Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:13 pm Post subject: Money Well Spent | |
|
When my phone rang last night at 8:00PM and my caller ID said "unknown caller", I was tempted to do what I usually do when that happens, NOT ANSWER IT! For some reason, I guess curiosity got the best of me and I took the call.
The caller happened to be from an organization fighting to keep the pledge of allegiance in its present state, specifically leaving the words "one nation under God" as part of the pledge. He went on to say, an athiest out on California had been successful convincing a lower level judge that the reference to God has no business in our nation's pledge. Obviously, this is being appealed to the next level court, and just as obviously, this will end up in the US Supreme Court before it's all said and done. Also obvious was the fact the caller was looking for support and a donation. He found it with me. This lead me to wonder, is there no tradition in our country that isn't under attack? Have we gone politically correct crazy? A hot topic today is whether or not it's ok for retailers to say "Merry Christmas" in their stores and advertising. Have we reached the point where if one is bothered, all must suffer? What is next? I realized that lending my name to the cause and sending my little donation will have very little impact on the outcome but I felt it was the best money I've spent in a long time. Whenever I've recited the pledge, I proudly say "one nation under God". I will say it with more ferver from this point on. Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:42 pm Post subject: | |||||
Emphasis mine. The entire essay: On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
I'd be inclined to simply call it "correct". The phrase itself appears to be an explicit endorsement of one particular religion. And, if so, it would contravene the establishment clause of the 1st ammendment. On top of that, the cold war ended long ago. The words "under god" were reportedly added in 1954, at the height of the anti-communist movement in the US, in an effort "to distinguish the U.S. from the officially atheist Soviet Union". Thirdly, christianity, albeit dominant, is but one religion of many. The 2004-2005 Statistical Abstract of the United States (pdf, page 55) reports that there were as many as 7.7 million people practicing religions other than christianity in 2001. Considering those three points, I see little reason for the phrase "under god" to remain in the pledge and I have little reason to believe that christians (or anyone for that matter) would "suffer" if the phrase were to be removed. Either of the pledges predecessors look perfectly suitable to me: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." "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." What's the argument for keeping it? |
|||||
Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Posts: 226
Location: Canada eh?
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:59 pm Post subject: | |
|
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5560&abbr=cs_
i believe this speaks just about every work that i could say at how much it disgusts me that a court can remove God's name in a pledge, better than i could say. |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:49 pm Post subject: | |
|
The most recent numbers I saw indicated approximately 86% of Americans claim Christianity as their religion of preference. Probably not far off since, using your numbers, 7.7 million claim to be other than Christian. This country was founded on the principles of Christianity. The fact that a few do not subscribe to it is not a reason to remove it. They can politely say the pledge their own way, but to insist it be changed and "under God" removed is denying the wishes of the large majority.
You didn't address the attacks on some of the deep traditions of our nation. Just why is it necessary to start calling CHRISTMAS trees, "holiday trees", for example? Is it simply an accident or an isolated example of poor judgement? Hardly. The politically correct crowd (whoever these people are who are trying to change everything) have a plan and that plan is to divide the "indivisable" people of the United States of America. Hopefully the people, along with the same God you and the PC crowd want to eliminate from pledge, won't let that happen. FS |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:11 pm Post subject: | |||||||||||||
That's one of the most oft repeated fallacies. The US's founding fathers were largely pagans. Beyond that, nowhere in the constitution is there a mention of religion except in an exclusionary sense. In fact, if you were to read article 11 of the 1796 Treaty with Tripoli you'd see an explicit refute to such claims:
This treaty was, of course, ratified, unanimously, by the US Senate and thus indicates quite clearly that any such christian foundation neither existed nor was intended.
I don't believe that mere subscription is the core of the issue. It seems to me that the actual legality of such a phrase is the issue here. The establishment clause is quite clear; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.". As the courts have found and will likely find again, the recitation of the pledge, in it's current incarnation, in such places as public schools contravenes this clause and is therefore unconstitutional.
The wishes of the majority are meaningless in this instance as the government hasn't the means to enact any restitution without contravening the constitution.
Well, for one I don't believe that whatever traditions you're speaking of are really all that deep. The evidence clearly suggests that there is no christian foundation in the US, there's just a whole lot of christians living in the US. The evidence also suggests that the entire "under god" debacle was the result of spurious political posturing in the not-so-distant 1950's. Beyond that, I simply don't believe that the traditions of a non-secular majority should be imposed upon secular or non-secular minorities. To be blunt, I really couldn't care less what people want to call their trees.
Again, it appears to be more a matter of legality than political correctness. |
|||||||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 am Post subject: | |
|
Sorry, but simply stating "one nation under God" does not equate to the establishment of religion.
Mentioning God is not unconstitutional, as much as you might like to make it so. FS |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:36 am Post subject: | |||||
Can you explain how? I've yet to see a compelling argument that explains how it doesn't, and it appears that the courts haven't seen one either.
Nice straw man. I never said such a thing. I said that the recitation of the pledge, in it's current incarnation, in such places as public schools contravenes the establishment clause and is therefore unconstitutional. If you have an argument that suggests otherwise, I'd love to read it. |
|||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:37 pm Post subject: | |
|
Been down this road before with you, sleK. I state my opinion, you choose the other side of the debate. We banter back and forth until you tire of the game, then you ban me.
I won't bite on that bait again, sorry. Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:25 pm Post subject: | |
|
Well, you're partially right. A more accurate account would be that you state your opinion, I present evidence and/or make points to the contrary, you refuse to acknowledge the evidence and/or the points and state your opinion again with slightly different words, I present evidence or make points to the contrary,... wash, rinse, repeat until yeah, I get tired of your game.
I don't see how anyone could blame me. It's not bait however, it's called discussion. And in a discussion, especially one of a political nature that takes place in a debate forum such as this one, it's expected that participants are able and willing to support their opinions and/or explain their reasons for holding such opinions, develop arguments that demonstrate the validity of their opinion, and perhaps even undermine opposing opinions with tools like logic or evidence. As far as I can tell, it's pretty standard fare for the medium and the format. So, as before, if you're unable or unwilling to participate in kind, it'd probably be wise to simply keep your opinions to yourself. |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:07 am Post subject: | |
|
Ok, I'll bite.
Your assertion that references to God took hold out of some Communistic phobia in the 1950's is unfounded. I have attached two historical quotes, one from the Declaration of Independance dated in 1776 and the Gettysburg Address from the 1860's and offer them as proof that, while the founding fathers themselves may not all have been practicing christians, their policy positions and speeches often referenced God. The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America, When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From the Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” Liberal extremists come out of the woodwork the second they hear the mention of the word "God". Contrary to what they would have us believe, the mere mention of God does NOT equate to the establishment of a state religion. The handful of those who get offended even mentioning the word God can choose to not recite that portion of the pledge if it means that much to them. As for the remaining 90% of Americans, we will go right on proudly saying the pledge in its entirety, singing "America The Beautiful", "God Bless America", and spending the money that still states "In God We Trust" So, when this little skirmish goes all the way up to the Supreme Court and sensible judges rule in favor of keeping the pledge the way it is, maybe it will shut the handful of loud mouths in this Country (and others) up for good. Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:31 pm Post subject: | |||||||
emphasis mine That "policy positions and speeches often referenced god" wasn't your assertion nor is it even a point of contention. I have no doubt that the word god has appeared. Your assertion was that "this country was founded on the principles of christianity". Two occurences of the word god do not suggest a christian prinicipled foundation. Nor do two occurences even equal "often". Thomas Jeffersons use of the word god, more specifically the phrase "nature's god", in the DOI suggest a deistic outlook rather than a christian one anyways. This is fitting of course as Jefferson was, in fact, a deist; along with Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison and a handful of the other "founding fathers". So, a number of the US's founding fathers identify themselves as deists, not christians. Jefferson himself stated in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association that "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.". So, here we have the principal author of the declaration of independance, Thomas Jefferson, specifically asserting on behalf of the "whole american people" that religion, any religion, not just christianity, has no role and shouldn't have any role in government. Another fitting quote from Jefferson was in a letter he penned to Elbridge Gerry in 1799: "I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." It's particularly fitting here because you are suggesting that the christian god, as codified in the pledge of allegiance, should have precedence over other sects. A position which is in direct contradiction of the actual intentions of the US's fore fathers as evidenced by Jefferson's quotes above, the very existence of the establishment clause in the US constitution, and decisions rendered by the courts. Furthermore, I again bring to your attention article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli, and remind you that it was ratified unanimously by the US senate. In the treaty, it states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;". How much more clear can you get? All of that considered, there appears to be absolutely zero merit to any claims that the US is founded upon christianity. Therefore anyone making that claim in an effort to support any opinion is either completely ignorant of US history or acting duplicitously. With regard to the Gettysburg address, having occured a full 76 years after the creation of the US constitition and a full 72 years after the adoption of the 1st ammendment, I'd hardly call it "foundational". Inspirational, certainly. Foundational, no.
There's that straw man again. No one is arguing that the "the mere mention of God" is evidence of a state sponsored establishment of religion. For the third time, the recitation of the pledge, in it's current incarnation, in such places as public schools contravenes the establishment clause and is therefore unconstitutional. Perhaps you'd care to respond to that instead of building up the same straw man again?
It's pretty sad that I still have to ask but... Do you have anything to support that or I am just supposed to take your word for it? |
|||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:45 pm Post subject: | |||
There is no point going back 200+ years and attempting to interpret what someone may have meant by pulling a sentence or paragraph out and claiming full knowledge of intent. It just isn't that easy. So let's focus on your position instead. You seem to be saying above that you don't have a problem with the wording of the pledge because "one nation under God" is merely a mention of the word God and is not an establishment of state religion in and of itself. Where you have problems is when our children in our public schools are asked to recite it. So, maybe we can agree on this statement. You're ok with the pledge in its present state as long as no one recites it publically. Is that a correct assessment of your position? Footsoldier |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2205
Location: A little bit sideways!
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:03 am Post subject: Re: Money Well Spent | |||||||||||
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm "One nation under God" a grand old tradition since the grand old days of the "Cold War".
OH MY GOD! a Socialist wrote the Pledge........what's the world coming too!
If any of you are all worked up about tradition I say bring back the original version of the Pledge and make Francis Bellamy proud!
I guess this is Fran's spin below.
Bottom line I don't really give a rats ass about any of this but I just wanted the true history out there. To my right wing friends out there. Settle down fellas. ~GoodFella |
|||||||||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:48 am Post subject: | |||||
Although this an interesting reversal considering that that is exactly what you just tried with the DOI and Gettysburg quotes, of course there is a point to going back! That's the entire purpose of the courts isn't it? To "interpret and apply the law" and to "protect rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution". Regardless, no interpretation is neccesary here. Jeffersons intent was clear. The founding fathers intent was clear. The purpose of the establishment clause is clear. The treaty with Tripoli is clear. All of them point to the simple fact that the US is not in any way founded upon christianity. As it's also clear that your unable or unwilling to argue with that, I won't belabour the point any longer and will accept your refusal to address those facts as an ungracious concession on that point.
No, let's not. Let's focus on the issue instead. On June 22, 1942, the US congress passed the flag act thus officially recognizing the pledge and codifying it into law. In 1942 the pledge contained no reference to any religion. The word "god" in the pledge refers to the christian god. This is evidenced by the following facts:
The establishment clause of the first amendment states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" An establishment of religion "refers to investing political power in a particular religious faith or body. Thus, an established religion is an officially favored religion, such as a religion that citizens of a nation are compelled to support, profess faith in, or follow." Therefore, as the pledge was passed into law by congress in 1942 and is thus "officially favored", and as the phrase "under god" as added in 1954 references the "particular" god of the christian faith, and as US citizens are "compelled" to recite the pledge of allegiance in state sponsored institutions such as public schools, the pledge of allegiance, in its current incarnation, contravenes the 1st ammendment of the US constitution. It's that simple. Wanna dispute it? Here's a hint: ceremonial deism. |
|||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:45 pm Post subject: | |
|
Ok, you win. The "horse is dead". I'll stop.....
But let's not stop at just the pledge. Let's finish the job the way you'd like to see it and the way like-minded folks will take it once the pledge issue is behind them. 1.) Let's do away with the pledge altogether because it "favors" the United States of America, and goodness knows we have millions of people in this country who have roots elsewhere, still speak their native tongue, and still have family living there. We wouldn't want to offend them with singling out the U.S.A. in our pledge. 2.) Better head straight for the people who print our money and immediately pull the type set that reads "In God We Trust". Not only could that be misconstrued as officially sanctioning a religion, it's no longer true. As a nation, we DON'T trust in God, so why lie about it on our currency? 3.) Someone needs to fire the chaplain of the U.S. Legislature. That has to be the least needed government job in existance these days. Can't have him starting the legislative day with a prayer now, can we. 4.) Better get to political candidates in both parties and instruct them to stop invoking God during their speeches (ie; "...and God Bless The United States of America") because they are offending untold millions when they do it which will obviously cost them votes in the election. After all, who would vote for anyone who invokes God's name? 5.) A second look at Christianity in general is in order. There are so many churches, so many fervent preachers out there preaching its virtures, so many physically intimidating structures and, while there are houses of worship for those of other faithes, it must be overwhelming to those who don't share in the Christian faith. Surely there must be something that can be done about the volume of Christian churches in America. 6.) While we're on the subject of churches, we should immediately stop the tax exempt status for all Christian organizations. Don't worry, I'm not including all secular non-profit groups, just Christian. 7.) Obviously, national Christian holidays must be done away with. When the nations commerce stops because of a Holiday, someone could easily confuse that with sanctioning a religion. So the term "Christmas" needs to be done away with along with government office closings for such a holiday. So should paying the nation's employees for a national holiday. 8.) We should immediately cease the singing of "God Bless America" and "America The Beautiful" at all public functions because of its references to the "Christian God" so no one in attendance, or viewing from home will be offended. 9.) Immediately strike from the Presidential Oath of Office the words "so help you God" and remove the Holy Bible from the ceremony so no one could possibly be offended or confused that somehow the government associated itself in any way with Christianity. 10.) I'm sure I've missed a few but no doubt you will remind me of them. I've left #10 open so should one pop to your mind, you can fill it in yourself. This whole conversation does beg one question. Once the pledge has been altered, and I do believe it eventually will be, what will be the next target? Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:34 pm Post subject: | |||
And that is a text-book example of a slippery slope.
|
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:48 pm Post subject: | |
|
Ok, I will admit to a sliver of sarcasm in my last post, but I am interested in YOUR view of some of those other issues I mentioned.
IF the pledge of allegiance in its current state is unconstitutional, are there any others on my "Top 10" that in your view, meet that criteria as well? Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:19 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||||||
ok...
2, 3, and 8 (with a caveat)
Well, that's pretty much everyone in the US except for the natives, isn't it? Either way, one's roots do not determine the level of love and devotion to one's country. Thus the pledge, as a demonstration of patriotism rather than fealty to the christian god, is harmless.
I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that that has already been settled in the courts, whereby it was found that the phrase "in god we trust" was an example of ceremonial deism. Personally, I believe that religious freedom, as guaranteed by the constitution, includes the freedom to believe in the non-existence of god. Accordingly, I think the phrase should be removed.
Yeah, fire him.
Well, if you eliminate pandering, the politicians wouldn't have much of anything to say at all... which might not be such a bad thing.
That's just silly.
More silliness.
Christmas is a federal holiday, and as such, states are not required to recognize it. Regardless, I have no problem with any religious celebration or holiday provided that accomodations are made for all of them. So, instead of doing away with them, I say add more. Celebrate your countrys' diversity rather than repress it.
Provided an appropriate venue, I see no problem with either.
The phrase "so help me God" is not actually a part of the oath as specified in the constitution (article 2, section 1). Therefore, the addition of the phrase is de facto unconstitutional. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:27 am Post subject: | |
|
Well sleK, you didn't disappoint.
But I do thank you for responding with your opinions. That is what I asked for. Thank you for that. Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:34 am Post subject: | |
| Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: | |
Joined: 08 Jan 2006
Posts: 197
Location: ~G.W.N~
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:39 am Post subject: | |
After reading all of this I'm pooped! Nice debate! 
|
|