SCOTUS tells Newdow to piss off

[Ramo]

It's endorsing multiple religions.

[Berzerker]

They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest."

Thomas Jefferson

Mr Fun -

Berz -- which religion is the government sanctioning?

Christianity, it sure wasn't Islam or Judaism.

Since the God included in the pledge is the same God that Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in.

It isn't the same God, Christians believe Jesus is their God and the Jews and Muslims view Jesus as a prophet at best. C'mon Mr Fun, this thread has become ridiculous enough without trying to pretend a bunch of Christians were thinking of Allah when they put "under God" in the pledge.

And as I have already stated, yes it is wrong for any school to coerce students into saying the pledge. Let them have a choice in whether or not they want to participate.

The "choice" is coerced. If you were an atheist or a Hindu (or even a Christian who belongs to a sect that views the flag as an idol and condemns oath taking) and your teacher "asked" you to stand with your classmates and recite the pledge, your "choice" is to do as told or risk the negative consequences, i.e., become a target of "god-fearing" students and losing the respect of the teacher you look up to. Remember, the pledge used to be compulsory, then it became "voluntary", but it became a way for "patriots" in the 1950's to show everyone that we were different than those evil godless commies. To admit you were an atheist was akin to an admission of immense immorality.

Let's put this in terms you might understand better.
Assuming you knew of your sexual inclination in grade school, how would you have reacted if your teacher "asked" you to stand and tell everyone if you
were a homosexual? Would you lie out of fear of what might happen or would you be bold and tell the truth? Strange that someone who should understand the nature of homophobia or hatred of homosexuals can't see that in many parts of the country atheists evoke similar resentment...

It's not the responsibility of the federal government to quash peer pressure and teasing among students.

It isn't the job of the federal government to be involved with schools at all, much less create or use peer pressure to coerce children to pledge allegiance to the state's god.

When that turns into real harrassment, then that is the responsibility of each school to take action against such harrassment.

It isn't the responsibility of a public school to coerce children into pledging allegiance to the state's god.

Civman -

I don't even think that the coercion aspect is crucial.

You're right there are 2 issues here - the coercion and the establishment clause, but they are related since we can identify when the establishment clause is being violated by identifying the coercion. For example, Judge Moore down in Alabama put up a monument to the 10 Commandments and that was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Now think about that... A judge puts a piece of stone in a courthouse rotunda and that violates the 1st Amendment, but teachers - agents of the government - "ask" children to stand and pledge allegiance to the state's god and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment? Sheesh!!! Anyway, Moore's monument was neither a law or directive for anyone to do anything, no one was being coerced to do anything. Therefore, his monument did not violate the establishment clause. Leave it to the SCOTUS to get it backwards... That's what happens when political hacks dressed in black robes are appointed to a court by a bunch of political hacks, that's when we get screwy decisions that make no sense...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Let's put this in terms you might understand better.
Assuming you knew of your sexual inclination in grade school, how would you have reacted if your teacher "asked" you to stand and tell everyone if you
were a homosexual? Would you lie out of fear of what might happen or would you be bold and tell the truth? Strange that someone who should understand the nature of homophobia or hatred of homosexuals can't see that in many parts of the country atheists evoke similar resentment...

Atheists are not being discriminated against in present society to the extent that racial, religious, ethnic, sex orientation minority groups and women are discriminated against today.

For most people in contemporary society in western nations -- even one as conservative as United States -- I don't think anyone cares if you're atheists (beyond the missionaries who actively seek converts).

When it comes to atheists today, most people (who have a sense of decency) seem to have the attitude, "live and let live."

[Elok]

Atheism is also in the unique position that it is NOT a religion. There are no "atheist values" to be raising kids by except general contrariness to the god crowd. Atheism is a philosophy. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be a violation of church and state if atheism were a religion.

If it comes to that, evolution isn't really "scientific." Without a time machine, there's no way to determine what happened that long ago. We have a proven short-term phenomenon (natural selection) which we have applied as the mechanism of the rise of life on this planet. Evolution "fits the facts," but so would a theory that we are all the miscarried fetuses of the cosmic koala, dumped onto the earth at different stages of development. It's as much a sign of faith as any testament to god. The question it purports to answer is entirely outside the realm of genuine factual inquiry with the technology available today. Yet I do not raise a stink about it. Why? Because it doesn't freaking matter. People are going to believe what they're going to believe, and that's that. And the theory of evolution is, as I have frequently whined to all of you, irrelevant, because it has no application. "The human race developed on this planet as a result of a, b, and c." That's very nice, but what can you do with that information? Nothing. Which is why, from an educational standpoint, which dream you choose to believe makes no difference. Same rule here.

[JohnT]

I'd hate to see what would happen to this thread if the debators realized that our official national motto is:

In God We Trust

The national motto originated with Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase during the Civil War. Prompted by a letter from Rev. M. R. Watkinson, of Ridleyville, Pennsylvania asking for a recognition of "the Almighty God in some form in our coins.", Chase requested Congress to pass a law changing the composition of the 2-cent piece to include the motto "In God we trust". The law as passed on April 22, 1864. Eventually the motto appeared on many U.S. coins and currencies.

When the double eagle and eagle of new design appeared in 1907, it was soon discovered that the motto had been omitted. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the act of May 18, 1908, made mandatory its appearance upon all coins which it had heretofore appeared. The act approved July 11, 1955, makes appearance of the motto "In God we trust" mandatory upon all coins of the United States. (69 Stat. 290. 31 U.S. Code 324a)

On July 30, 1956 a law was passed stating that "the national motto of the United States is hereby declared to be 'In God we trust'." (70 Stat. 732. 36 U.S. Code 186). The House Judiciary Committee recognized that the phrase E Pluribus Unum had also received wide usage in the United States, and the joint resolution did not repeal or prohibit its use as a national motto. In 1963 the Department of State took the following position: "'In God we trust'" is the motto of the United States. It seems to the Department, nevertheless, that there is ample basis both in history and in law for calling 'E Pluribus Unum' a motto of the United States." The Congress has used both.

Cite: http://www.usscouts.org/flag/sealmotto.html

"E Pluribus Unum" you say? 'Tis only the motto on the Great Seal:

E Pluribus Unum means "out of many, one". It comes from a popular publication during revolutionary times entitled Gentleman's Magazine which carried that legend upon the title page. The magazine was well known to literate Americans of the time. The Gentleman's Magazine obtained the legend from an earlier and long out of print publication called the Gentleman's Journal which used the motto in 1692. And perhaps ultimately to Virgil, St. Augustine or Horace. It was first used extensively in the United States only after it was introduced on the Great Seal.

Have federal court cases cast doubt on the constitutionality of the motto "In God we trust"?

The federal courts have held that the motto symbolizes the historical role of religion in our society, Lynch, 465 U.S. at 676, formalizes our medium of exchange, see O'Hair v. Blumenthal, 462 F. Supp. 19, 20 (W.D. Tex.), aff'd sub nom. O'Hair v. Murray, 588 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam), and cert. denied, 442 U.S.930 (1979), fosters patriotism, see Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242, 243 (9th Cir. 1970), and expresses confidence in the future, Lynch, 465 U.S. at 692-93 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The motto's primary effect is not to advance religion; instead, it is a form of "ceremonial deism" which through historical usage and ubiquity cannot be reasonably understood to convey government approval of religious belief. Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 625 (O'Connor, J., concurring); Lynch, 465 U.S. at 693 (O'Connor, J., concurring); id. at 716 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Finally, the motto does not create an intimate relationship of the type that suggests unconstitutional entanglement of church and state. O'Hair, 462 F. Supp. at 20. "After making [inquiries], we find that a reasonable observer, aware of the purpose, context, and history of the phrase "In God we trust," would not consider its use or its reproduction on U.S. currency to be an endorsement of religion. (Gaylor vs USA, 10th Cir. 1996)

Note the word "reasonable." I highlighted it for those not wanting to read the text.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
If it comes to that, evolution isn't really "scientific." Without a time machine, there's no way to determine what happened that long ago. We have a proven short-term phenomenon (natural selection) which we have applied as the mechanism of the rise of life on this planet. Evolution "fits the facts," but so would a theory that we are all the miscarried fetuses of the cosmic koala, dumped onto the earth at different stages of development. It's as much a sign of faith as any testament to god.

You're right, but the difference is that the fallacy of assuming there was a past beyond our memory of it (basically what this boils down to) is one that everyone accepts

[Elok]

Acknowledging that there is such a past is one thing. Getting all fussy over the specifics of it when there's no way of knowing in the first place is another thing entirely. Disconnected from proof or utility as it is, evolution has no more apparent value than any creation myth. They're all equally good at answering a question that didn't need to be asked in the first place.

[Kuciwalker]

Unless you accept a past, one that obeys observed laws of physics. There's as much reason to assert that evolution occured as that WWII happened.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Elok
Atheism is also in the unique position that it is NOT a religion. There are no "atheist values" to be raising kids by except general contrariness to the god crowd. Atheism is a philosophy. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be a violation of church and state if atheism were a religion.

If it comes to that, evolution isn't really "scientific." Without a time machine, there's no way to determine what happened that long ago. We have a proven short-term phenomenon (natural selection) which we have applied as the mechanism of the rise of life on this planet. Evolution "fits the facts," but so would a theory that we are all the miscarried fetuses of the cosmic koala, dumped onto the earth at different stages of development. It's as much a sign of faith as any testament to god. The question it purports to answer is entirely outside the realm of genuine factual inquiry with the technology available today. Yet I do not raise a stink about it. Why? Because it doesn't freaking matter. People are going to believe what they're going to believe, and that's that. And the theory of evolution is, as I have frequently whined to all of you, irrelevant, because it has no application. "The human race developed on this planet as a result of a, b, and c." That's very nice, but what can you do with that information? Nothing. Which is why, from an educational standpoint, which dream you choose to believe makes no difference. Same rule here.

This is bullsh!t. Of course evolution happens why do you think we have to keep inventing new antibiotics against bacteria? They are evolving resistrance to the drug, DUH!!! Natural selection is a fact, the discoveries in genetics and population biology in the past 50 years show that.


Creationists are stupid. Throw rocks at them!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Elok
Acknowledging that there is such a past is one thing. Getting all fussy over the specifics of it when there's no way of knowing in the first place is another thing entirely. Disconnected from proof or utility as it is, evolution has no more apparent value than any creation myth. They're all equally good at answering a question that didn't need to be asked in the first place.

Fossils are not proof of evolution?

[Kuciwalker]

No, they aren't absolute proof, because it is impossible to demonstrate that the past actually occured, rather than the universe having started only this moment. In fact, the universe having started only this moment is the correct conclusion by Occam's razor, in the same way that the nonexistance of a deity is the correct conclusion. The difference is, (virtually) no one disputes that the past actually occured.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok
Atheism is also in the unique position that it is NOT a religion. There are no "atheist values" to be raising kids by except general contrariness to the god crowd. Atheism is a philosophy. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be a violation of church and state if atheism were a religion.

Oh good grief- or better yet, for the religionistas, great jumping Judas on a bicycle.

Which part of atheism does this guy actually understand?

It isn't a belief system, it isn't a philosophy, it is at its simplest, disbelief in a deity, or deities.

Atheists can be Communists, anarchists, capitalists, socialists, social democrats, anarcho-syndicalists, libertarians, and hold a bewildering array of differing ideologies and philosophies- almost as many different beliefs as there are Christian or Islamic sects.

That being said, they could espouse a variety of values or beliefs, some positive, some negative dependant upon their belief system. The a-theism part is neither negative nor positive in that respect.

As for evolution having no more value than creationism, I think we can all see where he's coming from.

I hope all the 'Poly scientists will now disregard any theory utilising any thinking relating to or tangential to evolutionary processes or concepts, and rely instead on astrology, ouija boards or the advice of Benny Hinn or Morris Cerrullo.

Good luck defeating multi-drug resistant staphylococcus and tuberculosis using wishful thinking and creationist 'science' (if ever there was an oxymoron, that's a beauty).


"It is very disgraceful and mischievous, and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian ... should be heard ... talking such nonsense that the unbeliever can hardly restrain himself from laughing."


Saint Augustine in "De Genese ad litteram"

Oops, too late!

The American Physical Society (but hey, what do they know?)

'
81.1 STATEMENT ON CREATIONISM
(Adopted by Council - 22 November l98l)

The Council of the American Physical Society opposes proposals to require "equal time" for presentation in public school science classes of the biblical story of creation and the scientific theory of evolution. The issues raised by such proposals, while mainly focused on evolution, have important implications for the entire spectrum of scientific inquiry, including geology, physics, and astronomy. In contrast to "Creationism", the systematic application of scientific principles has led to a current picture of life, of the nature of our planet, and of the universe which, while incomplete, is constantly being tested and refined by observation and analysis. This ability to construct critical experiments, whose results can require rejection of a theory, is fundamental to the scientific method. While our society must constantly guard against oversimplified or dogmatic descriptions of science in the education process, we must also resist attempts to interfere with the presentation of properly developed scientific principles in established guidelines for classroom instruction or in the development of scientific textbooks. We therefore strongly oppose any requirement for parallel treatment of scientific and non-scientific discussions in science classes. Scientific inquiry and religious beliefs are two distinct elements of the human experience. Attempts to present them in the same context can only lead to misunderstandings of both. '

http://positron.aps.org/statements/81.1.html

[Elok]

Okay, it seems you have ALL missed my point:

*There is proof of natural selection over the short term, as Odin mentioned, what with bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. This may be called "evolution," but it is not an example of the rise of a new species. It is merely survival of the fittest, which is not unique to evolution. Hey, it's how capitalism works, ain't it?

*There are sets of fossils from X number of years ago that look like primitive fish with legs, fossils from a later period that look like lizards, other fossils that look like weird hairy lizards, other fossils of actual mammals, and so on.

*The explanation is that survival of the fittest has worked over the long term, and that all these critters are in fact part of the same extremely distant family tree.

Can you spot the enormous assumption, boys and girls? Maybe it seems "obvious" to some of you, but there is absolutely no proof that natural selection was the mechanism of change, or that the creatures are even related at all. Scientists applied a known phenomenon to an unknown one on a vastly enlarged scale and called it obvious. Darwin's theory of evolution is only slightly more valid than Lamarck's, which took the phenomenon of increased fitness through exercise and applied it on a ludicrous scale without proof. The only difference is that adaptation by selection is not eliminated by heredity. It's still a Rorschach answer, and no more likely to be correct than the aforementioned Cosmic Koala.

The fact is that there is no way of knowing such a vast chunk of history for certain without a time machine, and it doesn't really matter. I'm sure it answers a deep yearning to know the truth about the origin of our species and so on and so forth, but when the knowledge is not practically useful or provable, it differs from a religious belief in what way?

[MrFun]

What are you smoking, Elok?

[MrFun]

Who wants to have what Elok is smoking?