Appeals court: Pledge of Allegiance still unconstitutional

[Jack the Bodiless]

DinoDoc: If there was a widely-held belief that Bush was a Raelian, yes, I would expect him to issue a denial.

But this sort of anti-atheist rhetoric is common among U.S. politicians. This is precisely the sort of comment that Bush MIGHT say, and that other politicians (including Bush junior) HAVE said.

So, yes, it is entirely believable. All the more reason why he should issue a denial, if he didn't actually say it.

Atheists don't really need to invent this stuff to support their case: there are plenty of other examples.

For instance, would you care to enlighten us as to what an atheist should make of the phrase "we are not free from religion"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

An atheist when hearing 'we are not free from religion' should just admit that other people will wish to celebrate their religions in the open.

[Arrian]

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

Blah. Not exactly the quote you were referring to, but notheless slightly disturbing to me.

I sure as hell would like freedom from religion.

-Arrian

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by 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.

Imran:

The quote from Bush senior is this one:

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

I said that I couldn't track down the Lieberman equivalent. I saw it shortly after the Newdow case, but it appears to have vanished into the ether since.

...But what do YOU mean by "We have freedom of religion, but NOT freedom from religion"? That is certainly not what Jefferson intended, despite Christian propaganda to the contrary:

They neither break my leg nor pick my pocket -- so long as they do not molest me in my belief or meddle with me in my conduct -- I care not what they believe. -- I may have my opinion that certain systems of belief have a better effect upon society than certain other systems. And I may try by persuasion and argument to make others believe as I do. But I can and will take no measures to force my belief upon them.

[MikeH]

As someone who grew up in a country without a pledge the idea of forcing kids to swear allegiance every day is pretty repellent. I know a couple of people who left the UK to go to the US for a time when they were at school because their parents were working there for a while. Both were bullied mercilessly for not saying the pledge. Both by pupils and teachers.

One of them was even put into remedial English class because he spelt words in the English way and refused to spell them in American. Which I think was all just a reaction to how badly he was treated in other areas.

Now I'm sure there are good schools and bad schools and that was a bad one but from what I've heard it seems like a really bad idea to have the pledge at all because it's so open to abuse and kids can feel so powerless about teacher's authority. If you do have to have it then the under God bit seems totally extraneous, and I went to a Church primary school so I had much more religion thrust upon me at school than just that.

If there is freedom of religion could a kid choose what they say at the end like

"under the quest for enlightenment"
or
"under the way of the kami"
or
"under my own non deity based belief system"

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
An atheist when hearing 'we are not free from religion' should just admit that other people will wish to celebrate their religions in the open.

Why do you imagine that we have a problem with that?

They actually want the "freedom" to coerce others (such as minors, in this case).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because kids know EXACTLY what they are saying?

And lawmaking power itself is freedom to coerce. Should we thus abolish the government?

Btw, Jefferson, himself, was opposed to the Constitution and wanted a revolution every 20 years.

I don't have a problem with not having freedom from religion, even though I'm not Christian. Why should you?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Imran:

I fail to see why you are defending the Pledge. Of course the current phrasing is an attempt to intimidate atheists, and that's exactly how it's being used in many schools!

Do you wish to pretend that all these examples of Pledge-inspired bullying aren't taking place? Or are you arguing that they're an unfortunate side-effect of a greater good?

What IS the greater good? What non-sectarian PURPOSE is there to "under God"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's how the pledge is and what the majority wants. I'd have no problem with a pledge without those words, but if the majority want it, and it REALLY doesn't hurt anything, I don't see the problem.

[Jack the Bodiless]

That WASN'T what the Pledge said, until extremist Christians mangled it.

If it was revised to say "one nation, under the rule of the White race, indivisible...", you'd have no problem with that either, if the majority supported it?

It really DOES hurt. Being bullied hurts. Being told to get out of the country is not exactly pleasant either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If it was revised to say "one nation, under the rule of the White race, indivisible...", you'd have no problem with that either, if the majority supported it?

Nope. It's just a pledge. It means nothing, any constitutional violations are de minimis.

[Jack the Bodiless]

But why change it in the first place, and why the resistance to restoring the Pledge? That's what we're talking about here.

"Under God" does not belong in the Pledge. It was put there with malicious intent. What's so wrong about the original concept of "one nation, indivisible" which the change destroyed?

More examples of how the phrase "one nation under God" is commonly used, grabbed from Google:

"The great strength of the United States is that we are and will continue to be, despite the liberal court's decision, one nation under God." - Roy Blunt, rep. Missouri

From here:

2001-FEB: Virginia: Pledge bill defeated. State Senator Warren E. Barry introduced a bill making the recitation of the pledge of allegiance mandatory for every public school in Virginia. In doing this, Senator Barry violated his oath of office, in which he promised to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as implying that anyone has the right to refrain from reciting the Pledge. Under his bill, any student who refused to recite the pledge, without a valid philosophical or religious objection, would be suspended. Delegate Robert G. Marshall suggested that the bill be amended to require school buildings carry the national motto. The amendments were rejected by the Senate Education and Health Committee.

From here:

Sen. Buttars, the bills sponsor, said he cannot believe anyone would not want kids in public school to know and understand the pledge of their country.

Buttars said he would not try to take the controversial phrase out of the pledge.

"We've allowed the God haters and the value haters and the moral haters in this country to have center stage for so long that they've slipped the whole central moral platform of America off the stage," Buttars said. "We've gone too far. It's time to draw the line and start bringing it back."

Buttars said the United States is indeed one nation under God and he will pass the bill.

Note the foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric: it's "the pledge of their country" (as if it has always been that way ), and the "god-haters" hate values and morals (I assume we also hate Mom's apple pie too).

Ashcroft, being a moron as usual:

"The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," Ashcroft said.

"We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge," he said.

...So now the Evil Atheist Conspiracy is trying to stop people from voluntarily reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

From ONE NATION UNDER GOD by Rev. Bill Banuchi:

Does this include Atheists? Good Question. The answer is yes, and no. Am I trying to sound like a good politician? No, not really. What I mean is that the American spirit is one which acknowledges the God of the Bible as being true and real, but also acknowledges that there are others who do not believe what we believe; others to whom the reality of Christ has not yet been revealed. We must love them, care for them and pray for them, because it’s God’s heart that none of them would perish but that all would come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

We must love and pray for the Atheists and Agnostics but we must never allow them into positions of leadership in our nation "under God"...

...So you see, an Atheist or Agnostic has every right to live here, and be afforded all the rights and respect due a human being created in the image of God, but we must never elect them to office or we sentence ourselves to bondage under godless tyranny.

That’s why it was not uncommon for the early colonies to require a belief in God, The Holy Scriptures and in the system of eternal rewards and punishment before one could hold public office. In other words if you didn’t believe in God or the Bible, you could certainly live here, but because you are not, in your own mind and heart, under the authority of God who rules over America, you are not qualified to lead in this nation under God. Our rulers must be men and women under God; otherwise we will not be one nation under God.

It is taken as read that America IS "one nation under God". Not before 1954, it wasn't...

[Guynemer]

A number have polls have shown that 60% or more of the American public say that they would not vote for an atheist, period, end of discussion.

That, my friends, is bigotry. Plain and simple. The 1950s alterations of the Pledge and our currency have enshrined and reenforced that bigotry. And the histrionic, shrill defence of those alterations demonstrate just how ingrained that bigotry is in this country.

[ciaran]

Hey, let's hang on to the pledge because it's antequated and obsolete like religion and slavery. Let's prove to an alien race with vastly superior technology and xenophobic tendencies that we are not worth saving from extermination. Why don't we elect an ourangoutan to the highest political office in our political system, empower him with the capability to push complicated sets of buttons and make advanced transactions, and then argue about a bearded guy who was mounted on a pole and stabbed by another monkey who was then replaced by other people who thought that brainwashing our children with beliefs that they may or may not agree with--did they have the intellectual capacity to do so because Jane might well choose to be a Lutheran or something instead of an athiest or maybe she wants to be an athiest after all-- and wasting our legal dollars and television bandwidth when we could easily be reading a book, or making some money.

I mean, how important is this? Didn't EVERYONE kind of sleep through pledge? I mean, I didn't really care for this country when I was in high school. I cared about girls... and girls.

ciaran

[cinch]

Imran:

I don't have a problem with not having freedom from religion, even though I'm not Christian. Why should you?

That seems like kind of a strange thing to say, no? Just because you don't have a problem with something, he's not entitled to?

Personally, I've seen no solid arguments for keeping the pledge as is in this thread. It's mostly arguments about whether kids are bullied or not. That's not really the issue, though. The issue is the principle of the thing: freedom of religion IS freedom from religion. It has nothing to do with people saying "God" or practising their religion in the open, and everything to do with the state sponsoring monotheism in its loyalty pledge.

How is that justified?