22-06-2004 08:41									#211
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich quote: Originally posted by molly bloom There may be many Christians in the United States- it doesn't imply that it was founded as a Christian country. Who said it was? I'm just pointing out people are going to a hell of a lot of trouble over such a small thing, when it's easiest to just give in on something like this.

So its all right for religionistas to organise and impose their faith(s) on others, but not for non-believers or dissenters to restore the status that existed before said imposition?

What a truly bizarre argument.

I at least accept that people of a religious persuasion are entitled to their beliefs, and entitled to express their beliefs, insofar as they do no harm to, or infringe the rights of, others.

Unfortunately, as has been proved startlingly obvious
from this thread, those with religious ideologies view their rights as superior, and each views their belief as superior- which of course is also apparent from the many religious struggles and bloodlettings of history.

'Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.'

Pat Buchanan, speaking before the Christian Coalition in 1993


Silent encroachments and accumulations.

If you give up one liberty, why not give up many?

	22-06-2004 08:59									#212
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Dinodoc -

quote: I thought he didn't have standing from the begining so it didn't suddenly become a nusiance suit.

That still wouldn't qualify as a nuisance suit, the lower courts would have dismissed the case if they thought he lacked standing. So if he lacks standing they're to blame for the case reaching the SCOTUS. A nuisance suit is a suit that lacks merit to anyone with common sense, i.e., the guy who hits himself with a hammer and sues the hammer company or a suit brought to harass someone who has done no wrong. Nuisance suits are often brought by people who are themselves being sued by the victim of their nuisance suit... I sue you for assault and you sue me back for the emotional distress of being sued.

quote: No. It was a nusiance suit from the begining and I don't really feel the need to go into my disdain for the 9th Circuit.

Aside from the fact the 9th ruled correctly on the merits of the pledge, that isn't Newdow's fault. And the suit went to California courts before the 9th heard it. If he lacked standing then some court along the way should have said so...

quote: I don't really feel like getting distracted into a semantic debate over what is and isn't a nuisiance suit because it isn't relevent.

You brought it up to indict Newdow.

quote: However a suit that should have obviously been thrown out at the trial court level qualifies for me.

Then blame that court, but I disagree, he should have standing and would if the courts really believed in parental rights, including the rights of parents with partial custody. Furthermore, this suit is deserving on it's merits - the state is violating 2 constitutional principles and that means we all have standing, not just Newdow. I should have standing because my taxes are being used to promote someone else's religion... That meets Jefferson's description of tyranny...

MB -

quote: 'Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.' -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (1819)

Again, BINGO! I've heard a number of "conservatives" claim freedom means you can live your life as you choose "within the law". They add that caveat to allow them to claim they believe in freedom while supporting a multitude of laws that violate our freedom. But that definition means people in Cuba and N Korea are "free" and no one would believe that nonsense...

Kucinich -

quote: You missed my point - I wasn't saying it was right or good, but rather that it was so much easier to just let them have their way over such a trivial thing.

You strive for what is easy and Newdow strives for what is right, I'll side with him. Are you a parent? Are you a Christian? How would you feel if the state was coercing your kid to pledge allegiance to no god? Sure, it may be "easier" to put up with such intrusions into our lives, but that's how governments often become tyrannical - it's the old "frog in the boiling water" phenomenon...

	22-06-2004 09:01									#213
	Full PM-box? Change here!

As I said, it's an extremely minor intrusion that keeps the religious folks happy. I'd hope some people could be mature, rather than throwing a fit at every little injustice in the world

	22-06-2004 09:06									#214
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Straybow The fact that you equate all beliefs in supernatural reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of belief, and of Christianity.

Maybe you can enlighten us wrt the fundamental differences between the Norse mythology and Judeo-Christianity? Please do not use any on this list:

1. Christianity is based on facts (false)
2. Arguments that are fallacies, such as "There are a lot more Christians than Norse myths believers."
3. Personal experience - many people have personal experience of UFO abductions.
4. Early Christians were persecuted - so? Many "witches" were persecuted as well.

	22-06-2004 09:10									#215
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich As I said, it's an extremely minor intrusion that keeps the religious folks happy. I'd hope some people could be mature, rather than throwing a fit at every little injustice in the world

The problem here is the Christian right, particularly Creationists (ID'ers belong to this group rightfully) resort to what's called "wedge tactic." They have been trying to force a concession, no matter how minor, somewhere.

	22-06-2004 09:19									#216
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Then give it to them, if it'll get them to shut up.

	22-06-2004 09:25									#217
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Elok -

quote: Okay, Berz, so what exactly is the harm done?

The negation of a parent's right to raise their child with their religious or non-religious belief system (read the quotes from Jefferson supplied by Bloom). For some religious folk, what the state is doing is comparable to corrupting the soul of their child by inducing idolatry (or worse) through coercion.

quote: I'm actually vaguely inclined to agree with you in principle, but Newdow is obviously such a stuffy, angry little man that I don't really care about his Rights.

He's been a paragon of patience and politeness while many of his opponents are downright rabid. But since you don't care about his rights, why should anyone care about yours?

quote: I support sentencing him to punitive surgery to have the bug extracted from his butt. Annoying, whiny git.

Like I said, downright rabid. You have rights, just don't you dare exercise them if I dislike you. That seems to be your argument...

quote: Dunno how long it's been since you were in school, but almost nobody thinks about the words to the pledge when they recite 'em. We just rattled them off in a monotone in my day, or more often didn't even speak for pure laziness.

That was your personal experience, I've seen film of kids who were quite zealous about reciting the pledge... But if the pledge is so meaningless, why have it?

quote: And I find it hard to imagine a kid who would be encouraged to tease the atheist classmate by two words in the pledge, but otherwise wouldn't dare.

You lack imagination

quote: Fundamentalist children are likely to insult the heathen regardless, and generally good kids aren't going to turn nasty over something like this.

So, what if the teacher was "asking" kids to stand and reveal their heathenness? Your argument is: "children aren't coerced". That requires you to know what every child in the country feels when confronted with a request to recite the pledge. I need only know what 1 child feels and I already know that much, and you've just acknowledged that some kids are nasty to "heathens"...

quote: Come to think of it, my school memories don't include any example of children tormenting their peers for anything genuinely ideological. More often than not the little snots just harassed the short, fat, or ugly ones, or kids who cried, or anybody else who stuck out and didn't have friends to defend him. And immigrants. They had a real fun time insulting the Nigerian kids. They made up songs and everything.

I'll refer you to a question I asked Mr Fun, what if the teacher was "asking" teens to stand and reveal whether or not they are homosexual? Is that a coercive question given the fact many children and perhaps the teacher will use that information to mistreat the child who answers yes? Of course...

quote: Actual beliefs are tough targets for kids because they aren't obvious and they don't create obvious differences unless the kid goes out of his or her way to trumpet them, like by handing out Jack Chick tracts as one girl I knew did.

And in this case, the state is "asking" children to expose those beliefs via a public affirmation of allegiance to the state's god.

	22-06-2004 09:32									#218
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Elok Okay, Berz, so what exactly is the harm done?

The harm is "forcing" atheists or their children to utter the God. Maybe it causes them to combust or something. Personally I'm inclined to think it is a de minimis wrong myself.

	22-06-2004 09:33									#219
	Support Apolyton

quote: As I said, it's an extremely minor intrusion that keeps the religious folks happy. I'd hope some people could be mature, rather than throwing a fit at every little injustice in the world

It isn't minor, many Christians went to their deaths in ancient Rome to avoid paying homage to Rome's gods.
It isn't minor for true believers and true non-believers... It's minor for many people who aren't really committed either way, but even though I wasn't committed I still understood the coercion existed when I was asked to recite the pledge...

	22-06-2004 09:36									#220
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The harm is "forcing" atheists or their children to utter the God. Maybe it causes them to combust or something. Personally I'm inclined to think it is a de minimis wrong myself.

Not utter, pledge allegiance. Many atheists utter god when having sex And it's coercion, not force. The former is a more subtle form of the latter...

	22-06-2004 09:51									#221
	Tired of ads?

I wish that there were less of an effort to remove "under god" from the pledge, and more of an effort to get rid of this whole business of having school children recite loyalty oaths...

	22-06-2004 10:35									#222
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Correcting de minimus wrongs don't engender much mass support among the people. Thier gives a **** isn't that sensetive.

	22-06-2004 15:07									#223
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker That's the court's criterion, not his or mine. It isn't a nuisance to me for a person to stand up for their rights... The California courts and the 9th Circuit acknowledged his standing according to Newdow and he must be right since they allowed the suit to go forward to the SCOTUS. So did it become a nuisance only after prior courts allowed his suit to reach the SCOTUS?

If someone brings a suit with the intent of causing harm to other parties it is a nuisance suit. Frequently such suits are filed despite obvious lack of standing, and right-minded courts routinely dismiss them as soon as they reach the bench. Nonetheless the suit takes up the time and resources of the targetted party.

In other words, he's an icehole, and the 9th Circuit is an icehole for not dismissing for lack of standing and wasting everyone's time.

But then would we be having so much fun?

	22-06-2004 15:29									#224
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: If someone brings a suit with the intent of causing harm to other parties it is a nuisance suit.

No, a nuisance suit is one that is patently absurd - a suit that has the effect of tying up court time on a frivolous matter. All lawsuits "harm" the party being sued... But suits that seek to correct wrongs committed by the defendant are just...

quote: Frequently such suits are filed despite obvious lack of standing, and right-minded courts routinely dismiss them as soon as they reach the bench. Nonetheless the suit takes up the time and resources of the targetted party.

And corrupt courts and politicians get to decide who has standing, so standing is a problematic rationale that often has nothing to do with justice.

quote: In other words, he's an icehole, and the 9th Circuit is an icehole for not dismissing for lack of standing and wasting everyone's time.

Concerned about wasted time now? Strange complaint from someone wanting schools all across the country to waste time every day on the pledge... Here's an idea, stop using the state to coerce other people to pledge allegiance to your God. Then they won't have any standing regardless of what politically motivated courts say on the matter.

Let's see, you want the state to forcibly take people's money to coerce their children to pledge allegiance to your God and they're the iceholes for objecting? Man you guys sure got it backwards. Y'all sound like liberals who think they have a moral mandate to use the state to spread other people's wealth around. They too accuse the victims of their "morality" of being iceholes for not endorsing their behavior.

	22-06-2004 15:31									#225
	More fun with Berz Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Christians who've actually read what Jesus said about idolatry and oath taking, are violating their faith when they recite the pledge. quote: Straybow With such a facile interpretation even marriage would be a violation of "what Jesus said about idolatry and oath taking." Nice try, though. You'll have to explain that to those Christians who object to oath taking and idolatry and sued to stop the compulsory pledge. While you're at it, explain to me why marriage - endorsed by Jesus - constitutes idolatry or oath taking.

No, you're the one contending that those who object are equated with those who "actually read what Jesus said about idolatry and oath taking." Coopting the issue from the ignorant is not an argument to the informed.

quote: quote: Straybow Since the pledge does not affect qualification for public office it is not an establishment of religion. Exactly! The Framers knew there were people who would or could not take the oath of office because it violated their interpretation of Jesus' teachings as well as people who rejected the Christian notion that Jesus was/is God. How is the pledge any different?

Incorrect and irrelevent. Establishment in the 1st Amendment applies only to the "test of religion" applied to an office holder mentioned in Article (I can't remember) of the Constitution. It had nothing to do with an oath of office or religious beliefs about oaths. (Eg, a person of a differing denomination, and conscientiously objecting to oath taking, could still fully qualify under the test of religion applied by the Episcopal denomination in various states.) Therefore, as the pledge of allegiance is not a test of religion, nor a qualification for public office, it is not unconstitutional.

quote: What did Jesus say? Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Is that not what a pledge is? If not, then a vow of marriage would likewise violate the standard you have erroneously inferred. Apparently it is you who needs to brush up on what Jesus said. Try again.

quote: He warned against both public prayer and oath taking which he called hypocrisy.

No, He did not. He warned against those who pray to be seen, which is entirely distinct from public prayer which Jesus participated in with His disciples, in the various synagogues, and in the Temple. Try again.

quote: You guys want to argue the pledge meant any and all gods? That's ridiculous...there was and is only 1 god meant by the pledge. […] Capitalised, a specific deity...not generic... […]Where does the word come from? It comes from the Judeo-Christian notion that God's name should not be mentioned specifically

No, I'm arguing that in application it does not violate the conscience of those who believe differently from those who framed the phrase, and therefore is not a form of discrimination. To invoke Jesus, or YHWH, or Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit, would be another matter. It does, however, tweak those who are overly sensitive about any mention of God, much to the delight of anticommunists of the day.

quote: How would Christians feel about the generic "devil" replacing this "generic" god?

Distraction by hypothetical irrelevency (non sequitur). Try again.

quote: Christianity was a fringe belief in Rome… And some of you (Dinodoc) think anyone who disagrees is "imposing" upon Christians!

That's a battle the Christians won. This is a different battle, and one in which the opponents are given full liberty to excuse themselves from any activity if they feel slighted and thus obviate the need for a fight. The imposition upon Christians is that the religion-haters want to circumvent public debate, and legislative/executive prerogative, through activist courts.

quote: There is NO general public belief in God because [blah blah blah]

Distinctions that are irrelevant in this context except to the religion-haters. "Poll after poll confirms this--19 in 20 Americans say they believe in God," says one article chosen at random, or 90% according to Harris. In Minnesota it's 78%. That's still almost as good as Reagan's numbers! Try again.

quote: Not when this 1 "God" is defined by the Bible… And when they're told pagans are an abomination to "God"?

Non sequitur: not in the Pledge of Allegiance. Whine Again.

quote: If judicial activism - whatever that means - is a bad thing, how can you justify using it to achieve your goals?

War is a bad thing, but must be pursued in order to oppose the warfare of another. Judicial activism in opposition to judicial activism is a necessary evil.

quote: We're debating the constitutionality of the pledge and you guys say it is constitutional but not one of you have even bothered showing why.

Asked and answered at least 3 times now.

	22-06-2004 15:44									#226
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Let's see, you want the state to forcibly take people's money to coerce their children to pledge allegiance to your God and they're the iceholes for objecting? Man you guys sure got it backwards. Y'all sound like liberals who think they have a moral mandate to use the state to spread other people's wealth around. They too accuse the victims of their "morality" of being iceholes for not endorsing their behavior.

Three entirely separate issues: money and pledge and God. First, there is no allegiance to God, only to the flag and nation. God is merely acknowledged as being transcendent above either thus any loyalties due Him in the eyes of the pledger are not to be abrogated.

If you don't agree with the money issue, support vouchers. Then the pledge and God are easily remedied for the hypersensitive as well.

	22-06-2004 15:50									#227
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Maybe you can enlighten us wrt the fundamental differences between the Norse mythology and Judeo-Christianity? Please do not use any on this list:

Eh? What's that buzzing noise? I think its a nuisance suit.

quote: The problem here is the Christian right, particularly Creationists (ID'ers belong to this group rightfully) resort to what's called "wedge tactic." They have been trying to force a concession, no matter how minor, somewhere.

Oh, a wedge tactic, kinda like claiming the phrase "under God" in the Pledge is unconstitutional to advance the religion-hating agenda?

	22-06-2004 18:03									#228
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Straybow -

quote: No, you're the one contending that those who object are equated with those who "actually read what Jesus said about idolatry and oath taking." Coopting the issue from the ignorant is not an argument to the informed.

I've read what Jesus said about such public affirmations, he opposed them. Now, explain how his words as interpreted by those Christians who filed suit in 1943 (and I) would lead us to believe Jesus condemned marriage as idolatry or oath taking...

quote: Incorrect and irrelevent. Establishment in the 1st Amendment applies only to the "test of religion" applied to an office holder mentioned in Article (I can't remember) of the Constitution.

You mean the 1st Amendment merely duplicated an earlier clause found in the main body of the Constitution? Why didn't the Framers duplicate the words used in that clause? No, the 1st Amendment did not duplicate the religious test clause, it went further... The first clause prohibited religious tests for holding office. The second clause found in the 1st Amendment said Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, etc., , not just a law requiring a religious test to hold office...

quote: It had nothing to do with an oath of office or religious beliefs about oaths. (Eg, a person of a differing denomination, and conscientiously objecting to oath taking, could still fully qualify under the test of religion applied by the Episcopal denomination in various states.)

Back then the states had more power, the restriction on religious tests applied only to federal office. But the principle is the same.

quote: Therefore, as the pledge of allegiance is not a test of religion, nor a qualification for public office, it is not unconstitutional.

It is a test of religion, only those who believe in and accept as their own the one "God" could recite the pledge without lying. But you aren't answering my question, where in the Constitution did you find a federal power to be involved with schools much less coerce children to pledge allegiance to the state's God? It's an easy question, but one you guys keep avoiding.

quote: Is that not what a pledge is?

No, the pledge is a loyalty oath (as Ramo put it). One can answer yes or no to a question without invoking God or Heaven to make the answer carry more weight (as in "so help me God"). Jesus told his followers to not take oaths since they usually invoked God or Heaven and to not use God in an attempt to convince others of their sincerity, i.e., do not swear in God's name. Jesus looked down on people who used wordy proclamations of their religious commitment to portray themselves as sincere. Many Christians view the pledge as an oath and won't take it because of what Jesus said. You can disagree, but what you cannot do is coerce their children to take your oath.

quote: If not, then a vow of marriage would likewise violate the standard you have erroneously inferred.

Marriage vows were not invented by Jesus and a marriage vow is not the same thing as marriage.

quote: Apparently it is you who needs to brush up on what Jesus said. Try again.

You haven't been quoting him or the Constitution, I have...

quote: No, He did not. He warned against those who pray to be seen, which is entirely distinct from public prayer which Jesus participated in with His disciples, in the various synagogues, and in the Temple. Try again.

Just what do you think a "public" prayer is if not one that is seen? Jesus forbids oaths (Math 5:33). Jesus forbids public prayer, i..e, on streets and synagogues (Math 6:5). Read what he said for yourself, you clearly need a remedial course in Christianity.

quote: No, I'm arguing that in application it does not violate the conscience of those who believe differently from those who framed the phrase, and therefore is not a form of discrimination.

How does one who disbelieves in this "God" pledge allegiance to him without violating their conscience?

quote: To invoke Jesus, or YHWH, or Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit, would be another matter.

You know, for you guys to pretend the "God" in the pledge wasn't the "God" of Christianity is ridiculous.

quote: It does, however, tweak those who are overly sensitive about any mention of God, much to the delight of anticommunists of the day.

So all those Christians who've been complaining about religious bigotry directed at them over the past few decades actually started the current flame war. I knew that.

quote: Distraction by hypothetical irrelevency (non sequitur). Try again.

Just shows the hypocrisy on your side of this debate. Once the shoe is on the other foot the pledge magically becomes both coercive and unconstitutional...

quote: That's a battle the Christians won.

And so we now have the kindler and gentler Romans in charge coercing other people to pledge allegiance to their God(s) just as the Romans did back then. Ironic huh?

quote: This is a different battle, and one in which the opponents are given full liberty to excuse themselves from any activity if they feel slighted and thus obviate the need for a fight.

This "full liberty" has a price on it, risk angering classmates and teachers. It's called coercion and you sure wouldn't call it liberty if some big dude walked up and demanded your money. You'd understand the potential consequences of refusing just as the kid understands their refusal to recite the pledge may result in reprisals.

Freedom - the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint on choice or action

Explain how the pledge constitutes religious freedom when it involves coercion... When Christians were "asked" to pay homage to Rome's gods, the penalty for refusing could have been death. Would you call that request coercive? The only difference is the negative consequences for refusing was often much more severe then...

quote: The imposition upon Christians is that the religion-haters want to circumvent public debate, and legislative/executive prerogative, through activist courts.

So Newdow is a religion hater for not wanting you coercing his kid to pledge allegiance to your God? Um...kay... The perpetrators are the victims of hate; my my my, we need hate crime laws now so we can punish Newdow for even objecting.

quote: Distinctions that are irrelevant in this context except to the religion-haters.

Really? Then maybe you can explain why Christians - people who supposedly all share the same God - have been slaughtering each other for ~1600 years over this irrelevant distinction recognised only by the "religion haters".

quote: "Poll after poll confirms this--19 in 20 Americans say they believe in God," says one article chosen at random, or 90% according to Harris. In Minnesota it's 78%. That's still almost as good as Reagan's numbers! Try again.

Ask these people to define their belief in God and you won't get anywhere near 19 out of 20 in agreement. If you hadn't cut the quote off and replaced it with "blah blah blah" you would have understood that. Nice strawman though, practice makes perfect.

quote: Non sequitur: not in the Pledge of Allegiance. Whine Again.

How is it a non sequitur when people who don't believe in this God are told they are an abomination? I think it explains the obvious as to why the pledge is coercive. Oh, you're trying that "God means whatever the person reciting the pledge wants it to mean" nonsense again...
Words have meanings...

Is that why you responded to virtually my entire post except for the question about the person taking a loyalty oath to not give away state secrets getting to define "secret" anyway he wants? I'll repeat it then, if you're employed by the state and take an oath to not reveal state secrets, do you get to re-define the word "secret" to mean "non-secrets"? Of course not! So why do you think a loyalty oath in the form of the pledge of allegiance allows everyone to define the words in that oath however they want? I see you missed my comment about how the word "God" is capitalised too, FYI that means a specific deity.

quote: War is a bad thing, but must be pursued in order to oppose the warfare of another.

And you got that from Jesus too? Quote? I'll match it with "love thine enemies" or "turn the other cheek" or "do unto others"...

quote: Judicial activism in opposition to judicial activism is a necessary evil.

Evil is evil, true? So why are you any better when you employ evil to get what you want?

quote: Asked and answered at least 3 times now.

You have not identified the constitutional powers authorising Congress to be involved with schools or coercing children to pledge allegiance. All you've done is say the pledge doesn't violate the 1st Amendment...

quote: Three entirely separate issues: money and pledge and God. First, there is no allegiance to God, only to the flag and nation.

Children pledge allegiance to the flag and what it represents, i.e., allegiance to what it represents. Children pledge allegiance to the Republic for which it stands and what constitutes the "Republic". Children pledge allegiance to "one nation, under God". Enuff said...

quote: God is merely acknowledged as being transcendent above either thus any loyalties due Him in the eyes of the pledger are not to be abrogated.

God is part of how the pledge's amenders define the word "Republic".

quote: If you don't agree with the money issue, support vouchers. Then the pledge and God are easily remedied for the hypersensitive as well.

Why would that eliminate the use of my money for schools when vouchers would still be taxpayer funded? That would just lead to the liberals using vouchers to start regulating the hell out of private schools that start accepting vouchers under the guise of protecting the tax payers from fraud and incompetence. Vouchers are just another ticket to big government controlling more of our lives...

	22-06-2004 18:09									#229
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Eh? What's that buzzing noise? I think its a nuisance suit.

No, sounds more like someone

Are you going to answer him?

quote: Oh, a wedge tactic, kinda like claiming the phrase "under God" in the Pledge is unconstitutional to advance the religion-hating agenda?

I supported Judge Roy Moore when a bunch of your allies on the pledge didn't, ironic, huh? So much for "religion haters"...

	22-06-2004 19:56									#230
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Just a bit or irony that we rely so heavily on the courts whose basis for evidence is the requirement that you swear to tell the truth the whole truth etc. so help you God.

	22-06-2004 20:33									#231
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara God don't belong in the pledge

Why not?

Congress as representatives of the people can decide to put God in the pledge if they want. A majority of Americans do want God in the pledge so Congress must honor those wishes.

The problem with Newdow is that he thinks the minority has a right to force their views on the majority. He does not believe in God so he thinks nobody should.

	22-06-2004 20:37									#232
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Interestingly enough, a friend at work was recently deposed, and when she asked if there was a secular oath she could take, the court reporter was really thrown for a loop, but they created one on the spot and let her take it, instead of the traditional "so help me God" line.

-Arrian

	22-06-2004 21:30									#233
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

No, you can disagree with me, it's just that the constitution protects human citizens, not whiny little douchebags from planet wazzlebooble like Newdow. Like I said, I agree with you in principle...if it comes to that, I formally disagree with police brutality, but I'd pay to watch the cops whale on Carrot Top. This is such a non-issue. There are more important things to fix in our government, like the way we keep electing has-been thespians to important public offices.

	23-06-2004 05:56									#234
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich As I said, it's an extremely minor intrusion that keeps the religious folks happy. I'd hope some people could be mature, rather than throwing a fit at every little injustice in the world

Given the moral ire and indignation being exhibited by the religionistas at the very idea of removing the words 'under god' from a pledge of allegiance (what a bizarre thing anyway, very Eastern Bloc- we never had to pledge allegiance to the Queen in Great Britain)
I'd say the ones throwing the fits and exhibiting immaturity are the ones who believe their deity of choice and religious faiths triumphs over constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties. Tell me again why it is that the happiness of the believers in the supernatural is more important than the happiness of those who choose not to believe in the supernatural.

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future. From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and every rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. In this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.'

letter of Dwight D. Eisenhower to the Roman Catholic group, the Knights of Columbus, August 1954

You know, I have a feeling this contradicts this earlier statement:

"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

The Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams .

If any of you are seriously suggesting that the phrase 'under god' encompasses all gods and faiths, then you don't understand religion- because of course Christians don't believe in other gods, and a commandment of the Bible is to have no other gods before the Christian god. It is therefore impossible for a believing Christian denomination or person to pledge allegiance 'under god' with the expectation or belief that the word god in that context referred to or included Allah, Marduk, Ashtoreth, Moloch, Ba'al Zevuv or Vishnu.
Or any other non-Christian deity or combinations of deities.

"With a recent resolution, the 108th House of Representatives showed its own limited sense of propriety and disregard for moral limits. It passed a resolution that attacks English, common sense, morality and the Constitution. The resolution rejects the Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" is a religious expression and therefore prohibited in schools.

Religious supporters shouldn’t celebrate the resolution for two reasons. It is not legally binding. In addition, House members decided that the phrase ‘one nation, under God’ is not a religious reference.

I don’t understand how any sincere person could conclude that it is not a religious affirmation when people directly invoke God as the nation’s protector in the pledge of allegiance. Nevertheless, those Representatives supported that conclusion with some convoluted reasoning in their resolution.

They first resolved that, "the phrase ‘one Nation, under God,’ in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag reflects that religious faith was central to the Founding Fathers and thus to the founding of the Nation."

Do you agree that your children recite the words ‘one Nation, under God’ daily only as an impersonal non-religious reference to a historical fact that the founding fathers practiced religion? I doubt that anybody intends that meaning with those words. What would be the purpose of pledging allegiance to a historical fact about other people’s religious practices?

The members of the House of Representatives gave their answer. They said in their resolution that "the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, including the phrase, ‘one Nation, under God,’ is a patriotic act, not an act or statement of religious faith or belief." That’s how the House of Representatives rationalized keeping the current form of the pledge of allegiance in schools.

So there you are religious America. The members of the 108th Congress decreed that your references to God in the pledge of allegiance are secular with no religious significance. According to them, ‘God’ is only a synonym for ‘patriotism’ and not the name of your religious supreme being. Are you not proud of your House Members for their straightforward support for honesty and morality? Don’t be, because their interpretation is false."

http://www.ethicalego.com/false_pledge.htm

George Washington, I suspect might have disagreed with Eisenhower's imposition of religion:

'I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.'

George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789:

Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274, the "Magna-Charta" here referrings to the proposed Constitution of the United States

and:

'For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.'

George Washington, letter to the congregation of Touro Synagogue, Newport, Rhode Island, August, 1790, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 862

	23-06-2004 06:56									#235
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom Given the moral ire and indignation being exhibited by the religionistas at the very idea of removing the words 'under god' from a pledge of allegiance (what a bizarre thing anyway, very Eastern Bloc- we never had to pledge allegiance to the Queen in Great Britain) I'd say the ones throwing the fits and exhibiting immaturity are the ones who believe their deity of choice and religious faiths triumphs over constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties. Tell me again why it is that the happiness of the believers in the supernatural is more important than the happiness of those who choose not to believe in the supernatural.

I was hoping you'd be mature. Look at it this way - there's a LOT of them, and not many of us. Moreover, given our beliefs, we should at least be tempted to look down on those who continue in their misguided faith in some Supreme Being - and that requires that we actually act with superior maturity. Why not just... let alone. It's easier. The pledge isn't really hurting us in any material way. While we certainly have the right to complain, it's somewhat foolish to try and exercise it in this instance, given the size of the effort involved and the lack thereof of the potential reward.

	23-06-2004 07:05									#236
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I still haven't seen anything that says that this is anything more than a de minimus wrong if that.

	23-06-2004 07:06									#237
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Perhaps if you spelled it correctly somebody would answer.

	23-06-2004 07:19									#239
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Perhaps if you spelled it correctly somebody would answer.

I have. That's what makes this comment amusing.

	23-06-2004 07:21									#240
	Increase Your PM Length

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...22de+minimus%22