Appeals court: Pledge of Allegiance still unconstitutional

[Berzerker]

Imran -

So, wait. Let me get this straight. It is OK for parents to coerce children, but not for society?

"Society"? Don't you mean the Christian majority? That's right, a parent has the right to raise their child with their belief system, "society" doesn't have this right.

Why do parents get coercive rights when society doesn't? Are kids SLAVES to parents?

If I had said children who are coerced into reciting the pledge were slaves, would you consider that a serious argument? Me neither. Rights belong to individuals, not "society". Parents have this right because their children are under their care. The right ceases to exist once the child is no longer under the parent's care.

And when did I say it wasn't coercive? EVERY social construction is coercive.

You continually argued the pledge is voluntary, it isn't.

Yet, I don't see you complain about the inherant coerciveness of the 'free' market (where people are coerced into working) or the law (where people are coerced into behaving a certain way.

I'm not coerced to work for an employer, nature requires me to eat food to survive, employment is just a means to obtain food. And where did I condemn all coercion? As for the law, if you want to call acts of self-defense "coercive", then obviously I support some forms of coercion - when it is used to preserve freedom. But since the definition of "coercion" includes, or at least implies, an attempt to nullify free will, a law that prohibits coercion is not coercive since free will belongs to us all and one cannot use coercion without violating someone else's free will.

You treaty coerciveness like it is inherantly a bad thing, while supporting coercive institutions.

How does that allegation stand up when I've already argued in favor of a parent's right to coerce their children?

MOST would!

How do you know? And how is that relevant when even by your argument, some wouldn't wear the star of David for fear of persecution?

Why do you think Jews were persecuted for so long?

Why is that relevant? You think Jews are more religious than everyone else?

If you really understood religious people, you'd know that they will not hide their religion in order to be free from persecution. What do you think relgious martyrs do?

So you think all Jews willingly walked around wearing the star of David in Nazi occupied Europe? Anne Frank ring a bell? Some people would rather die than hide their religion, some would rather hide their religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's right, a parent has the right to raise their child with their belief system, "society" doesn't have this right.

Why? I'd think society has a better claim to have a right to raise kids.

Parents have this right because their children are under their care. The right ceases to exist once the child is no longer under the parent's care.

Who decides when a child is under parent's care? You are being inconsistant. Why this exception for a parent? No one can 'own' someone else in the US, I think you'll say, so why can parents 'own' children.

You continually argued the pledge is voluntary, it isn't.

Who ever said voluntary and coercive are mutually exclusive?

You don't have to submit to the coercion if you don't want to.

I'm not coerced to work for an employer, nature requires me to eat food to survive, employment is just a means to obtain food.

How does that lessen the coercion? If you want food, you are forced to work. Look, it's coercion!

But since the definition of "coercion" includes, or at least implies, an attempt to nullify free will, a law that prohibits coercion is not coercive since free will belongs to us all and one cannot use coercion without violating someone else's free will.

What a bunch of circular bull****! A law that prohibits coercion is coercive to those that want to indulge in that behavior. It is nullifying THEIR free will.

Coercion is simply forcing someone to do something.

You think Jews are more religious than everyone else?

No, the Jews were quite simply the minority. They didn't bow to the coercion of the majority.

So you think all Jews willingly walked around wearing the star of David in Nazi occupied Europe?

So teachers kill people that don't stand to pledge alliegance? Interesting schools you went to.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Why? I'd think society has a better claim to have a right to raise kids.

So what's the claim? "Society" didn't procreate your children, society didn't give birth to your children, and society wasn't there when your kid first walked or spoke. Nature has been designed with parents raising children, not society.

Who decides when a child is under parent's care?

Nature, and when the child is living in the parent's house.

You are being inconsistant. Why this exception for a parent?

How is that inconsistent? Why are you trying to equate parents with strangers and then using such an absurd equation to accuse me of inconsistency?

No one can 'own' someone else in the US, I think you'll say, so why can parents 'own' children.

It's not about a parent "owning" their children, it's about the task of raising children - a task assigned by nature. If a child grows up and leaves home, they are no longer subject to the will of their parent. Ever hear a parent say to their kid, "not in my house"?

Who ever said voluntary and coercive are mutually exclusive?

The dictionary.

You don't have to submit to the coercion if you don't want to.

That doesn't mean your choice was voluntary. If a school bully walks up and demands your lunch money, is your acquiescence "voluntary" or coerced. The same answer applies if you refuse the bully's demand. Resisting coercion doesn't mean the coercion doesn't exist.

How does that lessen the coercion? If you want food, you are forced to work. Look, it's coercion!

But the employer is not the source of the coercion, nature is the source.

What a bunch of circular bull****! A law that prohibits coercion is coercive to those that want to indulge in that behavior. It is nullifying THEIR free will.

Does free will mean you can violate everyone else's free will? Of course not, we all have free will, therefore, since coercion violates free will, a law prohibiting coercion is not coercive in that no one's free will is violated by the law. Some people claim "absolute" freedom includes the "freedom" to run around murdering people and any law prohibiting murder violates their freedom. But freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, and murder is a constraint. So, how can murder be an act of freedom when freedom requires the absence of constraints? Just as with coercion, a law prohibiting murder is not a violation of our freedom because freedom, by definition, doesn't allow for the imposition of constraints. You call that circular BS, I call it logic based on what words mean.

Coercion is simply forcing someone to do something.

That isn't the entire definition, coercion is a means of subverting free will.

So teachers kill people that don't stand to pledge alliegance? Interesting schools you went to.

You said the Jews did not hide their religion from persecutors and I refuted that argument, if you find the debate too difficult to follow, you can take a breather.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Society" didn't procreate your children, society didn't give birth to your children, and society wasn't there when your kid first walked or spoke.

Actually it did. Without societal creations your parents likely would not have met.

It's not about a parent "owning" their children, it's about the task of raising children - a task assigned by nature.

Have you spoken to nature? Why does nature assign it to the parents rather than to the herd? Because you say so?

But the employer is not the source of the coercion, nature is the source.

No it isn't. Why can't someone just walk on land and take fruit? Because we like property. He is coerced to submit to the property interest and work for food.

If a school bully walks up and demands your lunch money, is your acquiescence "voluntary" or coerced.

Both, duh.

Does free will mean you can violate everyone else's free will?

Actually true free will means exactly that.

You said the Jews did not hide their religion from persecutors and I refuted that argument

When does persecution mean killing? You can be persecuted without death, and seeing that saying the pledge isn't done at the end of a sword, it is a invalid comparision.

[mrmitchell]

Why won't anyone respond to me?

[Jack the Bodiless]

The 1954 change was INTENDED to legitimize the persecution of atheists.

It has NO other purpose. That is its function: no "true American" should be an atheist: ""From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty". And this is an argument specifically used against atheists by religious fundamentalists today: because "this is one nation under God", unbelievers should leave. Both George Bush (senior) and Joe Lieberman have experessed a belief that atheists should not be considered citizens.

It is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Not just the letter of the Amendment, but the spirit of it also. It must go, and soon.

As for "other problems": what are those? This issue may sound trivial, but the forces behind it represent the greatest danger that America faces today. Al-Qaida can kill a few thousand people, but the steady dissolution of the Constitution represents a much greater threat to the survival of what America IS (or was).

We now have a situation in which GWB is attempting to hand-pick conservative Christians to the Supreme Court in open defiance of Article 6: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".

America is sliding towards fascism. But that's "not important", as long as the trains run on time...

[TheStinger]

The only reason people want the phrase under God is to indicate a religious belief in God therefore it is trying to enforce their beliefs on others

No one has answered why is the phrase there if not for that.

Why would anyone in a country that has no state religion and has many people of all faiths and none want that phrase unless it is to imply religion is part of the state

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Berzerker
What's utterly amazing is that proponents of the pledge are claiming the religious freedom to coerce other people's children into affirming a religious belief and that not being allowed to use this coercion on children violates their religious freedom. Gee, does that mean vestal virgins who refuse to jump into a volcano are violating our religious freedom if we want them to jump?

A good quote!

I'm stealing it.

[Arrian]

Both George Bush (senior) and Joe Lieberman have experessed a belief that atheists should not be considered citizens.

*raises eyebrow*

Really? Link(s)?

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

I don't know about Lieberman but the source for the accusation for George Bush Senior saying something like that is a made up encounter with the American Atheist news journal. I'm somewhat shocked to see Jack still use it given the dubious credibility of its source.

[dudemanjack]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


Persecution happens because of religion, yes. Sad, but true.
But when the Pledge is requested by the teacher, to simpleton 2nd-graders (and the 2nd-graders raised up by Fundie parents! ) not saying the Pledge means you're not the same religion. Voila, instant persecution.


2nd-graders, Fundie-raised or not, in 98% of the time, will not "get" that not saying the pledge doesn't make you a good old American Christian.

(Sorry if that's poorly worded...before I proofread this it was even worse )

I doubt that second graders even have any idea what the pledge means when they say it.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Has there been a denial of the claim by Bush? The claim that he said this is pretty well-known, after all.

I haven't found Lieberman's similar comment, but I found this:

The Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. We are, after all not just another nation, but "one nation under God."

-- Joseph Lieberman, campaign speech at Notre Dame University on October 24, 2000

Lieberman wants a Constitutional amendment to enshrine "under God" in the Pledge. And, by declaring that we DON'T have freedom FROM religion, he's saying that religion should be mandatory. What else could that mean?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Has there been a denial of the claim by Bush?

Does Bush need to deny that he met with aliens as well?

[Zero]

Who gives a damn... Im still gonna be sleeping even if I was in H.S... I hated the stupid morning pledge by lame volunteer kids who did school announcements.

*shrug*

[Imran Siddiqui]

I found this

How does that quote in ANY way say that atheists should not be citizens? He is totally correct, btw. We have freedom of religion, but NOT freedom from religion.