SCOTUS tells Newdow to piss off

[Berzerker]

Christianity, Judahism, and Islam are monotheistic religions, because they believe in the existence of only one God so how could one choose to believe in other spirits without violating their faith?

Well Mr Fun, you've almost stumbled onto the problem created by the pledge. People who don't believe in that one God, even people who do like Christians who've actually read what Jesus said about idolatry and oath taking, are violating their faith when they recite the pledge. So why is a state that is prohibited from establishing religion coercing children to pledge allegiance to this God?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If she refuses she likely understands that other students who are "God-fearing"and perhaps teachers will treat her with disdain if not worse. That makes the pledge coercive...

The state is prohibited from using coercion on this issue

Just the response I wanted. If there is 'coercion', it is not by the state. The state isn't locking up anyone for not saying the pledge. Teachers and other students are private individuals who are not acting for the state. Therefore, if anything it would private coercion. Saying the state 'creates the situation' is a cop out, affirming that the state isn't doing any coercion. Furthermore, in public schools, the state prohibits discriminatory treatment by the teachers on the basis of religion.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Well Mr Fun, you've almost stumbled onto the problem created by the pledge. People who don't believe in that one God, even people who do like Christians who've actually read what Jesus said about idolatry and oath taking, are violating their faith when they recite the pledge. So why is a state that is prohibited from establishing religion coercing children to pledge allegiance to this God?

Since I don't believe that the pledge as it is, is a violation of separation of state from religion, I don't see how it in turn, violates one's Christian faith.

I do have a problem though when people are compelled by some schools to say the pledge -- they ought to have the right to choose whether or not they want to say the pledge.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Just the response I wanted. If there is 'coercion', it is not by the state. The state isn't locking up anyone for not saying the pledge.

Wrong, the coercion is created by the state when it "asks" children to publicly affirm allegiance to the state's God. Locking someone up is not the only kind of coercion...

Teachers and other students are private individuals who are not acting for the state.

The teacher is an agent of the state.

Saying the state 'creates the situation' is a cop out, affirming that the state isn't doing any coercion.

The teachers who are agents of the state are the one's "asking" for this pledge of allegiance to the state's God. To argue that is "private" coercion ignores that the state made the law - Congress shall make no law - and the teachers acting on behalf of the state's orders are the people asking for this allegiance on behalf of the state.

Furthermore, in public schools, the state prohibits discriminatory treatment by the teachers on the basis of religion.

That's irrelevant, the child who refuses to recite the pledge understands that retaliation by the teacher is a possibility - that makes the pledge coercive. I'm sure discriminating against conservative students is prohibited too but many conservative students understand their views may impact how their teacher grades them. Besides, you're ignoring that the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law establishing religion and nothing in the Constitution authorises Congress to do anything about schools - Congress directing school children to pledge allegiance to the God of Congress violates both the 1st and 10th Amendments.

Mr Fun -

Since I don't believe that the pledge as it is, is a violation of separation of state from religion, I don't see how it in turn, violates one's Christian faith.

I'll quote you again, "Christianity, Judahism, and Islam are monotheistic religions, because they believe in the existence of only one God so how could one choose to believe in other spirits without violating their faith?"

They can't!!! That's the point... The state is coercing children to pledge allegiance to someone else's faith. Can you imagine agents of the state coming into your home to ask your kid to pledge allegiance to Satan? Do you think that would violate the separation of church and state?

The 1st Amendment and what it means is irrelevant to what you said in that quote. Furthermore, it was Christians who first sued because of the pledge and, like "separate but equal", the SCOTUS came up with a "solution" that did not solve the problem. In 1943 Christians sued because their children were required to recite a pledge that didn't even have the words "under God" in it. Their objection was that their children were being told to pledge allegiance to a flag - an idol to them. But those children who were allowed to opt out as a result of the SCOTUS decision in '43 were still being put in the position of facing ridicule and retaliation by both teachers and students, so the coercion merely became less overt.

I do have a problem though when people are compelled by some schools to say the pledge -- they ought to have the right to choose whether or not they want to say the pledge.

Children not only face peer pressure, but the prospect of losing the respect etc of their teacher - that means their decision as to whether or not to recite the pledge is not freely made, it is a coerced decision. Besides, the 1st Amendment can't be anymore clear - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That means Congress cannot "ask" us to affirm or pledge allegiance to any God, much less the God Congress claims to believe in.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MrFun

Christianity, Judahism, and Islam are monotheistic religions, because they believe in the existence of only one God so how could one choose to believe in other spirits without violating their faith?

To the faithful, God has already proven his existence to them even if others refuse to believe in God's existence.

I think you're missing the point- freedom to practise your religion does not mean freedom to impose your religion on others, nor to compel others to reveal thier belief or non-belief.

Despite being non-religious, I campaigned for the rights of Soviet Jews, not because I believed in the god of the Old Testament, or any god, but because I did not believe that it was the right of a state to compel faith, or restrict a faith when that religion was not injuring others.

Similarly I believe that Chinese Catholics should have the right to adhere to Roman Catholicism and acknowledge the Pope as their pontiff, without interference from the Chinese Communist Party.

Clearly you do not believe that people in the United States should have the same freedoms to be free of any compulsion in religion- otherwise why would you agree with a government which assented to the inclusion of religious wording in a pledge which previously was free of it?

Do you think that John Adams was wrong when he signed a treaty which asserted that the United States was founded without respect to any faith?

"Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary"

or more simply, the Treaty of Tripoli.

Article 11 :

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Muslims; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I think you're missing the point- freedom to practise your religion does not mean freedom to impose your religion on others, nor to compel others to reveal thier belief or non-belief.

Despite being non-religious, I campaigned for the rights of Soviet Jews, not because I believed in the god of the Old Testament, or any god, but because I did not believe that it was the right of a state to compel faith, or restrict a faith when that religion was not injuring others.

Similarly I believe that Chinese Catholics should have the right to adhere to Roman Catholicism and acknowledge the Pope as their pontiff, without interference from the Chinese Communist Party.

Clearly you do not believe that people in the United States should have the same freedoms to be free of any compulsion in religion- otherwise why would you agree with a government which assented to the inclusion of religious wording in a pledge which previously was free of it?

Nope -- I am opposed to imposition of any religion onto other people. The schools that still compel their students to say the pledge whether they want to or not, need to stop doing that, and give them a choice.

As long as they have a choice whether or not to say the pledge, I think it's nonsense for people to whine about some imagined violation of the separation of state and religion.

Originally posted by molly bloom
Do you think that John Adams was wrong when he signed a treaty which asserted that the United States was founded without respect to any faith?

"Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary"

or more simply, the Treaty of Tripoli.

Article 11 :

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Muslims; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

I'm all for separation of state and religion -- we should not have any laws that are based on any religious theology but rather, laws that are based on more secular standards of morals -- such as the obvious example that killing is wrong (let's not get into the exceptions where killing is acceptable, which would be besides the point of our discussion).

[Elok]

Newdow's opinion as a parent doesn't really matter anyway, as I believe the girl's mother, who has majority custody, is pro-"under god." At the very least she should have an equal say, right? Whether you think parents should have the right to sue on these grounds or not, Newdow is out of order.

And this reminds me strongly of the line about how homophobics are really just scared that they might turn gay if they were stuck on a desert island with Brad Pitt, and prove otherwise to themselves and the world by abusing gays. I'm not sure of the psychological validity of that argument there, but in this case there's no other explanation. Atheism is an entirely negative belief-it says nothing but that another system of belief is incorrect, and grounds itself in a school of thought based on naturalistic reasoning. The only harm that can be done by the people around you is that they will influence you (with their OBVIOUSLY faulty creationist logic) to think like they do. Aside from the fact that, if the atheist philosophy is correct, it doesn't matter in the slightest what we believe, to posit that others might coerce you to go with the crowd in the face of Superior Reasoning sort of undermines the whole idea of calm reasoning as the determinant of human events in the first place. The only imposition here is from an idea that offends you, which doesn't infringe on your rights, or that you might find yourself agreeing with somebody. Oh, no...

As for hazing problems, if the teacher does it that needs to be fixed. If the students do it, well, kids will be cruel on any pretext. In a relatively liberal district, the kids will mock and jeer at the stupid backwards creationist kid who doesn't believe in evolution. That does not indicate coercion by the state to force a belief in evolution.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok
Atheism is an entirely negative belief-it says nothing but that another system of belief is incorrect, and grounds itself in a school of thought based on naturalistic reasoning.

This is wrong in so many aspects it's hard to know where to begin. However, I am growing very tired of people with religious beliefs defining what atheism or my belief system is, when clearly they don't know or understand it at all.

Atheism is not believing in a god, or deities- in that respect, to many atheists it is the same as not believing in superstition, astrology, ouija boards, ghosts, Lady Luck or animism.

From recollection, quite a few Christians (and adherents to other faiths) would say that not believing in those things would be a positive thing- that their faith (in its supposed superiority) has done away with idolatry, belief in many gods, or nature spirits inhabiting trees or springs or the sea.

Atheism does not say that another belief system is incorrect, since there is no one faith or belief system called 'atheism', and to find out which god or gods an atheist does not believe in, you would have to ask them.

I can however think of several religions that say other belief systems are incorrect- Islam, Judaism, Christianity, to name but three.......

"
What is Atheism?

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists - atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god - if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.

Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite - a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate.

Another reason for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principle burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the principle burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and rational. When a person is unable to do this, it can be easier to claim that others are in the same boat than to admit one's own failure.

There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don't focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god - and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what t is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.

Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined - so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.

As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term "god." Unless and until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by "god," will we be able to seriously critique their concepts. "

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathd_what.htm

"If one believes in a god, one is a Theist. If one does not believe in a god, then one is an A-theist - he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely, exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God. "

Chapman Cohen, President of the National Secular Society of Great Britain

MrFun-

" I am opposed to imposition of any religion onto other people. "

Then you'll support the removal of 'In God we trust' and 'under God' from currency and the Pledge of Allegiance?

Otherwise, you're maintaining that religious freedom includes also the right to impose religious wording or references into state pledges, and coin of the realm. I fail to see why the actions of a minority group (such as the Knights of Columbus) should mean that religion is forced upon people whether they like it or not. Both you and Imran seem to imply that the right to be without religious influence or to keep one's beliefs private, is not as great or equal, to the right to practise freely your religion.

You might as well say that English Recusancy laws in the 17th Century didn't force Catholics to believe in Protestantism, although they did compel attendance at Protestant church services- which again would be missing the point.

Saying that they don't have to recite 'under god' or the altered pledge is merely compounding and condoning an error and an injustice. The pledge was changed to suit a particular religion- look at the quotes from Thomas Jefferson and the Treaty of Tripoli and tell me if you think that either Jefferson or John Adams had the official recognition or encouragement of any religion by the state in mind, when founding the United States.

[Kuciwalker]

/me agrees with molly bloom, but again refers to the second post in this thread

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom

MrFun-

" I am opposed to imposition of any religion onto other people. "

Then you'll support the removal of 'In God we trust' and 'under God' from currency and the Pledge of Allegiance?

Eh -- I don't give a **** whether those words in there or not. It's a non-issue with me -- I don't care if those words are in there or if we remove those words.

Originally posted by molly bloom
Otherwise, you're maintaining that religious freedom includes also the right to impose religious wording or references into state pledges, and coin of the realm. I fail to see why the actions of a minority group (such as the Knights of Columbus) should mean that religion is forced upon people whether they like it or not. Both you and Imran seem to imply that the right to be without religious influence or to keep one's beliefs private, is not as great or equal, to the right to practise freely your religion.

You might as well say that English Recusancy laws in the 17th Century didn't force Catholics to believe in Protestantism, although they did compel attendance at Protestant church services- which again would be missing the point.

Saying that they don't have to recite 'under god' or the altered pledge is merely compounding and condoning an error and an injustice. The pledge was changed to suit a particular religion- look at the quotes from Thomas Jefferson and the Treaty of Tripoli and tell me if you think that either Jefferson or John Adams had the official recognition or encouragement of any religion by the state in mind, when founding the United States.

One can be free from religious conversion even when they hear other people say the pledge.

Secondly, your historical England example is of a different caliber/level, don't you think? That was a form of indirect discrimination against another group of people.

I still maintain that if all schools did not compel everyone to say the pledge but still had others say it as part of their routine day, then there is no discrimination against atheists.

And I agree with you about the Founding Fathers -- they were certainly not devout Christians in the more traditional sense, but were deists. So you're right -- our country was not founded as a Christian nation based on theocratic laws.

But let's face it -- our nation is not the same nation that was founded in 1776 and then reestablished in 1789. And some of those changes have been for the worse, while other changes have been for the better.

[Berzerker]

Mr Fun -

Nope -- I am opposed to imposition of any religion onto other people. The schools that still compel their students to say the pledge whether they want to or not, need to stop doing that, and give them a choice.

It IS an imposition for one group of people to use public schools funded with taxes to coerce other people's children into pledging allegiance to someone else's God.

As long as they have a choice whether or not to say the pledge, I think it's nonsense for people to whine about some imagined violation of the separation of state and religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What do you think it means to establish religion? Fine, if that doesn't work for you, where in the Constitution have you found the congressional power to either create public schools, fund them, or direct what children attending those schools say, much less pledge allegiance?

I'm all for separation of state and religion -- we should not have any laws that are based on any religious theology but rather, laws that are based on more secular standards of morals -- such as the obvious example that killing is wrong (let's not get into the exceptions where killing is acceptable, which would be besides the point of our discussion).

And what do you think it means to pledge allegiance to the God of Congress?

One can be free from religious conversion even when they hear other people say the pledge.

True, but once again you're missing the point. It's not about hearing someone express a belief in their God, it's about the state coercing children to pledge allegiance to the state's God. That's why commencement speeches where the speaker wants to share their thoughts about their God does not violate the Constitution even if the speaker is an agent of the state. There's a difference between hearing about God and being coerced into pledging allegiance to this God.


Elok -

Newdow's opinion as a parent doesn't really matter anyway, as I believe the girl's mother, who has majority custody, is pro-"under god."

He has a say in how the state treats his daughter.

At the very least she should have an equal say, right?

Yes, and her say stops when she is asking the state to coerce other people's children to pledge allegiance to her God. If she wants her kid to pledge allegiance she can do that on her own time, not on my dime and not with my kid.

And this reminds me strongly of the line about how homophobics are really just scared that they might turn gay if they were stuck on a desert island with Brad Pitt, and prove otherwise to themselves and the world by abusing gays. I'm not sure of the psychological validity of that argument there, but in this case there's no other explanation. Atheism is an entirely negative belief-it says nothing but that another system of belief is incorrect, and grounds itself in a school of thought based on naturalistic reasoning.

All religions maintain they are the correct belief system and others are incorrect.

The only harm that can be done by the people around you is that they will influence you (with their OBVIOUSLY faulty creationist logic) to think like they do.

That's the same argument used by creationists who object to evolution being taught, that it will pollute the minds of their children. The difference is their children are not coerced to affirm a belief in no God.

Aside from the fact that, if the atheist philosophy is correct, it doesn't matter in the slightest what we believe, to posit that others might coerce you to go with the crowd in the face of Superior Reasoning sort of undermines the whole idea of calm reasoning as the determinant of human events in the first place.

We're talking about children, not the superior reasoning of adults. Furthermore, we're talking about a state that is prohibited from establishing religion coercing these children into pledging allegiance to the state's "god".

The only imposition here is from an idea that offends you, which doesn't infringe on your rights, or that you might find yourself agreeing with somebody. Oh, no...

Then Christian parents shouldn't have any problem with the state coercing their children into pledging allegiance to Satan, true? Oh, the shoe doesn't quite fit the other foot now? Parents have a right to raise their kids with their spiritual, religious, or non-religious beliefs - that is the right being violated.

As for hazing problems, if the teacher does it that needs to be fixed. If the students do it, well, kids will be cruel on any pretext.

First, the state/teachers "hazing" children? All that is required for coercion to exist in the mind of a child is an expectation they will be treated less than the compliant children. When a teacher stands up and "asks" children to pledge allegiance, children understand their refusal might upset the teacher, ostensibly a person they want to like them. As for other children, it's the state that is creating the atmosphere of coercion...

In a relatively liberal district, the kids will mock and jeer at the stupid backwards creationist kid who doesn't believe in evolution. That does not indicate coercion by the state to force a belief in evolution.

That's true, gee, aren't liberals tolerant too? But the state is not coercing anyone to stand up and pledge allegiance to no god. If it was, then the state would be creating an atmosphere of coercion...

[civman2000]

I don't even think that the coercion aspect is crucial. What matters is that the government is officially endorsing the existence of a deity--how is that not an "establishment of religion"? What if, say, the government declared that the official religion of the US was christianity, though non-christians would still be completely free and equal under the law? You could argue there is no coercion there, but there is clearly establishment of religion. The pledge is the same thing, just on a much smaller scale.

[MrFun]

Berz -- which religion is the government sanctioning? Since the God included in the pledge is the same God that Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in.


And I 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.

It's not the responsibility of the federal government to quash peer pressure and teasing among students. When that turns into real harrassment, then that is the responsibility of each school to take action against such harrassment.

[Ramo]

which religion is the government sanctioning? Since the God included in the pledge is the same God that Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in.

Every monotheistic religion.

[MrFun]

So the government is not endorsing any one particular religion with the pledge, right?