[Jason Vines]

Unfortunately, as a result of the forums upgrade, the posts in reply to this thread were lost. But, I do have an incomplete backup that has the posts in it. Because the backup is incomplete, I can't restore the posts automatically, but I can copy and paste from the backup onto the forums.

I am doing that in this thread because the discussion was quite interesting, IMO.

So... Here's the first reply:

Yoda said:

The pledge of allegiance is a patriotic exercise not a affirmation similar to a prayer. Michael Newdow should get a life. Why should everybody do what Michael Newdow wants. I want to jump in a lake so I think everybody should.

[Jason Vines]

The next one:

Jason Vines said:

That would be true, if the Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the words "under God." It does, though. Through compelling students to recite it, schools attempt to teach students subservience to God. Dwight D. Eisenhower himself said so, as I indicated in my screed. Michael Newdow is a proxy for millions of people. Atheists--people who don't believe in a god--number from 8 to 30 million people in this country, depending on the source. People with religion, but one that's not monotheistic, are also a significant force. As you can see, presenting Newdow as a lone troublemaker is nothing more than a smear tactic of the right. He represents a large and growing segment of American society. But, if that weren't true, it would still be irrelevant. Government endorsement of religion, through "under God" in the official Pledge of Allegiance, would still be unconstitutional for violation of the First Amendment. Next: Onward:

Yoda, on Sep 14 2005, 09:54 PM, said:

The kids don't have to recite the pledge of allegiance if they don't want to. Nobody is forcing them. So whats the big deal.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are being forced. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance is required of students.

Even if it weren't forced in name, it would be compelled in fact. Any kid not reciting the Pledge with the rest would immediately become "different," and we all know how kids who are "different" are treated. They would be ostracized as traitors and/or atheists. So children would say the Pledge to avoid that stigma.

And even if that weren't true, "under God" in the Pledge would still constitute illegal government support of religion. I think government defiance of the Constitution is a big deal, all by itself.

Unfortunately, the rest of the replies were lost.

[Yoda]

Atheists will unadmittedly benifit from living in a country under God.

[Jason Vines]

Yoda, on Oct 10 2005, 10:01 PM, said:

Atheists will unadmittedly benifit from living in a country under God.

How do atheists benefit from being forced to kowtow to a god in whom they don't believe? How do they benefit from being shut out of government (no one who renounces the Judeo-Christian God can hope to win election)? How do they benefit from having to follow Christian rules about sex and marriage?

The answer each time is, they don't. It only serves the purposes of the more fanatical Christians who can't stand the thought of religious pluralism in this country, who aren't content to let others live their own way.

[Yoda]

It's people like Michael Newdow who are trying to change things. Just because you don't like something don't mean you have to try to change things for everybody. I don't like a lot of things but I don't try to change things for everybody to do things my way.

[Jason Vines]

Yoda, on Oct 11 2005, 04:15 PM, said:

It's people like Michael Newdow who are trying to change things.

Indeed. So what? Change is often good. It's what prevents stagnation in society. It's what killed Jim Crow and ended the Democratic stranglehold on government.

Granted, impetuous change without consideration of its consequences can be unwise. But what Michael Newdow is striving for--serious government recognition of the First Amendment--would be a measured advancement in the quintessential American causes of tolerance and liberty. If Newdow and others like him should succeed, and should Christians ever become a religious minority in this country, they would become glad of Newdow's efforts on behalf of people outside the religious majority.

Yoda said:

Just because you don't like something don't mean you have to try to change things for everybody. I don't like a lot of things but I don't try to change things for everybody to do things my way.

The 1954 law making schoolchildren declare themselves to be under God is what changed things for everybody and made them do things the Christians' way.

[ren]

The pledge of allegience is not uncostitutional. Just because the statement "...under god..." is said doesn't mean its favoring one religion over another per say. Think about it when the pledge was construed in 1892. Now at that time the majority of people living in the US were mostly of christian-judeo faith. Even if there were muslims living here at that time "under god" still refers to their beliefs. The fact that now in the 21st century we have a abundunt amount of atheists doesn't mean we drop the tradition of the pledge of allegiance. It might need a little revision but it should not be deemed unconstitutional. And if such a comprimise was considered I doubt Newdow would consider it. Comprimise in this country between two political groups is like pulling teeth without novacaine.

[Jason Vines]

ren said:

Think about it when the pledge was construed in 1892.

Note, though, "under God" didn't appear in the Pledge until 1954, as part of a bill explicitly intended to impress Christianity upon schoolchildren.

Quote

The fact that now in the 21st century we have a abundunt amount of atheists doesn't mean we drop the tradition of the pledge of allegiance. It might need a little revision but it should not be deemed unconstitutional.

I agree, declaring the whole Pledge unconstitutional goes overboard. Only the 1954 "under God" law requires overturning.

Quote

And if such a comprimise was considered I doubt Newdow would consider it.

Actually, the first time this issue went through the courts, the Ninth Circuit only struck down "under God," and Michael Newdow was quite satisfied with that result.

[Yoda]

With the recent ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance and the court case on 'intelligent design' we are once again witness to the judicial oligarchy that Thomas Jefferson warned about. Let us take time to remind our judges that they are to interpret the law, not create it. Before long, the Supreme Court will rule that Christians cannot hold government offices because of separation of church and state. Already they've sandblasted our Judeo-Christian heritage. If these liberal judges think they know what's best for this country, then drop that gravel and run for president. If not, they should do their job, or go back to law school. Hopefully, Bush's court nominees will interpret the Constitution as constructionist. Only these types of nominees will put the Supreme Court back in it's place.

[Jason Vines]

Yoda, on Oct 25 2005, 02:16 PM, said:

With the recent ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance and the court case on 'intelligent design' we are once again witness to the judicial oligarchy that Thomas Jefferson warned about. Let us take time to remind our judges that they are to interpret the law, not create it. Before long, the Supreme Court will rule that Christians cannot hold government offices because of separation of church and state. Already they've sandblasted our Judeo-Christian heritage. If these liberal judges think they know what's best for this country, then drop that gravel and run for president. If not, they should do their job, or go back to law school. Hopefully, Bush's court nominees will interpret the Constitution as constructionist. Only these types of nominees will put the Supreme Court back in it's place.

First of all, our heritage isn't as Judeo-Christian as you believe. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists. They, and even the Founders who were Christian, did not want a country with an official religion. Remember, Britain possessed such a religion, in the form of a state church, and the Founders wanted to get away from that.

Consider these pronouncements from the Founding Fathers:

"The legislative powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson

"[We Christians] assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us." -James Madison

"[State support of religion is] a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself; for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them." -James Madison

(From Faiths of Our Fathers.)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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." -Thomas Jefferson

(From Thomas Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter.)

You invoke the name of Thomas Jefferson, but he was the very man who so eloquently articulated separation of church and state! You raise the spirit of the Founding Fathers, yet James Madison, one of the chief architects of our Constitution, thought government support of religion a debasement of Christianity.

About the events of today, you are just as mistaken as you are about our foundations. The First Amendment of our Constitution forbids government from supporting any religion or infringing exercise of it. In the judiciary's modern rulings, it has made government obey that rule instead of ignoring it. I don't know about anyone else, but I rejoice when the government follows our Constitution. The government should do it more often.

As for the notion Christians might ever be unable to hold government office, that's demagoguery from the right. So long as Christians comprise the majority of people in this country and dominate all three branches of government, and so long as the First Amendment has force, no Christian will never have to worry about that. That is, unless you think Christians are conspiring against other Christians to stamp out Christianity.

[Rorschach]

"Ruled unconstitutional"? It's about time! In fifth grade I was sent to the office and threatened with a paddling because it was my turn to lead the pledge and I was extremely shy and just couldn't do it (anxiety of speaking before an audience). They felt I was simply not taking it seriously and needed an ass whooping to appease our American God.

All this in a school where I had to regularly correct the spelling of my fourth grade home room teacher (she had it out for me after that) as well as was forced to participate in morning prayers in the class room next door.

This post has been edited by Rorschach: 26 October 2005 - 04:00 AM