marchare said:
Your view that atheism is not protected by the amendment implies that congress has the power to criminalize atheism
How so? This is the part you're not getting: this isn't about how I personally feel, this is about language that I see in the First Amendment that when taken literally ensures that people can practice whatever religion they want, and Atheism is not a religion. Personally, believe whatever you want, I couldn't care less. For me, this is about what's there and what isn't. If we want to talk about the "spirit" of the Amendment, it was written to ensure we wouldn't have a repeat of the religious persecution that was a part of Europe's history. How that treated Atheists, I don't honestly know.
marchare said:
Atheists have rights, but are given additional rights upon conversion? And you’re not a wing nut?
You are totally misreading what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to convert, and if I was, please show me where I told you which religion to convert to. What you're not seeing, again, is that this is about how the rules are written. What you personally believe is unimportant to me; you have the right to make your own personal decisions. I'm arguing about how the rules are written, and you're repeatedly projecting things on to me that I do not feel.
marchare said:
Here you ask that I become indivisible with “believers” so that I won’t continue to divide us and deny the desires of the “vast majority“. And I am the one being intolerant?
Again, out of context. Once you've won, and "under God" are removed, my question is: is that the end of your dissent? Will you declare victory and really feel "indivisible" ? Will that strengthen your bond with the rest of us, or will you continue to feel like an outsider? That's the question. It's personal, you don't have to answer if you don't want to.
marchare said:
The very fact that you appear on this thread arguing that atheists enjoy no First Amendment protection, betrays your motive. Read it folks. Is this the answer to my above question about motive?
It's because I like to debate. This site is like the Elysian Fields for me, I love it.
marchare said:
You say that the Pledge doesn’t deprive me? You weren’t there to see my daughter crying about others teasing her.
This is going too personal, I'm not going here. There's nothing I can say that will change your experience, or that of your daughter.
marchare said:
The cost to her? No signing of yearbooks, Prom night, class reunions, class trip, school classmates, etc. Has she the right to a learning environment free of this coercion? I insist that she does. She still cries about it by the way.
Again, leaving it alone. Safe to say though that we all got made fun of to one degree or another, and for some of us, there was no choice involved. I couldn't choose to do something and make the ridicule go away, it stayed with me until I graduated and went on to a bigger pond (University). Kids can be mean, that's all I'll say.
marchare said:
They claim the right to plaster the Ten Commandments on anything government, and then ignore the one about honoring thy mother and father.
There is much hipocrasy in society. Human beings are flawed. I don't think you'd be happier if dogmatic people were *more* dogmatic, would you?
marchare said:
You may have repeated those other two words, “liberty and justice” hundreds of times and I sure you understand the word “liberty” when talking about your own. Where is the justice for my little girl. It’s that justice part that you don’t understand, because justice protects the minority from the majority.
You will never protect your child from buttheads. Try to social-engineer all you want, it will never end as long as people are free to think what they want; the same freedom you wish to enjoy unfettered. People will cluster, there will be majorities and minorities and cliques and in-crowds until the end of time. The solution to that isn't to try to make everything as neutral as possible, because I contend that it drives humanity even more strongly to accentuate their differences.
marchare said:
The fact that I stand up for atheists in no way implies that I am atheist, I just believe in freedom of thought and justice, and have risked life and limb in defense of other’s liberties.
Then you can appreciate that while I stand up for the letter of the law, by no means does it mean I personally feel one way or another about it. The Atheist will always be on the outside, and will always be fighting for their place under the sun, because their beliefs are so far in the minority. If you're arguing against the Pledge simply on principle, in principle you've already won, it's the social stigma of Atheism that stings you, and you will never legislate that away.
Are all forms of thought protected? Sure. All forms of speech protected? No they are not; if you check out what SCOTUS has to say about "fighting words", they are not protected under the First Amendment. Ask yourself why that might be? I should think that the First Amendment is clear about not regulating speech, yet SCOTUS, the champions of the Constitution, felt otherwise. Why?
I think that the best analogy for this whole debate is that of smokers versus nonsmokers. It takes just one smoker to deprive an entire room of nonsmokers of their life and liberty. So in order to preserve the rights of the many, we deprive the rights of the few. Does that make sense? I don't know. Does one believer in a room of Atheists deprive them of their rights to have no God? Do we remove the exercise of religion to ensure no Atheist is offended?
marchare said:
My question: What motivates some Americans to insist “under God” remain in Pledge?
I don't know. I don't care either way. I just jumped in on this side of the argument because it was fun. If I had to venture a guess, it's because there is a deep-rooted sense of gratitude, thanks, and even a sense that America would not be what it is without the blessing of a God. I think it's because to remove it would run counter to that sense of duty, of gratitude, that "we did it ourselves, there was no God involved", and to people of faith, that's like biting the hand that feeds you.
marchare said:
So far, the only responses are, “Maybe it is as simple as not wanting to let an atheist win over God”, and “atheists fear God”. Heck of a way to show that removal of those “two little words” infringes on their rights. I think I have shown in my family’s case, that “this republic is under God”, is an infringement on many rights, including the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.
How was the law unequally applied to you? Did I miss that part? If you mean that some people enjoy the First Amendment's protection of religious practice and you don't, again, it's like me claiming that I'm being deprived of my Fourteenth Amendment rights if I can't seek relief under murder codes if I've been beaten up at a bar. How is that equal protection under the law if some victims can prosecute their attacker under harsher statutes than I can? How is that equal? If you stop for a second, and can explain to yourself why that wouldn't make sense, you can see the origin of my argument about Atheists seeking relief from the "freedom of religion" clause of the First Amendment.