power greater than ourselves to which our living and governing are accountable."

Again, no. You cannot draw any conclusions based on the absence of saying something. Consider this:

John says to Mary, "Do you like fruit?" Mary replies, "I like bananas." John cannot rationally conclude that Mary only likes bananas and no other fruit based on that statement alone. She has not talked about kiwi fruits or anything else. Pragmatically speaking, there is an implication (based on rules of discourse and whatnot), but the logical result of that conversation is that John knows that Mary likes bananas, and that's it.

End result: The government is not supposed to endorse or prohibit the free exercise of religion. That includes every viewpoint. Unfortunately, in a situation like this where there is no empirically "true" religion, there can never be a end to the discussion. More importantly, the functions of government are not dependant on the existance/non-existance of a Supreme Being. Morality does not have to derive from the Divine.

On a more personal note, I always wonder why Christians feel so compelled to espose their belief in God/Jesus in public. Jesus even admonished against public prayer. Your belief in God should be a private matter, not something that must be poured into the ears of your neighbors. Imagine, if you will, that the United States were a mostly Hindu society, and you were Christian. Would you want to be compelled to recite a pledge not only to your country, but that that country is "one nation, under the gods/Vishnu/Siva/Ganesh/etc."?

Re:I can see it now...

[Pfhreakaz0id]

well, I must have missed your proof. All you did was restate your beliefs in expanded form. (if you can't reread your post and see that, you are beyond all hope of rational, logical human thought). "Proof" is evidence that leads to a conclusion.

Personally, I have no problems with most of point one (I don't call it "sin", but accepts we are imperfect. Perfect beings would probably last forever, for instance, and wouldn't get cancer.) and none of two (much of what happens in your life is beyond your control and accepting that is a bitch). Personally, I have no big problem with three either, but you could substitute "big red chicken from the planet Zoltar" for "Lord" and it wouldn't change it's meaning (or proof/lack thereof) significantly.

Re:I can see it now...

[mshomphe]

I suggest reading this before citing Holy Trinity as a statement from on high. The "Christian Nation" quote is dictum, not law.

And the States are soverign except for the powers they cede to the federal government. This is the idea of balance that permeates our Constitution. Although the states voluntarily yield power to the federal government, all governmental power derives from the people. So, if we were to be literalists, we are a nation of individuals.

The "indivisible-ness" derives not from the fragility of the ties that bind, but rather the notion that we as a nation cannot exist without each other. Once the nation chooses to divide itself, it is no longer the United States.

Re:I can see it now...

[daeley]

big red chicken from the planet Zoltar

How dare you insult the Omnipotent Pullus zoltarius?! The Great Planetary Egg indeed shall return! All henetics and aroosterists shall perish in the Final Albumengeddon! All shall be tested by the the Infernal Infundibulum of the Omniscient Oviduct, yea verily, and the non-believers will be found wanting!

(Sorry. This was just a yolk I couldn't resist.)

Re:I can see it now...

[Pfhreakaz0id]

well, you gave me a good laugh at a time when I really needed it, so I thank you.

Re:I can see it now...

[Rakarra]

I looked up this little statement and notoiced that the same ratio of reglius people inside of jail is the same as the ratio of people out side of jail!! Expect for muslins which were higher in jail then outside of jail. Wow. Shocking.

You would think that there would be a lower ratio of Christians in jail. With them being moral and all.

There are very few true Christians. Very few.

The founding fathers were Deists

[Zen Mastuh]

Besides, how can a 48-year-old amendment be "The foundation and tradition of our country"? Stop hyperventilating for a moment and re-read the decision. The amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance favors monotheism, the Semitic religions specifically. This is not the end of the world by any means, just a return to the Constitution.

Pushing monotheism

[totallygeek]

This can be fixed by changing it to

One nation, under G[g]od(s)*, indivisible...

* or under no devine rule

I don't see what the fuss is. I doubt seriously that all Christians or even monotheistic theologists agree on all tenants of what God is. So, what Eisenhower thought God was and what he expected "his" nation to envision shouldn't be any different than our money mentioning "In God We Trust". I don't see too many people giving up money because of the statement on the bills and coins.

Re:Pushing monotheism

[gerardrj]

If you use and look at your cash, you will see that there is a fair amount of it that has the "in god we trust" blacked out. If you consider that the Gov remvoes these bills from circulation, that it takes effort to take this marking action on all your billx, and the relatively low percentage of athiests, the small number of aldered bills becomes even more significant.

My personal choice is just to not use cash. I refuse make purchases with money that has a written contract with the purchacer whereby I am forced to purport belief in a supreme deity.

Re:Pushing monotheism

[Oztun]

The fuss is about the word "God". If you look in a book on deities you will find this word is reserved for the christian/muslim/judism monotheistic deity.

Most people today confuse the word god because at some point english speakers used it to represent any God. This is not its origin however as it wasn't meant to be generic term. Technically the word god was not meant to be a univeral word.

Many believers of other religions would argue that this is christians way of forcing them to accept their deity. Similar to if we called all deities buddah from here on out.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree just telling you the argument I have heard from believers of other religions.

Re:Pushing monotheism

[nathanh]

I don't see what the fuss is. I doubt seriously that all Christians or even monotheistic theologists agree on all tenants of what God is.

If you don't see what the fuss is all about then perhaps you wouldn't mind changing it to "one nation, under Satan". Christians might have a whinge but they can just shutup and deal with it, just like the atheists have had to do for the past 50 years.

Re:Pushing monotheism

[ddstreet]

I don't see too many people giving up money because of the statement on the bills and coins.

You know, if every dollar bill had, in huge boldface type across both sides of the bill, the words "YOUR MOTHER IS A BITCH", I wouldn't like it, but I'd sure as hell still be using that money.

It's the same, obviously, with "In God We Trust". Those who don't believe in (the Christian) God don't like it, but of COURSE we're still going to use the bills.

The argument that people still use money so they must not be offended by "In God We Trust" is useful to those who can't come up with a REAL reason that it should be on bills or coins.

Re:Pushing monotheism

[chuck]

One nation, under G[g]od(s)*, indivisible...

Heh... at first, I thought that was a regexp! :) I was like... "Ggodsssssss"? But I don't think one nation under "[Gg]ods?" would catch on.

An atheist's point of view.

[fmaxwell]

As an atheist, all I can say about this ruling is "Thank God!"

;)

Re:An atheist's point of view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen ;)

Re:An atheist's point of view.

[Kymermosst]

As an atheist, all I can say about this ruling is "Thank God!"

And, as a typical hypocrite, you use the word "God" anyway, whenever it suits you, even to score +5 funny.

You see, you just said you were an athiest, yet you used God to gain something.

Interesting.

Re:An atheist's point of view.

[fmaxwell]

And, as a typical hypocrite, you use the word "God" anyway, whenever it suits you, even to score +5 funny.

I am perfectly comfortable using the word "God" as part of a joke. How is that hypocritical?

You see, you just said you were an athiest, yet you used God to gain something.

Using the word "God" in a joke does not imply a belief in God. Everyone else seemed to get that. Why are you having so much trouble with it?

Re:An atheist's point of view.

[Kymermosst]

I'm just making the restless natives react.

Worked, didn't it?

Re:An atheist's point of view.

[eugene ts wong]

Using the word "God" in a joke does not imply a belief in God. Everyone else seemed to get that. Why are you having so much trouble with it?

fmaxwell, I think that that guy is just trolling. You should probably ignore him and let the chips fall where they may. Your time is probably worth more than that.

Just to put this into perspective, I am a Christian, and yet I'm suggesting that you ignore this. He looks like he's lost his ability to reason.

Re:An atheist's point of view.

[Snaller]

>As an atheist, all I can say about this ruling
>is "Thank God!"

No no, "Thank Q!"

Re:Yeah...

[Oztun]

them == us, doh!

How about

[H1r0Pr0tag0n1st]

...One nation, Under the sky in which may dwell a deity, If you happen to belive in that, or not. Indivisable, exept for those of us who have nothing better to do than file stupid lawsuits and bicker about unimportant BS. With liberty and justice, for those who can afford it and don't piss off John Ashcroft.

Please take this as the joke it is. Because surely if I can't laugh about this I'm going to cry.

In case it is slashdotted

[lingqi]

Earthlink have a bandwidth cap, so...

not the entire document is here, just the important stuff Eisenhower said:

We are particularly thankful to you for your part in the movement to have the words 'under God' added to our Pledge of Allegiance. These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded. For the contribution which your organization has made to this cause, we must be genuinely grateful.

Use the almighty

[cnkeller]

"..one nation under Bush..." has a certain ring to it. Oh and that's the presidents name too...

The Pledge has an intersting history

[FreeUser]

For those non-Americans reading this thread, the pledge of allegiance goes like this:

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.

Interestingly enough, one of the early drafts went something like

...And to the Republic
For Which it Stands,
One Nation, Indivisible,
With Liberty, Equality, And Justice for all.

However, at the time (early 20th century), that version was rejected because of pressure from the pro-segregationists. Interestingly it wasn't only the fear of racial equality that was cited as a reason for rejecting that particular draft, but the appalling possiblity that it could be construed to imply the women should be considered equal to men as well. God forbid.

Frankly, rulings like this restore some of my faith in the judicial process. As currently written, the plege should be ruled unconstitutional, as (to refer to another post) should the engraving of the words "In God We Trust" on our currency.

Neither reference to God in either context serves to enhance freedom of religion, and both serve to undermine the fundamental separation of church and state upon which the republic was founded, revisionist Christian rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

Re:The Pledge has an intersting history

[RoninM]

The pause is an artifact of the pacing of the original ("one nation, indivisible"). It should be noted that in all the schools I have gone to, those that used the pledge (and most, in fact, didn't), never included, "under God." This being 20 years after the phrasing was added and, for a short time, in a private Christian school.

Did anyone else grow up in or around San Francisco using only the older pledge?

Re:The Pledge has an intersting history

[raistlinne]

Neither reference to God in either context serves to enhance freedom of religion, and both serve to undermine the fundamental separation of church and state upon which the republic was founded, revisionist Christian rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

And just to play a bit of devil's advocate: what of the effect of enforcing an essentially atheistic education through a person's 18th year by law? Is not forcing a person to avoid their religion for 8 hours a day an interference? (note: not everyone can afford to send their children to private schools or to home school them, and being poor is not a legitimate reason for a person to be deprived of their rights.)

Re:The Pledge has an intersting history

[demaria]

Here's another fun one. Find where in the constitution it spells out exactly that a government created & sponsored public education system is required.

Re:The Pledge has an intersting history

[junkgrep]

---their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.---

Funny, I don't remember that in the Constit... oh wait, it's not. Are you going to quote the Articles of Confederation next?

---It is imposible to justify government interferece(my taxes for school system), and then yell that the school system is now a funcion of the government and hence separation of chuch and state should apply.---

Uh, what? When the government steals your money to fund something, that something (you know, what it DOES with your money) most certainly is a function of government, subject to all its regulations.

---Finally, our currency is not a government note, but rather a note from the Federal Reverse ( a technically private bank), so there is no "chuch and state" issue.---

All of which was set in motion, and is ultimately still controlled by Acts of Congress. So, yes it is. And the motto is on the coins because it is THE motto!

Re:The Pledge has an intersting history

[junkgrep]

I don't understand how people can possible be this dishonest. No is in any way forced to avoid their religion at any time. Just because no government official is lecturing your kid on what gods to believe in does not mean that the kid is a default atheist: He can sign hymns at any time that anyone is allowed to speak (i.e. anytime but during class), if he wants to pray, he can pray all day long instead of listening.

And would any religious parent really want the GOVERNMENT teaching religion to their children? What if the majority of your town is Mormon, and decides to slant the teachings that way. Aren't Jews and Baptists both in public school a little screwed?

Re:What is this country coming to?

[StefanJ]

The Pledge of Allegiance is not the "foundation and tradition of our country." Objecting to the addition of a couple of words added during the Cold War is not an attack on the Constitution.

It is a gross oversimplification, bordering on wishful thinking, to imagine that Christian beliefs were the unique founding principles of this country. The Founding Fathers were Enlightment-era intellectuals -- many of them deists and Freemasons -- who knew exactly what they were doing when they set up strict barriers between church and state.

Not a problem...

[sterno]

US currency says "In God We Trust". Now, if that means you don't believe in God, it simply translated to, "Trust No One". Perhaps an even better motto when dealing with large piles of cash :)

Re:Not a problem...

[jackb_guppy]

Actually, your money can not be legal tender... becuase it violates the 1st.

So new money!!!

Re:Not a problem...

[Servo5678]

US currency says "In God We Trust". Now, if that means you don't believe in God, it simply translated to, "Trust No One". Perhaps an even better motto when dealing with large piles of cash :)

Yeah! That'd be neat! We can call it MulderMoney!

Re:Not a problem...

[Wolfier]

I'll gladly take the old money away from your hands. Email me.

Re:Not a problem...

[jafac]

ok - you'll shortly be receiving dozens of emails with the subject "Make money at home fast!"

It is such a very sad day...

[SkyLeach]

When our nation is so obsessed with stuff like this.

We waste billions on lawsuits which do nothing but remove the moral fabric of our country. Ever since the "liberation" of the people in the twenties this country has had an incredible exponential increase in social problems. Crime, disease, civil unrest, and violence have all increased dramatically while actual personal freedom has been destroyed.

Our education system is a joke because there is no enforcement anymore. It's becomming impossible to enforce any discipline at all because everyone attempts to justify their POV on why they should be exempt from law, responsibility and accountability.

Our real freedoms are being drained away while we bicker and fight over the freedom not to hear what's good for us.

God have mercy on this country. I believe our foolishness will soon destroy this country.

Re:It is such a very sad day...

[gerardrj]

You can't remove the morals of a country or a person via a legal proceeding, or making or replealing a law. Besides, responsibility and accountability are what are really laking in the country, not morals or ethics.
If passing a law, or winning a legal suit somehow removes or diminishes one of your morals, then your morals where pretty weak to begin with, and probably needed to be shaken up.
Further more, passing or repealing a law does not add or remove any of your rights.
No matter what the current laws are, you have the right to do anything you want, Including say "under god" in the pledge if it makes you all warm and fuzzy, as long as you are willing to accept the concequences.
BY anything, I mean you have the right to commit murder if you so choose. Society though has the right to arrest, procecute and condem you to jail or death for your muders.

Re:It is such a very sad day...

[dvdeug]

Ever since the "liberation" of the people in the twenties this country has had an incredible exponential increase in social problems.

Yeah, because look at how Al Capone runs everything . . . oops, that was the 1920's. Well, look at how cocaine is openly sold in stores . . . oops, that was the late 1800's. What about the way our kids are forced to work at hard labor under dangerous conditions . . . oops, that before the 1920's too. Look at how blacks are held in slavery - um, how women can't vote? What, exactly, are you talking about?

disease [has] [...] increased dramatically

Huh? I don't remember anyone near to me getting smallpox, nor do I remember any flu epedemic wiping out millions. Life expectancy has consistently gone upwards.

Re:It is such a very sad day...

[MAXOMENOS]

Before the "liberation" you talk about, women couldn't vote, own things, have an education, go out after dark, have a career, say no to their husbands, or generally live how they wanted. Before the "good old days" minorities couldn't buy things, get an education, be taught to read, choose their own religion, vote, co-exisit with whites, marry or date whites, walk down the street without fear of being killed for no reason. Sexual minorities were as a matter of policy imprisoned, beaten, labotimized, institutionalized, killed, executed, and generally treated like subhumans.

Watch your step .. you might get the Family Values folks sexually aroused.

Re:It is such a very sad day...

[gilroy]

Back in the days of the First Galactic Empire.... needless to say, with all this adventuring, many men became fabulously wealthy. But that was OK, because no one was really poor. At least, no one worth bothering about... :)

apologies to Douglas Adams

Re:It is such a very sad day...

[Skyshadow]

Gimme a break.

It's only a "sad" day if you think our country is nothing beyond flags and forced repetition of some legislated mantra.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the strength of the US springs from our republic and the protections it provides its citizens, it's a happy day.

Re:It is such a very sad day...

[Ashtangi]

disease, or dis-ease does not imply a viral or bacterial type infection. Nor does it imply any other illness for which you might go to the hospital and take some pills. It implies simply that there is something within that is causing some kind of problem: physical, mental, or spiritual. Our society suffers from much disease.

Re:It is such a very sad day...

[SkyLeach]

Well, I really do feel what I wrote, but I wouldn't have posted it if it weren't for the fact that...

Y. H.B.T.

And it was so very artfully done too. Congrats to the moderator who caught it.

The moral fabric of this country has been being torn apart by the very people who post on /.

You don't need me to tell you that the vast majority of /. readers support 0 accountability, 100% freedom to do whatever they want, to anyone they want. Of course, most of them don't understand what happens in an anarchy.

Quick clue: in a total moral anarchy morality is completely subjective. Under subjective morality, anything is ok given the correct circumstances: like being able to get away with it.

Remember that big ass bully or HS jock who would do sh*t to you that hurt or embarassed you, but the coach wouldn't do anything about it? Yes, that bully was devoid of the morality of being kind to others because it's right.

Take morality away from the world and life will really suck.

But why should I bother, I'm chainging nothing by typing this comment.

Re:It is such a very sad day...

[Sloppy]

[It is such a very sad day...] When our nation is so obsessed with stuff like this.

Yes, but that sad day was in the 1950s. Somebody in government was obsessed enough to go out of their way to insert those words into the pledge. How can you accuse the present-day virus-scanners of obsession? They are merely reacting to a provocation.

Our education system is a joke because there is no enforcement anymore.

Our education system is a joke because the government is involved in it. Get rid of public education, and most of the problems go away.

Quit treating education as some sort of right at taxpayers' expense, and then everyone can have what they want. I won't have to pay for someone else's kid to be brainwashed into being a wacko mystic cultist, and you won't have to pay for someone else's kid to be brainwashed into being a godless ammoral hellbound heathen. Everybody wins when you abolish socialism, especially those who want to show kids what responsibility really means.

Re:It is such a very sad day...

[funkhauser]

The word "disease" was originally "dis-ease", but the word has underwent semantic change. I really don't think it means "dis-ease" at all now, except to people who want to make pedantic smart-ass comments.

The 9th Circuit court

[elgee]

The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and the most overturned appeals court in the country.

The ruling is somewhat misplaced...

[signe]

What I don't understand is why the court did not rule that the legislation that President Eisenhower passed in 1954, which added the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance, was itself unconstitutional. This would have been more correct, because the separation of church and state never should have allowed this to stand. This would have reduced the pledge back to its original form, which would not have been objectionable.

Of course, any pledge like that, recited by rote without understanding the meaning, quickly loses any meaning. If you don't know what you're saying, or you're saying it only because you've been forced, what's the point? I think it's just as well that it was removed from the schools for that reason. But this wasn't the right way to accomplish it.

-Todd

The pledge is creepy...

[Saige]

If you think about it, the entire idea of pledging allegiance to a FLAG, a piece of cloth, is pretty darn creepy. It's things like that that give people the idea to create a constitutional amendment to prevent burning a flag - as if that act somehow takes away freedom - it's the amendment that would be taking away freedom.

Repeating the pledge, every day in school, over and over, seems an awfully lot like an attempt to indoctrinate children, instead of educating them.

I harbor no special feelings for the flag, or toward the name of this county. My feelings are for the liberty and freedom themselves, as they're what is important, not some design on cloth.

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[Skyshadow]

The problem, of course, is that many Americans cannot see past the symbols of America (pledges and flags) to realize what the real and important underlying concepts are.

This is why so many people can't seem to grasp, say, that banning flag burning is essentially unamerican -- protecting a symbol at the expense of what that symbol represents. Generations of Americans haven't lived and died to protect the flag, but to protect the freedoms it represents. Until the sophistication level of the "average" American rises to the level where this is no longer an issue, this point remains very important.

BTW, saying "If you think the US is bad, check out China" is so incredibly misconcieved that I'm having trouble figuring out a suitable response. It's like saying "You might think our dump is bad, but Shelbyville's dump is *really* smelly". Maybe so, but I still don't want to live there.

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[jafac]

I believe that on the 4th of July, we should ALL burn an American flag - to celebrate the fact that we're FREE to do so.

Not only will it drive the point home to the fuckers in Washington, but it will also turn the act of flag burning from an act of protest into an act of patriotism.

Damn. When I'm Emporer, it will be so. Trust me on this.

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[Ian Bicking]

Not to mention no good Christian should stand for it either... I mean I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag seems clearly contradictory to the false idol commandment. I know Jehovah's Witnesses won't pledge allegiance, and I believe a number of other fundamentalist Christians believe similarly.

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[raistlinne]

Repeating the pledge, every day in school, over and over, seems an awfully lot like an attempt to indoctrinate children, instead of educating them.

What the hell do you think that education is? Education is the forcible stuffing of ideas into children, often against their will. Besides, why is it so unreasonable to ask citizens of a country to be loyal to it (hint: the flag stands for the country, it's a thing called a "symbol")?

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[Alex Belits]

Too bad, in other countries it almost became an international pictogram for "foreign oppressors".

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[sulli]

I don't think jafac was referring to you when he talked about "those fuckers." While I would not burn a flag as a show of patriotism - at least not yet, not while Bush, Ashcroft, et al. at least pretend to respect the Constitution - I definitely feel that he can if he wants to.

Those he opposes (I suspect - I don't know him, though he is my Friend) are those who are systematically destroying our liberty, and I oppose them too. I choose to fly my flag, as I feel it stands for something beyond Ashcroft, but that's my choice.

Oh, and as I am in California, I look forward to the NEW Pledge of Allegiance. Time to find a meeting at City Hall to say it at!

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[Chasuk]

I serve proudly in the US military.

So did I, for a decade. We have at least that much in common.

...(except the Persian Gulf -- I was too young by about 3 years).

Our first difference. I served in the Persian Gulf.

That flag is a symbol of what we've fought for since 1776.

True enough. However, note the word symbol in that sentence.

When you burn it you spit in our faces and stomp on our graves.

Our first major difference. When you burn the flag, you destroy by fire a piece of muli-hued fabric. Nothing less, nothing more.

Fuckers like you piss me off. You have no comprehension of what freedom means. Yeah, you're free to burn an american flag -- but only because people like me are willing to die to protect that freedom. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd? Maybe just a bit insulting to us?

Dumbasses like you piss me off. You, and everyone like you who seem unable to distinguish between a symbol and the real liberty and freedom which that symbol represents.

Ban the burning of the flag today. Ban the burning of the Bible tomorrow. Ban the burning of the Koran next week. Then let's ban the burning of the Book of Mormon, Scientology's various copyrighted works, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy and Ellen G. White and Edgar Cayce and the Bab and Karl Marx and Martin Luther King Jr. and John F.Kennedy.

I say that those who are offended easily deserve to be offended.

That's my motto, but it still pisses me off to hear dumbasses like you spout.

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[Darth_Burrito]

why is it so unreasonable to ask citizens of a country to be loyal to it

The connotation of the word allegiance goes somewhat beyond legal obligation. What does it mean for you personally to pledge allegiance to someone? To me, pledging allegiance to something is an expression of absolute loyalty. To me, it means that I will support that entity in its actions regardless of what those actions may be. Anyways, perhaps it would be better for the members of our government to pledge allegiance to the citizens rather than having us pledge allegiance to our republic.

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[Darth_Burrito]

Without getting into semantics, both you and the parent have valid points. One expresses by patriotism by protecting the symbol of the nation, the other expresses it by burning that symbol as a deliberate expression of the rights that symbol represents.

My question: You ended your post with a quote from Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Are you saying honestly and truthfully that you are willing to defend, to the death if necessary, the right/privilege to burn a flag? Or are you indicating your willingness to defend, to the death if necessary, the poster's right to say what he said in his post sans actual flag burning. Considering that Americans are in favor of outlawing flag burning nearly 2 to 1, it may not be long before this controversial act of expression is deemed illegal.

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[Yunzil]

Almost every man in my entire extended family has served in the military, in just about every military action since WW1 (except the Persian Gulf -- I was too young by about 3 years). That flag is a symbol of what we've fought for since 1776. When you burn it you spit in our faces and stomp on our graves.

I think you need to ask those men in your family exactly WHAT they were fighting for. What they should have been fighting for is our freedom of expression, and that expression includes burning the flag if you see fit.

When you burn our flag, you revile the very "freedom" that you profess to value so highly.

Nope, just the opposite in fact; you are *exercising* that freedom.

Re:Whats so hard to understand?

[numbuscus]

There never has been, nor will there ever be, a decent seperation of church and state. If you think about it, how many different tax breaks are given to churches and religious organizations? These were set up to help churches spread their word. It has only been in the last century that other eastern and middle eastern religions started to prosper in the US. I wonder how hard it is for these groups to be declared tax-free religions? Personally, I wish they would seperate religion from government more. I don't think it's going to happen soon or quickly though.

Good.

[Skyshadow]

Beyond the phrasing issue, I don't think we should try to install patriotism by forcing people to recite a paragraph over and over again.

I would much prefer that our citizens be educated in what's good about America and what's unique about being a citizen so they can fight to keep it a place they should be willing to defend. I'm talking about things like civil rights -- due process, free speech, etc. Our children should be educated in why these things are important even when they're inconvenient (there are a lot of seemingly educated people who don't get this at all).

Again, something that makes America worth the effort is the fact that we don't have to put up with the government telling us what to believe. The Pledge is just hot air, but our *rights*, the ability to exercise those rights and the defense of those rights is critical to our continuing existance as something special and worthwhile. Without those, we're just another despotic country masquerading as a republic. The world has quite enough of those.

Again, some people think this country is special because of symbols like the flag or the pledge or the anthem. Personally, what I love and fear the loss of are the rights which those things represent.

A small step

[photon317]

... but more needs to be done. This is an excellent precedent, and I hope it stands the test of time. Religion invades our government in far too many places - could this be the start of a move back towards proper seperate of church and state?

Why Do We Need A "Pledge of Allegiance"?

[rizzo]

It just seems like making kids stand up and pledge their allegiance to a country is something you'd hear about in totalitarian societies who are paranoid that their kids will grow up to be enemies of the State. Of course in communist-paranoid McCarthy-ism 1950s USA that may have been the case. It just seems out of place in todays society. Perhaps because of the disillusionment and rampant cynicism of today's people, myself included.

That said, I am glad to see the "under God" go. I'm a Catholic who goes to church every Sunday and sings in the church choir (seriously), but I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. And although another comment was marked Funny, I do think the "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency should be removed.

Face the Flag time

[fliplap]

Not that this will stop anything. Its long been established, that as long as a religous activity isn't faculty lead, the students are free to discuss and organize as they wish.

So now instead of requiring students to say the pledge they will simply have "Face the Flag and say something" time. Of course, the students won't feel and pressure from peers or teachers because 3rd and 4th grade children usually think completely for themselves and aren't influenced by the behavior of thier peers.

But, I am glad that it is gone, I never liked saying it and was always annoyed and offended when I was forced to. Kudos!

Reminder to everyone

[Aexia]

1. The ruling only strikes down the 1954 law which added "under God" to the Pledge.

2. "God" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Go read it.

And if you don't thinking it's a big deal, what if it said "One nation under Allah"? Imagine the outcry from conservatives then!

Don't expect it to last

[ajakk]

Don't expect this holding to last. This decision was made by a three judge division of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The government could next file a motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The motion for rehearing will ask the three judges to look at the decision again because the missed something. The judges will turn that down. The rehearing en banc will ask all of the judges in the circuit to hear the case and rule on it. The government will file for rehearing en banc if they think the overall composition of the court is more "conservative" than the one that gave the ruling today.

Assuming that those motions are not made, or are denied, it will go to the Supreme Court. Don't expect the Supreme Court to uphold this decision. The current Supreme Court is moderately conservative even if some of the judges who were appointed by Republicans wouldn't show it. Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas will follow their usual pattern of voting together and they will keep it in. Ginsburg and Breyer could go the other way. Kennedy and O'Conner should both vote to keep it in even though they are both sorta unpredicatable (especially good ole Sandra). Souter and Stevens will also probably vote for it to stay in. So, there are three definately for keeping it, two who are probably against, and four who could go either way, but will most likely vote for.

Sorry for the rambling, and oh yeah, IANAL(Y).

Re:Currency

[King_TJ]

Uh, really, I think the guy was just trying to make a joke...

But seriously, regarding the backing of U.S. dollars and coins - I'm not sure that the old idea of backing it in gold is very practical. (Gold is heavy and takes up lots of space, among other problems.)

Still, we've transitioned to a system where currency is based completely on trust, as opposed to being based in the reality that our governmnet is "good" for every dollar and coin they mint.

Does it happen to benefit our economy? Yeah, sure, as long as everyone is confident that our govt. is stable and not in jeopardy of toppling. I think it's fair to say that we've generally been a society that's been confident of that ever since the time of the Civil War.

Nonetheless, it's worth considering that many powerful governments in history have fallen (AKA. Rome). There's no guarantee that the U.S. won't do the same someday....

Therefore, if things start looking more uncertain for our nation in the future, the citizens would be wise to start demanding financial backing of some kind to their money.

Re:my $ is unconstitutional.

[frovingslosh]

Do what I do, take a bold black Sharpie marker and black it out from each bill you get. They still spend just fine after they are corrected.

By the way, this is a recent change to our cash, I have several older bills without the offending phrase on them.

Declaration of Independance

[ocie]

This is now uncostitutional as well.

Oh my.

Re:Declaration of Independance

[rizzo]

Although the Declaration of Independence (1776) was written before the Constitution (1787). Besides the Declaration of Independance is not a living document, where as the Constitution is, in my opinion. The DoI was a one-time shot telling the King of England that we (USA) didn't answer to him anymore. And that was the end of it. The Constitution, on the other hand, is the set of rules which govern all of our laws and regulations to this day. This is the reason Congress would amend the Constitution. Amending the Delcaration of Independence would be quite silly and pointless.

Re:Declaration of Independance

[eddeye]

The Declaration of Independence can't be unconstitutional: it's not a legal document. All it does is inform the world that we are free of English rule, with a long list of grievances against the king.

The DoI establishes no form of government. It defines no laws. The body of the DoI can't be used as evidence or precedent in a court case. Further the DoI predates the Constitution by 13 years, so the Continental Congress that produced the DoI can't be subject to it. Constitutionality simply doesn't apply.

You might as well declare the Articles of Confederation unconstitutional.

Re:Declaration of Independance

[Dirtside]

Thanks for letting everyone on /. know that you don't know what it means for something to be unconstitutional, or even that you have the most basic understanding of logic or even the flow of time.

The Declaration of Independence was written *before* the Constitution. The 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The DoI was not written by Congress. It was not a law. It was merely the colonies telling the King of England, "Fuck off, wanker, we want our independence."

Re:Declaration of Independance

[ocie]

And thank you for letting everyone know you didn't get the joke.

Re:Declaration of Independance

[Kymermosst]

Wrong.

To quote the Constitution, Article VI: "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation."

The Declaration of Independence falls under the category of "Engagement entered into."

Re:Declaration of Independance

[Alex Belits]

Huh? Declaration of Independence is a declaration, one-sided document that indicates a position and places no obligation on anyone.

Has anyone read the Federalist Papers !

[mgpeter]

The Federalist Papers is a book that contains the letters of our founding fathers during the writing of the constitution. In it there are many concerns of what "Seperation of Church and State" actually means.

Sep of Church & State was included, because at the time there were many countries that were actually ruled by the church elders, our founding fathers did not want this, so they added it to the constitiution. It was in no way meant to take all religion out of the government, it was included to ensure that the heads of the church would not rule the government.

I don't know when the press or lawyers or whoever construed it into what it is today. Anyway, don't take my word for it, actually read the book at Project Gutenberg

Re:Has anyone read the Federalist Papers !

[fermion]

That is one interpretation. There are other intepretations. For instance, some would say that as a consequence of the ruler being of one religion, people of other religions were persecuted, tortured, and killed. To escape this persecution, people came to America. Unfortunately, the early settlers sometimes killed people who did not agree with thier religous beliefs. A strict seperation of church and state minimizes the validation of those murders and allows all people to worship, or not, as they wish.

Re:Has anyone read the Federalist Papers !

[Zeinfeld]

Sep of Church & State was included, because at the time there were many countries that were actually ruled by the church elders, our founding fathers did not want this, so they added it to the constitiution. It was in no way meant to take all religion out of the government, it was included to ensure that the heads of the church would not rule the government.

Actually it was as much determined the other way. In England at the time the Bishops sat in the House of Lords and the Monarch was 'supreme govenor' of the Church of England. The pilgrim fathers were mainly non-conformists who had come to the Americas to escape the established church which they saw as making God's church subject to the will of the state.

Re:Has anyone read the Federalist Papers !

[coyote-san]

They also had some serious practical considerations. They couldn't hold public office, or public service jobs, or attend university, or participate in many other sectors of public life. Life was great if you wanted to remain a serf on the lord's (with a little 'l') land, but if you wanted anything better for your children and grandchildren you needed to get out of there.

Re:Whats so hard to understand?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we all understand it. Some people just don't want it. They say these references to God are to trivial to matter, then they refuse to remove them.

Re:What is this country coming to?

[ZeroConcept]

"The next thing you know it will be illegial or unlawful to utter the word 'God' in public"

The same law that prohibits the government from promoting any religion, prohibits the government from censoring any particular religion

"So much for the founding fathers with their Christian beliefs"

The founding fathers were not Christian:
The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians
The Faith of our Founding Fathers
Is America founded on a Christian Tradition?
The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians
Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State

Then conform......

[jsimon12]

You have two choices in life, you can go with the flow, ie conform, or you can be differnt. Changing the freaking rules is not an option. Why upset the rest of the country for a handful of people? Last time I checked majority rules buddy.

Re:Then conform......

[elmegil]

1) There are more than "a handful" of non-monotheists in this country

2) and more importantly, the whole structure of the constitution is meant to protect the minority's rights from being trampled by the majority.

This is not changing the rules, it is enforcing them. Feel free to argue for a constitutional amendment to delete the part about "Congress shall make no law respecting an institution of religion", but until you've succeeded in getting such an amendment enacted, the rules say the current pledge is unconstitutional. So sad that it took nearly 50 years for anyone to succeed in making the rules stick. Sad, but hardly surprising: while we have some amazingly great ideals in the constitution, we hardly ever seem to live up to them.

As long as the majority is in the mindset of "I've got mine, fuck you" as you seem to believe, we'll continue having these back-and-forth battles. There are two possible ends: everyone recognizes that the constitution is meant to protect everyone, not just the majority, or the constitution is abolished (or mutated to the point where it might as well be abolished).

Re:Then conform......

[dvdeug]

Changing the freaking rules is not an option

Why not? Congress, the courts, state legislatures, all have ways of changing the national rules. That's the whole point of Congress.

majority rules

Not in the US - read the Constitution. Pre-Amendments, it didn't even provide for people to elect senators or the president. The first amendements were added to prevent the majority from taking certain actions detrimental to the rights of minorities.

Re:Then conform......

[jsimon12]

There are more than "a handful" of non-monotheists in this country

Hmmmm, think you aren't right on that. When you consider the fact that this country is made up of mostly, Christians, Jews and Muslims, all of whom are monotheisitic, while "handfull" might have been a poor choice in words you have to admit, there are comparatively few polytheisitcs and atheists.

As for changing the rules, they are changing the status quo, a societal standard, a rule emposed or created by the population. This kinda crap always happens though, some whacko comes out of the woodwork and decries something. Things will go back to normal later.

Re:Then conform......

[Master Bait]

It isn't majority rule here, it is the constitution that rules. Majority rule is mob rule. We are ruled by laws and not men.

So if you want to change the constitution, that is indeed an option. But you need a very, very big mob and lots of time to think about it.

Re:Then conform......

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Changing the freaking rules is not an option.

What makes this nation something worth given allegience to, is exactly the fact that every four years or so, you can change the rules. It isn't easy, but it is possible. And how wonderful that we live in a country where this debate can go on, even though 80% of the people feel one way.

Re:Then conform......

[SCHecklerX]

All well and good, except the majority of people are stupid.

Re:Then conform......

[Skyshadow]

Last time I checked majority rules buddy.

Yup. I can't wait to hear what President Al Gore has to say on this.

Re:Calm Down

[i0lanthe]

I always used to make strange sentences instead of saying it as it should be

I remember reading _In the Year of the Boar and Jackie Robinson_ about a million years ago. The young english-as-second-language main character said the pledge every day without actually knowing what the words were so let's just say it wasn't quite right. I still remember bits of her interpretation: "and to the wee puppet for witches' hands ... with little tea and just rice for all."

Re:Not from around here, are ya?

[PD]

Obviously he doesn't have long hair himself, but he thinks that long hair looks good on everyone else.

Re:Currency

[Subcarrier]

"In God We Trust"

Other deities pay cash?

I guess we know who gets to pick up the tab when the bar closes...

It's not the "under God" part that's offensive

[cartman]

State-sponsored pledges of allegiance are propagandistic, and exist to inspire collective feeling. That's not what America is about. It's not the "under God" part that bothers me, but rather the conscious attempt to instill loyalty in the young.

State-sponsored pledges are attempts to form state-sponsored beliefs. The pledge of alleigance is not essentially different from the mandatory pledges of loyalty that are taken by the soldiers of various totalitarian regimes. We decry their pledges as propaganda, yet we require our own.

I would rather see the pledge go by the wayside. The only expression of patriotism that is inspiring to me is one that is genuine and spontaneous.

Re:It's not the "under God" part that's offensive

[ArticulateArne]

Genuine, yes. Spontaneous, not always. Inspiring, definitely. Every time I say it, I think about every word, and I thank God (in whom I happen to believe, though you're welcome to thank one of the laws of thermodynamics or the mitochondria in your cells) that I live in a country where I, a random kid, can find a large amount of liberty and justice.

And what exactly is so offensive about this thing (sans "under God") anyway? Is liberty offensive? All we're saying is that we've got a really good thing going here, and we're willing to put out some effort to keep it going. Yikes.

Re:It's not the "under God" part that's offensive

[Mark Bainter]

State-sponsored pledges of allegiance are propagandistic

All this really cracks me up. I see people on this site and elsewhere going on and on about indoctrination and propaganda over a few minutes of recitation each morning before school. Something that doesn't even happen in every public school to boot.

Meanwhile, people are sending their kids to these schools every day for at least TWELVE YEARS where they'll be subjected to government propaganda for HOURS AT A TIME in the form of "history" and "political science" courses.

I believe the famous phrase for this is "strain out a camel, but swallow a gnat".

Pledge should be abolished

[bedouin]

The God part doesn't bother me, it's the fact that children from kindergarten on are generally forced by faculty to recite something that they don't truly grasp the meaning of. It's a form of indoctrination. Not to mention it's kind of hard to justify, since that 'justice' treated blacks as second class citizens until about 40 years ago. Oh, and never mind that whole Native American thing, stealing the land, etc.

What a joke. There's no difference between having a group of children bow down and praise Jesus with rosary beads and making them essentially worship and give their allegiance to a stupid piece of fabric.

If you feel like worshipping a flag do it at home, on your own time. It's one thing to have an individual decide he or she would like to pledge, it's another to MAKE them do it ritualistically every day, with no explanation other than "this is the right thing to do."

Majority rules.....

[jsimon12]

Most people in this country are monotheistic, and since majority rules we have "In God we Trust". If you want to be in a Ahtiest country, go to China.

Re:Majority rules.....

[jmv]

Most people in this country are monotheistic, and since majority rules we have "In God we Trust". If you want to be in a Ahtiest country, go to China.

I thought the majority had ruled that there was going to be a separation of the state and the church. (note, I am not an Athiest) I too live in a country (Canada) where the majority is monotheistic yet kids don't have to say prayers (or "In God We Trust"-like plegde) at school anymore. Religion is back where it belongs: at home.

Re:Majority rules.....

[dvdeug]

majority rules

Read the Constitution again. Pre-Amendments, it didn't provide for people to elect senators or the president. The first amendements were added to prevent the majority from taking certain actions detrimental to the rights of minorities. If you want to live in a country where majorities rule, I suggest you move, because the US isn't it.

Re:Majority rules.....

[goldmeer]

Religion is back where it belongs: at home.

And why isn't school where it belongs: at home? Why do you trust the education of your children to your government?

I'm not starting a fight, I'm just attempting to get you to think.

Re:Majority rules.....

[jmv]

Why do you trust the education of your children to your government?

If you don't trust the government (hence the school), why do you insist on having religion in school. Personally, I trust the school more than I trust the average parent... (though that's not a reason to rely only on the school)

I'm not starting a fight, I'm just attempting to get you to think.

I don't think that implying that everybody doesn't agree with you doesn't think is the best way to have a good discussion...

Re:Majority rules.....

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

And why isn't school where it belongs: at home? Why do you trust the education of your children to your government?

(a) Because the typical parent lacks the time, energy, will, and training to successfully educate his/her child;

(b) Because your children will live in society and should learn to move in it;

(c) Because schools help us find common values and respect for values not held in common.

Disclaimer: I am a schoolteacher (high school Physics) and you're darn-tooting that I feel my profession and I contribute to the general good.

Re:Majority rules.....

[goldmeer]

If you don't trust the government (hence the school), why do you insist on having religion in school. Personally, I trust the school more than I trust the average parent... (though that's not a reason to rely only on the school)

I do not insist on having religion in public school. I don't see where you got the idea that I do. Would you trust the government to raise the children of the citizens of the United States of America more than you would the average parent? Even if you do, are you advocating that the State should assume custody of all children *outside* standard school hours? After all, you don't trust "the average parent"

I don't think that implying that everybody doesn't agree with you doesn't think is the best way to have a good discussion...

Did I imply, or did you infer? :)

Re:Majority rules.....

[dbrutus]

Actually strict segregation of religion and state has never been popular. It's always had appeal to minority elites only. Nobody wants to break the truce of religious peace between the many faiths of this country but pretty much everybody knows how to make non-sectarian prayers. When a new religion comes up with a formula that is superior in its non-sectarian nature its quite likely that the others will accomodate the new formula into their repertoire, not start a conflict over it.

Atheists just like to pick a fight.

Re:Majority rules.....

[jafac]

That's bullshit.

I live in a VERY religious area of the country, and my kids are homeschooled. Homeschoolers can band together and do form "support networks" and even do some cooperative education. I, for one, do science demos from time to time for grade-school age homeschooled kids in my area. There are religious homeschool groups, and secular homeschool groups.
We've dealt with both types. The religious ones DO tend to keep to themselves, and DO tend to harbor some views which I would classify as extremist (the evil atheist gummint is out to get us).

While the religious ones tend to be more helpful and generous and well-meaning, the secular groups tend to be better funded and more organized, and the parents seem to be more "into it".

You don't have to be a religious freak to be a homeschooler. Nor do you have to be a conspiracy theorist. You just have to care enough about your kids to take matters of their education into your own hands.

In my kids' case - it turned out that our son just wasn't socially ready for school when he went into kindergarten. But boy was he academically ready. He's way ahead of the other kids his age, especially in math and science. But socially, he's just a very sensitive kid, and we chose to protect him from the schoolyard politics until he gets a bit older. He's also shorter than average height, and just doesn't have the attention span necessary to deal with the pavlovian schedule of RING the bell, sit down, study subject X for 45 minutes, RING the bell, stand up, move on to subject Y.
Sometimes, he'll be in the mood to do math, and he'll spend a whole week doing nothing but math. Then he'll move on to english, geography or history, or whatever. Sometimes he'll study all of them in a day - but the point is - he does not HAVE to, just to make it easier on the other kids' schedule. There are no other kids, or social distractions, and he sets his own schedule.

Re:Majority rules.....

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

The only repect that public schools foster is blind respect for authority.

As the son of a public school teacher, I find this insulting. I know of many people who go through the public system and emerge upstanding, civic-minded citizens. I know of many teachers and administrators who feel it their duty and privelge to teach open-mindedness, self-reliance, and critical thinking. To equate the public school system with some sort of mindless political factory is a broad overgeneralization which is careless at best and hurtful if intentional.

Bigotry, provincialism, fanaticism, authoritarianism, selfishness... these are "values" more easily -- and more often -- taught at home than in the schools.

Re:Majority rules.....

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

(a) Because the typical parent lacks the time, energy, will, and training to successfully educate his/her child;

I disagree with all of these with the exception of will.

Really? The typical person, half of a two-income household working, together, three or four jobs to meet the expense of housing, commuting, food... this parent has the time and energy to plot out and execute a full, enriching, and meaningful curriculum for every one of his/her children? I suppose he/she has access to the latest research on learning patterns, too, and the training to interpret them. It goes without saying, of course, that the typical American parent holds at least college degrees in English literature, art design, music, history (world and American), rhetoric, and math up to and including integral calculus -- to say nothing of biology, chemistry, and physics. It's a good thing that the typical American parent also has, in his/her home, fullly-equipped bio, chem, and physics labs. It's probably not worth mentioning foreign language and culture, since we all know that the typical American is well-versed in one or more non-English cultures.

The typical American parent might -- might! -- be qualified to educate his/her child through, maybe, the equivalent of third grade. Of course, along the way, any mistakes, misconceptions, blind spots, or outright errors in the parent's education are likely to be replicated in the child, since there is no professional community to help keep the parent on track. Meanwhile, the potential for the child to misinterpret "education" for "pleasing authority" is magnified, since now there is just the one authority to answer to. That makes it so easy to inculcate a respect for pluralism.

Is it impossible for home schooling to work? No. Is it logically impossible for it to achieve a result superior to in-school education? No. But is it likely that the typical parent could pull off such an at-home education? Not at all. Based entirely anecdotally (and thus, I concede, not worth the phosophorous it's printed on), in my experience, home-schooling has been an unmitigated disaster for the children I have encountered.

Re:Majority rules.....

[thales]

" Most people in this country are monotheistic, and since majority rules we have "In God we Trust". If you want to be in a Ahtiest country, go to China."

IF you beleave this nonsense, then In the Roman Empire the majority of the people were Pagans, so the early Christians were WRONG to attempt to introduce Monotheism into a Pagan nation, and the Romans were justified in persacuting them for refusing to join the majority in offering sacrafices to the Gods of Rome.

Don't hand me any "majority rules" bullshit if you follow the teachings of men who rebelled against the majority religion of their time. This includes the Old Testiment prophets and Jesus of Nazarath as well as Mohaemed of Mecca.

check this out

[Cardhore]

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/95-815.pdf

Terrible News

[leodegan]

This is terrible news. The Constitution gives us freedom of God, not freedom from God. Our country is very much based on religious ideals and principles. This movement can only lead to gutting the very heart of our country out. If people do not like the religious ideals that this country is based on are free to leave, and I would encourage them to do so.

Re:Terrible News

[smagruder]

I just had to respond. You are a moron.

Re:Terrible News

[Alex Belits]

The belief in God reflects the belief in free will and self-determination. The rejection of religion and the acceptance that all of reality is based on natural mechanics implies a deterministic view of the world and the denial of free will. Free will and self-determination are at the heart of our political and judicial systems.

What a load of crap! Free will can be described as a phenomenon caused by laws of nature -- at least this theory is less tautological than describing it as an expression of another will.

Re:Terrible News

[pyrrho]

It was and remains based on multiculteralism.

The other reply explains better than I would about religion on the question of free except to say it's clearly on both sides like philosophy.

Of course an atheist can believe in free will, or not. You do not need a God in order have free will, you are as likely to have it yourself as for there to be a God to give it to you. An atheist will go with the evidence like anyone will, given time.

A God or god hypothesis really isn't needed to support any of the valid moral or philosophic principles that it traditionally embodies.

Having said this, don't think I discount or disbelieve your God. And I have seen that people can use religion to find a better life, attitude and world view for themselves, which is more important than any other consideration. Still, I prefer the traditional philosophical approach, which is to justify atheistically any traditional artifice you wich to maintain.

Re:Terrible News

[Alex Belits]

"Mechanical" is a very narrow idea about laws of nature. For example, in quantum mechanics you can't even get a deterministic answer about the position and speed of an object. More relevant to this, there is nothing in the laws of nature that prevent a system as complex as human to be able to make decisions -- to have a free will it's not necessary to be able to make all possible decisions. For example, the fact that after reading your comment I can not decide to perform a ritualistic suicide does not mean that my free will is not sufficiently free for it.

Re:Terrible News

[Alex Belits]

Please explain. Laws of nature are reducible to mathematical relationships of cause and effect, yes?

Nature has nothing to do with mathematics -- mathematics is a tool that is used to represent the laws of nature.

Here is the definition of mechanical that I am using (pulled from Dictionary.com): Interpreting and explaining the phenomena of the universe by referring to causally determined material forces; mechanistic. For example, in quantum mechanics you can't even get a deterministic answer about the position and speed of an object.

Heisenburg's Uncertainty doesn't help a materialist explain freewill.

It merely demonstrates that religious people's arguments are based on extremely primitive view of science. Uncertainty definitely demonstrates that even with infinitely correct knowledge it's impossible to predict the outcome of any process, therefore claiming that nature without god is too "deterministic" for their tastes is wrong and pointless.

Pure randomness cannot lead to freewill. If my decisions are based on dice rolls, how am I exercising freewill?

This entirely depends on definitions. Whatever your decisions are based on, you are exercising your will as long as the system that makes decision (has will) has self-awareness as you (is actually you). What is the internals is pretty much irrelevant, but the more complex they are, the more complex (and therefore less trivially derived from the inputs) the decisions are (and therefore they are more "free", as dependent more on your own thoughts than on immediate inputs). The degree of "free" is always different -- in some cases there is none (knee jerking), in some cases there is a lot (writing a book).

In order for quantum mechanics to account for freewill, there would have to be an uncaused agent realizing the outcome.

Even though quantum mechanics has little to do with free will, in quantum mechanics the whole point of the theory is that outcome is unpredictable without any agent involved.

That agent would be supernatural because it would be outside the scope of mathematical determination.

Mathematics has nothing to do with it -- again, as an example, there is shitload of mathematical formulas describing various things in quantum mechanics even though quantum mechanics itself deals with probabilities and not actual events.

There is a theorethical possibility to duplicate human's action by collecting all information about the situation around the human and state of all cells in human body, making a precise calculations of every process involved, and getting precisely the same result from a mathematical model of a human as from a real human. This however does nothing to negate free will because the complexity of system that duplicates a human will be higher than a human itself, and we can only conclude that it also has a free will identical to the human. The only thing that all this may contradict with, is religious view of human free will, as opposed to scientific one, and your emotional attachment to the former, as opposed to the second.

Re:Terrible News

[Alex Belits]

I don't understand your point. It seems to me you just contradicted yourself. You are correct in stating that mathematics is used to describe nature (from counting sheep to predicting comet trajectories), but I do not follow the purpose or meaning of the statement "Nature has nothing to do with mathematics". If there is no relationship between the two, how can mathematics be a tool in understanding nature?

Mathematics is a tool used by humans -- just like a language is not "contained" in things that it describes, mathematics is not "contained" in nature, it merely provides a tool useful for understanding of nature by humans. And, as opposed to science, mathematics does not deal with actual objects or processes, but concepts that may (or may not) be useful for science when it describes those objects or processes. Say, in the Second Newton's law "F=m*a" is a mathematical formula that describes a law of nature (as known by humans, and limited in its precisions by more general laws). However there is nothing in nature that actually determines values of mass and acceleration and performs multiplication of mass and acceleration to produce the value of force, the operation only exist in human mind to describe one of the aspects of interaction between objects -- application of force.

Is modern science's view of nature primitive? People of the year 3100 might think so. Your statement is irrelevant. Religion is used to describe the metaphysical; that which is outside the scope of material observation.

I merely claim that your view of science is outdated already.

First of all, your statement assumes a specific interpretation of quantum. The empirical realm of quantum science is simply data. It is the interpretation of that data that carries us over into philosophy. You need to explain to me an interpretation of "uncertainty" that does not either:
A. Involve phenomenon that cannot be described with mathematics (i.e. supernatural)
B. Involve phenomenon that is purely random
C. Involve determinism that is unknown to us because of "hidden variables"
I would categorize those that interpret uncertainty under category (A) to be religious in a spiritual or mystic sense. I would classify those that interpret uncertainty under category (B) or (C) as materialists who are also, generally, atheists. Do you disagree? Is there any other possible interpretation that does not follow one of these categories?

You certainly don't understand what quantum mechanics is talking about. Not only things are random, but the theory was created by dealing with a problem that came down to the following: not only "hidden variables", "pure randomness" or even "divine intervention" can't describe things, but mere possibility of any observer (even if the observer is god himself), being able to collect knowledge and predict exact parameters for a particle (position and speed, energy and time, location after passing through something) means that process will not happen as it is observed. For science that is based on the idea that everything that exist, can be observed somehow, it means that those things actually don't exist, and we can merely have choice which of things see as more or less precise. When something can be known precisely (say, particles passed through two small holes at some short distance from each other, and we have registered some particle at some point behind them, so we know, or at lease we _can_ know it at some precision), something else about particles should be known less precisely (in some cases we CAN'T find out, which hole the particle passed, and, reversing that, the resulted position is unpredictable for any particular particle that we have sent through the holes no matter how much we originally know about it, particles produce a diffraction pattern as if they were waves -- with no possibility to determine, which particle passed through which hole).

Once again you are moving away from empirical data and into what your personal philosophical beliefs are. What experiment has shown there is not any agent involved?

Experiments show the results that match with a theory made with an assumption that prediction is impossible (experiment with particles and holes produces diffraction -- even if particles can't interact, one can send a single electron per second, and after all electrons are collected on a photograph, it will still show a pattern!), and not the results made with any "deterministic" assumption, so scientists have to accept a theory even though it does not allow to predict a trajectory of individual particle but denies an existence of such a thing! The process will be still described in terms and mathematical formulas, but those will now describe probabilities and uncertainties, not precise values of everything, as a person familiar with classical mechanics would expect. Of course, there is always another explanation -- instead of all that, someone/something supernatural actually messes with each particle to produce an effect that matches the theory, but considering the number of particles in the universe, this gives the word "micromanagement" the whole new meaning.

Hmm...I'm not sure what to make of this. If quantum mechanics does not have anything to do with actual events, how do we conduct experiments that deal with quantum mechanics?

We can observe whatever we can, and compare whatever can be predicted -- if some theory predicts that half-life of certain atom is a certain amount of time we can take a lot of atoms and check if after that amount of time approximately half of atoms left. When each particular atom changes into something else remains just as unpredictable as without a theory, but we know that atoms change into something else, we know that the process is random, and we may know how fast it should go taken over a large amount of atoms. Good enough -- knowledge that something can't be predicted is still a knowledge.

I would not classify the second one as "scientific" as, once again, science only gives us empirical data. I would prefer to refer to it as the "materialist" view. You have taken the typical position that atheists assume the intellectual high ground because you believe science agrees with their position. This is simply not the case. It is not scientifically evident that supernaturalism and mysticism do not exist. Atheists have a belief system, just like everyone else.

It's impossible to scientifically prove nonexistence of anything -- one can claim that a tooth fairy exists, and there will be no scientific proof of her nonexistence. But this is why it's an accepted scientific practice to treat all theories that have nothing to support themselves but lack of ptoof of nonexstence, as a complete and utter bullshit. On the other hand, if theory offers an explanation for something, that other theories either don't, or give more complex one (any explanation that involves god is as complex as god himself, so religion usually comes really far from "simple"), the theory is accepted. This does not guarantee that all theories are "the truth", but so far most of what is produced looks like a very good approximation of "the truth", approaching it closer over the time -- this process worked quite well while the religion for all its history just kept their "default explanation" through god's actions, and then weaseled out, accepting scientific explanations when there was no alternatives left. Not once in millennia of their history all religions in the world actually produced a single valid explanation for some natural phenomenon that could be used in any human activity, however examples of religion taking a side of some absolutely idiotic theory, and declaring people "immoral" for questioning it, are quite abundant. Granted, it's not a proof that the opposite can't happen, but it's still a very good reason to not expect religion to explain nature in the future.

Which view of freewill do you believe the founders of this country had? Do you think it influenced their ideology in forming the foundations of our country?

The founders of this country weren't philosophers concerned with this question, and certainly this was the last thing on their agenda. And even if they were, it would be quite irrelevant -- personal belief that politicians have is not something that everyone in the country should follow, especially if those politicians specifically put it into the laws that government should not mandate religious beliefs.

The materialist's view of freewill is destructive to our way of life.

Oh, puh-leeze, no political slogans in the middle of something that tries to resemble a serious discussion.

How can we have more freewill than the weather does? Do we ever put the weather on trial for its behavior?

Weather has no self-awareness, so it neither can have free will, nor will be able to understand that it actually is on trial if someone will be foolish enough to bring it there. There were cases when people tried to sue god for bad weather -- only to discover that apparently defendant ignores the whole thing.

The secular movement in this country is moving us away from judgment and towards rehabilitation. It is undermining the moral fiber from which this country was made great and destroying the sense of duty and accountability.

More claims of nonexistent things and political posturing. Religious people believe that only religion (and only their religion) can be the source of ethical norms morals. Non-religious people believe that same ethical norms and morals are a part of tradition that all societies -- religious or secular, are based on. Neither claim that those things are unimportant, all people judge their actions by ethical scale, however non-religious people have no choice but to judge themselves and others by their deeds, while religious people allow themselves to "negate" their immoral actions by demonstrations of support to god and religion -- having religious thoughts, praying, indoctrinating other people with religion, supporting religious institutions, etc. Therefore, given all other things equal, non-religious people feel more obligation to follow their ethical norms than religious people, they have no morally acceptable alternative while religion offers it. People that ignore moral principles, of course, can ignore them regardless of religious belief, non-religious people will merely ignore them, relgious ones will ignore them with a hope to "compensate" it by praying and feeling sorry eventually, the result is the same (ex: child sexual abuse by Catholic priests, people that certainly knew a lot about religion).

Re:Terrible News

[Alex Belits]

I agree. Mathematics is a language used to describe nature. However, this begs the question, how is it that mathematics can consistently describe nature?

Any sufficiently developed language has this property.

This goes back to my original point that nature is mechanical. Because it is mechanical, we can use math to describe it. I find it ironic that you used quantum mechanics as an illustration of the narrowness of my notion that nature is "mechanical".

This is pointless -- you are arguing about terminology, and not just any terminology but one that you are defining by yourself to suit your argument.

Once again you are talking about a specific interpretation of quantum. You are apparently not even aware of any hidden variable interpretations. The most well known is David Bohm's pilot wave interpretation (also known as Bohmian Mechanics). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ Many theoretical physicists do not take the interpretation seriously, but it is a well-known theory. Ironically, John Bell (of Bells Theorem) was actually an enthusiastic supporter.

Occam's razor. There is an infinite number of possible theories that describe same things as quantum mechanics does, but only one has minimal amount of assumptions -- what happens to be quantum mechanics. So unless there is something that contradicts quantum mechanics and complies with "alternative" theory, there is no point in even considering it.

The rest of your message seems geared around the Copenhagen interpretation, although that is not even the most commonly accepted interpretation among theoretical physicists and cosmologists (the most commonly accepted interpretation among this group is the "many worlds" interpretation).

Completely unrelated things.

am well aware of the double-slit experiment. You do not need to waste time describing well known quantum experiments.

I am explaining a theory using experiment as an example. You seem to be under some delusion that all explanations are created equal, so you simply give whatever is convenient for you. This does not change the fact that almost all possible explanations are complete bullshit, and the goal of science is to find one that isn't, not to produce more bullshit and claim that it might be true.

I am curious of how you can not be religious and still believe in the Copenhagen interpretation? The implication is that there is something about our consciousness as an observer that affects the outcome of a quantum event. It seems to imply that consciousness is not derived from matter and energy, but rather matter and energy is derived from consciousness. In this sense, the material world is born of, or derived from the mind (or spiritual world).

Observer does not have to have consciousness, and does not have to be present -- theory deals with possibility of observation of things that do or don't exist. Of course, religious person will see god everywhere, but this is not my problem.

If you expect religion to provide you with scientific knowledge, it is no wonder you are not religious. There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Religion is a study in wisdom, just as biology is a study in knowledge. The notion that science and religion are incompatible is bogus. Asking for material proof of something immaterial is asking for the impossible.

This is a lot of emotionally-charged words with no content except a claim that religious people have some kind of wisdom that no one else can see. As good as any other bullshit.

I could overwhelm you with religious quotes from the founders if you like. Their religious notions of freewill were very much part of their ideal for this country.

I have already explained why it's completely irrelevant, however Jefferson's quote can be at most seen as a metaphor considering how much effort Jefferson himself had spent to keep rekigion out of politics. Again, those people were not philosophers, weren't qualified to place those ideas into laws, and didn't even feel that they can do such a thing, so it's even more foolish to see them as authorities on the subject now.

First of all, I believe that self-awareness (which is different from self-reference) is not possible in a completely mechanical system. This is not provable, however, so I will leave it at that.

By commonly accepted definitons everything that moves is described by mechanics, however you use "mechanical" for some kind of description of determinism that even modern science sees as primitive simplification. Your definitions of "mechanical" and "not mechanical" seem to exist just to distinguish between things that you believe, can be described by science and things that you believe, can't be described by science, so you have made a circular argument that means nothing.

Secondly, what difference does it make if something is self-aware if it is always caused by external events?

Because it may be more complex or less complex, keep more state, less state or none. Self-awareness requires complex organization that most of things don't have, and humans do, and humans' behavior is drastiically different when they deal with self-aware persons and non-self-aware objects. Certainly the procedure of trial that you have mentioned is applicable only to a self-aware person.

In the materialist view of the Universe, everything is part of a massive chain of cause and effect.

This is irrelevant, the fact that human collects various kinds of state (memory, thoughts, traits of character) derived as a higher degree of "structuredness" than raw imputs makes him a unique individual that is impossible to trivially duplicate, or purposefully manipulate. If humans were possible to purposefully manipulate into thinking any pre-defined thoughts and to perform any pre-defined actions, I would worry about the value of self-awareness and individuality, however this is not the case -- a way that a human thinks is protected by the nature of his brain in the same manner as encrypted data is protected by hard to reverse nature of the encryption algorithm.

Everything bad would be the fault of natural laws, not an individual entity.

It does not matter what influenced the formation of individual entity -- if entity is self-aware, it should be responsible. Kinda sucks for people that were brought to be assholes, but works just fine considering that humans have a lot of capacity and context for self-improvement.

Let us use a computer program analogy. If the laws of nature could be captured in a computable algorithm, there would be no piece of that algorithm that is specific to an individual. All laws of physics are invoked universally across all matter (data).

The possibility of duplication does not negate anything -- universe is not self-aware, yet it contains self-aware people, same may apply to a computer that simulates a piece of the universe.

Just out of curiosity, which secular societies are you basing this on? (Hopefully not Stalin's Soviet Union).

I read it as "Just out of a desperate attempt of ad-hominen attack based on ideology...", however I really don't care. I have lived in a post-Stalin Soviet Union, and it was a good example of a society where religion was neither co-operating with a government's ideology, nor was an important part of people's lives. Contrary to some propaganda chicles, people were not dragged out of churches by NKVD agents, and did not behave any less ethical than anywhere else in the world -- for most of them religion was something to ridicule, ideology was some annoying and remote politicians' game, while ethical norms were relevant and therefore present in the everyday life. Of course, your propaganda most likely made you think that after 50's Russia magically jumped into mid-80's with no social progress in between, however if that was the case, a lot of stuff wouldn't happen. From observing that society I have found that people have no internal need to have a religion, and when removed (voluntarily or not) from religion-laced environment they can perfectly continue living without clinging to religion, turning into monsters or adopting something immoral as the source of guidance. Again, I don't think, you can believe this, local propaganda engraved into people's minds horrible but fictional images of forced labor everywhere, continuous ideological indoctrination, priests being executed by millions per year (wouldn't be any people left soon), corruption worse than in US Senate, and quite possibly bears walking into building and eating people, but for me it only means that propaganda in US was more successful than in USSR -- probably because religion makes people more gullible.

At this point, outside various political-religious alliances (ironically, those are usually deeply corrupt organizations) people in former USSR still don't care much for religion, and still they don't lose ethhical norms, even though political stuff bothers them much more now.

Are you suggesting that religious people don't judge themselves and others by their deeds?

Absolutely! If the outcome of their actions may be excused by devotion to religion, religion trumps deeds, and not the other way around -- a person that does not believe in religion, or disrespects it is considered to be less moral than a believer no matter what, good samaritans nonwithstanding.

Why would an atheist be compelled to judge someone more so than a theist?

Not judge more, just use the criteria that does not allow excuses.

would assert that the opposite is true. Atheists tend to believe in relative morality, while religious people believe in absolute morality.

This is simply not true. Atheists don't believe in absolutely predefined _actions_ (***NEVER*** kill anyone, ***ALWAYS*** give youe money to the poor, etc.) that define moral behavior for religious people, and they do not all share exactly the same principles, however their ethical principles are just as strong. This allows for less hypocrisy -- a person is responsible for applying moral principles to the situation, not for performing actions that the religion dictates, or looking for excuses when those actions cause harm (say, at war, dealing with unusually distorted society and in other situations when direct following religiously mandated behavior is detrimental to others). This is not moral relativism, it's usually more active and responsible behavior.

Atheists believe that people are victims to their personal circumstance or condition. For example, the popular secular thought now days is that criminals are either genetically less fortunate, or were not given the beneficial environment that successful people have had, and should therefore, not be judged for their actions.

I have no idea where have you found such a thing -- I have never heard anyone proposing to ignore crimes. Responsibility is usually valued very high by people who don't expect a supernatural being to be responsible for them. What you have may heard was that people who commit crimes should be not merely punished but somehow encouraged to imprve themselves if it's possible, however I have heard this point of view from people with all kins of religious beliefs, too.

What a bogus argument. First of all, most religious people do not think they have a free ticket to perform whatever immoral acts they want. Secondly, even if they did, how would it make them less moral than an atheist? You are suggesting that there is no eternal incentive for religious people to act morally--they can always just ask for forgiveness later.

Or sometimes to have forgiveness already given -- history is full of examples when large number of people commited unspeakable atrocities after being blessed by religious leaders, and of horrible political figures getting forgiveness from priests literally in last minutes of their lives.

So what is the atheist's eternal incentive to act morally? There isn't one either.

The only incentive is person's own judgment -- and for an atheist there is no possibility to amend it becsuse there is no god behind his back that can forgive the sins if the person prayed hard enough.

In otherwords, they would both have an "either or...it doesn't matter" proposition.

Huh?

I would suggest that you decouple religious ideals and religious establishments.

I use this as a merely an example of religious people. While those priests hardly can be described as moral from any imaginable point of view, they certainly believe in god, and that belief didn't make them any better.

This is precisely what the founders of our country did. They showed considerable hostility for the current institutions of religion, but cherished the ideals and virtue of religion itself. If my daughter goes to a crappy school, it does not mean that education is not valuable as an idea.

They were concerned with political institutions, and cared about religious ones only regarding their political power. The ides that they based their woork on were not specific to religion, and those people didn't even share a common religion at the time. The whole thing is completely irrelevant by now -- they could've believed in a tooth fairy being a cousin of Zeus, and they would do more or less the same thing because they had enough common sense to follow the ideas common to people regardless of their beliefs.

I don't even understand all this fascination with details of life of founders of this country -- what they wanted to keep for future generations they already wrote into laws and done in their actions, other than that they were merely humans, fallible, with their private lives, thoughts and actions. They shouldn't be worshipped like idols or be mindlessly imitated, it's insulting to them and to modern people alike.

Re:Terrible News

[Alex Belits]

You should really become more informed on quantum theory. You are confusing the evidence (quantum mechanics) with the interpretation (copenhagen, many-worlds, pilot wave, etc.). Physical evidence is meaningless from a philosophical perspective unless you interpret it. You seem completely unaware of different interpretations of quantum mechanics and their significance.

I am talking about the application of Occam's razor to theory and evidenvce, not merely the possibility to explain the evidence.

You understand that in quantum theory, the observation influences the outcome of the experiment, right?

The influence on the outcome is used merely a concept in a thought experiment -- its significance is in causing the impossibility to observe something, not in actual influence on the experiment, that is without an attempt to observe is nonexistent.

am going to lose interest in this debate quickly if this is the best feedback you can give me.

I already have very little interest in this debate as long as it is littered with your emotional outbursts.

Are you suggesting that politics and philosophy are unrelated? That ideas do not influence political motivations?

I claim that politicians are not necessarily good philosophers, and that politicians' desisions do not automatically validate all philosophical doctrines and beliefs that those politicians supported.

This is an absurd stance you are taking. It lacks common sense.

Only if "common sense" is to consider philosophy and politics to be one and the same.

If this is a commonly accepted definition, you should be able to provide me with a reference. The motion of material bodies is just part of it. It is really concerned with the forces and interactions between those bodies.

Interactions between bodies are not specific to mechanics, and force is a concept that is defined in mechanics. Of course, it still has nothing to do with this argument.

What am I trying to prove that would be a circular argument? You are correct in stating by belief that there exists some aspect of reality that is not mechanical and cannot be explained by science. If you recall, I stated my beliefs could not be proven, so I would not try. Please try to keep up.

You have made your own definition of "mechanical" based on your belief, and then used it to "prove" this belief. This is why your argument is circular -- your definitions already contain your desired outcome.

In a materialist view, self-awareness is simply experiencing particles bouncing around in your head. However, the dynamics of those particles would be controlled by laws of physics. How can someone be held accountable for the laws of physics?

The self-awareness is a property of the structure that those particles reflect -- the nature of the particles is irrelevant, just like "text" may be the property of the arrangement of ink on paper, that has nothing to do with actual ink or paper.

Where do you live now? If you live in the US, why not go back to the former USSR? Wouldn't you prefer a secular society to a religious one?

I do not choose my location to express the approval or disapproval of various beliefs and tradition of societies and policies of governments.

Oh right. It is all propaganda.

Of course, it was. What do you think, was the whole Cold War about?

The Soviet Union was really a paradise.

It sucked approximately as much as US at the time.

Like I said, if it is not that bad over there, why not return?

Because it sucks more now, and because I am a programmer, so I have nothing to do in a country with infrastructure destroyed by misguided "free market" proponents.

This is a ridiculous perception of religion. You seem to think that if a person is religious, they have lost all interest in a moral, prosperous society.

No, I just think, a religious person has religion placed above any other possible source of ethical norms or morals. And I have no idea how is all that related to prosperity -- prosperity is neither religious nor moral concept.

You seem to have missed my point. You are claiming that a religious person can act immoral without worrying about an eternal consequence--either way they are going to heaven. How is this different from an atheist? They can act immoral without worrying about an eternal consequence--either way they are maggot food. Your argument is illogical. According to your premise, neither the theist nor the atheist has a reason to act moral or immoral--the eternal consequence is the same either way

Consequence to the person is not the only consequence of the person's actions. Indeed I do not expect the fear/expectation of consequences to himself to be a base of a moral decision -- one can not make a moral choice unless he is considering the consequences of his action beyond his person. I also have no idea where "eternal" part came from -- atheists do not believe that any part of them is eternal, but they are quite sure that the universe will likely to exist even after they will be dead. A person that only considers what will help or hurt him is not moral even if he can be coerced into doing something positive by a fear of divine retribution and expectation of rewards from god, and even that does not work if the religion gives an easy cop-out through a simple mental self-conditioning procedure. A truly moral person may need guidance, but certainly has no use for sticks and carrots held by a supernatural being.

No, I wouldn't expect that you do. You do not seem to have any appreciation for the revolutionary ideas they had, and for the virtuous country they created.

I merely recognize the limitations of both. Their ideas were revolutionary compared to British Empire's idea of having the whole continents as colonies, however it was nothing outstanding in the context of the millennia of human history before them and centuries after. And the country that they have created is mostly filled with things other than virtue -- in fact everything even remotely good that happened here (from abolition of slavery to various developments in art and science) was the result of long and painful struggle of various groups of people against the establishment, same establishment that seen itself as the rightful heir of everything the founders of this country did, and same establishment that accepted the fruits of that struggle as great parts of american history later. True secularization of the political life and the society as a whole will be one of those things.

Re:Terrible News

[Alex Belits]

What? In what way do you apply Occam's razor to the evidence that does not seek out an explanation of the evidence?

Occam's razor can be only applied to a theory, not the evidence. We are talking about theories' validity, not evidence.

Wrong. The observer genuinely influences the outcome based on what the observer chooses to measure. We cannot know for certain a particles position and momentum at the same instant. By choosing to measure the position precisely, we force more uncertainty in the momentum, and visa versa.

No. The observer _WOULD_ influence the outcome if he observed it. However in the absence of observers things still behave in a way that observable and unobservable can't be even assumed to exist at the same time. If we claim that unobservable things actually do not exist, we end up with minimalistic theory that matches the evidence. Otherwise we end up guessing what unobservable things "really" are.

I would like to challenge this statement. Please point out my emotional outburst in my comment in question.

Soviet Union-related "argument", various extensions to "what is moral" arguments, various mentioning "how can you deny"..., appeal to "authority" of scientists and politicians, etc.

It seems to me that you assume anyone who is religious bases their opinions on emotion and not logic.

Logic is a tool, and it is as good as the assumptions it's based on. Religious people's assumptions are based on their emotional attachment to religious dogmas, and on that base all logic in the world can't produce anything other than more religious text.

On the other hand, I can only interpret your arguments against religion as emotionally driven because I cannot identify more than a shred of logic in them. You spout ideas that are shallow and unfounded and discuss topics with authority of which you only have a peripheral knowledge.

My logic is consistent, my assumptions that I make simply do not agree with yours ones. I challenge your arguments not based on their internal inconsistencies but on their applicability (ex: you defining "mechanical" and "materialist" point of view as it suits you, turning them into circular argument and a strawman) and being reasonable (ex: Occam's razor).

I would not consider "not necessarily" and the "not automatically" to be strong commitments to your point of view. You are backpedaling.

Don't cry victory where there is none, and don't attribute to me a strawman's point of view. I do not claim that politicians don't know philosophy, I merely claim that they really, really suck as philosophers.

Not one in the same, but very much related. You have a way of twisting my words to squirm your way out of a pin.

Just as much related as, say, the electric conductivity of lead and the act of murder -- both may have something to do with bullets.

What are you talking about? I conceded that my belief could not be proven before you accused me of a circular argument. Stop accusing me of things I didn't do.

Then why is it there? To claim your moral superiority?

Irrelevant? According to a materialist, every outcome of the "self-awareness" is driven by the nature of those particles.

"Materialist point of view" contains nothing of the sort. This is strawman.

Otherwise you would be suggesting that our consciousness is not subject to the laws of physics.

Consciousness itself is not a subject of the laws of physics, only objects that contain it are. Big difference.

I don't believe it. What exactly are your criteria for where you live that are not at all based on the beliefs, traditions and policies of where you live?

My abilities to lead a productive life at that location for the benefit of the advancement of humanity as a whole, of course. The society's and government's flaws and advantages to not necessarily directly translate to this as flaws and advantages, history is full of examples where people who lived in deeply flawed societies made great contribution to art, science and other historically meaningful activities.

Uh huh, sure. But it doesn't have anything to do with the ideology of the people, right? After all, you seem to believe the peoples' philosophies and values do not make an impact on the success or prosperity of their society. What makes a society successful then? Blind luck?

At the extent of 30-minutes newscast -- ideology of a journalist and a person who hired him. At the scale of 50-100 years (USSR, post-WWII US) -- mostly luck. At the extent of centuries and millennia -- society's capacity of self-improvement.

Religion is not above morality; it is a study of morality. I can only interpret your statements in that you have very ignorant, hateful, and juvenile view of religion.

Acceptance of an authority is not a study.

Agreed. This is what religion is all about. Why would an atheist make a moral choice that does not in any way benefit them?

Because he wants to. Any moral person would.

You are changing your story. At first you said religious people can do what ever they want because they will always get saved in the end. Now you are claiming that they need to be moral in order to get the "carrot".

I have never said that those sticks and carrots actually work well.

Which one is your honest misconception of religion? Your arguments are contradictory. You are simply spouting any anti-religious rhetoric you can think of.

I merely talk about the basic premises of religious teaching when stripped from various decorations.

You can say that about any culture.

You have called a country virtuous, not me.

Relatively speaking, the US has been the leader in freedom and civil liberty for the past few centuries.

Only Americans think that.

Do you not believe freedom and liberty are virtuous?

As the concept and a goal -- yes. US is nowhere close to achieving them at the extent that it can claim to be virtuous.

I am curious what developments in art and science you are talking about. In any case, the founders of this country did not introduce slavery. Slavery was prevalent in all modern cultures during that time.

If "that time" was ten centuries ago I would agree. By the time when US was formed slavery was not a part of world's accepted practices anymore.

Slavery and anti-civil liberties were not part of their revolutionary change. Instead, the revolt against slavery and anti-civil liberties was a revolt against a tradition that had been around for thousands of years.

So?.

When I was younger, I was an agnostic. Several years ago I started reading philosophy and made the following observations: - Atheistic philosophers were generally malevolent and aggressive (such as Nietzsche and Marx) - Theistic philosophers were generally thoughtful and rational (such as Pascal, Kant, and Descartes) I have since came to my own conclusions that a society must be spiritual in order to be healthy.

What kind of argument is that? Appeal to authority, combined with an ad-hominem attack?

I am not sure.....

[jsimon12]

But most people want this, so why not make an exception.

I am not Christian and I think it is a good thing. People need faith in something, whether that is aliens or god or whatever. You live longer, are more moral, and generally do better if you belive in something.

Re:I am not sure.....

[simetra]

It doesn't matter if "MOST" people want this. Freedom is for everyone, even those in the minority.

Re:I am not sure.....

[Stonehand]

Nonsense. Merely considering the rational consequences of behavior leads to numerous morals -- for instance, it's quite reasonable to believe that allowing the arbitrary seizure of other people's property by force would lead to societal breakdown, anarchy, and factional rule. Permitting arbitrary homicide has similar consequences. And so forth. There's no compelling need to believe in something irrational like deities, aliens, or the animist nature spirits, for that matter.

Not Separation of Church and State

[redtoade]

The CNN article says:
" The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state. "

Which is false.

First Amendment ("Article the Third):
"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."

If you read the brief, the court's findings were based more on "free exercise thereof" part of the first amendment, and not so much on the "law respecting an establishment" part.

According to the brief:

"Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter. The mere enactment of the 1954 Act in its particular context constitutes a religious recitation policy that interferes with Newdow's right to direct the religious education of his daughter. Accordingly, we hold that Newdow has standing to challenge the 1954 Act."

Of course this finding enforces an individuals right to practice religion as he/she sees fit... and not so much so this "anti-Christian" slant that CNN printed:

"I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."

Ironically, the court found that Newdow's ability to religiously educate his daughter in the ways of Atheism were being infringed by the pledge.

Re:FINALLY

[King_TJ]

Well, actually - I suspect the founding fathers would have no real problem with the general idea of the pledge. After all, they put in quite a bit of effort to establish the form of government we still have today.

They weren't anarchists... They weren't proposing that everyone rebel from governmnet on a daily basis. They simply envisioned putting a fair and just form of governmnet in place, that was as non-intrusive as possible.

What they probably *would* be quite upset with is the way our legal system has twisted the meaning of parts of the Constitution in order to give government many additional powers it was never intended to have.

won't last

[circletimessquare]

the circuit court that ruled this (i think it is the ninth?) is in san francisco and is known for being pretty liberal.

an atheist didn't like that his daughter would be socially ostracised by fellow students because she sat down while the rest of the students would recite.

their decision will most definitely go to the supreme court and will probably be overturned.

but um... this is a slashdot story? strange bit of news for slashdot, no? "news for nerds, stuff that matters" :P

i didn't know the slashdot crowd cared so much about the separation of church and state, not really a geeky issue...

Re:won't last

[Sloppy]

the circuit court that ruled this (i think it is the ninth?) is in san francisco and is known for being pretty liberal.

The liberal position is for the government to tell people how to live, for their own good.

The conservative position is for government to have a lesser role in peoples' lives, so that they must be responsible for their own destinies.

This is a conservative ruling. Eisenhower's modification to the pledge was a liberal act.

Hint for the confused: "Republican" and "Conservative" are not synonyms.

You can still say it

[guanxi]

I'm sure nobody will stop you from saying "under God" if you want. The point is, the government has no business coercing people to say it who don't want to.

OTOH, the point someone made about currency is interesting. Maybe we should change it to, "In Greenspan We Trust", or more perhaps more accurately "On Friedman We Rely" or "From Soros We Beg Mercifulness", or "We Sure Don't Trust Those Guys at Andersen Anymore".

Technically

[sheepab]

Arent they all gods? I mean, a form of god. Its not like the pledge says under THE god. Or worse, Under the ONE and ONLY god. God people lighten up!

Re:Technically

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Actually, the PoA does refer to "THE G-d". It uses the capitalized form "G-d", which refers to the monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic diety, though Muslims would say "Allah", and Jews would probably use JHVH, or some euphemism such as Hashem or Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

Re:Technically

[sheepab]

Everyone believes in the god of sex, believe in that god :).

Re:Technically

[Uggy]

Does that mean that German speaking people wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two?

Re:Technically

[Alexius]

(I was going to email you privately, but your address isn't posted.)

It is saying 'the one god', since It's singular, and it is saying 'the only' by omitting the rest.

Besides, I don't have a god. I have a Goddess. The pledge, as it stands, makes no allowance for her.

What if I had no god, as the one who brought the suit? Why do I have to believe in any god?

What if I have two gods? It is singular, and accepting that the nation is under 'god' means that one of my gods is slighted.

And also, what if I believed in a system where god wasn't above, but that the anti-god for me was? To use chritian names: What if I worshipped Satan, below us in Hell, and thought of Jahova (sp?), above us in Heaven as evil? Saying this would promote evil to me.

I converted to Paganism in my senior year of highschool. At the same time I stopped saying the pledge. My teacher noticed I was sitting during it, and sent me to the principals. The principal asked me why, then called my mother. My mother took the news uninterested. (She was/is a wonderful mother, she just didn't care that I didn't say the pledge, that was my choice, she told me later). I was sent back to class, where my teacher dispised me for the rest of the year.

You missed the point......

[jsimon12]

I think both sides of the issue are wrong, but my point was that Atheists are generally more vocal then Fundies Christians. The first thing most Atheists tell you when you meet them is they don't belive in God. Great, I don't give rats ass, least most Fundies don't start in till they hear you say Fuck or God Damn or talk shit about Jesus.

As for my language, I try to be a gentlemen, upon occasion, so I tone it down for the Fundie and such. maybe when you have kids you will understand.

As for modding, I got FUCKING KARMA to burn baby.

Re:You missed the point......

[dvdeug]

The first thing most Atheists tell you when you meet them is they don't belive in God.

Really? That doesn't accord with the atheists I've met, or what I know about atheist's beliefs. (It's not generally an evangelical belief system.) How do you know - do you take an interview of everyone you meet to find out their religion? Furthermore, I never seen an atheist wear a piece of clothing to proclaim to the world their religion, but I've seen many cross or Star of David necklaces and FROG/WWJD (Fooley rely on God / What would Jesus do) wristbands and other pieces of clothing.

Re:You missed the point......

[squiggleslash]

I'm an atheist. A humanist indeed. I think this is the first time I've mentioned that fact to anyone in two or more years, and mention it solely because it is necessary to defend the position.

I didn't mention this to my witness collegue at work until he started trying to probe my views (and, hence, try to convert me)

I do not have a car sticker promoting my beliefs. I live in an area where most cars have those flaming fish symbols or worse on them.

I have can receive no television channels organised by humanists promoting humanism. This is because there are no such channels. I do receive crystal clear TV channels from Christianists [I know many decent Christians which is why I use the word Christianists to distinguish those fanatical and poisonous individuals who use Christianity as a weapon against those who they do not understand] which promote, endlessly, their view of the world.

And I've never lobbied the government to insist that people be forced to acknowledge the non-existance of God. There is no speech that people must read stating that "In the absense of a God, we trust in ourselves to be wise." But Christianists in the 50s did indeed the same type of act by lobbying, successfully, for the government to try to force every schoolchild, no natter what their beliefs, to acknowledge the existance of a god - to make a statement that implies a god exists.

When atheists run TV channels specifically to promote their view of the world, when atheists lobby Congress to forcably promote atheistic views, when atheists cover themselves and their vehicles in stickers promoting their views, perhaps, perhaps, you might be able to claim, successfully, that atheists are as vocal as fundies.

So far I've seen Christianists attempt to get my taxes into churches. I've seen them attempt to force people to join in organized prayer. I've seen them slice and dice laws to try to get unwarranted and irrelevent references to God in them; and to through the legislative process attempt to have every school display a list of ten statements four of which promote the worship of a god. I've seen the FCC hand over chunks of the broadcasting spectrum to them, a spectrum usually described by the same institution as scarce, usually at the prodding of crackpot Christianist politicians. I've seen Christianists attempt to remove neutral and important subjects such as basic science teachings from school for fear that a rudementary understanding of science might, in some way, undermine their version of "Christian" faith.

And against all of this, I've seen one or two brave individuals stand up against the crowd and say "Enough". Sometimes they're Jewish, sometimes they're Catholic. And occasionally they're atheist. And every time someone stands, the Christianists go on the attack. They'll downright lie about what's being stood up against, they'll promote the idea of a sinister conspiracy by those who'd defend the constitution, they'll accuse, as George HW Bush did, those opposing the forcable support of religion of being unpatriotic, of being "unamerican". And of being extremists.

So be careful who you accuse of being more "vocal". It may be that the voices that sound the loudest are those that are not part of the babble, and the babble is the loudest of all.

Re:You missed the point......

[dvdeug]

Counterpoint: ever see the little "Darwin" car emblems, spoofing the christian fish

Sure. But they aren't clothing - in many ways, it's considerably more anonymous than clothing, as you're usually either hidden behind the wheel or no where near your car. In any case, a lot of cars have religious stickers on them, and the Darwin emblem is hardly a clear statement of your faith; one could be athiest, agnostic, Buddist or even Christain (say, a biology teacher) and have one on your care.

Re:You missed the point......

[danro]

Sure. But they aren't clothing

A friend of mine spent a year in the US.
He used to wear a "Darwin Fish" t-shirt.
(Yes, he got into a lot of trouble for it.)

good.

[kevin lyda]

my dad always complained about the under god bit. it's not the pledge he learned in school. it wasn't just unethical to shove god down people's throats, it messed up the rhythm of the pledge.

it's nice to know that some people in america still understand how to fight the hard fight for freedom against meanness, ignorance and bigotry.

America

[abigor]

You know, it's always nice to see America take a step forward. For all the crying conservatives do about liberalism "destroying" their country, America has progressively become more and more free (in a civil majority sense) with each passing decade. Women can do what they wish, gays aren't persecuted, non-Christians aren't reviled, and so forth. Anachronisms such as state-enforced pledges to God are better removed; keep religion out of institutions.

Now...if only we in Canada could fix our stupid national anthem! "God keep our land/Glorious and free..." Bah...

Re:America

[Spankophile]

> Now...if only we in Canada could fix our stupid
> national anthem! "God keep our land/Glorious
> and free..." Bah...

I once heard it sung as
"Oh Canada, Glorious and Free"

And speaking of problems with the Canadian anthem.. I also remember a complaint about the part involving "In all thy sons command" as being anti-female, and wanting to change it to "In all our _hearts_ command, with glowing _pride_ we see thee rise..."
(changing hearts to pride in the second line to avoid "heart" duplication I spose...

Re:America

[abigor]

"In all our hearts' command" is kind of weird -- the heart isn't normally associated with command, but whatever. So long as they don't get rid of "The true North, strong and free" -- that part is cool.

Re:America

[Pig Hogger]

Now...if only we in Canada could fix our stupid national anthem! "God keep our land/Glorious and free..." Bah...

That's because canada's head of state is also the pope of the anglican protestant sect...

Re:America

[dadragon]

Don't forget the first line of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

"Whereas Canada is founded on principles which recognize the Supremacy of God and Rule of Law"

Re:America

[dadragon]

if only we in Canada could fix our stupid national anthem!

Indeed Maple Leaf Forever (served as Canada's national anthem before O Canada was adopted) is sooooo much better:

In Days of yore,
From Britain's shore
Wolfe the dauntless hero came
And planted firm Britannia's flag
On Canada's fair domain.
Here may it wave,
Our boast, our pride
And joined in love together,
The thistle, shamrock, rose entwined,
The Maple Leaf Forever.

[CHORUS]
The Maple Leaf
Our Emblem Dear,
The Maple Leaf Forever.
God save our Queen and heaven bless,
The Maple Leaf Forever.

At Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane
Our brave fathers side by side
For freedom's home and loved ones dear,
Firmly stood and nobly died.
And so their rights which they maintained,
We swear to yeild them never.
Our watchword ever more shall be
The Maple Leaf Forever

[CHORUS]

Our fair Dominion now extends
From Cape Race to Nootka Sound
May peace forever be our lot
And plenty a store abound
And may those ties of love be ours
Which discord cannot sever
And flourish green for freedom's home
The Maple Leaf Forever

[CHORUS]

Re:it's kinda strange

[Amazing Quantum Man]

and yet you would think that atheists wouldn't care about that "under god" clause because they believe in no higher being.

Hardly. I'm Jewish. Now imagine how I'd feel if "under Jesus" was in the PoA. I don't believe in Jesus as the messiah, but I'd be pissed as hell. Same thing.

Re: forced to use cash?

[King_TJ]

Uh, actually - no, I don't think your argument would hold a lot of proverbial water.

It's a nice try... But the mere fact that government mints currency as our official form of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" could mean they can't go around printing references to a god on it.

True, you're not forced to use cash. These days, people do it less and less. But still, you're not offered any other choices in U.S. currency. It's not like postage stamps, where many different designs are printed and you can pick the type you prefer to stick onto your envelopes.

Simple solution to a complex problem.

[rice_burners_suck]

This is totally stupid. The solution is so simple, I am appalled that nobody has thought of it: Simply define the word "God" as a legal term which means both nature (for statements like "acts of God") and a higher authority than the government itself (for statements like "under God"), which is, at the option of each individual, either real or imagined, that when used in any literature, legally serves as an abstract definition. That'll shut up those stupid, fscking liberal pieces of garbage that claim to be human beings, because you can't call a legal definition unconstitutional if it doesn't force you to believe in anything.

My second comment is that these bleeding heart liberals often cite "The Constitution" (in much the same way that Microsoft users cite "The Computer" when something goes wrong) when it comes to the first amendment about religious freedom. Literally, the text of that amendment is, "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. [Emphasis mine.]" Please note that you can't fscking stop me from saying "Under God" or I'll sue you.

If Big Brother doesn't implement the Mark of the Beast, these alleged humans (the liberals) will.

Re:Simple solution to a complex problem.

[dvdeug]

Simply define the word "God" as a legal term

It's been tried. The courts correctly recognize it as bullshit.

these alleged humans (the liberals)

Alleged humans. Great phrase for a pogrom.

Re:Simple solution to a complex problem.

[jafac]

How do you know that "under God" and "in God We Trust" aren't the mark of the Beast?
(under God being the mark on one's forhead - or thoughts, and in God we trust being the mark on your hand, or actions which money can certainly qualify as - also limiting your ability to do commerce.)

All you have to do is consider the current religion to be the opposite of what they want you to believe it is, and the illusion is complete.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

One nation, under Satan

[cpeterso]

What if the phrase was changed to "one nation, under Satan"? Would anyone be offended? just maybe..

Re:One nation, under Satan

[tshak]

It'd probably be a more accurate clause.

Re:One nation, under Satan

[flimflam]

Shouldn't it be:

One nation over Satan?

MSNBC Online Poll has interesting stats.

[spectecjr]

Currently, with over 80,000 people having voted, 77% of people think that the pledge should have the wording "Under God" in there, and 23% of people think that it shouldn't.

Although it may be a coincidence, 77% is pretty much precisely the percentage of people who identified themselves as Christian in the US in 2001. (American Religious Identity Survey, 2001 - sample size, 50,000 people; for more details: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html)

Funny how it works out that the people who that was put in for in the first place are the ones who think that it should stay in :)

Simon

Not sure what country you live in......

[jsimon12]

But last time I checked that whole "freedom" doesn't really apply to everyone, we have plenty of laws that upset a good many people, but they were put in by the MAJORITY. Atheists fall into a very small minirorty, albiet a vocal one, I think there are less proclaimed Athiests then Jews or Hari Krishnas. You will see a grass roots movement against this, as The Gaseous Vertabrate is my witness you will see the Pledge of Allegiance back!!!!

Re:Not sure what country you live in......

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

But last time I checked that whole "freedom" doesn't really apply to everyone, we have plenty of laws that upset a good many people, but they were put in by the MAJORITY.

Indeed. Most of the time, the majority should and does set the tone. But the brilliance of the Founders was their recognition that there are some freedoms so important, so vital, that they must be protected for everyone, even the unpopular minority. And they weren't just humanitarians. They saw how protecting the minority in the most important cases would lead to increased stability and increased freedom for everyone -- minority and majority alike -- in the long run.

They were some fine thinkers, then. Pity we don't seem to have the same calibre now.

Its not just for atheists...

[Trinition]

I completely agree with the atheists point. But I think just considering that will be fighting a losing battle in a country where the majority are monotheists.

The bigger reason to remove the "under God" clause is to enforce the separation of church and state for secular reasons. Does anyone remember from history class when governments and churches were merged. In such entanglements, religious persecution is possible, and historically, unavoidable. These little creepings of religion back into government ("...under God...", "In God We Trust", 10 commandments, etc.) are the beginnings of a slipperly slope.

Heh, but why wouldwe want to learn a lesson from history when we can repeat it ourselves!

thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[lingqi]

I like what Eisenhower said. I think it made a lot of sense -- and it is true -- America has grown to be very arrogant over the years, in many ways that i will not be listing here.

At the mean time -- the pledge of allegiance, added with such a phrase, really does put stress on, i am sure, many people's minds. I, for one, dreaded those occations while in middle school. However, what is more worrisome is not necessarily the people who are made to say it when they do not want to -- they can just "watermelon" under their breath after all; it is, rather, the minds of children coaxed into the belief of God that way -- without ever knowing what it is like to be free to choose one's own religion(s).

side note -- this will have some serious consequences -- all of the bills we've got have "in god we trust" written on them. i highly doubt the new rainbow series (discussed before under "Greenbacks no more") will do without them.

But back to the Eisenhower thing. I think it is implemented in the wrong way. His intentions are good, but since then, the phrase has all but lost its meaning, because if it did not, my thread's parent will not be modded to 5:informative. In this vein of thought, i support taking "under God" out of the pledge. put somethig more... abstract in there, if they really wanted (words like "president", "dignity", "humility", "cheeseburgers", etc). maybe run a contest or something, like Maxim's caption contest. Winner gets a chance to go in a ring for a one on one to beat up Bin Laden whenever we capture him (or designate somebody like The Rock, for example. you guys figure it out).

Last piece of ramble: The most demoralizing aspect of this whole ordeal isn't really about what goes into a pledge, whatever. it's rather the fact that we have so little tolerance for eachother. For "land of the free," it is really hard to be "free" now-a-days without somebody complaining that you doing what you wanna do is violating their freedom in some fringe ways. maybe it should read ... one nation under the principle of tolerance and forgiveness ... ?

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[jcr]

Actually you just sparked something in my mind. Isn't our going after Bin Laden and Al Quaida an infringement on Muslims religios freedom?

No, not at all. OBL isn't in trouble for being a religious whacko, he's in trouble for instigating the murder of several thousand innocent people.

It doesn't matter whether he did it because he actually believes any of the tripe he spews to his cannon-fodder, or if he did it just for the financial gains from shorting airline stocks. We need him dead, simply because he deserves it.

The point is that when we remove God from our society we remove the need for morals, because a moral code is basically what religion is, and what God represents to many people, therefore government can impose no morals on anyone, this means that there can be no laws at all, because laws are just an enforcement of morals.

Your assertion that morality can only be supported by appeal to superstition is patently ridiculous. I don't have to believe in your creation myth to know that killing people is unacceptable.

-jcr

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[DragonMagic]

Actually you just sparked something in my mind. Isn't our going after Bin Laden and Al Quaida an infringement on Muslims religios freedom? After all in their eyes we are the great satan, and all they are doing is trying to rid the world of evil. Who is to say what is evil and what is not? With a phrase like one nation under God as a basis for our nations foundation I think we have a very good ground to stand on for retaliating against them, but when you remove God completely from our culture you eliminate any ground we have to stand on.

Okay, this is really really absurd. We never started going after bin Laden (hell, we gave the Taliban guns to fight the Russians after all!), until he started attacking OUR citizens.

Religious freedom is allowed, but with that, the freedom is only alloted so long as it causes no public or social harm. You cannot claim religious freedom when you make a human sacrifice; it's still murder. You cannot claim religious freedom when torturing a pig for three days, then setting him on fire; it's still animal cruelty. And for that, you cannot blow up our embassies, our ships, and torture and kill our citizens, and you cannot hijack and fly our planes into our own buildings, and claim religious freedoms.

I don't like "In God We Trust" on our money, but it's only money. I do not feel that God should be forced as part of our Oaths, especially if the preson being sworn has no belief in God, or any monotheistic beliefs at all. I also don't believe that children should be forced to recite, or even be part of and in group with, any public school or government sanctioned religious context.

If you think that "one nation under God" is nothing, then perhaps we should be teaching Creationism in history class, and stop teaching evolution in biology? Where is the line really drawn, without just saying no religious impressions in public schools?

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[roystgnr]

The point is that when we remove God from our society we remove the need for morals,

Obviously we don't; else the millions of athiests in this country would be raping and pillaging as we speak. The need for morals derives from the fact that ethical behavior is required for us to survive as a society. God can be an incentive toward promoting such behavior, but is not a requirement for defining it or the only possible motivation for enforcing it.

because a moral code is basically what religion is, and what God represents to many people,

Exactly the problem. To too many people, God is the only definition of morality, which precludes any morality being "above God". If God orders you to kill your son Isaac or to slaughter everything that breathes in a Canaanite city, no morality can stand in the way of the murder or genocide, because all morality comes from God. In such a state, the only way to be sure that Bin Laden is really doing wrong is to have faith that God wouldn't give such orders to him without checking in with us first.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[T3kno]

I have only one question to your argument. If there is no God, and we are free to practice any or no religion we want who sets up the rules for us to live by? Who says murder is murder? I for one believe that abortion is murder. Muslims do NOT believe that 9/11 was murder, so who is right? Who is wrong? Without a set of morals based on something you have absolutely no basis to answer. And I can refute any basis you have for morals as long as my "religion" prohibits me from doing that. I should also be able to practice anything I want because you have removed the basis for our society's morals.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Phroggy]

Your assertion that morality can only be supported by appeal to superstition is patently ridiculous. I don't have to believe in your creation myth to know that killing people is unacceptable.

If you believe every human being is given life by a divine Creator and He has said that murder is wrong, then you MUST believe that murder is wrong.

If you believe that humans evolved from the same ancestor as chimpanzees, and will later evolve into a new and improved species, and the only real difference between a human and another animal is that we happen to be generally in control of things at the moment, then you MAY believe that murder is wrong. You MAY believe that killing cows and pigs is wrong too, or you may like eating beef and pork. Generally most people agree that murdering humans is wrong, slaughtering pigs is OK, mistreating animals is wrong... If you think about it, it's not really set in stone, is it?

"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reason." - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[T3kno]

I know absolutely where morality comes from. I also know that there is only one single solitary person who was ever moral in the entire history of the earth. Let me ask you, since I assume that you believe that we evolved from a lower species, if you do not believe this please accept my appology for this assumption, but for the sake of argument let's just assume. Do animals practice morialty? Where in the theory of survival of the fittest does morality come into play? You have to have a basis for morality somewhere, is it just human enlightenment that led us to of course killing another is wrong? I would really like to know what the answer to that question is in your mind. There is a massive rift between humans and every other species on this planet that no amount of evolution can account for. If you dont believe in God, you have to belive that we are an animal, and I as an animal do not subscribe to the beliefe that killing another is somehow bad. Please provide an argument that gives me a basis for your morals, other than God.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[aebrain]

Muslims do NOT believe that 9/11 was murder, so who is right?

Sorry, can't let that one pass. Some Muslims believe that 9/11 was a righteous act. But then again, some Christians believe that those advocating abortion should be slain. The majority - however much they may disaprove of US Culture / Abortion respectively - see 9/11 and the shooting of Abortion advocates as murder most foul. Different in scale, but not in kind.

Try reading the Koran before saying things like this. OK, Troll fed, move along...

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[scotch]

Two choices:

1. Choose an arbitrary system of morals to live by (relative ethics)
2. Choose a religion that defines a system of absolute morals to live by. By the way, all possible choices of religions are valid (relative ethics)

Religion provides no safety from the sheer terror that we don't konw the fuck what we're doing.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[drinkypoo]

Your assertion that morality can only be supported by appeal to superstition is patently ridiculous. I don't have to believe in your creation myth to know that killing people is unacceptable.

Word. My father seems to think that religion is necessary for morality as well. I try to tell him you can have one without the other, and one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other, but he never agrees. Of course, given that there are a whole bunch of religions that disagree with one another on several very important points, there is just no way to say that religion is the answer -- Especially when religions contradict themselves.

Organized religion is not, repeat not a moral code. Sure, sometimes they try to sell you a moral code, but they will assert that (of course) there is a higher power, and (naturally) there are some people directly in touch with them, therefore you should listen to what these people have to say to you (Q.E.D.) This is naturally a bunch of poppycock. If God is everywhere, and God is listening to you, then you don't need a church to tell you shit. This is what Jesus preached, assuming of course that you see him as a historical figure. I don't see any reason to assume he didn't exist.

Most of the great religions are founded upon words of love, tolerance, and respect. Then these religious beliefs are used to excuse all kinds of terrible things. If you believe in God, and you believe that the bible is the word of God, you're a sucker -- That thing's been edited so many times it makes the OED look static. But furthermore, you cannot say that it excuses violence on anyone's part other than God's; he's the man with the plan and the golden gun. You are a peon, and you toe the line or you get struck down with the rest of the heathens and unbelievers and so on.

Let's face it, the reason people say the pledge of Allegiance in school is because of government, not God. You say "under god" because it's part of the pledge of allegiance. I agree that it's wrong to say it, because while truth is one, paths are many, and your path to truth might lead through God, but mine sure doesn't. Luckily, I am able to think for myself, and I even managed to go through a christian day camp for several years without being indoctrinated into a cult of people who believe that angels came down from heaven and rolled a rock away from a cave so they could take the empty shell which once contained the lift of Jesus of Nazareth up to heaven. What do you need a body for up there anyway?

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[tshak]

Your assertion that morality can only be supported by appeal to superstition is patently ridiculous. I don't have to believe in your creation myth to know that killing people is unacceptable.

Whethor or not one is an atheist, monotheist, panantheist, etc. is irrespective of the fact that morality, from a scientific standpoint, does not exist. You mock "superstition" but the concept of morality is no different then a Jew's concept of the "holy land". Jew's believe such things based on historical and cultural teachings, which is how most people reconcile the concepts of morality, and what is "right" or "wrong" (if there is such a thing).

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[KILNA]

Just because one is atheistic, doesn't mean one's sense of kinship and compassion for his fellow man goes away. Atheism is not a lack of feeling, it is the belief that divinity is incredulous. Your argument is fallacious, and you should be killed like the dog you are.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[ArticulateArne]

You make the parent's point very well. You say that OBL should die, but the only reasons you manage to muster are "simply because he deserves it" and "killing people is unacceptable." I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you have some stronger reasoning than that. So I'll ask: Where is your basis for morality? How do you know that killing people is a deed that should be punished?

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Darren Winsper]

Put simply, a modern society cannot operate without laws and a way to enforce them. I am an atheist yet I do more for the good of society than many religious people.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[BlueBlade]

Morality IS logical. I'm sorry. Morality as in "set of rules on how to behave so that the maximum number of people can have the maximum level of hapiness". That's the ideal society in which everyone would like to live in, where everybody is perfectly happy. But of course, it can never be reached.

So yes, using this goal as a start, we can define a general "morality". And it will be logical, it doesn't need to involve any kind of God or religion. The problem actually comes WHEN religion is involved somehow, because the various beliefs are often quirky and illogical, so they introduce sets of rules that have nothing to do with increasing the population's general well-being.

We can very logically conclude that, for example, murder is wrong. If you allow anyone to kill anyone else, obviously this rule will also apply to you too (risk of getting killed by anyone). No one wants their lives to be endangered this way, so for the general well-being of the population, murder should not be allowed. It's that simple.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Dwonis]

What credit should I give when I quote you on this? I've been trying to put that into words for a few years now, and you just handed them to me on a silver platter. Thanks!

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Trinition]

...most people reconcile the concepts of morality, and what is "right" or "wrong"

I submit that "morality" is the concept of doing what is good, or even 'not bad', for a society. A society in which things that are bad for the society are prevalent won't be around long.

How many societes do you know of wheremurder is ok, or, in fact, encouraged, between members of that society? I don't thing would be around long enough o put a dent in the historical record before every member wa dead.

Morality isn't some intelligent creation of a God. Its simply a side effect of our species' evolution. It so happens we are more "fit" to survive as members of a society, so any members who are anti-social, and thus didn't form a society, were less it. The result is a society, which by nature of it coming into existence, is moral.

Sure, there's deviots who murder, rape, etc. But its not the norm. Its just noise in the signal.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Dwonis]

Not directly, but whenever I discuss religion with theists (especially Christians), we get the impression that that's what they think.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[ArticulateArne]

"a modern society cannot operate without laws and a way to enforce them."

I would agree with this. However, the question still remains, how do we know this is a good thing? Why do we even want a modern society to operate? Simply because it's fun? Because we feel good about it?

And where do we get our laws from? Simply what works? What happens, then, when what works in someone's favor works to the detriment of another? How do we ajudicate the conflict?

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[debrain]

You have said that it is *sufficient* that morality comes from belief in a divine Creator. Certainly you did not say it was *necessary* to believe in a Creator for morality, because that is as noted elsewhere "patently absurd".

However, you might note that humans murder in the name of their colloquial deity more oft than any other reason. Certainly we mistreat our animals in the name of capitalism, and certainly slaughtering pigs is prevented in Jewish cultures because of an arbitrary stigma.

Are these arbitrary stigmas, overwhelmingly selfish motivations, and immoral justifications not the direct result of blind faith in a divine Creator establishment?

Does that clarify by interjecting thought, or did I completely miss your point? ;)

The most anthropophobic and justifably moral of religions, in my humble but correct opinion, Buddhism, makes a joke of the divine Creator, and rightly so - it has always been a desire of the Buddhist to answer what one can, live with what one cannot answer, and to know the difference. The divine Creator notion, then, certainly is not intrinsic morality - belief in such a beast is more a source of death and abuse and immorality than a moderator; at best they are independent variables in the morality equation.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Dwonis]

Two choices

No , there aren't.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Dwonis]

I also know that there is only one single solitary person who was ever moral in the entire history of the earth.

How do you know this? ("Because I read in a book somewhere that Peter said so" is not a valid answer.)

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[scotch]

Yeah, really, there is just one choice, at least that was my intended point (see parens at end of original).

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Rakarra]

Morality as in "set of rules on how to behave so that the maximum number of people can have the maximum level of hapiness"

This isn't morality though. Under that system, a minority (homosexuals, jews, irish, whatever) could be persecuted, and as long as the majority were happy with it, it would then be "moral" under that system. I seem to remember writing about these sorts of systems being proposed and shot down in my philosophy classes years back.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Dwonis]

Just re-read your post. It turns out I have nothing against what you said. Sorry.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[global_diffusion]

Obviously we don't; else the millions of athiests in this country would be raping and pillaging as we speak.

Oh fuck! I totally forgot. Be right back!

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[jcr]

If you believe every human being is given life by a divine Creator and He has said that murder is wrong, then you MUST believe that murder is wrong.

Your tautology above fails to address the fact that religion is frequently used as the premise for murder on a vast scale.

Generally most people agree that murdering humans is wrong, slaughtering pigs is OK, mistreating animals is wrong... If you think about it, it's not really set in stone, is it?

Maybe not for you, but your beliefs are not my concern. Your behaviour may become my concern, if you menace an innocent party.

-jcr

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[jcr]

You say that OBL should die, but the only reasons you manage to muster are "simply because he deserves it" and "killing people is unacceptable."

The imperative of killing OBL derives from the right to self-defense. He's killed thousands of innocent people, and there's no reason to believe that he will desist until he's dead.

-jcr

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[KILNA]

It was all just a set-up for one of my usual petty attempts at ironic humor, but I'll take your bait anyway. Firstly, religion is the natural result of not having a good process for understanding the material world. Without the scientific method, you are left with no clear framework for disproving supernatural claims. Humans, left to their own devices, will make up stories vice leave something unexplained... story telling is in our basic nature.

Regardless, the origins of religion are not principal to my point: my assertion is that atheism does not preclude morality. I am moral simply because I think I can live a fuller life in the here and now, not because I'm having my eternal afterlife dangled before me as a prize or punishment.

Human society is based on the premise that we can all have more fulfilling lives if, in general, we follow the "Golden Rule"... that there are rewards for treating one another as we would like to be treated. The desire to help your fellow man does not require supernatural beliefs, and I stick by my assertion that his argument is fallacious.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[mpe]

The imperative of killing OBL derives from the right to self-defense. He's killed thousands of innocent people, and there's no reason to believe that he will desist until he's dead.

I doubt he personally has killed thousands of people. Even if he has given the orders. then why should, the likes of, G W Bush and Ariel Sharon not be placed in exactly the same catagory?

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[KILNA]

I struggle to find the link, I think it was at http://www.infidels.org, but Atheists are significantly under-represented in prisons as compared to their ratio to the general population. This would seem to indicate that, at least by legal definitions of right and wrong, atheists are more moral than theists. Disclaimer: I do not think the law accurately represents all definitions of what is moral, my own included.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Jace of Fuse!]

Science is the search for truth.

Religion is the belief that you have the truth.

Law is the enforcement of what you believe to be the truth onto other people.

...

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[mpe]

Curiously, Allah that muslim's worship is the same god that christians/catholics worship.

Interesting seperation of christian and catholic... Jews, Christians and Muslims all supposedly worship the same god.

Not just metaphorically, but the Koran mentions Jesus, Moses and Noah by name. Islam however is based on the word of God/Allah as interpretted by Mohammed, and he is regarded as the infallible final prophet, and no-discussion-will-be-entered-into-on-the-subject- thankyouverymuch.

Islam has different sects, just as does Christianity and Jewdism.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Hard_Code]

my assertion is that atheism does not preclude morality. I am moral simply because I think I can live a fuller life in the here and now, not because I'm having my eternal afterlife dangled before me as a prize or punishment

EXACTLY. In fact, I find that people who are dogmatically religious to be LESS MORAL. Because they are guaranteed that if they follow a few rules set in stone that no matter what they do they will be righteous and will be rewarded in heaven. To that effect, religion removes human conscience. Now, if you are a Hobbesian, and think that humans in the "natural state" are some awful, dispicable creates who just randomly murder and commit atrocities against each other for no reason, I guess I can see why you feel in need to write down some "absolute rules" that people follow. I happen not to think that (and I believe science, as well as the history of many indigenous peoples and civilizations prove), but instead that on balance humans are generally "good" (if we were not "good", we'd just end up killing each other and we'd be extinct). If humans are generally good, the effect of religion (well, "religion" can be interpreted broady, let's say "organized religions with fixed absolute moral system"), is to erase human conscience, and replace it with some arbitrary absolute rules. If your religion has the misfortune of decreeing that it is the only "true" religion, you have instant strife because now it is your "duty" to convert the unwashed masses. Enter most crimes against humanity.

On the other hand, although an atheist *may* be amoral, in fact, an atheist is probably MORE moral, because an atheist has to consciously determine, manage and control their own set of values and morals and interactions with other human beings. They take responsibility. They can't defer to some "god" which says it is just naturally OK to do this but not that. In fact, I think short of one religion "winning" and converting the entire population, we will have to rely on humanism, our consciences, and rational thought. We will do a great disservice to humanity (and everything else involved, e.g. the environment) if we refuse to take responsibility for our own actions.

And if you don't like this post, well, it's not my fault, God made me do it (or was it the Devil? They are so similar, I always forget).

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[ArticulateArne]

The imperative of killing OBL derives from the right to self-defense. He's killed thousands of innocent people, and there's no reason to believe that he will desist until he's dead.

I think I agree with you. That leaves the question, though, where does the right to self-defense derive from?

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Snaller]

>We need him dead, simply because he deserves it.

That's what bin laden says about you.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[T3kno]

Show me one then. If there was one in history, surely there is one alive now. There are more people living now than have ever lived before, so show me one.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[tshak]

What you are explaining is a social effort to enforce a set of guidlines or laws to maximize the happiness of the people. This is not morality though. The entire concept of "what's moral is what makes you happy" is a complete human fabrication. I'm not saying that we need some kind of religion - that's not my point. I agree that the concept of morality makes sense logically, but that doesn't prove it's existance by any means. You can not prove anything by logic alone.

We can very logically conclude that, for example, murder is wrong.

What is murder? Who defines it? Should we kill bin Laden? Is that murder? If you take a world vote are you confident that the majority would rule that killing bin Laden is not murder (or "morally wrong")? And are you prepared to live your life and define what's "morally right" based on everyone elses opinion? There was a time not too long ago in history where the majority was catholic, and you would get persecuted if you had any sexual relations with anyone outside of marraige. I'm sorry, but I do not want the "majority" defining what's "morally right" for me.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[jcr]

That leaves the question, though, where does the right to self-defense derive from?

Derive it from wherever you care to.

-jcr

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[debrain]

I did mean anthropophobic. I didn't mean to coin the word, so much as express the idea: importance in things other than humans. In the Buddhist case it is more extreme: I may believe it to be almost a reverent nihilsim of things "human".

Thanks for the compliment & cheers

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Surt]

http://www.xenodochy.org/ex/lists/moraldev.html

People who don't understand how to reach morality without codification by religion should be introduced to kohlberg's stages of moral development.

It is usually a good shock to the system for religious addicts to find themselves (most of them anyway) very logically ranked at 4 of 6 (or 5 of 7 depending on which reading you find) while athiests (again most, not all) are ranked one or two levels higher.

The sad thing is that without better education for the masses, religion has in fact gotten a lot of people to level 4 who otherwise might be stuck at an even lower level, and be a greater danger to the rest of us.

The best solution to our current problem with widespread religious mass murder (IMO) is education.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Dwonis]

I'll rephrase: How do you know that there was even one single person who was moral? What is your basis for claiming that there was any such person?

As a side note, your demand that I "show you one", is akin to a person in 967 CE saying "Human flight is impossible ... Show me a human that can fly if you disagree!" Or, if you prefer a more technical example, it's akin to saying "this cryptographic algorithm is unbreakable because nobody has ever broken it!"

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Dwonis]

Hear hear!

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[T3kno]

So you're saying that I cannot say that no moral person ever existed because one may exist in the future. I am not saying that one will not exist, I am saying that one never has existed and that one does not currently exist. In 967 CE if I were to say that Human flight was impossible I would be 100% correct. Please think out your arguments before you try to prove what you cannot. One perfect person existed, and he still exists, he is not in human form on this earth now though, he is inside of me, I know him personally and intamately.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[KILNA]

Perhaps not... you are arguing on the basis that persecution of minorities is based on the happiness of those in power. But persecution is an expression of insecurity, and any pleasure drawn from it is likely to be a cover for dealing with darker emotions. I say that net happiness is not higher under mob rule, and cannot be morally justifiable under the "greater good" definition.

Farfetched but very true...

[JaredOfEuropa]

I remember when the Euro was in the "design" phase, and Dutch people wondered what was going to happen to the words "God is with us", etched in the rim of the old Guilder coins. Some were upset over losing those words on our currency. (Side note: the Dutch 1 and 2 Euro coins still carry those words, but who cares?).

Those were fun discussions! Arguments about our multicultural society, and separation of state and church, were all swept aside with counterarguments about cultural heritage and such. But those in favour of those four words would look quite shocked when one would suggest to replace the word God with Allah. Funny how such things work two ways...

Anyway... is this even worth being upset about? As someone rightly said, the children in school mostly cannot grasp the significance of these words, so them saying "under God" isn't a big deal. If you're not religious, you can deal with saying God, right? If you are religious, will God suddenly smite the US in wrath because the two words are removed? If you are of another persuation, will you go to hell for saying this?

get a real issue to concern yourself with, people.

Re:Farfetched but very true...

[MAXOMENOS]

Those were fun discussions! Arguments about our multicultural society, and separation of state and church, were all swept aside with counterarguments about cultural heritage and such. But those in favour of those four words would look quite shocked when one would suggest to replace the word God with Allah. Funny how such things work two ways...

I can kinda understand the conservatives' point of view there, since "Gott Mit Uns!" (sp?) was a Dutch battle-cry for so long during the Middle Ages. It would be like suggesting that the Romans alter "SPQR" to mean something else.

"In God We Trust" was never an American battle cry, but it does harken in some ways to America's Masonic roots. It may be worth preserving for that reason.

Re:Farfetched but very true...

[Decimal]

Anyway... is this even worth being upset about? As someone rightly said, the children in school mostly cannot grasp the significance of these words, so them saying "under God" isn't a big deal. If you're not religious, you can deal with saying God, right?

I in no way am trying to associate the Judeo / Christian diety with the following reference, in fact I'm only using it to make a point, but imagine if those two little words happened to be two different little words:

"Hail Hitler"

Do you now see the problem with having impressionable little children recite sayings that they probably don't understand?

Fouding Fathers Did Not Force Their Beliefs On Us

[GuyMannDude]

So much for the founding fathers with their Christian beliefs.

The particular religous beliefs of the founding fathers is irrelevant and they realized this. That is what is so amazing about the country they helped build. Example Numero Uno would have to be Thomas Paine who, as a Deist, wrote The Age Of Reason -- one of the classic books on free thinking.

GMD

Re:Not Pledge, But Act Of Congress Adding "Under G

[JaredOfEuropa]

The why is it still there?? (The "Under God" bit, not the court)

Insignificancy works both ways

[A nonymous Coward]

If those two words are so trivial as to be ignorable by those who are offended, then the reverse is also true: christians should be able to ignore NOT having those two words.

Re:From the Perspective of a Student

[King_TJ]

Yeah... I can actually see it both ways.

(I'm not arguing that the "under God" part belongs in there. Personally, I feel that it doesn't. I also realize that Einsenhower probably thought it was little more than a harmless gesture to have that added. Apparently, he sided with the Knight of Columbus's opinion that it made a nice addition to remind everyone that we should always be humble - and realize that our country, however powerful, was not the "end all, be all" by itself. Obviously though, people are reading a lot more than that into it, and it's offending people.)

When I say "I can see it both ways", I mean this: None of us are being forced to remain U.S. citizens. Sure, we're born into the country, and we can't do much about that. But as we grow up, we have the ability to make choices. I think most of us feel rather comfortable in the U.S. -- at least enough that we don't want to move elsewhere. If we're going to keep our citizenship, then we should also be willing to agree to pledge our support for the system we live under. In other words, don't blindly accept things government does that you believe are wrong. Use the rights you've been granted (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.) to speak out and try to get these things changed. Vote, too.

I see the "Pledge of Allegiance" as nothing more than that.... a publically recited promise (and reminder) to do our part as a U.S. citizen. Don't forget the last part of that pledge. It's referring to "liberty and justice for all". Who among us can say we don't want those things?

But, on the other hand, part of the very nature of our freedoms and rights in the U.S. includes the ability to choose not to recite such a thing. If you choose not to - I'm happy to defend that decision too. I just think maybe people look at it in the wrong light sometimes.

- Tom

Divided We Fall

[ONOIML8]

This looks to be one more way to divide what's left of the country.

What was the suit *really* about?

[Trinition]

As I understand it, the father who brought this suit didn't want his daughter to have to choose between feeling like an outcast and reciting something she din't believe in. Yes, he was an atheist. But even if the term "...under God..." were not in the pledge, she would still have to decide between reciting the pledge and feeling like an outcast if all the other classmates did participate.

Now the older Supreme Court ruling said that students can't be explicitly required to recite the pledge (or other items, I believe). I understand the official complaint i this new suit to be that there is still an implicit compulsion to participate for fear of bein viewed as an outsider by your peers.

Now, from reading comments under this story, I see many Slashdotters also have a problem with indoctrinating children with this pledge at all, regardless of the inclusion of a theistic phrase. But would this case have been brought without that phrase?

Is this case about implicit compulsion or separation of church and state?

Crutch or not it isn't as bad a smoke.....

[jsimon12]

Crutch or not, people who belive in anything, from Allah, Xenu, Rasta, Jesus, Jehovah or whatever. They live longer, they get sick less, when they get sick they have a better chance of recovering and take less time in doing so. Medical study after medical study have found this to be true. Whether or not you accept it thats cool, people need crutches, in some form or another though. And Atheists take their belief structure to the point at which it is a religion.

Re:Crutch or not it isn't as bad a smoke.....

[jafac]

Rasta was not a god - he was a prophet.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Whats so hard to understand?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

One can even interpret it to mean the "god" of science if you...

... are desparately looking for some way to simultaneously (a) keep "under God"; (b) include atheists; and (c) make it look like you're not violatng the First Amendment.

Nonetheless, you are.

Not my experiance.......

[jsimon12]

I have never met an Atheist that didn't at some point in the first day I got to know them tell me that they were an Atheist and God/Allah/whatever was crap.

Re:Not my experiance.......

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I have never met an Atheist that didn't at some point in the first day I got to know them tell me that they were an Atheist and God/Allah/whatever was crap.

Bad methodology: if person A is an atheist who happens not to be one who mentions it right away, how would you know? So all you're really saying is, "Every atheist who has told me he's an atheist has told me he's an atheist". Your select effects are overwhelming your data.

Re:Not my experiance.......

[ttfkam]

Sure you have. They simply didn't tell you they were an atheist and you assumed otherwise or, more likely, didn't think of them in a religious/non-religious context.

I would assert that there is a much higher concentration of atheists on slashdot than is present in the general public in the U.S. Check the discussions. It's actually quite rare for a religious/anti-religious statement to come up unless the story specifically brings up the topic.

By all means, check it for yourself. Look at all of the users who have been unabashed atheists in this discussion and read their previous posts. See how many of those posts are discussing religion when the story topic is not related to religion.

Think of it this way: All of those guys who wear purple underwear just come out and announce it within a day of me meeting them. It's annoying.

With that in mind, are you *positive* that you've known about the underwear choice of every man you've met? Are you sure at least one of them wasn't concealing their purple underwear fetish?

Atheists are everywhere. E-V-E-R-Y-W-H-E-R-E-!-!-!

Re:Not my experiance.......

[scotch]

Are you sure that your coverage is complete? IOW, of all the people you've known for more than a day, you can positively identify all of those that are atheists? Perhaps some people you've known for a while are atheists, but the subject has never come up? Perhaps you're judging the entire group by a vocal minority?

Rarely, when religion comes up with someone I've know for a while, and the conversation leads to self-identification, I'll say that I am an atheist. This frequently surprises people who assume all atheists wear it on their sleeve. Or perhaps it's a case of people always assuming that others are like them in thought and action. Me? I asume everyone is an atheist until otherwise indicated ;)

Citizens

[tconnors]

Someone should tell your president.

Good luck getting it through that A-hole!

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." -George H. W. Bush, 41st President

Re:it's kinda strange

[Pig Hogger]

Hardly. I'm Jewish. Now imagine how I'd feel if "under Jesus" was in the PoA. I don't believe in Jesus as the messiah, but I'd be pissed as hell. Same thing.

You can't be pissed as hell.

You're jewish, and jews don't believe in hell...

Dissenting judge is bad at logic

[Dirtside]

Justice Ferdinand F. Fernandez (enough F's? quick! get this man a stage name) partially dissented with the decision, and puts forth quite a bit of poor argumentation [1].

One of his quotes was:

I recognize that some people may not feel good about hearing the phrases recited in their presence, but, then, others might not feel good if they are omitted.

The logic here is that either way, someone will be offended -- if you don't include "under God", believers will be offended, and if you DO include "under God", atheists (or believers in other faiths) will be offended. The problem with this is that a vast majority of government laws, texts, and other actions contain nothing referring to God. He fails to address the fact that the phrase's presence in the Pledge is not about "feeling good" -- the Pledge, as an instrument of Congress, may not say anything EITHER WAY about religion or God. Omitting "under God" from the PoA no more denigrates religion than does omitting references to God from the Telecommuncations Act of 1996.

His main point is that the harm caused by "under God" is de minimis, meaning so insignificant as to have no measurable effect. I disagree on this point, although it is difficult to prove one way or the other, but I see it thus: The "under God" reference has been a part of the national zeitgeist for coming on 50 years. An overwhelming majority of Americans know the Pledge of Allegiance, and even if most never contemplate its meaning beyond reciting it occasionally, its values and meaning creep their way into our minds every time we hear it. This is not a bad thing in itself; anything repeated to you often enough will be ingrained into your consciousness.

But I don't think anyone can seriously deny that the majority of Americans see religion as something patriotic and necessary -- atheists are often seen as unpatriotic or un-American, even though such a comparison is, on its face, contrary to the definition of those words. Even former President Bush (the elder) said that he doesn't think atheists should be considered citizens, let alone patriots. "under God"'s presence in the government-backed Pledge of Allegiance has, for the last 50 years, undoubtedly left a mark on the beliefs and minds of Americans, and I would argue that it has at the very least contributed to our country's tendency toward credulous trust in the Almighty rather than reason and logic.

I've given away my bias here; I'm an atheist, and I agree with the court's decision. I also believe that "In God We Trust" should be removed from our currency, for similar reasons. Nonetheless, Justice Goodwin has acted properly in considering the case in a manner similar to what the Supreme Court has done on similar cases. Justice Fernandez's protestations seem to be based on nothing more than his own personal opinion, rather than relevant precedent.

[1] Justice Fernandez also appeals to emotion by suggesting that popular songs such as "God Bless America" or "America the Beautiful" may be taken away from us. He even mentions the third stanza of "The Star-Spangled Banner", our national anthem. Ignoring the fact that it is the fourth stanza that contains a reference to God (the version of the SSB that you hear at baseball games contains only the first stanza), I agree that he has a point -- however the point is not in what he says, but the fact that he says it at all. There will be loud opposition to anything preventing the government from referencing God (the First Amendment? what's that?), and attempts to do so will be met with emotional resistance. On the other hand, even IF the SSB is, by law, our national anthem, there is no law that I know of which requires it to be recited or sung on any government-sponsored occasion. (If there is such a law, then it should rightly be struck down, following the same logic.) Hence the SSB's being law (if it is) would quite possibly not fail the Establishment Clause tests so commonly used by the SCOTUS.

Re:Dissenting judge is bad at logic

[jafac]

Well, I'm a Christian, I love The Lord, and all that. But I agree, we need to get rid of this "under God" bit and the "in God We Trust" - in my opinion, it's UnAmerican (TM).

IF you remove choice from a person, you remove their ability to be GOOD of their own free will. So what does a good deed mean when it's compulsory?

I've *never* said that an Atheist is making the wrong choice, and I fully support their right to be left alone to practice or not practice whatever ideology they want. We all should have the right to be left alone.

Re:Dissenting judge is bad at logic

[n-baxley]

I think that the judge does a have a good point here. The pledge has to be taken by itself (apart from other government documents) and as it stands in it's current form (post 1950) when deciding how to handle it. Removing the phrase is a decidedly anti-religious decision, so yes the "believers" will be upset. By removing the phrase, the government is taking a stand on this issue.

Another mistake you make, and I've seen made in countless other posts here is that you pit athesits and other faiths against believers in God. By definition, anyone who is an not an atheist is either a believer or an agnostic (which you could hardly call a faith).

Re:Dissenting judge is bad at logic

[Danse]

The issue at hand is the act that added the phrase in the first place. That act was unconstitional, and therefore the removal of the phrase is the only proper solution. You can't just say, "oh, well it's there now, and you can't take it out because that would be anti-religious." It was pro-religious when the phrase was put in. That was the mistake that is being corrected here. The government is not supposed to take any sort of stand whatsoever on religious issues, so clearly, adding the phrase was unconstitutional.

Re:please???

[dbrutus]

Actually, it's likely not to stand and will provide a splendid opportunity to clarify whether the strict segregationists of church and state are correct or whether there is a legitimate public interest in promoting faith that is constitutional.

Let's face it. If the strict segregationists were right, the first Congress would have never ponied up for chaplains for Senate and House, George Washington would have never declared national days of prayer, and the SC would never have had their own tradition of an opening prayer each day before court.

The idea that a 3 judge panel 200 years+ after the passing of the constitution know better than the writers and all the intervening legislators, presidents, and judges is laughable.

Re:Currency

[Fez]

No, it is a constitutional democratic republic, wherein what the majority can do (via their elected representatives) to the minority is strictly limited. One thing the majority can't do is push a religious point of view on the minority via the mechanisms of the state. Doesn't (in theory, anyway) matter if it's a minority of one.

True enough, the constitution is there to protect the minority. However, officials are elected by the majority (where the electoral college isn't involved!) and they tend to elect people who are religious. And as proved by the fact that "under god" and "in god we trust" were inserted inserted, they will try to push it.

What irks me is that (a) it was allowed at all and (b) it took this long to come under fire. It either speaks to the fact that people who opposed it were not vocal, were afraid to speak up, or just plain didn't care. To me, the phrases had become so ubiquitous I didn't even consider them a testament to religion.

Pleding alliegence to a piece of cloth is a dumb thing to do, but the state is permitted to encourage it. Pushing statements about metaphysics, however, is clearly out of its bailiwick.

I agree... Here's an interesting piece outlining separation of church and state issues. (It specifically mentions the pledge and currency)

It doesn't stop parents, of course. 13 years (k-12) of catholic school were torture. :)

I've always been bothered

[Mike Hicks]

The Pledge of Allegiance has bothered me just about as long as I can remember. I'm pretty sure that I went along happily with all the other kids when we learned it in first grade, but that was the only year we recited it. Anyway, I've always been concerned about how there are different religions in this world, and that there are people who don't believe in any diety.

Anyway, I support the court's decision, but I suspect the Supremes will give it a big whack.

Re:it's kinda strange

[phutureboy]

it's up to the athiests (as the most vocal, organized, and generally accepted of these groups) to actually make something like this succeed.

Do you really think there is any significant population of atheists in the U.S.? Most surveys I have seen indicate that less than 1% of the population here labels themselves as atheist. A recent Newsweek article had a bunch of charts and graphs illustrating the breakdown of religious beliefs in the U.S., and atheist/agnostic did not even show up as a blip.

I know that as an atheist I feel very much alone in my area, to the point where it's not something I would mention publically (cept on /.) for fear of getting tarred and feathered. In fact, I don't even know any other atheists.

Does anyone know of a reliable online source listing the prevalence of atheism in the U.S. and/or other parts of the world?

flag fetish is new too.... for the age of the USA

[johnpaul191]

all those paintings (and Mel Gibson movies!) of revolutionary soldiers fighting with the Stars & Stripes in hand is kind of untrue. During the revolution a military band of American soldiers was much more likely to fly the flag of their State or Militia group.

supposedly the major motivating factor to have a flag representing all of the states was for ships entering the harbors of foreign ports. there was something about this on Discovery Channel or somehting a week ago, and they traced back to where the obsession with the U.S. flag came from.... but i forget.... bleep bleep sorry!
from what i remember it started about a hundred years ago, but i really am not remembering. maybe i had to go check on food.

Re:Currency

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Cliff Stoll quotes a CIA guy in "The Cuckoo's Egg":

In G-d* we trust, everyone else we polygraph.

* I don't type out His name in full.

Re:Evolution should be next

[josepha48]

There is a difference between not taking a class (opting out of evolution) and being in a class and having been forced to say the pledge that refers to god. What if the child is Hindu or Budist or believes in many gods, which god does this nation then fall under? What about athiest? For them it would fall under a none belief. What do they plug their ears too?

Evolution is just that a theory. So are black holes. Does this mean that a discussion of black holes and the possiblity that they are real is also a bad idea? Learnig about the theory of evolution is not evil, unles you consider having knowledge evil. Noone is telling you you must believe it.

The problem that you fail to realize is that the the bible that you read today in 'us english' has been transulated from Ancient Hebrew, to many other languages, like Latin and Greek and Roman, and interpreted, books have been dropped and added to it and then misinterpreted. There are many words that do not transulate or have been transulated with questionable transulations. Also before it was ever written down it was passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years. Do you think Abraham wrote about himself? Did Adam have a paper and pencil? Probably not. Ever play the telephone game? Things get misconstrued.

In the original text of Hebrew there are beliefs by people who spend their lives studing the bible that the words Nature and God are actually interchangable. Thus Nature is God and God is Nature. If this is true then evolution was both by God (as Nature) and creation was by Nature (as God) and BOTH Creation and Evolution are true! It does not matter which one then you believe becase they are the same.

open your mind and realize the possibilities....

Re:Joe Pesci and the new pledge

[Alsee]

with liberty and justice for all except the people that might possibly have considered being a terrorist at some point

You seem to have made a typo. That should read:

with liberty and justice for all except the people that might be considered as possibly being a terrorist at some point

-

Re:Simmer down QWZX

[M-G]

The "flag" is representative of the principles of the US, liberty and justice.

Which is what makes it all the more ironic that "under God" was forced upon us....

As an athiest, I disagree.

[brad.hill]

As much as I agree in spirit (ha ha) with the ruling, I am pretty disappointed by it.

Why? Because it throws gasoline on the fire of the paranoid delusions of many Christians in this country that they are somehow a persecuted minority squaring off with an evil govenrment committed to state-enforced atheism.

The Pledge of Allegiance has such enormous emotional and social weight behind it, especially post 9/11, that it makes a perfect rallying point for "the lengths to which the atheists will go." This decision is just begging for a major political backlash and reeastablishment of the Christian Right's morality in our national political dialogue.

It will contribute to the alienation of atheists and other non-Christians as "unpatriotic" in a time when that equates to "terrorist enemy" and constitutional protections are weaker than they have been in 60 years.

ARRRGH. What HORRIBLE timing.

Re:As an athiest, I disagree.

[fmaxwell]

I think that the timing was superb. As I see right-wing zealots chipping away at the Constitution post 9/11, I find it reassuring that the courts are unwilling to turn a blind eye to justice in the name of patriotism. If it inflames a few delusional Christians, so be it.

Re:As an athiest, I disagree.

[1010011010]

Why? Because it throws gasoline on the fire of the paranoid delusions of many Christians in this country that they are somehow a persecuted minority squaring off with an evil govenrment committed to state-enforced atheism.

You're right -- this is delusional. Just because they can't use the power of the State to enforce and promote their beliefs, they think they're being persecuted. Riiiiight. I suppose they won't complain about, say, the Taliban, then, since they were using the power of the state to enforce and promote their religious beliefs.

Re:As an athiest, I disagree.

[fmaxwell]

If "freedom of not hearing" overrules "freedom of speech," there will be no freedom of speech.

You are mistaking "free speech" for government-sponsored speech. While I have a personal right to state that a belief in God is silly superstition, I don't think you would be trumpeting my rights to free speech if I was a public school teacher being paid with your tax dollars while I said that to a classroom full of kids that included yours.

Re:As an athiest, I disagree.

[ArticulateArne]

Yeah, I do. I defended my position as &ltasbestos on&gt a creationist in front of my teacher and my whole biology class in high school. They were teaching evolution, I thought it was wrong, so I put my evidence together, and we had a debate. And I think it was a good learning experience for everybody.

Heaven forbid anybody have to stand up and defend what they believe. In a controlled, safe environment, it can be very healthy. And even if it's not, she's going to have to stand up for herself at some point.

Re:As an athiest, I disagree.

[1010011010]

The only ones "enforcing" their beliefs here are the atheists.

That's just wrong, and for several reasons. Firstly, "the atheists" are not making anyone do anything, this court case is about not endorsing a religion.

Second, you refer to "the atheists" like they are some organized group, but that's not the case.

Maybe if this case gets overturned, a Muslim will then sue to change the Pledge to "one Nation, under Allah." We'll see the Bible thumpers squeak, then, I imagine.

Re:As an athiest, I disagree.

[n-baxley]

... the paranoid delusions of many Christians in this country that they are somehow a persecuted minority squaring off with an evil govenrment committed to state-enforced atheism.

First off, I don't think /.ers should point and laugh at paranoid delusionists. Second, it seems to me very easy to make the argument that there is definetly a feeling of state-enforced agnosticism. This legal judegment is a perfect example of that. Third, why do you expect religious people who feel the pledge should not be changed to stand back and not fight over this. You can't say on one hand "We don't like this and we won't stop until it's changed because it's our right to gripe!" and with the other hand tell those "crazy Christians" that they have to shut up and take it. Religious people have just as much right to fight for what they believe in as do the atheists.

Re:As an athiest, I disagree.

[inkfox]

As much as I agree in spirit (ha ha) with the ruling, I am pretty disappointed by it.

Why? Because it throws gasoline on the fire of the paranoid delusions of many Christians in this country that they are somehow a persecuted minority squaring off with an evil govenrment committed to state-enforced atheism.

I don't know how many detentions and how much ridicule I suffered in school for refusing to say that part of the pledge, with the teacher keeping a watchful eye, ready to pounce when I wouldn't say it.

Word got back to other parents, which made school functions very difficult for my parents, and which got me punished repeatedly at home. Later, word got to my parents' church through students talking.

I don't give a rat's ass about fueling Christians' paranoid delusions when there are likely other kids being persecuted for real over their (non-)religious convictions.

Re:As an athiest, I disagree.

[brad.hill]

I do not think that being a Christian is, by itself, any sign of being crazy or irrational.

I do think that many groups thrive on creating feelings of persecution and minority status, as if we were somehow in the first century, not a modern state that has EXPLICIT PROTECTION for their (and everyone's) religous practice and in which they (Christians in general) constitute a large and politically powerful majority. Repeat after me: This decision is not a threat to Christianity. This decision does not force you to say you don't believe in God. It just says you can't be forced or coerced to say that you do.

The "enforced agnosticism" you talk about is only in the functions of government and what it requires of its citizens. This is a distinction that many, unfortunately, fail to make, and actually is a good thing for religion.

The seperation of church and state protects both ways. I think that only someone ignorant or delusional would actually WANT our political system, with all it's day-to-day vaguaries, corruption, etc., to be dictating their religious practice to them.

A sensible Christian, as much as a sensible atheist, should want the coercive power of the state to be kept well away from matters of their heart, conscience and soul.

Full Text of Supreme Court's Overturning Verdict

[gdyas]

"It is unconstitutional for the government to promote an establishment of religion. Except when we really want to."

Sure, it sounds like a joke now. Wait a year.

Re:Whats so hard to understand?

[dbrutus]

Actually, the right to tax an institution is the right to destroy it as the ability to levy a tax implies the ability to levy a punitive tax. As government is not constitutionally permitted to destroy churches (1st amendment, free exercise clause), churches must be tax exempt in their religious affairs operations.

As for qualifying for tax exempt status, every church has the same rules they have to comply. If anything, religious favoritism has been on a political speech basis with left-wing churches getting away with a lot more than right-wing churches.

In God We Trust. All others pay cash.

[sjbe]

Sums it up pretty well I think...

Re:it's kinda strange

[Dimensio]

I've seen figures that range between 1% and 10%, so I'm not sure if there really is a good answer.

One problem might be atheists who don't quite realise it -- they've bought into the false definition of atheism presented by theists who try to attach all kinds of trappings like an anti-Christian attitude or acceptance of specific philisophical tenets, and because they simply lack belief in any gods (which is the only defining quality of an atheist) they call themselves "agnostic" or "no answer".

Just a guess, though.

Personally I'm not shy about my lack of belief in gods. That is, I won't pretend to believe just to make other people comfortable; I don't go out of my way to mention it but if someone asks about my relationship with $DEITY I won't hesitate to tell them that I don't accept the existence of $DEITY as fact.

Re:it's kinda strange

[MoneyT]

Except it doesn't say "under Jesus". It says "under God" which the Jewish believe in.

Re:Whats so hard to understand?

[Peyna]

I always understood "no law respecting an establishment of religion" to mean laws that affect religious institutions. "establishment" meaning the Catholic Church, or some other religious institution. Not meaning the establishment of a national religion. Of course, that is included in my interpretation as well.

History Lesson

[Char Lander]

Okay just so everyone knows.

The original pledge as in, the one pledge went just like the one we recite today just without the 'under God' part.

One Nation, Indivisible, with liberty.... blah blah blah

It wasn't until I wanna say 1954 during Dwight D. Eisenhower's run as president that it changed. He legislated a bill to add the words 'Under God' after the words 'One Nation'.

One cause of this was the McCarthy Communism search and destroy action that was taking place. Everyone was all up in arms about communists and it was during this time that Dwight changed our pledge.

I have to say that I totally support the seperation of church and state. We cannot have a government that has over-tones of God written in it. It is the beauty of our system. Religous Freedom. We can choose to ignore or accept the existence of a diety. We can worship whomever we want. That is why America, the USA, has been called the melting pot of society. We have everything here. I am for it completely. After all I am about tradition too.

brief historical note

[RestiffBard]

the pledge was invented in the 1890s I believe. Originally it did not contain the "under god" part. that was added at the request of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic Fraternal Organization around the 1950s. Before some of you fly off the handle might I suggest reading up on this. One excellent source (you don't even have to read) is www.th-jefferson.org I'm not even going to rant at this point beyond saying that its nice to see that for once we're getting back to the actual constitution as opposed to these phony "traditions". Oaths and pledges have never been a tradition in a country founded by men who detested the very idea of an oath or pledge of allegiance. Its refreshing that in this time when so many of our rights are in jeopardy and the constitution is being contorted to meet the needs of national security that there is a moment of sanity. Ok, so its a little ranty.

Re:What is this country coming to?

[dbrutus]

In other words the majority of the founders' belief in God resulted in the wording being put in. So the founders weren't a bunch of atheists after all.

You, sir, are full of sh*t

[Aexia]

Its the same thing with God. They talk about divine intervention - aka God.

You've obviously never even looked at the constitution. Go read it yourself.

There is no mention divine intervention. There is no mention of a creator. There is no mention of God.

There are only two times religion is even mentioned is to state no religious test can be mandated for office and no law respecting the establishment of religion can be made.

Re:You, sir, are full of sh*t

[sg3000]

Wrong.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth

Thank, you. Please, post a retraction.

Hardly a need for a retraction. Spelling out the meaning of anno Domini is hardly an endorsement of a state-sponsored religion, so the essence of Aexia's comment is correct. I guess our Founding Fathers could have changed our method of writing years in the Western World to remove mentioning Jesus, but they had a big enough task in creating a new government. A la The Simpsons: "Not only are the trains running on time. They're running on metric time!"

Getting the country to agree to a new government is hard, but it would be close to impossible if you had to convince everyone, "No, it's not 1787! It's Year 11."

Re:What is this country coming to?

[dbrutus]

And the name of the religion that is being promoted by the pledge of alliegence is? Oh, it's not a particular religion but merely a promotion of faith in general? Why that would mean it's constitutional!

It's about damn time.

[Junior J. Junior III]

Now all they have to do is go and remove "In God We Trust" from all the money, and what not.

Ohio's state motto is "With God all things are possible" and this motto was upheld in a case from a few years ago as it "didn't endorse a specific religion." This was a bad ruling, in my opinion, because it's pretty obvious that it's NOT endorsing atheism, pantheism, paganism, hinduism, satanism, etc.

It's pretty clearly a nod to a (almost certainly Judeo-Christian) monotheistic deity who commonly goes by the name God (alias YHWH, alias Jehovah, the Almighty, the Father, etc.) Blech. You'd have to be pretty shortsighted to think that "With God all things are possible" is completely unbiased with regard to religious affiliation!

Re:It's about damn time.

[Alex Belits]

Tobacco is not addictive.
Enron executives did not know about accounting fraud.
Did Worldcom come up with an excuse yet?

Re:What is this country coming to?

[Yunzil]

If that doesn't sound like a God, then I don't know what does.

That's not what the original poster said. He said they didn't have Christian beliefs.

OT: Jews and beliefs about Hell

[angst_ridden_hipster]

Whenever you make a statement about what Jews believe, you're bound to be wrong, because you'll find some group of Jews who do believe the opposite.

Look up "Gehenna." It's a nasty place that (some) Jews believe the deceased go to for a period of time (up to a month; more precisely, up to the length of the period of shloshim) to be punished for sins and/or purified.

Gehenna is named for a valley near Jerusalem where the Cananites used to supposedly perform human sacrifice of children to Baal.

Re:OT: Jews and beliefs about Hell

[Pig Hogger]

Whenever you make a statement about what Jews believe, you're bound to be wrong, because you'll find some group of Jews who do believe the opposite.

That's true... A friend of mine says that the arabs are stupid; otherwise, they'd make peace with the jews, and within a month, they would have all killed each-other...

Re:OT: Jews and beliefs about Hell

[angst_ridden_hipster]

Ah yes, as they've done so dramatically in places where there is peace, like Europe and the United States.

Hardly a day goes by without another group of Jews slaughtering their brethren.

[!?]

Here goes...

[kaoshin]

I pledge alliegance to the flag
Of the united states of capitalism
Who screw the public
As much as they can
One nation
Under God
Except in school
It's impermissible
For great justice

Re:Whats so hard to understand?

[ocbwilg]

This is indeed true. There is no such clause in the constitution.

Just like the phrases "original sin" and "trinity" don't exist in the christian bible. But then that doesn't stop christians from using them to describe cornerstones of their faith, does it?

The Constitution does state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". What does this mean? Well, the US Supreme court used the words "separation of church and state" to put this concept into simple to understand words. Incorporating notions of theism and monism into the pledge clearly shows an endorsement of these concepts over others. That is why it is unconstitutional.

The nonexistance of the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Constitution is not only not insightful , it's not even relevant. It is however a quite misleading.

I have one question.

[Spunk]

How is this on-topic for Slashdot?

I'm not denying it's worthy of discussion, but why here? It's just not "News for Nerds," it's of a more general sort.

my letter to my senators

[macsox]

i'm in california -- but if anyone wants to use the verbiage:

As someone who cares passionately about issues involving the separation of church and state, and a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (au.org), I was overjoyed to see that the 9th District Court today upheld the intentions of the Constitution in declaring the addition of 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance, a pledge many schools force children to say, as unconstitutional.

My joy was quickly soured when I heard reports of the reactionary and nasty resolution passed by the Senate today, chastising the District Court which made the ruling.

I don't know what your personal religious beliefs are, but I hope that you can recognize that making children declare that the United States is a nation under God is an infringement of their free exercise of religion if they are not religious, or do not believe in God. Such an infringement is inherently contrary to the letter and spirit of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I am incredibly thankful that there exist checks and balances within our government, so that wrongs perpetrated by one branch of the government can be righted by another. As a Democratic Senator in a time of a Republican administration, I am sure you see this value everyday. It was therefore doubly distressing that the resolution passed should have been personal argumentative as well as constitutionally indefensible.

In these days of increasing governmental restriction of personal liberty at the hands of an Executive branch that dreams of a dictatorship, even the most minor victory against improper legislation and decisions should be resoundingly celebrated. That the Senate failed to celebrate this decision is saddening and a reflection that it is easier to go with the majority than to stand for what is right.

Hoping you can convince me that I'm wrong,

Yours, etc.

Re:Not Pledge, But Act Of Congress Adding "Under G

[DragonMagic]

Only the Ninth Circuit Court (mostly western states) ruled it unConstitutional, and as such, there is a few months before it becomes effective, to allow room for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal by the States affected.

Re:This Is Why We Are Angry

[Yunzil]

There is much to value in "decent, God-fearing people" and traditional American ways of life.

OK, then use the original Pledge, which didn't have the "under God" phrase, even though it was written by a minister. Oh, and it sounds better anyway.

But it is being used to suppress all religion, in the name of atheism.

Oh bullshit. You are free to worship any god(s) [or no gods] you so choose... on your own time and with your own money. I don't see the 9th Circuit Court saying that all churches had to be closed. What the "Establishment Clause" is is being used for is to prevent 'official' governmental proclamations/releases/statements/whatever from endorsing a particular religious belief.

this is a largely Christian society, and its rules are largely based on the good-ol' Judeo-Christian worldview.

Ha ha. Wrong.

we should celebrate the Pledge of Allegiance.

So, as I said, go recite the old version.

Big deal

[eyeball]

I was born Jewish, broght up athiest, then on my own began following the teachings of Buddha, and yet through all that, "one nation under God" and "in God we trust" never really bothered me.

Would someone please explain, in plain cause-and-effect, end-results, bottom-line, what would happen if kids continued to say that? Can't parent's just tell their children "Well Billy, when you start school today you're going to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and part of it says 'under God,' because the people who wrote that believed something we don't, and they aren't wrong, and we aren't wrong, and..." blah blah blah..

Re:Big deal

[freeweed]

I worried that God would be angry that I wasn't exactly following his rules.

I think you better have a talk with your grandmother, if this is the sort of nonsense she put in your head as a child.

Yeesh, people think kids today have problems, imagine the fear of .. well pretty much anything (this IS God after all), just for something you said.

Scary.

What sort of lesson is Newdow's daughter learning?

[hyacinthus]

Now, I'm a sort of atheist-agnostic myself, certainly not a religious man. And I've always seethed over the way that "...under God..." was crammed into the Pledge of Allegiance during the 50's. So I wouldn't be too displeased to see it go, yet, all the same...

I heard this story in a news item on NPR this afternoon, and a quote from the plaintiff Newdow, the man who filed suit because his daughter had to recite the Pledge in school, caught my attention: he claimed that it "hurt" (his word) his daughter to have to listen to those words. (Note: to _listen_ to them. Not to say them--as has been pointed out in this discussion, it has long been established that a child cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge.)

What the f**k? I mean, this kid, all her life, is going to have to hear expressions of belief that she has been trained not to approve of. (Note, _trained_. She's a second-grader; she's not old enough to have a truly independent opinion on this or anything, except maybe whether she likes broccoli or not.) She's gonna see people wearing crucifixes (and Stars of David, and pentacles, and whatever), she's gonna read and hear and see people talking about God and Jesus and Allah _wherever she goes_. What kind of lesson is it for her to learn, that a federal court has decided that she doesn't even have to _hear_ something she doesn't like, or that her father doesn't like?

I'm reminded of the imbroglio in San Diego a few years ago, when some atheist group or other tried to get the Mt. Soledad cross torn down. I could respect their arguments, and yet still think, "What a bunch of yahoos! It's a cross. There are lots of crosses around. Deal with it."

It's one reason that, even though I don't believe in God, I often can't stand the company of some atheists; they walk through life with a giant chip on their shoulders, ready to jump down the throat of anyone who so much as whispers the G-word.

hyacinthus.

I don't believe this

[gabbarsingh]

What the hell is wrong with you people?

I'm an immigrant and I look at many things in USA and say "ahh! here is where they got it right". Pledge of Allegiance is such a thing. So it's got a politically 'incorrect' word in it, modify it or improve it or something. But don't simply abandon it as in dropping a hot cake. Patriotism is like a value that must be instilled like good values must be instilled in a child, not to make one blind with great pride but to learn to care for one's country and people. And some sentences as in 'I love you' or 'I miss you' reinforce good habits.

Declaration Of Independence and The Pledge...

[ellem]

The DOI is really a rant about not wanting to be governed by a King who lives across an Ocean. It is in fact a Declaration Of Independence. So for all of you folks who are worried that its references to Divine this or that will render it Unconstitutional, stop worrying. In truth, it is mere a very nice thing that we have that has no power. It's like a family Heirloom.

The Pledge Of Allegiance is, in fact, a pledge. It probably _is_ unconstitutional to make children recite a Pledge Of Allegiance to anything or anyone. Of course if Saddam Hussien were forcing the children of his counrty to recite a Pledge Of Allegiance we'd all be very forthright in our disdain for such heiniousness.

Personally, I like the Pledge. I don't mind the God part; I simply replaced the phrase, or omitted it when I spoke it in the presense of Sister Mary Verylarge.

Of course the Media (/. included) will sensationalize this story.

If you want a story to sensationalize start talking about Flag Burning. Something every American should DO because we CAN. Nothing speaks of our Freedom more than the ability to BURN our FLAG.

Irony at its finest!

[rgriff59]

So, the ones that belive in a 'Supreme Being' are supporting the 'under god' inclusion by arguing that the phrase doesn't mean that much, while the atheists insist that the phrase 'under god' has meaning so it should be removed.

I don't care what side you want to take, that is something to think about.

Re:Brainwashing

[Skyshadow]

I can't believe that so-called freedom loving people submit their kids to this daily brainwashing.

Well, in their defense, small children aren't generally able to grasp the deeper concepts that are involved here, so starting them off with a simple "Like America because it's where we live" message is perfectly fine.

The problem is that so many Americans never seem to rise above this level of sophistication in their thinking about patriotism or what it means to be a US citizen, and they latch onto the symbols rather than the liberties which it represents.

It's sad, really. Consider it a good reason to spend time working on your kids' intellectual development -- read with them, talk to them, encourage them to understand not just what but why.

Re:it's kinda strange

[grytpype]

I can tell you that among the professional class in the Northeast United States, athiesm is widespread. Hardly anyone I know takes religion seriously. I'm sure there are regions and social strata that are more religious.

Typical SF bullshit

[gruntvald]

Just trying to divert attention away from promoting the homosexual message in schools, with books like "Heather has two mommies" and "It's not just for pooping!".

okay, let's hope the money is next!

[Tumbleweed]

Now all they gotta do is remove that offensive "In God We Trust" from the money, and I'll be much happier. They're about to redesign the $20 (to add more colour), so hopefully this will happen before that. I'm sure our money will still be ugly, but at least it'll be colourful, and hopefully, diety-free.

Re:okay, let's hope the money is next!

[alumshubby]

Naaah, the right thing to do is to just add an l between the o and d in God and make the backed-currency folks jump up and down in glee, pointing, clapping and saying "See! We were right all along!"

Next thing you know....

[warpSpeed]

We will not be able to have hot dogs at baseball games, eat apple pie, or sing the Star Spangled Banner....

Oh, and by this reasoning our legal tender is no longer constitutional, either.

Re:The Declaration of Independance

[qslack]

How can the Declaration of Independence be unconstitutional when it isn't even a law or an action? It was not even written by our government, it was written by a private group of revolutionists.

What is scary is the quote by Sen. Charles Grassle

[ferrocene]

R-Iowa:
"This decision is so much out of the mainstream of thinking of Americans and the culture and values that we hold in America, that any Congressman that voted to take it out would be putting his tenure in Congress in jeopardy at the next election," Grassley said.

His quote describes exactly what should NOT happen in today's society. Doesn't anyone do what is right, and not what will get him re-elected? Collectively, we're still operating in the 17th century.

A good start, but...

[ebcdic]

... how about getting rid of the rest of it?
How many other countries make their children
recite any kind of pledge of allegiance?

Looked at from outside the US, it's a strange blemish of
totalitarianism on one of the world's more
democratic countries.

I wouldn't have any allegiance to a country
that made me pledge it.

Re:A good start, but...

[JimPooley]

Exactly. The whole thing is kind of creepy. I mean, it would be like having kids in British schools sing 'God Save The Queen' every morning. And that would be patently ridiculous. Nobody knows the words anyway!

Re:please???

[khuber]

The idea that a 3 judge panel 200 years+ after the passing of the constitution know better than the writers and all the intervening legislators, presidents, and judges is laughable.

Is that why women couldn't vote until the 1920s?

Because of 144 years of infallible brilliance?

Please.

-Kevin

Re:EXACTLY!

[symbolic]

A voluntary participation in the pledge might be OK, but the fact that it's mandatory in most schools (at least at the elementary level) suggests not patriotism, but indoctrination. I'd venture to say that most kids who endure this ritual every day (as I did) have no idea of the implications involved.

Re:my $ is unconstitutional.

[dbrutus]

Pray tell, what is the name of the particular religion and who is the head of that religion?

Definition of Religion and Promoting Atheism

[PineHall]

It seems to me that atheism is as much of a religion as Christianity or Islam. The only difference is the lack of believing in a supreme being(s). I define religion as one's worldview. It does not have to have belief in a "god". To have the phrase "under God", shows where the majority of Americans are in their beliefs. To always avoid any phrase with (g/G)od in it is to promote atheism. I do feel that these lawsuits are tactics by atheists to promote atheism in an indirect way.

Re:Definition of Religion and Promoting Atheism

[radja]

no it isn't, since not mentioning god is not the same as denying its existence.

the phrase "I like daffodils" is neither theist, deist or atheist.

//rdj

Re:Whats so hard to understand?

[ocbwilg]

This is especially true when citizens are not guaranteed their first amendment right of freely exercising their religion in school.

What? Where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to freely exercise religion in school? BTW, you are aware that children do not have the same constitutionally protected rights as adults right? Especially children in state schools...

Many schools have claimed that for children to pray in school (or otherwise exercise their right of religion as stated in the constitution) breaks the "Separation of Church and State" clause, which doesn't exist!

The "Separation of Church and State" clause generally refers to the First Ammendment of the constitution which states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." While it does not use the specific words "separation of church and state", it does in fact express that concept. This has been explicitly stated several times by the US Supreme court in Reynolds v. United States (1878) and Everson v. Board of Education (1947). It has also been further expounded upon by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Lynch v. Donnelly (1984).

It's very common for the "christian right" to try to use the same fallacious argument as you have to decieve people into thinking that there is no such thing as a separation of church and state, even though such fraudulent claims fly in the face of common sense and over 120 years of legal history. If it's such a big deal for your kids to be able to have an official group prayer 3 times a day, send them to a private christian school.

Who's the patriot?

[VValdo]

You have two choices in life, you can go with the flow, ie conform, or you can be differnt. Changing the freaking rules is not an option. Why upset the rest of the country for a handful of people? Last time I checked majority rules buddy.

Didn't King George III say that in about 1776?

W

Re:it's kinda strange

[sconeu]

I think he was using it as an example.

Re:What is this country coming to?

[ZeroConcept]

"And the name of the religion that is being promoted by the pledge of alliegence is? Oh, it's not a particular religion but merely a promotion of faith in general? Why that would mean it's constitutional!"

In this case is not a specific religion but the group of monotheists religions that call the one deity "God". There are many people that believe in religions with a number of deities, in the case of Hindu religions you will find deities such as Shiva, Kali, Gamesh, etc.

Having government sponsored schools (in private schools promoting any particular religion is fair game) in which the children have to repeat the name of a deity every single day is considered inappropriate in a country in which the constitution prevents the government for favoring/censoring a religion or a group of religions.

How would you feel as a Christian/Jew/etc. If instead of "God" it was "Allah" or "Brahma"?

Cheers,

Other changes

[calibanDNS]

Hopefully this will be the first step towards several similar changes such as removing "In God We Trust" from our currency and taking bibles out of swearing in ceremonies.

Re:Other changes

[the gnat]

I've been wondering about that, though. I think people should be able to use Bibles in these ceremonies- I don't feel like it's a violation of anyone's rights. However, they should be free to use the Koran, etc., or whatever else they like within reason. Certainly we shouldn't force a Muslim/Buddhist/godless freak to swear on the Bible. I'm just not at all offended by the fact that the president is sworn in with a Bible. Nowhere is it said that politicians can't have religion, even if I sometimes wish they'd stop talking about God so much.

Re:Other changes

[psych031337]

Hopefully this will be the first step towards several similar changes such as removing "In God We Trust" from our currency and taking bibles out of swearing in ceremonies.

And when that is done, get the Bible rated to a status that disabled kids to read it alone. There is a lot of creepy, threatening, immoral, intolerant and outright violent and bloody stuff in there, that's for sure. I don't even want to count the amount of contradictions to the current constitution.

I don't care how a priest defines or interprets passages along the lines of "eye for an eye,...". And they don't care how Quentin Tarantino explains the violence in his movies. It is there, anyone can make up his own mind, but it sure needs a rating to protect the youth.

I think we should start a petition to pull the bible and have it placed on the list of banned books. Just for the fun of it. I'd like to see the bible belt uproar.

Since when is Christianity monotheism?

[Skyshadow]

Christians pray to Jesus, they pray to the holy spirit, they pray to saints which cover certain aspects of life, they believe in an Adversary... Since when is that monotheism? Even the Ten Commandments imply that God/Yaweh isn't alone, just that you're not to worship any other god before him.

Re:Time will tell...

[ocbwilg]

The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and the most overturned appeals court in the country.

If this is true, this could be overturned.

I don't know if it is the most, but it is pretty liberal and pretty frequently overturned. It also frequently reverses itself. In this case, however, it appears that they have sided fairly strongly with legal precedent set forth in the Supreme Court cases Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Lynch v. Donnelly (1984). As counter-intuitive as the decision may seem, it appears to be on fairly solid legal ground. All it would take to make the pledge constitutionally acceptable would be to remove the words "under god" which were added to it in 1954, so it should be an easy situation to remedy.

Re:Whats so hard to understand?

[symbolic]

I personally think this is a clever little semantic trick created by the religionists on the right.

The state, however, cannot promote or affirm the existence of God, as it does in the pledge.

Re:EXACTLY!

[AnalogBoy]

IMHO, and in my interpretation, the USA was meant to be Government free from the control of religion. Instead now it is Religion in key control of the government - I think it's a given that religion is the driving force behind most of the philisophical and moral decisions of the USA. A few key, token decisions notwitholding.

The USA is already too far gone. All we can hope for now is a revealing post mortem. Our only hope is the next generation, sickened by the current.

'Enemy Combatants' Arrested in San Francisco

[guttentag]

Thursday, June 27, 2002
A platoon of U.S. Marines stormed the United States Court of Appeals in San Francisco today and retrieved a group of "enemy combatants" that was allegedly plotting an attack against the moral fiber of the country.

The combatants, disguised as federal judges in black robes, were flown directly to Guantanamo Bay for detention.

Re:FINALLY

[ocbwilg]

Actually, the founding fathers would have been appalled at such a ruling. Perhaps you forgot a portion of the Declaration of Independence:

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."

I dunno about that. Creator could mean nature, the universe, the process of evolution, or parents. It's a far cry from proclaiming and endorsing a monotheistic view of the world.

Re:please???

[dbrutus]

The right to vote was granted by amendment. Pray tell what was the amendment that made a general promotion of belief over unbelief unconstitutional? It isn't that the founders were infallible IMO, just that they knew what they were writing.

Re:FINALLY

[ocbwilg]

As an athiest and a patriot I have been waiting for this for years! Think about it. What would the founding fathers think of us pledging that we will accept the impetus of government and deny our own right to rebel on a daily basis. In god we trust is the only thing left on the chopping block!

As a fellow atheist and patriot (contrary to what ***king George the First claims), I was quite excited to learn of the ruling too. In addition to "In God We Trust", we also need to make sure that Ohio's state motto "With god all things are possible" gets the axe as well. Then we can really celebrate.

Europeans, can I ask...

[Dirtside]

Can I get your opinion on which European countries are the best in terms of religious (and other forms of) tolerance? I'm getting awful sick of the religious attitude here in the U.S., and am seriously considering moving to somewhere that I don't have to fear getting lynched because I don't believe in a mythical superbeing. I've heard Finland is good, but it's kind of cold... suggestions?

Re:Europeans, can I ask...

[Shade, The]

I take it you don't live in the EU then? Have you ever been there at all? I would moderate you troll, sir, if I had any points.

You're measuring Europe by history for one; by the same reasoning you could argue that the US is inhabited by people who like to genocide Native Americans (falwed reasoning I know, but now more flawed than the parent). And you're also arguing that terrorism means intolerance - only true for the people blowing themselves up or planting bombs. And Europe is more used to terrorism (as it has a lot of borders, and therefore more friction), which means it's less likely to pass draconic laws.

And secondly, the EU *is* democratic. MEPs (Members of European Parliment) are elected in a democratic fashion. The only thing undemocratic about it is that the presidency is rotated from country to country. So one year it would be headed by the French, then after 5 years it could be the Germans, say, and so on and so forth. But that's really quite a sensible option, as it encourages fairness.

Furthermore, the vast majority of government descisions are national. Only when they affect the EU Declaration of Human Rights or some other higher law is there a problem. And member countries can always disagree (even though, generally, the policies of the EU are fairly sensible).

Re:What is this country coming to?

[dbrutus]

Is the establishment clause talking about *an* establishment of religion or is it an *establishment* of religion. The verbal emphasis matters and history is on the side of the first reading. The strict segregationists like the latter.

Re:What is this country coming to?

[ZeroConcept]

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

[Thomas Jefferson, letter to his nephew, Peter Carr]

"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. [Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a British physicist who endowed the Boyle Lectures for defense of Christianity.] It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist."

[Benjamin Franklin, "Autobiography,"p.66 as published in The American Tradition in Literature, seventh edition (short), McGraw-Hill,p.180]

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers."

[Priestley's Autobiography, p. 60, on Benjamin Franklin]

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

[John Adams]

Guess they weren't shy about their opinions

Cheers,

Re:What is this country coming to?

[Skyshadow]

Many of the founding fathers had degrees from seminaries and were religeous.. I dare say Christian. So to say our founding fathers weren't Christian, is inaccurate. 27 had seminary degrees.

The Founding Fathers were all men. This means that most (if not all) of them masturbated on a regular basis -- would *you* screw Martha Washington? We live in a country founded by prolific masturbaters.

What does this have to do with our conversation? Absolutely nothing, just like your "point".

Monty Python

[EccentricAnomaly]

"The next thing you know it will be illegial or unlawful to utter the word 'God' in public"

"Jehovah!, Jehovah!, Jehovah!"

Re:Not good

[GigsVT]

If all our nation stands for can be summed up in a few verses, a forced prayer to a cloth idol, or a religious slogan on the back of a coin, then what is there to be proud of?

The USA is supposed to stand for freedom, for opportunity. Those things are not compatible with brainwashing and indoctrination.

Lets swear off the practices of the people we have fought against in the past, and become the US we are claiming to be. Maybe then, children will seek out patriotic songs, and sing them with pride, rather than just playing along so they don't get into trouble.

While the ideals are good, They should not be

[crovira]

only applied to America.

The pledge of allegiance should be more of a decleration to human rights (the right of self-determination.)

The concept of the nation, any nation, which always seems to bind mind and body into some concept alleging to be larger than the individual but always sems to do it at the expense of the individual, should be eliminated.

How did we get here?

In the beginning was the nation state. But they kept warring with each other over land, the politics of control (surely nobody remembers "The Politics Of Dancing,") and marketing rights.

Then we continued with religion. Millions died, slaughtered for something which the best religion could never substantiate. (Pantheism pits the gods against each other. Monotheism pits men against each other. The latter is proving to be even more destructive than the former. Do away with both and you'll be happier. They ALL suck. Doesn't matter which. They start with a suspension of disbelief and slide down from there.)

Then we went on to nationhood. Millions more died over the course of the last hundred years and we close the millenium with unprecedented slaughter. (but its was back to the nation states again. (The first world war, the war that was supposed to end all war, was faught over the Prussians pig marketing rights into Silesia, Serbia and the Meditteranean nations. Look at what Churchill wrote on the cuses of the conflict.)

How about we get our heads out of somebody else's ass-hole and breathe free for a change.

How about pledging to not knowingly hurt, main and deceive other people. That's all.

Hey it could work. The Catholics have lapsed into poedophilia and benign indifference on ten lousy commandements and seven deadly sins.

You, sir, are still full of sh*t

[Aexia]

"In the year of our lord"

That's it? A date using the Gregorian calendar? How else were they supposed to date the document? That's how all dates back then were written.

Where's the "divine intervention" you claimed was mentioned?

Not just "under god"

[Pseudonym]

I'm waiting for the day when someone brings a lawsuit on the grounds that they worship neither the flag nor the republic for which it stands.

As a matter of interest, do non-US-citizens who attend US public schools have to recite the pledge?

Re:Not just "under god"

[ArticulateArne]

Uh, yeah. I never celebrated Halloween when I was a kid. Whenever our class had their party, I went to the library or something. We didn't think it was right to get dressed up like witches, etc, so we didn't. Didn't bring a federal case, just didn't participate. End of discussion.

Re:Not just "under god"

[i_am_nitrogen]

I seem to recall a teacher violently escorting a student out of the classroom who refused to say the pledge.

You'd be surprised though, by how tolerant of other views some religious people can be, and likewise, how intolerant some atheists can be.

There was a girl in my AP calculus class who was an orthodox atheist, and I'm a devout Christian. Naturally there were never arguments, but quite frequently the teacher had to interrupt our class-wide discussions because class had ended. Everyone was mature enough to acknowledge and accept others beliefs, and I'm [ABORTION IS MURDER] sure most of those involved found the discussions to be educational and interesting, including the teacher.

Re:Not just "under god"

[Pseudonym]

You'd be surprised though, by how tolerant of other views some religious people can be, and likewise, how intolerant some atheists can be.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. People are people. Presence or absence of religion doesn't change that.

My inner armchair psychologist thinks that many "theists" are exclusive (i.e. exclude other religions and non-religions by definition) and many "atheists" are "anti" (i.e. define their position by being "not theists", thus setting up an irrevocably contrary position from the start). This makes the whole field of religion in particular a breeding ground for intolerance no matter what side you're considering.

Disclaimer: By "theist" and "atheist" here, I mean something specific, namely, someone who bases their identity, or perhaps the wrong part of their identity, around the concept, rather than someone who just happens to believe or not believe in one or more deities. Used in this sense, Madeleine Murray O'Hare was an atheist, but Alan Turing was someone who just happened not to believe in any deities. I hope that readers will forgive the abuse of terminology, but I hope you take my point.

The emphasis in all this is on the word "some". As in all controversies, it's the most extreme elements who are the loudest. Some people are very tolerant. Some people are very intolerant. Most don't care, or at the very least, it never becomes an issue.

I've personally found that geeks are some of the most tolerant people you'll find. I think it's something to do with having spent an entire childhood getting hell for being different. It makes you more likely to tolerate difference in others, so long as you are different for the right reasons. Sheep are not tolerable, but non-sheep can be found in all creeds and we respect that. That way we can get on with the serious flaming over issues that are truly important, like which software licence is best, or which operating system kernel will take over the world.

Re:This has gone too far

[Fester213]

"Our freakin' country's motto" was "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) when it was founded. "In God We Trust" was substituted for it on currency in 1955, during the McCarthy era, at the same time "under God" was inserted into the pledge of allegiance. The reasoning behind both was to distance ourselves from the Godless Commies.

What about religions that beleive in multiple gods? What about atheists?

Regarding the girl in your example, did you read exerpts of the decision? The court ruled that the current precedent prsented an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting". The Cold War was a whole lot of no fun for everyone, and those two phrases are artifacts from it that need to go.

Re:What is this country coming to?

[ZeroConcept]

It means that the government cannot have a stance on religion other than neutrality, it's none of the government's business to promote or censor any kind of religious movement whether established or trying to establish. It means that the government as an entity should have no influence to the acceptance or rejection on any religious beliefs.

It grants individuals and organizations total freedom in promoting or censoring any religious beliefs using legal means as long as such effort is not being sponsored by public funds.

Re:This Is Why We Are Angry

[Matthew Weigel]

Good Lord, we even have people posting here who object to the non-religious part of the Pledge.

You betcha. Theologically it smacks of making the State the state religion, and is thus idol worship, and practically, it's low-key brainwashing.

Are the United States so grand? I'd rather be here than living in China, but that's hardly a vote of confidence. Should I so completely pledge myself to this country that I would be unable to ethically decide, "I like that country over there better"?

If our national consciousness has an ounce of self-preservation instinct -- and much of my point is that we have lost that culturally

Are you kidding me? The founders of the US made pretty clear that they were trying hard to make a good nation, but that, inevitably, it would be a bad nation, that might need to be overthrown, or at least shaken up a bit... and that the preservation of the state should be less important than the preservation of the rights of the people.

The preservation instinct is what makes the country bad, because the tiny little parts of the country can't see whether a change that hurts them hurts the nation, or helps it.

The preservation instinct leads a bad President to take away our rights before we take away his power. The preservation instinct leads us to inculcate our children with a blind love for the US as it is, so that they will preserve it.

Re:it's kinda strange

[rodgerd]

There are plenty of theists who don't believe in God. Ever heard of Shinto? For that matter, various Buddhist sects disagree about a supreme being.

And, as an atheist I do find it damn offensive when people try to get me to go along with their stupid delusions.

don't party too hard!

[feed_me_cereal]

After looking arround at most of the posts on this site, I don't think you have to worry too much about panic over this. Well, at least on this site :) Perhaps you live near where I did in Indiana... There might be some good counter arguments to pulling that phrase out of our money, but yours is silly. The constitution dosn't tell us to seperate religion only from government utilities which everyone is forced to use... The idea that you're not forced to use cash is a stretch anyway. Not every homeless person I know has an American Express card, but they do have some cash from time to time.

Re:don't party too hard!

[rhaig]

my counter arguments to pulling that phrase out of our money was a joke. (didn't come across that way though apparently)

I doubt the argument to take "In God We trust" off our cash will fly, but I bet some california liberal will try.

Pascal's Wager Sing 'Dis Song

[dmaxwell]

Dooo Daaa Dooo Daaa! Pascal's Wager sing 'dis song oh doo daa daaaaayy!

Inplicit in your posts is the idea that only your belief system contains the key to moral and ethical behaivor. Everybody else must be on a greased slicky slide to Hell. The dilemma you are posing is a form of Pascal's Wager.

The most common form of Pascal's Wager goes thusly: If you believe as I do then will reward you or least refrain from punishing you. If you don't believe as I do then you risk terrible consequences for being wrong. You have nothing lose and everything to gain by converting to my beliefs. It is a false dilemma because we might both be wrong. It may actually be the case that Zeus is pissed as Hades at losing all of his followers and that we all walk around in danger of being used for lightning bolt practice.

The key phrase is "Without a set of morals based on something" "Something" most certainly isn't limited to "be a Judeo Christian or else!!!" That isn't a basis for morality anymore than being conditioned with puke-up drugs strapped down in a movie theater is (Clockwork Orange). Come to think it, the character that saw through it was a hellfire and brimstone pastor. In both cases, the motivation for "good" behaivor is avoiding pain either gagging or hellfire. I've known plenty of ethical atheists and unethical theists (and vice versa to be fair). The more thoughtful theists tend to acknowledge non theists can be ethical or even "moral".

The problem here is an implicit assumption. That assumption is "Only God is fit to decide what is good." If God suddenly decided that it's your moral duty to commit a murder a month would you do it? This is not as silly as it sounds. God is commonly held to be omnipotent. This includes the ability to reverse the meanings of "good" and "evil". If God does not define what is good and evil then those meanings are accessible even to those who are not Judeo Christians. Again, most Christians seem to grok this. I've even sat in sermons that made the point that morality requires the exercise of judgement.

If I shared your viewpoint I could logically conclude that atheists/agnostics are all homicidal libertines who just haven't been caught yet. If you don't believe this then you're engaging in some rather confusing philosophizing. Since atheists are no more murderous or larcenous than anybody else then what do you suggest keeps them in check? I think they'll take some exception to "afraid of getting caught".

Re:Pascal's Wager Sing 'Dis Song

[hey!]

That assumption is "Only God is fit to decide what is good."

What is ironic is that in medieval christianity in the west, it was believed that issues of morality should be considered rationally. That rules of moral human behavior were based on what was good for humanity, not arbitrary rules set down by God. Granted,in this context, it was assumed that God existed and knew best what was good for humanity, but a Scholastic philosopher would not argue that an atheist has no basis at all for making moral decisions, although he might argue that the atheist would likely be led astray.

Re:Pascal's Wager Sing 'Dis Song

[ripler]

Morality changes. It is not set in stone. Read history.

The Victorian era promoted great changes to the moralities held by that society. We are still suffering under its effects today in the US.

The Industrial Revolution, weapons of mass destruction, the telephone, computers, have all changed morality.

Whether they loosen or tighten the moral code in your opinion is of no consequence, but these things do shape our society. Morality is a product of our society, and it is different for various groups of people around the globe. Some of those groups do involve religeon, but not all.

To proclaim that one view of morality is above another because said so, is arrogant, dangerous, and probably leads down the road to mutual destruction.

This is precisely the reason that the McCarthy era government should have never included "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I am of the opinion that this is the best time to bring up a debate about the ammended Pledge. We should be sending a sharp reminder to our representatives that we will not hold for the same type of government which desires to take our freedoms for the sake of fighting "Terrorism". It is far too remnicent of the "Red Menace" illusion which plauged our culture for multiple generations.

We don't need sheep in the White House, or Congress. Bring on the revolutionaries, and give us our freedom!

Weigh your morals carefully, yourself. It can take a lifetime of contemplation, but can be very rewarding.

Re:Simmer down QWZX

[TheFrood]

It's through the pledge the children start to learn that there are higher principles than simple "me first moral relativism".

No, all the pledge teaches children is that the United States is a Republic for Witches' Stands.

No one learns anything by reciting a canned pledge. The time spent reciting the pledge every day would be better used to teach genuine civics lessons about what this country is supposed to stand for.

TheFrood

Government ~ Science

[mshomphe]

In fact, government should deal with the Divine much in the same that science does (should?): Be agnostic. State religion is bad (see: ), and state persecution of religion is bad (see: any of the aforementioned theocracies, in addition to China's dealing with religious groups). The government is supposed to encourage public discussion and free expression. Fundamentalists and atheists can argue til they're blue in the face, but when it comes to public policy, God gets in the way. We can't demostrate that God encourages certain rituals (communion, etc.), but we can arrive at good public policy through rational discourse that's devoid of the Divine. Although many religions prohibit murder, it's not a religious prohibition, since it serves a social/secular purpose that transcends individual rights (so if I believe God wants me to kill Slashdot geeks, the rights of other people to live trumps my religious beliefs.)

In the same vein, science cannot admit or prohibit God. Admission means that we have demonstrated the existance of the Divine. Saying that the Divine does NOT exist is contrary to the scientific method; namely, you cannot prove a negative.

It's a very fascinating conundrum: How to deal with the Divine. In general, it seems like the best policy for both science and the government to pass over it in silence.

Re:This has gone too far

[smagruder]

How loud can I yell AMEN? :)

"WWJD"

[1010011010]

I tell people that stands for:

"What Would Judas Do?"

hehehe

Re:Actually, it probably will be struck down...

[Zeinfeld]

Considering that the Suprime Court itself starts all it's session with the phrase "God save the United States and this Honorable Court!", I would say that the odds of this being struck down by the suprime court are pretty high indeed.

The issue there would be standing. The only people with standing to object would be the supreme court justices theselves. However the Supremes did rule that a certain judge is not allowed to display the ten commandments. Having seen the item in question I think it should have been carried on grounds of taste alone though, the thing looked like someone made it in their backyard out of paper mache, spray painted it poorly and sold it to the gulible through late night infomertials.

The point about the pledge is that there is exactly the type of overt coertion that the court has struck down in previous prayer cases.

However since the initial rulling is simply that the lower court cannot throw the case out on de minimis grounds it is clearly not going to be going to the supreme court for quite a while. The supremes do not get involved until a question is 'ripe' that is usually not until all the lower court processes have been completed. The appeals court rulling will make it very difficult for the lower court to do any

Meaningless Words

[thales]

"The words behind the pledge are lost because they learn to recite them like robots long before they can really understand the implications of the words."

It's been a very long time since I was in school but I can still say the pledge Without giving it a thought the words just spill out of my mouth leaving no impression on my mind. I was also in school before manditory prayer was banned so I can also parrot the Lords Prayer without thinking about what I'm saying.

Think about that, a Pledge, which is a solem oath and a Prayer which is susposed to have been authored by God himself (If you beleave in that sort of thing) being reduced to meaningless noises that students squak out like good little parrots.

It Amazes me that the strongest foes of manditory recitals aren't the people that strongly beleave in the pledge and/or prayers, yet the Patriots and Fundimentalists are allways ready to have the words that mean so much to them turned into a series of sounds that have little or no meaning to many of the students who are forced to mouth them.

Re:Meaningless Words

[mpe]

Think about that, a Pledge, which is a solem oath and a Prayer which is susposed to have been authored by God himself (If you beleave in that sort of thing) being reduced to meaningless noises that students squak out like good little parrots.

Wonder how long before the US constitution winds up the same way. Assuming that has not already happened...

Re:Meaningless Words

[thales]

"Huh, never heard about that claim. Probably because I'm not American myself. Do some people really claim this?"

This isn't just an "American" claim. For most of the last 2000 years Christian doctrine has been that God manifests himself as three personalities, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus is susposed to be the second personality of the Triune Christian God. How someone can hold this belief and also claim to be a Monotheist is something that has never made a lot of sense to me, but that's beside the point. The Christian Bible claims that Jesus (second person in the Triune God) was the Author of the Lords prayer.

Re:What sort of lesson is Newdow's daughter learni

[Dirtside]

The point is that what she's hearing is the government telling her that there is a God. It's not telling her that there are people who believe in God or gods; it's telling her that the U.S. government supports the idea that there is a God, and that we are somehow beneath him. This is harmful because it violates Newdow's right to direct his daughter's religious education: the government is teaching her about religion, and that is not its place. That's WHY we have the Establishment Clause.

Nobody's complaining (well, nobody sane anyway) that private individuals don't have a right to preach their religion to people they run into. They have as much right to preach at me as I do to ignore them or preach right back at them. Newdow's daughter will, undoubtedly, encounter myriad religious symbols in her life, but there is no law saying that private individuals cannot wear religious symbols or promote religious belief. There IS, however, a law saying that the GOVERNMENT can't do it.

Whether you believe in God or not, whether you believe that we really are "one nation under God", it is inappropriate for the government to take that stance.

I'd like to suggest

[Greyfox]

"One Nation Under Greyfox"

Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? I'll need the reins of power turned over to me by next tuesday, though...

Re:Simmer down QWZX

[Zeinfeld]

Er, it's not a coincidence that Hitler and Stalin arose in socialist countries

Absolutism can arise in any country. Hitler's National Socialist Party was the other end of the political spectrum from the socialists and used fear of socialism and communism as a principle plank. In fact until the Nazis burned down the Reichstag to create a pretext for locking up the Communist deputies and thus giving Hitler a sufficient majority to pass the enabling act the Nazi party advertised itself as an anti-socialist party and kept the anti-semitism stuff rather more quiet.

In any case the party name was not choosen by Hitler. The Nazi party was formed long before Hitler joined and was a pretty obscure party whose platform and leadership Hitler pretty soon side-lined.

Given the current situation in the US in which people are held without trial, the government talks openly of bypassing the courts with military tribunals and the President is 'elected' on a minority of the vote after going to the supreme court to stop the votes being counted it is probably time to recognize that liberty, democracy and freedom are being protected in the US with about the same dilligence that Anderssen audited the books of Enron, Worldcom and Waste Management.

Two points

[ffej32]

First of all, if everything of this manner that contains any reference to God is to become unconstitutional, as the trend seems to be, shouldn't the Decleration of Independence, which contains the words "God" and "creator", be next on the chopping block? If this is so, do we go back to being a British colony?

A bit more seriously, many may argue that removing the phrase "under God" will fix the whole "establishment of religion" thing. It seems to me, though, that all that is really happening is that one groups of people's way of seeing the world is being thrown out in favor of a different group. What religion really comes down to is how a person views the world. The act of throwing out this phrase simply replaces the worldview of those who believe in a God (statistically the vast majority in this country) with the worldview of those who do not believe in a God. In the end all that is accomplished is a replacement, rather than a removal, of ideals.

Dear Outraged Senators

[KagakuNinja]

I know you feel the need to demonstrate how positively furious you are at this ruling, and even now, are contemplating constutional amendments. Perhaps your legislative energies can be better spent dealing with more pressing matters, to wit: Al-Qaeda, executive branch attacks on the rights of American citizens, our spiraling budget deficit, and the middle east crisis. Thank you.

Concerned Citizen

Please reconsider

[alienmole]

Backing down from your beliefs because you're afraid of other people's intolerance is not a good thing.

What you're suggesting is at the opposite extreme from what e.g. Rosa Parks did by refusing to allow a white passenger to take her seat on the bus.

This court decision is a big step forward, and a sorely needed one. If you simply sit back and allow religious zealotry to drive the national agenda, especially in this time of reduced rationality, I can guarantee you that you won't like the results.

Wow, I get to refute Pascal's Wager *again*.

[Wntrmute]

Just for a minute consider, what if your wrong. I know I will fair a lot better if I'm wrong than you will if you are.

What if you're wrong, and the Muslims are correct? Or the Jews? Or the Hindus? Ancient Greeks, Babylonians, or Egyptians?

That's leaving aside that if there is a god, I'm betting he's clever enough (omnipotence and all that) to see through me if I'm just pretending. Beliefs aren't something you can just up and change. Atheists can't just wake up and say "I'll beleive in god today" any more than a Christian can wake up and say they've decided to worship Ra.

It's a matter of choice

[TheRedHorse]

I'll probably get modded down for this because I'm sure it's already been said but here it is:

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "Article [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." A little history on the pledge:

The pledge was first written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. He was a baptist minister and a christian socialist. Orginally it wasn't a law, just a tradition, the first pledge didn't include the words "under god". Those words were added in 1954 by the U.S. Congress after protests to add "under god" by a christian group called Knights of Columbus. At this point it became not only a prayer but also a patriotic oath.

Up until 1954 when Congress got involved the pledge wasn't supported by the government at all, it was a tradition spread by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution. But when Congress got involved then it became a constitutional issue but was passed with out conflict.

Although it did "pass" the Congress as in they did vote on it, it became a "public oath" not a law therefore excluding it from the constitutional question because the First Amendment specifies making a "law" for official state religion.

It was passed in an effort to stop communism because as per marxist doctrine communist states are officially atheist, as in, any religion is outlawed.

But the key questions, does it support christian beliefs? Yes, of couse, it is a christian prayer written by a christian and passed by a government largely made up of people who claim to be christians elected by a christian majority of citizens. Is is unconstitutional? It depends. The supreme court will probably say no when it is appealed to them just as to not create controversy and divide within the people.

It's really a matter of choice though, I personally see nothing wrong with it because it isn't a law and no one is making you say it. But's it's always going to be straight down the middle, atheists will say one thing christians will say another, jews another, buddists another. Doesn't matter which group you pick everyone will say something different.

No matter what you do you won't make everyone happy, and someone will just say that taking "under god" out of the pledge is also unconstitutional because the First amendment also says that the government can make no law "prohibiting the free exercise of a religion".

So it all comes down to what a individual chooses but this is true to nearly every issue I can think of.

For note, I am a christian although I can't stand organized religion, it disgusts me. Mainly because of the division between catholics and protestants etc... Each group trys to say that your way or christianity is wrong becaus it's not their way.

I think everyone should have the right to chose to have a religion or not have a religion and then chose to practice their religion any way they see fit. Also they shouldn't pressure their belief's on anyone else who doesn't want it. Have I always followed this guidelines? No. Should I have? Yes.

That's what I think at the moment, if you disagree that's your right and I hope you will post in this forum with your side of the issue.

Re:Simmer down QWZX

[Zeinfeld]

Er, it's not a coincidence that Hitler and Stalin arose in socialist countries

The pledge of allegiance was originally written by the socialist clergyman Francis Bellamy.

The phrase 'under god' was added because the pledge sounded like the loyalty oaths uttered by 'godless communists

Re:From the Perspective of a Student

[thales]

"the government doesn't advocate the Judeo-Christian beliefs that it was founded on."

I Would suggest that you study a little real history instead of the drivel the so called conservatives spout. The Philosphy of the 17th and 18th Centuries played a far larger role in the founding of the United States than "Judeo-Christian beliefs".

I'll give you a big clue, in 1776 when that band of rebels were ready to formally break with England who did they select to lay the ideals that the new nation was fighting for on paper? Jefferson, a Deist, a man who openly admitted that he didn't beleave in the divinity of Jesus of Nazarath. Does that sound like the man who would be selected to launch a Christian nation?

Pull a Dollar out of your wallet and look at the back, just under the pyramid, and you'll see the Latin phrase "novus ordo seclorum" A New Secular Order. The founders of the United States intended this to be a secular nation, NOT a Christian nation.

John Locke had far more to do with the ideals of the USA than John and Luke.

Re:EXACTLY!

[AnalogBoy]

I feel compelled to dignify that with a response, even though i know i shouldn't.

Nobody should have undue control over anothers life, at least in the aspect of what is morally right or wrong. That said, to quote oliver wendell holmes, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Interpret as you will.

Re:This Is Why We Are Angry

[fmaxwell]

Right now, I think, we are swinging too far in favor of minority opinions; the government should not be compel us to deny our heritage in order to make immigrants more comfortable.

So, which tribe are you? Apache? Navaho? Seminole?

As to your ill-informed comment about immigrants, the majority of immigrants coming into this country are Christian. They became that when the missionaries destroyed their religious art, treasures, books, etc. and forced Christianity on them.

Re:it's kinda strange

[Dimensio]

The "official" explanation around alt.atheism is thus:

Atheism implies a lack of belief in deities. "Weak" atheism implies nothing more than withheld belief based on lack of evidence or ignorance of the concept. "Strong" atheism implies the outright assertion "there are no gods". Many monotheistic people incorrectly assume that atheism is the assertion that "there is no God", ignoring that an atheist lacks belief in all deities, not just one popular one.

Agnosticism is the belief that there is no way to know if a god exists or not. It is thus orthagonal to atheism/theism, an agnostic could have "faith" that a deity exists and be a theist or an agnostic could lack "faith" in any deities and thus be an atheist.

It's fun educating new fundies who barge into the newsgroup to tell us what we "believe" when in truth the only commonality amongst atheists is a lack of a belief.

This country might have less atheists...

[Vegan Pagan]

...if our leaders didn't try to mandate religion. That's something they should consider.

Proving the point

[alienmole]

You prove the point by your self-centered attitude that the traditional American way of life happens to be *your* way. Your views are only encouraged by unconstitutional acts such as the one corrected today by the Ninth Circuit.

It's worth noting that the original, Christian author of the Pledge of Allegiance deliberately left out any reference to gods. As a Christian, perhaps you should take a lesson from Francis Bellamy's book, about tolerance and avoiding alienation and opression of people with views different than yours. You've probably never stood in school and been forced to recite material from a religion not your own - try to imagine that and imagine how you would feel about it.

The "Establishment of Religion" clause is not being used to suppress all religion, it's being used to suppress all state sponsorship and imposition of religion, which was the case with the Pledge, and which is exactly the original intent of the clause.

As for the non-religious part of the Pledge, I am not one of those who has a problem with it. However, I do think there should be more to patriotism than indoctrination - true education would be preferable. Indoctrination implies that the audience, the citizens of which a country should be able to be proud, is not capable of reaching the right conclusions on its own about the merits of their country.

Re:Proving the point

[alienmole]

My basic claim is that the government should promote the majority culture.

My point, which I stated too personally, is that you only take this perspective because you happen to believe that the majority culture is your culture. You're not basing this on any principle other than self-interest and, in essence, a happy coincidence (for you).

The United States was founded on some principles which were designed to allow people with differing self-interests to coexist reasonably peacefully. I like to think that if the situation were reversed - as the judges suggest in their decision (quoted below) - that my position would still be the same, whereas it's clear that yours would change.

The judges wrote:

"A profession that we are a nation "under God" is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation "under Zeus," or a nation "under no god," because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."

If you haven't already, I suggest you read the decision from at least page 9122 onwards, since it provides arguments for the position that are far better than anything you'll read on /.

Bzzzzt.

[HopeOS]

Neither Jefferson nor Franklin were Christians. Jefferson in particular had many choice and uncomplimentary things to say about Christians. I suggest you check your facts. What is known is that Jefferson had an appreciation for elements of the morality of Jesus Christ; however, he was particularly unimpressed by the mystic elements of the religion as practiced.

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

There is plenty more online.
-Hope

Re:Pledge is Voluntary, unlike money.....

[Alex Belits]

Have you ever seen schoolchildren doing something voluntary every day in such a manner?

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault" .....hypocrisy

[Darren Winsper]

Alas, most of the world has to deal with "which of these options is the lesser of two evils" problem at some point in their lives.

This was a good decision

[Animats]

The debate that follows this decision will be painful for many, but it's needed. We've had too much religion in public life under this administration, and it's becoming a real problem internationally.

The US has historically stayed out of religious wars. The United States was designed to be neutral on religion, primarily to avoid conflicts over it. The founders had direct experience of religion closely tied to government, and strongly rejected that approach. Their reasons were both philosophical and pragmatic, are well documented, and don't need to be repeated here. But if you don't know them, reading the Federalist Papers will be helpful.

Religious wars are historically tough to settle. The history of the original Crusades covers centuries of dumb decisions. Europe had centuries of wars with religious overtones, and partly for that reason, the main European countries are decidedly more secular than the United States. France, for example, has a majority of nonbelievers, and Britain is getting close.

The United States currently finds itself peripherally involved in three religious wars. A few decades ago, the US attitude would have been "a pox on both your houses". Today, the administration's pro-Christian bias is making unnecessary enemies. We're getting drawn into the endless religious wars of other countries. Mostly countries which can't build a government that works. That's no coincidence. As Jefferson wrote: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.

Jefferson on religion is always worth reading. If you haven't read Jefferson on this, do so now.

Re:This Is Why We Are Angry

[fmaxwell]

So you admit that immigrants coming in and trashing the local culture is a bad thing?

When it involves torturing and murduring people that don't share your religious beliefs, yes.

By the way, Navajos, Apaches, and Seminoles had exactly zero books to destroy, and precious little treasure.

Do you really believe that immigrants coming into this country are native Americans? The largest immigrant population (and the one I was referring to) is hispanic, many of whom had ancestors who were Mayan, Incan, and Aztec before the missionaries "taught them" about Christianity through plunder, torture, and murder.

This argument is about whether the government should promote what I'm calling "traditional American culture", snide intentional misunderstandings aside.

Traditional American culture or traditional European culture? The Americans that were here before the Europeans were not Christians.

The government should not "promote" any religious belief, whether atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, or any other religion. Eisenhower was wrong to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thomas Jefferson wouldn't agree.

[copponex]

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

"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.

I think we should expect nothing less than absolute, complete, and without-a-doubt separation of church and state. If you want to leave the door open for someone as intolerant as Falwell to lead his sheep into the New World Order (which should be exceptional at making him boatloads of money), be my guest.

-Dean

Re:What is this country coming to?

[Kymermosst]

Nice unbiased sources you have there.

I'll point out that the sources you just gave describe just a handful of our founding fathers, when in fact, there were many more than those few, and many of them were Christians.

I know what they should change it to

[YourFavoriteBandSux]

They should just change "Under God" with "You're sooo good-lookin'". :)

Holy Bible

[KidSock]

So what about being sworn in by placing your hand on the Bible and swearing to tell the truth?

Re:Repeal the Declaration of Independence?

[chazzf]

I would like to draw everyone's attention to "Nature's God", "Creator", and "Supreme Judge". These phrases are non-specific. They imply a superior power of some sort, but they do not imply the standard Judeo-Christian God. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a Deist (they believe in a non-specific Creator but don't pray to him), so this seems entirely appropriate.

However, the phrase "under God", was inserted into the Pledge during the Eisenhower Administration as a bulwark against atheist Communism. Hardly the same thing.

~Chazzf

Church of England and the pilgrims, quakers, etc.

[coyote-san]

It's much stronger than that. Many early American colonists from the United Kingdom were not members of the Church of England - they were Pilgrims (Anabaptists?), Quakers (Society of Friends), etc.

Under British law, they could not work for the crown. They could not attend university. (Remember, until recently the *only* degree granted by British universities was a Doctorate of Divinity with concurrent ordination in the Church of England. That's why it was the Rev. Charles Darwin who came up with those radical ideas regarding human evolution.) They were excluded from almost all aspects of public life.

The framers of the US Constitution were very much aware of this recent history (to them), and they were emphantic in their intent that the US never require membership in a state religion to hold office or otherwise participate in social life. Some states (e.g., Georgia) have clauses in their state constitutions requiring that all officeholders be Christians in good standing (whatever that means), but these clauses haven't been considered enforceable for many generations.

Despots force loyalty oaths.

[uncoveror]

Many people are upset that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals has ruled that a California law requiring school children to recite the Pledge Of Allegiance is unconstitutional. It is a law that respects an establishment of religion. Most people who object to the pledge would be happy if the "Under God" line, added in 1954, were removed. When President Eisenhower signed the law adding that line, he wrote, "Millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." This was clearly respecting an establishment of religion, the court ruled. There are other problems with the pledge.

Adding "Under God" was a cold war reaction to the "godless communists" of the former Soviet Union. The pledge forced our children to make a political statement, as well as a religious one.

Here is the biggest problem with the Pledge Of Allegiance: it is a loyalty oath. A free nation should not force anyone to swear a loyalty oath. That is something despots do.

Some religious Americans might also have a problem with the pledge, on the grounds that it constitutes idolatry. Children are made to turn and face a symbol, put their hands over their hearts, and swear an oath to that symbol. To many, this is just as much an act of idolatry as it would be if the symbol were a golden calf.

I support this court ruling. No one should be forced to swear loyalty to a symbol. No one should be forced to swear loyalty in a free nation.

Re:This has gone too far

[chazzf]

Never mind that it is a generally accepted practice for mottos to be written in Latin. Also never mind that Latin was the language of educated men at the time. Your argument seems rather similar to stating that if people fileshare and CD sales go down, one causes the other, regardless of other factors.

~Chazzf

A sad state of affairs

[interstellar_donkey]

Like all things, it goes in cycles. The harder you push when the pendilum is going your way, the harder it will swing back in 20 years when things are'nt on your side.

Give the Christians their pledge. Otherwise, don't be surprised in 20 years when they get so fed up you suddenly can't find a job if your an athiest.

Idolatry

[coyote-san]

It's interesting to speak with a true conservative/fundamentalist, not the twits you see on TV.

What you noticed is actually a serious concern - the pledge, the "flag descration" bills, etc., all add up to a single thing in their mind. Idolatry. It's not a golden calf at the base of Mt. Nebo, but the mindset, the fixation on a concrete symbol instead of the abstract concepts behind it, are the same.

Unfortunately, when they speak up they get dumped on by both sides. Many liberals have also been brainwashed into believing that they have to reject all religious arguments on principal, instead of accepting that the rationale may seem a bit odd to us but the conclusions are the same so why worry?

Re:Declaration of Independence!

[chazzf]

The Declaration of Independence really doesn't have an bearing on the matter. It was written in 1776, some thirteen years before the adoption of the current constitution. The Declaration and the Constitution were drawn up by different people. The Declaration has no legal standing. You'll notice there is no mention of God in the Constitution.

~Chazzf

in gold we trust

[Tumbleweed]

I don't think that's true any longer for U.S. currency, is it? Not that it matters what with the Bush administration's hyper-growth of the national debt (which we're about to default on, btw *sigh*)

And Republicans consider themselves fiscal _conservatives_? Yeah, don't pay our debts - we'll have plenty of money left over! *cringe*

Parsing the Pledge...

[ender-]

Some of you might find this interesting.

My gf is a teacher,and this year she had to teach a middle school "communications" class [which was really just an English as a Second Language class].

After Sept 11th, when patriotism was running rampant, she noticed that the kids were basically mindlessly reciting the pledge each morning.

Anyway, as one of her assignments, she had her students parse the pledge of allegiance. She had them pick apart every word and phrase, and find out the definition. They they had to re-assemble the pledge in their own words, of what they thought the pledge was saying based on the definitions of the words.

Turns out most of the students were upset about what the pledge was saying, and ever since then most of them refused to recite the pledge. Even many of the kids from Chrisitan families were not happy about it.

Anyway, just thought it'd be an interesting, topical story.

As for me, I'm glad they are finally realizing how stupid it is to recite the Pledge in schools.

Ender

Re:Parsing the Pledge...

[Animats]

Only American citizens should make the American Pledge of Allegance. If your primary loyalty is to another country, it's improper. I'm surprised it's used in schools at all today, especially in California, which has a huge non-citizen population.

Admittedly the Pledge is symbolic. But the same issue arises with the oath of allegance required of applicants for U.S. citizenship, which also has a "God clause". That oath has legal teeth; people who've made it and then violate it (for example, by serving in the military of a foreign power) risk loss of U.S. citizenship.

Because that's a real oath, with contractual meaning, it could be challenged on the constitutional requirement of "no religious test" grounds. (U.S. Const., article VI)

Re:What sort of lesson is Newdow's daughter learni

[hyacinthus]

"The lesson Newdow's daughter should get from the court decision is that there is still hope for religious freedom in this country, even though you often have to fight for it. The lesson is that patriotism isn't demonstrated by forced and phony public prayers. When you use the tools the founders gave us to preserve the rights they guaranteed us, that is defending your country. That is patriotism. That's what young Ms. Newdow knows about her dad now."

No, I don't think you're right. Frankly, I don't believe for a second that young _Miss_ Newdow ("Ms."? It's not like we're uncertain of her marital status!) really cared one way or another about hearing the word "God" at school. When I was that age, I occasionally heard my school chums talking about God or church, and I don't remember feeling anything but mild curiosity, because I didn't go to church and my parents didn't have anything to say about God.

No, I think her father got a weed up his ass, and calculated that a First Amendment lawsuit about "one nation under God" probably wasn't going to work..._unless_ he could pretend that his little daughter was somehow "hurt" by it, and thus gain sympathy points. Basically I think Mr. Newdow used his daughter as a tool to help his cause, and I think that's low.

Now his daughter is probably going to be the most hated student at her school, and all her life she'll be dogged by the image that she was the little girl who wouldn't say the Pledge of Allegiance, even though the whole f**king mess was her father's idea and she was too young to understand how she was being used. She'll grow up to hate her father--I'll lay money on that.

hyacinthus.

Re:Actually . . .

[Danse]

I wonder if anyone explains these things to the little kids that have to recite the pledge everyday. I know they never explained it to me. It was just words that I mostly just mouthed so I wouldn't get singled out or punished.

Re:Actually . . .

[ocbwilg]

Also, I don't recall the phrase "I pledge allegiance to the United States government" being anywhere in the pledge. You are pledging allegiance to your country when you recite it

The phrase that has you pledging allegiance is "and to the Republic, for which it stands." This is quite clearly not a pledge to a country but a pledge to the government of that country (actually a specific model of government that this country has).

The Court is correct.

[Eric Damron]

Most of us, myself included, believe in a God or higher power so this decision is very irritating to us. However, our constitution does say that there must be a separation between church and State.

Saying that a teacher lead pledge of allegiance, which mentions God, not to be promoting religion is a pretty hard position to defend.

I believe that prayers and pledges should be allowed into schools on a voluntary condition. However to ensure that the school does not even have the appearance of sponsoring such activities, I think it wise that teachers not be allowed to join with students in these activities.

For now, I think that we should realize the the original Pledge of Allegiance didn't have a reference to God so we should just use the original version.

Re:The Court is correct.

[Eric Damron]

'and you fucks should get that stragiht and not be offended.'

Maybe you didn't read my post....

I agree with the Court even though I do believe in a higher power.

I don't feel offended as you obviously do.

Re:Actually . . .

[zerocool^]

I don't recall the phrase "I pledge allegiance to the United States government" being anywhere in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag
and to the republic for which it stands
one nation, under bush, blah blah...

~Will

Re:Evolution should be next

[Alex Belits]

It's called strawman.

Re:What is scary is the quote by Sen. Charles Gras

[n-baxley]

He's not saying no one should do it, but rather that they will not get reelected if they do. He's probably right, and here is why. Elected officials are elected to act on the behalf of their constituents. If the majority of their constituents believe that this phrase should remain, and they see that their representative does not, they may well not vote for him as a representative of their views. Now if that representative comes from a largely athestic community, slashdot ville for example, then he/she/it has a good chance of getting relected. That's how a republic works.

God in churches, not in Government.

[zerofoo]

"Amendment I

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

The constitution framers wanted two things regarding religion and the state:

1. They didn't want a government established religion like the Church of England.

2. They didn't want any laws created that prohibited the free practice of the religion of your choice.

Our Pledge of Alegiance roughly impacts the second point. If you are an atheist in a public school, you are forced to recite something contrary to your religious beliefs, effectively prohibiting you from practicing your religion.

God belongs in churches, not in government.

-ted

Re:Evolution should be next

[josepha48]

"The "theory" part of evolution is not stated as heavily as it should be in public schools. The "fact" is mandated to students because no alternates are taught alongside."

True, so which creation stories do you teach? There are several stories. There are stories that the american indians have, as well as islam creation, buda creation, etc. What I'd like to see is an impartial teaching of all of these. Unfortunately there are many who think that the teaching of any other theories other than their own are evil. Yes these people do exist, just see Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps.

"As you know, the English language is not as descriptive as Hebrew." Well actually it is not a matter of 'descriptive' as it is a matter of words just do not transulate. In india I am told, by friends who lived there, that their language has NO word for 'gay' or 'queer'. While there are gay people there they just don't have a word for it. The same is true about Hebrew, and yes I do have friends who are Jewish and read the bible in Hebrew. In fact the laptop I got from on of them had a Hebrew transulation program. More like a dictionary. I wish I kept that program.

I was taught the story of creationism and evolution, so I know both angles. My conclusion is that if God == Nature then they are both true. There is nothing in the bible that says that this cannot be true. NOTHING.

The problem that many are missing is that there are many people who are taught evolution is completely evil and they are ONLY taught creation and that it is a 6 day creation.

on the first "DAY" God seperated the light from the darkness and called the light "DAY" and the dark night. - two meanings for the word day. So is this the "light" day or the day day?

So what DAY was the earth created? Also what DAY was man created? So what is a DAY? Is it our 24 hour day? Probably not, but many who belive in pure creationism, think so. Extra Terristeral's would probably burst their bubbles.

Also if Adam and Eve were the first humans and we are all their decendants, wouldn't that mean that their children would have had to have sex with each other or their parents to propagate?

Read the story of Cain and Able if that has not been edited out of your bible. It says Cain took his wife and left. So where did his wife come from? Was it his sister?

Here is a good read -> http://www.internet-at-work.com/hos_mcgrane/creati on/cstorymenu.html

if one is mature enough to expand the mind..

God != Christian

[n-baxley]

Okay, to save time replying to each and every misinformed poster out there, let me clarify something for you all. When we talk about God, we are not talking about a specific religion. God is not unique to Christianity. To the Jews, God is Yawhe (sp?) to Islamics it's Allah, to Christians it's actually a tri-un god made up of three persons (God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit). The only people who have a problem with the concept of God is the athesits, or maybe the agnostics who are decidedly undecided on the whole matter. I have seen countless posts here that try to portray the "under God" phrase as Christian, or anti-Islamic, or non-Jewish. The prase says God, not Jesus or THE God. God is a very generic term. I don't mean to sound like flamebait, but just because all the slashdotters looking to rebel against something have seen christianity as one of those things to rebel against, doesn't mean the rest of the religious world sees it that way. Please become enlightened before you spew out your uneducated opinions.

Re:God != Christian

[n-baxley]

You are right, that part is irrelevant. Yet it has been part of the argument in many slashdot posts on this story. That was my point.

Re:it's kinda strange

[Dimensio]

Well, I don't claim with certainty that absolutely no gods of any kind exist. Barring any evidence for any, however, I assume the existence of none.

That makes me a "weak" atheist by the definitions that I provided above. That is how I "justify" my atheism.

Re:English skills.... failing...

[Alex Belits]

I suspect, the majority of first-graders also believe in a tooth fairy.

Re:From the Perspective of a Student

[marhar]

you'll see the Latin phrase "novus ordo seclorum" A New Secular Order.

I think you're confused regarding the meaning of "seclorum". It actually means "world". There are plenty of online latin dictionaries where you can confirm this. Or google for novus ordo seclorum for sites that give a more detailed explanation of the phrase itself.

AND NO DEEP LINKING TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE!

[vandelais]

Our schools should do this to answer the courts

Have our schools e-mail each student from their distribution list a link to the pledge of allegiance everyday.

But make sure the originating email server is in China, just to be on the safe side.

AND NO DEEP LINKING TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE!

Re:My mail (and Thank you Michael A. Newdow!)

[strags]

If there is no God, there is no Moral Authority. No reason to denounce the Holocaust. No reason to denounce the Crusades. No reason for Republicanism. I recommend a a little time in American History class.

DUDE...

If you believe that the only source of morals is some imaginary guy with a white beard that sits up in the clouds and gets pissed off when you masturbate, you are an idiot.

I don't need your god to tell me how I should behave toward other people.

Thank Fordness! --and a "new" pledge

[fooguy]

I Pledge Allegiance
to the Judges
of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
and to the Decision
for which this stands
One Nation
in Agreement
that the Separation
of Church and State
is ABSOLUTE.

Kind of a creepy thing to make 5 year olds do

[JimmytheGeek]

When I was in junior high I actually thought about what I was reciting, and decided that I wasn't in a position to ally with the US. I might, or might not, but I was W-A-A-A-A-Y to young to make committments like that, and I knew it. Then it hit me that millions of 5 year olds have been reciting empty syllables, and that put me off even more. Look, a pledge has to be understood, or it's a farce. Few kindergarteners have the vocabulary to grok the Pledge. None are mature enough to make a promise like that in a meaningful way. And the mass indoctrination element of the practice, without discussion or explanation, is an ugly technique used for generally ugly purposes throughout history. The fact that it's the US, rather than the North Korean commies, or the Iraqi government, doesn't make it less creepy. We're doing the exact same thing those creepy governments do/did. Indoctrination.

Now that I'm an adult, yeah, I'm ready to commit to supporting my country. I don't ally with the flag (a symbol is not the thing it represents), but I do with the Republic (what's left of it). I signed up for Selective Service, ready to go. I sing the national anthem at baseball games (from the audience). We've got a cool country. In many ways the best in history. In some respects, about average.

I think what makes this place worth caring about is not just from the perspective of the accident that I was born here (when knuckleheads chant, "USA!USA!" it strikes me they would be singing "Deutschland Uber Alles" in another time and place). It's that people who weren't born here can be naturalized and belong, and participate fully in political life. (Apart from the statistically unlikely election to office of president/vp). Japan and Germany are admirable countries, but they don't offer a universally accessible vision. They offer the world a lot, but not a chance at citizenship.

I'm aware that the INS is awful, and that the US is, and has been, hostile to immigrants. But those who do make it through the stupid hurdles can belong. Holland strikes me as about the most civilized country in the world, with a sensible and humane government, but I don't know anything about its immigration policies.

I had to speak with the principal who decreed I just had to stay seated and quiet during the recitation. Seemed and seems reasonable.

Re:Not quite the original version

[leek]

Here is the original version

Big Deal....

[VivianC]

Don't get your undies in a bunch. This will most likely be overturned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned court in the nation. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on this years ago and came to the exact opposite conclusion. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ohio's state Motto (With God, All Things Are Possible) does not violate the US Constitution. There is a ton of case law already established.

By the way, In God We Trust was made official in the 1950's, but the motto was used on some money prior to 1860.

Re:please???

[Flower]

Actually you are about to find that out at 9a.m. tomorrow morning when the SC rules on school choice. I think that is going to be the bell-weather in determining where this current ruling gets appealed to next.

Hm...

[addaon]

I've always felt uncomfortable with the phrase "under God." It's not that I don't believe in God - I'm a firm monotheist - it's just that I feel that I'm at least as good as, if not better than, God. "With God" or "above God" would fit better, doncha think?

On another note, any chance of this opening the road for us suing for damages? As someone who works in an industry where creativity and the ability to think is valued, I believe that all these people who have been brainwashed, with the now proven encouragement of the state, are a significant drag on our economy. Class action against the government? If bugs in code are worth $60G, Jesus has got to be work $600G.

(Now we see the karma vanish, as those without a sense of humor get mod points.)

Re:Evolution should be next

[himi]

That's about right, yes. Though I believe the currently popular terminology is more along the lines of "bush" than tree or ladder - when you look at the details of the fossil record, there tends to be a lot of experimentation which then settles down over time, so you don't get nice clean branches, you get a big messy bush. Which may have changed since I last did and anthropology unit, but hey . . .

As for the other crap the parent poster was throwing out, it's tragic - he (she? it?) could at least have done some research before creating a terribly broken argument like that. And unfortunately I'm too tired to pull it apart more . . .

himi

Re:flag fetish is new too.... for the age of the U

[CaptainCarrot]

Yes there was a need for a naval ensign, but the flag actually originated as a military banner. I'm not familiar with the historical or sociological data that could reliably tell us when the "flag fetish" began, but it seems reasonable to peg it to some time after large numbers of men were demobilized from the military and returned to civillian life. They would almost certainly have taken some of their military attitudes home with them, transferring the importance of the banner on the battlefield to a civillian context. Possibly after the Civil War, or one of the World Wars.

Odd

[fluxrad]

everyone seems to be forgetting the good old e pluribus unum that we used to have on bills.

Besides, it's about damned time for the gub'ment to get some Wal-Mart style roll back action on!

Re:An addendum perhaps?

[Alsee]

monitoring your thoughts

Ahh. I missed the implied mind reading, chuckle.

I was just rearranging it to remove the suggestion that they had actually considered being a terrorist. I've had too many debates with too many people who defend bad laws because they fixate on the notion that it will only affect "bad people".

-

...with liberty and justice for all.

[ScottForbes]

Most people in this country [sic] are monotheistic, and since majority rules we have "In God we Trust".

Most people in the USA are Christians, too, and since majority rules, we're outlawing Judaism and Islam next week!

Or not. The U.S. Bill of Rights acknowledges certain rights of the individual that cannot be taken away by any government under any circumstances -- further, the Declaration of Independence proclaims that when a government denies these rights, the people have the right to overthrow it. From the Declaration:

[...] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. [...]

In other words, I don't care how many people vote that you'll become a Methodist, or be forbidden to own firearms, or that the book you wrote should be banned. The will of the majority is not sufficient to deprive you of these rights. In fact you are inseparable from these rights: You cannot be deprived of them, period.

If you want to live in a country where the government thinks it can deprive you of your unalienable rights, go to China. (Of course, this is a separate issue from the question of whether an atheist has an unalienable right not to hear other people recite the words "under God" in a public space; I can buy the argument that says no one should be required to endorse a religion, but I think we're off the deep end here.)

Re:This wouldn't work with me...

[Edmund Blackadder]

nobody is going to prohibit you from saying the pladge.

What the court decision means that itwill beunconstitutional for the governmant to require anyoneto say it, display it in official places etc.

You can say the pledge all you want. Nobody is trying to bludgeon you.

Oh and while we are on the subject prohibition of school prayer does notmean you are not allowed to pray at school either. It means your school cant make you to.

So there is no need for alarmist rants.

The Court Was Right, and Didn't Go Far Enough

[markwelch]

On another list, someone wrote:
> In its ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress that inserted the phrase "under God" after the phrase "one nation" in the pledge. <

It is disappointing that so many of the TV news accounts this evening ignore the 1954 amendment, and falsely state that the pledge has contained the "Under God" wording for more than a century.

I have always been uncomfortable -- at least since the seventh grade -- saying those two words. More recently, as someone educated in the law (yes, I am a lawyer) and as someone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, I do not believe that our Constitution places our country "under God" but expressly separates church and state. There were earlier cases prohibiting schools from compelling students to recite the pledge or salute the flag if it conflicted with their religious beliefs (for example, some religious groups refuse to salute the flag because they view the flag as a "graven image" (false idol) prohibited by the Second Commandment).

This case, like the school prayer cases, revolved around the implied endorsement, pressure, and stigma involved when the pledge and its "under God" language are recited in public classrooms.

To be honest, I've never understood why anyone thinks it is appropriate to demand that school children (many of them non-citizens), pledge allegiance to the "flag," as this helps reinforce the belief that if someone is waving the flag, we must blindly follow them, and criticizing the flag-waver is somehow "un-American." Even in this "revolutionary" ruling, the court did not prohibit schools from having a flag-salute ceremony that includes reciting a "pledge of allegiance to the flag" without the "under God" language.

Unfortunately, there is little doubt among legal scholars, or in my mind, that an "en banc" panel of the 9th Circuit will reverse this ruling, or if they do not, then the U.S. Supreme Court will gladly reverse it. As my former Constitutional Law professor (Boalt Hall's Jesse Choper) said in several TV interviews today, the Supreme Court will certainly view this language as "too small" to be worth ruling invalid -- oddly enough, arguably consistent with the Court's repeated hints that in order for Congress to prohibit flag-burning, it must first decide if the flag will be the "one thing" that they will prohibit desecrating (and Congressmen have too many sacred cows that they won't sacrifice to that trivial issue).

The most disappointing thing about the "person on the street" interviews I saw on the news today, is that the questions posed by the newspersons were about "making it illegal for children to recite the pledge of allegiance," which is not what the ruling said. Why can't people understand the difference between censoring people who want to recite the pledge without state compulsion (free speech) and the state compelling someone to say something that they do not believe, in direct contradiction to the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the first amendment -- or regulating people's beliefs or speech (which is what Congress was really trying to do in 1954, to oppose the "Godless communists" and reinforce the widespread belief that you must believe in "the One God" to be a "real" American)?

Note that I have no objection that members of my local Rotary Club recite the pledge (including the "under God" language) and one of our members is asked to say a prayer each week -- I can respect the decision of the majority of a private club's members on these points, though that when we recited the pledge during a visit by two dozen guests from our Mexican "sister city," some of our guests were visibly uncomfortable. (For a year or more, our Rotary Club had a humorous running debate about how long the pause should be before "under God.") Some weeks, the prayer is expressly Christian, once it was explicitly Muslim, most weeks it is quite generic, and occasionally, it is a non-religious statement or "thought.")

On another list, someone wrote:
> The founders of this country -- or whoever -- were quite right not to include that phrase in the "Pledge of Allegiance" originally. <

The reference to "the founders" jarred me, because I had thought the Pledge of Allegiance was created after the civil war (hence the "indivisible" language).

Apparently, we were both wrong: according to "A Short History of the Pledge of Allegiance" ( http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.ht m ), the pledge was written (apparently by a Socialist, no less) in 1892. Of course, that's just what someone said on a web page. See also http://www.google.com/search?q=+history+%22pledge+ of+allegiance%22+under+God+indivisible

you are partially right

[Edmund Blackadder]

the second ammendment does not protect atheists it protects gun enthusiasts.

BUT the first ammendment does proterct atheists.

Oh and forcing kids to say "under God" is an establishment of religion. It doesnt matter that that religion is of unclear origin.

btw i am not an atheist, i am christian, but i dont see why God must be forced on anyone.

Re:Missed the point

[ToastyKen]

His 10 commandments seem pretty consistent with what I would assume you consider 'good'

You conveniently ignored the many God-sanctioned/encouraged massacres and genocides in the Old Testament that were mentioned in the post that you replied to. They pretty much go completely against his "thou shalt not kill" bit.

You do eventually argue that these actions are justified because God is inherently just. The problem is: How do we know what is and is not sanctioned by God? How do you know that Osama wasn't instructed by God to do what he does just as people were instructed to rape and pillage whole cities by God in the Bible?

The de facto answer, of course, is "He is worshipping a false God and/or is delusional." But I bet he would say the same about you. Who's to say that he's wrong? Because he supports mass murder and is thus not credible? You just openly acknowledged your support for the massacre of whole cities because the Bible says that they were sanctioned by God....

In fact, anyone with different religious beliefs would hold a different set of morals from you. And that's the fundamental problem: People have different views about what's moral.

In order to function as a society, we hold many mostly shared morals, often compromising to live together. If a few people claim they are doing something in the name of God, and others don't agree, the others won't let them do it. Are these people claiming that are "above God"? No. They are claiming that they are above the people who are claiming to act in the name of God.

It's convenient to say that religion is the highest morality until you realize that many others will claim the same thing, but with different religions. The alleged word of God is being delivered through fallable mortals, so we have to treat the messages as fallable as well.

the word "god" predates monotheism

[texchanchan]

Re, ...at some point english speakers used it to represent any God. This is not its origin however as it wasn't meant to be generic term...

Sure it was. Monotheism only arrived in what would become the English-speaking world about 1500 years ago. The word "god" definitely predates the advent of the Christian religion into the consciousness of the Britons. You can tell this by observing that it has a cognate in German, Gott, which means that the word goes back at least as far as the time before the future English speakers and the future German speakers parted company.

Note also that God, when used as the name (not category) of a deity, is capitalized because it is a proper noun. Failing to capitalize a proper noun to show you don't believe that the referent exists is a misuse of typography; if god (as a proper noun referring to the Jewish-Christian-Muslim deity), then also jupiter, venus, thor, weyland smith, etc., which are clearly incorrect.

Isn't the original intent discriminatory?

[Andonyx]

There's a couple things several people seem to be missing in their arguments against this ruling.

1. This addition to the pledge, simply the words, "Under God, " was added by Eisenhower after a private petition, in 1954. This was at the height of the cold war, and the anti-communist paranoia known as the red scare.

Now while you may or may not argue the real-life practical implications of having two words in or out of the pledge of allegiance it can well be argued that this addition to the pledge was designed deliberately to make a distinction between American Citizens and Communists. (Communists with a capital 'C' being specifically the Marxist type who rejected the notion of religion as fallacy designed to manipulate the masses.)

If that's the case, the recitation of the pledge of allegiance not only rejects the right to support that form of communism but essentially denies the same class of citizenship to those who would not choose to believe in a singular deity, or a deity at all.

2. This "Minor" addition was done at the behest of small vocal minority represented by the Knights of Columbus. So in this case, a small group was able to impose a demonstrative gesture of patriotism, that up until recently was in fact mandatory in many school systems.

This somewhat weakens the argument of many of the legislators that this ruling is somehow out of step with mainstream thinking in America. While it may certainly not represent majority thinking, niether did its inclusion in the first place.

3. Finally, when this became a statute, Eisenhower is quoted as saying, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
So it seems that the original intent of this clause was indeed to indoctrinate the idea into our children that this was a monotheistic nation, and that somehow, the success or failure of this nation is either due to, or accountable to a supreme being.

That's not a notion I want my kids to be taught in school.

Finally, My own two subjective cents:

If the school administration, the parents, and the politicians are constantly lamenting the state of U.S. Public education compared to other wealthy technologically advanced nations; what if we spent that time time we are wasting on the pledge of allegiance to teach our the class one useful fact about our nations history, how to be more informed in civil or political matters, or how they could find avenues to participate in that government.

I would rather spend 2 minutes helping the children become better more informed citizens to instill a real and honest sense of patriotism in them, than to spend that time asking them to memorize rote empty declarations of allegiance to an abstract and unfamiliar governing body.

---
Andonyx
www.andonyx.com

not mentioning god is not denying god

[Edmund Blackadder]

Just because God is not mentioned it does not mean that the pledge asserts that god does not exist.

It would be an interesting constitutional question whether a pledge that says "and God does not exist" would violate the establishment clause (it will probably violate the free excercise clause) but thats not whats happening here, and it wont be happening any time soon.

I know people will be pissed off, but the constitution does not say the government shall not piss people off.

Re:I am truly saddened.

[Edmund Blackadder]

so the fact that other children arent forced to recite a couple of sentences strips something away from you?

Re:it's kinda strange

[blair1q]

I'm an atheist, I'm pissed. How about we put "there is no god" in the Pledge?

--Blair
"Equal Time, at least."

i am sick of this bullshit

[Edmund Blackadder]

tell me who where when is persecuting the religous?

If you think that not being forced by the government to do something is persecution, then you believe that government coersion is freedom, and thats pretty fuscking strange.

O and by the way some realigions have God(s) and some religions do not allow you to say God, and some people dont have a religion.

Re:I realize i'm taking a very unpopular stance he

[LinuxGeek]

Actually, the constitution was written by deists for people of any faith at all.

Actually, you can read select quotes of our founding fathers here.

I will give you a head start with a few quotes:

"He who should introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world." ~ Ben Franklin

"The Christian Religion, in its purity, is the basis and the source of all genuine freedom in government." ~James Madison

other harms of the Pledge

[junkgrep]

Consider this cogent point as well:
"As things stand in most of the country, no atheist, agnostic or polytheist can openly and honestly pledge their allegiance to the republic. No matter how much they yearn to do so, there is no officially sanctioned pledge that they can take.
The only congressionally approved pledge is reserved solely for the nation's monotheistic citizens. This wouldn't matter much if the pledge were just something you mumble every sunday like the lords prayer. Properly spoken, the pledge is taken, not recited. Taking it can be a privilege, an honor, or sometimes even a duty.
When congress passed their law limiting the pledge to members of certain religious groups, they took away this privilege, honor, and duty from everyone else. That's not right.

If an atheist, agnostic, or polytheist takes the pledge without saying "under God", they have not taken the official pledge of allegiance. If they do say "under God", they are knowingly making a statement that they believe to be false. I don't see how the rights of the monotheists extend to the point of forcing everyone else into an ethical dilemma. Even christianity takes a dim view of swearing false oaths. Surely it's unethical of these religious folk to force everyone else to either swear falsely, or forgo pledging allegiance entirely?
The words "under God" are not essential to the pledge, except by law, but they do ensure that only christians and other monotheists can take the oath honestly. IMHO, that's a heck of a special privilege."
-Squink

Re:Atheists? You mean Agnostic?

[EnglishTim]

Not so.

Atheist means that you believe there is no God.

Agnostic means that you are not really sure whether there is a God or not.

Neither position says anything about what you would believe in the light of new evidence.

If your ancestors had held that view ...

[vrai]

... the United States would still be a British territory. The ability to change the way the laws of a country are an intrinsic part of democracy, especially in cases like this where the change is simply undoing a past wrong.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Arker]

Where does the Constitution give Congress power to be involved in education, period?

Doh!

[Arker]

Why is what I said wrong? Everyone you mentioned in retort still had basic Christian beliefs with the exception of Jefferson. And why are Paine and Voltaire atheists? Is this your personal label of them? Voltaire would be on the possibly side based of his writings but not Paine.

Umm Paine was called an atheist by the priesthood of the day, and a blasphomer, and even a satanist. He was actually a Deist, which is still in no wise a Christian or even close. Jefferson was a Deist too. I'm not sure about Paine. As was pointed out also, many were Unitarians as well, and Unitarians repudiate doctrines considered essential to Christianity by every mainstream Church. In fact, the people who bring this sort of suit to this day are very often Unitarians.

The issue is a simple one, the first amendment clearly rules out any ability of Congress to spend tax money to endorse or indoctrinate any religion. You can believe whatever you want. You can say any pledge you want as a private citizen. You cannot take my tax money and spend it to indoctrinate my kid in your religion. That's totally over the line.

Re:Doh!

[Arker]

Lots of people who believe in a god or higher power are NOT Christians. That's just ignorant, and offensive. We have a right not to have our taxes used to take our children away and indoctrinate them in Christianity.

Re:Doh!

[Rakarra]

How is this not exactly what is happening? By removing the phrase under god aren't you effectively removing god from this equation giving atheists what they want at the expense of the rest of the nations beliefs and values.

It is not removing God from society, it is removing God and religion from government.

If we must respect the fact that people out there don't believe in god then they damb well better respect that a great many Americans do.

I have no problems with people believing in God. Both my mom and dad have grown increasingly religious in the last decade or two, and I'm just fine with that. But the government has absolutely no place defining what theology we should believe in. In other words, the government has no place inserting Christian (or other western theologies) affirmations into, say, the Pledge of Allegiance like they did in the 50's.

The constitution does not afford us the right not to hear religion in schools or government

The Constitution very specifically disallows the government from affirming any religion: "Congress may not..." etc. It's very blatent. Don't try to interpret it as "it just lets you practice any religion," for that is NOT what it says.

Re:attention bad moderation

[guttentag]

Fascism isnt funny.

I disagree.

Many people become so attached to their prejudices and positions that they filter out all alternative points of view. Sometimes this is a conscious defense, but it often becomes autonomic. In such cases, the only way to slip an idea past the zombie defense is through a trojan horse called humor. Humor is a convenient vehicle for ideas because it's contagious -- if an idea has a tasty coating a person will share the gem with his friends before he finds the dark humor center.

A gravely-serious subject is often more deserving of humor than a whimsical one.

On this particular subject, people are so conditioned to defend the pledge they ridicule the ruling for "declaring the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional." As a number of people on Slashdot have pointed out, the Declaration has nothing to do with the Constitution. But the people who need to hear that are not listening, and they include members of Congress and the president -- people who should know better because they are charged with writing and enforcing the laws that keep the Constitution relevant.

If we've reached the point where Slashdot posters need to explain the Constitution itself to the elected politicians in Washington, I think inappropriate humor is justified in attempting to jump-start the critical thought processes in the minds of readers.

Re:Not quite the original version

[toriver]

Wasn't "indivisible" added after the Civil war?

Re:Missed the point

[CProgrammer98]

Where in the Bible does God sanction raping?

Please let me know...

The whole pledge is problematic, in my opinion.

[quag7]

The first problem is why say this at all? Why make it a semi-compulsory ritual to begin with?

Kids say this pledge literally thousands of times throughout their life to the point that it becomes a meaningless string of phonemes. The Pledge reminds me of listening to fellow Catholics recite the Profession of Faith on Sundays when I was a kid. So repetitious was it that no one even consciously knew what it was they were saying anymore. You could tell by the emotionless drone; it made the several parishes I was a part of sound like some religious cult under deep mind control. (In reality of course it was a bunch of people trying to stay awake).

Its not just the "under God" part I object to. It's the whole thing.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Well, what if immoral, sadistic acts are being committed under the name of that flag? The Klan flies that flag. The flag was on the uniforms of soldiers during the My Lai massacre. I don't think that the flag is evil, but it certainly is subjective and few can agree on what the flag means. Flags, like bumper stickers, are blunt objects that can mean a multiplicity of things to different people. If you're talking about the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so forth, well, yes, I have a personal allegiance to those moral and political principles. If you're talking about our corrupt Congress and increasingly spooky President and what he's doing supposedly in my name and yours as the figurehead of our Republic, then no. Americans in particular seem to have a weird fetish for these kinds of symbols, and it is something which seriously distracts from the very real principles we ought to be talking about.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

Someone pointed out that the the flag represents the Republic. Well, if so, then this is redundant. Strike the "pledge allegiance to the flag" part and just pledge allegiance to the Republic. But even this is problematic. What if you feel the Republic is corrupt? I often do (I often believe as a nation we do many good things, but it is certainly a mixed bag). I have no issue with the "as written" principles this country was founded on, nor even honest business and capitalism, but that this Republic honestly represents these principles consistently is more than questionable.

One Nation

Well, I believe that we are one nation, and that nations can and should be diverse and built around broad principles of civic morality. Tolerance, freedom, and standing up both for your own rights and those of your neighbor. Others may be into sedition. I don't know. I prefer to connect myself to the world and others in the contexts of honesty and mutually beneficial community, but I respect the rights of those who don't and want to live up a mountain in Montana somewhere.

Under God,

I don't think God has anything to do with it. For example, I seem to remember a passage in the Bible about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. We are a capitalist country, and frankly, I have no problem with the honest, productive accumulation of wealth through honest trade and productivity. But depending on which part of the Bible you conveniently choose to follow today, it's questionable that God has anything to do with this. As an agnostic myself, I am not offended at all by other people saying this pledge (or praying silently to themselves in public places - even government buildings, or putting up Christmas trees in parks), but why must it be institutionalized in this instance? It's not a matter of having a problem with the Pledge of Allegiance, it is the problem of forcing others to say it as well. That strikes me as very, very, unAmerican. I've said the Pledge thousands of times, and saying Under God doesn't freak me out, but it is wholly unnecessary. Those who support the compulsory pledge, should they consider themselves quote-unquote Real Americans, ought to have no objection to this being purged in a nation supposedly founded on freedom of - and from - religion. I don't understand psychologically what makes it so important to compel others to swear allegiance to their particular God. It sounds rather...Taliban...to me. Or suggests a kind of self-doubt and paranoia allayed only by consensus, the assuredness of hearing many others pledge allegiance to a God you have some kind of doubt about. I don't understand the motivation here.

Indivisible Well thank God this nation divides when our government is perpetrating one atrocity for another, whether it be slavery, institutionalized racism, immoral, meddling wars abroad, or blatant Nixonesque authoritarianism. Unity is only a value when it is attached to a kind of tolerance and moral consensus, not when compelled through the kind of propaganda we're dealing with right now where our own congress is afraid to do anything other than indulge any authoritarian whim our President has. Division, however much it lulls us out of our stupor and worries us enough that we can't be satisfied drooling at stupid sitcoms at night, is healthy. Division is cultural, moral, and political dissonance; it insists that we weigh our actions and values as a nation. What good is unity if it is under the auspices of jingoism, groupthink, and collectivism? Division ought not be a permanent state but I'm really thankful that people are willing to stand up and say, "I will not support this; not even in the context that we are both countrymen and this is being done in our collective name." How often did our founding fathers make statements about how a revolution every so often is a healthy thing? We ought to be able to sustain reasonable differences and remain united, but there must be a limit to this. Otherwise, there is nothing worthwhile about our freedom, or our Republic.

With liberty, and justice, for all

Well with tongue in cheek, it's kind of fun to say this line with a heavy dose of irony. As noble as this sentiment is - and it is perhaps, in its honest, untarnished form, the most noble part of the Pledge of Allegiance, it...well...doesn't apparently apply to many classes of people including foreigners, pot smokers, hackers on trumped-up charges, anyone serving a draconian mandatory minimum sentence for a petty crime, dozens of political criminals from the Nixon years still in jail and denied new hearings, trials, or parole. People in internment camps. And so on.

The justice part doesn't apply much to the wealthiest and most powerful who buy their way out of justice and wind up serving sentences at federal country clubs. Celebrities also don't seem to go to jail very often for the things the rest of us do. Victims of right-wing regimes we've propped up in the past are excluded here, obviously. And so on and so forth. The point is, if anyone should be forced to take this pledge, it is our *leaders* and people in the justice system. Justice applies not only to the poor and downtrodden who often get screwed by the System because they don't have the money to hire a decent lawyer, but also to the rich and powerful who rarely pay for their crimes.

I don't think anyone should be forced or compelled to take any pledge. It ought not be part of any compulsory institution like our public education system (itself arguably a huge waste of time and money). But if there must be a pledge, it should be something more along lines of:

I pledge to be honest, to criticize my government when commits crimes or supports those who do. I pledge to uphold and fight for the values enshrined in our Constitution. I pledge to protest and throw my own weight against the eternally grinding gears of authoritarianism wherever I may find them. I pledge to respect and protect the values, practices, and expression of those who are different from me, even though I may find them objectionable, provided that those practices do not infringe on the freedom of others. I pledge to question authority, recognizing its legitimacy only when it serves the rational values of of liberty and justice. I pledge honesty, honor, respect, and civility in ordinary discourse and human interaction (This of course would be problematic among most Usenet users, but that's a different rant.) I pledge loyalty only to principles, and not the symbols, individuals, and collectives by which those principles are corrupted. I stand in opposition to hypocrisy, dishonesty, and the use of violence except as a last resort in legitimate retaliation or self-defense to solve disputes.

To me, this is a far more American pledge.

Re:What sort of lesson is Newdow's daughter learni

[the gnat]

I agree completely. These are the people who feel compelled to explain that they're atheists when you wish them "Happy Holidays" in December. They're also the ones who tried to get an atheist chaplain for my university. They're also the ones who say politicians should not base votes on their religious beliefs. Newdow is clearly one of those people. By his standard, C-SPAN is religious programming- can't have his daughter hearing nearly every politician in the country bloviate about God.

Atheism, as commonly practiced, is just as much a religion as Christianity. Most don't simply not believe in God, they firmly believe in the non-existence of God. A subtle difference, but it matters.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some chickens to sacrifice.

Re:Not quite the original version

[leek]

Actually, the Pledge was not created until 1892, well after the Civil War.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian Socialist, in 1892.

Our pledge God-agnostic for 11 years...

[rwa2]

Our highschool pledge of went something like this:

I pledge allegiance
to Queen Fragg
and her mighty states of hysteria.
And to the Republicans
for which they scam
one nacho
unaware
indisputable
with licorice and jugs of wine for owls.

Re:it's kinda strange

[mpe]

Atheism implies a lack of belief in deities. "Weak" atheism implies nothing more than withheld belief based on lack of evidence or ignorance of the concept. "Strong" atheism implies the outright assertion "there are no gods".

A "strong atheist" can be someone who has a great deal of faith in his or her position.

I find the creationism in US schools to be crazier

[Kjella]

...maybe I've gotten a wrong picture, but from what I've read quite a few over in the US have a problem with evolution and teaches creationism (or scientific creationism, a contradiction in terms) as fact, or as a scientific theory.

Frankly, it falls flat on it's face at the first test of scientificness, can it be *falsified*? You set up some assumptions, some consequences of it, and some things that would falsify it.

But whatever "evidence" appears that the world didn't begin in 4000BC, it wasn't made in 7 days, man evolved from apes, it doesn't matter, because Creationism is always "right". It's like the story of the paranoid: Everywhere he sees somebody following him. When he doesn't see anyone watching, they're just pretending not to watch. There's no way to falsify it, and thus it's not a scientific theory.

Kjella

Re:Good for the goose, good for the gander

[mpe]

The US forces all immigrant to pledge loyalty to the republic, and to disavow loyalty to any other state before being naturalized.

These people made a specific choice to become US citizens of their own free will. Specific conditions are placed on doing this, including making such a pledge and renouncing any citizenship to any other nation they may otherwise be entitled to claim.

Why is it so wrong to ask that people who just happened to be born here make the same pledge?

Since when can people choose where they are born?

Easy, yes

[JPelorat]

It is easy. I did it. Refused to say the pledge in junior high and high school and thereafter, because what it really is, is a form of worship - saying the pledge is worshipping the flag, and my beliefs precluded that. Got some weird looks, and some contempt, and then people quit giving a damn about it. I didn't sue anyone, I didn't even get offended that others were saying it. It's just not that big a deal.

Face it, if you can't even stand up for what you believe in, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously later on when you start bitching about being infringed upon.

All you angry types need to consider not just what the guv'mint might be teaching your kids, but also what your children are learning from *your* reaction to stuff like this - they're learning that everything can be solved with harsh words and lawsuits and hatefulness. Is that what you want?

A word from the UK

[prokofiev]

I have read much of this with interest, and i can't help thinking that this is a step in the right direction for the US. Lat me explain. Many Brits, myself included, are a little confused by the passion with which Americans approach patriotism. Am I the only one who thinks it a little scary that very young children are swearing an oath to a country? Or a God? Any God for that matter. There was an interesting comment posted earlier in this discussion, something to the tune of "...in the current political climate you are either a patriot, or a terrorist..." Think about that, we now have Americans too afraid to stand out, in a country that makes children swear an oath to a political body they have little comprehension of. No offence intended, I'm just saying be careful, and perhaps for once the courts have got it right.

I guess my objection

[N8F8]

Is with the people who clearly don't understand where the compunction to force religion out of government came from and confuse the issue with enforcing a 100% exclusion from even mentioning anything remotly religious in a publicly owned establishmment. Just as community rules dictate where the local stip club can operate, its not necessarily a "free-speech" or "freedom from religion" issue, but more a matter of "what norms and values do I cherish and protect".

Of course, I'm also against forcing any person to swear to an oath they don't believe in, but taking a quick trip down the slippery slope to "because Joey doesn't want to recite the oath, no-one is allowed to recite the oath" is well...sad. But then again, it seems more and more we are reinforcing a set of values in our society that says that taking civic responsibility or responsibility of any sort is not necessary.

But then again, I don't see the big deal in pulling two words out of the oath. They always seemed to be patched into the phrase in the first place. My objection is only with the government forcing people to take out the words...or not allow the words to be spoken under any circumstance in a publicly owned establishment. I would also point out that this is yet another reason to question the government's near total forced molopoly on education.

Re:I guess my objection

[markwelch]

> enforcing a 100% exclusion from even mentioning anything remotly religious in a publicly owned establishmment <

Fortunately, there are no such exclusions, and nobody is trying to impose such an exclusion. Of course, people who want to encourage or mandate religious intrusion into public classrooms and other public activities, despite the U.S. Constitution's "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses, will argue that doing so violates free speech. It does not. Students pray every day in their classrooms, and during classroom discussions, students may discuss religion in appropriate context, and may object to activities that aren't allowed by their religion.

When courts act to enforce the U.S. Constitution's "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses, they are doing nothing revolutionary or radical, and they are not "anti-religion." Indeed, many of the strongest opponents of government religious activity, are protestant religious leaders: they recognize that although they might seem to "win" because it is their religious views that government usually seeks to promote, any such victory is transitory, as politicians may seek to use the power of government to distort their religious beliefs, and of course in the future some other religion may gain the upper hand.

I don't believe in God, but I respect those who have religious faith. But I would like to believe that I have equal respect for Christians (of all demoninations), Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos, and any other faith, whether monotheistic or not. Including the language "under God" is much more offensive to someone who believes in a religion that does not worship "the One God," than it could ever offend me as an atheist. Mandating a pledge to God (or to a flag) is also an insult to those who believe in free will, choice, and self-determination, or who have critical thinking skills.

Re:I guess my objection

[N8F8]

Af if in response to my questioning of the government monopoly on education, the Supreme Court let the shool voucher system stand. Maybe sometime in the future, parents who don't care for the values taught in Public school can afford to send their kids to private school.

Re:I guess my objection

[UncleRoger]

"because Joey doesn't want to recite the oath, no-one is allowed to recite the oath"

That would be sad, and unconstitutional. And I would fight it, tooth and nail. But that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. This ruling isn't about limiting what the general populace can say. Anyone can say whatever they want (well, except for limits on profanity and libel (or is it slander?) and such). This ruling does not prevent anyone from reciting the 1954 version of the pledge. They can even recite it on school grounds. What this ruling is about is making sure that no one has to be forced to pledge themselves to be "under god" by a representative of the government. That the government should not endorse (even as broadly as saying there is a god) any particular religion. (Love them thar rights!)

btw, I have, for 10 years now, given my (now) wife a lecture/rant at the start of each school year, about how having the pledge posted and making the kids say it is unconstitutional. Maybe this year she'll pay attention to me! 8^)

Re:I guess my objection

[UncleRoger]

parents who don't care for the values taught in Public school can afford to send their kids to private school.

Now you're getting it! The government schools teach the basic skills -- reading, writing, 'rithmetic. (etc.) If you want something specialized, such as an education tainted by superstition, well, then by gum it, you're free to send your kids to a private school. If it's not important enough to you to sell your TV and give up beer to have your kid get a catholic/christian/jewish/muslim/antagotheistic education, well, then, it can't be all that important.

It's not the government's job to teach your kids religion. (If you don't want to take responsibility for your kid's religious education, send 'em to me. I'll teach 'em about religion.)

And lastly, those who vote for school vouchers (and who cannot afford a good private school on their own) deserve everything they get. Personally, if vouchers are ever passed here, I'm going to open up Uncle Roger's Private School, where you get a 10% cash rebate off your voucher (to buy beer!) and I'll plop 100 kids in front of disney videos every day while I vacation in Tahiti.

"one nation underground, invisible"

[markmoss]

I've been an atheist ever since I was 7 years old and my mother sent me to a Bible class. Whoa, Santa Claus is make-believe, but people actually believe this crap?

Eisenhower was still president and I was reciting the pledge every morning. "One nation under God" never bothered me - but then, I'm not sure how old I was when I figured out that the next word wasn't "invisible"... ;-)

Intolerance from the left

[JackRipper]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see all the hate and intolerance against Christianity here.

The liberals don't support vouchers so parents can send their children to the schools that support patriotism and religion, then they do all they can to remove such things from public schools.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

Face it. This country was founded by Christians. There's no way this was their intention when writing the constitution. These kinds of rulings are just a perversion. The founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves.

Pledge Unconstitutional, Talk Show Host Explodes

[tenzig_112]

The following came from a story at Ridiculopathy.com.

RUSSELL, KANSAS- On Wednesday, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the current form of the Pledge of Allegiance, with its "one nation under God" line, blurs the separation of church and state and is therefore Unconstitutional. According to authorities, this event lead radio talk show host John McJay to literally explode while on the air during his afternoon drive shift on KQWE 1280AM.

During the one o'clock hour, McJay ranted about the current situation in Israel and the West Bank. Later on, more news about the Worldcom debacle became more proof that "the world is going to hell, if it isn't there already." By the time news of the ruling broke, it was too late. McJay's faithful audience listened impotently as their host gasped for breath.

"9/11 ... Enron...Steroids in Baseball ... Tag outlawed ... Worldcom ... [explosive sound*]"

* While the exact sound of McJay's incendiary demise is a matter of debate among his fans, most described it as a something like a "wet thud."

McJay is survived by two ex-wives, three ex-children, half a dozen ex-program-directors, and several thousand avid fans.

In truth, the court decision is pretty much meaningless since it will not go into effect until it survives several rounds of appeals and the Supreme Court has already made it clear that it doesn't see a problem with the current Pledge. Of course, that wasn't enough to save poor John McJay.

Immediately after the ruling, several dozen members of Congress assembled on the Capital steps to denounce the decision. After the camera crews had settled into position, they loudly recited the unconstitutional Pledge, sang the national anthem, and beat their breasts until finally soiling their boxers with red, white, and blue ejaculate.

"It's a terrible kind of cynicism that would accuse us of grandstanding today," said Representative J.D. Hayworth of Arizona as he wrapped a replica of the 9/11 flag around his ample bosom. "While it may be true that we're all up for reelection this fall and this may seem like a softball issue, we're taking a taxpayer-funded break to pose for photos and issue soundbites for you, the American people. Oh, I almost forgot to mention 9/11. 9/11, everybody!"

After his court victory, renowned atheist Michael A. Newdow told reporters that the ruling was "a step forward for civil liberties in America."

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch admitted that the situation caught him off guard. "Civil liberties? I thought we got rid of that crap when we passed the Patriot Act."

Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee reminded his constituents that Constitutional rights work both ways. "Freedom of religion gives me the right to force my faith on anyone I choose, so long as my faith is popular enough to lend weight to my point of view."

If the words "under god" feel tacked on, that's because they were, in 1954 to be exact. A proposal to replace the offending line with "One nation under C'Thulhu" has been rejected.

Already citizens groups and civil libertarians are sitting down at the negotiating table in an attempt to work out a new compromise edition of the Pledge:

"I pledge my tentative support

to the woven nationalistic symbol

of the United States of America.

One nation, made up of diverse but equally valid groups

under some sort of Supreme Being- or not, depending on your particular view

with liberty and justice for most.

I also preemptively apologize if this offended anyone.

Press Secretary

[mbbac]

This morning I saw the press secretary talking about how ridiculous this ruling is. He gave examples of many other ways that we currently violate the constitution as if two (or multiple) wrongs make a right. It's just sad to see a nation adopt of the most despised properties of another nation that it is at "war" with.

I really would like to suggest that if people don't like the constitution because it doesn't allow for a government sanctioned religion that they move to a country that allows that: like Afghanistan or something. Maybe they'll be fortunate enough to find a country with a sanctioned religion that corresponds exactly to their narrow beliefs.

Re:Whats so hard to understand?

[dbrutus]

What constitutes a church is in the tax code, I think 501(b)7 is the correct section but it's been awhile since I read USC 501 (about 10 years). The application is made and provisionally granted for 5 years if you do it right and then they review it at the end of the term to see whether you've gone nuts or you are acting consistent with your tax status.

Any taxation of churches would lead to the ability of a disfavored religion being shut down by punitive (100%+) taxation. That's been ruled unconstitutional and the reason that *any* of the nonprofits are exempt.

Re:my $ is unconstitutional.

[dbrutus]

Nice guess but wrong.

I'm the one who modded this up

[Arcturax]

He was joking, and it was funny. Hitler was mocked in cartoons and other media back during WWII. Today we mock the current state of US affairs on the web. We should not cut off all outlets of humor just because this country is going through a bad spell, if we lose our ability to laugh, then things really will be hopeless.

Re:please???

[alcmena]

Pray tell what was the amendment that made a general promotion of belief over unbelief unconstitutional?

It's one of those little known ammendments, sometimes known as the 1st.

As a Christian, I agree with this atheist

[tigre]

Although I agree with many of my Christian sistren and brethren that there is a lot of hostility in certain areas of the government towards our faith, it is a self-reinforcing cycle. Christians feel persecuted and start flexing their muscle to change things. Their opponents feel that Christians are shutting them out and react.

I personally hate any sort of equation of "American" with "Christian". It cheapens both terms.

Re:Can't an Atheist be a good Citizen/Patriot?

[ShavenYak]

Not according to George Bush senior, who, while campagining for the Presidency in 1987, said "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

The flag speaks to them

[Snaller]

>I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
>Of the United States of America

I promise to do what my flag tells me (of course if i actually hear a flag talking to me I'm a raving lunatic)

>And to the Republic
>For which it stands

My country is always right and can do no wrong, regardles of what other countries say (even if we have to kick their ass!)

>One Nation, Under God

Now i believe in supernational creatures for which there is no proof, but that is ok since I already believe in talking flags.

>Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All.

How can it be indivisible when its full of small states! Liberty and Justice for all who can pay. Yup.

My children

[Rupert]

will not be reciting any pledge of allegiance. They are British and American. If at some time they feel they have to (or are required to) choose one over the other, then they can pledge that allegiance.

Re:My mail (and Thank you Michael A. Newdow!)

[Yunzil]

If there is no God, there is no Moral Authority.

If that's true, then why aren't there rampaging mobs of atheists raping and pillaging their way across the country?

No reason to denounce the Holocaust.

Wrong. Any sane person thinks the Holocaust was an immeasurable atrocity. Which was caused by a devout believer in God, I might add.

No reason to denounce the Crusades.

If there is a God, then why should we denounce the Crusades, since they were done in His name?

I recommend a a little time in American History class.

I recommend a little time in the real world.

Do you undestand "matter of principle"?

[jotaeleemeese]

No? Yeah, thought so.

Nothing, what is wrong with you?

[jotaeleemeese]

There are very few simple ideas to grasp here:

-The Goverment can't promote any religious belief. Period.

-The schools, as part of the goverment, are promoting a religious belief every time they force children to recite the pledge. This violates separation of Church and state.

I am not religious and such practice offends me and I think it i unconstitutional. If you think it is fine good for you, but then don't complain when other principles that guarantee diferent freedoms are eroded by powerful religious groups with an agenda of making of the US an intolerant Christian country.

Re:Oh?

[Zen Mastuh]

Don't forget that our Founding Fathers ended up here as a result of their old government favoring a particular brand of religion. It was their intention to avoid a repeat.

Re:This Is Why We Are Angry

[fmaxwell]

I believe the government should promote the majority culture. You don't.

I do not believe that a majority culture needs promotion or protection. It is those people who are in the minority that need that protection. It is the atheists, Jews, and Buddhists that are facing the uphill battle in our society, not the Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists.

Our founding fathers recognized that and it is the reason why the ruling went the way that it did in this case.

However, there'd been a silent understanding all these years that let it stay, because it served the needs of the populace, and they liked it.

I was not in on that "silent understanding" and always found the PoA recital in the morning to be offensive both in it's Nazi-like forced nature to the reference to God. And there is something wrong when little children are forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance long before they ever know what the words "pledge" and "allegiance" mean.

thats not lying by omission

[Edmund Blackadder]

Lying by omission is when you ommit some material facts that make your statement intentionaly misleading.

The pledge can never be lyingby omission because nobody uses it for information. Nobody determines whether God exists or not dependingon whats in the pledge.

Itonly feels blasphemous toyou because you are used tohaving it there, and every body in the media keeps repeating thats its blasphemous ad naseum.

Fine by me

[Angst Badger]

Compulsory speech is already illegal. The Pledge of Mindless Obedience to the State should be no exception.

Let me tell you a story. When I was a teenager, I had a bumper sticker on my car -- I don't even remember what it said, except that it was critical of some government policy or other -- that depicted an upside-down American flag, which is a traditional signal of distress.

On account of this bumper sticker, I was accosted in a parking lot by a clutch of Nazi skinhead punks, beaten bloody, and with a combat boot on my trachea, coerced into saying "I love my country."

Actually, I do love my country, but I have a bottomless hatred for those who, like those skinheads, would subvert the principles of freedom to force worship of its external symbols. I don't see any difference in kind between the Nazis who assaulted me and third-grade teachers who coerce students into reciting that ridiculous, subversive, and un-American pledge. The difference, if there is one, is in degree only.

So the advocates of the mandatory pledge can take their political and religious doctrines and shove them up their subversive asses. You are traitors to the ideals of the American republic and idolaters of symbols you don't even understand. The next person who wants to violate my First Amendment rights that way will get a quick refresher course on my Second Amendment rights.

The delicious irony in your post...

[hyacinthus]

...is that you complain about the insertion of the "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1953, when _your_ religion, so-called (you _are_ a neo-pagan, aren't you?), didn't even _exist_ in 1953.

hyacinthus.

Re:Unbelievable, shocked when I heard this!

[Edmund Blackadder]

Right you are an atheist.

What surprises me about the really religous people in this country is how they dont really follow their religion.

Nixon who's religion supposedly denounced war willing killed millions in southeast asia. And you are obviously religous but you come on here and lie AND denounce God.

tsk tsk tsk.

Oh and by the way i am interested to hear where God is mentioned in the constitution.

In the first amendment

[gruntvald]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF

Re:In the first amendment

[Edmund Blackadder]

so where is god mentioned?

Re:In the first amendment

[gruntvald]

In the small print.

Re:it's kinda strange

[Jordy]

Religions that do not believe in god are by definition, atheists.

A theist is simply someone who believes in a deity or supreme being, nothing more, nothing less.

Most Buddhists for instance should be considered atheists since Buddha (or Buddhas depending on the sect) was not a god but a man who reached nirvana. (Note many Buddhist are also Taoists.)

Shinto on the other hand does believe in deities known as Kami, but they aren't omnipowerful. Whether or not Shinto is theist or atheist is up for debate.

There are many atheist religions out there. The idea that atheists are without a value system (essentially what religions such as Confusionism and Buddhism are) is silly.

Re:Missed the point

[ToastyKen]

God never once told anyone to rape anybody

This comment has spared me from bothering to look up an instance of God ordering rape, since it points out Numbers 31:17-19. Rape is implied in ownership of women. (In fact, in many countries in the world today, "marital rape" is taken for granted as an okay thing.) Which reminds me: I forgot to mention God's sanctioning of slavery in the Bible as well.

But if I understand all you people correctly, that would constitute a massive disregard for the psycho's 'rights' and 'freedom'. And that person running around claiming God told him to kill everyone is trampling on YOUR 'freedom'. So who's 'freedoms' are being more trampled on?

Firstly, I'm one person, not "people". I speak for myself. Secondly, you're making a strawman attack. I've never said that I'm for total freedom of everyone. That's called anarchy, and I"m not for it by any means. I'm for social constructs. I'm for legal systems based on negotiation and compromise.

Yes, we do have to give a little "freedom" to live together. I give up the freedom not to go around stealing people's stuff and killing people for the security of knowing that my own stuff won't be stolen, and that people won't be killing me. Just where the line between freedom and security ought to be drawn is a matter of constant debate, of course. I for one have never said that I don't want any security.

As a born-again Christian, I don't see how I can EVER separate my public life from my private life: my God desires/demands that my public life reflect my personal beliefs. I'm not going to run around killing people, but if I pray in a restaurant, who's business is it?

Again, I think you're attacking a strawman. I for one have not the slightest issue with your praying in a restaurant. I don't think there's any law against that, either. I have no problem with your religious beliefs influencing your public life, either. I don't even have a problem, per se, with people's religious beliefs affecting matters of public policy. (I am not theoretically opposed to people opposing contraception education for religious reasons, for instance, however much I may disagree.) What I am against is gov't policy specifically endorsing a religious belief.

So again, you have the freedom to act in accordance with your religious beliefs, but I have the right to act in accordance with mine. And, in reality, we will compromise, even if we're not fully satisfied. That's how real life works.

Re:What ever happened to the United States itself?

[Eric Smith]

If you burn the flag here, I think you should be deported.

On what basis?

It directly means you hate our nation and our beliefs.

Perhaps. Or it might mean that you hate our government, which is quite possible to do without hating our country; the country encompasses much more than the government. Or it might mean something else entirely. The flag is merely a symbols, and it may mean different things to different people. As Mark Twain said, "To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags--this is loyalty to unreason, it is pure animal."

We live in a free society. With that, you are free to leave.

You are also free to stay, even if your beliefs and actions are unpopular.

This is the US and the Pledge is supporting our country.

How does it support our country? Will having children recite the pledge keep someone here from going hungry, or put a roof over their head? Will it change the outcome of a battle, or prevent foreign terrorists from crashing airliners into skyscrapers?

Therefore, by saying the word god by no means requires the belief in Jesus, or any other specific religion.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It doesn't say "specific religion." Having the words "under God" or even "under god" in the pledge certainly is "respecting an establishment of religion," even if it isn't a specific religion.

So, "one nation, under a supreme value" is not so offensive, but god is easier to say.

The core issue isn't offensiveness. But "under a supreme value" is just as offensive to me as "under God," since I do NOT believe in a "supreme value".

If Congress wants to fix this problem, they should simply remove the words "under God," which were only added as part of McCarthy's Communist scare anyhow.

Re:1954 Vote

[Kredal]

It was passed 99-0. Sorry.

Re:fractional reserve banking

[King_TJ]

Honestly, the issue I think needs addressing is the blatant throwing away of money by the United States to other countries for dubious purposes.

EG. George Bush signing off on sending Africa $500 billion for AIDS research last week.

When you look at money as simply an aid in exchanging goods or services - the fractional reserve banking system doesn't cause so many "real world" issues. Where it breaks down, IMO, is when you start shipping off funds to other countries with no hope of an eventual payback, and you don't receive anything of value in return. Each time this is done, the strength of the nation as a whole is sapped.

I can see how the current system ensures the continuation of inflation over time - but to me, the more important thing is whether or not the nation retains its real wealth. The dollar figures are just numbers, and it doesn't ultimately matter if a loaf of bread costs 25 cents or $2.25 - as long as the average citizen is paid a salary that's equivalent. We only get screwed when we export some of our funds from the govt. citizen loop by giving it away to another nation for worthless causes.

Re:Help protest the governmental usage of "God"...

[IceWedge]

My dear uneducated friend.. the key words in the phrase here are "Church" & "State". The laws say nothing about "GOD" & "State" or "Religion" & "State". The Foundation of that law was to see that no ONE religion was to have undue influence on the United States Government; as was the major problem with the "CHURCH" of England. Thus leading to the rebellion of the colonists and the foundation of the country that gives people the right to spout their opinions whether or not they know what they're talking about...

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Rakarra]

Where does the Constitution give Congress power to be involved in education, period?

It doesn't really. Thus the SC's recent ruling that school vouchers are not unconstitutional.

Re:Governmental trust

[UncleRoger]

...printing a mention of God on some publicly distributed government items.

Well, it's not just a mention of god, and it's not just some random government item. It's a declaration of trust in god and it's on our currency and coinage.

This is, in effect, our government saying that a) there is a god, b) there is one god, and c) that said god is indeed trusted by the government (and, because of the "we" bit, by the american people.) Furthermore, this is on what is probably one of the most important (to the average Joe) and visible "items" produced by the government.

I, personally, don't trust that god dude any further than I can throw him, and don't really want my government trusting him either. Except, that I don't believe he exists, and don't think my government should be forcing words in my mouth.

So, this is a wonderful event, and I look forward to the next step of getting god out of our wallets.

Re:Christian beliefs? That's highly debateable.

[Rakarra]

Congress approved it in the 1950's, when everyone was finger-pointing at "known communists". Communism is an atheistic form of government, and so by affirming the "under god" part you are reaffirming your lack of atheism, thus Communism loses in the elementary schools.

Actually communism more defines economic systems. Totalitarian regimes, neither necessary nor exclusive to communism, found religion to be bothersome since it was a competing center of power to a completely authoritarian government.

Re:Interpretation is apparently the key then.

[Rakarra]

Really, so were do you draw the line? The president is I believe Baptist I have heard him and many other members of our government use the term god on many occasions. Should they to be removed from government?

No, again, I mentioned I was fine with personal beliefs in God. When the President invokes God or thanks God, etc, I know that is a personal statement. But that is much different from sliding that into an official national pledge.

How about the teachings of roman or Greek gods in school should that to be removed from the curriculum?

Nope, because it has to do with history. I also believe that the history of Christianity should be taught in history classes as well from a historical perspective, due to its great importance in history.

Should we remove science and the teaching of evolotution because it goes against the Christian beliefs of creation?

No, because it's what science currently believes to be the best explanation of what occurs. Some teachers will absolutely set that in stone, but they shouldn't. That's bad science.

The whole term is generic enough anyway that it should not offend anyone who is not looking to be offended.

Personally, I think the whole has been blown way out of proportion on both sides. Sure it's unconstitional, but there are a huge number of unconstitional things the government does that are a hell of a lot more important.

Re:Evolution should be next

[Rakarra]

As for the other crap the parent poster was throwing out, it's tragic - he (she? it?) could at least have done some research before creating a terribly broken argument like that. And unfortunately I'm too tired to pull it apart more . . .

He sounds like one of Jack T. Chick's brood. Chick published a track with a similar theme and similar lame arguements.

Re:Is Open Source the answer?

[Xaoswolf]

This doesn't really have anything to do with an "establishment of religion". By large this is, and has always been, a religious country. It also just says god, it doesn't specify any god or specific religion. You could take that to mean whatever you want.

Re:Governmental trust

[junkgrep]

It's worse than that: it's our official motto. And the "We" is not the government: it's the people. Leading to the conclusion that either the motto is a lie (not eveyrone in the "We" trusts, much less believes in, God), or a backhanded implication that those who do not trust in God are not really legitimate members of the "We"