Enough is Enough!!!

[WilliamTLear]

:soapbox:

Today The San Fransisco Federal Court of Appeals found that reciting the United States Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional! I can't believe this! What do you guys think about it?

I for one, am extreemely disapointed in our government lately. Some of the descisions that are being made by the leadership of this country are disgraceful!

Sincerely,
Billy Lear

P.S. I would move to Canada, but stupidity is contageous and I'm afraid that the politicians there will be the next to suffer the effects of cranium insertus rectus.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Actually, I find the idea of forcing someone to recite/swear by/etc something from a religion that they do not follow to be more offensive.

The problem part "one nation under god"

The questions:
Which god?
What if I don't believe in god?
I'm in Public school, not religion school. Why do I have to say this, and why am I in trouble if I don't?
If I don't say this, how often will I get beat up and harassed by my teachers, school administrators and fellow students?



(Nice topic, moving to Locker Room though)


:asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

My take on it:
I agree.

It violates the concept of seperation of church/state.

Don't worry though... I'm sure the Shrubsters already got things in motion to not only over turn it, but make it a legal requirement that all US citizens must recite-on-demand else be branded a 'war criminal' and held indefinately for vague reasons to 'save' us.

Its because of some of the insane violations of all that this country once stood for that I sleep with weapons within reach. Gods save us from Big Brother.

Peace Y'all.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Preeeecisely. "Under God" implies the following religious tenets ont he part of the reciter: I believe in a higher power, and that higher power is singular. One might argue further that since it isn't "Goddess" that the higher power is male.
That sounds like it respects an establishment (or a select few establishments) of religion over many other alternatives (hinduism, bhuddism, atheism to name obvious ones).

More telling yet, is the following quote ascribed to Dwight Eisenhower when he signed the change adding "Under God" into law:

"millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Seems a pretty clear violation of the seperation of church & state to me....

More discussion of this issue :
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/06/26/1935246.shtml

 

[Sandor]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz



More discussion of this issue :
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/06/26/1935246.shtml

heh... used a bunch of mod points in there today

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm pulling bits from Slashdot here...

As reported on the better site... (Score:5, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26, @05:43PM (#3772953)
Millions of American schoolchildren --- including almost all adults who grew up in the US --- have for two generations recited a daily pledge of allegiance in schools. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that pledge to be a violation of the US Constitution. Social conservatives are outraged, liberals are smirking, and many of us are just stunned.
Background on the Pledge of Allegiance

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

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian Socialist activist in 1892. Heavily promoted by the magazine The Youth's Companion, at the time one of the largest weekly magazines in the United States (it was eventually merged into the magazine American Boy, which was owned by the Atlantic Monthly), which was also involved in a movement to place American flags over every schoolhouse in the country. By 1905, a majority of the non-southern states had passed laws requiring schools to fly the flag, and it was already customary at that time to require students to recite the pledge daily. Eventually, most states passed laws requiring the daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance. (In some states, students are also required to sing the national anthem).

The wording of the pledge was codified into US law by Congress in 1942; in 1954, the wording of the pledge was changed by Congress, which added the phrase 'under God', making the line 'one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." This modified phrasing was adopted by schools across the country, and has remained intact to this day.

Background on the case

Michael Newdow, an atheist living in the state of California, sued the state on the ground that the California Education Code requirement that each school day begin with appropriate patriotic exercises including but not limited to the giving of the pledge of allegiance, and the school district's requirement that each elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance daily compels his daughter to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God," and therefore constituted a state establishment of religion, prohibited by the first amendment (and, by extension through the fourteenth amendment, to states and school districts, which are sub-units of the states). His petition asked the court to order the President to modify the pledge to delete the offending section.

The decision

The 9th circuit analyzed the law establishing the pledge of allegiance using three legal tests used in establishment cases. (The Lemon test, which has mostly fallen into disfavor but has not been explicitly repudiated, requires government conduct to have a secular purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and must not foster government entanglement with religion. The "coercion test" requires that government conduct not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise. The "endorsement test" requires that government not endorse a religion and "send a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders".). The court ruled that:


The inclusion of the phrase under God in the pledge is an endorsement of religious belief.
Reciting the pledge as it is currently codified is to swear allegiance to monotheism.
The pledge as currently codified fails the coercion test.
The inclusion of the phrase under God was *explicitly* done to promote a religious purpose, and therefore the pledge as currently codified fails the Lemon test.
The court concluded that the 1954 act adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional, and that the school district policy requiring daily recital is as well.
Future steps

The decision is only binding in the area covered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii - but would require school districts in that area to cease reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. It is expected that the school district will appeal, in which case the decision will most likely be heard by the US Supreme Court sometime next year. A copy of the opinion is here [findlaw.com].

 

[Sandor]

Don't do that... they'll miss out on the real flavor of the discussion that has been going on over there if you cull it out! ... then again maybe thats a good thing®

There were some really insightful posts in that discussion on all sides of the issue.

Peace,
Sandor

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Definately. In all seriousness, check out slashdot's discussion. LOTS! of info etc up there.

http://slashdot.org

:asian:

 

[tonbo]

....since we (the US) are now wrapped up in whether or not to remove the "Under God" section from the Pledge of Allegiance.....

.....do we remove the "In God We Trust" from our money, as well? Isn't *that* offensive to those who don't adhere to Christian beliefs? Is *that* phrase combining church and state?

C'mon....don't we have better things to argue about in this country? I, for one, would like to see my tax dollars better spent......

*shrug*

Peace--

 

[fist of fury]

It's a shame that we waste our tax dollars on this. the thing that bugs me is that atheism and humanism is a religion so don't force that on me either. And to the state that we forcing children to beileive or admit that's there's a God because of the pledge well we've been forced to accept evolution as a proven scientific fact when in my opinion it isn't. They should teach evolution and creationism side by side and not force students to make a decision on way or the other both thier valid scientific arguments.
Besides this is a free country no one has ever been forced to say the pledge if you don't agree or like it don't say it no one to my recollection has been shot or imprisoned for not saying it. People
just better wwatch out and not let big brother make so many laws that we'll loose our freedom.

 

[Kirk]

To me, seperation of church and state means that taxpayer's
money doesn't go to support religious organizations, and that
the govt. won't dictate how religious organizations are run. But
the fact of the matter is, the U.S. was founded on religion. Are
we not taught that the first settlers here left their homes to avoid
religious persecution? I'm getting sick of people protecting the
rights of hate mongers to march in the middle of downtown of
some cities spewing off their crap, yet I'm offending them
by saying "under God"???? F YOU! If you don't like that part of
the pledge DON'T SAY IT! .. but stop infringing on MY rights to
believe!!!!!!!!!

 

[Scott Bonner]

Originally posted by fist of fury

It's a shame that we waste our tax dollars on this. the thing that bugs me is that atheism and humanism is a religion so don't force that on me either. And to the state that we forcing children to beileive or admit that's there's a God because of the pledge well we've been forced to accept evolution as a proven scientific fact when in my opinion it isn't. They should teach evolution and creationism side by side and not force students to make a decision on way or the other both thier valid scientific arguments.
Besides this is a free country no one has ever been forced to say the pledge if you don't agree or like it don't say it no one to my recollection has been shot or imprisoned for not saying it. People
just better wwatch out and not let big brother make so many laws that we'll loose our freedom.

1) neither humanism nor atheism are religions. They do reflect an understanding of the divine, but that is not nearly enough to qualify as a religion, under any standard definition. Besides that, the court did not say that teachers should have students say "one nation, not under god". That would be pushing aetheism. In fact, the court is saying the schools should be neutral on the issue -- not push any specific belief on others.

2) if you knew anything about empirical science, you would know that creationism is not on equal footing with evolution. In science, we try to make theories based solely on empirical, objective, measurable evidence -- to find the theory that best explains the current evidence without relying on non-empirical constructs. Creationism takes the exact opposite tack -- it assumes the construct of the unmeasurable, unprovable divine force (usually, one divine force, Jehovah; no room for, say, Hindu creation stories). This flies in the face of everything empirical science is based on. Science makes no comment on the existence of God, because it can neither prove God or disprove God. Science must not assume anything without evidence. Creationism should be in schools -- in theology, sociology, and history classes, as an idea that influences human behavior.

3) the decision was made to keep Big Brother from telling us how to think, what to believe. Religion in school is Big Brother brainwashing. Schools should neither encourage nor discourage religion, meaning that students can pray, wear T-shirts, carry Bibles, whatever they want, but they can't expect to have teachers and principals make the other kids do it too. Encouraging all the kids to say "under god" (forcing, once you consider peer pressure) is forcing religion into their lives, potentially overriding what their parents are trying to do to teach their children about the divine. That's Big Brother, baby.

 

[Matt Stone]

See, we have this one figured out already, and it is a really simple fix...

Kill the ones you don't like... :armed:

Just kidding!

Seriously, though, when we do enlistment/reenlistment oaths, we are afforded the option of saying either "swear" or "affirm," and to include or omit "so help me God," as we choose...

Pretty simple, huh?

I think too many folks take some things a little too seriously and need to get a stronger grip on the throat of reality...

Just my opinion.

:samurai: :samurai:

 

[Scott Bonner]

Originally posted by Kirk

To me, seperation of church and state means that taxpayer's
money doesn't go to support religious organizations, and that
the govt. won't dictate how religious organizations are run. But
the fact of the matter is, the U.S. was founded on religion. Are
we not taught that the first settlers here left their homes to avoid
religious persecution? I'm getting sick of people protecting the
rights of hate mongers to march in the middle of downtown of
some cities spewing off their crap, yet I'm offending them
by saying "under God"???? F YOU! If you don't like that part of
the pledge DON'T SAY IT! .. but stop infringing on MY rights to
believe!!!!!!!!!

The U.S. was not founded on religion. The constitution was specifically designed to make the nation not be founded on religion, for some in hopes of keeping the people from being disillusioned by established religion. Don't forget that most of the founding fathers were Deist -- believing there's something divine somewhere but we have no way of knowing it. That's a darn sight closer to being agnostic than to being Christian.

Fleeing your home to avoid religious persecution means fleeing established religion -- like when English said "England is an Anglican nation, so kick the non-Anglicans out!" or Holland said "Holland is a christian nation, so kick the non-christians out!"

Can't you see that schools pushing religion is establishment of religion -- a fine example of what the first settlers couldn't abide, and exactly what they would have called persecution? (Except, of course, for the Puritans, who fled persecution so they could find a place to persecute each other!)

 

[Scott Bonner]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1 Seriously, though, when we do enlistment/reenlistment oaths, we are afforded the option of saying either "swear" or "affirm," and to include or omit "so help me God," as we choose...

Pretty simple, huh?

I think too many folks take some things a little too seriously and need to get a stronger grip on the throat of reality...
[/B]

Going back to the original wording of the pledge would serve the same purpose. I'm all for that.

For those of us, like myself, who believe in God, religion is about reality.

 

[fist of fury]

Originally posted by Scott Bonner



1) neither humanism nor atheism are religions. They do reflect an understanding of the divine, but that is not nearly enough to qualify as a religion, under any standard definition. Besides that, the court did not say that teachers should have students say "one nation, not under god". That would be pushing aetheism. In fact, the court is saying the schools should be neutral on the issue -- not push any specific belief on others.

2) if you knew anything about empirical science, you would know that creationism is not on equal footing with evolution. In science, we try to make theories based solely on empirical, objective, measurable evidence -- to find the theory that best explains the current evidence without relying on non-empirical constructs. Creationism takes the exact opposite tack -- it assumes the construct of the unmeasurable, unprovable divine force (usually, one divine force, Jehovah; no room for, say, Hindu creation stories). This flies in the face of everything empirical science is based on. Science makes no comment on the existence of God, because it can neither prove God or disprove God. Science must not assume anything without evidence. Creationism should be in schools -- in theology, sociology, and history classes, as an idea that influences human behavior.

3) the decision was made to keep Big Brother from telling us how to think, what to believe. Religion in school is Big Brother brainwashing. Schools should neither encourage nor discourage religion, meaning that students can pray, wear T-shirts, carry Bibles, whatever they want, but they can't expect to have teachers and principals make the other kids do it too. Encouraging all the kids to say "under god" (forcing, once you consider peer pressure) is forcing religion into their lives, potentially overriding what their parents are trying to do to teach their children about the divine. That's Big Brother, baby.

I agree that forcing religion in schools is big brother and shouldn't be done. As far as my opinion on creation and evolution I never claimed to be a scientist at all just my opinion. My only question since science bases theories on provable facts then why does science claim that we evolved from apes as fact? I'm not trying to be a jerk just curious as I said I'm no scientist, but I've never accepted the evolution theory as fact. In a way it discouraged me from delving deeper into science, when I was younger science was one of my favorite subjects nd still is to some extent. I don't being like told what to think and beileve and to me thats what they do with evolution. I don't have a probelm with someone accepting either idea just don't try and force it down my throat.
To me chrisitanity and religion are 2 different entities and neither should be pushed or endorsed by the goverment before we have the same problem as in england etc.. The problem with most people today is the herd mentality everybody follows and nobody likes to think for themselves.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Scott Bonner

2) if you knew anything about empirical science, you would know that creationism is not on equal footing with evolution. In science, we try to make theories based solely on empirical, objective, measurable evidence -- to find the theory that best explains the current evidence without relying on non-empirical constructs.

PLEASE! Empirical science doesn't exist anymore! Scientists
make theories based on the almighty dollar! Measurable evidence
these days is TAINTED evidence to get around govt. beaurocracy
to get PAID. Either that or creating fear among the public in order
to get the public to contribute to their research.

Originally posted by Scott Bonner
Religion in school is Big Brother brainwashing.

That's one HELL of a stretch brother-man! And saying "under
God" is NOT religion in schools! It is IMPOSSIBLE for
anyone to allow someone existance in society and restrict them
from hear the WORD "God". That's all this is .. NO ONE is
forcing them to say it! But the court is forcing it to NOT be said!

Originally posted by Scott Bonner
The U.S. was not founded on religion. The constitution was specifically designed to make the nation not be founded on religion, for some in hopes of keeping the people from being disillusioned by established religion

Okay, wrong choice of words on my part, so I'll rephrase. The
only reason this country exists at all, is because of religion.
The reason "the white man" set foot on this soil is because of
religion. Spain's whole purpose for sending Spanaird citizens
here, were to "convert the heathen Indians" to catholicism,
(e.g. get more people to put money in the collection plate).
You can't deny that religion is our history. This doesn't mean
that prayers in school should be mandatory, it shouldn't. But
to be forbidden from uttering the mere name "God", given the
history of our nation is RIDICULOUS! To deny religion and God
as a STRONG part of this nations roots? Why? What belief is it
of yours that you want everyone else to believe?

 

[Scott Bonner]

Originally posted by fist of fury

My only question since science bases theories on provable facts then why does science claim that we evolved from apes as fact?

It doesn't. Evolution is a theory. It just happens to have so much evidence to support it that it is sometimes treated like fact by some teachers. It is actively questioned all the time by the researchers themselves, as any good theory should.

Evolutionary theory postulates that people and the other primates have a common ancestor -- not that we evolved from apes, but rather that apes and people both evolved from something else. It postulates this because it's the most logical explanation of the evidence. Also, genetic testing shows that the other higher primates are much more closely related to people than any other kind of animal.

I'm not trying to be a jerk just curious as I said I'm no scientist, but I've never accepted the evolution theory as fact. In a way it discouraged me from delving deeper into science when I was younger science was one of my favorite subjects nd still is to some extent. I don't being told what to think and beileve and to me thats what they do with evolution. I don't have a probelm with someone accepting either idea just don't try and force it down my throat.

If you'd have pursued science then in grad school you would have had people pushing you to challenge those theories. Well, actually, grad school politics can fuddle all that up, but generally, grad students and researchers are supposed to question and challenge the theories in hopes of making a better one. Nothing in science is considered to be absolutely true -- empiricism includes the idea that nothing is proven, only statistically supported to a point of near certainty, unless or until the evidence suggests a better theory.

To me chrisitanity and religion are 2 different entities and neither should be pushed or endorsed by the goverment before we have the same problem as in england etc.. The problem with most people today is the herd mentality everybody follows and nobody likes to think for themselves.

Indeed! Like Socrates said: "Question Everything!"

 

[Scott Bonner]

PLEASE! Empirical science doesn't exist anymore! Scientists
make theories based on the almighty dollar! Measurable evidence
these days is TAINTED evidence to get around govt. beaurocracy
to get PAID. Either that or creating fear among the public in order
to get the public to contribute to their research.

<rolls eyes> Don't believe everything you see on the evening news. Good science still happens. Besides, it sounds more like you are describing churches than science.

That's one HELL of a stretch brother-man! And saying "under
God" is NOT religion in schools! It is IMPOSSIBLE for
anyone to allow someone existance in society and restrict them
from hear the WORD "God". That's all this is .. NO ONE is
forcing them to say it! But the court is forcing it to NOT be said!

Kids can hear the word "God". No one is challenging that. Kids can pray, out loud, prosteletyze, and everything else, as long as it doesn't interfere with school. Kids have freedom to practice religion in schools. This decision is about _groups_ , let by _teachers_, endorsing belief in god, the monotheist's god to be specific. I spent a lot of time in high school carrying my bible, praying, and discussing religion, with no flak, ever. Why? Because I was free to do so. Those rules have not changed one iota. We've just changed the rules for _school sponsored_ and _school endorsed_ religious activity, not independent religious activity.

Okay, wrong choice of words on my part, so I'll rephrase. The only reason this country exists at all, is because of religion.
The reason "the white man" set foot on this soil is because of
religion. Spain's whole purpose for sending Spanaird citizens
here, were to "convert the heathen Indians" to catholicism,
(e.g. get more people to put money in the collection plate).
You can't deny that religion is our history. This doesn't mean
that prayers in school should be mandatory, it shouldn't. But
to be forbidden from uttering the mere name "God", given the
history of our nation is RIDICULOUS! To deny religion and God
as a STRONG part of this nations roots? Why? What belief is it
of yours that you want everyone else to believe? [/B]

White man has been very bad. You are making a case against religion by citing a lot of bad things done in the name of religion. Religion is strongly in our history, but the founding fathers were wise enough to do everything they could to keep it out of our government -- to have all the benifits of religion without the pain, and to protect the minority from the majority.

No one is denying the role of religion in our history. I just know that our country is not founded on religion. I would argue that it was founded on freedom of religion, including freedom from other people's religion being forced onto you by the state. And there we come to an impasse.

What belief of mine do I want everyone to believe in? As little as possible. I believe we all should question everything. I wish we all believed sentient human lives are intrinsically valuable (but then we'd have to pay for welfare, woudn't we?) I wish we were all more honest, with ourselves and with others. That about covers my ideas of what we should all believe in. The rest is just my personal conviction.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Realize that in many states it -IS- law that the pledge is recited every day in school. Failure to do so on the part of a student can lead to nasty repercusions.

It is perfectly ok to wear a cross to school. Wearing an Ankh, or a Penticle on the otherhand....

http://www.witchvox.com/xwrensnest.html usually has alot of interesting info on the latest persecutions.


Back to the main topic, the "under God" part was not in there originally, and does violate the issue. If you are going to mandate a loyalty oath, remove the religious hook, and we should be ok. If you wish to add "under God" or "under Goddess" or "under Allah" then please feel free to do so.

Just dont make me legally obligated to do so.