The Pledge of Allegiance

[TheBigC]

I think you are being dishonest about how you feel about atheists. What you see in the First Amendment is colored by something, and that something is not love for atheists. Atheists are, ”not in the group for whom the law applies“. The Bill of Rights applies according to group?

Still, instead of any effort to show the unconstitutionality of the removal of “under God” from the Pledge, we get more crap about the exclusion of atheists from protection. Any atheists reading this thread feel like adding something here? Are you in an excluded group?

OK, this is the second time you're not only mislabeling me, discarding my argument, and failing to answer any rebuttal questions. You continue to ask me questions though and expect answers. You think you can read into me or my heart, make accusations, impugn my character, yet remain unaccountable for responding to any argument, and label me bringing case law, the Constitution, and a lot of reasoning as "crap". Here's your last chance. Scroll down and respond.

 

[marchare]

The only question I have continually been asking is “How is the restoration, by law, of the Pledge to it’s pre ‘54 form, an infringement on anyone’s rights?”. Anyone have the guts to answer that question?
Answers so far:
“……even if children were legally compelled to recite the Pledge, no specific God is mentioned. You are still free to believe in whatever God you choose”
“…..Atheists by default are not protected by that language since they do not recognize the existence of any God. I cannot be protected by a law if I am not in the group for whom the law applies”
“…..The fear is on the atheists and humanists side. They fear God and especially Christianity”
And the all too honest,
“…Maybe it is as simple as not wanting to let an atheist win over God”

You’re right, I can’t tell what you feel about atheists, but your statement that atheists “by default are not protected” speaks volumes about your notion of what rights are. It is the law that is the source of our rights? The Bill of Rights just a list of privileges handed down by a government? The law giveth, the law taketh away? Sorry about your kids but majority rules, you know.

Human rights do not emanate from law, our liberties are intrinsic to our nature. These liberties are simply not subject to consensus. I wish I could say this as eloquently as Jefferson:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

 

[TheBigC]

First, thank you for dropping the ad-hominem. I appreciate it.

The only question I have continually been asking is “How is the restoration, by law, of the Pledge to it’s pre ‘54 form, an infringement on anyone’s rights?”. Anyone have the guts to answer that question?

You *have* been asking, and I don't want to be accused of dodging, so here goes: it wouldn't. And neither would removing the police department and the fire department. Some things are recognized as being good for our country, even though their roots are not found as guaranteed rights in the Constitution. So literally, you are correct, nobody would be deprived of any right, since it's not the government's business to be meddling in that area in the first place, according to the Constitution. Just be careful what you wish for, because neither is police and fire protection...

Human rights do not emanate from law, our liberties are intrinsic to our nature. These liberties are simply not subject to consensus. I wish I could say this as eloquently as Jefferson:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

And Atheists deny the existance of that Creator, and so do not recognize any liberties not given by law of man! What else is there other than the law of man to the Atheist!? They can't have it both ways; I want to be given rights by a Creator, but deny that Creator's existence. That's PRECISELY why, IMO, a lot of people want to keep the "under God" in the Pledge now that it's there: because taking it away would be being incredibly ungrateful to the God that they believe exists.

 

[marchare]

And Atheists deny the existance of that Creator, and so do not recognize any liberties not given by law of man! What else is there other than the law of man to the Atheist!? They can't have it both ways; I want to be given rights by a Creator, but deny that Creator's existence. That's PRECISELY why, IMO, a lot of people want to keep the "under God" in the Pledge now that it's there: because taking it away would be being incredibly ungrateful to the God that they believe exists.

So you moan and groan about not harboring ill will towards atheists, and then base your denial of rights on their denial of your “creator“. Your view of rights seems dependant upon the perceived opinion of the recipient of those rights. Just what do you believe is the source atheists rights?

By the way, thanks for answering the above question.
So, it’s not an infringement on anyone’s rights to remove “under God” from the pledge, it’s just “ungrateful” to the “creator”. Very clear.

 

[TheBigC]

So you moan and groan about not harboring ill will towards atheists, and then base your denial of rights on their denial of your “creator“. Your view of rights seems dependant upon the perceived opinion of the recipient of those rights. Just what do you believe is the source atheists rights?

I was simply poking a hole in your argument. This hypothetical Atheist couldn't look to the Creator for any liberties because they deny the existance of a Creator. That was my point, that's all. I personally *do* believe in a higher power, but that higher power has little to do with rights. IMO, we have the Founding Fathers to thank for setting up a system where things are legal unless explicitly declared illegal. That's freedom. That's liberty. Combine that with a framework (that has since been eroded significantly) that was supposed to keep government interference in the average person's life to a bare minimum, and you've got the Constitution... the source of Atheists rights, since there's no Creator to grant any others.

 

[marchare]

I was simply poking a hole in your argument. This hypothetical Atheist couldn't look to the Creator for any liberties because they deny the existance of a Creator. That was my point, that's all. I personally *do* believe in a higher power, but that higher power has little to do with rights. IMO, we have the Founding Fathers to thank for setting up a system where things are legal unless explicitly declared illegal. That's freedom. That's liberty. Combine that with a framework (that has since been eroded significantly) that was supposed to keep government interference in the average person's life to a bare minimum, and you've got the Constitution... the source of Atheists rights, since there's no Creator to grant any others.

You didn’t get this, did you? (I quote myself

“Human rights do not emanate from law, our liberties are intrinsic to our nature. These liberties are simply not subject to consensus.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

Just try to lengthen your attention span to cover more than one clause at a time. There are connections between these two quotes:
“they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” implies that “human rights do not emanate from law, our liberties are intrinsic to our nature“;
and,
“unalienable” implies “not subject to consensus”

This “hypothetical Atheist” can look to his/her human nature as the source of rights. What brand of convoluted logic allows one to say that atheists ”by default” do not “enjoy protection”, and then to say, “things are legal unless explicitly declared illegal”?

Does the framework allow more than the minimum of interference in the non-average person’s life? The state’s inculcation of children in public schools with the religious opinion that our Republic is under God is quite an interference in anyone’s life.

 

[TheBigC]

Just try to lengthen your attention span to cover more than one clause at a time.

I have treated your arguments with respect and three times you've been derogatory, disrespectful, or condescending. I've had enough of you.

 

[Columbusite]

Hold it right there. I was that person, and I am no "Religious Right wingnut" that you can just dismiss. I pulled out the Constitution, and made an argument, as you yourself asked for. What's this about jailing? I argued that Atheists, who believe in no religion, cannot seek protection under the First Amendment's "Freedom OF Religion" language. That's it. The rest still applies.

You cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Saying that you must choose a faith is not freedom at all. It's that simple.

 

[TheBigC]

You cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Saying that you must choose a faith is not freedom at all. It's that simple.

Point taken, but it doesn't change either the strict interpretation or the loose interpretation, and here's my argument for it (feel free to weigh in on the strict or the loose argument):

1) Strict interpretation: you pointed out "of religion", and I argue that the Atheist has bowed out of the discussion because they have no religion to practice. In legal terms, you cannot seek legal protection under a law that does not apply to you. In an extreme example, it would be like trying to prosecute a shoplifter for murder. It's just not appropriate.

2) Loose interpretation: in the first session of Congress, in 1789, a national day of thanksgiving and prayer to God was passed through the Legislature, signed by George Washington, and the Supreme Court had no objection. The prayer that George Washington wrote used "God" many times, and "our Lord" many times. This was a Founding F'ing Father, who knew what the price was for allowing freedom of religion, and mentioning a God in the abstract was completely congruous with the freedom of religion that he and thousands of men had fought and died for. http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/original.html

 

[marchare]

You cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Saying that you must choose a faith is not freedom at all. It's that simple.

Yes, and I would loosely interpret that you cannot have freedom of thought without freedom from indoctrination.

 

[Aurora151989]

i keep reading that you have the option of NOT standing. However in my school I am required to stand for the pledge.

 

[argexpat]

i keep reading that you have the option of NOT standing. However in my school I am required to stand for the pledge.

Forcing you to stand and recite a loyalty oath? Is this America or North Korea?

 

[Aurora151989]

Forcing you to stand and recite a loyalty oath? Is this America or North Korea?

I think this is america but I don't like it. I have to leave the room if i don't want to stand for the pledge but i'm standing outside and causes a distracion, even nmore so if i just stay seated

 

[Synch]

I never say the pledge, simply because God is in there, and I have the freedom of religion.

I stand up though, you have to, but I don't say anything, and am the first to sit down.

 

[cherokee]

I never say the pledge, simply because God is in there, and I have the freedom of religion.

I stand up though, you have to, but I don't say anything, and am the first to sit down.

I also dont delieve in god but it doesnt matter. I say the pledge, I just dont say the word God or I replaece it with the word Law.

 

[FredFlash]

In the first session of Congress, in 1789, a national day of thanksgiving and prayer to God was passed through the Legislature, signed by George Washington, and the Supreme Court had no objection.

You are wrong! Congress did not use it legislative powers.

Congress passed a joint resolution (not a legislative bill) asking the President to issue a religious recommendation. This indicates that Congress believed it had no legislative authority over the duty which we owe to the Creator and even no resolution power to issue a recommendatoin on its own authority as the previous Congress had done.

Congress asked the President to issue the religious recommdation because the President had no authority to issue such a recommendation. The recommendation would have no legal authority whatsoever and no one would think it was a government assumption of power over religion.

James Madison’s view that government religious recommendations were improper eventually prevailed. In 66 of the first 74 years of the young Republic no executive religious proclamations were issued. President Washington issued one proclamation at the request of Congress and one without. President Adams issued two neither of which was requested.

President Madison made the mistake of trying to accommodate Congressional requests for religious recommendations during the War of 1812 while at the same time making it clear that he claimed no civil authority over religion. President Madison claimed that his four proclamations employed a form and language meant to stifle any claim of political right to enjoin religious observances by resting his recommendation expressly on the voluntary compliance of individuals and even by limiting the recommendation to such as wished simultaneous as well as voluntary performance of a religious act on the occasion.

The effect of Madison's wartime proclamations was disappointing. In 1832 Representative Gulian Verplanck of New York recalled, in a speech on the House floor, that the that the War of 1812 political religious observances under state authority were kept with “too much of the old leaven of malice and bitterness” and the Gospel of the Savior was employed by ministers and politicians alike “to point political sarcasm and to rekindle partisan rage.”

A lesson was taken from President Madison’s good faith mixing of religion and politics and every President from 1816 to 1860 flatly refused to issue religious proclamations under any circumstances. In 1832, Henry Clay and the Counterfeit Christians in the Senate took advantage of an impending epidemic and schemed to pass a join resolution requesting President Andrew Jackson to issue a prayer and fasting proclamation. Clay's resolution passed in the Senate but it failed in the House, where Gulian Verplanck of New York closed his famous speech by recommending that Congress "leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not the bidding of the State."

Fred Von Flash

 

[Columbusite]

If you favor the pledge just imagine these kids saying the pledge in German and maybe you'll change your mind about whether we should have a pledge at all. We shouldn't, in part because we're doing a horrible job with that whole "liberty and justice for all" bit.

(I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, but it's just for a photo)

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

You are wrong! Congress did not use it legislative powers.

Congress passed a joint resolution (not a legislative bill) asking the President to issue a religious recommendation. This indicates that Congress believed it had no legislative authority over the duty which we owe to the Creator and even no resolution power to issue a recommendatoin on its own authority as the previous Congress had done.

Congress asked the President to issue the religious recommdation because the President had no authority to issue such a recommendation. The recommendation would have no legal authority whatsoever and no one would think it was a government assumption of power over religion.

James Madison’s view that government religious recommendations were improper eventually prevailed. In 66 of the first 74 years of the young Republic no executive religious proclamations were issued. President Washington issued one proclamation at the request of Congress and one without. President Adams issued two neither of which was requested.

President Madison made the mistake of trying to accommodate Congressional requests for religious recommendations during the War of 1812 while at the same time making it clear that he claimed no civil authority over religion. President Madison claimed that his four proclamations employed a form and language meant to stifle any claim of political right to enjoin religious observances by resting his recommendation expressly on the voluntary compliance of individuals and even by limiting the recommendation to such as wished simultaneous as well as voluntary performance of a religious act on the occasion.

The effect of Madison's wartime proclamations was disappointing. In 1832 Representative Gulian Verplanck of New York recalled, in a speech on the House floor, that the that the War of 1812 political religious observances under state authority were kept with “too much of the old leaven of malice and bitterness” and the Gospel of the Savior was employed by ministers and politicians alike “to point political sarcasm and to rekindle partisan rage.”

A lesson was taken from President Madison’s good faith mixing of religion and politics and every President from 1816 to 1860 flatly refused to issue religious proclamations under any circumstances. In 1832, Henry Clay and the Counterfeit Christians in the Senate took advantage of an impending epidemic and schemed to pass a join resolution requesting President Andrew Jackson to issue a prayer and fasting proclamation. Clay's resolution passed in the Senate but it failed in the House, where Gulian Verplanck of New York closed his famous speech by recommending that Congress "leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not the bidding of the State."

Fred Von Flash

the 1st paragraph already proved your unintelligence. Congress did have its legislative authority and if you look a week later, after they asked George Washington, a bill was passed and was signed by Washinton. So the rest of those long a boring paragraph's have been scratched of as bull, sorry.

 

[FredFlash]

Congress did have its legislative authority and if you look a week later, after they asked George Washington, a bill was passed and was signed by Washinton.

It was not a bill. It was a resolution. A resolution is not a law and it does not have to be signed by the President. Resolution authority is not the same as legislative authority. Congress did not have legislative authorty over religon and they knew it.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=480

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=481

Fred

 

[FredFlash]

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands:
one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Every morning, in schools all across America, children stand up, face the flag, and recite these words. Recently, however, the practice of having it said in public schools has come under fire because it contains the words "under God," which were added in 1954. One of the main criticisms of these two little words is that they violate the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". What are your views on the Pledge? Should "under God" remain or be removed from it? Should the Pledge be recited in public schools or not? Why do you believe the way you do? SE

Does one have a religious duty to believe in the existance of God? If so, then the legislation that recommends it is an establishment of religion.

FVF

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

It was not a bill. It was a resolution. A resolution is not a law and it does not have to be signed by the President. Resolution authority is not the same as legislative authority. Congress did not have legislative authorty over religon and they knew it.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=480

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=481

Fred

Resolution authority? What is that?
Resolution authority is, in fact, a type of legislative authority. Why? because it takes the legislative power to make a resolution.

So yes, congress did have the legislative authority over religion.

 

[FredFlash]

Resolution authority? What is that?
Resolution authority is, in fact, a type of legislative authority. Why? because it takes the legislative power to make a resolution.

So yes, congress did have the legislative authority over religion.

Legislative authority is the power to make laws that others are required to obey. No one is obligated to obey a joint resolution of Congress. The First U. S. Congress believed it had no authority over religion.

That is why it did not pass a law to recommend prayer to the people. It passed a joint resolution to ask the President to do it via executive proclamation, because an executive proclamation has no legal authority.

FVF

 

[FredFlash]

Resolution authority is, in fact, a type of legislative authority. Why? because it takes the legislative power to make a resolution. So yes, congress did have the legislative authority over religion.

The religious proclamation of former President’s Washington and Adams recommending fasting and prayer, were an assumption of power not warranted by the constitution, or rather prohibited, by the true spirit of the First Amendment. Some persons excused the act as amounting only to the advice of the president as an individual. Why then was it clothed with all the forms of authority, the seal of the United States, and the attestation of the secretary of state? Saint George Tucker (1803) Tucker's Blackstone
Volume 1 — Appendix Note D - Note 303

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d15000.htm#303​

FVF

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

This is kinda've an obvious question, but I want to ask it anyways to prove a point.

Do you believe that Christmas, Hanakuh, Easter, "Under God", should be removed?

Edit: and if so, How?

 

[FredFlash]

This is kinda've an obvious question, but I want to ask it anyways to prove a point. Do you believe that Christmas, Hanakuh, Easter, "Under God", should be removed? Edit: and if so, How?

Christmas, Hanakuh, Easter removed from what and by whom?

Is the duty to affirm a belief in "one Nation under God" a duty which we owe to our Creator?

FVF