Kollyfornia Strikes Again....

[Rich Stern]

Tom, a few points:



1) If you read the history of the 1954 "under God" change to the Pledge, it is a crystal example of an government promotion of a specific religious view (Judeo-Christian monotheism). It clearly violates the establisment clause of the 1st Amendment, because the Congress wrote and passed a law that promotes a specific religious viewpoint, to the exclusion of other viewpoints.



Dwight D. Eisenhower, at the 1954 bill signing ceremony, said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."



If you can explain that as not being a government sponsored endorsement of a religious viewpoint...well, go to the head of the class.



2) The courts have consistently ruled that public school teachers, as government employees, are bound by the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.



3) The courts have also consistently ruled that public schools can place coercive force on children in such matters (via teacher, community, and peer pressure). The courts have been very careful to maintain a standard that public schools cannot engage in activities that promote a particular religious view.



A pledge is a promise. The Pledge of Allegiance is effectively a promise to be loyal to the nation under one god (the Judeo-Christian God).



Why would you want to influence any American adult or child who did not hold that belief to make that promise?

 

[Johnny O]

I can see how the court would arrive at that conclusion. OTOH, I think too many people are too easily offended these days. Suck it up and get over it.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich asks: "Why would you want to influence any American adult or child who did not hold that belief to make that promise?"



Because I really don't see the harm. If you are an athiest, then you aren't really offended by that "Under God" inclusion, as to you its something you don't believe in, right? Unless you are Newdown just trying to posture.



I also simply don't BUY the whole "coercive" argument. Frankly, the Pledge really doesn't have that much of a meaning to kids as it is recited these days, so to say kids really feel strongly one way or another is kinda crap.



I understand the 1954 change and the fact that it wasn't there before. But again, I don't see the harm.



What about a kid sneezing in school...if the teacher says "God bless you", can that teacher be fired? And, if they can, what does that say about our society and its tolerance?



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Rich asks: "Why would you want to influence any American adult or child who did not hold that belief to make that promise?"



Because I really don't see the harm. If you are an athiest, then you aren't really offended by that "Under God" inclusion, as to you its something you don't believe in, right? Unless you are Newdown just trying to posture.

Tom, no offense, but that's not a very enlightened answer.



We have many problems in our society. We'll certainly never correct them if we maintain the attitude that oaths are meaningless, testimony doesn't have to be the truth, and making a pledge is just something you do to pass the time.

I also simply don't BUY the whole "coercive" argument. Frankly, the Pledge really doesn't have that much of a meaning to kids as it is recited these days, so to say kids really feel strongly one way or another is kinda crap.

Kids are highly influenced by group belief and action. Ever seen or heard of (or been) a good kid who does something uncharacteristically stupid, and the only explanation offered was "because everyone else was doing it?"

I understand the 1954 change and the fact that it wasn't there before. But again, I don't see the harm.

There's a small neighborhood in Connecticut, where a group of people just lost their homes because the local government decided those citizens' private property would be better as hotels and retail stores. Does that worry you? After all, it's only one neighborhood, right?



In a society such as ours, liberty is often removed slowly, almost invisibly, until people wake up one day and realize that it's mostly gone.

What about a kid sneezing in school...if the teacher says "God bless you", can that teacher be fired? And, if they can, what does that say about our society and its tolerance?

Big difference between the teacher saying "God bless you" and having the whole class stop what they are doing, stand up, and collectively say, "God bless you," at the direction of the teacher.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Agh yes, the whole "slippery slope", erosion of rights argument.



Let me know when you want to get rid of all those greenbacks labeled "In God We Trust" in your wallet out of protest. I will take them off your hand for you.



And, when pulling apart that turkey or playing football this Thanksgiving, feel free to remember Geroge Washington and his proclamation of a "national day of thanksgiving and prayer."



Oh, and since you are drawing for straws what with the eminent domain example (yes, that stinks...darn liberal judges), do you also think Congress should stop calling sessions with a prayer?



What about standing for the national anthem before sporting events? Sure, there is no reference to God there, but what if at the time, I am a little kid, or a young adult who doesn't believe in the current policies of the govt. Might I want to be an objector and might I also feel coerced? And if so, should we stop that because it flys in the face of my "free speech" rights?



Reverence of and reference to is not establishment. Sorry folks, it just isn't. In my mind, it all gets back to tolerance.



I am fine with looking the other way at all of these things and don't need to play games and discuss hypotheticals related to some slippery slope. To me, it is all about tolerance. Want a Quran plaque in the courthouse, and that's what the people want...FINE. Want a 2:00pm kneel to mecca break for the Isam students during the afternoon...FINE. I have no issues with these.



TJR

 

[Dre L]

Points to TJR for getting into it with the site admin.



You're right, tolerance on both sides is gone, however the government (they) cannot get into it on either side, therefore the pledge will be changed to its default status of not being under god. I agree that both sides are impacted that is why I said:

This is a country where one person's religious freedom impacts the freedom of another.

I remember when people weren't so sensitive on every issue. Now everyone is so quick to tear down the government (all of it, not just G.Bush) they blow everything out of proportion. That is why I said:

If you don't want to say under god, don't. Let everyone else who wants to say under god, say under god, and STFU. Let the courts handle bigger things, like why the hell gas and milk are both $4 a gallon, and rent is through the roof. We're working to barely keep alive.

The costs of basic necessities have all increased, and rent stabilization and other rent laws in NYC may as well be non-existant. I don't feel so bad now that Rich reminded me of those poor people which lost their homes to a shopping mall, but it is up there.



Plus the transit hikes, and toll hikes, come on now. The worker pays, in the usa, plain and simple. You get taxed several times on the same goods, and we're in here bickering about the bible??? The laws that protect us are being wiped out, but let's focus on the pledge of allegiance. GOD bless America because it needs all the help it can get.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Treaty of Tripoli, Washington signed it.



HAVE YOU NOT LEARNED, POLITICIANS WILL SAY ANYTHING FOR THE VOTE.



Read this article.



DOBBS: In point of fact, the Congressional Budget Office, which is considered to be the bipartisan objective standard of such things, has research that suggests that the deficit in Social Security would be only 0.4 percent of our GDP over 75 years as compared to the other large deficits percentages that associated with trade in the budget deficit. Do you have, we're talking about fixing the fixes we're in, a quick answer for Social Security?



BUFFETT: I personally would increase the taxable base above the present $90,000. I pay very little in the way of Social Security taxes because I make a lot more than $90,000. And the people in my office pay the full tax. We're already edging up the retirement age a bit. And I would means test ... I get a check for $1,700 or $1,900 or something every month. I'm 74. And I cash it. But I'll eat without it.



DOBBS: You will eat without it. So will literally more than a million other Americans, as well. Means testing, the idea of raising taxes, the payroll tax. In 1983, Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman, he had a very simple idea: raise taxes. That's what you're saying here.



BUFFETT: Sure. But I wouldn't raise the 12-point and a fraction payroll tax, I would raise the taxable base to above $90,000.



DOBBS: That's a progressive idea. In other words, the rich people would pay more?



BUFFETT: Yeah. The rich people are doing so well in this country. I mean, we never had it so good.



DOBBS: What a radical idea.



BUFFETT: It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be.

 

[Rich Stern]

Let me know when you want to get rid of all those greenbacks labeled "In God We Trust" in your wallet out of protest. I will take them off your hand for you.

The original mottos ("Liberty," "E Pluribus Unum") were perfectly satisfactory. If you know the history, you know that powerful Protestant influences within the U.S. government engineered the change beginning in the 1860s, somewhat surreptitiously, after failing to get a reference to Jesus Christ added to the preamble of the Constitution. But hey, I'm sure they weren't trying to "establish" any religion.

And, when pulling apart that turkey or playing football this Thanksgiving, feel free to remember Geroge Washington and his proclamation of a "national day of thanksgiving and prayer."

Since George won't come to my house and demand I bake a turkey, nor will any public school teachers show up in my kitchen with a group of students and a baking cyllabus, I have no problem with Thanksgiving.



We have lots of gov't recognized holidays that have religious origins. Just because the government takes a day off (a good thing for the rest of us), doesn't mean anyone is being coerced into observing the holiday.

Oh, and since you are drawing for straws what with the eminent domain example (yes, that stinks...darn liberal judges), do you also think Congress should stop calling sessions with a prayer?

If a group of congressmen want to pray in their workplace before they get started, and no member objects, that's probably the least damaging thing they'll do all day and I'm grateful that their hands and minds are occupied with it rather than writing more laws.

What about standing for the national anthem before sporting events? Sure, there is no reference to God there, but what if at the time, I am a little kid, or a young adult who doesn't believe in the current policies of the govt. Might I want to be an objector and might I also feel coerced? And if so, should we stop that because it flys in the face of my "free speech" rights?

You can:



1) Excercise your right to free speech and voice your contrary opinion outside the stadium while they sing (something school kids can't do at school)



2) Don't attend.

(another thing that will get school kids in hot water)



3) Recognize that private organizations such as sports franchises and stadium management companies have the liberty to conduct their private business affairs in any way they see fit. If they want to have Hari Krishna dancers on the field at half time, and think it well sell more tickets...it's not my place or the government's to say otherwise.

Reverence of and reference to is not establishment. Sorry folks, it just isn't. In my mind, it all gets back to tolerance.

Just as building a house is not soley masonwork or carpentry, establishment of a religion is not a single act. It is many acts.

I am fine with looking the other way at all of these things and don't need to play games and discuss hypotheticals related to some slippery slope. To me, it is all about tolerance. Want a Quran plaque in the courthouse, and that's what the people want...FINE. Want a 2:00pm kneel to mecca break for the Isam students during the afternoon...FINE. I have no issues with these.

The Constitutution of the United States doesn't prescribe tolerance. Instead, it prescribes:



1) A legislature prohibited from making laws regarding creation or control of religion



2) The right of Americans to pursue happiness according to individual definition, not "what other people will tolerate."

 

[Michael Cacioppo]

It seems to me that if the children, of their own free will, want to pledge to God (as in the pledge of allegience), the government can not restrict nor compell their practice as per the words in the first ammendment.



Seems to me that the ones that want to should be able to and the ones that don't not, don not have to. Barring all seems to be contrary the the thoughts of the founding fathers.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I was just going to make that point MikeC in a question.



So, Rich what do you think? If some of the kids choose to stand up, on their own, in the morning and recite the pledge with "Under God" in it, is that okay?



You also say that "The Constitutution of the United States defines...a legislature prohibited from making laws regarding creation or control of religion."



The issue of the Pledge and this case with the reciting of the pledge clearly isn't the govt "creating" a religion. However, surely this case is the government controlling religion.



If you had to look at those two words of yours Rich, "creation" and "control", which is more correct:



a) The optional reciting of the pledge "creates" a government run religion.



or



b) This new ruling defines a govt "control" of religion.





Seriously, which one of the above statements is MORE true? Think logically, forget your position, look equally at both sides of the debate without emotion and then answer.



Obviously I think its B, because I can't see that the government CREATED or ESTABLISHED (lookup the word in Webster's) a religion with the addition/reciting of "Under God" in the pledge. Yes, I can understand how the slippery slope argument, and the separation argument applies. It's that word ESTABLISH that gets me, and that word CREATE which you seemed to use synonomously.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

It seems to me that if the children, of their own free will, want to pledge to God (as in the pledge of allegience), the government can not restrict nor compell their practice as per the words in the first ammendment.

OK, let's take that into practice: Tomorrow morning, all teachers in all public schools stop leading the pledge. They act like they never did. No loudspeaker announcements for the Pledge. Just silence. You give the kids 1 minute to do what they want with the time.



How many kids do you think are saying the Pledge a month later, "of their own free will?"



Remove the government employee leadership, and it evaporates.



I have nothing against the Pledge. I always liked it as a kid. I have nothing against people acknowledging their deity in ways that fit them and respect the rights of people who believe differently.



What I do have a problem with is the Congress of the United States writing laws that demonstrably violate the Constitution of the United States.



At every chance to correct that behavior, I will speak up.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

But Rich, there was never a LAW that said kids HAD to say the Pledge. Never even school rules...most schools have just done it if and when the teachers want to.



Now there is a law saying kids can't do what kids have done for years; and that thing that they can no longer do is something that most had no issue with, and many kids actually liked.



I too want less govt, but this whole thing smacks of MORE govt.



Do you think kids started reciting the pledge in the first place (either version) because of the govt, or because of some law...NO!



They did it as an observance. And, now the govt is telling the kids they can no longer do it.



I do have a problem with it.



And, I do think that you will hear it said for years to come as the moments of silence are observed each morning in classrooms...until someone figures out how the "moment of silence" is unconstitutional.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Tom, Jeses didn't wake up one morning and say "Today, I am going to create Christianity."



The creation of Christianity is based on a collection of Jesus' words and deeds as reported by his disciples. Pick any episode from his life and death: Immaculate Conception, Sermon at the Mount, curing the sick, walking on water, etc. etc. etc. They all are important to the creation of Christianity. So how did Jesus "establish" the religion? Not with a single act or decree. Indeed, few if any religions are established like that. It is a series of events that causes them to be established.



And that's where your establishment perception is off, IMO. You are looking for a single law that defines a state religion. It is more akin to your slippery slope, which subtly herding us into a particular path or course of action.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich as I said, I don't buy into the "slippery slope" concept. People are always bashing Christians as being weak-minded and needing a crutch. The "slippery slope" argument is the most crutch-like argument of the civil libertarians.



Like I said, when our govt PASSES A LAW that ESTABLISHES A RELIGION, you let me know, as I will be the first to oppose it and my govt.



But, I am here to say that TODAY, my govt DID pass a law that infringed on religion.



To me it is black and white...and I am done talking!



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

But Rich, there was never a LAW that said kids HAD to say the Pledge. Never even school rules...most schools have just done it if and when the teachers want to.

Agreed. Not sure what your point is. The Pledge became popular as a civic excercise led by school teachers. I don't think kids got the idea themselves, and they certainly weren't responsible for it's popular spread.

Now there is a law saying kids can't do what kids have done for years; and that thing that they can no longer do is something that most had no issue with, and many kids actually liked.

Sometimes it takes a second "wrong" to correct the first wrong. The first wrong happened in 1954. The second is a logically correct legal challenge to the first. If you undo the first wrong, the second "wrong" goes away.



Are you taking the position that the 1954 law was proper relative to the Constitution? Realize that when courts evaluate such things, they look at the intent of the government when it passed the law, based on public testimony and statements. The 9th circuit court looked at that and correctly determined that it was a deliberate attempt to endorse monotheism public classrooms.

I too want less govt, but this whole thing smacks of MORE govt.

I completely disagree. It is an attempt to undo a improper intrusion from 51 years ago.

Do you think kids started reciting the pledge in the first place (either version) because of the govt, or because of some law...NO!



They did it as an observance. And, now the govt is telling the kids they can no longer do it.

They did it because a teacher got up in front of the class and said "this is the way we say the Pledge of Allegiance." 5 year olds don't question that any more than they question how to sing "ABCDEFG..."

And, I do think that you will hear it said for years to come as the moments of silence are observed each morning in classrooms...until someone figures out how the "moment of silence" is unconstitutional.

How can a moment of silence be unconstutional? What law did Congress write that says "We dedicate this moment of silence to the Almighty, so that school children everywhere will know that silence is the source of our national strength..."

 

[Dre L]

I want a law passed that says, you little f'ers who want to say "Under God" go to that side of the room, all you other little f'ers that don't want to say it go to the other side of the room.



Okay everyone turn and face each other.



Now fight to the death.



This is how we do without courts.

 

[Rich Stern]

Rich as I said, I don't buy into the "slippery slope" concept. People are always bashing Christians as being weak-minded and needing a crutch. The "slippery slope" argument is the most crutch-like argument of the civil libertarians.

Whoa, don't go there. I have not penned a single word of disrepect toward Christians. I don't claim to have the answer to the grand secret. I am not promotiing atheism, or any type of "-ism," as right or wrong. I am simply stating a view, as an American citizen with a modest knowledge of our civic history, that Congress acted very improperly in 1954, as it did many times through the McCarthy era, capitalizing on the fear of the American public.



Who can deny, when scary stuff happens, like Communists setting off hydrogen bombs, or extremist Muslims crashing airplanes into building, or New Orleans flooding, that our government has a tendancy to do things that tramples our rights?



That's my point. That, and pointing out that we would do well to correct those wrongs.



P.S. If you look at American history as a whole, particular the last century how can you deny that we are losing rights in a "slippery slope" fashion? Can you give me examples of how my rights are not being eroded?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Okay...you just won't let me stop, eh Rich. BTW, I don't need, nor even want a point-by-by rebuttal.



So, what will happen here?



You seem to imply that passing a law that prohibits the saying of the Pledge with "Under God" is the wrong solution, and that a better solution would be to remove the words "Under God" from the pledge. Are you saying that?



If so, repeal the 1954 "law". That would pretty much make "under God" optional for all intents and purposes, because I doubt people will stop saying it. And, teachers could instruct as to the 1954, how it was Unconstitutional, and now we have a choice to say the words, or not, but no law requiring it.



Wouldn't that be better?



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Repealing the 1954 law solves the problem. If kids want to keep adding the "under God," that's up to them and their parents. If it's a topic for debate in the classroom, great! Good civic learning material.



However, on day one in Kindergarten, a public school teacher should teach the pre-1954 version.



Problem solved.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Okay, Rich, if you and I can agree that is what should be done, why can't our courts?



I don't consider "our" solution a compromise, which is typically where both parties "give a little but neither gets what they want", but moreso, I think "our" solution is the RIGHT solution.



Regardless, I still think Newdow is a wormy turd. That has nothing to do with my religious beliefs and all to do with my observations of human nature and behavior.



TJR

 

[Robert Stanton]

Ha!

Okay, Rich, if you and I can agree that is what should be done, why can't our courts?

Because it took the two of you dozens of posts to iron this out. It takes our courts or our lawmakers MUCH more effort. Agreement between two people is easy; agreement (or even compromise) between millions is something else entirely.