| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mark Nutter" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2003 10:39:52 AM |
| Object: |
A more Constitutional pledge? |
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
;->
m
.
|
|
| User: "Routerider" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
26 Jul 2003 11:12:36 AM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fddfde37.0307260739.7138d89b@posting.google.com...
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
I actually prefer "one nation, under Anna Kournikova..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "shund" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
26 Jul 2003 12:50:34 PM |
|
|
"Routerider" <no-email@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Gp6cnWhNWp7iNb-iXTWJhg@comcast.com...
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fddfde37.0307260739.7138d89b@posting.google.com...
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
I actually prefer "one nation, under Anna Kournikova..."
I second that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
26 Jul 2003 11:49:15 PM |
|
|
Routerider wrote:
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fddfde37.0307260739.7138d89b@posting.google.com...
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
I actually prefer "one nation, under Anna Kournikova..."
What? I find her butt-ugly! And stupid! And talentless!
But "One nation, under Sarah Michelle Gellar" I could understand...
;-)
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
27 Jul 2003 11:07:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:49:15 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Routerider wrote:
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fddfde37.0307260739.7138d89b@posting.google.com...
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
I actually prefer "one nation, under Anna Kournikova..."
What? I find her butt-ugly! And stupid! And talentless!
But "One nation, under Sarah Michelle Gellar" I could understand...
;-)
Make it Willow and we can talk.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
27 Jul 2003 10:34:38 PM |
|
|
Apostate wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:49:15 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Routerider wrote:
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fddfde37.0307260739.7138d89b@posting.google.com...
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
I actually prefer "one nation, under Anna Kournikova..."
What? I find her butt-ugly! And stupid! And talentless!
But "One nation, under Sarah Michelle Gellar" I could understand...
;-)
Make it Willow and we can talk.
Well, I have no idea of who she is, if "Willow" is actually a person.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
27 Jul 2003 11:56:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:34:38 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Apostate wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:49:15 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Routerider wrote:
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fddfde37.0307260739.7138d89b@posting.google.com...
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
I actually prefer "one nation, under Anna Kournikova..."
What? I find her butt-ugly! And stupid! And talentless!
But "One nation, under Sarah Michelle Gellar" I could understand...
;-)
Make it Willow and we can talk.
Well, I have no idea of who she is, if "Willow" is actually a person.
Same show; the cute one.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
29 Jul 2003 08:53:00 AM |
|
|
Make it Willow and we can talk.
Well, I have no idea of who she is, if "Willow" is actually a person.
Same show; the cute one.
No, that would be Anya (Emma Caulfield)
:}
Anya: I have witnessed a millennium of treachery and oppression from the males
of the species, and I have nothing but contempt for the whole libidinous lot of
them.
Xander: Then why are you talking to me?
Anya: [sighs] I don't have a date for the prom.
Xander: Well, gosh, I wonder why not? It couldn't possibly have anything to do
with your sales pitch.
Anya: Men are evil. Will you go with me?
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
26 Jul 2003 08:04:38 PM |
|
|
(Mark Nutter) wrote in
news:fddfde37.0307260739.7138d89b@posting.google.com:
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
Why do we need a Pledge of Allegiance?
Of what use is it, besides as a tool for the indoctrination of children
during their early school years?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
29 Jul 2003 01:04:38 PM |
|
|
(Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0307260739.7138d89b@posting.google.com>...
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
;->
m
This doesn't address your totally serious topic ;) but does anyone
find the placement of the under god phrase to be funny besides me?
First it read "one nation, indivisible", then they try to divide us by
putting "under god" before indivisible. No one? OK, it's just me.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
26 Jul 2003 05:39:27 PM |
|
|
On 26 Jul 2003 08:39:52 -0700, (Mark Nutter)
wrote:
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
I would think that any kind of mandatory pledge would be
unconstitutional, but that, as far as I know, has never been tested.
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
26 Jul 2003 10:10:19 PM |
|
|
I would think that any kind of mandatory pledge would be
unconstitutional, but that, as far as I know, has never been tested.
It was tested in the courts in 1943. The Supreme Court ruled that compulsory
recitation of the Pledge was not only unconstitutional but unamerican. This was
eleven years before Congress illegally altered it to include religion.
"It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our
Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or
origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and
the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that
consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public
opinion by authority.
"The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are
obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the
limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually
and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social
organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic
ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to
make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.
We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that
we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and
abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as
those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is
not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of
freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that
touch the heart of the existing order.
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no
official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics,
nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess
by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit
an exception, they do not now occur to us." - US Supreme Court, West Virginia
v. Barnette (1943)
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
27 Jul 2003 02:27:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:30:28 -0400, Apostate
<Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote:
On 27 Jul 2003 03:10:19 GMT, forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert) wrote in alt.atheism:
I would think that any kind of mandatory pledge would be
unconstitutional, but that, as far as I know, has never been tested.
It was tested in the courts in 1943. The Supreme Court ruled that compulsory
recitation of the Pledge was not only unconstitutional but unamerican. This was
eleven years before Congress illegally altered it to include religion.
Thank you for the quote. I remember now that it had been mentioned
before.
snip
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
27 Jul 2003 11:09:18 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:27:23 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:30:28 -0400, Apostate
<Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote:
On 27 Jul 2003 03:10:19 GMT, forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert) wrote in alt.atheism:
I would think that any kind of mandatory pledge would be
unconstitutional, but that, as far as I know, has never been tested.
It was tested in the courts in 1943. The Supreme Court ruled that compulsory
recitation of the Pledge was not only unconstitutional but unamerican. This was
eleven years before Congress illegally altered it to include religion.
Thank you for the quote. I remember now that it had been mentioned
before.
snip
Thomas P.
Of course, that's "Lord Calvert" you mean to thank.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
27 Jul 2003 05:03:27 PM |
|
|
In article <3f2440a2$0$127$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>, Wbarwell wrote:
Thomas P. wrote:
On 26 Jul 2003 08:39:52 -0700, (Mark Nutter)
wrote:
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
I would think that any kind of mandatory pledge would be
unconstitutional, but that, as far as I know, has never been tested.
Wrong sequence of events
Yes it was. In the 50's some Jehova's Witnesses objected
to a pledge of allegience on religous grounds.
It was in the 30's and 40's
That this
pledge was essentially a religous pledge, forbidden by Jesus in Matthew
7. It went to court, they lost and appealled. It eventaully went
to the SC and they won.
Actually they initially lost in the Supreme Court but a few years
later in 1943 the Supreme Court overruled itself in a different case
and stated a mandatory pledge in this situation was forbidden.
Note that this was before the 'under god' was added. The Jehovah's
Witnesses felt their allegiance was to god not to a country and
therefore could not take the pledge.
So, a religous pledge is forbidden, because it is forbidden by the very
religion that usually tries to force these things.
A mandatory public school pledge, religious or not, has been forbidden
since 1943 (a private school like most private groups can require a
pledge). Admittedly some school districts, states, and teachers don't
seem to be aware of this. There is also the question of whether this
right pertains to the student or to the parents (e.g., can the school
require a note from the parents excusing the student from saying the
pledge).
The issue in the Newdow case is whether a public school has any
business to be indoctrinating students in an overtly religious pledge
even though the student has the option to opt out of actually reciting
the pledge and the 9th Court of Appeals ruled that it did not.
Personally I'm of the opinion that reciting of the pledge on so many
occasions or by children who don't even know what it means smacks of
totalitarianism and should be junked. Does any other Western country
even have a pledge (beyond things like oaths/affirmations of office or
gaining citizenship)?
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kumo Atsureki" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
26 Jul 2003 07:04:03 PM |
|
|
On 26 Jul 2003 08:39:52 -0700, in message
<fddfde37.0307260739.7138d89b@posting.google.com>,
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote:
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture?
It would be more Constitutional if any guiding principles defined in
the Pledge or any other officially sanctioned text were entirely
secular. One nation, guided by freedom... you know, something like
that. (Hey, it's no more a lie than the "liberty and justice for all"
part.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
27 Jul 2003 09:35:12 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message news:<jhachm-1D56B5.00084127072003@central.isp.giganews.com>...
In article <fddfde37.0307260739.7138d89b@posting.google.com>,
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote:
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
As an atheist, I would find any reference to a god or gods
objectionable. Why not just go back to the pledge the way it was
before 1954? But then again, as others have pointed out, why do we
need a pledge anyway?
Yeah, I agree, frankly. I'm just sick of hearing Christians defend
the religious pledge by saying, "'Under God' doesn't establish
religion--we're not specifying *which* God, so it could be
Christianity or Judaism or Islam" bla bla bla. The old line about it
being merely acknowledging the beliefs of the majority. I wouldn't
seriously want the pledge to call us "one nation under gods" either, I
just think it might be funny to see what kind of reaction you'd get if
you tried that approach with a Christian who was trying the "it's not
religious because it doesn't specify any one religion"
rationalization. "Hey, if you want inclusive, let's include *all* the
gods Americans have been known to worship." I can't help but think
that would put the issue in a whole different light for them. Then
again, maybe I'm overestimating some people's willingness/ability to
exercise critical thinking.
m
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: A more Constitutional pledge? |
27 Jul 2003 11:57:11 PM |
|
|
In article <fddfde37.0307270635.74c45083@posting.google.com>,
(Mark Nutter) wrote:
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-1D56B5.00084127072003@central.isp.giganews.com>...
In article <fddfde37.0307260739.7138d89b@posting.google.com>,
(Mark Nutter) wrote:
Speaking of the US Pledge of Allegiance, would it be more
Constitutional if we changed it to read "...one nation, under
gods...", in recognition of the full religious diversity present in
our culture? Or do you think the Christians would find it a shocking
violation of the First Amendment if the pledge openly endorsed a
polytheistic view rather than a monotheistic one?
As an atheist, I would find any reference to a god or gods
objectionable. Why not just go back to the pledge the way it was
before 1954? But then again, as others have pointed out, why do we
need a pledge anyway?
Yeah, I agree, frankly. I'm just sick of hearing Christians defend
the religious pledge by saying, "'Under God' doesn't establish
religion--we're not specifying *which* God, so it could be
Christianity or Judaism or Islam" bla bla bla. The old line about it
being merely acknowledging the beliefs of the majority. I wouldn't
seriously want the pledge to call us "one nation under gods" either, I
just think it might be funny to see what kind of reaction you'd get if
you tried that approach with a Christian who was trying the "it's not
religious because it doesn't specify any one religion"
rationalization. "Hey, if you want inclusive, let's include *all* the
gods Americans have been known to worship." I can't help but think
that would put the issue in a whole different light for them. Then
again, maybe I'm overestimating some people's willingness/ability to
exercise critical thinking.
m
How about "...under any gods or goddesses, who may or may not exist
and including those who may have been or been not worshipped in the
past, or any other supernatural beings or essences, real or unreal, or
nature itself, or mysterious forces, or maybe nothing trancendental at
all". I may have missed a few. but if kids were made to recite that
every morning, I'm sure the practice would be stopped fairly soon.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
