Oh we're finished as a Country - Page 2

Interesting... what's the difference?

[edit]

Of note:
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

His point is to keep religious leaders and political leaders seperated and that it doesn't apply to generalized statements, but institutions.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>

The first amendment has nothing to say about a "Separation of Church and State". I posted it above, the relevant portion is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".


On the day he approved Congress' putting the words "under God" into the Pledge, then-president Dwight D. Eisenhower said:
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Ooops! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath:
<strong>This will be appealed to the Supreme Court and the appeal will win. There is no way the current Supreme Court will uphold this. They have generally showed no regard at all for seperation of church and state and I doubt that they would change on an issue which has already become a cause celebre among the conservative community.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Really? Ever read Hopwood?
thoth

[quote]Originally posted by beer:
<strong>Separation of Church and State. Not Separation of church and State. Church and State. There's a reason for that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah. Its called 1781 drafting style. Most of the Nouns in the Constitution are capitalized.
Thoth

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>The first amendment has nothing to say about a "Separation of Church and State". I posted it above, the relevant portion is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".


On the day he approved Congress' putting the words "under God" into the Pledge, then-president Dwight D. Eisenhower said:
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Ooops! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

You know, I generally don't agree with you Groverat, but I do completely in this instance. An end to the country? Please, it seems to me that we're just reverting back to the original design. Further, if "god" was "de minimus" as the Gov't claims, why don't they just drop it? Well, b/c its not de minimus. Why are people so afraid of people who believe differently than they do? Nothing is stopping the pledge reciters from reciting it at home (or church or where ever). Why are public institutions needed as an additional forum? They're only needed if you want to establish an orthodoxy of thought - you've got a captive audience.

BTW, its been illegal to compel children or anyone else for that matter to recite the pledge of allegiance. See Barnette v. WV. I believe that case came out in the early to mid 50's.
The only way the Supreme Court will reverse this is 1) if it gets there and 2) if they label it ceremonial deism. What will probably happen is the 9th Cir (not, as some of you believe, a California court. It is a federal court whose jurisdiction covers Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada, and Hawai'i. They do hear argument in California as well as the other states) will grant rehearing en banc and reverse. That will be the end of that b/c the Supremes will duck it and refuse to grant cert.
Thoth

[quote]The difference is "God" is a fairly ambiguous term. It doesn't always reflect to a person. "God" could be an inanimate object (ie "money is MY God")<hr></blockquote>

Errr... no.

First off, "God" is the god outlined in the Bible.
You'll notice it doesn't say, "one nation, under a god", but "one nation, under God".

It's not ambiguous at all, that's the reason we have so much outrage about "Godless liberals" and "atheists".

It's the Christian God, stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

And that doesn't even matter! If it said "Allah/Vishnu/Zeus/Satan/Brahman/Krishna" it would matter, because it's establishment of religion, plain and simple.

It is pledging allegiance to a nation (fine) and in that statement you have you relenting submission to a Christian god. Sorry, but that's a no-no.

[quote]For some crackpot Atheist to tell me that i'm "forcing" my religion on he/she is insane.<hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

Because... only a crackpot athiest would see the obvious implications.

[quote]Religious freedom to me means the ability for ANY person to praise their creator or God without impunity.<hr></blockquote>

You can. That is your right. Overturning the 1954 act putting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance has NOTHING to do with you being able worship your God.

[quote]Look at what we have now. Schools will not permit the mention of God or Jesus or any religous dialect...is that not persecution???<hr></blockquote>

Since when were you not allowed to talk about God in school?
I talked about God all the time in school, never got in trouble for it.

There are few things Christians love more than thinking they are being oppressed.

[quote]Second.. if you have not lived in the REAL world yet. If you are a student being spoon fed your knowledge from a Professor then you have no experience to pool from. I thought the Pledge of Allegiance was stupid back in school. Kids always feel their parents are talking babble to them...but the fact is when you hit your late 20's you "remember" these words and they NOW make sense. You realize why we say it and what your parents were attempting say.<hr></blockquote>

I am confused by this paragraph, what does it mean?

[quote]The Men of the US are weaker than ever. More and more I have a hard time differentiating Men from Women because I'm surrounded by sniveling wimps everywhere. They won't fight for their country..they won't respect authority they have no moral convictions..."if I like it then screw everyone else". Think about this....had many Americans not died in WWII fighting for the US do you think you'd be sitting in front of a computer whining about when the Powermac G5 is coming?<hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

You'd make a great op-ed columnist for FoxNews or the National Review.

[quote]Everything you have is good enough that someone out there wants to take it. Schools have emasculated men long enough. Do you really think you will stand a chance against a Islamic Fanatic who is not only willing but Relishes the opportunity to kill you or your children?<hr></blockquote>

What in the name of fuck are you talking about?

"Those who put "In God We Trust" on our money, who put "under God" into our Pledge of Allegiance talk about "religious freedom." I'm not sure I know what "religious freedom" means, except that it allows the majority, the Christians, to trample the rights of us who think the Christian claim is falsehood, who think the Christian concept of morality is based mainly on the greed of the Christians."
- Cliff Walker, Positive Atheism magazine

Couldn't have said it better myself. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>TELL me about it! I gotta live with these hammerheads!

Quick, somebody throw me a life jacket!</strong><hr></blockquote>


I'm on it Scates...meanwhile you can stand on Snof's head until we get there with the flotation devices. What a righteous SF dude he is...we should be impressed that he left out the words "under God" when he was a kid. So forward-thinking and politically correct!

Right or wrong, this case just died.

Check this headline from CNN:
[quote]
U.S. Supreme Court upholds use of taxpayer-funded vouchers to send students to religious schools.
<hr></blockquote>

So much for the seperation of church and state.

Also check out this interesting tidbit from Drudge:

[quote]WHITE HOUSE PREPARING FOR POSSIBLE SUPREME COURT RESIGNATION <hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Right or wrong, this case just died.

Check this headline from CNN:


So much for the seperation of church and state.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is a completely different legal issue, although it has passing similarities b/c the government is involved. However, this does NOT involve state sponsored speech also involving a captive audience. This is a major distinction.
Thoth

It will be interesting to see how people react to the fact that their money could now fund a child's education through a Hebrew, Christian, Catholic, or Muslim school.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>

Really? What "Rights" have Christians taken from you?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The same right that Christians claim has been taken from them by not being allowed to have the state shove Christian beliefs down everybody's throat. Freedom of Religion. Or in this case, Freedom FROM religion. Take off your blinders and think critically, you might see it. I understand that you think "god" in the pledge has no religious content, but the simple fact of the hew and cry coming from religious groups and the Eisenhower statement Groverat quoted belie that. I really think you ought to try to imagine what it would be like to be surrounded by people who were pledging allegiance to "one Nation, under Satan, indivisible...etc" I think that God there is clearly normative and the SOLE purpose for reciting the pledge in schools is to inculcate children in the value set expressed therein. I'm sure you don't think that they are trying to teach children that "the word god has no normative value with respect to religion, its only there to signify christianity's significance in our Country." Do you? I think that's just a post-hoc crass rationalization by the DOJ that tries to hide the real motive behind the case.
Finally, you all may think that this is trivial and stupid and pc etc, but I think it is a wonderful example of trying to prevent a "death by a thousand cuts." BTW, there is a real difference b/w "politically correct" and "legally correct" and just "correct." I think you might try to distinguish among them b/4 you resort to that somewhat toothless epithet.
Thoth

Thoth

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>

Total Bullshit! Our Country was FOUNDED on Judao-Christian beliefs and for you to say that the masses are running from Religion is assinine. You have the right to choose and support your religion or no religion but you do not have the right to subvert our beliefs.

Thoth where do your rights come from?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, our country was founded on a document that specifically excludes religious orthodoxy through arms of the state. You'll recall that the "founders" (the fathers and mothers of the founders actually) were fleeing religious persectution. Its a simple concept really. It does not matter that our founders were, by and large, Christians of some stripe (note that "Christianity" is not monolithic) - that fact does not mean that we have to all be Christians, or that we should tolerate the state sponsorship of religious orthodoxy, no matter how small the actual encroachment appears to the elightened. I don't think assinine is a fair characterization of my argument. Furthermore, I didn't say that the masses were running from religion, I said that the "right" that Christians (not all Christains mind you) are trampling on is that same one they seek to hide behind when they come up with plans to put religions in state institutions (sometimes with "secular" justifications like "history" and the like).
Finally, you hit the nail on the head in your last sentence. However, I don't believe that trying to protect people from subversion of their beliefs by preventing the state sponsorship of a religious message subverts YOUR beliefs BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO USE ARMS OF THE STATE TO SPONSOR YOUR RELIGION. Got it? Worship where you want, even in school, just don't let the legislature prescribe a religious ritual in a public institution. Its not that hard. Nothing in what I wrote before suggested the legal power to subvert anyone's beliefs. Read it again if you have to.
My right to be free from the tyranny of a state established religion is very clearly stated in the 1st Amendment. I'd suggest you read the document and caselaw on establishment of religion and coerced speech before you make arguments from personal beliefs - this a legal, NOT a moral issue. You may wish to quibble with that characterization, but I can't help that.

Thoth

[quote]but here we have a prevailing attitude that religion in schools is wrong. How'd that happen?<hr></blockquote>

Do you want to know why it happened? It's because some people don't believe in a God. It's because some people believe in different Gods.

For example: How fair is it for a Jewish child to go to a public school and sing Christmas carols about Jesus the savior? In that same light, how would you like it if your child was made to do something from another religion?

Also, I have a REAL PROBLEM in having to pay for other people's kids to go to private schools. It's their choice whether they go to public schools or not, and if they choose to send them to a private, religious school, then they should have to pay for it. This mainly benefits the rich and private schools over anyone else, as private schools will just raise tuition and make more money to make the school 'better' for the rich students attending.

Public schools are WAY underfunded already, and we're supposed to take money AWAY from them to pay for private schools which actually get endowments? PLEASE! Teachers in public schools are completely underpaid and do not have the proper materials to teach our children, and we're taking money away from them. Totally ridiculous and backwards.

I found this on another site:
[quote]The Treaty of Tripoli (1797) contained the statement that "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

The treaty was ratified unanimously by the Senate in the 339th recorded vote of that body following the founding of the Republic. It was only the THIRD time a measure passed unanimously.
<hr></blockquote>

I believe that religion needs to stay out of schools, as there is always someone 'offended' by another's religion, whether it be not worshipping the same God, or not following a religion at all, the only way to keep things as calm as possible is to leave religions out of schools and the government as much as possible. People can worship, etc. on their own time, outside of the government buildings and schools.

Ha! I agree with both decisions!

Am I the only one?

--

hmurch:

[quote]Pushing ones religion underground IS persecution. Seperation of Church and State is not a doctrine. The Establishment Clause ensures that the Gov cannot mandate a particular religion and that Muslims Christians, Jews, Atheists and whoever can peacefully worship without persecution.<hr></blockquote>

The establishment clause mandates that the .gov cannot establish any religion. Having the pledge to the nation include a pledge to subject yourself to the Christian god is establishment of religion.

Open -&gt; shut.

"under God" is a no-no. It was let go for a long time but the bluff has been called, time to take it out and move on with our lives.

[quote]What happens when a person praises God in school...they're hushed.<hr></blockquote>

That is, to put it frankly, complete and total bullshit.

You can't stand up in class testifying about Jesus, yeah, but you can't stand up in the middle of class and blather on about anything.

Do you realize that by claiming oppression you are whining just as you accuse the "crackpot athiests" of whining?

[quote]Is it a Liberty to be free from the influences of Religion....I think not.<hr></blockquote>

Is it a liberty to be free from the influences of religion set forth by the government?... I think so.

Man this is a weird thread. I agree with Groverat AND Fran 411. Maybe it IS the end of the Country (as we know it).
Thoth
PS: One of these days, I'll tell you all what I do for a living. I'm not just a "regular" lawyer. But I'll wait til this all calms down a bit.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Thoth2 ]</p>

[quote]It's not fair at all but no ones forcing that child to sing now are they? But that fact is our children ARE being forced to eradicate "God" "Jesus" and any other theological references. Thats persecution Fran!
<hr></blockquote>

That's not true. Is the government forcing your child not to believe in "God", "Jesus", or any other theological references? No! You can teach these things ANY PLACE YOU WANT with the exception of a public school or government building.

Are they being forced to sing? Of course not. But do they have to listen to it? YES. That message is being pushed upon them whether they like it or not- they have NO CHOICE. THAT is PERSECUTION.

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>Really? What "Rights" have Christians taken from you?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe not anything from me but they have stripped the rights of other people. Stripped the gowns off of alter boys, stripped the skin off of "heretics", "non-believers" and "infidels". Destroyed whole civilizations just because they don't believe what they want them to believe!

Why doesn't this idiotic government state their true intensions? Why don't they just remove "Freedom of Religion" anyway and get on with ruling our lives as they always intended? That's how religions work anyway right? It's always "Mine's bigger than yours"... The American Taliban...

The most insidious thing about this stuff is that once you put "God" on anything - money, pledges, presidential oathes, speeding tickets (oh yes, it will happen)- you can't get rid of it without being branded an evil, unpatriotic, baby eating atheist. Or a whiner, which might be true if it wasn't for the fact that it has happened so many times and that post 911 we have good reason for being wary of religious fundamentalism in our government.

And then theres the "atheist conspiracy" tactic whereby anything without "God" in it is somehow, by default, pro-atheism. Was the pre-1954 pledge unpatriotic in some way?

Sorry, don't buy it. It's your right to worship however you like, but you can't make my kids stand, sit, or leave the room while you do it ritualistically in a public school.

----
I'm NORDSTROdamus, not that other guy.

Hey, who says McCarthyism is dead?

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>The difference is "God" is a fairly ambiguous term. It doesn't always reflect to a person. "God" could be an inanimate object (ie "money is MY God")
</strong><hr></blockquote>

And atheists? Nice try.

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>
For some crackpot Atheist to tell me that i'm "forcing" my religion on he/she is insane.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not YOUR religion. RELIGION itself. See the difference?

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>
Religious freedom to me means the ability for ANY person to praise their creator or God without impunity. Look at what we have now. Schools will not permit the mention of God or Jesus or any religous dialect...is that not persecution???
</strong><hr></blockquote>

NO, YOU are spreading FUD. For schools to do as you say would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

so we're finally pulling away from McCarthyism... and it only took until the next century...

On a side note, I like how Moogs and Pscates don't respond to criticism, just say things and run. Poor Sports.

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>
Take it off the money if you want. Take it out of the Pledge but the damage to my own Religous Freedom has already been done.

I don't advocate forcing anyone to do anything regarding their beliefs but Christians are being persecuted.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You have no proof regarding that statement and yesterday's decision. There simply is no connection.

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>That's fine with me Nostradamus.
My issue is that with todays current trend. Atheists get their wish but I am prevented from giving thanks to who I want. .</strong><hr></blockquote>

Huh? Wha-what? Who is preventing you from giving thanks to whatever in the privacy of your own home or religious institution? It sure as hell not the athiests... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[quote]<strong>Take it off the money if you want. Take it out of the Pledge but the damage to my own Religous Freedom has already been done.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How incredibly selfish of you. Your freedom of religion? How about anybody elses? Just because the majority of this country is on the Lord's side doesn't mean you get more freedoms too. I think though that you are a minority of the majority. Practicing your faith the way you see fit. And not imposing it on others. So be it.

[quote]<strong>I don't advocate forcing anyone to do anything regarding their beliefs but Christians are being persecuted.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Sad to say this...but it is a long time coming. They deserve some. Been doing it to others for centuries. Well, most all religions have...just seems that Christians brag more about theirs.

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>
However NONE of us like Fanatics and that is the crux of this issue.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

So the republican and democrat who ruled the Pledge unconstitutional are fanatics? I'm sorry. I take it you haven't read the decision.

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>
Your mistake in this response is the assumption that Religion is based on Theological foundations. My "Religion" could be eating steaks every Friday night.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Once again: "And atheists?" aka people that don' t eat steaks every Friday night? WHY do you want to force God upon us?

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>
How would they be unconstitutional? Is monolithic thinking an Constitutional right? I do not support "forcing" people to prescribe to a particular ideaology and neither does our Govt. I was in more danger from a Molester as a child than a Religous Fanatic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

What??? I replied in response to your statement that schools will take away students right to say "god." THAT is unconstitutional.

[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>On a side note, I like how Moogs and Pscates don't respond to criticism, just say things and run. Poor Sports.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, that's why I'm cool.

But seriously, I haven't "responded" because no one above seemed to be saying anything to me. It's been you, groverat, hmurchison, Fran441 and a couple others going at it, debating one another's previous statements/posts.

Where do I fit into this? I said my piece (or is it peace?). You should remember from our last exchange that I get no particular thrill engaging in ongoing bickering/debating.

Just isn't my thing, really. Don't have the patience or smarts for it.

In any case, I haven't seen in any of the threads above where anyone was responding to anything I posted and "calling me out".

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>
We can't say the Pledge of Allegience anymore. But, by God, we can cram every other idea, lifestyle or agenda down the throats and minds of every second grader in the country...all in the name of "free speech" of course.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pscates:
[QB]
There's going to come a time when your average fourth grader isn't even aware of the pledge of allegience and how it goes, the tune of the national anthem, who George Washington was, etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Pscates, there is NOTHING unconstitutional about the National Anthem or George Washington. You are spreading FUD and should stop it.

I do agree though that someday kids may not know George Washington. It's sad, and a result of the same administration that changed the pledge- Eisenhower's. Because we were racing Russia in technology, the US established a math and science initiative that pushed funding for those subjects WELL ABOVE those for the arts, history, and humanities. You can still see the results if you were an accellerated math and science student in high school, like I was. What needs to be done is MORE FUNDING for those areas. We are producing the best technology yet are forgetting about our CULTURE. Sorry about getting off-topic.


{Disclaimer: I'm just commenting on what you said. It's a vital part of discussion, not a personal attack. Clear?}

The founding fathers didnot have the word 'god' on money and this was resisted for many many years with strong reasons.

It is a remnant from the us vs them against the 'godless' communists and it is high time that all official references to that emptiest of all words 'god' were removed from the secular institutions of government.

Just to note, the word 'god' is empty NOT because I am or am not an athiest... simply because it cannot mean any real definable and mutually understood concept unless it is defined specifically in the utterance or through the ritualized context. . . it is as meaningful for you as it is meaningful to me . . . but then again maybe when I talk about 'god' I mean something entirely different than you do . . . perhaps even, my idea of god is so different that you would say that it is athiesm... or perhaps you would call me a satanist . . .or a pagan . . . or a christian . . the concept is without measure and meaning unless it is specified . . and since in this concept it cannot be specified without taking on distinct religious doctrines then it should be removed from its place in any official statements.

If you believe in god then ypou should want it removed... if you don't believe in god then you should want it removed.


and me? I am a god loving athiest . . . a non-believing lover of the divine <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>