Newdow with two new law suits... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-07-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- An atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has filed another lawsuit -- this time with other parents.

Michael Newdow won his case more than two years ago before a federal appeals court, which said it was an unconstitutional blending of church and state for public school students to pledge to God.

In June, however, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-aged daughter and because the girl's mother objected to the lawsuit.

In the latest challenge filed Monday in Sacramento federal court, eight co-plaintiffs have joined the suit, and all are custodial parents or the children themselves, Newdow said.

The plaintiffs' names have been withheld from the lawsuit.

"It's because of the potential adverse impacts of having your name on a case like this. That's why they are not named," Newdow said Wednesday.

He had promised to refile when the Supreme Court dismissed his case this summer.

"I want this decided on its merits," said Newdow, a doctor and a lawyer, who again is the attorney in the latest pledge case.

Although the Supreme Court sidestepped the broader question of separation of church and state when it tossed the case, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote separately that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.

A fourth justice, Antonin Scalia, removed himself from the case after making off-the-bench remarks that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.

Rehnquist wrote that the phrase "one nation under God" is more about ceremony and history than about religion. He likened the phrase to the motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, and to the call that opens each session of the high court itself: "God save this honorable court."

Vickram Amar, a constitutional scholar at Hastings College of the Law, said that "this case starts with a 0-4 handicap from the Supreme Court's point of view. Lower court judges are not going to be oblivious to that" when they consider the issue.

No court date has been set.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/06/pl....ap/index.html

Then you have the other lawsuit which strangly has gotten very little press in that Newdow is suing so that Bush can't say his prayer at the Presidential inaguration. I think this is getting ridiculous and out of hand. The secularists in this country are really making issue with this, seems now that Christmas is over they've moved on from trying to ban manger scenes. Let the Culture war rage on.

P.S. I'll give someone cool points if they can tell me who said what's stated in my signature along with where it is inscribed.

Rekna · 01-07-2005, 06:55 PM

I think the word sue should be a dirty word. It is getting used way to often these days. That aside I don't see what the big deal is about the words "under god" this case goes both ways once you make a big deal of it then you are either forcing god or forcing no god. Atheism is a religion itself, one that people are trying to force down the throats of other religions.

flstf · 01-07-2005, 07:02 PM

Thomas Jefferson

But some disagree:http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd7d.htm

FoolThemAll · 01-07-2005, 07:19 PM

I don't think the pledge is unconstitutional.

But I would support any legislative attempt to remove that phrase from the pledge. One need not believe in God to be a good citizen, and the pledge currently implies otherwise.

To answer the question in your signature: Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the commitment to liberty on the part of the citizens in question.

And to whether the liberties of a nation can be secure when the conviction that they are God's gift is NOT removed? The same: maybe, maybe not. It depends on the commitment to liberty on the part of the citizens in question.

FoolThemAll · 01-07-2005, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I think the word sue should be a dirty word. It is getting used way to often these days. That aside I don't see what the big deal is about the words "under god" this case goes both ways once you make a big deal of it then you are either forcing god or forcing no god. Atheism is a religion itself, one that people are trying to force down the throats of other religions.

Atheism's not a religion. And silence on the subject of God is not an endorsement of atheism.

Rekna · 01-07-2005, 07:29 PM

I disagree Atheism is completly a relegion. It fills the same space. The belief in a God or the Disbelief in a God are both religions.

Anyway on the idea of removing God from everything we should take into account a couple things. One read the decleration of indepence, it makes multiple refrences to God. In addition the constitution never says anything about the seperation of church and state. It states "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion" I'm pretty sure there is no law stating you have to say under god in the pledge.

pinoychink790 · 01-07-2005, 07:34 PM

Rekna's right. Just because someone is an atheist, doesn't mean that they are also non-religious. There are many religions that do not have a god. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god or god(s), they can still have a religion. A religion doesn't necessarily need a god to be considered a religion

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-07-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Thomas Jefferson

But some disagree:http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd7d.htm

I hope that they got it right, it's inscribed on his statue at his memorial.

filtherton · 01-07-2005, 07:37 PM

Atheism is a belief system, not a religion. Maybe that's just semantics, but another distinction between the two is reflected by the fact that, at least to my knowledge, no war has been fought under the pretext of atheism.

What it says in the declaration of independence is a lot less important than what it says in the constitution and how said contents are interpreted. It seems to me that the constitution goes out of its way to prohibit a nonsecular government. This doesn't seem like a sound endorsement of the christian need to write god on everything to me.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-07-2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I disagree Atheism is completly a relegion. It fills the same space. The belief in a God or the Disbelief in a God are both religions.

Anyway on the idea of removing God from everything we should take into account a couple things. One read the decleration of indepence, it makes multiple refrences to God. In addition the constitution never says anything about the seperation of church and state. It states "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion" I'm pretty sure there is no law stating you have to say under god in the pledge.

Very true, people largely seem to be under the false impression that Separation of Church in state is the law.

pinoychink790 · 01-07-2005, 07:42 PM

a belief system can be considered as a religion. they are one in the same. It doesn't matter if there's a war or not. it's still a religion

Rekna · 01-07-2005, 07:43 PM

Filtherton the problem with your argument is by saying "Under God" you are not supporting christianity or any other religion. You are supporting diesm which is what this nation was founded on. "Divine Creator" "Natures God" both appear in the decleration of independence.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-07-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Atheism is a belief system, not a religion. Maybe that's just semantics, but another distinction between the two is reflected by the fact that, at least to my knowledge, no war has been fought under the pretext of atheism.

What it says in the declaration of independence is a lot less important than what it says in the constitution and how said contents are interpreted. It seems to me that the constitution goes out of its way to prohibit a nonsecular government. This doesn't seem like a sound endorsement of the christian need to write god on everything to me.

I don't think it is a Christian need. Historically all the founding fathers were at the very least deists. The notion of our contract government can be seen in the first paragraph of the DOI, we are endowed by God the creator with our rights, that is the basis of our power which we in turn lend to the government.

flstf · 01-07-2005, 08:02 PM

Your post inspired me to find out more about the pledge. Written in 1892 it was modified by Congress to add "under God" in 1954. A brief history can be found on the following link:http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

filtherton · 01-07-2005, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Filtherton the problem with your argument is by saying "Under God" you are not supporting christianity or any other religion. You are supporting diesm which is what this nation was founded on. "Divine Creator" "Natures God" both appear in the decleration of independence.

As i said before, the relevance of the DOI when placed next to the relevance of the constitution is so small as to be practically invisible. The constitution is the law of the land, not the DOI. God is a figure whose domain exists solely in the realm of religion, to claim that the mention of god in the pledge- especially in light of the widely known fact that it was placed there under some misguided notion that it would hurt the cause of communism- isn't an endorsement of religion is silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I don't think it is a Christian need. Historically all the founding fathers were at the very least deists. The notion of our contract government can be seen in the first paragraph of the DOI, we are endowed by God the creator with our rights, that is the basis of our power which we in turn lend to the government.

I think when it comes down to it, what the founding fathers may or may not have personally believed is completely trumped by the fact that they felt the need to codify a secular government when they wrote the constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinoychink790

a belief system can be considered as a religion. they are one in the same. It doesn't matter if there's a war or not. it's still a religion

A tiger looks kind've like a cheetah, but that doesn't make it a cheetah. Communism is a belief system, conflict theory is a belief system, science is a belief system, none of these are religions. Religions involve spirituality, by definition.

McDuffie · 01-07-2005, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

P.S. I'll give someone cool points if they can tell me who said what's stated in my signature along with where it is inscribed.

Jefferson and yes I am enough of a nerd that I knew that off the top of my head.

McDuffie · 01-07-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Atheism is a belief system,

What then do atheists believe?

Rekna · 01-07-2005, 08:29 PM

Atheists specifically believe in the absence of any divine creator(s).

pinoychink790 · 01-07-2005, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

A tiger looks kind've like a cheetah, but that doesn't make it a cheetah. Communism is a belief system, conflict theory is a belief system, science is a belief system, none of these are religions. Religions involve spirituality, by definition.

Religion - B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Got that from Dictionary.com. Religion doesn't require spirtuality. All it requires is a belief system grounded in such belief and worship. Have anything to say to that?????

filtherton · 01-07-2005, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McDuffie

What then do atheists believe?

Depends on who you ask. Some atheists believe that there are no gods. Some atheists believe that there is no spirituality. I'm not an atheist, so i can't really tell you.

cyrnel · 01-07-2005, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinoychink790

Religion - B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Got that from Dictionary.com. Religion doesn't require spirtuality. All it requires is a belief system grounded in such belief and worship. Have anything to say to that?????

The quotation "grounded in such belief and worship" is key. How important is the belief in your life?

It's a matter of degree. Dictionaries define "belief" & "religion" such that you could twist either for argument's sake. In my youth I heard sermons lumping "disbelief" in with atheism, secularism and satanism - all as religions - all heading for the Big Burn. It flew because semantics weren't significant and they were preaching to the choir.

Is disbelief in Santa a religion?

If I steadfastly worship my cornflakes as the all powerful creator I'm certainly practicing a religion, insane or otherwise. But if you look at me with bewilderment, are you practicing some kind of anti-cornflake religion or just not believing?

I'm not equating Santa or cornflakes to Christianity or any other religion, I'm just trying to explain my thoughts on the degrees of difference (levels of preoccupation?) implied by the words "belief" and "religion."

Certainly, anything may be practiced to the point of religion if a person's devotion to the cause crosses some gray line inside themselves. Only they really know their position. The rest is semantics.

McDuffie · 01-07-2005, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Atheists specifically believe in the absence of any divine creator(s).

Some do; some don't.

the prefix 'a' means 'without' (not 'denial of')
the word theism means belief in god(s)

Atheists are people who do not possess a belief in god(s). That is not the same as believing there is an absense of god(s).

I am a so-called 'weak' atheist. I don't possess any god belief. I cannot say there is no god(s), but I do not actively believe in any god(s).

My friend Don is a so-called 'strong' atheist. He will insist that there is no god(s).

Suffice it to say that atheism is not a belief system. It cannot possibly qualify as one.

Willravel · 01-07-2005, 09:26 PM

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

Quote:

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State".* Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced.* However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment.* The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."* The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.* The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion.* This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church.* Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God.* Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights.* Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with solemn 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.* (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member.* Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church.* He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers.* Williams had said:

When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day.* And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state.* The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England.* Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates.* They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience.* No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665.* Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.* The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion.* The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs.* Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation.* They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society.* There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another.* Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

Each form of government has a guiding principle:* monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear.* Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others.* The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people.* The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible.* This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's.* Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960).* God was seen as the author of natural law and morality.* If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base.* And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community.* The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church.* The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld.* Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice.* It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship.* Instead, it was to be our servant.* The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights.* Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important.* Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs.* The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage.* Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people.* The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible:* that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so.* They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place.* Absolute power corrupts absolutely.* They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God.* They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness.* Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err.* Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation.* The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3)** We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas.* This is exactly what two professors did.* Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources.* The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations.* Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions.* That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible.* The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government.* If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government.* An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..."* The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government:* judicial, legislative, and executive.* As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government.* For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people.* The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny.* The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated.* Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state?* People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values.* Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality.* These standards of morality are found in the Bible.* Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day.* John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence.* His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates.* He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)

In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale.* The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited.* For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer.* If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings?* It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent.* Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4)* The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school.* Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school.* They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality."* This has been the precedent throughout 185 years.* Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point.* The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared.* It was this:* "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."* What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives?* Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth.* The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum.* After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view.* Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose?* Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth.* They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense.* That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing.* They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself.* All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history.* In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."* The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion.* The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers.* Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools?* The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity.* This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

1.* Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

2.* John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.

3.* M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.

4.* John Witherspoon, "Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men" May 17, 1776; quoted and Cited by Collins, President Witherspoon, I:197-98.

I thought this article might be relevant. It's important for people to understand the fundamental reasoning beind the oft repeated "separation of church and state" rhetoric.

I personally wore a cross to school and I prayed before meals at school as well from K-12. It never bothers me when my friends would wear a yamaka or fast for Ramadan. This guy is a religous bigot. It's pretty simple.

pinoychink790 · 01-07-2005, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

"It's a matter of degree. Dictionaries define "belief" & "religion" such that you could twist either for argument's sake."

"If I steadfastly worship my cornflakes as the all powerful creator I'm certainly practicing a religion, insane or otherwise."
"I'm not equating Santa or cornflakes to Christianity or any other religion, I'm just trying to explain my thoughts on the degrees of difference (levels of preoccupation?) implied by the words "belief" and "religion."

"Certainly, anything may be practiced to the point of religion if a person's devotion to the cause crosses some gray line inside themselves. Only they really know their position. The rest is semantics."

Thank you cyrnel. You just helped proved my point. You seem to be the only person who understands what my point is. "religion" isn't limited to only one definition. It can have many different possible definitions. Therefore atheism can be considered a religion, because you can apply religion to any kind of belief structure you want.

cyrnel · 01-07-2005, 10:16 PM

Right. Just because "religious" might be accurately applied to Mr. cornflake lover, the guy next door shaking his head probably doesn't qualify. In that sense, I believe Constitutional wording strains toward the fervent and zelous variety of "religion." If disbelievers aren't spending a great deal of their time worrying about their non-belief I'd say they're reasonably free of that religion. Until they have to say the post-1954 Pledge, which I think is the crux of the lawsuit. People who don't believe in God are told to lump it, whatever their belief/religion. I don't understand how that can be considered just.

It could be argued that the people bringing the lawsuit are sufficiently preoccupied with the cause to have made it a religion of sorts. That could affect their case if they wanted to insert a substitute for "God", but they're arguing against sanctioning any religion. What I've read of their arguments makes it sound more like they're trying to protect the general populace from coercion of any kind. I could be wrong.

I would not have survived lawschool.

Willravel · 01-07-2005, 11:34 PM

This is about being exposed to religions. His daughter was not forced to say "under God", she was exposed to other people saying it. Just like we are all exposed to religion. Whenever you see someone make the sign of the cross - forehead,down to the chest, side to side - we are exposed. Are people so weak that they cannot even be exposed to religion without being troubled to the point of lawsuit?

The puritanical people left England because they were not allowed to worship the way they wanted to. England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes. This was the government trying to control where religion is okay or not okay. The same is the case here. If you are bothered by my praying or saying the word God, that's just too bad. No where in the Constisution does it say "You cannot speak of religion if it bugs people".

This is an argument based on a misunderstanding, and even without the misunderstanding, it still doesn't make sense. "Seperation of chusch and state" (as I stated above in my post that was aparently too long for some to read) is actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", which is something completly different. It was a rule of law to prevent a theocracy. It was not to prevent little Miss Newdow from hearing the words "under God" in her classroom. She and her father will just have to deal with living in a diverse world.

Rekna · 01-07-2005, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McDuffie

Some do; some don't.

the prefix 'a' means 'without' (not 'denial of')
the word theism means belief in god(s)

Atheists are people who do not possess a belief in god(s). That is not the same as believing there is an absense of god(s).

I am a so-called 'weak' atheist. I don't possess any god belief. I cannot say there is no god(s), but I do not actively believe in any god(s).

My friend Don is a so-called 'strong' atheist. He will insist that there is no god(s).

Suffice it to say that atheism is not a belief system. It cannot possibly qualify as one.

You sound agnostic to me not athiest

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-08-2005, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

This is about being exposed to religions. His daughter was not forced to say "under God", she was exposed to other people saying it. Just like we are all exposed to religion. Whenever you see someone make the sign of the cross - forehead,down to the chest, side to side - we are exposed. Are people so weak that they cannot even be exposed to religion without being troubled to the point of lawsuit?

The puritanical people left England because they were not allowed to worship the way they wanted to. England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes. This was the government trying to control where religion is okay or not okay. The same is the case here. If you are bothered by my praying or saying the word God, that's just too bad. No where in the Constisution does it say "You cannot speak of religion if it bugs people".

This is an argument based on a misunderstanding, and even without the misunderstanding, it still doesn't make sense. "Seperation of chusch and state" (as I stated above in my post that was aparently too long for some to read) is actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", which is something completly different. It was a rule of law to prevent a theocracy. It was not to prevent little Miss Newdow from hearing the words "under God" in her classroom. She and her father will just have to deal with living in a diverse world.

Something we 100% agree. I was going to post that article about the myth of separation of church and state myself, never got to it. Very well put Willravel.

FoolThemAll · 01-08-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

No where in the Constisution does it say "You cannot speak of religion if it bugs people".

Yep. And I'm still in favor of removing the phrase through legislation. Something need not be unconstitutional to be wrong.

filtherton · 01-08-2005, 09:43 AM

McDuffie, how do you define belief system? It may be a pretty simple system, but it is what it is. If atheism can't possibly be a belief system, than what is it?
It doesn't really matter. Atheism as a religion is still an irrelevant detail. There are many christians who would be just fine with the removal of god from the pledge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

I thought this article might be relevant. It's important for people to understand the fundamental reasoning beind the oft repeated "separation of church and state" rhetoric.

I personally wore a cross to school and I prayed before meals at school as well from K-12. It never bothers me when my friends would wear a yamaka or fast for Ramadan. This guy is a religous bigot. It's pretty simple.

So what if it doesn't bother you? It bothers this guy, and he's using all of his legal options to try and do something about it. That's how america works, regardless of any article you can post claiming that america owes its soul to the bible. I read the rest of that site and if you'll pardon my opinion, it seems like a bunch of bullshit. They reek of the "clarity" that could only come from being sure beyond any doubt that anyone who doesn't agree with them word for word is going straight to hell. And you call this atheist a bigot. I know plenty of christians who would support that removal of the mention of god from the pledge and money, does that make them bigots too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinoychink790

Thank you cyrnel. You just helped proved my point. You seem to be the only person who understands what my point is. "religion" isn't limited to only one definition. It can have many different possible definitions. Therefore atheism can be considered a religion, because you can apply religion to any kind of belief structure you want.

Why stop there? My method of determining ideal parking spots at local shopping establishments? Religion, i want tax breaks. My opinion as to what makes a good cup of coffee? Religion, i want a shout-out in the pledge. I understand what you're saying, but that's a can of worms.

It reminds me of when the logging industry tried to sue the forest service for being the mouthpiece of the "religion" of "deep ecology" otherwise known as environmentalism.
http://www.courttv.com/archive/natio...trees_ctv.html

It got thrown out.
http://www.fguardians.org/news/n000208.html
Because:

Quote:

``This is as illogical as saying that if a tall man advocates a position, and the government takes a position in accord with the tall man's wishes, it therefore follows that the government has necessarily established the views of tall men,'' U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum wrote in the 21-page ruling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

This is about being exposed to religions. His daughter was not forced to say "under God", she was exposed to other people saying it. Just like we are all exposed to religion. Whenever you see someone make the sign of the cross - forehead,down to the chest, side to side - we are exposed. Are people so weak that they cannot even be exposed to religion without being troubled to the point of lawsuit?

The puritanical people left England because they were not allowed to worship the way they wanted to. England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes. This was the government trying to control where religion is okay or not okay. The same is the case here. If you are bothered by my praying or saying the word God, that's just too bad. No where in the Constisution does it say "You cannot speak of religion if it bugs people".

This is an argument based on a misunderstanding, and even without the misunderstanding, it still doesn't make sense. "Seperation of chusch and state" (as I stated above in my post that was aparently too long for some to read) is actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", which is something completly different. It was a rule of law to prevent a theocracy. It was not to prevent little Miss Newdow from hearing the words "under God" in her classroom. She and her father will just have to deal with living in a diverse world.

It seems to me that you think that since no one is forcing anyone to say "under god" when they recite the pledge, that this shouldn't be a big deal. Not saying it is only a minor inconvenience, right? You know that not having it in there would only be a minor inconvenience too, right? You do know that many religions don't have one god and would therefore be excluded from the pledge as it is written? I think if i'm reading you right, you're answer to this complaint, and any similar one, is a resounding "quit whining, its not a big deal". To which i might simply request that you follow your own advice.

What the constitution says and how it is interpreted by the courts can be two different things. Precedent trumps ascribed founding father intent seven days a week. Precedent is that there is a seperation of church and state- the government is not allowed to officially endorse certain religions over others. This is exactly what a monotheist pledge does.
Incidentally, this isn't about telling you who or where you can and can't worship, this is about not allowing goverment endorsement of certain religions over other religions.

Willravel · 01-08-2005, 10:07 AM

I think the real problem is people thinking that this world belongs to them and them alone. I sympathise with this guy to a certian extent. I know he feels like the religious people are imposing this on him, and that this probably represents more than just a few words to him. This represents, to him, an imposition on his right to NOT be christian (which is certianally his right, as it is totally wrong to impose religion on people). Yep, I sympathise with him. His perception of imposition is fine, but then he seeks to impose his beliefs, doesn't that make him hypocritical?

filtherton, you put fourth that this is a case of minor inconveniences. I say that this may be only minor on the surface, but it would cause serious ripples that would efffect the relationship between church and government for years to come. This ultimately boils down to one thing: which side gets to impose their beliefs? Imposing of a lack of a belief system is just as bad as imposing of a belief system. If he loses, we all get to say "under God" and all the crazy christian bible beaters win. If he wins, we don't get to say "under God" - or "in God we trust, or "God save this honorable court" - and the evil unbelievers get to remove God from our lives. Either way, we have one group thinkiong that some great injustice has taken place and that they are losing their grip on America. I guess people just need a cause to fight for. After all, if we aren't fighting for something it isn't important.

This isn't important. We live in a world where both groups - christians, and not christians - are supposed to live together and get along. Cases like this serve to drive those groups apart. They are made over trivial differences, but have the ability to drive a wedge between these groups. Hmm...Maybe this isn't about a few words. Maybe this represents the fundamental fear, ignoreance, and hatred for "the other side". Maybe Newdow is a Christiaphobe.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should work to come together, not diverge.

stevo · 01-08-2005, 10:27 AM

Nice article willravel. I must say that I agree with you for once, I'd like to shake your hand. The part of the article I liked the best was the last paragraph...

Quote:

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view.* Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose?* Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth.* They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense.* That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing.* They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself.* All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history.* In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."* The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion.* The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers.* Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools?* The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity.* This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

As you said, Filtherton,

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

this is about not allowing goverment endorsement of certain religions over other religions.

I would just have to point to the paragraph I just posted. That by systematically removing the mention of God from our public lives and in the name of political correctness excluding every notion of religion, esp. christianity we are, in effect, promoting a religion, Secular Humanisim.

filtherton · 01-08-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I think the real problem is people thinking that this world belongs to them and them alone. I sympathise with this guy to a certian extent. I know he feels like the religious people are imposing this on him, and that this probably represents more than just a few words to him. This represents, to him, an imposition on his right to NOT be christian (which is certianally his right, as it is totally wrong to impose religion on people). Yep, I sympathise with him. His perception of imposition is fine, but then he seeks to impose his beliefs, doesn't that make him hypocritical?

filtherton, you put fourth that this is a case of minor inconveniences. I say that this may be only minor on the surface, but it would cause serious ripples that would efffect the relationship between church and government for years to come. This ultimately boils down to one thing: which side gets to impose their beliefs? Imposing of a lack of a belief system is just as bad as imposing of a belief system. If he loses, we all get to say "under God" and all the crazy christian bible beaters win. If he wins, we don't get to say "under God" - or "in God we trust, or "God save this honorable court" - and the evil unbelievers get to remove God from our lives. Either way, we have one group thinkiong that some great injustice has taken place and that they are losing their grip on America. I guess people just need a cause to fight for. After all, if we aren't fighting for something it isn't important.

This isn't important. We live in a world where both groups - christians, and not christians - are supposed to live together and get along. Cases like this serve to drive those groups apart. They are made over trivial differences, but have the ability to drive a wedge between these groups. Hmm...Maybe this isn't about a few words. Maybe this represents the fundamental fear, ignoreance, and hatred for "the other side". Maybe Newdow is a Christiaphobe.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should work to come together, not diverge.

I think your first statement is very ironic. In fact, i think your entire post is the height of irony. Imposing a lack of a belief system is not what is going on here. Do you honestly think that this man wants to impose some sort of "antibelief" on america? What this guy seems to want is to not have to pretend he's a monotheist to pledge allegiance to his country. You trivialize his position when you nonchalantly claim that no one is forcing his daughter to say under god, but in doing so you admit that the phrase "under god" is essentially meaningless in terms of what the pledge actually represents. "Under god" in the pledge is filler. Not only is it filler, it is also filler that manages to, at the very least, alienate a minority of the populace.

I never put this as a minor inconvenience, i only pointed out your nonchalant attitude toward it.

Can we agree that there is a difference between attempting to impose one's beliefs and writing references to one's god into ceremonial pledges of allegiance to one's country? One is the very definition of politics, and the other can only be described as the action of a worshipper insecure in his savior's love. Need you be reminded that if one truly has a close personal relationship with jesus christ, one need not trumpet it from the rooftops. In fact, i heard christ frowns upon such public displays of piety.

Tell me how having "under god" in the pledge isn't exclusionary for every person who is not a member of a monotheist religion. Then try to imagine yourself as a member of a minority religion reciting a pledge to a god you don't believe in a country where all religions are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the government.

Even if newdow is a christiaphobe, how is that relevant? As i said before, i know plenty of christians who would love to see "under god" removed from the pledge. It would be the height of arrogance for you to claim them as christiaphobes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Nice article willravel. I must say that I agree with you for once, I'd like to shake your hand. The part of the article I liked the best was the last paragraph... As you said, Filtherton, I would just have to point to the paragraph I just posted. That by systematically removing the mention of God from our public lives and in the name of political correctness excluding every notion of religion, esp. christianity we are, in effect, promoting a religion, Secular Humanisim.

Yeah, i mean, if we allow the word religion to apply to anyone with a unique perspective, then we'd have an infinite number of religions. And then the word religion is completely fucking meaningless and everyone would be a tax exempt religious organization. Woohoo, let's make all words mean the same thing, that way writing will be really easy.

Even if that were relevant, the absence of the mention of god from the pledge doesn't amount to an endorsement of any religion any more than my lack of an opinion on gas powered lawnmowers amounts to an endorsement of push lawnmowers(is that a clumsy analogy?). By not mentioning god in the pledge, we exclude no one. By mentioning god we exclude everyone who isn't a monotheist. Is that clear?

Willravel · 01-08-2005, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think your first statement is very ironic. In fact, i think your entire post is the height of irony. Imposing a lack of a belief system is not what is going on here. Do you honestly think that this man wants to impose some sort of "antibelief" on america? What this guy seems to want is to not have to pretend he's a monotheist to pledge allegiance to his country. You trivialize his position when you nonchalantly claim that no one is forcing his daughter to say under god, but in doing so you admit that the phrase "under god" is essentially meaningless in terms of what the pledge actually represents. "Under god" in the pledge is filler. Not only is it filler, it is also filler that manages to, at the very least, alienate a minority of the populace.

First off, Let me explain something. Oft I use my oppositions argument to undo itself. My opening statement was to point out that this is not about self. Didn't you read my whole post? Sheesh, I hate having to explain this. The point to what I was trying to make is that this isn't about one side being right or wrong. This is about people's fears leading them to act in ways that cause our country to split. "Under God" is filler? Actually, a great deal of it is filler. "I pledge allegience to the flag" well, no. We are actually supposed to be pledging the constitution. "and to the republic" we are a democracy. "indivisable" m hmm. "with liberty and justice for all." nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I never put this as a minor inconvenience, i only pointed out your nonchalant attitude toward it.

Can we agree that there is a difference between attempting to impose one's beliefs and writing references to one's god into ceremonial pledges of allegiance to one's country? One is the very definition of politics, and the other can only be described as the action of a worshipper insecure in his savior's love. Need you be reminded that if one truly has a close personal relationship with jesus christ, one need not trumpet it from the rooftops. In fact, i heard christ frowns upon such public displays of piety.

Tell me how having "under god" in the pledge isn't exclusionary for every person who is not a member of a monotheist religion. Then try to imagine yourself as a member of a minority religion reciting a pledge to a god you don't believe in a country where all religions are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the government.

Even if newdow is a christiaphobe, how is that relevant? As i said before, i know plenty of christians who would love to see "under god" removed from the pledge. It would be the height of arrogance for you to claim them as christiaphobes.

Hahahahaha

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. most christians in America don't have a very good understanding of what is being taught by Jesus. People do think that it is their responsibility to make commercials and go door to door talking about Jesus because it's what God wants them to do. They haven't figured out that it is actually an attempt to get more parishners so the church can get more money. Just like we should be saluting the constitution, not the flag, christians choose to praise the bible, not Jesus. It's complicated, but the gist is that christians *not all christians, but some christians* will be upset about this. The only thing this suit serves to do is drive a wedge between christians and nonchristians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Yeah, i mean, if we allow the word religion to apply to anyone with a unique perspective, then we'd have an infinite number of religions. And then the word religion is completely fucking meaningless and everyone would be a tax exempt religious organization. Woohoo, let's make all words mean the same thing, that way writing will be really easy.

That was really helpful. I hope all fo your contributions to the conversation are as constructive as this.

Why aren't you addressing the article beyond "I searched the rest of the site and it claims america owes its soul to the bible." Give me a break. Please read the article. It cites the fact that seperation of church and state *the foundation of your whole argument* is flawed.

filtherton · 01-08-2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

First off, Let me explain something. Oft I use my oppositions argument to undo itself. My opening statement was to point out that this is not about self. Didn't you read my whole post? Sheesh, I hate having to explain this. The point to what I was trying to make is that this isn't about one side being right or wrong. This is about people's fears leading them to act in ways that cause our country to split. "Under God" is filler? Actually, a great deal of it is filler. "I pledge allegience to the flag" well, no. We are actually supposed to be pledging the constitution. "and to the republic" we are a democracy. "indivisable" m hmm. "with liberty and justice for all." nope.

Our country is already split. Red states and blue states. This is about not excluding people based on their religious beliefs. If there is anyone who is allowing fear to split the country, it is the christians who scream bloody murder at occurences such as this. It seems a bit silly to me to not do something that seems to make sense because it has the potential to divide people.

Quote:

Hahahahaha

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. most christians in America don't have a very good understanding of what is being taught by Jesus. People do think that it is their responsibility to make commercials and go door to door talking about Jesus because it's what God wants them to do. They haven't figured out that it is actually an attempt to get more parishners so the church can get more money. Just like we should be saluting the constitution, not the flag, christians choose to praise the bible, not Jesus. It's complicated, but the gist is that christians *not all christians, but some christians* will be upset about this. The only thing this suit serves to do is drive a wedge between christians and nonchristians.

Are you trying to say that only "real" christians are upset about this, or that only the misguided ones are? I wonder if you are qualified to make that distinction?

Quote:

That was really helpful. I hope all fo your contributions to the conversation are as constructive as this.

I made my point, perhaps you'd like to dispute it.

Quote:

Why aren't you addressing the article beyond "I searched the rest of the site and it claims america owes its soul to the bible." Give me a break. Please read the article. It cites the fact that seperation of church and state *the foundation of your whole argument* is flawed.

I did read the article. I think it is bullshit. It attributes

Quote:

Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's

to the dissalowal of the bible in school. And you want me to take it seriously? Give me a break. As if nothing else was going on in that 30 year timespan. Besides, these statistics are innacurate.
according to http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html
Teen birth rates were the highest in the 1950's and have been declining ever since.

Quote:

Key Trends Over Time

Childbearing. The rate of teen childbearing in the United States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000 (see chart below). Birthrates fell steadily throughout the 1960s and 1970s; they were fairly steady in the early 1980s and then rose sharply between 1988 and 1991 before declining throughout the 1990s. In recent years, this downward trend has occurred among teens of all ages and races.

or
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/98news/teenrel.htm

Quote:

Still, teen birth rates are higher today than in the mid-1980's when the rate was at its lowest point, 50-53 births per thousand teens age 15-19. The national teen birth rate was at its highest in 1957, at 96 births per 1,000 women ages 15-19. However, most teenagers giving birth in the 1950's and for the next two decades were married while the vast majority of teenage mothers today are unmarried.

The authors of your article are misrepresenting this, what else are they misrepresenting? You'll have to pardon me if i lack faith in their conclusions. I think it is a christian interpretation of history and i reject it because there is an entire class of christians who are so completely blinded by their love for being christian that they would sooner attribute a rise in the crime rate to the lack of a biblical presence in school than anything else. There are many other interpretations of history that don't rely on false statistics to back up ludicrous assertions. I think any christian who believes america to be a christian nation is confused. Christ made the poor and the sick a priority, america doesn't and generally hasn't. This country's foundation can hardly be considered to be the bible.

But all that is meaningless, perhaps you'd throw me a bone and read the part where i posted about precedent trumping ascribed founding father intent. It doesn't matter what values your christian website ascribes to the founding fathers. What matters is how the courts interpret the constitution.

filtherton · 01-08-2005, 02:50 PM

I really hate double posting, but i just want to point out the delicious irony of citing Torcaso v. Watkins in a polemic attempting to deny the seperation of church and state.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=367&invol=488

Quote:

Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496.

He was denied a commision because he wouldn't declare an oath of monotheism. The courts said that denying him his commision solely because he wouldn't declare an oath of monotheism was a violation of his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the constitution. I doubt there is a more appropriate case to cite in an argument about the constitutionality of the phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. I just think it was cited by the wrong side.

It makes me wonder, who are the fact checkers at noapathy.org?

What, no responses? I at least try to admit when i lack and argument to complement my positions.

McDuffie · 01-11-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

You sound agnostic to me not athiest

I am. I am an agnostic-atheist. I am an atheist because I am agnostic.

a = without
gnosis = knowledge

Agnosticism makes no statement about belief; it only addresses knowledge. Agnosticism is not a degree of unbelief as most people think. Most people think it's a halfway point between theism and atheism. It's not.

a = without
theism = god belief

Atheism makes no statement about knowledge of god; it only addresses belief.

Because I am agnostic, I am an atheist. In other words, because I have no knowledge of the existence of god, I cannot possibly profess belief in him/her/it.

I usually just shorten it to 'atheist' though. Gets to the point quicker.

McDuffie · 01-11-2005, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

McDuffie, how do you define belief system? It may be a pretty simple system, but it is what it is. If atheism can't possibly be a belief system, than what is it?

What is it? It's a non-belief.

A good analogy might be this:

Let's say you are on a bus with union carpenters, union electricians, union brick masons, union plumbers. You and couple other guys on the bus do not possess a blue collar skill, neither are you union members.

Well, if you are not skilled union workers what are you? You don't fit in their neat categories. Just like atheists.

The carpenters can talk about carpentry, the electricians can talk about electrical work etc. What are you guys going to talk about? Non-carpentry? Non-electrical work?

McDuffie · 01-11-2005, 09:08 AM

Quote:

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state.*

This statement from WillTravel's post is not supported by a single word ever uttered by any of the founders. It is a bald-faced lie churned out by the re-inventors of American history on the right, like Dr. James Kennedy and Pat Robertson.

And all of the non-sense about the educational systems in that article

Public school is a relatively new phenomenon. It didnt exist back then, at least not in the way we think of it today.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-11-2005, 11:44 AM

Mcduffie if you read the article the man to first make mention of "The Wall" was Roger Williams, one of the Danbury Baptists. And furthermore you couldn't be more wrong, as pointed out in both the article and this thread, the people were still fearful of how things were in the good ole' mother country England when the government forced the people into practicing in the Anglican church. The fact that the law of the land i.e. the constitution and it's first amendment, which again mentions nothing of separation of Church and State, it's only purpose was to not establish a national religion, or prevent the free exercise thereof atest's to that.

01-07-2005, 07:19 PM	#4 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	I don't think the pledge is unconstitutional. But I would support any legislative attempt to remove that phrase from the pledge. One need not believe in God to be a good citizen, and the pledge currently implies otherwise. To answer the question in your signature: Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the commitment to liberty on the part of the citizens in question. And to whether the liberties of a nation can be secure when the conviction that they are God's gift is NOT removed? The same: maybe, maybe not. It depends on the commitment to liberty on the part of the citizens in question. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

01-11-2005, 11:44 AM	#40 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Mcduffie if you read the article the man to first make mention of "The Wall" was Roger Williams, one of the Danbury Baptists. And furthermore you couldn't be more wrong, as pointed out in both the article and this thread, the people were still fearful of how things were in the good ole' mother country England when the government forced the people into practicing in the Anglican church. The fact that the law of the land i.e. the constitution and it's first amendment, which again mentions nothing of separation of Church and State, it's only purpose was to not establish a national religion, or prevent the free exercise thereof atest's to that. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-07-2005, 06:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I think the word sue should be a dirty word. It is getting used way to often these days. That aside I don't see what the big deal is about the words "under god" this case goes both ways once you make a big deal of it then you are either forcing god or forcing no god. Atheism is a religion itself, one that people are trying to force down the throats of other religions.

01-07-2005, 07:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Thomas Jefferson But some disagree:http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd7d.htm

01-07-2005, 07:29 PM	#6 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I disagree Atheism is completly a relegion. It fills the same space. The belief in a God or the Disbelief in a God are both religions. Anyway on the idea of removing God from everything we should take into account a couple things. One read the decleration of indepence, it makes multiple refrences to God. In addition the constitution never says anything about the seperation of church and state. It states "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion" I'm pretty sure there is no law stating you have to say under god in the pledge.

01-07-2005, 07:34 PM	#7 (permalink)
pinoychink790 Loser Location: McDonald's Playland	Rekna's right. Just because someone is an atheist, doesn't mean that they are also non-religious. There are many religions that do not have a god. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god or god(s), they can still have a religion. A religion doesn't necessarily need a god to be considered a religion

01-07-2005, 07:37 PM	#9 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Atheism is a belief system, not a religion. Maybe that's just semantics, but another distinction between the two is reflected by the fact that, at least to my knowledge, no war has been fought under the pretext of atheism. What it says in the declaration of independence is a lot less important than what it says in the constitution and how said contents are interpreted. It seems to me that the constitution goes out of its way to prohibit a nonsecular government. This doesn't seem like a sound endorsement of the christian need to write god on everything to me.

01-07-2005, 07:42 PM	#11 (permalink)
pinoychink790 Loser Location: McDonald's Playland	a belief system can be considered as a religion. they are one in the same. It doesn't matter if there's a war or not. it's still a religion

01-07-2005, 07:43 PM	#12 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Filtherton the problem with your argument is by saying "Under God" you are not supporting christianity or any other religion. You are supporting diesm which is what this nation was founded on. "Divine Creator" "Natures God" both appear in the decleration of independence.

01-07-2005, 08:02 PM	#14 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Your post inspired me to find out more about the pledge. Written in 1892 it was modified by Congress to add "under God" in 1954. A brief history can be found on the following link:http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

01-07-2005, 08:29 PM	#18 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Atheists specifically believe in the absence of any divine creator(s).

01-07-2005, 10:16 PM	#25 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	Right. Just because "religious" might be accurately applied to Mr. cornflake lover, the guy next door shaking his head probably doesn't qualify. In that sense, I believe Constitutional wording strains toward the fervent and zelous variety of "religion." If disbelievers aren't spending a great deal of their time worrying about their non-belief I'd say they're reasonably free of that religion. Until they have to say the post-1954 Pledge, which I think is the crux of the lawsuit. People who don't believe in God are told to lump it, whatever their belief/religion. I don't understand how that can be considered just. It could be argued that the people bringing the lawsuit are sufficiently preoccupied with the cause to have made it a religion of sorts. That could affect their case if they wanted to insert a substitute for "God", but they're arguing against sanctioning any religion. What I've read of their arguments makes it sound more like they're trying to protect the general populace from coercion of any kind. I could be wrong. I would not have survived lawschool.

01-07-2005, 11:34 PM	#26 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This is about being exposed to religions. His daughter was not forced to say "under God", she was exposed to other people saying it. Just like we are all exposed to religion. Whenever you see someone make the sign of the cross - forehead,down to the chest, side to side - we are exposed. Are people so weak that they cannot even be exposed to religion without being troubled to the point of lawsuit? The puritanical people left England because they were not allowed to worship the way they wanted to. England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes. This was the government trying to control where religion is okay or not okay. The same is the case here. If you are bothered by my praying or saying the word God, that's just too bad. No where in the Constisution does it say "You cannot speak of religion if it bugs people". This is an argument based on a misunderstanding, and even without the misunderstanding, it still doesn't make sense. "Seperation of chusch and state" (as I stated above in my post that was aparently too long for some to read) is actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", which is something completly different. It was a rule of law to prevent a theocracy. It was not to prevent little Miss Newdow from hearing the words "under God" in her classroom. She and her father will just have to deal with living in a diverse world.

01-08-2005, 10:07 AM	#31 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think the real problem is people thinking that this world belongs to them and them alone. I sympathise with this guy to a certian extent. I know he feels like the religious people are imposing this on him, and that this probably represents more than just a few words to him. This represents, to him, an imposition on his right to NOT be christian (which is certianally his right, as it is totally wrong to impose religion on people). Yep, I sympathise with him. His perception of imposition is fine, but then he seeks to impose his beliefs, doesn't that make him hypocritical? filtherton, you put fourth that this is a case of minor inconveniences. I say that this may be only minor on the surface, but it would cause serious ripples that would efffect the relationship between church and government for years to come. This ultimately boils down to one thing: which side gets to impose their beliefs? Imposing of a lack of a belief system is just as bad as imposing of a belief system. If he loses, we all get to say "under God" and all the crazy christian bible beaters win. If he wins, we don't get to say "under God" - or "in God we trust, or "God save this honorable court" - and the evil unbelievers get to remove God from our lives. Either way, we have one group thinkiong that some great injustice has taken place and that they are losing their grip on America. I guess people just need a cause to fight for. After all, if we aren't fighting for something it isn't important. This isn't important. We live in a world where both groups - christians, and not christians - are supposed to live together and get along. Cases like this serve to drive those groups apart. They are made over trivial differences, but have the ability to drive a wedge between these groups. Hmm...Maybe this isn't about a few words. Maybe this represents the fundamental fear, ignoreance, and hatred for "the other side". Maybe Newdow is a Christiaphobe. Or maybe, just maybe, we should work to come together, not diverge.