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

Fri Sep 15 08:25:03 PDT 2006

Ted,

 There is nothing unconstitutional about the state  promoting religion. The state can promote religion all it wants. It is  forbidden from establishing a religion, like King James did in England.  Western Kings and other monarchies demanded that people worship a  particular God or face a government punishment.  That is what the  founding fathers were talking about. The writers of the same  Constitution, the one you keep bringing up, publicly funded and handed  out Bibles. They heavily promoted religion. 

  Atheism is not a religion. It might be a spiritual belief, but it is not a religion.   

  Allowing people to freely say the Pledge of Allegiance, or not, is not  violating free speech, or establishing a religion. People are not hung,  fined, burned, jailed, excluded, or punished in anyway for not saying  the Pledge. The law does not force ANYONE to say the pledge. So it is  not State Establishment of a Religion anymore then printing of school  textbooks in English is an establishment of a Language. Which we don't  have either. 

 You are right it is offensive to Atheist. But  you know what, it is also offensive to non-atheists to take it out. So  you going to offend, 95% of the population, or 5% of the population?

  Atheist have to deal with the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Leprechauns,  and the Tooth Fairy. They can deal with another character they consider  fictitious. 

 As for harassment from their peers for not  saying the pledge, or parts of it, the law ought to just come down on  all bullying.  Anyone can stand, say the  pledge, and pause  during the second the words "under God" are stated. Nobody would  notice. 

 This is just silly. There is so many other more  important issues and violations of human rights out there. Truly, what  next, the elimination of Ground Hog Day because the idea that a ground  hog can mythical predict the weather is a violation of my religious  believes?

 Is catching a leprechaun for a pot of Gold a  violation of my spiritual beliefs because a Rainbow was put their as  God's Promise to the World he would never flood the world again?

  Some people need to get a better perspective on life then to be offended about such mundane irrelevant things. 

  Best,

  _DJA

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

  Answers to some of your comments included below:

  On 9/12/06, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
      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. 

  You  know that putting an "s" on "God" just changes the religious  perspective being promoted by an institution of the State.   The pledge would have to be worded to include all religions (and no  religion) to not be promotion of some religious beliefs to the  exclusion of others, or other points of view. 

    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? 

  We  can disagree on what a firm stand on separation of church and State  is.  I think having the State by law word a pledge for all  students in public schools (or almost all) to recite, that  promotes one religious perspective, leaving others out, is not taking a  firm stand. 

    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. 

  We  can assume that crosses, stars of david, and buddhas are placed in  cemeteries based on the preferences of the dead.  No one is  coerced in these cases.  And military priests and priests in  public hospitals are there to serve those of that faith.  Indeed,  "free exercise."  However, their work should not include coercing  those of differing religious viewpoints take a pledge to serve another  religious orientation. 

    "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? 

  You are  wrong.  Those who have a differing religious orientation than what  the pledge states are having their rights violated because the State,  in mandating by law the wording of the pledge to promote one  religious orientation over another, is making a "law respecting an  establishment of religion," which is unconstitutional.  In effect,  the State is saying it is going to promote a certain religious  perspective, and not include others, in a pledge that is worded a  certain way by law, meant to be recited by all (or almost all) in State  institutions devoted to forming the minds of youth. 

  The  pressures on children, who generally are expected to obey their  teachers and adult leaders, to recite the pledge with everyone else,  are so great, that the wording of the pledge amounts to State coercion  to comply with a specific religious perspective, excluding other  perspectives, despite the technicality that the student can  refuse.  Why should those of differing religious perspectives have  to remain silent or leave the room during the pledge?  Why not  allow the pledge sometimes to be worded to include other religious  perspectives, sometimes worded "one nation under Allah, or Buddha, or  the Goddess," for students who more follow these religious  orientations?  The fact these alternatives are not allowed in the  reciting of the pledge speaks volumes.  By allowing the pledge to  be the "free exercise" of a certain religious perspective via a  State sanctioned wording and recitation in public schools, other  religious perspectives are being denied their "free
 exercise" in  this State sanctioned recitation, unless the pledge  allows the wording to include "under Allah, or Buddha, or the Goddess,  etc."  

  No one is blocked from  private prayer in public school.  I think all major religions and  any religion of any student in a public school should be studied in  depth in the school, academically, but not from the point of view of  taking pledges that state the State sanctions one religious  perspective leaving others out. 
------

  Ted Moffett

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.   

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060915/04bd498c/attachment-0001.htm 