One Nation Under God

Remove all ads!

But does it really matter? I am an atheist and I wouldn't mind saying 'under god'. Why would I mind? It's not hurting me or anyone in any way is it?

 

Well, no, Vukodlak -- in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. If my saying words abhorrent to me would save the life of a starving child, I would do it gladly.

But as it is...

"Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature.

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson

The United States Supreme Court has struck down so-called voluntary school prayer, posting of the ten commandments in public buildings (where one *need not* look at them, right?) -- even that most insidious and innocent-seeming "moment of silence" in public schools -- as unconstitutional. The court argued that each of these things, by virtue of being imposed on a captive audience of schoolchildren, was coercive. Duh.

But then, if some of these rabid Christians had the native intelligence to reflect that:

"I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor."
-- Thomas Jefferson again

... [edit flame] innumerable crimes would not have been committed in God's name -- crimes that, naturally, make atheists like myself quite on our guard against the invocation of that name.



[This message has been edited by Methylviolet (edited July 14, 2002).]

 

The answer is "not foolish at all."

Free to practice your religion. Nowhere does it say you're free to practice NO religion.

You're correct in citing Supreme Court precedent. I hold that that decision (as well as others in the muddled Establish Clause case history) is wrong for the reasons mentioned above.

The U.S. Government does not require children to say, or teachers to lead, the pledge of allegiance. Never has.

There is no coercion. There is no establishment. And the 2nd Amendment applies to Congress! Again: Individual states can and have had official religions.

 

(buzzer sounds) No, I'm sorry that is not correct. The answer is, "very very foolish indeed."

It is not the case that I practice no religion. My religion is atheism.

religion (n) :A PERSONAL SET OR institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes and practices.

Like Christianity and Judaism, my religion is against worshipping false gods. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, my religion includes the capital G one in that group.

If you disagree with the Supreme Court, shralp, to the point that you believe it should overturn three (3) relevant precedent cases in order to consistently uphold this farce of a pledge of allegiance, then I must conclude that you have some burning reason why my children need to say those words. What reason could you possibly have? What good can it do anyone to ask my children to conjoin a pledge of allegiance to their country with a statement of belief in God -- a statement that for them, is not true?

So tell me, shralp: why?

 

The Christian God is named Jehovah, so in the case of the pledge, the phrase "God" is a universal theme, referring to the God that any religion may have.

Newdow is speaking of freedom of religion, when he is attempting to enforce his, that of atheism, onto his daughter. That sounds to me like a hypocrisy.

There is nothing wrong with that phrase and nothing to be offended over. Historically we are a religious nation. To attempt to remove it because it would be offensive to the atheists would be offensive to everyone else, as they would be upset that the pledge does not recognize the fact that our country is in fact, under God. To forget this, we would be imposing atheism upon the citizens, and this would violate that clause as well.

 

According to several acts by Congress (don't ask me to cite which ones...if I knew that it would prove once and for all that I don't have a life. And consequently I don't care as to which ones they really are) Atheism is a religion. Kinda funny, really.

If we are going to start "editing" the pledge, why don't we start editing songs and public speech etiquet? Anyone saying, "Oh my God!" would be in violation of someone else's freedom of/from religion. We could strike that (albeit pathetic) song "What if God was one of us?" from Radio play lists and ban Creed from public shows. Heck, even Nirvana is violating freedom laws just with its name.

This may seem like a childish rant but I fail to see the difference. Enlighten me.

 

Good, good. You have a dictionary. Now look up "religious." You don't (appear to) have religious beliefs. You have irreligious beliefs.

And, once again, no one, including me, is forcing anyone to say the pledge of allegiance. Say it with me now: "Shralp does not say people should be forced to say the pledge of allegiance." There ya go. I knew you could do it.

 

Dearest Shralp----you just kill me!!!

Now to address the thread.

You see, I believe that it should stay, and that it is not unconstitutional.

You see, our forefathers----those who put themselves in paril and the lives of their loved ones in paril came to America to start a new life. One that was free from the beliefs of the countries they had previously lived in.

One of the biggest reasons most of them came to America was because they wanted the choice to practice whatever religion they deemed God wanted them to practice, not that of which their country deemed they should practice.

It is what this country was founded on, and is part of our history, who we are, and how we came to be. Whether you believe in God or not, you should at least have respect for it, because you would not be able to choose to not practice any religion if our forefathers had not provided you with the freedom to do so.

 

Atheism is exactly not a religion -- but it is a faith. You can't prove the existence of nothingness any more than you can prove the existence of God. The difference being, of course, that there aren't any religions that require proof on the part of its practitioners...whereas that onus does happen to fall upon the stout-hearted atheist.

In the spectrum of belief systems, therefore, there's nothing more arrogant than an atheist. (You think your five little senses and notoriously fallible human intellect can tell you all *that* about the universe? Find me a scientist, and I'll find someone more than willing to disagree with you.)

But I digress.

Am I off topic?

 

Well, I'm an athesist and I don't think that I can prove there is a god or 12 gods on Mt. Olimpus or nothingness or a celestial overmind...

And I really couldn't care less. If people want to believe in one or all or nothing of the above that's fine by me. If they want me to say that I live in a nation united 'under god', I will.

Just don't expect me to go out of my way to waste time on ancient and meaningless religious rituals.

 

This discussion is digressing into a religous definition debate. For those debating about the Pledge being in schools at all, that is another topic entirely. The debate is over whether or not 'under God' should be in it.

I think that the USA's forefathers probably had it right the first time. I haven't looked it up but I am wondering what the original Pledge looked like. Did they just add 'under God' into it or is it different entirely? The line was obviously added to add religon into something associated with the government.

Things can get really complicated if you let them. It seems the issue is getting clouded in here as well. I started getting confused myself until I thought of something so obvious that it shocked me at how simple it was. This is what I came up with and I think everyone should follow my "logical" steps for forming an opinion on this issue.

1) Read the pledge without 'under god' inserted.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
2)Then read it with it inserted.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God,indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Which one makes you think of religon?

Whether or not I 'think' it should be there, I come to the conclusion that it should NOT be there.

[This message has been edited by Slackertoast (edited July 17, 2002).]

 

I have twpo conflicting opinions on this. First, I think "Well, it doesn't specify which God, it uses the word to denot...deto...dent... (/me feels incredibly stupid)denotate whatever-higher-power-you-choose-to-believe-in so whatäs the point"

BUT....

I, as a nontheistic believer, always nearly have kittens when I am forced, one way or another, to deal with any religiousness including a deity. Thus, if I am supposed to say something, I stay silent. If I am supposed to pray, I keep my head unbowed and my fingers unlaced. In Finland, one must face religion in quite often in everyday life. All schools teach religion ads a compulsory subject. (Or extended philosophy of sorts)

Gah, i am being so incoherent... see what actually sleeping does to me?

What I mean to say is... it shouldn't be there. It may be a generalization, but it still shouldnät be there. Sure, the guy why brought the thing up is a total moron, but, well... Like so many people have already said, if you do not like it, then don't say it!

Freedom OF religion and Freedom FROM religion are definitely separate things. In the US as well as in every other country that has freedom of religion.

Ara
(Spammingbird... I like the word...)

 

"Shralp does not say people should be forced to say the Pledge of Allegience."

Methylviolet does not say people should be forced to defend their positions in rational debate rather than resort to dismissive nastiness.

But she'd like it if they would.

The American legal system is based on precedent. Here are the some of the relevant opinions in precedent cases regarding the matters at issue, arranged in an easy FAQ format.

Q: Doesn't freedom of religion only apply to official religions, not little things like a mention of God in the Pledge?

A: Justice Rutledge declared in Murray vs. Curlett, 1963: "The [first] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed, or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion."

Q: But atheism isn't a religion, and we are promised only freedom of *religion*, not freedom from religion, right?

A: In 1961, in Torcaso vs. Watkins, Justice Black says: "Neither [state nor federal government] can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence in God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."

Q: But shralp says he won't make Methylviolet's children say the Pledge -- doesn't that mean that it's totally voluntary?

A: In 1987 Justice Stewart, in Engel vs Vitale, expanded on the concept of coercion and the Establishment Clause:
"When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain."

OK! So now that we are clear on the constitutionality of inserting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, I ask again:

Why does shralp want Methylviolet's children to say it?

[edit]
Methylviolet's constitutional rights are really sufficient reason to fight this "under God" thing, but here are some reasons *no one* should say it. http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/whatsafewprayers.html
It is couched in the most inflammatory language possible and is really pretty funny.

[This message has been edited by Methylviolet (edited July 17, 2002).]

 

Actually, my main thing is that the Pledge was deliberatly written without any religious refereces. So by inserting the phrase "under God" in there, we are deliberatly spitting on this man's work, which is unacceptable, IMO.

 

*long sigh* Methylviolet, read Shralp's last post again (you even re-wrote it yourself), it goes something like this:

"Shralp does not say people should be forced to say the pledge of allegiance."

So your question, "Why does Shralp want Methylviolet's children to say it?" yields the answer, "He doesn't."

---

In response to your Q & A selection: all your A's suggest that saying the Pledge of Allegiance is a law when in fact it is not. Courts have held that individual students can refrain from saying the pledge.

And speaking of dissmissive nastiness:

"But then, if some of these rabid Christians had the native intelligence to reflect that: ... "

"It is high time this cold-was induced stupidity be challenged, ... "

-and coming from a Fear thread near you-

"Christians...Just saying it sent cold shivers down my back."

I'm sorry (actually, no I'm not) Methylviolet but I have quite an issue with people calling a statement of my religion "stupidity" and that the believers in my religion are "rabid" fanatics. Not only that, but having a fear of Christians is like being afraid of most of the people in the USA! And there's no need to get all dramatic with *shivers* oooooooooooo.

Not only that, but I don't remember reading anyone making rude and completely unnecessary remarks over atheism. I can only imagine what you'd say if I (a Christian, oh my!) made a snide remark about atheists. Which, in case you were wondering - and even if you weren't - I won't do.

 

"So your question, "Why does Shralp want Methylviolet's children to say it?" yields the answer, "He doesn't.""

Equivocation is a favorite tactic of those who expouse what they cannot defend. I feel a little silly repeating all this, but perhaps spelling out Shralp's equivocation will make it clearer.

Shralp, and several others here, argue that "under God" should stay in the Pledge. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that so-called voluntary religious activity in public schools is, in fact, coercive. Therefore, if the "under God" Pledge is said in my children's public school classroom, my children are being coerced to say it also, which is clearly unconstitutional by precedent. Though Shralp and Sapiryl choose to ignore the fact of this coercion, they yet insist it should continue.

So which side of your mouth shall I listen to? The side which says "under God" should stay in the pledge, or the side that claims no desire to have my children say it?

More Q&A...

"In response to your Q & A selection: all your A's suggest that saying the Pledge of Allegiance is a law when in fact it is not."

Wrong. A practise need not be a law to run afoul of the First Amendment. I have cited the cases so that you can educate yourself, if you wish to.

"I have quite an issue with people calling a statement of my religion "stupidity""

Oh ho! The pledge of allegiance (the addition of "under God" was the stupidity referred to) is a statement of your religion?

"and that the believers in my religion are "rabid" fanatics."

Do you deny that *some* are? Hitler was an atheist, they say -- I sure don't defend *him*.

"Not only that, but having a fear of Christians is like being afraid of most of the people in the USA!"

Yeesh. I was going for funny in the "Fears" post but perhaps overshot into nasty. Though your response was kind of funny.

In short: you disagree with my style, but have nothing to say about the substance. Nothing relevant, that is.

Well, Sapiryl -- I am sorry to have offended you. I hope this reply shows that my remarks were not intended to be as harsh as you apparently found them.

Having "under God" in the Pledge is just so blatantly unconstitutional that I was inclined to think that only a truly rabid Christian -- as opposed to a normal, reasonable Christian -- could support its continuance. But I see that this is not the case. People just don't understand the constitutional issues involved. People view this issue as something that is being taken from them, not as an injustice that is being remedied. People get confused into believing this is a referendum on God Himself. So, OK. But now all of you have the tools to look up for yourselves some of the pertinent legal references, and make an informed decision.

Which is really the point -- not what you think of me or atheists in general, but what you think is most in line with the existing body of constitutional law. That is, what is most constitutional.

The Constitution directs that the courts deliberate without passion or prejudice. Can you?

 

I'm curious as to what the reasoning was behind this. Many teachers nowadays tell their pupils that whether they wish to say the pledge or not is their own choice, and none force it upon their students. Unless, perhaps it is different in Sierra Madre than on the East Coast.

The phrase "under God" is not a reference to any particular god, nor necessarily even a reference to a god. It is a reference to whatever you believe in. Given your argument, we should have to redesign the money, several of our classic patriotic songs, as well as numerous other integral parts of our society.

The constitution states:

The key words there: "free exercise thereof". Are you implying that I am free to practice my religion, except when it interferes with your atheistic beliefs? This sounds like an hypocrisy to me. The Constitution simply states that Congress may not respect any individual religion, which I can't be convinced that the pledge does. If it mentioned any particular God by name, then maybe many of us would agree with you, but it does not.

[This message has been edited by Rastor (edited July 18, 2002).]

 

This is part os a post from another board that sums up how I feel quite nicely.

Here is a short description of the Pledge and the man, Francis Bellamy (a Baptist
minister who held an important position in the National Education Association), who wrote it in 1892. There is one part I find
particularly interesting, if you will indulge me:

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one
nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew
that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

The important point is: he decided to leave out a phrase ("equality") that he knew everyone didn't agree with (at that time), and instead focused on the ideals that everyone DID agree on. It seems to me that when another phrase everyone doesn't agree with ("under God") was later added, it went against the spirit of the man who created the Pledge. And Bellamy originally prepared the Pledge for a school flag-saluting ceremony; it was intended to help instill patriotism and respect in children. Maybe Bellamy thought the kids back then needed help too. But he saw no need to add any reference to God. Even being a minister, he was interested in instilling patriotism, not religious conviction. The pledge as he wrote it was considered (for 62 years) to be a positive influence on school children. There has been a lot of talk about the Founding Fathers, that we should accept what they gave us and not try to second-guess them. In the same spirit, why can't we stop second-guessing the guy who first gave us the Pledge?

 

Amen, sister Stefanina. Tell it!

Oh, please, Rastor. The Supreme Court Justice I quoted on the coercive power of the mob explained it far better with fewer words than ever I could do. If you don't understand why it is inappropriate to make my kids stand there while your kids "practise their religion"... perhaps I need to come up with some atheist ritual I could perform in the middle of your church during services.

 

So basically, children are afraid to express their individuality. I still stand firm with the remainder of my post.

Regardless, whether or not children are forced to say the pledge or not is immaterial. The debate here is whether or not this guy suing is in the right or not. I don't believe he is. What you support is your own business.

[This message has been edited by Rastor (edited July 20, 2002).]