Pledge ban starts next week

[Sauron]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/pledge.of.allegiance.reut/index.html

Pledge ban set for March 10 in nine states

Monday, March 3, 2003 Posted: 2:30 PM EST (1930 GMT)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- A ruling by a U.S. appeals court could force millions of students to stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance within days if the controversial decision is not overturned by a higher court, legal experts said Saturday.

[Captain Ochre]

A watershed decision which may well galvanize the US populace into making sure that judges who read the Constituton loosely are less likely to sit on the Federal bench.
In my humble opinion, of course.

The broad view of "church" embraced by the activist judiciary knows virtually no bounds and has made Secularism the state religion of the US.

[kiwimac]

Good on the judges, I say. Saying in "God we Trust" was added in the 50's, generations of US citizens quite happily said the pledge without those words being there and they were certainly never envisioned by the founders of the American State as being part of the pledge!

Kiwimac

[Jin-Roh]

The broad view of "church" embraced by the activist judiciary knows virtually no bounds and has made Secularism the state religion of the US.

Very true. It was one of the central points I made in a essay regarding our state education (indoctrination) program.

I'm still waiting for an example of this kind of intrepration of "church and state" pre 20th century. You know, around the time when the constitution was written and everything. That way we can know that's what the framers meant. But I doubt I'll get one.

Now of course this is going to irratate more people then it will make people happy. Only around 5% of our society call themselves atheists. Now, that doesn't mean everybody else is a Christian, but it does mean that 95% of our population holds to some sort of theistic world view.

It kind of makes the pledge ban grossley undemocratic now that I think about it. But hey, with agenda-oriented judges democracy is dead anyway right?
:argh:

[Vorkosigan]

Good argument! Did it occur to you that maybe in a democracy one of the rules is to protect the minority from the majority, as numerous writings of the Founding Fathers make clear?

In any case, the ruling does not ban the Pledge, just the part with "under god." You could easily recite the original pledge.

Finally, the purpose of separation of Church and State is twofold: first, to protect the minority religions from the majority ones; and second, to protect the Christians from each other. One of the promptings for the all-important separation law was to put a stop to the centuries of inter-Christian killing in Europe.

Ochre, suppose the kind of things you want are passed, and Catholics or Muslims become the most powerful religion in our society. What would you think of the words "under Mecca" or "under Rome" in the Pledge? Separation of Church and State means exactly what the FFs intended: a law that would forever prevent government from supporting one religious stance over another. Down that path lies 17 centuries of madness.

Vorkosigan

[Captain Ochre]

03-04-2003 @ 06:01 AM
Vorkosigan:

Finally, the purpose of separation of Church and State is twofold: first, to protect the minority religions from the majority ones; and second, to protect the Christians from each other.


How do you figure?
The "separation clause" was instituted simply as a limitation on the powers of the Federal government, specifically barring the establishment of a national religion (denomination was what they probably had first in mind) and preventing the passage of national laws which infringed on freedom of conscience. Most states of the time had their own state religion, and the framers likely thought it appropriate to maintain the more localized establishment of state religion.


One of the promptings for the all-important separation law was to put a stop to the centuries of inter-Christian killing in Europe.


The more direct prompting was the coercion of conscience within the various European states stemming from an established state religion. Today "coercion of conscience" is when an atheist looks at a US coin and says "Wait a minute! I don't trust in God!"
:wink:


Ochre, suppose the kind of things you want are passed, and Catholics or Muslims become the most powerful religion in our society. What would you think of the words "under Mecca" or "under Rome" in the Pledge?


Do I have to recite that pledge? No? Then I have no problem with it unless it advances a specific religion ("under the LDS living prophet" would be a good example of this).
Btw, your example is far more specific than mere use of "god" which is common to three of largest broad theistic religious traditions.
God is the historical source of the rights the US Constitution was forged to preserve.


Separation of Church and State means exactly what the FFs intended: a law that would forever prevent government from supporting one religious stance over another.


Would you mind defining "religious" for purposes of your claim above? Doesn't the mere fact that the US holds all men as created equal (following the DoI) set certain forms of Hinduism below that of other religions by dismissing their perception of an "untouchable" class?

In the broad terms of "religious" that you are probably using, the Constitution itself is a religious document.

[Socrates]

KatipoMac spruiks with more anti-Christian bigotry:

Good on the judges, I say. Saying in "God we Trust" was added in the 50's, generations of US citizens quite happily said the pledge without those words being there and they were certainly never envisioned by the founders of the American State as being part of the pledge!
Anyway, it's "under God", and that comes from Abraham Lincoln's immensely esteemed Gettysburg Address. Perhaps that should be edited for public schools too, to keep the fanatical misotheists happy.

Katipo has confused the phrase with what is on American coinage, which does have the phrase ‘In God we Trust’. But this was added towards the end of the Civil war in 1864, and no one then thought it violated the establishment clause!

Frankly, I look forward to the day when the elected members of the State tell the activist judges to take a flying leap next time they legislate from the bench. The judges have no power to enforce their rulings, and instead rely on moral force. But the events of the last few decades show the judicial activists have no moral integrity whatver.

[Vorkosigan]

Anyway, it's "under God", and that comes from Abraham Lincoln's immensely esteemed Gettysburg Address. Perhaps that should be edited for public schools too, to keep the fanatical misotheists happy.

Nobody is forced to say the Address by government act. In any case, Lincoln, an infidel and freethinker, did not write the words "under God" in there. They were suggested by some who had read the speech beforehand. Exactly which version Lincoln gave -- and there are several -- is unknown, some do not have "under God."

Katipo has confused the phrase with what is on American coinage, which does have the phrase ‘In God we Trust? But this was added towards the end of the Civil war in 1864, and no one then thought it violated the establishment clause!

That was also in response to national stress. The suggestion actually came in 1861 and the first coins read "GOD OUR TRUST" and various other variations. The first circulation coins came out in 1864. That no one objected is of no account; it was still unconstitutional.

If you look at the original mint acts, dating from the 1830s, coins were totally secular. Of course, in those days the Churches were less popular than nowadays, and probably only 20% of the population went to Church, as modern studies show.

The man who minted the first coins with IGWT, Pollock, was a member of the National Reform Association, an organization put together in 1863 from 11 Protestant Churches, to turn the US into a theocratic state. Of course, Congress laughed at their legislative suggestions, so they tried to sneak people into high positions. It was he who in turn snuck through legislation Christianizing what had once been the secular coinage of a secular state. That story is told here: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/motto.htm

Vorkosigan

[Socrates]

Socrates:
Anyway, it's "under God", and that comes from Abraham Lincoln's immensely esteemed Gettysburg Address. Perhaps that should be edited for public schools too, to keep the fanatical misotheists happy.

Vorkosigan:
Nobody is forced to say the Address by government act. In any case, Lincoln, an infidel and freethinker, did not write the words "under God" in there. They were suggested by some who had read the speech beforehand. Exactly which version Lincoln gave -- and there are several -- is unknown, some do not have "under God."What nonsense. Go ahead and PROVE this. All records of the address I've seen have this phrase. Now it's a huge Christian conspiracy to put words in his mouth? Sheesh.

S:
Katipo has confused the phrase with what is on American coinage, which does have the phrase ‘In God we Trust? But this was added towards the end of the Civil war in 1864, and no one then thought it violated the establishment clause!

V:
That was also in response to national stress. That in itself says something -- no atheists in foxholes.


The suggestion actually came in 1861 and the first coins read "GOD OUR TRUST" and various other variations. The first circulation coins came out in 1864. That no one objected is of no account; it was still unconstitutional.How come no one thought so at the time?

The left-wing atheist conspiracy theories are laughable.

[Vorkosigan]

What nonsense. Go ahead and PROVE this. All records of the address I've seen have this phrase. Now it's a huge Christian conspiracy to put words in his mouth? Sheesh.

Library of Congress Gettysburg Address exhibition (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/gadrft.html) which discusses this very issue. There are five drafts, the earliest, in Lincoln's own hand, does not contain "under God." Apparently your broad reading didn't encompass common knowledge on this topic. :ahem:

How come no one thought so at the time?

Did you actually read the history of the event? Many people have thought it unconstitutional over the years. Again, whether or not anyone felt moved enough to do anything about it, it was unconstitutional at the time, and has been so ever since.

Is that all you can do? Confess that you do not know anything about the topic in question, fail to do the most basic research, and then blame conspiracies when the evidence fails to line up the way you would like?

Vorkosigan

[Captain Ochre]

03-04-2003 @ 11:37 AM
Vorkosigan:

The man who minted the first coins with IGWT, Pollock, was a member of the National Reform Association, an organization put together in 1863 from 11 Protestant Churches, to turn the US into a theocratic state. Of course, Congress laughed at their legislative suggestions, so they tried to sneak people into high positions. It was he who in turn snuck through legislation Christianizing what had once been the secular coinage of a secular state. That story is told here: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/motto.htm



The NRO describes its own aims without help from biased sources:
http://www.natreformassn.org/pr/2002UfSeinpr.html

More on the NRO:
http://www.natreformassn.org/

Rather than turning the US into a "theocratic state", it appears that the organization wishes to maintain (and restore) the Christian character of civil law which is the heritage of the United States, and likewise the Christian national identity which is also the heritage of the US.

[Captain Ochre]

03-04-2003 @ 01:17 PM
Vorkosigan:

What nonsense. Go ahead and PROVE this. All records of the address I've seen have this phrase. Now it's a huge Christian conspiracy to put words in his mouth? Sheesh.

Library of Congress Gettysburg Address exhibition (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/gadrft.html) which discusses this very issue. There are five drafts, the earliest, in Lincoln's own hand, does not contain "under God." Apparently your broad reading didn't encompass common knowledge on this topic. :ahem:

Howdy, Vorko.
The link you provided seems to suggest that one of the reasons that the so-called "earliest" copy wasn't the reading copy was that it did not match the text reported in contemporaneous accounts.
IOW, people who heard the speech reported that it said "under God". That's the location of the Christian conspiracy? :wink:
Maybe the audience were such Christian zealots that they imagined that Lincoln said "under God"?

"However, one of the arguments supporting the contrary theory that the delivery text has been lost is that some of the words and phrases of the Nicolay copy do not match contemporaneous accounts."
http://www.geocities.com/napalmcity/bowenfreedom/ga.html

[Vorkosigan]

[QUOTE]03-04-2003 @ 01:45 PM
Captain Ochre:
Howdy, Vorko.
The link you provided seems to suggest that one of the reasons that the so-called "earliest" copy wasn't the reading copy was that it did not match the text reported in contemporaneous accounts.

I quite agree, but that is not the issue. It is the copy [i]in Lincoln's own hand. That copy does not contain the words "under God."

IOW, people who heard the speech reported that it said "under God". That's the location of the Christian conspiracy? :wink:Maybe the audience were such Christian zealots that they imagined that Lincoln said "under God"?

No, as I recall reading elsewhere, the change was made by one of Lincoln's officials, Chase, I believe. AFAIK the papers faithfully reported Lincoln's speech.

However, one of the arguments supporting the contrary theory that the delivery text has been lost is that some of the words and phrases of the Nicolay copy do not match contemporaneous accounts."

Quite true, but not relevant. The issue is not over what was said, but over what was originally written. Socrates demanded proof for my assertion that drafts of the speech without "under God" exist. Such things exist in Lincoln's own hand; two drafts by him do not have the phrase "under God."

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

[i]03-04-2003 @ 01:33 PM
Rather than turning the US into a "theocratic state", it appears that the organization wishes to maintain (and restore) the Christian character of civil law which is the heritage of the United States, and likewise the Christian national identity which is also the heritage of the US.

We'll just have to disagree on what that would mean in actual practice.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

03-04-2003 @ 06:35 AM
Captain Ochre:

Would you mind defining "religious" for purposes of your claim above? Doesn't the mere fact that the US holds all men as created equal (following the DoI) set certain forms of Hinduism below that of other religions by dismissing their perception of an "untouchable" class?

In the broad terms of "religious" that you are probably using, the Constitution itself is a religious document.

You are confused. The Declaration of Independence is nice, but not the Constitution. What it says is not the law of the land. And the Constitution specifically did not make all men equal. Some men were more equal than others, those with white skins, for example.

The Constitution is not a religious document, though it may have effects on certain religious practices. What separation does, though, is prevent (to use your example above) Hindism from becoming the law of the land and coerced on others who do not accept it. It does not prevent Hindus from holding the belief that some people are untouchables, any more than it prevents Christians from advocating slavery (as at least one Christian party does) or holding that certain groups are going to hell. It may prevent certain actions based on those beliefs. Your rights stop at my nose.

Today "coercion of conscience" is when an atheist looks at a US coin and says "Wait a minute! I don't trust in God!"

Not just atheists, you know. Lots of people offended by this stuff are Christians disgusted with how it debases religion.

Vorkosigan

[Captain Ochre]

03-04-2003 @ 01:56 PM
Vorkosigan:

[QUOTE]03-04-2003 @ 01:45 PM
Captain Ochre:
Howdy, Vorko.
The link you provided seems to suggest that one of the reasons that the so-called "earliest" copy wasn't the reading copy was that it did not match the text reported in contemporaneous accounts.

I quite agree, but that is not the issue. It is the copy [i]in Lincoln's own hand. That copy does not contain the words "under God."


You unwittingly(?) made it the issue when you wrote this:

Exactly which version Lincoln gave -- and there are several -- is unknown, some do not have "under God."


What you wrote above strongly suggests that you believed that the written text reflected the version spoken by Lincoln.
You now appear to more definitely affirm a reasonable view, and for that I commend you.

[RumTumTugger]

03-03-2003 @ 08:44 PM
Captain Ochre:

The broad view of "church" embraced by the activist judiciary knows virtually no bounds and has made Secularism the state religion of the US.

Not only that but have some how they have decided people have a Constitutional Right to be protected from what offends them.:huh:

And the ACLU seems to think so since they went to bat for this idiot(the guy who brought the suit against the school system.) who cared nothign for his Daughter.

Warning Sarcasim Comming.

Since I find Flag burning and groups that spread Hatred towards other groups offensive I expect the ACLU to stop going to bat for Flag burners, American Nazi Party the KKK and that Maydwell(sp) guy with the so called art photos that denigrated women(using tax money to show it at that.) just like they go against the government allowing creches, crosses The ten commandments, Ect to be set up in public places.

If as it appears they and others like them(the so called People for the American way) believe then they should stop being so hypocritical about their stance and protect everyone from things that offend them.

at least that is the way I see it.:teeth:

[Sauron]

03-04-2003 @ 06:10 PM
RumTumTugger:

Not only that but have some how they have decided people have a Constitutional Right to be protected from what offends them.:huh:


No. Only to avoid having to pay for that offense, via tax money.

And they expect not to have to subsidize (with tax money) the indoctrination of children in religious views since the Constitution forbids that.


And the ACLU seems to think so since they went to bat for this idiot(the guy who brought the suit against the school system.) who cared nothign for his Daughter.


The ACLU did a good thing.

How do you know the guy didn't care about his daughter?



Warning Sarcasim Comming.



Sarcasm and bad spelling, evidently. :ahem:



Since I find Flag burning and groups that spread Hatred towards other groups offensive yak yak yak


It's not about being offended.

It's about tax money being used to support religion.

Got it?

[Captain Ochre]

03-05-2003 @ 04:30 AM
Sauron:



No. Only to avoid having to pay for that offense, via tax money.


The pledge costs more with "under God" than without? Is it some kind of per-word rate or something?



And they expect not to have to subsidize (with tax money) the indoctrination of children in religious views since the Constitution forbids that.


How do you define "religious" with respect to the separation clause (is this the second time I've asked you this?)?


The ACLU did a good thing.

How do you know the guy didn't care about his daughter?


http://www.cpinews.net/archives/2002-q3/pledge.ruling.daughter/

It is safe to assume the Newdow cares for his daughter, but the suit was brought because of offense to the father, not to the daughter (or the mother, ftm). Maybe that should affect his standing; maybe not.


It's not about being offended.

It's about tax money being used to support religion.


On the minor level, it's about whether Newdow had legitimate standing in bringing the suit in the first place.
On the major level, it's about what definition has been given to "religion" by the contemporary court with respect to the separation clause.
I think that the court has moved into a self-stultifying position.

[Captain Ochre]

03-04-2003 @ 02:13 PM
Vorkosigan:

You are confused.


With regard to what, exactly?


The Declaration of Independence is nice, but not the Constitution.


Obviously. What am I confused about, iyo?


What it says is not the law of the land.


Obviously. About what am I comfused?


And the Constitution specifically did not make all men equal. Some men were more equal than others, those with white skins, for example.


The Constitution doesn't mention white-skinned folks.
---
Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
---

Slavery was a conflict between property rights and basic human rights as mentioned in the DoI. Those basic human rights were preserved by the limiting of government in the CotUS. The DoI provides important context to the writing of the CotUS. Do you disagree?
Now, what am I confused about?


The Constitution is not a religious document, though it may have effects on certain religious practices.


Perhaps you could illustrate the truth of your claim above by telling us why LeVay Satanism is religious while the CotUS isn't. After that, maybe you can explain just how I'm confused.


What separation does, though, is prevent (to use your example above) Hindism from becoming the law of the land and coerced on others who do not accept it.


You don't think that equal rights offends the Hindu religion? Don't you see that it's substitution of one "secular" precept for another (equal rights vs. unequal rights)?


It does not prevent Hindus from holding the belief that some people are untouchables, any more than it prevents Christians from advocating slavery (as at least one Christian party does) or holding that certain groups are going to hell.


(The pledge of allegience prevents atheists from holding a lack of belief that a god or gods exist?--I hope you don't intend this as a litmus test!)
The recognition of equal rights under the law coerces the belief of Hindus by making it seem that the U.S. government affirms those equal rights against the teaching of Hinduism. The US government even pays people to ensure equal rights (where's the ACLU when you need 'em!:wink:).


It may prevent certain actions based on those beliefs. Your rights stop at my nose.


Did a pledge of allegiance hit you in the nose?
My rights stop when I'm required by the state to send my children to a Secularist school or pay extra for an alternative. Yet more forced indoctrination, where my tax dollars are used to teach the Secularist religion.
Check out the doctrinal statement! :wink:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/isms/secularism.shtml


Today "coercion of conscience" is when an atheist looks at a US coin and says "Wait a minute! I don't trust in God!"

[QUOTE]
Not just atheists, you know. Lots of people offended by this stuff are Christians disgusted with how it debases religion.


I'm aware of that. Don't slice away my emoticons if you can help it. They are part of the context.
So, what am I confused about, again?

[RumTumTugger]

03-04-2003 @ 08:30 PM
Sauron: No. Only to avoid having to pay for that offense, via tax money.

Well Sauron I'm having to pay by my tax dollars for something that offends me at the risk of falsly being accused of something I'm not. I feel Homosexuality is not normal and it offends me that my Tax dollars are going for the teaching that it is. my feeling does not come solely from my religious back ground but from simple scientific observation. Human beings are made to have that kind of physical relationship.

And they expect not to have to subsidize (with tax money) the indoctrination of children in religious views since the Constitution forbids that.

Then Sauron I expect the ACLU to fight against other such indoctronation of religious views such as Naturalism. among other things, and make no mistake about it Sauron Naturalistic Materialism is a religious viewpoint no matter how much you'd like to give it "Scientific Trappings."

Sauron: The ACLU did a good thing.

no they didn't in this case You do know what Voluntary means don't you?

Sauron:How do you know the guy didn't care about his daughter?

Hmm His daughter who is a Christian has no problem VOLUNTARILY(you do know that in California you have a right not to say the pledge don't you?) saying the pledge as it was. Michael Newdow was not the custodial parent her Mother was and she had no problem with it.

It was not the school who put in motion the circumstances that put Dr. Newdows in the public eye it was Michael Newdow who had an agenda and decided to use his Daughter whether she was being offended or not.

IMHO someone who uses his daughter to go against something she agrees with just to further his own agenda is not someone who has his childs best interest at heart.

Sarcasm and bad spelling, evidently. :ahem:

Yes I do have trouble with my spelling And it is the reason I'm For School Choice. But that is another subject.

It's not about being offended.

It's about tax money being used to support religion.

Got it?

If that is so then Sauron I expect you to be out there fighting against the use of tax money to further any religion including the religion of naturalism.

BTW There is a reason for my signiture block Sauron. I do not accept that the meaning of any given writing changes just because certain words in tha writing have changed their meaning. You need to go back to the 17th century meaning of words to understand what the framers of the Constitution meant it was very clear what they meant. no ambiguity.

If I thought the way you and those who talk about the so called "Living Constitution" When I hear the phrase "Gay 90s I'd be thinking that they were talking homosexuality in the 1990s not the 1890s where folks had a devil may care attitude and live for the moment.

You and the ACLU are wrong. The constitution says nothing about separation of Church and state(or as you have decide in interpreting church so broadly God and State) It was put there to stop the Goverment from Establishing a State Religion.

Allowing expression or making it easy for people to express their faith is not ESTABLISHING a State religion.

The phrase "Under God" is not indoctranation it is acknowledging our roots. Contrary to what the historical Revisionist would have you believe. What is wrong with acknowledging our roots hmm.:smile:

[Vorkosigan]

Obviously. About what am I comfused?

The declaration and the constitution. You seemed to have mixed up one with the other.

The Constitution doesn't mention white-skinned folks.

Never said it did. What's the "three-fifths" clause?

Slavery was a conflict between property rights and basic human rights as mentioned in the DoI. Those basic human rights were preserved by the limiting of government in the CotUS. The DoI provides important context to the writing of the CotUS. Do you disagree?

What's to disgree with?

Perhaps you could illustrate the truth of your claim above by telling us why LeVay Satanism is religious while the CotUS isn't.

You were the one that claimed the Constitution is a religious document because it has effects on religious practice -- a rather strange stance. That's like saying cars are ritual items because churchgoers often arrive in them. I simply denied your rather strange interpretation.

You don't think that equal rights offends the Hindu religion?

Obviously not, since India is a signatory to all the major human rights conventions, and all citizens have equal rights under the law in the Indian constitution. Have you studied the debates during the writing of the Indian constitution touching this very issue?

Don't you see that it's substitution of one "secular" precept for another (equal rights vs. unequal rights)?

Sure, but it is impossible to make choices about rights without affecting religion. But making choices about rights does not make something "religious" merely because it affects the practice of religion.

(The pledge of allegience prevents atheists from holding a lack of belief that a god or gods exist?--I hope you don't intend this as a litmus test!)

What kind of comment is that? The "under God" phrase in the Pledge doesn't prevent people from holding beliefs. What it does, though, is clearly establish government favor of a certain religious stance over others. That is why everyone who holds the ideals of this nation dear should object.

The recognition of equal rights under the law coerces the belief of Hindus by making it seem that the U.S. government affirms those equal rights against the teaching of Hinduism.

We've been over this claim of yours. The recognition of equal rights does not prevent Hindus from holding beliefs about others, any more than it prevents KKKers from hating blacks or certain Christians from hating gays. Hatemongers will hate as they please. What the establishment doctrine prevents is the enshrinement of those attitudes as laws. Hindus and you and I are free to hold whatever beliefs we want.

Did a pledge of allegiance hit you in the nose?

It did when it established Christianity as the government-supported religion of the nation.


My rights stop when I'm required by the state to send my children to a Secularist school or pay extra for an alternative. Yet more forced indoctrination, where my tax dollars are used to teach the Secularist religion.

Yes, I can imagine that you might object to "forced indoctrination" in tolerance, equal rights, and broad knowledge of the world. <sigh> Nothing in the secular school system prevents you from exercising your religion and believing as you will. Billions of people from different faiths all over the world are in secular educational systems.

So, what am I confused about, again?

Everything, it appears.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

[QUOTE]03-04-2003 @ 02:34 PM
Captain Ochre:
That you wrote above strongly suggests that you believed that the written text reflected the version spoken by Lincoln.[/b]

LOL. Ochre, let's look at this again:

Exactly which version Lincoln gave -- and there are several -- is unknown, some do not have "under God."

Apparently you missed that word "unknown." I wrote "Exactly which version Lincoln gave is -- unknown.[/list]


You now appear to more definitely affirm a reasonable view, and for that I commend you.

No, you just caught up to the position I originally affirmed.

In any case, I haven't heard Socrates weigh in with a manful apology or admission of error.

Vorkosigan

[Captain Ochre]

03-05-2003 @ 12:08 PM
Vorkosigan:

[QUOTE]03-04-2003 @ 02:34 PM
Captain Ochre:
That you wrote above strongly suggests that you believed that the written text reflected the version spoken by Lincoln.[/b]

LOL. Ochre, let's look at this again:

Exactly which version Lincoln gave -- and there are several -- is unknown, some do not have &quot;under God.&quot;

Apparently you missed that word &quot;unknown.&quot; I wrote &quot;Exactly which version Lincoln gave is -- unknown.[/list]


The term "unknown" is completely irrelevant to what I wrote, actually. How could you have meant "which version Lincoln gave" apart from associating one of the copies with text of the actual speech? That is the question. Using the words as you did appears to connect one of the written copies with the delivered speech. Nowhere did I suggest that you had settled on a particular copy of the written texxt as the one Lincoln "gave"--indicating that I followed what you wrote accurately in at least that respect (admittedly I don't have a clue what you meant by "gave" if I am to take your denial seriously--especially when you wrote it subsequent to "In any case, Lincoln, an infidel and freethinker, did not write the words "under God" in there"). At least you're certain that he didn't write "under God" (how, please tell us)!



You now appear to more definitely affirm a reasonable view, and for that I commend you.

No, you just caught up to the position I originally affirmed.


Excellent. Where, exactly, did you affirm the reasonable position prior to where I credited you with it?


In any case, I haven't heard Socrates weigh in with a manful apology or admission of error.

Vorkosigan

He doesn't appear to owe one, afaics. You were quite certain (afaics) that Lincoln hadn't written "under God" and all you produced in support was one or more handwritten copies that do not include the phrase--which does not make the copies which contain the phrase disappear, much less contradict the testimony of reporters who heard the speech. Socrates (obviously and understandably, imo) took you to mean that the speech as delivered publicly may have been absent the phrase "under God" and this is attributable directly to your seemingly careless use of language imo.

[Captain Ochre]

03-05-2003 @ 12:00 PM
Vorkosigan:

Obviously. About what am I comfused?

The declaration and the constitution. You seemed to have mixed up one with the other.


In what way?


The Constitution doesn't mention white-skinned folks.

Never said it did. What's the &quot;three-fifths&quot; clause?


Never said you said it did, Mister Herman (infinity).
The three-fifths clause was a way to inflate the relationship of southern wealth to voting power in the federal government. Again (see below) an issue of property rights.


Slavery was a conflict between property rights and basic human rights as mentioned in the DoI. Those basic human rights were preserved by the limiting of government in the CotUS. The DoI provides important context to the writing of the CotUS. Do you disagree?

What's to disgree with?


Exactly; yet you declined to give a straight answer. What am I confused about?


Perhaps you could illustrate the truth of your claim above by telling us why LeVay Satanism is religious while the CotUS isn't.

[QUOTE]
You were the one that claimed the Constitution is a religious document because it has effects on religious practice -- a rather strange stance. That's like saying cars are ritual items because churchgoers often arrive in them. I simply denied your rather strange interpretation.


Would it be accurate to say that you're ducking the issue that I presented to you in support of my "strange interpretation"? If you have criteria for finding the CoS a religion, then I suggest that those same criteria will apply to the CotUS. When I call the CotUS "religious", I use the view of "religious" that sees "under God" as promoting religion, not the more appropriate definition of religion (understood within the culture of 18th Century America) as referring to a sect. If you affirm the position that "under God" constitutes an establishment of religion, then your particular definition of "religious"/"religion" is in play. I'm telling you that your definition will lead to an absurd state of affairs. Willing to try it?


You don't think that equal rights offends the Hindu religion?

Obviously not, since India is a signatory to all the major human rights conventions,


And China signed the UDOHR. 'Nuff said?


and all citizens have equal rights under the law in the Indian constitution. Have you studied the debates during the writing of the Indian constitution touching this very issue?


No, so feel free to use any such debate material in support of your assertions. Try to favor quality over volume, if you would.
http://www.imadr.org/project/dalit/news1.html
http://www.saxakali.com/CommunityLinkups/dalit1.htm


Don't you see that it's substitution of one &amp;quot;secular&amp;quot; precept for another (equal rights vs. unequal rights)?

Sure, but it is impossible to make choices about rights without affecting religion. But making choices about rights does not make something &quot;religious&quot; merely because it affects the practice of religion.


Can it be you're missing the point? A set of "secular" rights which conflicts with a set of "religious" rights is actually a conflict of two religions.
IOW, it isn't that the set of "secular" rights is religious "just because" it affects the practice of a "true" religion; it's religious by the same criteria that make the "true" religion religious--unless there's something arbitrary added to make it seem otherwise.


(The pledge of allegience prevents atheists from holding a lack of belief that a god or gods exist?--I hope you don't intend this as a litmus test!)

What kind of comment is that?


A good one, imo. Why would you question it? Will we find out by reading on (maybe you'll even answer the question)?


The &quot;under God&quot; phrase in the Pledge doesn't prevent people from holding beliefs. What it does, though, is clearly establish government favor of a certain religious stance over others. That is why everyone who holds the ideals of this nation dear should object.


Similarly, the government's stance for equal rights favors a certain religious stance over others (those who religiously favor the Hindu caste system). That is why everyone who holds the ideals of this nation dear should object to equal rights.


The recognition of equal rights under the law coerces the belief of Hindus by making it seem that the U.S. government affirms those equal rights against the teaching of Hinduism.

We've been over this claim of yours.


No, we haven't. You handwaved it with a phantom reference to debates over the (secular) Indian Constitution, where the issue is probably mol identical in that the government stand is self-stultifying. If this is the case, then you're begging the question. Time for you to take your stand, sir.


The recognition of equal rights does not prevent Hindus from holding beliefs about others, any more than it prevents KKKers from hating blacks or certain Christians from hating gays.


Correct; and no more than "under God" does not prevent atheists from holding certain beliefs. Sorry, but I'm unable to detect how you're supposedly addressing the issue.


Hatemongers will hate as they please. What the establishment doctrine prevents is the enshrinement of those attitudes as laws. Hindus and you and I are free to hold whatever beliefs we want.


Somebody apparently isn't content to hate voluntary God-language (from a state-adopted document) associated with a state-funded school. He wants his belief in the irrelevance of religion codified and observed down to minutiae. Everyone who holds the principles of the constitution dear should oppose this.
It's okay for the state to adopt his religious tenet and wrong for the state to adopt the religious tenet of others.
How would you justify that (without the dancing)?


Did a pledge of allegiance hit you in the nose?

It did when it established Christianity as the government-supported religion of the nation.


lol
Just above, you assured the Hindus who believe in the caste system that the equality of rights proclaimed by competing religions (including some forms of Secularism) doesn't place their religion in a second class.
Do I need to point out to you that "God" is in common to Deists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others? The Ninth Circuit court found the pledge to be an establishment of Deism! What a crock! Anyway, you know better.



My rights stop when I'm required by the state to send my children to a Secularist school or pay extra for an alternative. Yet more forced indoctrination, where my tax dollars are used to teach the Secularist religion.

Yes, I can imagine that you might object to &quot;forced indoctrination&quot; in tolerance, equal rights, and broad knowledge of the world. &lt;sigh&gt; Nothing in the secular school system prevents you from exercising your religion and believing as you will. Billions of people from different faiths all over the world are in secular educational systems.


And if I claim that the establishment of Secularism as the state religion (in parallel to your claim about the Pledge and Christianity--except mine is better founded), you'll do what? Handwave some more?


So, what am I confused about, again?

Everything, it appears.


That's quite a burden of proof you've taken up, there. And you haven't even budged the previous one.

Present your definition of "religion" with respect to the First Amendment and we may be able to get this cleared up in short order.

[GrayPilgrim]

Doesn't the ban only cover the region which that particular Appeals Court has jurisdiciton over? Moreover, as has been said before, if people still recite it, what power do the courts have to enforce it? Where is their army or police force? Hmm, that sound like a check and balance on the unbalanced, imperial courts.

GP

[crazyfingers]

Would it be wrong for congress to pass a law that replaces Under God in the pledge with "under Allah" or "Under no god"?

I'd like to hear Christian and nonChristians answer that question.

[Captain Ochre]

03-05-2003 @ 09:07 PM
crazyfingers:

Would it be wrong for congress to pass a law that replaces Under God in the pledge with &quot;under Allah&quot; or &quot;Under no god&quot;?

I'd like to hear Christian and nonChristians answer that question.

In our current culture, yes it would be wrong, because our government does not derive its principles from Islamic tradition in particular (Reformation, rather), and we are not an Arabic-speaking country, where "Allah" might be a reasonable translation for "god". If, in 100 years we've got a predominant majority in the country of various Islamic stripes and the laws have changed and been amended to reflect Islamic tradition more so than Judeo-Christian-Deist tradition, then "under Allah" might be appropriate as a historical recognition of the basis for the laws on which the government rests.
IOW, the secular(/non-sectarian) purpose for "under God" would be largely or totally undermined by changing it to "Allah" tomorrow.

[Epoetker]

Note:

The militantly secularized French make Algerian students recite "Our forefathers, the Gauls..."

But I won't mention anything about hypocrisy here...

[Captain Ochre]

Secular coercion of conscience is okay.
Religious coercion of conscience is just wrong.

:yipee:

Good one, Epoetker.

[RumTumTugger]

03-05-2003 @ 10:38 AM
GrayPilgrim:

Doesn't the ban only cover the region which that particular Appeals Court has jurisdiciton over? Moreover, as has been said before, if people still recite it, what power do the courts have to enforce it? Where is their army or police force? Hmm, that sound like a check and balance on the unbalanced, imperial courts.

GP

But it sets a precedence that will effect the whole country, Gray Pilgrim.

[Epoetker]

Captain:
No, you've got it all wrong:

Loyalty oaths implying demonstrably nonexistent ancestry on one's person: A harmless tradition all soverign (European) nations are entiled to.

Loyalty oaths implying an arguably existent non-sectarian Protectior over a collective nation rather than the individual pledge taker: Dangerous steps down a slippery slope of religious indoctrination.

Take heart that the 9th circuit is the most overturned court in America's history.

[Socrates]

GrayPilgrim wrote:

Doesn't the ban only cover the region which that particular Appeals Court has jurisdiciton over? Moreover, as has been said before, if people still recite it, what power do the courts have to enforce it? Where is their army or police force? Hmm, that sound like a check and balance on the unbalanced, imperial courts. RumTumTugger replied:
But it sets a precedence that will effect the whole country, Gray Pilgrim.If you mean, a precedent for the Legislature to tell these fanatically anti-Christian judges, “Go take a flying — whaddya gonna do about it?”, I'd say, “And about time too!!” These arrogant unelected misotheistic black-robes have had their liberal way for far too long. It's high time that power was where it should be in a republic: the hands of the elected representatives. They are the ones with the real power to back them, with the army and police force.

From memory, I think it was the self-confessed liberal Krauthammer in Time magazine who wrote a good article about this. It was at the time when the Florida election results were in the courts, and other liberals were bleating about a consitutional crisis. Krauthammer said this would be great. He said he supports abortion, for example, but is aghast at the way it was legislated from the bench 30 years ago. So he said it would have been nice to have a crisis that would clip the wings and end the dictatorial abuse of judicial review.

[flipper]

Frankly, there should be two pledges. One with "under God", and the other without. Much like there are a number of oaths to take in court.

Why say the words if you don't believe them?

[kiwimac]

More to the point, if the words "Under God" were such a late addition why kvetch about removing them? If literally generations of US citizens quite happily said the pledge without any need to implicitly involve God, why now?

Kiwimac

[Captain Ochre]

03-06-2003 @ 08:27 AM
kiwimac:

More to the point, if the words &quot;Under God&quot; were such a late addition why kvetch about removing them? If literally generations of US citizens quite happily said the pledge without any need to implicitly involve God, why now?


The Pledge of Allegiance was made offical originally around the turn of the century. "Under God" was added in 1954.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

So, approximately the same number of generations said the pledge without "under God" as said it with. Ftm, other changes to the pledge took place in the 1920's, making the version from 1954-2003 the longest-running version.
Why "now"? 1954 was the era when the US was the ideological antithesis of the Soviet Union, yet there was supposedly a great similarity between our Pledge and the alleged ideals of Soviet communism. The change was effected to accentuate the ideological differences between the US form of govt. and that of the USSR.
Not a secular enough purpose, in hindsight. :wink:

[ctwmn]

03-04-2003 @ 07:43 AM
Socrates:

Katipo has confused the phrase with what is on American coinage, which does have the phrase ‘In God we Trust’. But this was added towards the end of the Civil war in 1864, and no one then thought it violated the establishment clause!



The reason nobody thought then that it violated the establishment clause was because our nation wasn't as diverse then as it is today. Nowadays, you've got numerous practicing religions in this country, and some don't believe in God, so more people who are "American Citizens", yet practice an alternative religion, are calling for change that incorporates EVERYBODY. The U.S. is the great melting pot, so why do we always seem to leave out so many of the diverse ingredients in our "soup"?

As far as the pledge goes, I had a Jewish friend in elementary school who didn't stand up to say the Pledge with the rest of the class because of the "under God" part. This singled her out, and all the other "good christian boys and girls" teased her, made fun of her, and basically treated her as an outcast. Their "good christian parents" didn't stop them, either. I was just a little girl, but even I could see the hypocrisy, and befriended this girl. Of course, this made me an outcast, too, but I would've much rather had her friendship than that of those other hypocrites and back-stabbers who were supposedly "good little christian boys and girls".

So, if taking out "under God" will allow more kids to say the Pledge and still remain true to their own religious beliefs, and make it that much harder to put make-fun-of-me targets on them, then I'm all for it. "Under God" wasn't in the original version of the Pledge, anyway, so it never should've been inserted in the first place.

OT: This just makes me wonder where else christians have "added" and rewritten things to fit their own views throughout the ages. If they did it to the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm sure they could've done it to the bible. Hmmm.

[Captain Ochre]

03-06-2003 @ 07:18 PM
ctwmn:



The reason nobody thought then that it violated the establishment clause was because our nation wasn't as diverse then as it is today.


You're a bit off the mark here, imo, and your argument ends up ultimately going in a circle if we sketch it to its logical end.

Early America held many views in common; that's why they could hold a particular set of truths as "self-evident" (see DoI). The deist could agree with various stripes of theist on the main issues, and it was on the basis of that agreement that a "secular" goverment based on the principles held in common. Those principles, in turn, came from the respective worldviews of the framers. "Tolerating" views which do not accord with those of the worldview implicit to the CotUS beyond allowing people to hold them as a matter of opinion undercuts the established government in the philosophical sense (implicit recognition of custodianship of inalienable rights conferred by a creator). IOW, the Constitution itself is a religious document; not as in having to do directly with God (which would be an arbitrarily limited view of "religion"), but in the sense of recognizing a codified set of principles. Unless "religion" is understood in the sectarian sense, the CotUS is a self-stultifying document, in that it prohibits the establishment of any state religion while establishing a state religion (which could be termed "Capitalistic Secularism"). Was the goal of the Founding Fathers the establishment of a state religion? That seems extraordinarily doubtful (unless you happen to serve in the Federal judiciary!--:wink:)


Nowadays, you've got numerous practicing religions in this country, and some don't believe in God, so more people who are &quot;American Citizens&quot;, yet practice an alternative religion, are calling for change that incorporates EVERYBODY. The U.S. is the great melting pot, so why do we always seem to leave out so many of the diverse ingredients in our &quot;soup&quot;?


So, is the answer to revise the Constitution in terms of what we all hold to be self-evident today?
Sorry, but it isn't self-evident to me how an atheist can affirm equality of rights without abandoning his belief in the non-existence of a creator who endows people with inalienable rights.
Ayn Rand made an attempt, of course, which was ultimately a failure. If an atheist is willing to affirm inalienable rights despite his theistic skepticism, then he can function as a citizen (we can't punish folks for having inconsistent worldviews, imo). Similar things may be said of those who subscribe to other worldviews. Not all worldviews are compatible. The US system of government isn't compatible with all worldviews. It is futile to try to make the government tip its ideological hat to every competing religious (and I would include specific ideologies as "religion" in terms of the separation clause) system.


As far as the pledge goes, I had a Jewish friend in elementary school who didn't stand up to say the Pledge with the rest of the class . . .


Why would a Jewish girl refuse to recite the pledge, I wonder? Nice story. It was good of you to befriend her, imo. It's not particularly relevant, however. Kids make fun of other kids whether or not constitutional issues are involved. Next thing you know, they'll get rid of dodge-ball and musical chairs. :smile::wink:


So, if taking out &quot;under God&quot; will allow more kids to say the Pledge and still remain true to their own religious beliefs, and make it that much harder to put make-fun-of-me targets on them, then I'm all for it. &quot;Under God&quot; wasn't in the original version of the Pledge, anyway, so it never should've been inserted in the first place.


The original version of the pledge was "I" until the author added "pledge" to it. The author was a Socialist. The nation was under no compulsion to use the pledge as written by the author. If he had tried to sue to keep his original version intact, then the nation would have come up with something different.
Do you think that the amendments to the Constitution should be removed also, since they weren't in the original?


OT: This just makes me wonder where else christians have &quot;added&quot; and rewritten things to fit their own views throughout the ages. If they did it to the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm sure they could've done it to the bible. Hmmm.

Excellent red herring. Cya.

[ctwmn]

03-06-2003 @ 07:59 PM
Captain Ochre:


Why would a Jewish girl refuse to recite the pledge, I wonder? Nice story. It was good of you to befriend her, imo. It's not particularly relevant, however. Kids make fun of other kids whether or not constitutional issues are involved. Next thing you know, they'll get rid of dodge-ball and musical chairs. :smile::wink:



Like I said, she didn't say the pledge because of the words, "under God".

[Captain Ochre]

03-06-2003 @ 09:50 PM
ctwmn:



Like I said, she didn't say the pledge because of the words, &quot;under God&quot;.

Those who accept the Jewish religious system believe in God, last time I checked. The reason must be deeper than that, as with the JW's refusing to "swear" loyalty to anything apart from Jehovah.
Even I could object to the term "under God" as a Christian--but that doesn't explain why I object.

[Epoetker]

$500 says she was a Reform Jew.

[RumTumTugger]

03-05-2003 @ 10:39 PM


GrayPilgrim wrote:

Doesn't the ban only cover the region which that particular Appeals Court has jurisdiciton over? Moreover, as has been said before, if people still recite it, what power do the courts have to enforce it? Where is their army or police force? Hmm, that sound like a check and balance on the unbalanced, imperial courts. RumTumTugger replied:
But it sets a precedence that will effect the whole country, Gray Pilgrim.

Socrates:If you mean, a precedent for the Legislature to tell these fanatically anti-Christian judges, “Go take a flying — whaddya gonna do about it?”, I'd say, “And about time too!!” These arrogant unelected misotheistic black-robes have had their liberal way for far too long. It's high time that power was where it should be in a republic: the hands of the elected representatives. They are the ones with the real power to back them, with the army and police force.

While I would hope that someone would tell the Court to stop their unconstitutional Legislation from the Bench that was not the meaning of my Post It was to point out that if this ruling is left to stand then it can be used to further the agenda of those are offended by public expression of Faith. To make it a right to be protected from what offends them(the Hypocrits)


Socrates:[/i] From memory, I think it was the self-confessed liberal Krauthammer in Time magazine who wrote a good article about this. It was at the time when the Florida election results were in the courts, and other liberals were bleating about a consitutional crisis. Krauthammer said this would be great. He said he supports abortion, for example, but is aghast at the way it was legislated from the bench 30 years ago. So he said it would have been nice to have a crisis that would clip the wings and end the dictatorial abuse of judicial review.

Would that there were more People like him that understand that the Constitution states that the Judical branch is not supposed to legislate from the bench it is up to the Legislative Branch to do so. Unfortunetly because the ACLU, People for the American Way(NOT) and there ilk have not been able to legislate our God Given Rights away from us, they have chosen to work to undermine the protections place in the Constitution against 1 branch having to much power.

Folks read the Constitution It clearly states what Powers each Branch has. Legislating from the Bench is not one of the Powers of the Judical Branch. Which is what has been in the name of the So Called "Living Constitution" Arguement.

I say enough is enough. Those of you with Democratic Senators Call and write to them telling them to Stop there Unconstitional blockage of quailified Judical Canidates. STOP FILIBUSTERING and allow the vote on Miguel Estrada and vote for him and more Justices like him If we'd had more like him in the 9th Circut Court of Appeals this Unconstitutional ruling would not have been made.

[Bob Jenkins]

The broad view of "church" embraced by the activist judiciary knows virtually no bounds and has made Secularism the state religion of the US.

Secularism is already the default..

[Bob Jenkins]

From Socrates

If you mean, a precedent for the Legislature to tell these fanatically anti-Christian judges, “Go take a flying — whaddya gonna do about it?”, I'd say, “And about time too!!” These arrogant unelected misotheistic black-robes have had their liberal way for far too long. It's high time that power was where it should be in a republic: the hands of the elected representatives. They are the ones with the real power to back them, with the army and police force.

If you are really from Austrailia, your political critism is as arrogant as your religion.

This is MY country and your words can be taken constitutionally as "fighting words"

[Death Cookie]

Socrates:
... fanatically anti-Christian judges ...

rofl

Socrates:
These arrogant unelected misotheistic black-robes have had their liberal way for far too long.

Would you care to actually name one or two that actually fit this description, or are you just flailing about hyperbolically from the sidelines?

Socrates:
It's high time that power was where it should be in a republic: the hands of the elected representatives.

Of course you're aware that these "misotheistic black-robes" are appointed by the elected representatives? (Actually in our republic, the president is not directly elected; however advice and consent to the judicial nominees is given by directly elected representatives, so it's hard to say what your point is here, if in fact you have one.)

Socrates:
So [the "liberal" Charles Krauthammer] said it would have been nice to have a crisis that would clip the wings and end the dictatorial abuse of judicial review.

You want the Court to overrule Marbury v. Madison? What planet are you from? "The judicial Power" was preexisting prior to the drafting of Article III, as opposed to the Constitution's descriptions of the legislative and executive powers. Chew that one over for a while.

[Death Cookie]

Epoetker:
Take heart that the 9th circuit is the most overturned court in America's history.

In history? Care to support this claim?

Incidentally, the 9th Circuit also happens to be more than twice the size of most of the other 12 U.S. Courts of Appeal, with 28 judges, and the commensurate caseload. The next largest court is the 5th Circuit, with 17 judges, followed by the 6th, with 16, and the 4th, with 15. All of the remaining nine courts have 14 or fewer judges. The 1st Circuit has only six.

And if I'm not mistaken, the 6th Circuit was overturned more than the 9th last term.

[Death Cookie]

RumTumTugger:
And the ACLU seems to think so since they went to bat for this idiot (the guy who brought the suit against the school system.) who cared nothign for his Daughter.

I realize the ACLU is a favorite whipping boy around here, but I don't believe it had anything to do with Newdow v. Congress. Please correct me if I am mistaken.