In God we trust debate AGAIN!

DarthFierce, you said: The 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law endorsing religion, which a belief in God does not do.

Of course it does. Not everyone believes in God, as it is stated in the POA. What is God, if not a religious icon???? Reciting the phrase "Under God" insinuates that this nation is governed by this religious deity.

If saying "One nation under God" does not endorse a religion or "God", then why have it added to the POA in the first place?

In answer to your other statements and/or questions, please refer to the "Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional" thread, as I have already commented on those issues there.

 

"On a personal note, my best friend's wife is a 2nd grade teacher. She told me that they have been advised by the School Board not to lead the kids in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, something that she outright hates--in fact, I think hate is too light a word for her feelings on this subject (Piggy, you'd like her ). She has sent a note out to her kid's parents asking permission to continue to recite the Pledge--in it's current format--despite this mandate."

You see she shares my same philosophy. People like her and I see the complete and utter BS in all of this and that is exactly what it is. Because of a few the majority can't do something now. Why in the hell should something end which has become a tradition for over 48 years just because somebody now wants to rule it unconstitutional when it's not hurting anyone to begin with and it's voluntary. Therefore it's not violating anyones rights since it's not mandatory. She is doing the right thing by asking the parents, because it should be their decision if their kids say it or not along with the childs decision.


Yeah I do like her Cheveyo and she is 100% right.

 

"Because of a few the majority can't do something now."

Not true. No one is stopping you from saying 'under God' all you want. It just can't be a part of government.

 

Just an idea:

Congress, seeing that the 1954 addition of "Under God" has stood for 48 years, will now go ahead and make some changes in 2002.

Does that interest you? Would you like to know what the changes are gonna be? Are you at all worried that the indivisibility of our nation may be legislated into a divided religious nation?

Maybe an addition of a benign deity to the first verse of the National Anthem? Maybe a mention of Christ in our oaths? Maybe a "voluntary" pledge of allegiance every morning for every citizen? How about a mention that this is a Christian nation on our currency? I could imagine a lot more, but I won't make this any more hypothetical than needed to make a point.

If the changes of 2002 stand for five years before ever being heard by the Supreme Court, will people be saying "they stood for so long, why change them now?"

 

For those who think there must be harm for the case to exist...

From the actual decision: "The mere enactment of the 1954 Act in its particular context constitutes a religious recitation policy that interferes with Newdow?s right to direct the religious education of his daughter. Accordingly, we hold that Newdow has standing to challenge the 1954 Act."

 

The words "In God We Trust" are not necessary for any reason when used in any relation to the government. When government and state join together havoc wreaks. If you don't believe me, look at the middle ages in Europe.

Those words were added into the pledge for the sole reason-- to make us seem better than every body else.

I've heard people bitch about how you should leave it in because this nation was founded on the basis of religon. But the pledge never included the disputed words until 1954.

The words to deserve to be there, they dispute the integrity of this nation, and changes should be made to strip them from money and the pledge.

 

Piggy, do you have a logical reason why the courts should leave it in? All I've heard from you so far is how saying "Under God" doesn't bother you, therefor it doesn't bother the rest of the nation.

After reading the actual excerpt from the court's decision (as opposed to everyone's twisted versions of it) the ruling makes sense, and I see how it will go forward without a hitch. Basically, I interpret the above quote to say that regardless of his daughter's religious affiliations and desires, the mere existence of those words issued by the GOVERNMENT thwart his attempts to offer guidance to his child.

So, unless you change your argument (again) to reflect now that an athiest father should not be offering guidance to a decent Christian child (a very conceited and profoundly inflammatory stand to take, even for you, Piggy), then I don't see where your argument holds water. Especially since you claim no one is being hurt by it. It could be construed that Newdow's ability to parent his daughter is being hindered by this.

And why should we keep the phrase just because it's tradition? It used to be tradition to not work on Sunday. Things change. Humans adapt. This won't spell the end of your religion.

 

I believe Pigfeet doesn't like change.

Especially when it is about something as trivial as this issue, and it isn't "hurting" anyone or "violating" anyone's rights, and since the majority like it in the POA & on the money, it should be left in the POA & on the money. And we should concentrate on other more important issues.

Is that about right DP?

Latre!

 

Why does it bother people to take it out? Give me reasons why we should leave it in there compared to reasons why we should take it out, and where do you come out?

So far all I have heard it stuff like "why bother to take it out" or "This nation was founded on the basis of the goodnes of God-blah blah blah" which is all BS.

 

I had one interesting thought on the subject.

Perhaps we should remove WE from the equation? In God some trust...how's that.

while "we" are at it, let's remove the WE from documents that no longer represent everyone's view, all of them.

"WE hold these views to be self evident, that all men are created equal" change that, definitely change that!!!

We wee wee wee , the new politically incorrect word, now that's the ticket!

Yada says : to we is to be...
to not is to be a snot
to we, or not to we... that is the question.

 

When Jefferson was asked his interpretation of the Establishment Clause he said something to the effect of "a wall of separation between church and state".

So taking God out of national mottos and rejecting any form of legislation which involves a mandatory/voluntary-silent-refusal recitation of a pledge was the intent of the Establishment Clause.

The term "Wall" is very definitive, it does not lend itself to any misinterpretation.

I have not seen any constitutional reason, or interpretation by a Founding Father, that the word "we" might need to be removed.

 

"I believe Pigfeet doesn't like change.

Especially when it is about something as trivial as this issue, and it isn't "hurting" anyone or "violating" anyone's rights, and since the majority like it in the POA & on the money, it should be left in the POA & on the money. And we should concentrate on other more important issues.

Is that about right DP?

Latre!"

Alright where did you put the mind reading device on me?

That just about sums up my view on this issue. People are acting like this is some great act oppresion and people's lives are in danger when it's not. It's a few people wanting to stir the hornets nest to get attention nothing more, and now they have the attention of millions of hornets who don't like the idea and now they are going to get stung.

You can compare this issue to slavery or womens rights all you want but the comparison doesn't work. People are not being kept in bondage or being treated as second class citizens here folks. It's a few peoples interpretation of the constitution compared to millions of people who see it another way or simply don't care either way.

My position holds plenty of water. It's called stop complaining and just leave it be. It's not hurting anyone, and unless you can prove that it is hurting someone then your opinion and that courts opinion is no better than mine. I'm not saying mine is superiour but this whole debate is POINTLESS!!! So what if the government back in 1954 put those words in. So what if back in 1936 that the words "In God we trust" was put on our money. Nobody complained then and the majority of Americans still don't mind or care if it's in there so leave it be.

 

:::Now I must work on a mind altering device to change Pigfeet's mind! :::



Latre!

 

The Supreme Court has in recent years poked holes in the "Wall of Seperation."

I just don't feel like ranting on this right now, because I know I can't change stupid people's minds.

 

":::Now I must work on a mind altering device to change Pigfeet's mind! :::"

Good luck. You will learn and others have learned the hard way with me is that once I've made my mind up about something I will not change it no matter what. That goes for everything. From people to going to certain places. First impressions are a big thing with me for some reason. So that is why I'm always saying that these small few are whining and complaining because that is the way I see it. My visual image which comes to mind is a nagging loud screaming child.

 

...once I've made my mind up about something I will not change it no matter what.

That explains a great many things about your personal philosophies and traits, Piggy.

My visual image which comes to mind is a nagging loud screaming child.

I take it you're not a parent. At least I hope not. Nagging, loud, screaming children often have cause for their discord (even if it's only poor parenting).

As to the question "Why" make such changes when there are much larger issues in the world: Every thing in life that changes does so most peacefully when done in baby steps. This is a baby step. It is a Wrong that now has the opportunity to be Righted, regardless of how insignificant "righteous" people may think it is.

And you still haven't given me/us a valid, logical, NON-emotional reason to keep the name God in the POA, and in government in general. I want a reason, not rhetoric. If that is all you have to say, then your side of the debate is finished. You're only repeating feelings.

 

Okay here is a valid reason for you which I know your not going to like but here it goes because it is fact.

American was founded as a Christian nation. The majority of the population here in America practice a form of Christanity.

The only logical reason I can give you for "In God We Trust" not being added until 1935 is because of the way money was dealt with during the 19th century when you had different currencies flowing around the country. It wasn't until in the mid 1800's or after the Civil War that standard money was around. People in America did like money or banks. For further research on this topic read about Andrew Jackson. However pictures and emblams have come and gone throughout our currency and in 1936 "In God we Trust" was added. To me the reason it was put in was first the majority of people in America were Christan. Second we were in the depression and what better way to show faith in our banking and money system then to put those words in.

So I hope this is a better argument for you but I know you will some how twist American History and say this country was founded by some other group and not Christians. But everything I've said here is fact. From the currency changing over and over until 1936 when it became and stayed what it is today with the exception of the change in 1996 nobody has kicked up a fuss until now. WHY?????? Why is it SUCH A BIG deal????? That is what gets me very upset when people want to change petty things which have been around for as long as it had and hasn't hurt a soul.


Oh and that is exactly the visual image I see when people complain about this stuff. Actually it's more of a stuck up whiny brat is what I see. I used the words screaming because that is basically what I think of people who complain. They might as well be a screaming child in my ear. I don't want to hear it. People who complain about little things are like nats who buzz around your ear and eventually you smack them and get rid of them.

 

I used the words screaming because that is basically what I think of people who complain.

But... Isn't that what YOU are doing? Complaining? You say that you cannot understand why people want to change the "petty things" like this. If you truly were apathetic to the subject, you would care little for what happens; however, you maintain a very distinct position against Church/State separation. Why is this?

People who complain about little things are like nats who buzz around your ear and eventually you smack them and get rid of them.

Be mindful of your choice in words, Piggy. Some may easily misconstrue that as a threat.

As for your "valid reasons", both arguments have already been taken a part either here or in previous threads. They just don't make sense.

American was founded as a Christian nation.

Where is it EVER said, written, or otherwise documented that the United States of America is a "Christian Nation"? PPOR. Because the founders of this country belonged to any set religion (if any) has nothing to do with what is written as the founding Belief. I challenge you to show me where they wrote down that this is/was "One Nation Under God".

The majority of the population here in America practice a form of Christanity.

Where does it say that this country forces and/or endorses the religion of the majority? The POA says, "...With liberty and justice FOR ALL", not "...With liberty and justice for the majority."

 

"But... Isn't that what YOU are doing? Complaining? You say that you cannot understand why people want to change the "petty things" like this. If you truly were apathetic to the subject, you would care little for what happens; however, you maintain a very distinct position against Church/State separation. Why is this?"

I'm not complaining. I'm commenting nothing more. I'm very much for separation of Church and State. The last thing we need is the Pat Robertsons of the world running things. I'm Christian but I'm not some radical throw the Bible against the wall and say "I have Exorcised the Demons in that wall" kind of Christian.

All I want to point out is this. 66 years since the words "In God we Trust" as been on our money. During that 66 years did that stop any Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc from using it?????????? None because money is nothing more than a freaking bank note which is meant to buy (consume) to sustain thy life with food, water, sex, entertainment. That is it. In those 66 years how many people have had trouble sleeping at night because they said "You know what those words might be in violation of our Constitutional rights??? A couple including you apparently. Basically in those 66 years did anyone scream bloody murder our money says "In God we Trust"????? I think not, but for some reason in this so called Politically Correct days were being subjected too it's wrong to say "God Bless America" and now it's wrong to say "In God we Trust" or "Under God" because of a few get their feelings hurt. Well if they have issues then here is a tissue, because why should the few decide for the rest of everyone else what will and will not be on our currency?


"Be mindful of your choice in words, Piggy. Some may easily misconstrue that as a threat."

Okay you and everyone step away from the computer and go to your medication cabinet and take the chill pill. If they consider that a threat then the joke is on them. But in reality how do you deal with a nat???? You try to get rid of it. I'm being truthful nothing more.

"As for your "valid reasons", both arguments have already been taken a part either here or in previous threads. They just don't make sense."

Yeah they have been taken apart by people who need to go back to 6th grade and re-take American History which they must have failed. Any Historian would tell you without a shadow of a doubt that this country was founded by Christians, and has been the majority in this country. It's a FACT!!!

"Where is it EVER said, written, or otherwise documented that the United States of America is a "Christian Nation"? PPOR. Because the founders of this country belonged to any set religion (if any) has nothing to do with what is written as the founding Belief. I challenge you to show me where they wrote down that this is/was "One Nation Under God"."

Thomas Paine-Born and raised Quaker, but converted to Deist.

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc all born and raised Christian. What they became later in life were mainly Deist but if you bothered to read the Declaration of Independence you could see the Christian influence or just plainly religious sermon in that document, and the Constitution.

Declaration of Independenc.

When in the Course of Human Events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

mmmmmmm talking about God here in the first paragraph of the Dec of Independence.mmmmmmmm

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness.

mmmmmmm I guess without the creator your rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is non existent mmmmmmmmm

 

Just a few "observations" regarding your highly detailed answer:

Thomas Paine-Born and raised Quaker, but converted to Deist.
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc all born and raised Christian.

As I said above (perhaps anticipating this line of thought), because these people may have believed in one religion or another does not mean that the country was founded as a Christian Nation. That statement is erroneous.

talking about God here in the first paragraph of the Dec of Independence.

Might I remind you that the Declaration of Independence is exactly that. While a significant document in US history, it is not a Law-making or policy-making document. It was written, if I remember correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) to the King of England, and England as a whole, who did live as a Christian government.

I guess without the creator your rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is non existent.

Actually, I have no problem with the term, "the creator". My religions can be incorporated into that term. In fact, my own heritage uses the term Creation or the Creator often. It crosses theological boundaries far more than does "God".

"Blessings" maybe this word should be taken out

Don't you think this is just a little reactionary? My wife's father said to me, "You have my blessing." I didn't take that to have any religious connotation.

"Year of our lord" maybe this phrase should be taken out now as well

Knowing history as you say you do, you should know that this term was said and written as often as is "A.D." now. It is a way identifying the era.

None of these examples illustrate to me that this nation is a "Christian-based" nation.


And if you look at it from a mathmatical point of view.

We're talking about the rights of United States citizens, not math. The "majority" of the population engages in pre-marital sex. Does that mean that this should be the government-endorsed policy for the nation?

 

just so you'll know, my "take we out" theory was entirely tougue in cheek.

 

So was my answer, and then Coolguy called me stupid and I cried all night.

 

"Might I remind you that the Declaration of Independence is exactly that. While a significant document in US history, it is not a Law-making or policy-making document. It was written, if I remember correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) to the King of England, and England as a whole, who did live as a Christian government"


Your correct it was letter to the King, but my point was this and this was to PROOVE to all of you who still have some demented notion about our history that this country wasn't founded by Christians when it was. So right there this gives a clear reason why if this nation was to put something on it's money or on it's pledge it can, because most of the people who founded this country and who live in it today are Christian. Oh and without this historic document you and I might not be having this conversation right now.

"Actually, I have no problem with the term, "the creator". My religions can be incorporated into that term. In fact, my own heritage uses the term Creation or the Creator often. It crosses theological boundaries far more than does "God". "

You and I know exactly what "Creator" they were talking about. It was the Christian God. That is fact and until you can proove it wrong it's the Christian God. Simple as that. It's fact and wheather you like it or not is irrelavent. So unless you can proove that some other group came over here in large numbers and began to run the show other than Christians from 1607 till 1800 it was the Christian God they were speaking of.

"Don't you think this is just a little reactionary? My wife's father said to me, "You have my blessing." I didn't take that to have any religious connotation."

No I do not think it's reactionary. It's asking for a blessing from a higher power since it wants a blessing for liberty and justice from the very Creator it said that granted it us life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So there is another so called religious phrase that some people seem to or may have a problem with.

"Knowing history as you say you do, you should know that this term was said and written as often as is "A.D." now. It is a way identifying the era.

None of these examples illustrate to me that this nation is a "Christian-based" nation. "

Well I think since I got my B.A. in History that I would know history. Yes this was the common phrase used in that time period by Christians and people who believed in God. This is very much a European trait and what is the religon worshiped throughtout a lot in Europe. Christianity, and you have a strong pocket of people who are also Jewish and some Muslims.


"We're talking about the rights of United States citizens, not math. The "majority" of the population engages in pre-marital sex. Does that mean that this should be the government-endorsed policy for the nation?"

That will be the day. Yeah were talking about citizens rights here and where in the blue heck is any of these phrases violating anyone's rights?????? Anyone please show me where someone is be oppressed or being beaten up or killed or being treated as second class citizens. What this small group needs to realize is that this Country was originally founded for Christians by Christians for better or for worse. Sometimes I feel for worse but I cannot go back and change history. Now of course not everyone who lives in this country today is Christian and that's cool in the gang with me. However there is a distinct difference between saying your rights are being violated because for 66 years we have had "In God we Trust" on our money and screaming this is a violation of my rights because I don't worship God, and getting killed because you don't worship God. Big big difference, and until you can show me where someones rights are being violated here because of this phrase and is being treated unequally under the laws of our land then you have no case. No one is saying you have to like or indorse or support it being there but it is in NO WAY in violation of any of your rights.

Until the day someone up on Captial Hill says alright

 

The phrase "Under God" does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the judicial opinion by the Ninth Circuit, I have read the entire opinion, is a very weak argument with some very weak assumptions. This opinion also vastly departs from existing legal precedent in the field of Establishment Clause Jurisprudence. The Ninth Circuit makes it clear any reference by the state or congress to religion is a violation of this provision in the First Amendment and not only is there no legal precedent to support this view but it is also historically incorrect and a very remissed interpretation of the Establishment clause.

I'd also like to add no other U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have more of their decisions overturned or reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court than the Ninth Circuit. After reading this opinion I can understand why.

The legal standard is the following. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The key words are "establishment of religion". An establishment of religion would be Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are primary examples. Hence, if Congress were to pass a law giving members of the christian faith tax breaks then this would render Congress passing a law respecting an establishment of religion, the religious establishment being christianity. This does not at all preclude Congress from passing a law referencing religion in general or in the most neutral terms possible. All this does is it precludes Congress from passing a law which respects a particular religious denomination. So, Congress may indeed pass laws advocating religious practices or religious beliefs so long as they are neutral or very general with respect to religious establishments.

So for those who have beliefs/interpretations the Establishment Clause precludes any religious reference at all, whether general or neutral, I simply fail to see how you arrived to such an interpretation/belief when this is not what the Establishment Clause says. The Establishment clause allows references to religion.

The statute including the words "Under God" however, may not be an example of Congress passing a law respecting an establishment of religion.

First of all reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is completely voluntary and if it interferes with one's religious beliefs then they cannot be forced to participate. West Virginia School Board of Education vs. Barnette 1947 U.S. Supreme Court. So if reciting the pledge is contrary to one's religious beliefs or atheistic beliefs then they simply can refrain from having to say it.

Now lets look at the words "under God". I am very curious. Which religious establishment is being respected by the inclusion of such words? If one says Christianity one would be both correct and incorrect because more than one religious establishment honors a god with the capital "G". In fact, there are at least three different religious establishments which worship a god with the capital "G".

But is it not possible the reference of the words "under God" or just "God" are very religiously neutral and general?

Lets take Aristotle as an analogy. Aristotle believed in a First Cause, an Unmoved mover who created everything and then stepped away from his creation and did not interfere with it. In fact it has been believed Aristotle was actually monotheistic since he believed in only one First Cause(a god) which created everything.

Now lets say Aristotle believes his First Cause is actually "God". Aristotle believes God created everything in the universe and then stepped away from it and does not interfere with his creation. This is all Aristotle believes in. These are his only beliefs about God and creation. Now the query is of course is Aristotle respecting a particular religious establishment with his beliefs? Or is the mere belief in God neutral and general enough so as not to represent any particular religious establishment?

Well it seems rather apparent Aristotle's simply belief in God and his beliefs about c

 

Don't cry Mr. Bunny, Jesus loves you.