The pledge ruling and Michael Newdow

VilliageIdiot · Post by **VilliageIdiot** » 2002-08-13 07:33pm

Can someone help me understand just exaclty which point we're arguing? Are people debating over if the banning was a morally right action or a lawful action? It seems to me that the debate is swiveling between the two points.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2002-08-13 10:31pm

Contrary to all this nonsense being bandied about about "under God" meaning anything you want it to be, "God" CLEARLY refers to the Judeo-Christian God, and you only have to look at how the line got into the Pledge in the first place. It was added in the 1950's, at the height of the red scare, by Congress, more than fifty or sixty years after the pledge was originally composed. Historical context counts in this case. They didn't mean Allah, or Vinishu, or Buddah, or "the self" (what sort of nonsensical statement is that, to say that an athiest can interpret "God" to mean himself--does that mean than when an athiest says the full pledge, he means the entire nation exists under him?).

The establishment clause was clearly intended to prevent the creation of a state church. The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the sort of religious violence that had been plaguing Europe for the last several centuries (remember that in 1787, the witch hunts, the Thirty Years' War, the worst of the Inquisition, etc, were much more recent and vivid history than they are today). This has become interpreted to mean that the government must remain entirely secular--not athiest, just secular. The government neither believes in not disbelieves in any diety of any kind. This is the way it has to be, in a country in which nearly every faith and culture on Earth is represented in non-trivial numbers. Moreover, this is the way it OUGHT to be. Government is about force. It's about coercion. Even the most benevolent government must impose its will on the common citizen. If history has taught us anything, it's that religion and force combined will always create horrible things. Furthermore, if you are religious, why in the world do you want the state invovled in it? Suppose you're an all out fundy and you want Dubya to be able to give tax dollars to your church. Since you and he pretty much share the same mind religiously, it's all hunky dory. So tell me what happens in 2004 or 2008 when a liberal democrat gets elected and starts giving your tax dollars to Unitarian Universalists and the Church of Satan? Are things hunky dory then? Are you so desperate to give Pat Robertson a voice in the government that you're willing to risk giving Hillary Clinton a voice in how your chuch is run?

As for the timing, you can't blame anyone for this. A case like this will spend years going through lower courts and months before the appeallate court. Newdow may be a jerk (if what people are saying about his ideas about pronouns are true), but he didn't deliberately time this to happen 10 months after September 11.

Newdow was morally right to object to his children being force to chose between participation and protest. A public school, like it or not, is a government institution, and extention of the state, with the power to coerce. The court was legally right in their ruling. Of course, this is going to go to the Supreme Court, and it may get overturned there. I'm curious to see what the ruling will be, and what legal justification the justices that vote against the ruling use.

yellow clouds · Post by **yellow clouds** » 2002-08-14 10:58am

The preceeding quotes prove my point exactly of the inherent perversion of what the 1st amendment means. We can discuss all day what would be best, or woulda, shoulda, coulda, but frankly, thats irrelevent to the point. We are here to discuss what it is the 1st amendment means, and whether the wording "under god" in the pledge is "unconstitutional". Lets go through it one more time.

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

Of the many rights the constitution gives to congress, this is one that congress has absolutley NO jurisdiction over. Congress shall make NO law respecting (concerning) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... The issue of historical meaning of the deity, forcing religion down people throats, endorsement of religion; they are all important issues. But the 1st amendment doesn't deal with those. The First Amendment restricts the government, not its people. One of the main reasons that the puritans/pilgrims came to America was for religious freedom purposes. American citizens have the right to practice their own religion, and the goverment has no right to interfere. All the other concerns about the pledge are interesting, and ought to be brought up, however don't confuse the issues with the amendment. All the arguments brought up against this have nothing to do with the first amendment.

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2002-08-14 04:26pm

yellow clouds. The whole point is that CONGRESS recognized the CHRISTIAN DEITY in a pledge that is recited in PUBLIC SCHOOLS. And there are an number of schols that FORCE CHILDREN TO RECITE IT. This violates the 1st amendment.

Genovas Project · Post by **Genovas Project** » 2002-08-14 07:23pm

Bleh. True, congress is not to establish any religion, nor endorse any religion, nor promote commercially conversion attempts. Every single one of these were undermined and ignored when the words "under God" were added to the pledge because of the onslaught of "godless" communism.
YC, I truly cannot understand how you can look at the addage of these two words as if they were not religious indoctrination into the public. For encantrare, they were added specifically to bring "God" (that is Yahew) into America, to prevent "godless" communism.

Truly, we have a policy in America that prohibits our government from harbouring religion, and one that allows for absolutely no ones rights to be undermined. "God" as is spelled and implied in the pledge, is a direct reference to the judeo-christian God Yahew. Why promote Americas ambiguity and keep it? Why use a term that can not apply to all individuals of America without benefitting another?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2002-08-14 08:26pm

Why not recite it the original damn way it way? "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". It was perfectly fine that way. Congress had no right to meddle with it in the first place.

Genovas Project · Post by **Genovas Project** » 2002-08-14 08:49pm

Exactly Red. Which is primarily the insinuation that it is only there for a religious heading.

yellow clouds · Post by **yellow clouds** » 2002-08-14 10:55pm

If the words had been "under Jesus" or "under buddah" or "under Allah", yes that would be different and I would agree with yall. However "God" is the mentioning of a deity, that doesn't favor any given religion. Our founding fathers believed in a deity, thats historical fact. If the pledge offends you, don't say it, its just like anything. Any school that forces a kid to say the pledge should be held accountable to discipline.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-08-14 10:59pm

Holy fuck, you're quite the ignorant shit, aren't you? Every "fact" you cited is wrong. Before everyone else jumps in to point this out, our founding fathers were largely deists, not Christians: Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc. did not believe in your God. The phrase "under God" was not in the original Pledge, which was actually written long after all the Founding Fathers died anyway. It was added in 1954 under McCarthyism.

As for pretending that "under God" refers to all deities, that still specifically excludes atheists, so it's still wrong. Furthermore, you erred in your ignorant egocentric assumption that "Allah" is specific while "God" is general. "Allah" is simply "God" in their language. They don't translate it to "God" when they translate for American television because they want to emphasize the difference.

In other words, grow the fuck up and research before you post.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-14 11:39pm

yellow clouds wrote:If the words had been "under Jesus" or "under buddah" or "under Allah",

I see you capatilized Jesus, Allah, and God, but not Buddah. Do you have something against Buddist?

yes that would be different and I would agree with yall. However "God" is the mentioning of a deity, that doesn't favor any given religion.

And also, how does this "common diety" fit into the religion of the Hindus, the Buddist, the various Native American societies, the Wiccans, and of course, the agnostics and athiest?

Our founding fathers believed in a deity, thats historical fact. If the pledge offends you, don't say it, its just like anything.

Yeah, and if the pledge said "one nation under no god" or "one nation under Satan" I bet you wouldn't accept the "simply don't say it" excuse. You'd probably go ape shit about how government shouldn't be endorsing religion.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-08-15 01:03am

The "common deity" argument is a product of a fallacious interpretation of the establishment clause. Since the clause states that you can't support an establishment of religion, that must mean it's OK to support many establishments of religion.

Anyone with a brain can see how clearly ludicrous this is. The establishment clause sets a lower limit, not an upper limit. If I made a law that said, "You can't kill a person," would you interpret it to mean that you could engage in killing sprees, so long as you killed many people?

It also comes from the quasi-liberal Christian mindset that God reveals himself differently to different cultures (although I guess that Baal worshippers weren't included in this, as he ordered them all to be killed). Of course, this line of thinking starts from, "Our God is really the correct one, but other cultures see him differently, and that's okay." It still retains the premise that Christianity is really the right religion, even though none of the other ones are explicitly wrong. Then there's the little problem that this isn't supported by Scripture. In fact, Scripture says the exact opposite.

yellow clouds · Post by **yellow clouds** » 2002-08-15 09:47am

Before everyone else jumps in to point this out, our founding fathers were largely deists, not Christians: Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc

Did I claim otherwise? No "deity" doesn't neccessarily = "theism". I think you need to research up.

...did not believe in your God

My God??? Where have I ever mentioned a God I believe in?

was actually written long after all the Founding Fathers died anyway

Did I claim otherwise? My point was simply this, its historical fact that our founding fathers were theists/deists.

that still specifically excludes atheists

only if an atheists wants it to, like I said an atheists can think of God as self. If he doesn't want to do that, if he is offended by it, then, don't say it.

Furthermore, you erred in your ignorant egocentric assumption that "Allah" is specific while "God" is general

No, my point being "God" can encompass many different things, unlike "Allah". Your right "allah" is muslim's "God", thus its exclusive. I never said that God could encompass all religions (though I suppose it could if interpreted a certain way).

I see you capatilized Jesus, Allah, and God, but not Buddah. Do you have something against Buddist?

My deepest apologies. It was slip of the type, I had no intention of singling Buddah out by not capitolizing.

how does this "common diety" fit into the religion of the Hindus, the Buddist, the various Native American societies, the Wiccans, and of course, the agnostics and athiest?

Notice my claim was "doesn't favor any given religion" not "fits in to all religions"

if the pledge said "one nation under no god" or "one nation under Satan" I bet you wouldn't accept the "simply don't say it" excuse. You'd probably go ape shit about how government shouldn't be endorsing religion.

First, the main reason I am ok with it, is because its our historical foundings (deism, theism). If I go to a country with a muslim heritage, and they pledge "under Allah" I would find that perfectly acceptable considering their foundings. The same idea is applied to america. ahhhh, i got to jet now, i will address the endorsement of religion later.

peace
oh and please forgive my bad logic or bad reasoning, I am new here, please forgive me

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-15 09:59am

yellow clouds wrote:My God??? Where have I ever mentioned a God I believe in?

You just did

only if an atheists wants it to, like I said an atheists can think of God as self. If he doesn't want to do that, if he is offended by it, then, don't say it.

That is the biggest load of horseshit. Just what exactly were you smoking and/or inhaling before posting that.

Notice my claim was "doesn't favor any given religion" not "fits in to all religions"

More horse shit. Of course it favors a particular religion. Seriousily, do you smoke crack, don't lie to me!

First, the main reason I am ok with it, is because its our historical foundings (deism, theism). If I go to a country with a muslim heritage, and they pledge "under Allah" I would find that perfectly acceptable considering their foundings. The same idea is applied to america. ahhhh, i got to jet now, i will address the endorsement of religion later.

The Islam countries don't have a constitution with an admendment stating that the government shall make no laws respecting a religion. Perhaps the U.S. should repeal the First Admendment so we can be more like the Arab nations. You would like that wouldn't you?

yellow clouds · Post by **yellow clouds** » 2002-08-15 04:00pm

You just did

What? Quote me where i professed a belief in a God.

That is the biggest load of horseshit. Just what exactly were you smoking and/or inhaling before posting that.

Well, alright, if redicule is the best you can do, thats fine, but thats not an argument.

Of course it favors a particular religion

Mind explaining? I know I have explained my position.

The Islam countries don't have a constitution with an admendment stating that the government shall make no laws respecting a religion.

Enlighten me here... pledge = law ?? Deity = religion ?

Perhaps the U.S. should repeal the First Admendment so we can be more like the Arab nations. You would like that wouldn't you?

On the contrary, the first amendment is one of many things that makes America great. Though our country has allot of problems, it is .one of the best countries in the world.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-08-15 10:38pm

only if an atheists wants it to, like I said an atheists can think of God as self. If he doesn't want to do that, if he is offended by it, then, don't say it.

In other words, the government is telling atheists what to believe in order to conform to its own blunders and inability to follow its own rules. This is also known as violating our right to freedom of religion.

Thanks for proving our point.

yellow clouds · Post by **yellow clouds** » 2002-08-16 11:49pm

In other words, the government is telling atheists what to believe in order to conform to its own blunders and inability to follow its own rules. This is also known as violating our right to freedom of religion.

You totally misunderstood me. I am not saying that this is a government order or law or anything, this is just merely another one of my reasons concerning the inexclusivity of the mentioning of a deity.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-08-18 01:51am

yellow clouds wrote:
In other words, the government is telling atheists what to believe in order to conform to its own blunders and inability to follow its own rules. This is also known as violating our right to freedom of religion.
You totally misunderstood me. I am not saying that this is a government order or law or anything, this is just merely another one of my reasons concerning the inexclusivity of the mentioning of a deity.

The American Pledge of Alegiance is written into American law! This is why the court could only ban it, rather than modifying it.

In other words, yes, Pledge of Allegiance does equal United States law. The Pledge of Allegiance refers to 'one nation under god'. And hence, it is a law respecting establishment of religion (monotheism, to the exclusion of polytheists, atheists, spiritualists, etc, etc. The word 'god' is singular and does NOT refer to all of those other things as well). And hence, it is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Which part of this are you having trouble understanding?

(As for the morality versus legality question: In this case, the establishment clause in the First Amendment is a situation where the law coincides with morality. There is little value in separating the two questions unless you're wanting to getting into legalistic quibbles about jurisdiction and what rulings the Circuit Court had the right to make).

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-08-18 03:39pm

You totally misunderstood me. I am not saying that this is a government order or law or anything, this is just merely another one of my reasons concerning the inexclusivity of the mentioning of a deity.

The Pledge is the manner in which all Americans swear allegiance to the government. Americans are free to modify it however they wish when reciting it. However, the official, governmentally endorsed version should be religiously neutral because the government itself is religiously neutral.

This is nowhere near a difficult concept to grasp. I could teach separation of church and state to properly trained chimpanzees, and yet the idea seems to elude 90% of all Christians.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2002-08-20 06:05pm

I didn't see it mentioned, but aside from the pledge of allegence being altered in 1954 by an act of Congress, they also changed the national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" ("From Many, One") to "In God We Trust" in 1956 and added "In God We Trust" to the money in 1957. There has never been any doubt in my mind about what "God" the pledge and our currency referred to.

I have no problem with the ruling itself: Congress overstepped their constitutional bounds and deserved a whack in the head for it. What I do have a problem with (and the reason I ultimately disagree with the ruling) is that it will only provide radical Christians with ammunition to undermine seperation of church and state. For a good explanation of why we have the seperation clause, look at some of the laws in the puritan colonies in Massachusetts: compulsory church attendance punishable by fines, exile or torture for preaching other Christian beliefs... is that the sort of thing we want to open the door to again?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-20 06:14pm

"E Pluribus Unum" kicks ass. Not only does it describe our nation's values, but it also sounds cool.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The pledge ruling and Michael Newdow

Do you agree with the pledge ruling?