[Vision2020] One Should Have Right To Object To 'Under God'

Tue Sep 12 20:14:42 PDT 2006

Ted,

  You wrote that it promotes,  "a specific form (t)hat form of religion as 'monotheism,' "

  So your whole argument is based on the prospect that there is not an  "s" on the end of the word "God"? Seems rather silly to me. 

  As far as I know, people that believe in One True God also believe  there are other gods. And obviously people that believe in multiple  Gods believe that one would be in charge of the welfare of the United  States, so it can be that God.

  "Either you take a firm stand on separation of church and state or you do not."

  That is an illogical statement called a  false dilemma, Ted.   I can  very well  understand the  difference between a  King that declares himself the head of the only Church in the Country  and a word being recited by choice in a pledge. I can understand that a  ruling by the Archbishop of the Boston Disease should not have the rule  of law in Boston. I can understand that difference, Ted. Can you?

  You cannot realistically completely separate the belief in God   from a culture based on it. It is not possible. Should we rip out the  Crosses, Stars of David, and statues of Buddha displayed in PUBLIC  cemeteries? Why not, it is using public space to promote a spiritual  belief?

 Should we not use public dollars to hire military  priests? Should we deny Priests the right to visit public hospitals for  last rites? Should we deny church services to be administered to those  living in publicly funded nursing homes that cannot leave? Even our  entire form of Government was based on the 12 tribes of the Iroquois's,  established by a religious leader. 

  "Apparently  you have not read the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision  that declared the words "under God" in the pledge to be  unconstitutional?"

 Well Ted, if we are not allowed to  include God in our government, then we must assume that such a decision  is not divinely guided, and therefore is a flawed decision, by its own  self admission. A circular argument if you will. 

  "I'm sure you've read this statement below, the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

    'Congress  shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' "

  And since nobody is forced to say the pledge their rights are not  abridged. If saying the pledge is a religious act, as you claim,  denying others the right to say it is "prohibiting the free exercise  thereof," is it not, Ted?

  Best,

  _DJA

Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:  Donovan et. al.

  Apparently  you have not read the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision  that declared the words "under God" in the pledge to be  unconstitutional?

  http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa062602a.htm

  "To  recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is  to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity,  indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism," the  court continued. "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is  identical ... to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a  nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no  god.'" 
  --------
  of religion," not a specific  religion, and I described tI wrote that the pledge promotes "a specific  form hat form of religion as "monotheism," as you can read below in my  previous post forwarded, referencing the wording of the court  decision.  Even if the pledge said "under Christ" this would not  necessarily be promoting a specific religion, given that there are  numerous religions who follow Christ, in one way or another, with  differing views of the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. differing  religions who follow Christ who vehemently disagree with each other's  basic principles. 

  I'm sure you've read this statement below, the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

  Congress  shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
---------

  Either  you take a firm stand on separation of church and state or you do  not.  Apparently you do not take a firm stand on separation of  church and state, because it appears you wish to promote monotheism via  the institutions of the state. 

  As long as we are clear that this is what you wish to promote...

  Ted Moffett

  On 9/12/06, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:    "The pledge does amount to state sponsored promotion of a specific form or religion." Ted Moffett.

Ted which specific religion does it promote?

I  do not understand why this is such a big deal. If you do not believe in  God so what. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or  little Leprechauns. But you don't see me out there smashing the fun and  whatever others get out of it, do you? Who cares, really, if there is  no God, it won't hurt to let others say His/Her/Its name? 

Second,  it isn't asking you to believe in God, or that you pledge allegiance to  a God, it isn't even saying saying that God is real. It is simply  making a statement that it is under God, real of fiction. Does Rudolph  pull Santa's slay, or are we going to argue that he doesn't because the  slay and the man he is pulling really doesn't exist? Regardless of your  belief in Santa, everybody knows that Rudolph has a shiny nose and  Santa asked him to guide his slay on Christmas Eve night. And everybody  knows that God is above all things, people, and nations, real of  imaginary. Apollo is the Sun God, I can say that, even though I  personally believe he doesn't exist. 

Do you agree with  everything else in the pledge? Do you believe that it is one nation? A  nation being one group of people with a shared culture, religion or  ethnic background? I should say that is also a false statement. What  about truth? Does the US ever lie? Is it always truthful, Ted? Another  false statement. How about, "Liberty and justice for all". Do you  believe that the US gives liberty and justice for all? Do you Ted? No,  so if we want to start ripping apart the pledge, and excluding  statements we feel are not true, we would not have a pledge anymore  would we? 

The pledge is simply meant as tool to pull us  together, instill pride and a commonality among all peoples in the  United States, regardless of who or what we claim to be. There is no  one statement, no one sentence, no words in which all peoples in this  country will agree. But we can all generally agree what this country is  suppose to be, or should be, a good nation that is dedicated to doing  what is right, together, as one for everyone.  

Best,

_DJA

Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com  > wrote:     Donovan et. al.

  http://www.aclunc.org/opinion/020903-pledge.html

  In  adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, Congress  intended to put religion in public school. As President Eisenhower said  in signing the law, from "this day forward, the millions of our  schoolchildren will daily proclaim, in every city and town, every  village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our  people to the Almighty." Since students were praying daily in many  public schools, the new Pledge language was not subject to an immediate  constitutional challenge. Courts had not yet recognized the rights of  minority faiths to be free of religious coercion in public schools. 
  --------------------------------
  I  recall in a 5th grade public school in North Carolina in 1961  starting every school day with the Lord's prayer... The pledge of  allegiance's "under God" phrase was then a minor issue!

  The  words "In God We Trust" on currency are not a pledge that I am  compelled to recite with my hand over my heart.  The pledge of  allegiance is, or was when I was in the public school system.  

  The  out for those who defend the pledge of allegiance with the words "under  God" continuing in public schools, despite the apparent state promotion  of specific religious beliefs (monotheism over the State), is that any  student can refuse to recite it without being officially compelled to  conform, or officially punished.  The student can legally opt out  of saying the pledge.  It is not "forced" on any student,  technically speaking.  

  The  pledge, to be more religiously broad, might read "under whatever God,  Gods, Goddesses or other forms of spiritual beings or powers, or the  lack of them, that prevail" to avoid state promotion of specific  forms of religious belief, but this is cumbersome and wordy for a  pledge.  And the reason the words "under God" were placed in the  pledge during the 1950s was not to be open minded about including  different religious beliefs, but to send a specific message to the  atheists of the godless Communist Soviet Union, and other communist  nations, that the USA was a nation under God, a specific sort of  God.  The words "under God" added to the pledge are thus a legacy  of cold war politics. 

  I find the  argument that the words "under God" are spiritually generic,  and can refer to all forms of spiritual belief, and thus are  not state endorsement of a specific religion, disingenuous.   I heard this exact argument from a federal lawyer working in the  federal court in Boise, a lawyer who knew the justices involved in the  9th US Circuit Court who ruled that the pledge's "under God"  was unconstitutional.  

  Given  the pressures young students face to be popular, accepted, to conform  to the dominant values of their peers and adult leaders, odds are many  students will recite the pledge anyway, even if they object, or don't  understand the meaning of the words they parrot.  

  The pledge does amount to state sponsored promotion of a specific form or religion.

  Ted Moffett

  =======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

---------------------------------
 All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060912/1f8375a9/attachment-0001.htm 