Pledge of Allegiance

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't know about the "supposed" bit. The Declaration of Independence clearly references God. Even the First only prevents Congress from establishing religion -- it was clearly understood that nothing prevented individual States from doing so.

So do you support the attempts by the Christian Exodus group to turn the state of South Carolina into a fullblown theocracy?

http://christianexodus.org/

Originally posted by rwingett
We would spiral into a theocracy with all non-theistic citizens being discriminated against.

Can't one equally argue that taking it out causes a spiral into atheocracy with all theistic citizens being discriminated against?

After all, I have never heard of a prospective Supreme Court judge being grilled on the basis of his atheism.

Originally posted by rwingett
America is supposed to be a secular state - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That's why we maintain a wall of separation between church and state. Placing the word 'god' into the pledge during the McCarthyist era was but one step on the road to a fullblown theocracy. It's encroachment must be tirelessly combatted at every step.

Really? Is this why Congress approved the purchase of Bibles to be used in our public schools in 1781? Is this why Congress opens with prayer before each session? Is this why Leviticus 25:10 is inscribed on the Liberty Bell? Is this why the Supreme Court struke down the proposition by Girard in 1844 to teach morals without the Bible in our public schools? The case was later won by Daniel Webster in the case of Vidal vs. Girard and kept the Bible as the basis for moral teaching in public schools. Our religous heritage may offend you, but you should show respect for it nonetheless.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Can't one equally argue that taking it out causes a spiral into atheocracy with all theistic citizens being discriminated against?

After all, I have never heard of a prospective Supreme Court judge being grilled on the basis of his atheism.

Removing the word 'god' does not in any way prevent you from maintaining, or practising your christian beliefs. All it does is violate the first amendment and discriminate against non-theistic citizens. Having the word 'god' in the pledge serves no useful purpose. Instead it turns what is supposed to be a unifying pledge into a divisive one.

Originally posted by rwingett
Removing the word 'god' does not in any way prevent you from maintaining, or practising your christian beliefs. All it does is violate the first amendment and discriminate against non-theistic citizens. Having the word 'god' in the pledge serves no useful purpose. Instead it turns what is supposed to be a unifying pledge into a divisive one.

Let's set aside the question of whether it does, in fact, violate the First Amendment.

How, precisely, does it constitute discrimination against non-theistic citizens? What goods/services/opportunities are they prevented from obtaining?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Let's set aside the question of whether it does, in fact, violate the First Amendment.

How, precisely, does it discriminate against non-theistic citizens? What goods/services/opportunities are they prevented from obtaining?

Forcing a non-theistic citizen to recognize a god treats him as a second class citizen. But removing 'god' from the pledge places no burden or hardship on the theist. What goods/services/opportunities are theists prevented from obtaining by removing it, and restoring it to its original form?

Originally posted by rwingett
Forcing a non-theistic citizen to recognize a god treats him as a second class citizen. But removing 'god' from the pledge places no burden or hardship on the theist. What goods/services/opportunities are theists prevented from obtaining by removing it, and restoring it to its original form?

Perhaps I'm not clear about American policy. Is it mandatory for all citizens to recite the Pledge? If not, how is it "forcing" the non-theist?

EDIT: As to your second question, I would relate it to your use of the words "second class citizen" and re-state a point I made earlier - I have never heard of a prospective Supreme Court judge being grilled on the basis of his atheism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How, precisely, does it constitute discrimination against non-theistic citizens? What goods/services/opportunities are they prevented from obtaining?

Rwingett's point is that it creates division. Clearly "one nation under God" cannot include those do not believe in God. A distinction is created where none need exist. Quite why Americans, of all people, should want to conflate personal belief and national identity defeats me; they have only to look toward the Muslim world to see how joyous a religious state can be (and that I think is what rwingett is getting at with his talk of theocracy).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
EDIT: As to your second question, I would relate it to your use of the words "second class citizen" and re-state a point I made earlier - I have never heard of a prospective Supreme Court judge being grilled on the basis of his atheism.

Maybe you've heard of some being appointed because of their religious beliefs, though. I'm not sure of the criteria Bush uses in packing the bench but I don't think he cherrypicks the atheists, do you?

Originally posted by whodey
Really? Is this why Congress approved the purchase of Bibles to be used in our public schools in 1781? Is this why Congress opens with prayer before each session? Is this why Leviticus 25:10 is inscribed on the Liberty Bell? Is this why the Supreme Court struke down the proposition by Girard in 1844 to teach morals without the Bible in our public schools? ...[text shortened]... schools. Our religous heritage may offend you, but you should show respect for it nonetheless.

What? No response from the gallery?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Perhaps I'm not clear about American policy. Is it mandatory for all citizens to recite the Pledge? If not, how is it "forcing" the non-theist?

EDIT: As to your second question, I would relate it to your use of the words "second class citizen" and re-state a point I made earlier - I have never heard of a prospective Supreme Court judge being grilled on the basis of his atheism.

Have there ever been any Supreme Court nominees who claimed to be atheists? I would wager with certainty that there have not. I would love to see some so they can be grilled about the matter.

Even if a non-theist is exempted from reciting the pledge, it is still a state endorsed action, which makes the non-theist's non-participation a glaring mark against him. It designates him, conspicuously, as 'the other.' With children, who generally want to belong to the larger group, it is a form of psychological coersion. They can refrain, but only at the great price of being socially castigated. I repeat: having the word 'god' in the pledge serves no good purpose.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Rwingett's point is that it creates division. Clearly "one nation under God" cannot include those do not believe in God. A distinction is created where none need exist. Quite why Americans, of all people, should want to conflate personal belief and national identity defeats me; they have only to look toward the Muslim world to see how joyous a religious state can be (and that I think is what rwingett is getting at with his talk of theocracy).

Most European nations are, at least nominally, theocratic -- do you see a "lack of joy" there? Many of the most oppressive regimes of the last centuries were not theocratic either. So, I don't see where RWillis's doomsday scenario comes from.

As to his point about division, anyone can feel "divided" if you're hyper-sensitive about it. We're not talking about a law that forces you to go to church on Sunday (or the mosque on Friday); nor are we talking about a law that requires non-theists to wear striped armbands or something for identification. If no one is obligated to make the Pledge, I don't see how it can be any more divisive than, say, joining the Army or other voluntary programmes.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Maybe you've heard of some being appointed because of their religious beliefs, though. I'm not sure of the criteria Bush uses in packing the bench but I don't think he cherrypicks the atheists, do you?

Maybe you've heard of some being appointed because of their religious beliefs, though.

Not really. Have you?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Most European nations are, at least nominally, theocratic -- do you see a "lack of joy" there?

No they aren't. Even the most Catholic countries have a spiritual ruler--the Pope--and a temporal ruler--the State. France is secular to the core; the UK has largely forgotten about religion. There is no question of theocracy, in which church and state are one.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Maybe you've heard of some being appointed because of their religious beliefs, though.

Not really. Have you?[/b]

Yes. ""Bush is satisfying social conservatives and fundamentalists like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson just by nominating rigid zealots... Bush has nothing to lose in Rove's way of thinking. Rove believes that every under-45 ideologue who does get through will write the future and tilt a circuit." (Jack Newfield, The Nation, October 7, 2003) http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/108-1-248.html