"under God" is respecting an establishment of religion, so it is forbidden for congress to pass such a law.
I've read elsewhere and I started reading caselaw which seems to suggest that "respecting" is actually more vauge than you might suspect (perhaps because of the second definition?) -- especially because of the previous proposals. In addition, I think the page also mentions that until the last century, the prevailing interpretation was generally less strict.
Not according to John Adams- according to the Treaty of Tripoli
The Treaty of Tripoli is interesting, but might be able to be relegated to strict semantics. From my understanding, it is likely that while the founders might believe that the US was founded upon Christian principles (or philosophy), they might also believe that it was not founded upon Christianity. i.e. the fact that the US is a secular government which does not defer to any Christian religious authority (e.g. the pope) might make it "not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion".
Of course, that phrase "not in any sense" seems quite damning to my position:), but the fact of the Christian religion being involved in the government processes (though without any legal authority) seems to directly conflict with at least some sense of being "founded on the Christian Religion"... not to mention documents such as the Declaration of Independence which makes reference to Nature's God and man's Creator from which certain unalienable Rights are endowed.
I'm also reminded of the virtually ubiquitous study of the Bible in schools of the day and numerous writings of founders which claim the necessity of the morality in religion. Religion was not always a dirty word associated with a corrupt heirarchy, molesters, and coercion (cf. organized religion as opposed to religion). Religion encompassed the highest ideals shared amongst people.
Please allow me to frame my perspective so that you do not think me a raving loon for my arguments:)
While I think the US was founded upon Christian ideals and morals, it is obviously a secular government (no deferment to religious authorities for legal power), as it should be. I certainly do not want the power of law behind any religion.
Then I wonder, what exactly is "religion"? Is it limited to faith in some God? Does religion require a leader who could make outrageous proclamations that must be followed? Does it require practices that some people don't understand or believe in? Is it basically just a set of morals and social norms and ideals amongst a group? Can a single person have his own religion? Though vital, morality is subjective. Perhaps the only objectivity is people's agreement upon certain aspects.
Could "Republican" and "Democrat" be considered religions? They certainly share many similarities with religions.
I especially wonder about religion in light of the MPAA teaching a particular morality (or ethics, if you prefer) in schools. I disagree with the MPAA, but what is to prevent morals (or beliefs) I disagree with from being promoted in schools? Then again, I also disagree with teaching bias (from my subjective perspective) in certain topics of History and any number of other subjective topics (note that I do not include the existant process of evolution in this to the extent that it has been proven).
There is much more to learn in life than objective science. At what point do people's biases and morality become a religion?
I agree with you: I think it is certainly possible for someone not to believe in any "god". But as I indicated previously and as you illustrate, the definition is blurred for many people. Many Christians speak of other "gods" (e.g. you mentioned money which they call "Mammon"). Some of these gods are "false gods" that they do not believe even exist.
Hence, due to the subjective nature of most "gods", what is a "god" is largely subjective.
Excellent point. Thanks for correcting me. So would it be fair to say that the founding principles derive from the Christian philosophy?
I think you are right -- most people who consider themselves Christians require Jesus to be their savior, which is obviously not universally the case for the Founding Fathers. I wonder if they believed in the Christian resurrection or life after death?
Deism is the notion that a god created the universe but has had NO EFFECT on it since then, and has left things to run on their own according to the laws of nature that he wisely set up to need no tweaking.
Thanks for your post. I must admit that I have only heard and read of "Deism" incidently and never actually looked up the definition. I always thought Deists believe that God designed the universe and that all "miracles" are a result of natural processes (as originally designed by God) which are scientifically explainable.
Does Deism simply preclude true interactivity with God? Could God have pre-planned events to a great extent? If so, I'm not sure Jesus and Moses could not be explained. Of course, I am a novice, so I will defer to your opinion that Deism is incompatible (though derived from) Christianity.
As for those founding fathers that were deists, yes they got there FROM Christianity as a starting point, but they weren't Christians anymore.
That is an interesting distinction. Is it therefore fair to say that the principles of the US is similarly based upon the principles of Christianity?
To be a god it has to be a thinking entity. People who worship liberty generally don't believe that it's actually a cognisant being - just a human-invented concept that should be upheld.
That's an interesting qualification. Of course, then we must define what it means to "think". "Spirit" is another somewhat similar word which may or may not have sentient implications.
I think the definition of "god" could be stretched to include any higher power -- e.g. a "universal consciousness" which does not require a separate intelligence (a combined synergistic "entity"), or "justice" which some believe exists independently from man, though is perhaps not itself sentient.
This whole discussion highlights the difficulty of using terms when denotation is not exact or cannot be proven. I'm having similar difficulties defining "religion".
BUT I suspect your definition of "god" is probably most people's definition of "god", so I'll stop here.:)
DRM reduces the perceived value of the music Nonsense. If that were universally true, iTunes would not have succeeded to the degree that is has.
Your conclusion doesn't quite follow. The success of iTunes can be attributed to the fact that another service which provides the same music without DRM does not exist. Of course, all value is perceived, so only by comparing two identical services, one with DRM and one without, can we truly determine whether DRM reduces value.
IMHO, DRM does reduce the value of a product to a consumer because it restricts their ability to use and copy as they see fit. I can't argue that this is legal because of the DMCA, but it certainly is a valuable possibility that exists for non-DRM material.
I'd like a DVD player without User Operation Prohibitions that doesn't respect region coding, but no one is (legally?) making them. I place extra value on these features, but they are not available.
Many of the "Founding Fathers" - Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Franklin, and Madison, to name a few - were Deists, Unitarians, or in some other way explictly disagreed with Christian dogma.
They rejected certain popular Christian dogma, true. But is what they rejected defining of what you would consider Christianity? In the most generic sense, Christianity means a follower of Christ or his teachings. Deists, Unitarians (as opposed to Trinitarians), etc are all generally considered to be Christians by modern definition.
The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with Tripoli, written duing the Washington administration, states that "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
True, though again, that depends upon your definition of "Christianity". Using the broad definition, there is sufficient evidence contrary to that statement throughout all early writings, including the Declaration of Independence and writings pertaining to the Constitution (cf. "denominations" as opposed to "religion"). If we are to assume that they did not lie in this treaty, then I would suggest that their definition of "Christian" was indeed limited to a very specific sect of the followers of Christ or the Bible.
Fortunately, we have a constitution that makes it clear that it is not the state's job to judge the truth or falsity of the proposition "God exists".
While I agree with you that that is not the state's job (though the state does a lot that I don't think is its job), I think you are indirectly referring to the First Amendment:
"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."
We must be careful to understand what all these terms mean. As with "Christianity", people have widely varied ideas of "religion" and "establishment", as well as "freedom of speech", etc.
I do not think it is quite as plain as you imply.
e.g. I certainly don't want anyone to be forced to be Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus or Taoists or Animists or Totemists, etc. But religion is a complicated notion, encompassing morality and human behavior and norms. What exactly is it and how do we isolate it such that we do not create another religion by isolating it?
Christianity. The only religion that refers to its diety as "God" in english (not to be confused with "A god" or "the god" or "god" (no capital G)).
Really? Are you sure? 'Cause I've seen adherents of many other religions use the capital 'G' to denote an entity other than the Christian "God" (as defined by the Bible). In general, capital 'G' denotes a monotheistic singularity (or in the most general case, a highest god), similar to a proper name but not requiring that it always denotes the same idea ("idea" because most people have not proven their God exists). e.g. there are many people who do not believe YHWH and Allah are the same God. Some people don't even think God has a single consciousness as we know it.
Consider the belief that God is liberty and justice for all (actually just justice, but liberty comes from justice). This could be the Christian God, but that includes a lot of baggage.
Of course, if we restrict ourselves to the bulk of American heritage, you are generally correct in your denotation of "God" and it is therefore fair to make the argument that it is that "God" that was intended when the pledge was changed. Of course, I've also seen arguments about what was intended by the framers of the Constitution regarding "God", denominations, and freedom of religion (cf. early schools).
But regardless, is "under God" all that is required to establish a national religion? Or is it that Christianity has pretty much always been the de facto national religion even though individual freedom of religion is protected?
That said, being forced to pledge anything seems like a violation of some innate right and is essentially meaningless unless done voluntarily. Of course, school itself is not voluntary, and certainly moral and historical bias occur throughout "education" even without the formal moniker of "religion". This article about the MPAA is an excellent example of this.
But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God. There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
You're right, pledging allegiance to an object (flag) sure seems like the establishment of a religion to me. Those crazy flag idolaters.
Oh, you're talking about the phrase "under God"!? Yeah, it's pretty clear that that does establish a religion... hmmm... but which religion does it establish? What are the rules of this religion? What the heck is a religion, anyway?
I know! I'll look it up! Hmmm... religion is "a system of thought, feeling, and action shared by a group that gives members an object of devotion; a code of ethics governing personal and social conduct; and a frame of reference relating individuals to their group and the universe." [The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, 1995].
In all honesty, my God is liberty and justice for all. What, are you implying that She doesn't exist?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your excellent responses.
:), but the fact of the Christian religion being involved in the government processes (though without any legal authority) seems to directly conflict with at least some sense of being "founded on the Christian Religion"... not to mention documents such as the Declaration of Independence which makes reference to Nature's God and man's Creator from which certain unalienable Rights are endowed.
:)
"under God" is respecting an establishment of religion, so it is forbidden for congress to pass such a law.
I've read elsewhere and I started reading caselaw which seems to suggest that "respecting" is actually more vauge than you might suspect (perhaps because of the second definition?) -- especially because of the previous proposals. In addition, I think the page also mentions that until the last century, the prevailing interpretation was generally less strict.
Not according to John Adams- according to the Treaty of Tripoli
The Treaty of Tripoli is interesting, but might be able to be relegated to strict semantics. From my understanding, it is likely that while the founders might believe that the US was founded upon Christian principles (or philosophy), they might also believe that it was not founded upon Christianity. i.e. the fact that the US is a secular government which does not defer to any Christian religious authority (e.g. the pope) might make it "not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion".
Of course, that phrase "not in any sense" seems quite damning to my position
I'm also reminded of the virtually ubiquitous study of the Bible in schools of the day and numerous writings of founders which claim the necessity of the morality in religion. Religion was not always a dirty word associated with a corrupt heirarchy, molesters, and coercion (cf. organized religion as opposed to religion). Religion encompassed the highest ideals shared amongst people.
Please allow me to frame my perspective so that you do not think me a raving loon for my arguments
While I think the US was founded upon Christian ideals and morals, it is obviously a secular government (no deferment to religious authorities for legal power), as it should be. I certainly do not want the power of law behind any religion.
Then I wonder, what exactly is "religion"? Is it limited to faith in some God? Does religion require a leader who could make outrageous proclamations that must be followed? Does it require practices that some people don't understand or believe in? Is it basically just a set of morals and social norms and ideals amongst a group? Can a single person have his own religion? Though vital, morality is subjective. Perhaps the only objectivity is people's agreement upon certain aspects.
Could "Republican" and "Democrat" be considered religions? They certainly share many similarities with religions.
I especially wonder about religion in light of the MPAA teaching a particular morality (or ethics, if you prefer) in schools. I disagree with the MPAA, but what is to prevent morals (or beliefs) I disagree with from being promoted in schools? Then again, I also disagree with teaching bias (from my subjective perspective) in certain topics of History and any number of other subjective topics (note that I do not include the existant process of evolution in this to the extent that it has been proven).
There is much more to learn in life than objective science. At what point do people's biases and morality become a religion?
I agree with you: I think it is certainly possible for someone not to believe in any "god". But as I indicated previously and as you illustrate, the definition is blurred for many people. Many Christians speak of other "gods" (e.g. you mentioned money which they call "Mammon"). Some of these gods are "false gods" that they do not believe even exist.
Hence, due to the subjective nature of most "gods", what is a "god" is largely subjective.
Excellent point. Thanks for correcting me. So would it be fair to say that the founding principles derive from the Christian philosophy?
I think you are right -- most people who consider themselves Christians require Jesus to be their savior, which is obviously not universally the case for the Founding Fathers. I wonder if they believed in the Christian resurrection or life after death?
Deism is the notion that a god created the universe but has had NO EFFECT on it since then, and has left things to run on their own according to the laws of nature that he wisely set up to need no tweaking.
Thanks for your post. I must admit that I have only heard and read of "Deism" incidently and never actually looked up the definition. I always thought Deists believe that God designed the universe and that all "miracles" are a result of natural processes (as originally designed by God) which are scientifically explainable.
Does Deism simply preclude true interactivity with God? Could God have pre-planned events to a great extent? If so, I'm not sure Jesus and Moses could not be explained. Of course, I am a novice, so I will defer to your opinion that Deism is incompatible (though derived from) Christianity.
As for those founding fathers that were deists, yes they got there FROM Christianity as a starting point, but they weren't Christians anymore.
That is an interesting distinction. Is it therefore fair to say that the principles of the US is similarly based upon the principles of Christianity?
To be a god it has to be a thinking entity. People who worship liberty generally don't believe that it's actually a cognisant being - just a human-invented concept that should be upheld.
:)
That's an interesting qualification. Of course, then we must define what it means to "think". "Spirit" is another somewhat similar word which may or may not have sentient implications.
I think the definition of "god" could be stretched to include any higher power -- e.g. a "universal consciousness" which does not require a separate intelligence (a combined synergistic "entity"), or "justice" which some believe exists independently from man, though is perhaps not itself sentient.
This whole discussion highlights the difficulty of using terms when denotation is not exact or cannot be proven. I'm having similar difficulties defining "religion".
BUT I suspect your definition of "god" is probably most people's definition of "god", so I'll stop here.
IMHO, DRM does reduce the value of a product to a consumer because it restricts their ability to use and copy as they see fit. I can't argue that this is legal because of the DMCA, but it certainly is a valuable possibility that exists for non-DRM material.
I'd like a DVD player without User Operation Prohibitions that doesn't respect region coding, but no one is (legally?) making them. I place extra value on these features, but they are not available.
Many of the "Founding Fathers" - Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Franklin, and Madison, to name a few - were Deists, Unitarians, or in some other way explictly disagreed with Christian dogma.
They rejected certain popular Christian dogma, true. But is what they rejected defining of what you would consider Christianity? In the most generic sense, Christianity means a follower of Christ or his teachings. Deists, Unitarians (as opposed to Trinitarians), etc are all generally considered to be Christians by modern definition.
The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with Tripoli, written duing the Washington administration, states that "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
True, though again, that depends upon your definition of "Christianity". Using the broad definition, there is sufficient evidence contrary to that statement throughout all early writings, including the Declaration of Independence and writings pertaining to the Constitution (cf. "denominations" as opposed to "religion"). If we are to assume that they did not lie in this treaty, then I would suggest that their definition of "Christian" was indeed limited to a very specific sect of the followers of Christ or the Bible.
Fortunately, we have a constitution that makes it clear that it is not the state's job to judge the truth or falsity of the proposition "God exists".
While I agree with you that that is not the state's job (though the state does a lot that I don't think is its job), I think you are indirectly referring to the First Amendment:
"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."
We must be careful to understand what all these terms mean. As with "Christianity", people have widely varied ideas of "religion" and "establishment", as well as "freedom of speech", etc.
I do not think it is quite as plain as you imply.
e.g. I certainly don't want anyone to be forced to be Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus or Taoists or Animists or Totemists, etc. But religion is a complicated notion, encompassing morality and human behavior and norms. What exactly is it and how do we isolate it such that we do not create another religion by isolating it?
Christianity. The only religion that refers to its diety as "God" in english (not to be confused with "A god" or "the god" or "god" (no capital G)).
Really? Are you sure? 'Cause I've seen adherents of many other religions use the capital 'G' to denote an entity other than the Christian "God" (as defined by the Bible). In general, capital 'G' denotes a monotheistic singularity (or in the most general case, a highest god), similar to a proper name but not requiring that it always denotes the same idea ("idea" because most people have not proven their God exists). e.g. there are many people who do not believe YHWH and Allah are the same God. Some people don't even think God has a single consciousness as we know it.
Consider the belief that God is liberty and justice for all (actually just justice, but liberty comes from justice). This could be the Christian God, but that includes a lot of baggage.
Of course, if we restrict ourselves to the bulk of American heritage, you are generally correct in your denotation of "God" and it is therefore fair to make the argument that it is that "God" that was intended when the pledge was changed. Of course, I've also seen arguments about what was intended by the framers of the Constitution regarding "God", denominations, and freedom of religion (cf. early schools).
But regardless, is "under God" all that is required to establish a national religion? Or is it that Christianity has pretty much always been the de facto national religion even though individual freedom of religion is protected?
That said, being forced to pledge anything seems like a violation of some innate right and is essentially meaningless unless done voluntarily. Of course, school itself is not voluntary, and certainly moral and historical bias occur throughout "education" even without the formal moniker of "religion". This article about the MPAA is an excellent example of this.
But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God. There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
You're right, pledging allegiance to an object (flag) sure seems like the establishment of a religion to me. Those crazy flag idolaters.
Oh, you're talking about the phrase "under God"!? Yeah, it's pretty clear that that does establish a religion... hmmm... but which religion does it establish? What are the rules of this religion? What the heck is a religion, anyway?
I know! I'll look it up! Hmmm... religion is "a system of thought, feeling, and action shared by a group that gives members an object of devotion; a code of ethics governing personal and social conduct; and a frame of reference relating individuals to their group and the universe." [The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, 1995].
In all honesty, my God is liberty and justice for all. What, are you implying that She doesn't exist?