Topic: Change to Pledge of Allegiance
started by: demonk
Posted by demonk on Jun. 27 2002,04:37
This should make for some good discussion.< Pledge Ruled Unconstitutional >
Posted by editor on Jun. 27 2002,04:40
Can you say "shitstorm"?Naturally I agree with the law of separation of law and church.
what could happen otherwise is ugly.
btw, "under allah" etc
Posted by Beldurin on Jun. 27 2002,04:51
That is pure semantic nonsense. The significance of the Pledge is patriotic, not religious, and the context of the use of the word God is ceremonial, not religious.Are they going to recall, ban, and destroy all of our current money? This is bullshit, the same bullshit that got prayers removed from high school graduations. If you don't believe in it, then don't listen. Don't repeat the words. It's not as if it hurts you.
I find it ludicrous that hate speech is protected under the Constitution, but the Pledge of Allegiance is not.
I'm going to stop now before I really work myself into a lather.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 27 2002,04:54
Perhaps the end should be said "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." That way the god question is avoided.BTW, on CNN the ticker said the "under god" line was added to the pledge in the 50's.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 27 2002,05:09
our country is one nation, under god. we are not above god, and we follow god's laws. that is the significance. saying "one nation" is superfluous.I think the whole matter is bunk. The constitution says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. the purpose was so that the secular government wouldn't adobt a state religion, not to purge secular society of all mentions of religion of any sort.
The government should provide for defense, promote general welfare, and give everyone the freedom to persue happiness. The government should NOT provide for the general welfare or give people "happiness" at the expense of others.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 27 2002,05:16
| Quote |
| BTW, on CNN the ticker said the "under god" line was added to the pledge in the 50's. |
| Quote |
The appeals court said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting "under God" after the words "one nation," he declared: "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." |
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 27 2002,05:59
| Quote (CatKnight @ 27 June 2002,01:09) |
| The constitution says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. |
So, you HAVE to have a religion? Or if not, then put up with someone else's because they are the majority?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 27 2002,06:24
| Quote |
| Or if not, then put up with someone else's because they are the majority? |
you don't have the right to not be annoyed.
Posted by Mhoraigh on Jun. 27 2002,06:50
It was added, I believe in 1954. Eisenhower sounds about right.I stopped saying the pledge when I was a kid because of the words "Under God" so in one way I'm happy this was finally done.
So, what's next? "Our national currency has been declared unConstitutional because it says 'In God We Trust' on it" ????
Yes, the nation was created for freedom OF religion, not FROM religion, but we also shouldn't put words of one faith on our money or in our Pledge.
In response to the prayers at school comment, If it's a religious private school - more power to them...but not in public, not unless they want to bring in religious leaders/words from every existing religion. I'm fine with the moment of silence deal - then everyone can worship who they please. If you want me to ignore when someone is saying a prayer to the entire class, then you better be prepared to ignore me while I present my own beliefs to the same group - give equal time.
Ok, so I'm clearly confusing, at least to myself. I am sarcastic about the decision of the Court but I also support it. Look, I support the decision, I think they're right. With the money issue, though, it's been there so long that it'd be truly weird for it not to any more.
Posted by demonk on Jun. 27 2002,07:03
You do realized why this was added to the Pledge back in the 50's, right? It was because of the communists. They didn't believe in any god, which we viewed as being very evil. So we made our kids "pledge" to God. Makes sense to me 
.The reason you can't have a line like this required by federal law to be recieted every morning is that not everyone believes in God, or a god, or even just one god. Hell, there are plenty out there that believe in a goddess (female) instead of a god (male). The test that the supreme court uses is that it must include all religious beliefs or it must not allow any. It's an all or none kind of deal, so when this does come before the supreme court they will uphold the ruling. Doesn't matter if the majority of this country is christian or that even a majority of this country is religous. If you do not allow for all religous views to be expressed, you can't let any be expressed. Simple test actually. Everyone gets treated the same.
The only reason people would want this in there is to force their religious views down the throats of children. And it does get their foot in the door for other legislation they want passed. Basicly, they want to turn this country, from head to toe, into one big christian country. Why they have this great need to make everyone believe as they do I have no idea.
Posted by Beldurin on Jun. 27 2002,07:48
| Quote (demonk @ 27 June 2002,01:03) |
| The reason you can't have a line like this required by federal law to be recieted every morning is that not everyone believes in God, or a god, or even just one god. |
it's not required by federal law to be recited every morning, jackass
Posted by veistran on Jun. 27 2002,08:26
well, didn't this whole shitstorm evolve from schools requiring children to recite the pledge?
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 27 2002,14:43
in elementary school (private) i was required to recite the pledge.in high school (public) i was never required to recite the pledge...just to stand during it.
i think the idea of any kind of 'pledge of allegiance' is kind of disturbing anyway...but that's just me.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 27 2002,14:56
| Quote (lykosis @ 27 June 2002,10:43) |
| in elementary school (private) i was required to recite the pledge. in high school (public) i was never required to recite the pledge...just to stand during it. i think the idea of any kind of 'pledge of allegiance' is kind of disturbing anyway...but that's just me. |
You actually had the pledge in HIGH SCHOOL?
Where I'm from, kids are REQUIRED to say it every morning, but only in elementary school. After that, they assume your'e an american and let it slide.
About Money: Using United States currency does NOT mean you love Jesus, worship God, or anything religious. No one makes you recite what it says on the money. However, children, who have always had a hard time not doing what everyone else does (there are exceptions but peer pressure is very powerful at that age) are being forced to recite a pledge that puts their loyalty into a nation which is under a particular God.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 27 2002,15:03
I spent 89 consecutive days on detention when I was eight years old because I refused to recite the mandatory Pledge of Allegiance every morning in public school.I refused to say it because I didn't believe in god (and still don't, for that matter), and I didn't think it was right to swear allegiance to something I didn't believe in.
I still don't think it's right that a government endorsed anthem, and that's really what the pledge is because it was defined by an act of federal government (the Executive branch) should contain reference to or imply a belief in a monotheistic god.
Some peole will say it doesn't matter because this is a nation under god, but what they're forgetting is that the Constitution prohibits the establisment of any religion, including a popular one, by the government. And when you've got a President handing down an Executive Order (stroke of the pen, law of the land) to say that this country is monotheistic judeochristian, there's a violation of the Constitution right there.
Frankly, so long as 'under god' is in the Pledge, it's not a true statement. Liberty and justice for all do not exist, because monotheists are still riding roughshod over everyone else's free exercise of religion by trying to define this as a country under their god.
It should be returned to what it was before reference to 'god' was added. And people like CK should start to realize that this is only one nation 'under god' to people who believe in god. What about those of us who don't? We don't live in a nation 'under god' and shouldn't be forced by President Eisenhower's decision to pretend we do.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 27 2002,15:08
| Quote (Beldurin @ 26 June 2002,23:48) |
| it's not required by federal law to be recited every morning, jackass |
he didn't say it was. he was explaining why it wasn't.
the Pledge of Allegiance is something I wouldn't mind my kids saying every morning if "under God" wasn't there. The Jehova's Witnesses anyone else who doesn't wish to say it may sit quietly at their desk.
To make it truly fair, as well as educational, emphasize that agreement and dissent are both necessary parts of being a country that knows what it's doing. Make sure to point out that kicking someone's ass just because they disagree is low and cowardly.
The older version sums up our way of doing things pretty nicely:
I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands : one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I agree that reciting something every morning is a bit creepy, but kids honestly need that kind of thing. if it wasn't the Pledge of Allegiance, it would be The Itsy-Bitsy Spider... something to clear their minds and get them into learning mode. At least this way they grow up expecting Liberty and Justice for All and hopefully demand it as adults.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 27 2002,15:49
| Quote (CatKnight @ 27 June 2002,01:09) |
| our country is one nation, under god. we are not above god, and we follow god's laws. that is the significance. saying "one nation" is superfluous. |
If so, then the original version is superfluous.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 28 2002,00:29
The phrase should just be removed from having anything to do with the government. Maybe that will cause religious lobbiests will have less pull.It's a pointless phrase anyhow, for religious people, everything is under their diety(s) and for veryone else, it's just a bunch of meaningless rhetoric.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,01:24
the point of the freedom of religion line, as stated by the founders, was to prevent the church from being the government. they didn't want a pope or something to be the leader of the country. they also wanted people to have the freedom to practice any religion they wanted. saying "one nation, under god" in the pledge doesn't prevent you from practicing any religion. the statement means that our country is not above god, any god, any diety, whatever. saying the pledge is not pledging to god, it is pledging to the country.
Posted by forumwhore on Jun. 28 2002,01:46
OHSHIT;I must be losing what marbles I have left.
I find myself agreeing with CatKnight.
So let's pull the "under God" part and get on with the business of America, Business.
Naturally the above sentence will take about six months to come down to in the courts.
btw I am quite happy to be an American citizen.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 28 2002,01:55
| Quote |
| from MSNBC news (forgot to grab the URL, sorry): President Bush on Thursday said the ruling was “out of step with the traditions and history of America” and promised to appoint judges who affirm God’s role in the public square. |
::sigh::
yeah, this is an important enough issue that we need to stack the courts...
"Dear Lord, please protect me from Your followers. Amen."
Posted by Beldurin on Jun. 28 2002,02:17
| Quote (forumwhore @ 27 June 2002,19:46) |
| OHSHIT; I must be losing what marbles I have left. I find myself agreeing with CatKnight. So let's pull the "under God" part and get on with the business of America, Business. Naturally the above sentence will take about six months to come down to in the courts. btw I am quite happy to be an American citizen. |
ditto
Posted by Nikita on Jun. 28 2002,03:31
| Quote (Beldurin @ 26 June 2002,23:51) |
| I'm going to stop now before I really work myself into a lather. |
He's got the urge to herbal ...
Anyways, what if I'm buddhist and I want to say "one nation, under big fat buddha" since buddha would be my 'god' (though there's so many gods in that system). Probably would get my ass kicked. Would be funny if everyone subbed in the name of their 'god' ... hey, cthulhu!
Ugh, christian background is clamoring ... I can imagine what some of my friends (who got left in the dust) will be saying ... though I don't know why christianity is so prevalent in the US when everything supposedly happened in way over in Bethlehem/Jerusalem/etc etc etc. In a country where (most) ppl only know one language and don't even twitch a brain cell to learn another .... why take the trouble to translate/mangle them scrolls/scripts/doohickeys ... bah anyways, here's what some of my friends would say:
"... oh no, will someone please think of the pilgrims and their reason for coming here!"
"...take God out of the system, and they wonder why things are going to hell ..."
"...let's organize a prayer chain ..."
"REPENT! THE END IS NEAR! THE SEALS WILL SOON BE BROKEN!"
Posted by kuru on Jun. 28 2002,14:54
| Quote |
| The Esteemed CK: saying "one nation, under god" in the pledge doesn't prevent you from practicing any religion. |
What it does do is, by Act of Congress, officially establish this as a theist society. It ignores the fact that not everyone in this country is a theist individual, and violates the establishment clause because, while it doesn't pick any specific religion, it does officially give the nod to theism.
Well, what about the millions of people who like me, are not theists and believe that our religious opinion cannot be chosen against by the federal government?
| Quote |
| Nikita, with a question: Anyways, what if I'm buddhist and I want to say "one nation, under big fat buddha" since buddha would be my 'god' (though there's so many gods in that system). |
Well, there might actually be some Buddhists in the crowd of people kicking your ass, since the Buddha was no more than a man named Siddharta Guatamu. Buddhism in and of itself has no gods. Certain sects of Buddhists do worship the Hindu gods, and others the Tao gods (Zen Buddhism), but as it began with Siddharta, he never even asked the question. What he did was assume that if there were any gods, they were no more immune to the dukkha of life than man, they just lived under it for a much longer period of time.
</pedantic Buddhist>
| Quote |
| "... oh no, will someone please think of the pilgrims and their reason for coming here!" |
Because it was either that or spend their lives being tortured in British prisons for their refusal to accept the Church of England?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,20:16
| Quote |
| yeah, this is an important enough issue that we need to stack the courts... |
oh, so the ~300 clinton appointees plus the ~150 carter appointees to the ~50 bush plus ~50 reagan isn't stacked enough for you?
| Quote |
| What it does do is, by Act of Congress, officially establish this as a theist society. |
Holy cow you just lept over the grand canyon there. All it says is "most people in the US believe in god, therefore, we will put in a statement that says our country is not above god in the pledge of alligience".
| Quote |
| while it doesn't pick any specific religion, it does officially give the nod to theism. |
I don't see anywhere in the constitution that bans this. I have it right infront of me.
| Quote |
| Well, what about the millions of people who like me, are not theists and believe that our religious opinion cannot be chosen against by the federal government? |
the pledge of alligience is not a law, it doesn't "force" you to believe in god. nor are you forced to say "under god" while making the pledge, if you even do that.
| Quote |
| Because it was either that or spend their lives being tortured in British prisons for their refusal to accept the Church of England? |
last time I checked, there was no church of the US.
Posted by demonk on Jun. 28 2002,22:37
Wow CK, you really don't get it, do you. First off, did you even read my post about the "all or none" test? This applies here. If it applies to nativity scenes on government owned property, then it applies to the pledge that we require our young children to receit every morning. (I do want to make one quick side point here: different schools inforce this differently. Some couldn't really give a rat's ass if you said the pledge correctly or if you even said it at all, while other's are really anal retentive about it. So we can't make a blanket statement about how it is implemented at all school.)
Here is the first amendment, so we can all see the real law:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
That first part of the first line is important: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..." What do you think the "under God" part of the pledge does? Is says that yes, there is a god. Sounds like establishment of religion to me. It may not be specific, but is does exclude several groups of people in one swoop.
Now I know that your counter point is the second part of that sentence: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". But let's think for a second. By keeping the under god part in, we violate the first part of the sentence. Do we violate the second part by taking it out? No. Everyone is still allowed to exercise whatever religion he or she believes. By removing it, the government isn't saying "you must not practice religion". With that line removed, the government removes its self from a situation that is unsolvable and uncompromisable: the debate about religion.
I support the decision of the judge(s) and am proud of them for standing up to a very religious administration and lobbying group. It's time to enforce the law, not just the personal desires of people who are in power for only a short time (I'm not talking about Bush here CK. I'm talking about Eisenhower.)
Posted by demonk on Jun. 28 2002,22:42
| Quote (CatKnight @ 28 June 2002,12:16) |
| so the ~300 clinton appointees plus the ~150 carter appointees to the ~50 bush plus ~50 reagan isn't stacked enough for you? |
In the end, the people who get to appoint the Supreme Court Justises have the longest affect on this country. I can't remember how many Supremes Clinton or Carter appointed, but I know for a fact several of the current Supremes are stepping down during the Bush administration. I can guarrente you that Bush is going to stack the Court so far to the right that in 5 years you'll swear we were back in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's. That is the scarest legacy Bush will leave us with. That was the biggest reason I didn't want him in office.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,22:42
| Quote |
| (I do want to make one quick side point here: different schools inforce this differently. Some couldn't really give a rat's ass if you said the pledge correctly or if you even said it at all, while other's are really anal retentive about it. So we can't make a blanket statement about how it is implemented at all school.) |
I agree completely. So why is this guy in california trying to get the courts to rule that it is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, in all public schools?
| Quote |
| "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That first part of the first line is important: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..." What do you think the "under God" part of the pledge does? Is says that yes, there is a god. Sounds like establishment of religion to me. It may not be specific, but is does exclude several groups of people in one swoop. |
congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion.
the pledge of alligience is not a LAW. it is not unconstitutional.
the rest of your argument is irrelevant because it just relates to the first part, which is based on incorrect premises.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,22:46
| Quote |
| I can guarrente you that Bush is going to stack the Court so far to the right that in 5 years you'll swear we were back in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's. That is the scarest legacy Bush will leave us with. |
what are you scared of? the constitution being interpreted how the founders wanted it to be?
Posted by demonk on Jun. 28 2002,23:07
Yes. They were from a time period that has almost no relation to our time period. It was written back in the late 1700's to early 1800's, back when most of this country lived on farms. While I don't agree with many of the views held during those times, they did make one very smart decision that has kept this country working to this day. They knew they wouldn't be able to get everything right, so they wrote into the Constitution the ablity to change it and the way the government works. We have used this over the 200+ years the Constitution has existed, a majority of which has all turned out for the better. Just because our founders thought something should be one way doesn't mean that we have to do it that way. We have the ablity to chose how our government works, and it is our responsibility to exercise that right. Also, if you would actually READ the first amendment, then you would see that they are upholding the Constitution and what our founding fathers wanted (so 
)Since Congress passed this LAW requiring the "under God" part added to the pledge (not the recieting of it), it does indeed violate the first part, and therefore my arguement is completely sound. That's the part you are missing CK. Congress did pass this as a LAW. Get your facts straight first. I suggest doing a net search on the histroy of the Pledge and look at more than just Rush Limba's website for news about what is happening now.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 28 2002,23:10
The pledge was created and modified by Act of Congress, that means that it has the weight of law.Furthermore, it does indeed establish theism as 'official' in this country, because for the GOVERNMENT to say that 'nothing can be above god'..... read this really slowly CK.....
it must acknowledge or proclaim the existence of such a god.
This government shouldn't be claiming that a 'god' higher than man exists because that's an establisment of theism, and it's Constitutionally prohibited.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,23:24
| Quote |
| Since Congress passed this LAW [b]requiring[b] the "under God" part added to the pledge, is does indeed violate the first part, and therefore my arguement is completely sound. That's the part you are missing CK. Congress did pass this as a LAW. Get your facts straight first. I suggest doing a net search on the histroy of the Pledge and look at more than just Rush Limba's website for news about what is happening now. |
you won't go to jail if you fail to recite the pledge. the adding of the under god part was an act of congress, but not a law. if it was a law, the senate and the president would have to approve it.
read this really slowly Kuru...
NOBODY CARES. it is not unconstitutional. have you looked at the papers/polls/opinions lately? have you talked to anyone in real life lately? just about everyone is upset with this court and this guy for making such a rediculous argument. it is not the job of the courts to make sure every individual is coddled and that no one has to live with being upset by the beliefs of the majority of the country. you couldn't possibly go through public school expecting never to encounter differing opinions, even ones set forth by the government. and if you did, you wouldn't be getting an education!
it seems we live in a rule-of-the-most-offended society here. to this I have to say, STFU.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 28 2002,23:29
You may not go to jail, but you can serve detention for not saying it, at least in some schools.And as to the NOBODY CARES part, how many people would have to care BEFORE it becomes wrong? A hundred? A thousand? A million? HOW MANY, CK?
/Jean Luc Picard
This isn't about coddling. The pledge is acknowleging a God in a government-run place. I don't care how many people care, or don't care. That is still against separation of church and state.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 29 2002,00:05
You know...I'd say something here, but demonk, kuru and bozemen pretty much have it all covered and quite correctly...Side note: many people have observed that we might need to alter currency because it says "in god we trust". There's a difference though, since you never pledge yourself to these words, nor do you even acknowledge their accuracy or validity. Pledging allegience to a nation "under god" quite definately forces you to acknowledge god's existence.
CK, the constitution doesn't read that congress shall never share power with a religion, nor does it say that congress shall delegate no power to religion, it says congress shall never respect an establishment of religion by law... that's pretty damn narrow, and I think if the founders' intent was simply to never grant religion direct legal powers, they could have and would have been far more clear on it.
Posted by demonk on Jun. 29 2002,00:35
| Quote (CatKnight @ 28 June 2002,15:24) |
| the adding of the under god part was an act of congress, but not a law. if it was a law, the senate and the president would have to approve it. |
Wow CK, this is the first time I've caught you proving to everyone that you don't know what your talking about.
THEY DID APPROVE IT!!!! EISENTHOWER HIMSELF SIGNED THE BILL THAT WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS INTO LAW IN 1954 ON JUNE 14!!!
This has the full backing of the 1954 Congress and Presidential administration. It was signed into LAW by the 1954 Congress and Presidential administration. Therefore it is the law of the United States of American Federal government that the OFFICIAL pledge of allegiance has the term "under God" in it. No, you will never goto jail for not saying the "under God" part (yet). But they have still overstepped their bounds of power and violated the First Amendment. That is what the court has ruled.
And the court is not required to answer to the majority. They are there to interpret the Constitution and new LAWS passed by Congress. Congress and the President are the only ones who has to answer directory to the majority (because of elections). So the courts have the ability to not get into a popularity/power struggle and they can address the laws as objectivly as possible (true objectivity is impossible because they are still human). So, in answer to who cares:
I DO
And that is enough to ask for a redress of grievences by my government. Face it CK, you are the side of this arguement that doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 29 2002,00:51
I know plenty of Christians who believe firmly in the separation of Church and State, and they've got a very interesting take on the issue.First is that you can't legislate faith. That just creates a bunch of false followers and disgraces the big guy.
Second is that God gives NO human being more of a mandate to rule than anyone else. The only person fit to rule in God's name is Jesus Christ. When He is ready to rule us He will come back and do it himself.
It's fun to sit down with a preacher who knows I'm a diehard agnostic, and have him explain that when Judgement Day comes I'm going to be part of the New Earth along with most of the other people the Holy Rollers condemn... and most of the Holy Rollers will be going to a much darker place
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 29 2002,00:55
heh, CK also overlooked one other important fact...Congress = the House and the Senate.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 29 2002,04:16
| Quote (CatKnight @ 28 June 2002,15:24) |
| NOBODY CARES. |
You arrogant fuck wit.
You can't force your theism on me, or anyone's kid if they're in public school. If you must have your precious 'nation: under God' then keep it out of public facilities.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jun. 29 2002,04:59
| Quote |
| "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and every rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty," President Eisenhower in 1954 after signing into law the legislation |
Your telling me that isn't Supposed to promote religion, the fucking intent is to promote the worship of god, which the state CANNOT acknowledge exists without breaking the establishment clause in the 1st amendment that the Supreme Court has ruled exists many times.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 29 2002,06:07
| Quote |
| You can't force your theism on me, or anyone's kid if they're in public school. If you must have your precious 'nation: under God' then keep it out of public facilities. |
Including: all spectator sports, all civil courts, all currency, the national anthem, PBS, The House of Representitives, even the President's Oath. There are many many more. You may say "well screw it, just get rid of them all!" but I don't think the vast vast majority of the population would agree with you.
Saying "in god we trust" or "one nation under god" does NOT establish a state religion. All it does is establish that many people practice religion. You guys seem to all be confused by this. The Taliban is a state religion. The Vatican is a state religion. The United States is not.
As for the 1954 law thing, I have found many mentions of it but I can't find any specific detials about the so-called law itself, so I'm not going to say anything else about it.
As for DSL, I did not confuse the house with congress, I was looking for any mention of the senate endorsing the law but I could find none.
For Taxman, even CNN is reporting that people don't care. Even the most liberal democrats in congress are standing up and shouting that this was a bad move. Why? Because EVERYONE except for that guy in california, and you guys, thinks this was a very stupid court decision.
I bet anyone here $5 that this gets overturned in the supreme court. 2 to 1 odds. All bets have to be approved by me and must have a written or verbal agreement.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 29 2002,07:00
CK doesn't understand that the meaning of 'no one.' Two people on this site alone care. *peer*
Posted by demonk on Jun. 29 2002,07:19
Yes, never mind that the courts can find information on the Law passed in 1954, and never mind that every single major news source in the country can find it, if CK can't find it, then it isn't an important matter.CK, the purpose of that line wasn't to acknowledge that "most people believe in religion". It was to make it offical that there is a religion. So we don't have a specific state religion (yet. the right wings are just itching to change that), but by having this be in the offical pledge, it does establish that there is at least a monotheistic god. And the only reason all those Congress people are screaming bloody murder is pure politics (like everything that comes out of them). You know the republicans are going to try to turn this into some evil plot by the democrats to destroy the moral fiber of this country. So, the democrats are playing smart politics and are doing a premtive move and siding with the republicans. That way, they don't look like uncaring, immoral people (which wouldn't help get them re-elected). That's all. Oh, there might be a few who truly belive what they are saying, but on the whole it is just stupid politics.
So, the final question I have to you CK is this: if no one really cares about that one line, then why not remove it? Would it hurt anyone to remove it? Would our country stop working and fall apart because little Johny and Susy don't say "under God" when they say the pledge? Nope. And by removing it, the pledge would no longer violate the First Amendment. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Here is a one of the many links that I have found on the Pledge. I'm putting this one in because there is also a nice breakdown of what each part of the pledge means.
< The Pledge Of Alliance >
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 29 2002,08:29
Do you even read what I post? I said that lots of stories reference the law passed in 1954 but I can't find any details about it anywhere, other then that it happened.When I said no one cares, I meant no one cares that it "violates the first amendment" (which it doesn't), not that no one cares that the line is in there.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 29 2002,14:03
*backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal* "Shit they're still on my case! I'd better make a vague accusation that they're not reading my posts!"
*backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal*
[/CK]
Posted by Mhoraigh on Jun. 29 2002,14:43
Thanks Bozeman...you just made me laugh enough to brighten a rather dull day at work :)
Posted by ic0n0 on Jun. 29 2002,14:55
| Quote |
| The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801. Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere. Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ. Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people. And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. Signed in behalf of the Association. Nehh Dodge Ephram Robbins The Committee Stephen S. Nelson Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congretationalist establishment in that state. On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote: Gentlemen: The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem. Thomas Jefferson |
| Quote |
| Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black best expressed the purpose and function of the Establishment Clause when he said that it rests "on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion." Some Americans reject this dictum, promoting the idea that the government should endorse the religious values of certain members of the community to the exclusion of others. In fact, such violations of the separation of church and state take place with disturbing frequency in American government, at local, state and Federal levels. Recent incidents include the following: An Alabama judge regularly opens his court sessions with a Christian prayer. Further, he has refused to remove a plaque containing the Ten Commandments from his courtroom wall. Alabama Governor Fob James has threatened to call in the Alabama National Guard to prevent the plaque's removal. Local municipalities have erected nativity scenes, crosses, menorahs and other religious symbols to the exclusion of those of other faiths. The Board of Aldermen of a Connecticut city has opened its sessions with a prayer that beseeches citizens to "elect Christian men and women to office so that those who serve will be accountable . . . to the teachings of Jesus Christ . . . ." A variety of religious groups are demanding that their faith-based social service programs receive public funding although these programs engage in aggressive proselytizing and religious indoctrination. On the "National Day of Prayer," local authorities acting in their official capacities have led citizens in sectarian |
The first phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause. It has been interpreted by the courts as requiring a separation between church and state. That is, the government (and by extension public schools) may not:
promote one religion or faith group over any other
promote a religiously based life over a secularly based life
promote a secularly based life over a religiously based life.
Three tests have been developed to decide the constitutionality of laws that have a religious component:
The Lemon test: This was defined in a Supreme Court ruling in 1971. 10 To be constitutional, a law must: have a secular purpose, and
be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and
not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.
The Endorsement Test: Justice O'Connor created this criteria: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.
The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accomodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion.
Cleary the “under god” part of the pledge is unconstitutional, is it promotes monotheism over polytheism, atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Jainism, tribal religion, secularism etc. Adding that line has a coercive affect on non-believing children in a school environment, who are then intimidated by peers and the state though the pledge and teachers to believe in god, which is a particular religious belief not all religions share or people share, the pledge Cleary choices monotheism over others it is playing favorites, and is clearly not constitutional.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 29 2002,17:28
| Quote |
| Wow CK, you really don't get it, do you. First off, did you even read my post about |
*backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal*
Oh shit! Hypocrits everywhere! I'm surrounded! AHHHHH!
*backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal*
| Quote |
| the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: |
according to this, public schools, social security, and the post office should be considered unconstitutional.
| Quote |
| The first phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause. It has been interpreted by the courts as requiring a separation between church and state. |
This is what I ask all of you--how do you get from the united states not having an official religion, which is what the establishment clause is about, to complete speration of church and state? "seperation of church and state" is not in the constitution anywhere, you have just interpreted it that way.
| Quote |
| The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accomodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion. |
the pledge does not coerce students to participate in religion. even you are not arguing that. perhaps the "under god" part promotes judeo-christian views, but it in no way coerces you to participate in those religions.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 29 2002,23:50
CK, from whom did you quote that first quote? I can't seem to find it anywhere, but this is a big thread so I could have missed it.The interpretation of the establishment clause wasn't OUR interpretation, it's the SUPREME COURT interpretation.
In the above post, you admit that the pledge, as-is, promotes judeo-christian views. I agree. According to Ic0n0's post, this fails the "lemon test" and is therefore unconstitutional. Participation aside, it's an endosement, or promotion.
And can't you think of your OWN witty retorts?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 30 2002,07:10
| Quote |
| The interpretation of the establishment clause wasn't OUR interpretation, it's the SUPREME COURT interpretation. In the above post, you admit that the pledge, as-is, promotes judeo-christian views. I agree. According to Ic0n0's post, this fails the "lemon test" and is therefore unconstitutional. |
You mean the 9th circuit court's interpretation? Show me where the supreme court has actually made a judgement saying that the first amendment directly means the seperation of church and state. Also, explain to me how the lemon test became the official way of ruling on these matters. I'd really like to know (this is not sarcasm).
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 30 2002,08:45
Step back a moment and work through the reasons it should be included.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 30 2002,09:17
| Quote (CatKnight @ 29 June 2002,09:28) |
| according to this, public schools, social security, and the post office should be considered unconstitutional. |
A long quote, but one worth reading...
| Quote |
| From the US Constitution: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. |
Well, there's one down, you dumbass. Now show me where the Constitution bans public schools and social security, given that it explicity gives Congress power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
I've also heard plenty of Libertarians claim that it bans a standing army. Can you explain why it explicitly allows them as well?
Do you people ever actually read the Constitution, or do you just make it up as you go along?
Posted by ic0n0 on Jun. 30 2002,10:53
| Quote (CatKnight @ 29 June 2002,17:10) |
| Show me where the supreme court has actually made a judgement saying that the first amendment directly means the seperation of church and state. |
| Quote |
| U.S. Supreme Court MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION , 333 U.S. 203 (1948) 333 U.S. 203 PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. McCOLLUM v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 71, CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILL, et al. No. 90. Argued Dec. 8, 1947. Decided March 8, 1948. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. [ McCollum v. Board of Education 333 U.S. 203 (1948) ] [333 U.S. 203 , 204] Mr. Walter F. Dodd, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Messrs. Owen Rall, of Chicago, Ill., and John L. Franklin, of Champaign, Ill., for appellees. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. This case relates to the power of a state to utilize its tax- supported public school system in aid of religious [333 U.S. 203 , 205] instruction insofar as that power may be restricted by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. The appellant, Vashti McCollum, began this action for mandamus against the Champaign Board of Education in the Circuit Court of Champaign County, Illinois. Her asserted interest was that of a resident and taxpayer of Champaign and of a parent whose child was then enrolled in the Champaign public schools. Illinois has a compulsory education law which, with exceptions, requires parents to send their children, aged seven to sixteen, to its tax-supported public schools where the children are to remain in attendance during the hours when the schools are regularly in session. Parents who violate this law commit a misdemeanor punishable by fine unless the children attend private or parochial schools which meet educational standards fixed by the State. District boad of education are given general supervisory powers over the use of the public school buildings within the school districts. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 122, 123, 301 ( 1943). Appellant's petition for mandamus alleged that religious teachers, employed by private religious groups, were permitted to come weekly into the school buildings during the regular hours set apart for secular teaching, and then and there for a period of thirty minutes substitute their religious teaching for the secular education provided under the compulsory education law. The petitioner charged that this joint public- school religious-group program violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The prayer of her petition was that the Board of Education be ordered to 'adopt and enforce rules and regulations prohibiting all instruction in and teaching of all religious education in all public schools in Champaign District Number 71, * * * and in all public school houses and buildings in said district when occupied by public schools.' [333 U.S. 203 , 206] The board first moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that under Illinois law appellant had no standing to maintain the action. This motion was denied. An answer was then filed, which admitted that regular weekly religious instruction was given during school hours to those pupils whose parents consented and that those pupils were released temporarily from their regular secular classes for the limited purpose of attending the religious classes. The answer denied that this coordinated program of religious instructions violated the State or Federal Constitution. Much evidence was heard, findings of fact were made, after which the petition for mandamus was denied on the ground that the school's religious instruction program violated neither the federal nor state constitutional provisions invoked by the appellant. On appeal the State Supreme Court affirmed. 396 Ill. 14, 71 N.E.2d 161. Appellant appealed to this Court under 28 U.S.C. 344(a), 28 U.S.C.A. 344(a), and we noted probable jurisdiction. . The appellee presses a motion to dismiss the appeal on several grounds, the first of which is that the judgment of the State Supreme Court does not draw in question the 'validity of a statute of any State' as required by 28 U.S.C. 344(a), 28 U.S.C.A. 344(a). This contention rests on the admitted fact that the challenged program of religious instruction was not expressly authorized by statute. But the State Supreme Court has sustained the validity of the program on the ground that the Illinois statutes granted the board authority to establish such a program. This holding is sufficient to show that the validity of an Illinois statute was drawn in question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 344(a), 28 U.S.C.A. 344(a). Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, 293 U.S. 245, 258 , 202. A second ground for the motion to dismiss is that the appellant lacks standing to maintain the action, a ground which is also without merit. Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 , 443, 445, 464, 978, 986, 122 A.L.R. 695. [333 U.S. 203 , 207] A third ground for the motion is that the appellant failed properly to present in the State Supreme Court her challenge that the state program violated the Federal Constitution. But in view of the express rulings of both state courts on this question, the argument cannot be successfully maintained. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. Although there are disputes between the parties as to various inferences that may or may not properly be drawn from the evidence concerning the religious program, the following facts are shown by the record without dispute. 1 In 1940 interested members of the Jewish, Roman Catholic, and a few of the Protestant faiths formed a voluntary association called the Champaign Council on Religious Education. They obtained permission from the Board of Education to offer classes in religious instruction to public schoolp upils in grades four to nine inclusive. Classes were made up of pupils whose parents signed printed cards requesting that their children be permitted to attend;2 they were held weekly, thirty minutes for [333 U.S. 203 , 208] the lower grades, forty-five minutes for the higher. The council employed the religious teachers at no expense to the school authorities, but the instructors were subject to the approval and supervision of the superintendent of schools. 3 The classes were taught in three [333 U.S. 203 , 209] separate religious groups by Protestant teachers,4 Catholic priests, and a Jewish rabbi, although for the past several years there have apparently been no classes instructed in the Jewish religion. Classes were conducted in the regular classrooms of the school building. Students who did not choose to take the religious instruction were not released from public school duties; they were required to leave their classrooms and go to some other place in the school building for pursuit of their secular studies. On the other hand, students who were released from secular study for the religious instructions were required to be present at the religious classes. Reports of their presence or absence were to be made to their secular teachers. 5 The foregoing facts, without reference to others that appear in the record, show the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council in promoting religious education. The operation of the state's compulsory education system thus assists and is integrated with the program of religious instruction carried on by separate religious sects. Pupils compelled by law to go to school for secular education are released [333 U.S. 203 , 210] in part from their legal duty upon the condition that they attend the religious classes. This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax- established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith. And it falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment (made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth) as we interpreted it in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 . There we said: 'Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. 6 Neither can force or influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. 7 Neither a state nor [333 U.S. 203 , 211] the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State." Id., at pages 15, 16 of 330 U.S., at page 511 of 67 S.Ct. The majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State. They disagreed as to the facts shown by the record and as to the proper application of the First Amendment's language to those facts. Recognizing that the Illinois program is barred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments if we adhere to the views expressed both by the majority and the minority in the Everson case, counsel for the respondents challenge those views as dicta and urge that we reconsider and repudiate them. They argue that historically the First Amendment was intended to forbid only government preference of one religion over another, not an impartial governmental assistance of all religions. In addition they ask that we distinguish or overrule our holding in the Everson case that the Fourteenth Amendment made the 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment applicable as a prohibition against the States. After giving full consideration to the arguments presented we are unable to accept either of these contentions. To hold that a state cannot consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments utilize its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals does not, as counsel urge, manifest a governmental hostility to religion or religious teachings. A manifestation of such hostility would be at war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment's guaranty of the free [333 U.S. 203 , 212] exercise of religion. For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere. Or, as we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment had erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable. Here not only are the state's taxsupported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the state's compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and State. The cause is reversed and remanded to the State Supreme Court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the following opinion, in which Mr. Justice JACKSON, Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE and Mr. Justice BURTON join. * We dissented in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 , 512, because in our view the Constitutional principle requiring separation of Church and State compelled invalidation of the ordinance sustained by the majority. Illinois has here authorized the commingling of sectarian with secular instruction in the public schools. The Constitution of the United States forbids this. |
| Quote |
| U.S. Supreme Court ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) 374 U.S. 203 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. v. SCHEMPP ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 142. Argued February 27-28, 1963. Decided June 17, 1963. * [ Footnote * ] Together with No. 119, Murray et al. v. Curlett et al., Constituting the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City, on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, argued February 27, 1963. Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day - even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents. Pp. 205-227. 201 F. Supp. 815, affirmed. 228 Md. 239, 179 A. 2d 698, reversed. |
| Quote |
| U.S. Supreme Court EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) 393 U.S. 97 EPPERSON ET AL. v. ARKANSAS. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. No. 7. Argued October 16, 1968. Decided November 12, 1968. Appellant Epperson, an Arkansas public school teacher, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas' "anti-evolution" statute. That statute makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state-supported school or university to teach or to use a textbook that teaches "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals." The State Chancery Court held the statute an abridgment of free speech violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The State Supreme Court, expressing no opinion as to whether the statute prohibits "explanation" of the theory or only teaching that the theory is true, reversed the Chancery Court. In a two-sentence opinion it sustained the statute as within the State's power to specify the public school curriculum. Held: The statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces the First Amendment's prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion. Pp. 102-109. (a) The Court does not decide whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, since, whether it is construed to prohibit explaining the Darwinian theory or teaching that it is true, the law conflicts with the Establishment Clause. Pp. 102-103. (b) The sole reason for the Arkansas law is that a particular religious group considers the evolution theory to conflict with the account of the origin of man set forth in the Book of Genesis. Pp. 103, 107-109. © The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. Pp. 103-107. (d) A State's right to prescribe the public school curriculum does not include the right to prohibit teaching a scientific theory or doctrine for reasons that run counter to the principles of the First Amendment. P. 107. (e) The Arkansas law is not a manifestation of religious neutrality. P. 109. |
| Quote |
| U.S. Supreme Court STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39 STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY No. 80-321. Decided November 17, 1980 Held: A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the posting serves no constitutional educational function. Cf. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 . That the posted copies are financed by voluntary private contributions is immaterial, for the mere posting under the auspices of the legislature provides the official support of the state government that the Establishment Clause prohibits. Nor is it significant that the Ten Commandments are merely posted rather than read aloud, for it is no defense to urge that the religious practices may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment. Certiorari granted; 599 S. W. 2d 157, reversed. |
| Quote |
| U.S. Supreme Court WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) 472 U.S. 38 WALLACE, GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA, ET AL. v. JAFFREE ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 83-812. Argued December 4, 1984 Decided June 4, 1985 * In proceedings instituted in Federal District Court, appellees challenged the constitutionality of, inter alia, a 1981 Alabama Statute ( 16-1-20.1) authorizing a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools "for meditation or voluntary prayer." Although finding that 16-1-20.1 was an effort to encourage a religious activity, the District Court ultimately held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit a State from establishing a religion. The Court of Appeals reversed. Held: Section 16-1-20.1 is a law respecting the establishment of religion and thus violates the First Amendment. Pp. 48-61. (a) The proposition that the several States have no greater power to restrain the individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does Congress is firmly embedded in constitutional jurisprudence. The First Amendment was adopted to curtail Congress' power to interfere with the individual's freedom to believe, to worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, and the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the same substantive limitations on the States' power to legislate. The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. Pp. 48-55. (b) One of the well-established criteria for determining the constitutionality of a statute under the Establishment Clause is that the statute must have a secular legislative purpose. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612 -613. The First Amendment requires that a statute must be invalidated if it is entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion. Pp. 55-56. © The record here not only establishes that 16-1-20.1's purpose was to endorse religion, it also reveals that the enactment of the statute was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose. In particular, the statements of 16-1-20.1's sponsor in the legislative record and in his [472 U.S. 38, 39] testimony before the District Court indicate that the legislation was solely an "effort to return voluntary prayer" to the public schools. Moreover, such unrebutted evidence of legislative intent is confirmed by a consideration of the relationship between 16-1-20.1 and two other Alabama statutes - one of which, enacted in 1982 as a sequel to 16-1-20.1, authorized teachers to lead "willing students" in a prescribed prayer, and the other of which, enacted in 1978 as 16-1-20.1's predecessor, authorized a period of silence "for meditation" only. The State's endorsement, by enactment of 16-1-20.1, of prayer activities at the beginning of each schoolday is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion. Pp. 56-61. 705 F.2d 1526 and 713 F.2d 614, affirmed. |
| Quote |
| U.S. Supreme Court EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) 482 U.S. 578 EDWARDS, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. v. AGUILLARD ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 85-1513. Argued December 10, 1986 Decided June 19, 1987 Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science." The Act does not require the teaching of either theory unless the other is taught. It defines the theories as "the scientific evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those scientific evidences." Appellees, who include Louisiana parents, teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the Act's constitutionality in Federal District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. The District Court granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594. (a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Furthermore, the contention that the Act furthers a "basic concept of fairness" by requiring the teaching of all of the evidence on the subject is without merit. Indeed, the Act evinces a discriminatory preference for the teaching of creation science and against the teaching of evolution by requiring that curriculum guides be developed and resource services supplied for teaching creationism but not for teaching evolution, by limiting membership on the resource services panel to "creation scientists," and by forbidding school boards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses to be a creation-scientist" or to teach creation science, while failing to protect those who choose to teach other theories or who refuse to teach creation science. A [482 U.S. 578, 579] law intended to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction would encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human origins. Instead, this Act has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting evolution by counter-balancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism. Pp. 586-589. |
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 30 2002,12:51
so, uh, CK... how are you enjoying your new asshole?is there some sort of award we can give ic0n0 for that? he deserves it.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 30 2002,15:03
Ic0n0 deserves an "A" for effort. Well done. Please, where did you find these? I'd like a link, so I can have it for later CK B347D0\/\/NZ.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jun. 30 2002,18:25
Like I have said before the concept of separation of church and state by means of the establishment clause in the first amendment is well established.< http://www.positiveatheism.org/toccourt.htm > the source is Questionable but the cases and Rulings are not.
Posted by demonk on Jun. 30 2002,19:40
Congratz everyone. We won this debate and we did it by presenting good sources and using logical reasoning. I feel proud of this thread.
Posted by C_Puppy on Jul. 01 2002,02:38
CatKnight...... You are ignorant and a moron to boot!
The founding fathers declared every man to be equal in the constitution, while most of them owned slaves. So you are saying that they wanted every white man to be equal, you jackass? Times have changed since the wording of the constitution has been written, but even tho the founders didn't live up to their own bill of rights, it is still upheld as if they did. Same should go for Church, and "Faith-based" Initiatives
And Clinton had 300 appointees, but most were blocked-- hence why there are so many openings for President Moron to appoint now.
Come on do you really want Ashcroft to start singing more of his own personally composed Hymns in press conferences-- my father is a Methodist minister and he said he doesn't think he has heard worse. Imagine that multiplied but a factor of 10 or so.
So you think it is stupid to let this minority mess up the two or three words in a bunch of oaths--- well so long as the KKK's rights to assembly and free speech are protected(they ain't a majority CK, just so you know), and the rights of the NRA are protected-- I don't see why a liberal -(even as extreme as this guy seems to be) can't fight for his rights too, even if the rest of the country doesn't like his stance on god.
Sorry guys, I know the arugment is already won, but most of the people I talked to today who I had a higher opinion of on this subject let me down-- and I didn't have time to respond, So I thought I owed it to myself to respond to CK
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 01 2002,03:29
CatKnight.You can bend the entire thread if you stop and think before you hate someone back.
Think; you have every single poster's attention here.
This is an on-topic thread, very good.
I would, that you would, try to be more manipulative sometimes.
Right now, say something they all agree on and suddenly they could like you.
Posted by DRUFER on Jul. 01 2002,03:55
| Quote (forumwhore @ 30 June 2002,19:29) |
| Right now, say something they all agree on and suddenly they could like you. |
I dont think that CK is trying to be liked, ed.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 01 2002,04:14
That's what I don't get. Diplomacy is a foreign word for him and if he could just seduce and cajole a little bit, he could get more support.I'm a lesbian now, so I'm off to < pinkworld >
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jul. 01 2002,04:55
Why has this thread all of a sudden become a personal thing? In all likely hood, CK hasn't looked at it lately. I don't recall him posting anywhere else either.I argue against CK on a constant basis. That doesn't mean I don't 'like' him. I wouldn't be surprised if I was fairly similar to CK irl in some aspects.
(Why has this become personal. It should have stopped about 5 posts back when one side of the argument 'won.' )
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 01 2002,04:59
I agree; since the thread's not stopping, I wondered about what CK could get done if he'd just
change his approach.
He is a remarkably focused individual.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 01 2002,05:04
in defense of CK, he is definately smart enough to become a very good debator. his problem is that he's very angry about certain things, not the least of which is the way people will attack you just for being intelligent. but he obviously hasn't studied the humanities very much. this not surprising if his physics program is like many others, where they cut back your GE requirements and replace them with more math & science courses.this plays right into the hands of people like Rush Limbaugh who are well-versed in the art of persuasion, and make their living off of people's rage.
CK, I admire your tenacity. I hope it's obvious to you that I like tearing apart bullshit and stupidity just as much as you do. There's nothing wrong with that; it's a lot of fun and given the number of genuine nimrods in this country it's also very necessary.
But your sources suck. That's why you keep losing your arguments. In physics and mathematics, your arguments are either correct or incorrect. In the human sphere, though, there is rarely (if ever) one "correct" argument, with all others being "incorrect." It's all a matter of opinion... but that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid, not by a long shot. Some are a hell of a lot more valid (or shall I say "relevant?") than others. There are guidelines and techniques that help judge the validity and relevance of an argument.
Because your arguments are almost always derived from Rush Limbaugh and friends, your arguments are almost always invalid and irrelevent. The few times I've seen you strike out on your own, you've done much better, like the time you destroyed that one idiot who made me say "I'm suddenly aware of why so many people are proud to call themselves Conservative."
Take a few humanities classes, especially journalism or English, and your ability to find and destroy stupid arguments will improve dramatically.
Avoid philosophy classes, by the way... literary folk eat Philosophy majors in one bite. They're even more retarded than Psych majors
Posted by Beldurin on Jul. 02 2002,04:38
I heard a great radio advertisement today:Had a bunch of different people reading the pledge...and they read the under God part.
It finished by saying: "Thank God we live in Indiana"
I'll still say under God. Noone can stop me.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 02 2002,05:07
Ok I forgot to post here because I was posting again in the other topic. I didn't really want to reply to any of that stuff because it was mostly just CK bashing and taking my quotes out of context and then more bashing and then claiming "we win! yay!" so fine. There was just one thing that really irked me"| Quote |
| "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." |
IT DOES NOT SAY THAT!!! IT SAYS TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE.
k i'm done.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 02 2002,12:10
uh, what Constitution are you using?My sources from < The United States House of Representatives >, < The Library of Congress >, and < Cornell Law School > all have this version:
| Quote |
| Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; |
You may want to alert them of the error.
Posted by kuru on Jul. 02 2002,13:27
I think CK is referring to the Preamble, which states:'We the people of the United States of America, in order to establish a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'
However, Darth is also right, as Article 1, section 8, clause 1 does contain the quote he cited.
So there.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 02 2002,19:45
hey speaking of which,| Quote |
| but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; |
that is being violated as well.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 02 2002,20:58
I think that is just referring to how we deal with other countries. Example: I will get charged the same import fee if I import something to Oregon as I do to Florida. But I could be wrong. I don't have a dictionary handy right now.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 02 2002,22:15
Given that I've been talking about Article I, Section 8 the entire time, I'd have thought that CK would know enough to realize that I was talking about that section, not the Preamble.