It's out again - "under God" and the 9th circuit

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
The link you posted...

Was to show Berz the meaning of the word as he obviously missunderstood what I wrote. I honestly didn't read it beyond that.

Atheists want it removed because its a religious statment, but shouldn't be upset, as the phrase is strictly ceremonial, therefore again without meaning.

That and I fail to see the supposed governmental coercion involved. It just seems like an ideaological mole hill that has been blown out of proportion by a nut with an ax to grind.

[Berzerker]

That's grounds for dismissing the teacher but it hardly detracts from the point that legally nothing happens to any student that opts out of uttering the pledge.

Actually, they have to stand in the hallway from what I hear. But you cannot deny that there is for many many children an atmosphere of coercion to stand and recite the pledge. Coercion created by a state representative and authority figure, a teacher no less, "asking" children to stand and recite the pledge and coercion created by the request being made in front of others - their peers. Just because the current law has failed to recognise the coercion it creates does not mean the coercion doesn't exist.

Now, you say the teacher should be disciplined. Has any student ever been the target of anger or disgust from their teacher for standing and reciting the pledge when instructed? Yet we know or suspect many teachers do believe in the pledge and do react negatively to students who refuse it. So armed with that knowledge, how should students react when asked to stand and recite the pledge? Do you think they better stand and go thru the motions just to avoid the hassle? Should they embrace the hassle based on principle?

In general, courts have ruled that some seemingly religious expressions of government, such as the national motto, “One nation under God,” and the words “In God We Trust” on currency, are in reality “ceremonial deism.” The expressions have been seen as devoid of significant religious meaning because of their rote repetition.

And deists did not put the words "under God" into the pledge, they didn't even invent the pledge. They helped invent the Constitution and were foremost in making sure we were to be free from a government asking us daily if we still swear allegiance to the state's god(s).

There is a big difference between government recognition of God and government trying to establish religion. Its like the difference between a manger scene on public property and the police "asking" me each day to convert to the state's religion.

[Berzerker]

That and I fail to see the supposed governmental coercion involved.

The government is instructing children to stand and pledge allegiance to its god(s) with our money. We are coerced into paying for the state's attempt to convert our children, and we are coerced into using those public schools where our children are coerced into pledging allegiance to the state's god(s). That all happens before our children even enter the school to be coerced into taking the pledge. Still dont see the coercion?

Hell, who even needs the 1st Amendment? This is unconstitutional on the grounds there is no power in the Constitution authorising Congress to make this daily request of our children!

[Mr. Harley]

Dinodoc - would you be opposed to ceremonially saying "...under Baron Samedi?" He is a legitimate deity (or spirit actually) as recognized by Vodoun. How about under Brahma, we have numerous Americans of Indian ancestry. If you cannot interchange them, and those supporting it would refuse to support it, it doesn't pass the smell test (But THAT'S DIFFERENT). Sadly, the ceremonial deism test is probably going to get past our 100% Judeo-Christian SCOTUS. Do you see any conflict of interest?

[molly bloom]

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

James Madison letter to Edward Livingston, 10th July 1822


Clearly a lot water has passed over the Bush since then...

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."

Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

So if you're a monotheist, hooray for you.

If, on the other hand, you profess no religious belief, or are a polytheist, then too bad, you're on your own.


One nation, under the thumb.

[Sikander]

Now that it's served its Cold War purpose, the phrasing should be returned to the original.

[Odin]

Now that it's served its Cold War purpose, the phrasing should be returned to the original.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's the reason why the motto being on US currency has survived numerous legal challenges even in the Ninth Circuit.

I don't care, I still think it's a load of bull. I'd like to see if they had psychological experts weighing in on the power of rote repitetion to influence people. Saying it has no effect is simply not true.

[DinoDoc]

Well do you trust in God? Has our money made you a Christian?

[Boris Godunov]

Of course not, but that's never been the point. Derr.

[DinoDoc]

What's the difference?

[Boris Godunov]

The difference between what? I'm not talking about brainwashing, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were some effects in that department as well. I'm talking about people's religious beliefs or lack thereof being made to seem secondary to a state-sanctioned belief. Having such phrases in official pledges or on money and such adds to an atmosphere of religious preference for our government.

There are no reasons to keep the phrases other than religiously-biased ones, and plenty of reasons to remove them. Ergo, they go.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Hell, who even needs the 1st Amendment? This is unconstitutional on the grounds there is no power in the Constitution authorising Congress to make this daily request of our children!

I thought it was local school boards, authorized by state govts, that made the request, not Congress.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


James Madison letter to Edward Livingston, 10th July 1822


Clearly a lot water has passed over the Bush since then...



So if you're a monotheist, hooray for you.

If, on the other hand, you profess no religious belief, or are a polytheist, then too bad, you're on your own.


One nation, under the thumb.

So says someone from a nation where the Church of England is still officially recognized.

The pledge in its current form may or may not be consitutional. Im not a constitutional lawyer. But its certainly been around before Bush. And the ceremonial deism goes back a very long way.

I guess some folks cant see past USA bashing, or Bush bashing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well do you trust in God? Has our money made you a Christian?

Why would it? - all it says is "In God we trust"

cough, cough.