Modern Liberalism at Work: Pledge of Allegiance Deemed Unconstitutional

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
Sep 14 2:39 PM US/Eastern

By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was declared unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge ruling in the second attempt by an atheist to have the pledge removed from classrooms. The man lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools.

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.

"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.

Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.
Link
 
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Click to expand...

Is there something here that you disagree with?
 
Well, PAD, why don't you counter with a legal or constitutional basis of why it should be allowed. It's not even part of our original history, since it was only put it to differentiate us from "godless communists".

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Click to expand...
 
hooray for modern liberalism!!!
___________________________________________
The pledge was written in 1892 by Baptist minister and educator Francis Bellamy, who made no reference to religion in his version. It was originally worded: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It quickly became a part of public school programs.

In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," after pressure by the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/
 
It still is kinda ridiculous. I mean, the intent of reciting it is patriotism, not prayer.
 
[quote name='Mike23']It still is kinda ridiculous. I mean, the intent of reciting it is patriotism, not prayer.[/QUOTE]

But that part is to indicate that this is a nation of god.
 
[quote name='Mike23']It still is kinda ridiculous. I mean, the intent of reciting it is patriotism, not prayer.[/QUOTE]

Take off, you socialist heathen, eh?

I kid, of course. Considering what little PAD has contributed to the vs forums recently, I'm considering putting him on ignore. It's not like he brings as discourse to the table. Instead we have Sean Penn armed = "SEAN PENN AND AL1 TEH LIBRULS HATES TEH NIGROS"; or, when a judge decides that one line in the pledge (a line younger than your grandparents, I might add) is unconstitutional, instead of discourse, we get "OMG TEH LIBRULS HATE THE BUSH AND US CONSTITUTION PLEDGE WHAT THE HALL!!?"

Really, my father debates like that. He shouts some nonsense in your direction, and gets up from the table before you can retort. PAD comes in here with topics intended to gig us into reaction, and when shown to be completely incorrect and/or misinformed (and given his media preferences, I am more than happy to provide him "misinformed" forgiveness more often than not), he simply disappears. He's annoying, he's disrespectful, and I'm frankly sick of his fucking bland-ass hyperbole. I don't listen to Ann Coulter blather on in hyper-eggageratory tones like she's the Macho Man Randy Motherfuckin' Savage because it's dumb and it's not intelligent discourse. I don't see why I should give PAD any more credit than that shrill banshee of idiocy.
 
Can a candidate win election taking this stance?

No.

Will you ever have a Presidential candidate come out against this?

No.

Think what you want but it's a loser politically and socially and opposing the pledge in its current form is a political death wish. What do I care if you're against it? It just keeps adding to the list of reasons why people won't support liberal candidates.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Can a candidate win election taking this stance?

No.

Will you ever have a Presidential candidate come out against this?

No.

Think what you want but it's a loser politically and socially and opposing the pledge in its current form is a political death wish. What do I care if you're against it? It just keeps adding to the list of reasons why people won't support liberal candidates.[/QUOTE]

Not that I'm comparing the two in importance or magnitude, but would a presidential candidate come out for full equality and integration of minorities in 1904? Not having public support has nothing to do with whether it's correct or not, at least in cases like this.

FYI, the first ammendment also gives peole the right to not say things.
Click to expand...

So you're for public school prayer and official government positions on religion? People can just not say it or ignore it, and that should be fine with you.
 
Seriously, it's the 21st century, isn't it time to stop propping up monotheistic religion with the forced indoctrination of children? The only way I want my tax dollars being spent is in the teaching of science, arts, healthy living, and creative thinking skills.
 
Optional or not, the Pledge is school-sponsored, and since it contains the line "under God" it is tantamount to prayer. And since school-sponsored prayer is against the law, bada-bing.
 
[quote name='camoor']Seriously, it's the 21st century, isn't it time to stop propping up monotheistic religion with the forced indoctrination of children? The only way I want my tax dollars being spent is in the teaching of science, arts, healthy living, and creative thinking skills.[/QUOTE]

It occurred to me recently as I was studying some classical theory texts that the agenda of christian conservatives (whether they want to admit this or not) is to annihilate the progress brought forth by the enlightenment. Seriously.

It also made me realize, even more than ever, that all forms of medicine are inherently liberal. More conservatives should make like Jim Henson.
 
its stupid monotonous crap. You dont make patriots by force feeding them words, especially in schools. Its a waste of time, and prob pushed more students away from caring then inspiring democratic beliefs. Its as about as useful as an appendix in the human body.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']I just wish they'd take "In God We Trust" off the fucking money. :bomb:[/QUOTE]

The United States Supreme Court has held that de minimis state invocation of religion is not violative of the Constitution. This includes, inter alia, "in God we trust" on the money and the opening prayer recited at the beginning of the term in the Supreme Court. Indeed, it is beyond dispute that such invocations were commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. So, it is difficult to imagine that the architects of the First Amendment intended to proscribe such things.

The question is whether "under God" is such a de minimis invocation.

Also of note is the question of the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Does a state or Congress "establish" a religion by including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?
 
[quote name='sgs89']ndeed, it is beyond dispute that such invocations were commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. So, it is difficult to imagine that the architects of the First Amendment intended to proscribe such things.
[/QUOTE]

Cool! I'm gonna go buy me a nice sexy black slave woman when I get home.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Cool! I'm gonna go buy me a nice sexy black slave woman when I get home.[/QUOTE]

I guess you've never heard of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Your attempt at an argument in opposition to a strict "original intent" interpretation of the Constitution has just failed miserably. Congratulations.
 
[quote name='sgs89']I guess you've never heard of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Your attempt at an argument in opposition to a strict "original intent" interpretation of the Constitution has just failed miserably. Congratulations.[/QUOTE]

Actually you just proved my point for me, if you want god on your money pass an amendment.:applause:
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Actually you just proved my point for me, if you want god on your money pass an amendment.:applause:[/QUOTE]

Once again, you reveal your total lack of understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution acts as a limitation on federal power. There is nothing in the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that prohibits the Legislature from including the phrase "in God we trust" on the money.

If you want to change that, YOU have to pass an amendment.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Once again, you reveal your total lack of understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution acts as a limitation on federal power. There is nothing in the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that prohibits the Legislature from including the phrase "in God we trust" on the money.

If you want to change that, YOU have to pass an amendment.[/QUOTE]

State sponsorship of religion. And the use of "god", in the singular, indicates support for a particular form of religion.
 
[quote name='sgs89']The United States Supreme Court has held that de minimis state invocation of religion is not violative of the Constitution. This includes, inter alia, "in God we trust" on the money and the opening prayer recited at the beginning of the term in the Supreme Court. Indeed, it is beyond dispute that such invocations were commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. So, it is difficult to imagine that the architects of the First Amendment intended to proscribe such things.

The question is whether "under God" is such a de minimis invocation.

Also of note is the question of the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Does a state or Congress "establish" a religion by including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?[/QUOTE]

I don't agree that phrases on our money are "de minimis"

Money is important to almost every American. Greenbacks are also our face to the world. I, for one, do not want anything on the dollar bill that doesn't reflect the values of democracy, freedom and captialism for which America stands.

Of course - the quote from the Aeneid, the 13 stepped pyramid, and the illuminating eye of Horus can stay, because they are freaking sweet :D
 
[quote name='sgs89']Once again, you reveal your total lack of understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution acts as a limitation on federal power. There is nothing in the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that prohibits the Legislature from including the phrase "in God we trust" on the money.

If you want to change that, YOU have to pass an amendment.[/QUOTE]

Um no, you disproved your own point. So you have to go pass one. As you mentioned earlier the constitution with the amendments is not the same document our furfather's created so their unspoken intentions don't matter.
 
OK, zion is not worth arguing with because he/she is nonsensical.

To the other comments, I say that the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Such displays of religion have been upheld as they were commonplace at the time of the adoption of the First Amendment. You may not agree that, as a policy matter, it is a good thing to include such references to religion. In fact, I agree that it is not a good thing -- I would prefer that our money NOT include that phrase. But, our recourse, my friends, is in the Legislature, not in the Courts. If you don't like it, get Congress to change it.
 
[quote name='sgs89']OK, zion is not worth arguing with because he/she is nonsensical.
[/QUOTE]

I'm nonsensical?:lol: I'm not the one contradicting myself. You can't have the will of the forfathers when you modify their words.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Um no, you disproved your own point. So you have to go pass one. As you mentioned earlier the constitution with the amendments is not the same document our furfather's created so their unspoken intentions don't matter.[/QUOTE]

I can't let this pass without a comment. Our "furfather's" (by which I assume you mean our "Forefathers") adopted the Bill of Rights at roughly the same time as the Constitution.

Our Forefathers recognized that there may well come a time that the Constitution needed to be changed. They accounted for that by establishing a procedure by which the Constitution could be amended (although it is not easy). Therefore, later adoption of amendments (including the 13th and 14th Amendments) is entirely consistent with the Forefathers' views.
 
[quote name='sgs89']
Therefore, later adoption of amendments (including the 13th and 14th Amendments) is entirely consistent with the Forefathers' views.[/QUOTE]

See that's where we have a huge difference of opinion and yes my spelling is horrible, sadly I can't get firefox to let me cut and paste on CAG so any spell checking is quick at best.

I would say that the forefathers intended for the constitution to be changed but to say that any change is consistent with their views is to say that their views can be contradictory. One cannot be in favor of slavery and at the same time support its termination.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']See that's where we have a huge difference of opinion and yes my spelling is horrible, sadly I can't get firefox to let me cut and paste on CAG so any spell checking is quick at best.

I would say that the forefathers intended for the constitution to be changed but any change does not represent their will since they cannot know the needs of the future, they can know only that those needs will be different from the needs of the present.

To say that anything that is adopted into the constitution is consistent with their views is laughable. We could create a constitutional admendment allowing for a King, I'm pretty sure they if alive today would detest that even more than our abolishment of slavery.[/QUOTE]

You really miss the point, I'm afraid.

No one is arguing that the new amendments should be interpreted in light of the original framer's intent. Rather, those amendments are interpreted in light of what THOSE WHO ADOPTED THAT PARTICULAR AMENDMENT intended. So, the 14th Amendment is interpreted in light of the intentions of the post-Civil War framers who drafted and adopted that particular amendment.

The Framers clearly contemplated that new amendments would be adopted that might not be consistent with their original views. Indeed, many of them struggled over the issue of slavery and believed that it would one day be abolished by amendment of the Constitution.
 
Sgs89 - your constitutionalist argument is a good one, save for that teeny tiny ruling from that smarmy old Chief Justice Burger:

the lemon test

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

see that last part? think about it for a sec.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']Sgs89 - your constitutionalist argument is a good one, save for that teeny tiny ruling from that smarmy old Chief Justice Burger:

the lemon test

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

see that last part? think about it for a sec.[/QUOTE]

Putting asided the merits of the Lemon test, I fail to see your point. I don't believe that "under God" represents an excessive government entanglement with religion. Are you claiming that it does?
 
putting aside the merits of the lemon test? ipso facto meeny mo, tiger!

One nation implies unity - to what are we united? the states, and under what contract (according to our very own contractatarian philosophy) do we adhere to? - the constitution. So how is it that we may interpret this constitution in a just manner - with them supreme court doods - and what is it that they decided under Chief Justice Burger in '71? - that the lemon test would best screen and determine wether states were interefering with people's rights - and what does the lemon test suggest about "one nation, under God?"

The lemon test is one of the pivotal foundations used for interpreting religious content in compliance with our constitution.

as for excessive government entanglement - how about making a shit load of people say "one nation, under God?"

Furthering that - "one nation, under God" paradoxically advances and inhibits religions all day, every day. It ain't "one nation, under a secular unassuming concept of the idea that people cannot comprehend all that there is to comprehend" now is it?

Let's not also forget that your last statement is not rooted in your constitutional argument, but rather your own opinion.

stick to your guns or back up your opinion.
 
[quote name='sgs89'] Rather, those amendments are interpreted in light of what THOSE WHO ADOPTED THAT PARTICULAR AMENDMENT intended.[/QUOTE]

Well then how about when admendments cancel each other out? It seems to me that amendments and the constitution can really only be taken as teh words written and not some underlying meaning because quite honestly in over 200 years I'm quite sure a number of those meaning has been lost.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Well then how about when admendments cancel each other out? It seems to me that amendments and the constitution can really only be taken as teh words written and not some underlying meaning because quite honestly in over 200 years I'm quite sure a number of those meaning has been lost.[/QUOTE]

This misguided judicial philosophy has produced decisions such as Kelo v City of New London (the property rights/takings case). And due to their writings, the Framers' intentions are pretty well known. Try reading the Federalist Papers, for example.

New amendments can replace/modify previous language as provided for in the Constitution. I fail to see the problem here.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']putting aside the merits of the lemon test? ipso facto meeny mo, tiger!

One nation implies unity - to what are we united? the states, and under what contract (according to our very own contractatarian philosophy) do we adhere to? - the constitution. So how is it that we may interpret this constitution in a just manner - with them supreme court doods - and what is it that they decided under Chief Justice Burger in '71? - that the lemon test would best screen and determine wether states were interefering with people's rights - and what does the lemon test suggest about "one nation, under God?"

The lemon test is one of the pivotal foundations used for interpreting religious content in compliance with our constitution.

as for excessive government entanglement - how about making a shit load of people say "one nation, under God?"

Furthering that - "one nation, under God" paradoxically advances and inhibits religions all day, every day. It ain't "one nation, under a secular unassuming concept of the idea that people cannot comprehend all that there is to comprehend" now is it?

Let's not also forget that your last statement is not rooted in your constitutional argument, but rather your own opinion.

stick to your guns or back up your opinion.[/QUOTE]

As you may or may not know, the Lemon test (and other, competing tests relevant to the Establishment Clause) has risen and fallen in importance in the years since it articulation. It is not at all clear that the SCOTUS agrees on one unifying test. Hence my statement about "putting aside the merits of the Lemon test."

I have stuck to my guns. You have not. As I've said repeatedly in this thread, government invocation of religion is not per se unconstitutional. Indeed, one of the very subjects of this thread -- the phrase "in God we trust" -- has been UPHELD in more than one appellate court decision, even under the Lemon test. Quite simply, the SCOTUS and lower courts have generally made it clear (the Ninth Circuit excepted) that these types of religious invocation, considered to be de minimis, are permissible.

Indeed, you might be interested in a dicta paragraph from a SCOTUS case invalidating a state practice of forcing its citizens to display a secular motto on their cars:

"It has been suggested that today's holding will be read as sanctioning obliteration of the National motto, 'In God We Trust' from United States coins and currency. That question is not before us today but we note that currency, which is passed from hand to hand, differs in significant respects from an automobile, which is readily associated with its operator. Currency is generally carried in a purse or pocket and need not be displayed by the public. The bearer of currency is thus not required to publicly advertise the National Motto."

Care to re-think your position? It is clearly out-of-step with the manner in which the SCOTUS addresses these issues.
 
sgs89,

I think you have been talking about the legality of the issue from the standpoint of a supereme court "de minimus" debate. However what about doing the RIGHT thing by all people.

I don't like the fact that people who have various beliefs about the metaphysical are forced into reciting their belief in one god, and forced to use currency that states their unequivical trust in one god.

The problem is further exacerbated, as PAD pointed out, by the fact that any Presidential candidate or majority group of politicians would be held hostage by the religious right if they attempted to reverse this exercise in federally sponsored monotheistic advertising and indoctrination.

Think about it this way - I'm pretty sure that the religious right would be screaming from the rooftops if they had to carry around a state drivers licence that had a quote from the Buddha or Ayn Rand.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']FYI, the first ammendment also gives peole the right to not say things.[/QUOTE]

Er.... don't you mean the fifth?
 
They should just replace 'in god we trust' with 'made in the usa'. Then not only would we satisfy 'those damn liberals' but we'd also have an American product worth owning.

In God we trust is unconstitutional. It advocates christianity/catholocism. If it were for Islam it'd say In Allah. It isn't self depreciating, so it cant be Jewish. (joke) It also implies that polythiests/athiests aren't American. So it does perpetuate/advocate the train of thought that America is Christian nation. Yes, a lot of Americans are Christian/catholic, but that doesn't mean it should be an inherent part of the government.
 
[quote name='camoor']sgs89,

I think you have been talking about the legality of the issue from the standpoint of a supereme court "de minimus" debate. However what about doing the RIGHT thing by all people.

I don't like the fact that people who have various beliefs about the metaphysical are forced into reciting their belief in one god, and forced to use currency that states their unequivical trust in one god.

The problem is further exacerbated, as PAD pointed out, by the fact that any Presidential candidate or majority group of politicians would be held hostage by the religious right if they attempted to reverse this exercise in federally sponsored monotheistic advertising and indoctrination.

Think about it this way - I'm pretty sure that the religious right would be screaming from the rooftops if they had to carry around a state drivers licence that had a quote from the Buddha or Ayn Rand.[/QUOTE]

As I said above, I agree with you that our money shouldn't carry such a slogan. But that is a different question from whether it is unconstitutional. People don't seem to understand that. As held by the federal courts, our gripe is with the Legislature (Congress), not the courts.
 
[quote name='Kayden']They should just replace 'in god we trust' with 'made in the usa'. Then not only would we satisfy 'those damn liberals' but we'd also have an American product worth owning.

In God we trust is unconstitutional. It advocates christianity/catholocism. If it were for Islam it'd say In Allah. It isn't self depreciating, so it cant be Jewish. (joke) It also implies that polythiests/athiests aren't American. So it does perpetuate/advocate the train of thought that America is Christian nation. Yes, a lot of Americans are Christian/catholic, but that doesn't mean it should be an inherent part of the government.[/QUOTE]

Saying it is does not make it so. The Framers never intended the First Amendment to proscribe any public invocation of religion, that much is clear. The Supreme Court has so found.

Again, your beef is with the Legislature.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Er.... don't you mean the fifth?[/QUOTE]
That too, I guess habeas corpus applies in this situation as well as the freedom of speech and symbolic expression, although that part of the fifth ammendment mainly applies against self incrimination and wrongful arrest.

The first ammendment take precident here, so it is a freedom of speech issue.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Saying it is does not make it so. The Framers never intended the First Amendment to proscribe any public invocation of religion, that much is clear. The Supreme Court has so found.

Again, your beef is with the Legislature.[/QUOTE]

I don't have a beef with anyone... I was just stating my opinion... You know you've spent too much time in the VS forum when you think everything is a personal attack on you and/or your party.
 
[quote name='sgs89']As you may or may not know, the Lemon test (and other, competing tests relevant to the Establishment Clause) has risen and fallen in importance in the years since it articulation. It is not at all clear that the SCOTUS agrees on one unifying test. Hence my statement about "putting aside the merits of the Lemon test."

I have stuck to my guns. You have not. As I've said repeatedly in this thread, government invocation of religion is not per se unconstitutional. Indeed, one of the very subjects of this thread -- the phrase "in God we trust" -- has been UPHELD in more than one appellate court decision, even under the Lemon test. Quite simply, the SCOTUS and lower courts have generally made it clear (the Ninth Circuit excepted) that these types of religious invocation, considered to be de minimis, are permissible.

Indeed, you might be interested in a dicta paragraph from a SCOTUS case invalidating a state practice of forcing its citizens to display a secular motto on their cars:

"It has been suggested that today's holding will be read as sanctioning obliteration of the National motto, 'In God We Trust' from United States coins and currency. That question is not before us today but we note that currency, which is passed from hand to hand, differs in significant respects from an automobile, which is readily associated with its operator. Currency is generally carried in a purse or pocket and need not be displayed by the public. The bearer of currency is thus not required to publicly advertise the National Motto."

Care to re-think your position? It is clearly out-of-step with the manner in which the SCOTUS addresses these issues.[/QUOTE]

well let's take a look at SCOTUS rulings:

Engle v. Vitale ('62) - Schools in NY use "Almighty God" which is then deemed unconstiutional on the grounds of it being more than just moral instruction.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, Early v. DiCenso (1971), and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971) all give rise to the lemon test.

Stone v. Graham (1980) - in Kentucky, posting of the ten commandments violates not only the establishment clause, but also the first part of the lemon test. Cited reasons being that the ten commandments refer to the Sabbath and God.

Looking at the pledge:

written in 1892, adopted by congress in 1942 as a "wartime patriotic tribute" it did NOT include the phrase "under God" - this was later added in 1954 by Congress to instill the idea that other nations, ie USSR were godless.

If Congress changed the pledge to make "under God" and important part just because it made the other side seem godless, doesn't that insinuate something about godless people?

Is that not furthering a religious agenda?

Find me some cases where the lemon test has FAILED, not been ignored - as in the Marsh v. Chambers ruling which clearly outlined the case as a historical one and not one that really centered on religion.

And quit saying "indeed."

It's ok, I know you're a smart guy without the "thus" and indeeds" :D
 
[quote name='Kayden']I don't have a beef with anyone... I was just stating my opinion... You know you've spent too much time in the VS forum when you think everything is a personal attack on you and/or your party.[/QUOTE]

You've missed my point, which is that there is a solution to the problem you've presented -- namely, seeking change at Congress. The First Amendment simply doesn't operate in the manner you are suggesting it does.
 
This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']

well let's take a look at SCOTUS rulings:

Engle v. Vitale ('62) - Schools in NY use "Almighty God" which is then deemed unconstiutional on the grounds of it being more than just moral instruction.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, Early v. DiCenso (1971), and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971) all give rise to the lemon test.

Stone v. Graham (1980) - in Kentucky, posting of the ten commandments violates not only the establishment clause, but also the first part of the lemon test. Cited reasons being that the ten commandments refer to the Sabbath and God.

Looking at the pledge:

written in 1892, adopted by congress in 1942 as a "wartime patriotic tribute" it did NOT include the phrase "under God" - this was later added in 1954 by Congress to instill the idea that other nations, ie USSR were godless.

If Congress changed the pledge to make "under God" and important part just because it made the other side seem godless, doesn't that insinuate something about godless people?

Is that not furthering a religious agenda?

Find me some cases where the lemon test has FAILED, not been ignored - as in the Marsh v. Chambers ruling which clearly outlined the case as a historical one and not one that really centered on religion.

And quit saying "indeed."

It's ok, I know you're a smart guy without the "thus" and indeeds" :D
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how to respond to this as it is quite unintelligible.

Here are some points, though:
* The Lemon test is not the only way the SCOTUS analyzes Establishment Clause issues. The Court is divided on the issue of what test or framework to employ.
* You have totally ignored all of the precedent I pointed to in my post, including precedent DIRECTLY ON POINT (that is to say, finding "in God we trust" to be consistent with the Constitution).
* You have failed to recognize the intent of the Framers of the First Amendment. Do you dispute that public invocation of religion, even "state-sponsored" invocations -- was commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution? Do you think the Framers intended the First Amendment to abolish all reference to religion in the public square?
* The fact that you don't like the motto on our currency -- neither do I -- does not mean it is unconstitutional. The people have chosen that motto through their elected representatives. If you don't like it, vote them out and elect people who see the issue in the same way as you do.
* As for my writing style, it is what it is. Believe me, I am not trying to impress anyone with flowery language.
 
um, no one's refuting that there is or isn't a god. I can't prove that either way.

It is true that the founders had a Christian God in mind, but they also owned slaves... so what are you saying? Slaves shouldn't have been freed?

I'm not asking for a non-christian america. Some of my best and most level headed friends are christian.

I'm asking that the public (that is political and communal) space be free of irrational arguments such as:

"no, my god is right" "no he's not, mine is"

this gets us nowhere, and it has no place in the public realm. We have a moral construct already for PUBLIC use, it is the constitution. When you are born or nationalized as an American you are signing the contract by default. If you don't like the contract, leave or petition to make changes.

This contract (and all laws created henceforth, using the constitution as a foundation and starting point) is the ONLY thing you need to abide by. If I don't believe in God, I don't have to in America. But I have no right to tell others that they are wrong to believe in God.

If Muslims and Christians want to pray in schools, then by all means, during break times, lunch and other times allocated for extra curricular activites pray and worship to your hearts content.

But if I belive in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (http://www.venganza.org/) then I don't want my kid to grow up and have the words "under God" burned into their memory.

The public realm is exactly that. If you and I are to have reasonable discourse and get anywhere in terms of communal harmony, growth etc. we must agree that somethings can not be rationalized in logical terms (religion is one of the big ones).

We could spend our entire lives arguing over the existence of God (Jebus in this case) but there isn't enough evidence either way to make one of us the all-American winner. This argument is for the private realm, between people who enjoy theological discourse, or in colleges where students who have a choice and are actively seeking to understand other religions.

It has no place in public schools where kids are still learning their ABC's.

If you want to put "One nation, under God," then you must add on to the end of that statement: Flying Spaghetti Monster (which now has 16 million followers), The nothingness of nirvana, the yin and yang, Shiva, Vishnu, Gotma, etc. etc. etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top