| Author |
Topic:
Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
|
GeistDesFritz
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
7/8/02 12:35pm
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
|
Ok...I didn't read the previous pages on this thread but just thought I'd stop by and spout my opinions:
This ruling, for all intents and purposes, is a sound ruling. From the ruling:
"In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The Court is saying that to recite the Pledge is not merely to describe the United States as a nation founded by people with deeply held religious beliefs; instead, it is to actually swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and – since 1954 – the reality of monotheism.”
However, the constitution clearly says that
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
When Congress passed the legislation in 1954 to put the words "under God" in the pledge, it was against what the constitution says. Thus, it's unconstitutional
Now, why I don't agree with the ruling: it's petty. There are many other and more important violations of the Constitution that actually are harming people. Saying "under God" or even hearing people say it harms no one. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But 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."
This ruling will only cause people to rally around the pledge and creates ill will.
The Ninth Court will probably, for all practical reasons, be unable to enforce it.
-----signature-----
Life. Don't talk to me about life.
--Marvin the paranoid android
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
7/8/02 12:58pm
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
- Date Edited:
7/8/02 1:18pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth_SnowDog
|
Jefferson's entire point was that it's not harmful to exclude religious reference all together... why fundamnentalists insist on the government babysitting our morals is beyond me.
If you assume, however, that the inclusion harms no one, you are mistaken. It harms me, and others who have stated it in here. Funny, I seem to recall some religious fundamentalists themselves who won't dare utter the word "god", or even type it, because they believe it's blasphemous... what about them? But it's not harming me because I can't bear to hear "god" being uttered... it has to do with the separation of church and state, and the fundamental reasons for that separation.
I don't care if they don't include "one nation under Brahman" or "one nation under many gods" or "one nation of many religions"...
The point is, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist, and yet I believe in the total exclusion of religion from the Pledge. Secondly, my most basic reason for this stance has not to do with my attitude towards the Pledge as it is... but the unconstitutionality of the law that changed it in the first place.
It's very dangerous to establish a precedent allowing for the arbitrary dismantling of rights, especially on the basis of violations of provisions of the US Constitution, no matter how insignificant those rights may seem at the time (remember, the majority of Americans don't seem to be concerned that Muslim US Citizens are being held without due process... but if you tell Americans that the FBI wants to read their email, listen to their phone conversations and keep tabs on what library books they check out... they're aghast at the violation of our freedoms...).
So I guess what the fundamentalists seem to be saying, in the pattern I've seen across various discussions so far... ranging from Creationism in schools, to the Ten Commandments, to invasion of privacy, to the Pledge of Allegiance, to Flag burning... is that it's ok to violate someone's rights as long as it's not them.
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GeistDesFritz
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
7/8/02 1:29pm
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
- Date Edited:
7/8/02 1:34pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
GeistDesFritz
|
I too am an agnostic, but I fail to see how the words "under God" harm you. No one has ever forced someone to say "under God"; it was merely added. Now, however, if you do say "under God," you could be punished. People could now be forced not to say it...which is another law prohibiting the free excercise of religion and a violation of their rights.
Funny, I seem to recall some religious fundamentalists themselves who won't dare utter the word "god", or even type it, because they believe it's blasphemous... what about them?
They simply believe that the word god is too sacred to be spoken or written casually. If the word God is written down, one should take much care to make sure that it is never erased, crummpled or mistreated.
it has to do with the separation of church and state
The thing is, it never once says anything in the constitution about the separation of church and state all it says is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
If someone wants to say this country is under god, let them. If someone doesn't want to say it, let them not say it. Moving along:
the majority of Americans don't seem to be concerned that Muslim US Citizens are being held without due process
This American is very concerned about that, and is just another example of how petty this ruling is. Why should we be so concerned about two words when people are having their rights suspended?
My main point was simply that while I agree with the ruling, it simply was not worth all the trouble. The addition of "under God" in 1954 is of little importance compared to violation of privacy, such as mandatory drug tests.
We need to distinguish between peripheral and central violations of the constitution.
-----signature-----
Life. Don't talk to me about life.
--Marvin the paranoid android
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darkside_Spirit
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
7/8/02 2:30pm
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
|
My main point was simply that while I agree with the ruling, it simply was not worth all the trouble. The addition of "under God" in 1954 is of little importance compared to violation of privacy, such as mandatory drug tests.
We need to distinguish between peripheral and central violations of the constitution.
The function of the courts is to fairly decide the cases that come before them. The executive and legislative branches tackle issues in order of priority; the courts decide cases as and when they come. If Judge Goodwin had said, "well, Newdow is right, but there are more important issues so we'll rule against him anyway", that would have discarded the principle of consistent justice. The furore this has attracted is the responsibility of the media, not the court.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
7/8/02 6:46pm
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
- Date Edited:
7/8/02 6:54pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth_SnowDog
|
The thing is, it never once says anything in the constitution about the separation of church and state all it says is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The words in quotes are precisely what it says, but the courts were established to further interpret the meaning of these laws, and they were established as a system of checks and balances with the consent of the people. Your quotation above is word for word why the 1954 law is unconstitutional... Congress established it, it concerns religion (is "god" not a religious construct?)... therefore it is, by definition of the aforementioned Establishment Clause, unconstitutional.
You want to say "under god" on your own time and of your own will, be my guest. You want to teach your kids to say "god", be my guest. I will defend your right to believe whatever you want to believe.
However, that has nothing to do with the 1954 law that was enacted... as it in and of itself is unconstitutional and should never have existed.
It does affect me... How can you say it doesn't affect me when you are not me. Are you accusing me of lying? It may not affect you, but it affects me... and who are you to say otherwise? Who am I to say what affects you and doesn't affect you? I have made no claims that it affects you personally... but I have stated it may affect some atheists, Buddhists, Taoists, Animists, etc.
Once again, though... this has nothing to do with its effect on me... it is about its effect on the principles upon which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were established, and ratified by a majority consensus. There are two references to religion in our supreme law of the land... and both are expressly exclusionary.
No exclusions or exceptions should be initiated with regard to our most basic freedoms and rights... and the right to exclude religion from state (and, inherently, politics) is at the very top of the list for a reason. It was religious influence upon government and taxation without representation which, respectively, drove our forefathers to these shores, and to the establishment of a new nation.
By the way, many times people have brought up the Declaration of Independence for its subjective references to god (which were not carried over into Constitutional law, mind you), but they never show you the words which immediately follow that reference. Here's why:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
TreeCave
Registered:
Jul '01
|
Date Posted:
7/8/02 8:28pm
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
|
Am I missing something? Is there some reason we want to alienate people who aren't monotheists from loving America? That's what you're doing by making it awkward for them to say the Pledge. After a while, I start to feel like, "Hmm, if I have to make more effort than other Americans to be patriotic just because I'm true to myself instead of pretending to conform to the majority, maybe I don't like America."
Don't you want to encourage patriotism?
I think not. I think religious zealots WANT people like us out of the US. Not because our beliefs offend them, not because we're bad for the country.... but because they're not very sure of their OWN beliefs and open-mindedness scares the willies out of them.
This is NOT directed at any of you - I'm giving all of you more credit than that. But I've encountered way to many people who are scared of my beliefs to ignore the factor. I'm not scared of, say, a Muslim's beliefs - I've studied Islam and know it has little to interest me. They're afraid if they're too exposed to my thinking, they'll realize my beliefs are just as compelling as their own, and become confused. This is why we need to teach critical thinking from kindergarten on.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
7/9/02 7:38am
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
|
TreeCave: Excellent points. We do need to focus on teaching kids how to think. Giving one a fish instead of teaching one to fish either leaves them starving or hopelessly dependent on the giver.
Hmm... I think I'm on to something there.
"Altruism? Never heard of the man."
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
chibiangi
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
7/9/02 11:09am
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
|
Darth_snowdog:
Thank you SO much for the intelligent post! You summarized my points and feelings on this issue exactly.
However, that has nothing to do with the 1954 law that was enacted... as it in and of itself is unconstitutional and should never have existed.
Agreed 100%. I really do not see the big deal here. We go back to saying "indivisible" as in the original Pledge. That is the Pledge I grew up saying, and quite frankly, I think it's much more appropriate in the pledge than "under god". "Indivisible" implies that we are a Nation of One [People]; One that cannot be broken, divided, and destroyed. Quite frankly, the people who are up in arms about this are religious types who have an agenda.
Secondly, I am an atheist who is also a patriot. I love my country, but if we are indeed a nation "under god", the implication is that those of us who do not believe in god or a Judeo-Christian god cannot be patriots. This unfortunate implication was expressed by none other than George Bush Sr. and it saddens and sickens me that people actually think this way.
From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
George H.W. Bush, as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
PS. I've posted these points on another forum here as well. Sorry for the repeat.
-----signature-----
Talk nerdy to me.
mujaki na kao de boku ni hohoemu
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
chibiangi
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
7/9/02 11:11am
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
|
Right On tree-cave!
100% Agreed.
-----signature-----
Talk nerdy to me.
mujaki na kao de boku ni hohoemu
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
7/9/02 11:31am
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
|
George H.W. Bush, as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
He said that? America elected this un-American bigot?
Why am I even surprised by this... The fact that Bush is a bigot is nothing new. Look at how he's buried the Enron scandal amid a flurry of promises to jail every corrupt CEO that doesn't work for one of his campaign's largest financial contributors.
If I weren't convinced already many times over that Bush is an idiot, that quote certainly sealed the deal.
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
chibiangi
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
7/9/02 11:46am
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
|
|
In all fairness, it was the Senior Bush, but IMNSHO, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
-----signature-----
Talk nerdy to me.
mujaki na kao de boku ni hohoemu
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
7/9/02 11:55am
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
- Date Edited:
7/9/02 12:02pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth_SnowDog
|
Well, I realized that it was Bush Sr., but it didn't change my answer.
EDIT: I can't believe we elected the Senior or Junior Bigot... I mean Bush... to the oval office... but who am I kidding, this is America. We are a nation of hypocrites who accept violations of rights and of the Constitution, as long as they affect everyone else and not us.
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jenavira
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
7/9/02 11:56am
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
|
Oh that's okay. George Jr. said that Wicca isn't a religion.
"I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision."
-- George W. Bush to ABCNEWS, June, 1999
Jenavira
-----signature-----
"When I'm old, I don't want them to say of me, 'She's so charming.' I want them to say, 'Be careful, I think she's armed.'"
-G. Stoddart
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
CmdrMitthrawnuruodo
Registered:
Jul '00
|
Date Posted:
7/9/02 3:16pm
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
|
I don't know if this has been said or not and I dont feel like going through 400 posts to find out.
But here is my two cents.
"One Nation, Under God" does not specifically point to one religion. It points to all religions. If it was meant to point to a single religion then it would say something like "One Nation, Under Jehovah" or "One Nation, Under Allah" and so forth.
Here is a quote from an article on the subject in Newsweek that I'm really peeved about: "[Michael] Newdow wants to surgically separate religious faith from government. 'I'm as patriotic as you can get,' he said."
Idiot. To do that then we'd all have to elect and hire and recruit nothing but atheists. And I don't think you want that because they will attempt to get rid of religion as a whole. One more step to either communisim or complete government control.
And does he even know what patriosim means?
This guy is a hypocrit.
-----signature-----
"Dyin' be the day worth livin' for!" --Captain Hector Barbossa PotC: Amuletum Angiti http://www.fanfiction.net/s/3635826/1/ http://s12.gladiatus.com/game/c.php?uid=48046
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master-Jedi-Smith
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
7/9/02 3:44pm
Subject:
RE: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
- Date Edited:
7/9/02 3:46pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Master-Jedi-Smith
|
I didn't know that all atheists wanted to get rid of religion as a whole.
Elect me, I promise not to do such a thing, but I would also promise not to have religion in our government institutions.
Worship whatever you need to worship, but just don't let it go into the government arena.
And just a side not, that "under God" not refering to just one God has been covered, and debated over and over again. Much like everthing you see on each page. 
Latre!
-----signature-----
"The majority in a democracy has no more the right to tyrannize
over the minority than, under a different system, the latter would
to oppress the former."
------T.R.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
