| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2005 09:36:49 AM |
| Object: |
More on 'under God' |
More on 'under God'
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15587343&BRD=1347&PAG=461&dept_id=432990&rfi=8
Milford Mirror - Milford,CT,USA
More on 'under God'
JILL KAISER DION, On a Personal Note November 16, 2005
A caller this week demanded to know where he could find any mention of God
in the U.S. Constitution.
I'll admit to not knowing the answer.
If he'd asked how many times the word "thou" appears in the Ten
Commandments, I couldn't have answered that either.
Well then, the caller demanded, how could I argue in last week's commentary
that striking the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance would
require a rewriting of historic documents like the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution?
Our exchange became heated.
He demanded that I find some mention of God in the Constitution and get
back to him.
Of course, he's right. There's no mention of God, the Creator, the Almighty
or any higher being that I can find in the Constitution.
And since he was so adamant on this point, to be fair to all who choose to
strike the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, I mention the
lack of its existence in the Constitution here.
However, whether or not the U.S. Constitution evokes the name of a higher
being does not quiet the argument that declaring the phrase "under God"
unconstitutional might lead to the unraveling of our founding documents.
Certainly, if we strike this phrase from the pledge, we might be forced to
strike similar words found elsewhere - from our Declaration of
Independence, from our currency and from our courthouses.
But also, if we define this phrase as "unconstitutional," wouldn't it stand
to reason that we'd also have to state somewhere in the Constitution that
this intermingling of church and state is indeed against the rules?
The argument, legally, comes down to whether the Constitution clearly calls
for a separation of church and state, which it does not.
The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
(Wouldn't a ban on the words "under God" in the Pledge of allegiance
qualify as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" for the majority of
people who do believe in Him?)
People who oppose the crossing of the religious line, as with the words
"under God," read the Constitution differently. They think it implies a
separation of church and state.
Implication cannot be determined, however, because implication is akin to
"assuming" motive. The separation of church and state would, in my opinion,
have to be clearly articulated in the Constitution to make the phrase
"under God" unconstitutional.
So yes, admitting a Constitutional separation would lead to a red-tape
fiasco, immeasurable cost and an unraveling and rewriting of some of our
founding documents.
I won't say the atheists are wrong in their arguments.
Even though the angry caller with the find-me-a-reference-to-God demand
annoyed the heck out of me, the people who argue for the separation of
church and state articulate sound arguments for the most part.
Local people like Mark Prokop raised some very valid points when they said
the phrase should go.
Prokop calmly and rationally explained how the phrase made him feel
isolated in high school when the class stood up to pledge the flag.
That's a reasonable argument. Prokop and his team would take my argument
about cost and red tape and say, "Dash the cost; what's right is right."
That's the beauty of America - we all get to state our opinions.
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Lepore" |
|
| Title: Re: More on 'under God' |
19 Nov 2005 10:15:32 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELo@nospam.net> wrote:
Milford Mirror - Milford,CT,USA
More on 'under God'
JILL KAISER DION, On a Personal Note November 16, 2005
[text deleted here]
(Wouldn't a ban on the words "under God" in the Pledge of allegiance
qualify as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" for the majority of
people who do believe in Him?)
No. The pledge was never intended to be self-expression by the people
who say it. It was always something that was crafted by one group,
then given to another group, and expected by the first group that the
second group would say it. That's the nature of any superstitious
loyalty oath to the state. The government and its lackeys demand
of everyone else: You are expected to say these words. In the
schools, the principal recites the government loyalty oath
over the public address system, and the children are forced to
listen to it and pressured into repeating it. No, government
brainwashing of the people to make them into mindless automatons
has nothing to do with "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Mike Lepore
http://www.crimsonbird.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: More on 'under God' |
19 Nov 2005 05:33:19 AM |
|
|
wrote:
More on 'under God'
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15587343&BRD=1347&PAG=461&dept_id=432990&rfi=8
Milford Mirror - Milford,CT,USA
alt.education removed
More on 'under God'
JILL KAISER DION, On a Personal Note November 16, 2005
A caller this week demanded to know where he could find any mention of God
in the U.S. Constitution.
No, the Constitution doesn't mention God. However, if Jefferson's
"wall of separation" can be officially used to paraphrase the Court's
unconstitutional interpretation of the establishment clause then surely
Jefferson's DOI can be used to at least justify the idea that, for all
practical purposes, God is referenced in the Constitution.
I'll admit to not knowing the answer.
If he'd asked how many times the word "thou" appears in the Ten
Commandments, I couldn't have answered that either.
Well then, the caller demanded, how could I argue in last week's commentary
that striking the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance would
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS ARE EVIL SATAN WORSHIPERS!!!!! ==> More on 'under God' |
18 Nov 2005 11:04:42 AM |
|
|
Harry Hope <rivrvu@IX.NETC0M.C0M> wrote:
(Wouldn't a ban on the words "under God" in the Pledge of allegiance
qualify as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" for the majority of
people who do believe in Him?)
No, of course it wouldn't. That's just silly. It would mean that 'God'
wasn't being imposed on those who do NOT believe in God. Those who should
not need His name written on their currency or spoken in their Pledge of
Allegiance in order to maintain their belief.
The Pledge is political, not religious.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: More on 'under God' |
18 Nov 2005 06:46:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 03:36, quoted:
More on 'under God'
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15587343&BRD=1347&PAG=461&
dept_id=43
2990&rfi=8
Milford Mirror - Milford,CT,USA
More on 'under God'
JILL KAISER DION, On a Personal Note November 16, 2005
A caller this week demanded to know where he could find any mention of God
in the U.S. Constitution.
I'll admit to not knowing the answer.
If he'd asked how many times the word "thou" appears in the Ten
Commandments, I couldn't have answered that either.
Well then, the caller demanded, how could I argue in last week's commentary
that striking the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance would
require a rewriting of historic documents like the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution?
Our exchange became heated.
He demanded that I find some mention of God in the Constitution and get
back to him.
Of course, he's right. There's no mention of God, the Creator, the Almighty
or any higher being that I can find in the Constitution.
And since he was so adamant on this point, to be fair to all who choose to
strike the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, I mention the
lack of its existence in the Constitution here.
Ah, excellent! Advanced reading skills.
However, sadly, JILL KAISER DION does not mention that the Pledge
of Allegiance to which s/he is referring has been through a
"revisionist" process itself and has been changed to a document -
said document formerly a "patriotic" pledge or oath to our country
- to an endorsement of a god being on top of the United States.
However, whether or not the U.S. Constitution evokes the name of a higher
being does not quiet the argument that declaring the phrase "under God"
unconstitutional might lead to the unraveling of our founding documents.
Now, before we go any further, let's examine "The Rule of the
Exploded Middle" (aka Shockley's 11th Rule). To wit:
If "A" equals "B";
And "D" equals "F";
Then "M" equals "X".
Let us start off with undisputed facts (if any thinks that one or
more is disputed, that can be done in another message).
"The Declaration of Independence": a "founding document" because
General Geo Washington was told by Chuck Cornwallis, "Me go home
now". If Geo Washington had sent a white handkerchief to Chuck,
more than likely the Declaration of Independence would have only
the status of a British document of a list of folks who were
executed for Treason to the Crown.
The Constitution for and of The United States of America. A
historical document legalized by time and actions as the purpose of
the meeting was to update The Articles of Confederation rather than
to write a constitution.
The Bill of Rights: The early amendments to the Constitution. [Ten
out of twelve ain't bad.] Close enough to "founding documents" to
be considered one.
Status: Declaratiion of Independence: historical
Status: Articles of Confederation: historical
Status: Constitution without Amendments: historical
Status: Constitution: legal and binding with all active amendments
as part of The Constitution.
But
Alas but would the ability to read contain within it the ability to
think clearly and rationally.
Is the "Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag" a founding document? (No)
Did the Pledge of Allegiance - historically contain any references
to The Big Guy® contain any references to - as JILL KAISER DION
stated -
Even if it, once, had been, its wording has been changed, and it is
no longer "historical" to any great extent because revisionists
have changed it.
Now this JILL KAISER DION person/thingie is using the revisionist
Pledge to suggest that actual historic documents could be changed (
theme music from "The Twilight Zone" slowly getting louder) because
It was modified by the federal government to change its original
form.
Certainly, it is nowhere one of the "founding documents" - but is a
"pledge", an "oath" which is repeated daily by many people.
Certainly, if we strike this phrase from the pledge, we might be forced to
strike similar words found elsewhere - from our Declaration of
Independence, from our currency and from our courthouses.
Now, notice what this person, JILL KAISER DION, is doing here.
But also, if we define this phrase as "unconstitutional," wouldn't it stand
to reason that we'd also have to state somewhere in the Constitution that
this intermingling of church and state is indeed against the rules?
The argument, legally, comes down to whether the Constitution clearly calls
for a separation of church and state, which it does not.
The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
(Wouldn't a ban on the words "under God" in the Pledge of allegiance
qualify as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" for the majority of
people who do believe in Him?)
People who oppose the crossing of the religious line, as with the words
"under God," read the Constitution differently. They think it implies a
separation of church and state.
Implication cannot be determined, however, because implication is akin to
"assuming" motive. The separation of church and state would, in my opinion,
have to be clearly articulated in the Constitution to make the phrase
"under God" unconstitutional.
So yes, admitting a Constitutional separation would lead to a red-tape
fiasco, immeasurable cost and an unraveling and rewriting of some of our
founding documents.
I won't say the atheists are wrong in their arguments.
Even though the angry caller with the find-me-a-reference-to-God demand
annoyed the heck out of me, the people who argue for the separation of
church and state articulate sound arguments for the most part.
Local people like Mark Prokop raised some very valid points when they said
the phrase should go.
Prokop calmly and rationally explained how the phrase made him feel
isolated in high school when the class stood up to pledge the flag.
That's a reasonable argument. Prokop and his team would take my argument
about cost and red tape and say, "Dash the cost; what's right is right."
That's the beauty of America - we all get to state our opinions.
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More on 'under God' |
18 Nov 2005 10:27:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 04:36:49 -0500, wrote:
More on 'under God'
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15587343&BRD=1347&PAG=461&dept_id=432990&rfi=8
Milford Mirror - Milford,CT,USA
My rebuttals to JILL KAISER DION inserted below.
More on 'under God'
JILL KAISER DION, On a Personal Note November 16, 2005
A caller this week demanded to know where he could find any mention of God
in the U.S. Constitution.
I'll admit to not knowing the answer.
If he'd asked how many times the word "thou" appears in the Ten
Commandments, I couldn't have answered that either.
Well then, the caller demanded, how could I argue in last week's commentary
that striking the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance would
require a rewriting of historic documents like the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution?
Our exchange became heated.
He demanded that I find some mention of God in the Constitution and get
back to him.
Of course, he's right. There's no mention of God, the Creator, the Almighty
or any higher being that I can find in the Constitution.
And since he was so adamant on this point, to be fair to all who choose to
strike the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, I mention the
lack of its existence in the Constitution here.
However, whether or not the U.S. Constitution evokes the name of a higher
being does not quiet the argument that declaring the phrase "under God"
unconstitutional might lead to the unraveling of our founding documents.
Certainly, if we strike this phrase from the pledge, we might be forced to
strike similar words found elsewhere - from our Declaration of
Independence, from our currency and from our courthouses.
But also, if we define this phrase as "unconstitutional," wouldn't it stand
to reason that we'd also have to state somewhere in the Constitution that
this intermingling of church and state is indeed against the rules?
The argument, legally, comes down to whether the Constitution clearly calls
for a separation of church and state, which it does not.
The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Government intervention in religion would hamper "free exercise
thereof".
(Wouldn't a ban on the words "under God" in the Pledge of allegiance
qualify as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" for the majority of
people who do believe in Him?)
Nope - we are not trying to ban the words, we simply insist that they
don't belong in the pledge. The words were not there when it was
written; they were put in under pressure from religious groups in a
weak moment of US history, something that needs to be corrected.
People who oppose the crossing of the religious line, as with the words
"under God," read the Constitution differently. They think it implies a
separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion...."
means separation. It has to, because any official preference toward a
particular religion impinges on all the others, therefore interfering
with the "free exercise thereof". Such bias also usurps the right to
be an atheist.
Implication cannot be determined, however, because implication is akin to
"assuming" motive. The separation of church and state would, in my opinion,
have to be clearly articulated in the Constitution to make the phrase
"under God" unconstitutional.
Integration of church and state would have to be articulated in the
Constitution, too. You don't think they forgot, did you? There's
nothing pro God or anti God in there at all. Doesn't that speak
volumes?
So yes, admitting a Constitutional separation would lead to a red-tape
fiasco, immeasurable cost and an unraveling and rewriting of some of our
founding documents.
Nope, it was with vigorous effort by religious groups with lots of
cash to cut red tape that has gotten this far in the integration by
injecting the God word into the governing process, little by little
over the years. These religious modifications to our government,
however subtle or small they may seem to you, must be reversed.
They are not in our founding documents.
I won't say the atheists are wrong in their arguments.
Good. We aren't.
Even though the angry caller with the find-me-a-reference-to-God demand
annoyed the heck out of me, the people who argue for the separation of
church and state articulate sound arguments for the most part.
Local people like Mark Prokop raised some very valid points when they said
the phrase should go.
Prokop calmly and rationally explained how the phrase made him feel
isolated in high school when the class stood up to pledge the flag.
That's a reasonable argument. Prokop and his team would take my argument
about cost and red tape and say, "Dash the cost; what's right is right."
That's the beauty of America - we all get to state our opinions.
Yes. But we do not get to make our opinions into laws that conflict
with the Constitution. The beauty of America is greatened by
tolerance, letting people freely pursue their personal religious
beliefs without governmental intervention, as well as equal respect
for the non-believers.
If you want integration of church and state, think how you'd feel if,
say, your own religion ranked 15th, therefore putting you way behind
in support, finances and social acceptance. C'mon, now, think!
Some founding fathers may have been deists, which means they were not
theists. It is very important that you look up the words deism and
theism. Deism doesn't push religion. Theism does. That small
difference fools far too many people, and I'm afraid you are one of
them.
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
TheRain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: More on 'under God' |
19 Nov 2005 05:31:09 AM |
|
|
alt.education removed
buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
More on 'under God'
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15587343&BRD=1347&PAG=461&dept_id=432990&rfi=8
Milford Mirror - Milford,CT,USA
More on 'under God'
JILL KAISER DION, On a Personal Note November 16, 2005
A caller this week demanded to know where he could find any mention of God
in the U.S. Constitution.
If Jefferson's "wall of separation" can be officially used to
paraphrase the Court's unconstitutional interpretation of the
establishment clause then surely Jefferson's DOI can be used to at
least justify the idea that, for all practical purposes, God is
referenced in the Constitution.
I'll admit to not knowing the answer.
If he'd asked how many times the word "thou" appears in the Ten
Commandments, I couldn't have answered that either.
Well then, the caller demanded, how could I argue in last week's commentary
that striking the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance would
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More on 'under God' |
19 Nov 2005 02:33:36 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2005 21:31:09 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed
buckeye-ELo@nospam.net wrote:
More on 'under God'
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15587343&BRD=1347&PAG=461&dept_id=432990&rfi=8
Milford Mirror - Milford,CT,USA
More on 'under God'
JILL KAISER DION, On a Personal Note November 16, 2005
A caller this week demanded to know where he could find any mention of God
in the U.S. Constitution.
If Jefferson's "wall of separation" can be officially used to
paraphrase the Court's unconstitutional interpretation of the
establishment clause then surely Jefferson's DOI can be used to at
least justify the idea that, for all practical purposes, God is
referenced in the Constitution.
Jefferson didn't do anything
The COURTS have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
