What do you think about the Pledge of Allegiance case the Supreme Court is due to hear today? Here’s the quick background on the case:
Michael Newdow, a non-religious California father, lawyer, and doctor, objected to his daughter reciting the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. He took the school to court and won, but the district appealed. It is due to be heard before the Supreme Court today.
Until 1954, the phrase “Under God” was not in the Pledge of Allegiance. It was added by Congress due to lobbying by the “Knights of Columbus”, a religious organization. Additionally, in 1940, the Court decided that it was unconstitutional to require any citizen to recite the pledge.
There are a few interesting facets to the case that, in my opinion, may cause the Supremes to ignore it:
- Newdow is not the custodial parent
- Justice Antonin Scalia, noted conservative Supreme Court Justice, bowed out of hearing this case due to his outspoken opposition to Newdow’s arguments at a religious rally last year
- The girl’s mother is a Born-Again Christian, opposed to the case — and so is the daughter
- Bringing this case to bear may cause him to lose his California Bar Certification. Several religious organizations have begun a petition for him to lose his license to practice law.
As for me, this morning I heard arch-conservative Bob Lonsberry refer to Newdow as “this evil man” and his offspring the result of a “hippy-dippy fling”. Although I don’t think the phrase “under God” does any harm in the Pledge, at the same time, I think ad hominem attacks against Newdow due to him following his conscience are simply wrong.
The interesting thing for me here is the question: is the act of putting into law that the Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “Under God” a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? And will striking the same from the Pledge be an abridgement of the free speech of those for whom the public prayer aspect of the Pledge makes patriotism more palatable? What I mean is, does prohibiting religious speech in government oaths impinge the freedom of speech of those who wish to express their religious convictions in those oaths?
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.
The small addition by Congress of “under God” turns the Pledge into both a patriotic oath, and a public prayer. People are free not to say it when reciting the Pledge, but the removal of it from the official Pledge will deny religious people the opportunity of saying it.
Don’t know how it’s going to turn out, but my gut reaction is that if the court does anything but refuse to hear the case, or rule in favor of the school district, there is going to be a great deal of civil uproar over, really, what seems to be an inconsequential thing. Throughout Elementary School, I recited the Pledge daily. Throughout Middle and High schools, I recited it once a week. Since then, I’ve only said it a handful of times. Seems like a bit of a tempest in a teapot to me, yet the long-term ramifications of the decision are both unknown, and probably far-reaching.
Update: More details now available on CNN about Newdow’s appeal.
I Think It’s a Big Deal
If I were lawyering up for the plaintiff then I would take the following approach:
First, by ruling for the school districts the Supreme Court will in effect establish grounds for a law respecting the establishment of religion. Acceeding to the words “God” in a classroom pledge infers the establishment of religion in our public education system. You want to send your kids to a private school that teaches religion? No problem. But putting the word “God” into a pledge to our national emblem that, every kid in school recites, infuses the establishing of religion.
Second, contrary to what religious action groups say, younger kids are systematically forced into reciting the pledge, or at least into acknowledging the pledge. In this scenario, the government isn’t indulging in prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but instead forcing the free exercise thereof. That’s a warped position given the first amendment.
Predictions: I think if the Supreme Court hears the case and rules against the school district then the effects will be far reaching. “In God We Trust” will be stricken from all currency. “So help me God” is gone from the courtrooms. “God bless America” no longer plays at ceremonies (maybe even major sports events).
It’s a shame that Blackman is gone from the Supreme bench because he would have been fighting to bring this in for hearing.
I’m not sure this answers any of your questions, but
I just don’t buy his statement that he, as an atheist, is tacitly politically disenfranchised here. (As a Christian, I can’t exactly say that I feel part of the political in-crowd, references to God notwithstanding!) And as far as that goes, I think it’s about time somebody acknowledged that secularism IS essentially a religion, too.
All that said, the pledge itself isn’t a huge issue for me, really. The “under God” is pretty much secondary to the pledge’s basic purpose…and yet, I don’t see any compelling ground for it to be removed, either, especially as reciting the Pledge is optional in the first place. I’m sorry no one else has responded to this yet; I’m curious about others’ thoughts…I’m really torn, myself.
Something I don’t understand at all is how he can object to his daughter’s saying something she herself actually believes–how is that his to take issue with at all?
illegal atheists
The only thing I’ll address in this response is tacit political disenfranchisement:
I’d say yeah, Atheists feel disenfranchised. This is one of the reasons for the creation of The Brights, so that non-believers can have a political constituency.
I number myself amongst the ethical nonbelievers. I just want to be a good person, and I’m finding as I continue to explore my personal ethics, that continuing to do what I think is right requires some quiet activism here and there. Not activism in favor of atheism, but activism for understanding, compassion, and equal treatment under the law.
Atheists are not an oppressed minority — they are an ignored minority. I’m not sure which is worse 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson
May I present a Hostile Witness..
Many of these laws were part of the original constitutions of these states, which makes two points:
In terms of everything else.. it IS equal treatment under the law. I am infavor of inclusion, but I find it offensive that a statement of belief in God is considered “congress making a law considering the establishment of religion”, but the forcible removal of a statement about God because there are people that have an alternate belief about God.. is not.
Face it.. to deny the existence of God is to make a statement about a belief in God, and to use the Law to make it more palatable for you, by removing any reference to God, is hypocritical.
If you say that the founding fathers had any intention for God to be mentioned in any official way by the government, you are deliberately twisting history to meet your needs. They wanted people to have the freedom to believe what they want, and that was about the extent of it.
Eh?
Justin,
I’ve read and re-read your post a bunch of times, and I have to admit: I still can’t quite grasp what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that the founding fathers really wanted religion in the gov’t?
Also, are you saying that atheists are hypocritical because they are advancing their beliefs by wanting the references to God removed from official gov’t stances?
But in the last paragraph, you say you don’t think the founding fathers had any intention of mentioning God in an offical way.
I apologize, but I’m just not understanding. Maybe my morning caffeine hasn’t hit yet 🙂
Sorry Weed
2 Questions, 2 Answers
Did the founding fatehrs intend to mention God in an Official way? Yes… and he Was.
Looking at the Declaration of Independence..
“Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” (Capital G) “endowed by their Creator” (Capital C)
And then looking at the Founders themselves.. How about more quotes:
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge to Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor.” – George Washington October 3, 1789
“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited… What a paradise would this region be!” – John Adams 1756 “We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.” – Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787
“It is the duty of mankind on all suitable occasions to acknowledge their dependence on the Divine Being…[that] Almighty God would mercifully interpose and still the rage of war among the nations…[and that] He would take this province under His protection, confound the designs and defeat the attempts of its enemies, and unite our hearts and strengthen our hands in every undertaking that may be for the public good, and for our defense and security in this time of danger.” – Benjamin Franklin, 1748
“God who gave us life and liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1781
And Just for kicks:
“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” U. S. Supreme Court 1892
“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” -Daniel Webster 1821
“I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.” Benjamin Franklin
“This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed.” -Patrick Henry Last will and testament, November 20, 1798
As for the second question.. I’ll make this one shorter..
It can be assumed that the atheist would prefer no mention of God by the government, and that the theist (whoever he may be) would like the mention of God to remain. The atheist believes there is no God, so to remove God (even by mentioning) from the pledge or courtroom statues, or money would move the world closer to the atheist worldview, at the expense of the worldview of the theist. In this scnario, the Government becomes, by all accounts, atheist, which now makes the government firmly atheist.
Why is this hypocritical? Because the cry of the atheist is “we’re disenfranchised! It is unfair to mention God in an official way becaue we don’t believe in him!” – yet their goal is to create a government that is 100% in line with their religious worldview, tolerating no other, and that is the definition of intolerance.
Side note:
This hypocrisy knows no bounds it seems, because Christians are labeled (by people on this forum even) as “The Religious Right”, and then generalized with people who want to put Gays in Jail and blow up Abortion clinics.. Can you imagine if I labled all muslims or Jews or blacks in such a way?
Offense
Offense is poison; don’t take it 🙂
Allow me to change the language around a little to see if you’d agree with your own statement;
If the U.S. congress attempted to put “In Buddha We Trust” on U.S. currency, the Christians would riot. Well, OK, probably not literally, but they’d be upset 🙂 The capitalized word “God” is the accepted common-name for the Christian God. If the shoe were on the other foot, how would you feel?
Also, I disagree with your choice of the phrase “to deny the existence of God”. Nobody is asking the government to deny the existence of any supernatural entity at all, in this lawsuit or elsewhere. It is not the State’s place to say that God exists, or that she does not exist. It is not the State’s responsibility to lead children in public prayer to a particular supreme being, as was the case before the famous Madeline Murray O’Hare case. It is the State’s place to be impartial, not espousing any given creed or system of belief. This is necessary to a peaceful co-existence amongst various creeds who will therefore be acknowledged by the government as equally valid belief systems, though each of them would likely dispute the validity of the others, given a chance.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
The problem of atheism
My thoughts are that atheists have a big problem in this country because by definition, being an atheist means you don’t believe in God. Therefore, you don’t have any reason to meet on Sundays or form groups with each other (except to rally against political persecution), which doesn’t give you any weight to the political or commercial powers.
However, religions form large and powerful groups, which make them quite valuable to political and commercial organizations. Since these groups will vote and spend money, those power groups will cater to them. So you get George Bush bowing to the religious right and lashing out against gay marriages and atheists and such.
So you have religious groups who are motivated as a whole, and atheists which by and large are not. Plus, most religious groups have dedicated their efforts to eradicating atheists, by “saving” them from their non-belief. Of course, most atheists don’t mind if you believe in a religion, as long as you leave them alone. So that just means atheists will be under duress from religious groups more and more.
Plus, most religious people can’t understand why you would want the references removed. “What does it hurt?” The very idea of someone believing God doesn’t exist is like poison to them. Most religions don’t teach tolerance of such beliefs. “Why should we change the law to make it fairer for everyone, including atheists? Everyone who matters knows there is a God, these atheists don’t amount to much and will get theirs in the Revelation. They need to be saved.”
So who will stand up and fight for the right NOT to believe in God? Who’s gonna take that stance, knowing that they’ll be the target of religious groups across the country? A guy from California did, but I believe the Supreme Court will let him hang in the wind.
To add the word “God” to any gov’t issued statement implies his existence. To remove it does not imply God doesn’t exist. It just removes the gov’t’s implicit support of his existence.
This was susposed to be a short and sweet post, but as usual, it rambled. The point is: To be an atheist is to be alone, without a group to support you. To be religious is to be part of a group, and by definition to be at war against atheists. Supporting religion gets you elected, supporting atheism gets your booed off the stage.
My $.02 Weed
Atheist definition
The problem with the word “atheist” is that it is such a loaded term, but all it actually means is what one is not: a believer in the supernatural of any form.
But there’s baggage people assume of atheists that just isn’t true. I dislike being defined by what I’m not, and instead prefer to be identified as what I am: a hard-working Dad. A person who just wants to be a good person and do the right thing. A man prefers to live and let live. Someone who enjoys late-night conversations to figure out what I have in common with people who are religious or are not. One person who thinks that humanity needs to solve its own problems as quickly as it can.
That’s why I stuck the “Bright” banner up here in the upper right-hand corner of every page at barnson.org, in hopes that others could identify me for the good things I’m trying to do, rather than for the bad things they automatically assume of me when they learn that I’m not a religious person.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
My Power Broker
Actually, Weed, I’ve got a power broker working for me right now inside the Beltway. It’s this guy. He’s from California. He’s taking a case to the Supreme Court. About his daughter saying a pledge in school.
You’ve heard of him? 🙂
Your post was interesting to me because I never thought about Athiesm as a political organization. There are so many civil and social issues on the plate that I never think about non-religious groups trying to carve a political slice of the faith-based pie on the legislative dessert tray. I think if you’re going to have a strong non-faith push then maybe it’s a division within the ACLU? Haven’t gone to their site to check but they may already carry research and agenda in that area? Matt might know more as the Brights likely have infoin this regard.
Wow
I’m surprised–I had no idea atheists were statutorily excluded that way. That certainly is a problem!!
Pardon the foot in my mouth…!
Under Dog
BTW: This will be a hot one I believe.
Let’s get real. Sam, (and you know I dig you) saying “under God” in the pledge does not establish a religion in school. Which religion? Theism as a whole?
I think there is a deeper issue at heart here, and that is this. Weird as it may seem, Howard Stern said this week, “Since when are we afraid of speech?”
Whether it is the ACLU trying to remove any reference to “God” in fear of alienating the occasional kid, or it is the FCC trying to shut down radio shows because they are “indecent”, its all the same thing.. we are obsessed with trying to make this homogenized society where nothing ever said publicly offends.. and that idea offends me.
I WANT my kids to say “under God” just like I did… and when they get older, i want them to be able to choose whether or not they want to listen to morning radio.
In the last few months I’ve heard “The Passion is anti Semetic because the Gospels are anti-semetic.. it should be stopped”, “Under God establishes religion in the classroom”, “Janet Jackson’s breast scarred my child, so let’s go get Howard Stern”..
Millions of dollars.. and for what.. the creation of a homogenized America where no one is allowed to talk about their beliefs, laugh at the wrong thing?
Example, how much more interesting and thought provoking is this board when we actually discuss things we disagree about? This is what got me coming to barnson.org! It stretches the mind..
If you don’t want to say “under God”, don’t say it!! If you don’t want to watch South park or listen to Elliot in the Morning, DONT! And if it makes you uncomfortable. that is LIFE!!
I fear we ar emoving toward France.. where they disallow muslim girls wearing headdresses in schools because it displays religion.. or toward the taliban where one theology rules.. in this case, atheism and secularism. Let us be who we are.. why do you care so much?
Let’s Get Realer
Say you and your family are expatriated to (you guessed it!) a foreign country. Before arriving in that country you are told that this foreign government has explicitly separated itself from aligning with any religion, even so far as making it clear within its founding charter. This place you’re going to has no government-sanctioned religion.
But after you arrive you notice certain things that are sort of hyprocritical to that no-religion creed. The money that you spend praises “Mimi”, a mystical deity. Every time the leader of the country gets on the air, he closes with “May Mimi continue to bless our country”. Whenever testifying in court you have to put your hand on some book and swear that whatever you say is under the oath of “Mimi”. Best yet, kids recite a pledge in school, taught by teachers, that praises “Mimi”. You see congressional leaders balancing the act of straight-line issue politics, joining together in “Mimi” bless us.
You want your kids to talk about “God” in our schools? Gotta have it. You want freedom of speech? Absolutely. You want to send your kids to a public school where kids of every religion get together and mingle and discuss? Me too.
It’s not whether I, as Sammy G, think our government should or shouldn’t have the words “God” in its phraseology. It’s written in our Constitution. As a literal absolutist, I tend to interpret the exact statements of the Constitution. You put the words “God” in core places in society and your government thus aligns itself with those religions that believe in a monotheistic “God”.
We could all be Christians or Jews or Mimites or whatever in this country. The Constitution is set up not to homogenize but to ensure the protection of heterogeneity. As long as there’s one person out there who believes in something different, they need to have a government that doesn’t align itself with an alternative.
Mimi
I feel like that, Sam.
Monty Python mocks my God, and I shut up about it. I get told my Bible is a fairy tale all the time, and its acceptable. It is perfectly allowable for movies and TV to say, “beyond the miracles and the Bible, who was the REAL Jesus”.
All I really get from my country is the “in God We Trust”, nowadays. This country is ruled by a “let’s not mention God” ideology, where almost no one on TV (except the Simpsons) goes to Church, no one talks about God in schools, it is verboten at work, prayer meetings before NFL games are discouraged..
Meanwhile, atheists are screaming about the pledge.. while the country has made it legal to lie, commit adultery, work on the Sabbath, Disrespect your parents, have no God – or any God you want.. the list goes on..
I think Creation is fact. I think that is how it happened. so do Jews. So do Muslims. So do Mormons. Atheists don’t even want the possibility that that might be how it happened MENTIONED. Not even mentioned… but I get told I am part of a vast “Right Wing Conspiracy”.
So, I DO live in Mimiland, and I respect everyone’s right to believe what they want. I am not crying for any of this to be taken away. I try to enjoy the differences we have, but in truth, I hide my faith (I don’t consider myself to be part of a ‘religion’) every day because I get discriminated against when I don’t. If secularism is not a religion than neither is Theism, and
thanks
Thank you for elaborating on what I tried unsuccessfully to say about secularism before (and about not feeling particularly enfranchised myself)–you put it much more clearly, and much more thoroughly.
France
From my understanding, the French position on headscarves and other prominent religious displays arose from heightened tensions where religious icons were used to reinforce divisions in secular (public) schools for students demanding special treatment due to religious beliefs. Abstention from sex education, insistence on sex-segregated gym classes, outspoken opposition to teaching of the Holocaust, etc.
Although French authorities referred to “militant religious communities” in referring to the current use of headscarves and prominent crosses, what they’re really referring to is gang warfare. The Moslems, Christian, and Jewish kids were facing off, with the Sikhs not far behind. From what I can tell, they banned large displays of religious iconography to preserve the peace in their schools.
But I could be wrong. Just my two cents.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Hmmm
Here are some of my points:
1) I looked up the Constitution online, and it made no references to God.
2) If you’re in school, and the principal is reading the pledge aloud, what kid between 5-12 is gonna sit there and not recite it with his classmates because of his religious beliefs?
3) If the purpose of the pledge was for patriotic purposes, doesn’t it get its point across without the words “Under God” in it?
While the words “Under God” do not create a specific religion per se, they do create the idea that the gov’t thinks there is a God, which some people don’t believe. It’s not the gov’ts job to say whether there is or is not a God.
4) Secularism is not a religion. It is an absence of religion. Atheists don’t go around and meet on Sundays to chant “There is no God!!” However, they have that right, if they so choose.
5) The vast majority of religions I’ve been in contact with have a mandate to spread their word and save the world. That’s also a big problem I have with organized religion, because I am not a salesperson. The idea that if you don’t believe what we believe means you won’t get into heaven just sounds wrong to me. It reminds me of what groups in power have done throughout the years, or how the cool kids are in junior high.
If I live a simple, good life, love my wife, raise my kids right, I don’t get into heaven because I don’t prostrate myself in front of a group of people once to twice a week? Sorry. Wrong answer.
And the point of this is that a lot of these religious groups want to “save” us from the evils of the world. But one man’s evil is another man’s virtue. I don’t trust them any more than Bush or the gov’t to pick what’s right for me. I think there should be a secular pledge, without “Under God”. Then there should be 1 minute of silence, for you to pray, meditate, reflect, or pick your nose, depending on your beliefs.
6) I think there should be a separation of church and state. Take out the “In God We Trust” and other references. But you must leave time and space for those with religious beliefs to practice them. Should Roy Moore, the judge in Alabama, have let that status of the Ten Commandments be in the courthouse? Yes, provided he allowed space and solicited for statues of any other religious symbols anyone wanted to donate.
7) About the father not having custody of his child, or the child being a christian: so what? This case is about more than that little girl or her father anymore. If the Supreme Court uses that as an excuse to not return a ruling, then they’re copping out. It seems to me if the constitution states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, then by putting the words “Under God” in the pledge we create the offical position of the gov’t that God exists, which is unconstitutional.
My $.02 Weed
Founding Fathers
The founders of this country came to be able to worship as they please and not have forced religion. Upon arrival, many religions sprang up and they worshipped as they pleased. This tells me that MOST of them believed in God. Now, those founders were not Jewish or Muslim, they were already Christians. (No offense meant!) Thus it is natural that we find these relations to God everywhere. Because of the freedoms in our country and the original goals as the Constitution was made, many others came and they worshipped as they wished, in their own beliefs, not necessarily to the Christian God.
So today we have a large variety of worshippers and non worshippers among us. BUT, how many of you say, “Oh my God!” You call on him all the time anyway, what’s the big deal to have Him respectfully referred to on our money and in our pledge, due to the beliefs of our founding fathers? I know they didn’t put “Under God” in the pledge, but they provided the freedoms that we have, such as the freedom of speech.
There’s my two cents.–
Christy
In retort
Weed makes a good, well thought out argument. He brings up very very good points, which my disagreement does not change. I had to think for a good whule on how I would respond.. and I have done so with little eloquence, and even less charm.. but.. here goes.
WEED: I looked up the Constitution online, and it made no references to God.
TIMPANE: You’re right (although other documents do) And I’m glad you brought that up. It did say “establishment of religion”, which does not cover mentioning God, because “God” is a trans-religious figure. If “Secularism” can’t be called a religion, neither can “Theism”. It never does mention god, not even to say “don’t mention him”.
WEED: If you’re in school, and the principal is reading the pledge aloud, what kid between 5-12 is gonna sit there and not recite it with his classmates because of his religious beliefs?
TIMPANE: I knew Jehovah’s witnesses that didn’t.. and all you have to do is close your lips on “under God”. Growing up as a non-catholic in a Catholic church, I would close my mouth when the congregation would say “we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church”. It was easy.
WEED: If the purpose of the pledge was for patriotic purposes, doesn’t it get its point across without the words “Under God” in it?
TIMPANE: Who’s to say. I guess so. To take out “under God” would make it nicer for Atheists and not as nice for theists.. six of one, half a dozen of the other.
WEED: While the words “Under God” do not create a specific religion per se, they do create the idea that the gov’t thinks there is a God, which some people don’t believe. It’s not the gov’ts job to say whether there is or is not a God.
TIMPANE: You’re exaggerating. the teaching of evolution says that God did not create Adam and Eve as described in the Bible, which is also not the job of the Government, I don’t consider that to negate God’s existence any more than “under God” confirms it.
WEED: Secularism is not a religion. It is an absence of religion. Atheists don’t go around and meet on Sundays to chant “There is no God!!” However, they have that right, if they so choose.
TIMPANE: Nor is “Theism” a religion, by that rationale. In fact, lots of people believe in “God” but believe vastly different things than I do.. and many don;t belong to any religious organization at all.. and if Theism is not a religion, then “God” has nothing to do with the “Church and State” issue, and the lawsuit in question has no merit.
WEED: The vast majority of religions I’ve been in contact with have a mandate to spread their word and save the world. That’s also a big problem I have with organized religion, because I am not a salesperson. The idea that if you don’t believe what we believe means you won’t get into heaven just sounds wrong to me. It reminds me of what groups in power have done throughout the years, or how the cool kids are in junior high.
TIMPANE: A non sequitor, but an interesting one. As I said in another post, the powerful ones are the “Secularists”. “God” is becoming like smoking.. do it at home or in designeated “God rooms”.. but outside, don’t mention your beliefs, morality, or how you feel.. becaust that makes you”judgmental”. And, as I said, I often hide my faith because I get discriminated against if I don’t.
WEED: If I live a simple, good life, love my wife, raise my kids right, I don’t get into heaven because I don’t prostrate myself in front of a group of people once to twice a week? Sorry. Wrong answer.
TIMPANE: My prostrate is fine.. but sometimes I pee in the middle of the night. Seriously, I don’t prostrate myself in front of everyone either. That’s not what Christianity is about at all.. and if there have been churches that have made it that, that sucks, and you’re right, that is the wrong answer.
WEED: And the point of this is that a lot of these religious groups want to “save” us from the evils of the world. But one man’s evil is another man’s virtue. I don’t trust them any more than Bush or the gov’t to pick what’s right for me.
TIMPANE: Christianity is not about rules either. No one picks for me what is right. Matter of fact, really, the only rule I have to follow is to try to be good as best as I know how, and to pursue a personal (notice not public) relationship with God. And if I disagreed with my Church’s way of doing that, they would say they would still love to have me or that I can go and come back any time.
WEED: I think there should be a secular pledge, without “Under God”. Then there should be 1 minute of silence, for you to pray, meditate, reflect, or pick your nose, depending on your beliefs.
TIMPANE: Picking your nose is unsanitary. I would prefer “under God” be taken out if the offer of a minute of silence with the expressed opportunity to pray if you want to, or reflect or meditate if you want to. I’d love that, but someone would want the word “pray” taken out, because it implies that kids should. That option would soon be excised. WEED: I think there should be a separation of church and state. Take out the “In God We Trust” and other references. But you must leave time and space for those with religious beliefs to practice them.
TIMPANE: Being that I think there is a God, and a country that does Him honor will likely be more in his favor, I can’t agree with the “In God We Trust” being removed. But, if we ignore the possibility that there is a God (which interetingly I have to do – Imagine if I just came in and said “WE NEED TO HONOR GOD!! BLAAAA!!), then fine, no problem. In fact, the “give to Caesar” idea might not be so bad.
WEED: Should Roy Moore, the judge in Alabama, have let that status of the Ten Commandments be in the courthouse? Yes, provided he allowed space and solicited for statues of any other religious symbols anyone wanted to donate.
TIMPANE: And I agree with you on the courthouse. I would love for the ten commandments to be replaced with a wall of quotes from religious and philisophical leaders about the nature of justice and existence. Christ, moses, mohammed, plato, Lincoln, Solomon, Socrates, Marx.. There is wisdom outside of scripture and within.. let it ALL be shared.
WEED: About the father not having custody of his child, or the child being a christian: so what? This case is about more than that little girl or her father anymore. If the Supreme Court uses that as an excuse to not return a ruling, then they’re copping out.
TIMPANE: Disagree. You must prove that there is an injustice being done to someone. The supreme court does not create legislation, but rather settles disputes, and creates law by precedent. (Knows Ben is reading.. scared of his new lawyer education..)
WEED: It seems to me if the constitution states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, then by putting the words “Under God” in the pledge we create the offical position of the gov’t that God exists, which is unconstitutional.
TIMPANE: I don’t believe that “Under God” creates an official government position by implication any more than the mention of God in the Declaration of Independance confirmed it by implication. Also, (even if it did) I submit that because Theism is not a religion, and “God” is unquantifiable and envisioned in so many different ways, that to say “God” in the pledge does not have anything to do with “establishing a religion”. Furthermore, I submit that it would be unconstitutional to remove “Under God” because that would be making a law to deliberately censor on religious grounds without a victimized plaintiff.
I’m exhausted. I need a pizza.
Nose picking
You are going to LOVE my next blog posting on that very topic. Stay tuned 🙂 There’s nothing there for you to see yet, but by 12:23 AM Mountain Standard Time on March 27, there will be…
—
Matthew P. Barnson
A minor point
TIMPANE: I don’t believe that “Under God” creates an official government position by implication any more than the mention of God in the Declaration of Independance confirmed it by implication.
Umm, no. The words “Under God” were added in 1954, specifically to reflect the religiosity of the people and government of the United States. This was to define the U.S. in opposition to “godless communism.”
In short, “Under God” *was* added to the pledge in an effort to define atheism as un-american. There is a decent constitutional case to be made here.
HOLY CRAP!
VAN LINDBERG HAS ENTERED THE BUILDING!
—
Matthew P. Barnson
aww great..
2 lawyers.
3 People Disagreed With You
The three-judge federal appeals court panel in San Francisco wrote that the recitation of the pledge in public schools is unconstitutional.
The court’s majority wrote, “the statement that the United States is a nation ‘under God’ is an endorsement of religion…the pledge sends a message to unbelievers…that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.”
They also wrote, “the pledge is no less a violation of the constitutional protection against establishment of religion than if it described the US as “a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god.'”
Those crazy court people believed the First Amendment “prohibits the government’s endorsement or advancement not only of one religion at the expense of other religions, but also of religion at the expense of atheism.”
EDIT by matthew: Fixed bizarre characters; watch out for “smart quotes” you sometimes get from composing a message in another program. Make sure it’s plain old ASCII text or HTML formatted before pasting, or you get weird characters 🙂
My final $.02
A few final thoughts, then I’ll let this dog lie…
1) religion is about you and how you practice it. Gov’t is about protecting us and providing us a structure in which to live peaceably. There should be no mention of any religious ideal via gov’t, but there must be ample ability and opportunity given to practice whatever you believe. I don’t look for the gov’t to provide validity for my religious beliefs by agreeing with me. I look to my gov’t to give me the freedom to believe I want, how I want. There is ample opportunity to promote your religion via tv, music, lierature, media, newsgroup, blog, whatever. But gov’t must remain free of it. It may hurt to have religion taken out of your gov’t, but if it’s practices regularly in your home and life, you shouldn’t miss it.
2) That being said, special interest groups for both sides can’t seem to agree on how to be fair. One of my favorite arguments is that if, miraculously, all racism was cured tomorrow, do you think the NAACP would go away? Same for any other “minority” group. No way. It is now a profitable business to be a minority and to uphold your “rights”. Cause minorities are “persecuted” everywhere. It’s almost like the special interests groups have to perpetuate the things they try to cure so they will continue to exists. Create the disease, provide the cure.
Of course, the miracle of cured racism hasn’t happened by a long shot, so there is a need to someone to protect the minorities…but these groups have felt the power of their own voices, and power has corrupted some. The thing that scares me is that the religious groups contain more power in their voices than most, and though I may choose to live by religious ideals, I don’t want to live in a religious state. I want to live in a free state. There’s a big difference there
3) I apologize if I make some religious groups seem a little, uhm, ‘aggressive’ in their recruitment pitches 🙂 My wife is a Baptist, and although she is not like this, many Baptists are quite ‘pushy’ in their beliefs. If you’ve never seen a true ‘fire-and-brimstone’ preacher go at it, you should at least once. But to pigeonhole is to stereotype is to become blind to the truth, and I don’t want anyone to think that of me. If I could find a religion that based its values on love and fairness, I’d be there in a minute. Those two things are all you really need.
4) Remember one thing. I have never, and probably will never, discuss my actual religious beliefs here or with the general public. My religious beliefs are my property, and I share them with my family. I LOVE to play devil’s advocate (that statement not being an admission of my religion, either :), and I can argue until the cows’ grandcalves have come home. Just remember I may be arguing a point, not my heart.
And gosh darnit!, I LOVE THIS SITE!!!
My $.02 (on this topic, my last $.02 as well. I’m broke! 🙂 Weed
My Dearest Weed
I would never take any of this personally…
In fact, I take it as a personal compliment that you invest time reading and responding to my posts.
Matt has said it, and so will I, you are a splash of color on this site that is welcome, and I am glad to be able to argue the point on it.
We disagree here.. but agree on other posts.. and I welcome you to make me think, examine my own beliefs, and actually force me to read the Declaration of Friggin Independence in my spare time, at any time.
My .015 cents The final .005 cents is going to Richard pryor somewhere out there, maybe superman will stop him.
Oh man
I always miss the best arguments!
Anyway, I think God and government have absolutely nothing to do with one another, and should be kept separate. Period.
Personal expression of religion is perfectly legal. Corporate expression of religion by the government is not.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor