Michael Newdow, go home!

[JLam]

The atheist who's spent years trying to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools says he'll file a new lawsuit this week.
Michael Newdow says he'll ask a federal court to order removal of the national motto "In God We Trust" from U-S coins and currency. He says it violates the religious rights of atheists who belong to his "First Amendment Church of True Science."

The church's "three suggestions" are "question, be honest and do what's right." Newdow says it wouldn't be right to take up a collection when the money says "In God We Trust."

Rest of the story is here (http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4112531&nav=HMO6HMaW)

Why?

Why, why why?

Also...who cares?

I'm an atheist, and I can't stand crap like this. Most of this country trusts in a god, and we atheists need to recognize that we're in the minority. I'm against school prayer, I'm against the state forcing us to worship a god, and I'm against being forced to fund religious programs. Fortunately, we're not forced to do any of those things.

But "In God We Trust"???

Please.

Can any atheist out there seriously argue that he/she is oppressed? That they're being prevented from not worshipping a god? That the state is forcing religion down their throats? Give me a [rule 8] break. Shut up and do something productive with your life.

And what the hell's with this "First Amendment Church of True Science"?? Anyone get the feeling that Newdow started this "church" just so he'd have a reason to file this ridiculous lawsuit?
I know that not all atheists will agree with me, but that's life, I suppose.

[ad-hominem]Michael Newdow is a self-righteous buffoon who cares more about his own ego than anything else.[/ad-hominem]

[neutrino_cannon]

I wonder exactly how the motto would be removed from Federal currency.

Little black censor lines?

[TragicMonkey]

Can any atheist out there seriously argue that he/she is oppressed? That they're being prevented from not worshipping a god? That the state is forcing religion down their throats? Give me a [rule 8] break. Shut up and do something productive with your life.

Similarly, using tax money to build a statue to Jesus wouldn't be oppressing you, would it? Therefore, since it's not oppression, you can have no objection.

[JLam]

Similarly, using tax money to build a statue to Jesus wouldn't be oppressing you, would it? Therefore, since it's not oppression, you can have no objection.

No, that would be illegal. I would support fighting that. (I still wouldn't feel oppresed, but that's another story.) Has tax money been used to build a statue of Jesus somewhere?

My main objection to this lawsuit is that the phrase "In God We Trust" isn't overly offensive. It's almost like cashiers who say "Have a nice day." It's a colloquialism.

I would argue that if the most fervent objection you can muster to the violation of the establishment clause is "In God We Trust" printed on your greenbacks, then this whole "separation of Church and State" thing is working out pretty darn well, thank you very much.

[Meadmaker]

Just wanted to add 100% agreement with the OP.

[TragicMonkey]

My main objection to this lawsuit is that the phrase "In God We Trust" isn't overly offensive. It's almost like cashiers who say "Have a nice day." It's a colloquialism.

Offensiveness is subjective. It doesn't offend you, clearly. But who are you to tell others that it shouldn't offend them? Who are you to decide what the phrase does and doesn't mean? There are plenty of religious people who would object to your characterizing a reference to their god as a meaningless "collaquialism".

Maybe there's a principle involved. What do coins have to do with religion, anyway? Nothing. Therefore, why have it? The argument shouldn't be "why not have 'In God We Trust'?" It should be "why have it?" Why? Why is there an invocation to a deity on our money? You seem to suggest it doesn't mean anything. Then why the heck have it there, if it doesn't mean anything?


I would argue that if the most fervent objection you can muster to the violation of the establishment clause is "In God We Trust" printed on your greenbacks, then this whole "separation of Church and State" thing is working out pretty darn well, thank you very much.

And did anyone say that it's the "most fervent objection"?

Yeah, maybe it is pretty minor. But a minor violation of the separation of church and state....okay. How minor can it be? How major does it have to be before you think it's worth discussion? You're okay with coins, but not with statues. How about a mural in a legislature building? A city seal? A monument on the courthouse lawn? The problem with the thin end of the wedge is that people will use it. "It says 'God' on our money, and nobody objects. So why not have the Pledge of Allegiance with God in it?" And when you agree to that, then they'll ask why not a nativity scene at Xmas. It goes on and on.

Once you permit a principle to be violated, you've lost the grounds to object to more and further violations.

[JLam]

TragicMonkey,
I see your points. I agree that offensiveness is subjective. But we don't have the right to not be offended. Something is always going to offend someone, somewhere.

What I meant by "most fervent objection" is that this is the best argument that he could come up with for the violation of the establishment clause. That tells me that there isn't anything more serious that he could be objecting to. Can you think of something more serious that Newdow could object to? I can't. I'd have a problem if a member of Congress introduced a bill that would put the phrase "Praise Jesus" on coins and bills. That would be a big deal to me, and it's something I'd be willing to fight.

You say "Why have it there"? I say "Why not"? I don't believe that it hurts anyone, but I'm open to hear an argument as to how it would hurt someone. I admit I don't particularly like the fact that it's there, but its presence has had absolutely no adverse impact on my life, and I daresay it's had no adverse impact on anyone's life. Again, though, arguments to the contrary are welcome.

You're okay with coins, but not with statues. How about a mural in a legislature building? A city seal? A monument on the courthouse lawn?

I'd have to say to all of those: "It depends." For example, last year the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to remove a tiny cross from the seal of Los Angeles County. I think that was kind of silly. It simply reflected a part of the history of the county, in that the county was founded as a small collection of Christian missions. It wasn't establishing Christianity as the official religion of L.A. County. The seal also has a Roman goddess on it. I didn't see anyone arguing that the Roman goddess advocates paganism. As far as the 10 commandments monument controversy in Alabama, I had a major objection to that, because it was actively promoting Christianity, not just a generic version of god. (I'll stipulate that this is a weak argument...but it's just what I think.)

You seem to be making the slippery slope argument, but I don't buy it. If anyone tried to erect a statue of Jesus in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, I can almost guarantee that it would get shot down. In other words, the slope isn't that slippery.

This is certainly a topic on which reasonable people can disagree, and I respect your opinions, TM.

[Kopji]

I like Michael in the same way I enjoy Don Quixote & windmills.

An openly atheist person could probably not be elected to any important political office in this country. Congress comes out and publicly prays on the front steps over these issues, so it matters to them. As if to rub their influence in, even the money is printed with reference to their trust in a supernatural deity.

They disenfranchise an entire class of citizens by persisting in it. It seems reasonable that at least that one lonely voice speaks out willing to be heard. He has the right even though it seems hopeless and even annoying sometimes.

Yes he is an extremist, but without people at the extremes we would all calmly and reasonably reside in the middle of the road.

Change does not come by being loyal to the status quo and being 'reasonable'. We are the descendants of fighters and revolutionaries, not philosophers. While his battle is not the one I'd choose, I applaud that he has the courage to wage it.

[Nyarlathotep]

I think one of the problems we atheists have, as a political force, is an inability to pick our battles wisely. Newdow's latest action seems yet another example of that.

[David Swidler]

I think one of the problems we atheists have, as a political force, is an inability to pick our battles wisely. Newdow's latest action seems yet another example of that.

Are atheists, in fact, a political force? "Political force" is a moving target. I don't think the problem is one of picking battles; I think it's more a function of the priorities people have in expressing their political opinions (i.e. voting). It's a tradeoff. I think that at least in the U.S., people worry more about the economy, national security and healthcare than they do about a piece of paper/fiber that they only have time to examine in detail while sitting on the toilet, since they forgot to bring a newspaper.

[hodgy]

I don't really care because I'm not from the US but it does seem a somewhat ridiculous objection. The motto is primarily there for historical reasons and is a part of the US history and culture which even atheists ought to be proud and protective of.

I'm an atheist but I have no objections to the cross of St George being my national flag.

[kmortis]

I don't really care because I'm not from the US but it does seem a somewhat ridiculous objection. The motto is primarily there for historical reasons and is a part of the US history and culture which even atheists ought to be proud and protective of.

I'm an atheist but I have no objections to the cross of St George being my national flag.

Hodgy,
Not to nitpick, but there is a huge difference between a falg with no words that symbolizes a long dead (and semi-mythical) person and a blatant "endorsement" of religion.

Having said that, I am from the US and I have a real hard time working up the vitrol to fight this fight. TM, I understand the "nose of the camel" part of your argument, but still....this nation is no more an agnostic/atheistic nation than it is a Christian. Sure, it's laws are to be agnostic, but its culture is by no means that way.

Personally, I whole heartedly agree with the statement "In God We Trust", and I am an atheist. Yes, I am, in fact, a bit of a cynic as well, why do you ask?

[HarryKeogh]

I'm an atheist but I have no objections to the cross of St George being my national flag.

Yes, but our constitution states a separation of church and state. Does "In God We Trust" offend me? No. But it still has no reason being printed on all of our money.

And Jlam, in your OP you state: "I'm an atheist, and I can't stand crap like this. Most of this country trusts in a god, and we atheists need to recognize that we're in the minority."

Our constitution is supposed to protect the minority from the will of the majority. The majority of Americans are Christians. Should we recognize that and become a Christian theocracy?

It's not a matter of majority vs. the minority. It's about constitutionality.

Last time Newdow's case ("under God" in the pledge) went against SCOTUS they ruled against him on a technicality. They are avoiding ruling on the merits of the case because they know he's right. Newdow comes across harsh but he's making valid points.

[Soapy Sam]

I note it does not specify which god Americans trust.

I assumed it referred to Alan Greenspan.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Would it be easier to change it to "In FSM we trust" than it would be to remove it completely? I could go with that.

~~ Paul

[pgwenthold]

Maybe there's a principle involved. What do coins have to do with religion, anyway? Nothing. Therefore, why have it? The argument shouldn't be "why not have 'In God We Trust'?" It should be "why have it?" Why? Why is there an invocation to a deity on our money? You seem to suggest it doesn't mean anything. Then why the heck have it there, if it doesn't mean anything?


Whoops.

You dare not ask this questions, because it causes politicians to malfunction, kind of like the robot in sci-fi movies that blows sparks and smoke when caught in a logical contradiction.

It doesn't mean anything, but try to take it away and everyone screams about it.

[HarryKeogh]

and some trivia, Roosevelt disapproved of the motto (though not for the reasons some of us do)...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm

Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."

[Anti_Hypeman]

I would vote to remove it just so the fundies cant use it as proof of ID anymore.

[Bob Klase]

Hodgy,
Not to nitpick, but there is a huge difference between a falg with no words that symbolizes a long dead (and semi-mythical) person and a blatant "endorsement" of religion.

That seems to imply that you'd have no problem if the christian fish (to symbolize a long dead and semi-mythical person) was put on the US flag.

[Nyarlathotep]

Are atheists, in fact, a political force? "Political force" is a moving target. I don't think the problem is one of picking battles; I think it's more a function of the priorities people have in expressing their political opinions (i.e. voting). It's a tradeoff. I think that at least in the U.S., people worry more about the economy, national security and healthcare than they do about a piece of paper/fiber that they only have time to examine in detail while sitting on the toilet, since they forgot to bring a newspaper.

No we are not a politcal force. And our inability to get together and decide which battles are both winnable and worth the effort and which ones are not is one of the reasons why.

[kmortis]

That seems to imply that you'd have no problem if the christian fish (to symbolize a long dead and semi-mythical person) was put on the US flag.

Two answers here:
1) Good catch.
2) Well, the CoStG isn't necessarily a religious item, iddit? St.G might have chosen (or had chosen for him) a "religious" item t o symbolize him, but he, himself is not a subject of worship. Jesus, on the other hand...
3) Actually, that would be a fun fight to sit back and watch. I'm sure that Austrailia could use an engineer with my talents.

[Melendwyr]

My main objection to this lawsuit is that the phrase "In God We Trust" isn't overly offensive. This objection of yours is based on an opinion.

Quite frankly, we do not care about your personal opinion. It's a religious statement, and religious statements are not supposed to be made by government. Whether you find it offensive or not, in and of itself, is utterly irrelevant. It's a violation of the separation principle, and if you don't find that offensive, this conversation is pointless.

[pgwenthold]

The constitution does not say that congress shall pass no law that offends someone respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.

Even if everyone in the country agreed, Congress could not pass a law declaring Buddhism the official religion of the US. Granted, no one would be there to object, but it would still be a unconstitutional act.

[Iacchus]

This objection of yours is based on an opinion.

Quite frankly, we do not care about your personal opinion. It's a religious statement, and religious statements are not supposed to be made by government. Whether you find it offensive or not, in and of itself, is utterly irrelevant. It's a violation of the separation principle, and if you don't find that offensive, this conversation is pointless.Perhaps we should strike the words "God" and "Creator" from the Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm) as well?

[rebecca]

Perhaps we should strike the words "God" and "Creator" from the Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm) as well?

That makes no sense. The Declaration of Independence is not an evolving guidebook of our government, as is the Constitution, and it's not something that we make school children declare themselves as in the pledge of allegiance, and it's not something we currently print and actively endorse like we do currency. The Declaration was . . . a declaration. It was written more than 200 years ago and mailed off to a distant despot. I don't think the former King of England is going to be notified of a change in wording.

[Melendwyr]

1) The Declaration of Independence, while a historically important document, does not establish any part of the GOTS.

2) Several of the most important Founding Fathers were Deists and Craftmasons - if they lived today, they would almost certainly be atheists. A few were overtly hostile to organized religion in general and Christianity specifically. Even the ones that were some denomination of Christian acknowledged the importance of keeping politics out of religion and vice versa.

3) Whether you like it or not, whether you're offended by any particular instance or not, the government making religious statements is forbidden by the Constitution, and is thus illegal without an Amendment.

[Iacchus]

So, when we go in the courtroom and are asked to swear on the Bible, is this wrong too?

[Mercutio]

So, when we go in the courtroom and are asked to swear on the Bible, is this wrong too?
It would be if it was your only option. It is not.

All you need to do is "swear and affirm", and no bible is necessary.

[uruk]

So, when we go in the courtroom and are asked to swear on the Bible, is this wrong too?
I'd say that is wrong. Would you make a Hindu swear upon the bible? Swear upon something that holds no meaning for him?
The oath should read,"do you swear to tell truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty of perjury."

I think threat of fine and imprisonment is more of an incentive to tell the truth than threat of some deity you don't believe in.

[hodgy]

Hodgy,
Not to nitpick, but there is a huge difference between a falg with no words that symbolizes a long dead (and semi-mythical) person and a blatant "endorsement" of religion.

Well - that flag has a long historical tradition (as the flag of England) with which I can identify, irrespective of its religious affiliations. I think its stretching a point to say that that tiny motto on a coin is a blatant endorsement of religion - I think its there more for historical reasons, it may once have had religious significance but that has been replaced by simple antiquity or tradition.

I think that US atheists have bigger and vastly more significant fishes to fry and quiblling over irrelevant issue like this probably damages your case. Fence-sitters on more important matters may be inclined to think that atheists are silly, petulant and petty as a result of this sort of action and apply that judgement to all of us.

[hodgy]

Yes, but our constitution states a separation of church and state. Does "In God We Trust" offend me? No. But it still has no reason being printed on all of our money.

I understand that the challenge is made on constitutional grounds but that's not the point I was making. My point is that the offense that Nedow apparently takes is disproportionate. The fact that he has some possible legal standing upon which to try to remove that offense is not relevant to the issue of whether he should be seriously / sensibly offended in the first place.

Newdow comes across harsh but he's making valid points.

Newdow comes across as a pedant and potentially tars our collective cause with that brush. I am an atheist but I would take strong exception to anyone proposing to change the flag, mottos or whatever of my country just to placate an exaggerated sense of offense. As I said before, this type of approach trivialises the issue, diverts attention from better causes and even antagonises other atheists - Nedow should drop it.

[Tricky]

I think that US atheists have bigger and vastly more significant fishes to fry and quiblling over irrelevant issue like this probably damages your case. Fence-sitters on more important matters may be inclined to think that atheists are silly, petulant and petty as a result of this sort of action and apply that judgement to all of us.
It's true, they do have bigger fish to fry, and its also true that Newdow has ruffled the fur of a lot of people who wouldn't normally care about such issues. But I believe it is the extremes that define the middle.

In the 1960, anti-Vietnam protesters were extremists and reviled by the vast majority of people. But although they were always thought of as extremists, they succeeded in moving the dialogue to the left simply because people were now at least talking about the extreme positions. In the same way, people who want Newdow to shut up are at least having to defend their positions. When they are forced to think about things like "would you mind if our coins said Allah akbar on them", then they are being forced to reassess their position, and though they are not going to come out and say Newdow was right, the center position has been moved slightly. I believe it has been moved to support that atheism is a rational position. Baby steps, but steps just the same.

I don't care for extremists of practically any sort, but I recognize that they are instrumental in expanding dialogue.

[gnome]

Count me among the ones that thinks it's counterproductive. Going after a symbol that seems to violate church/state separation is not the best move--if you consider it's bad in two ways.

1) Being a symbol, changing it will not substantively improve separation of church and state in any but the most superficial manner.

2) Being a symbol, it generates high emotions among those that are attached to the symbol.

So, lots of backlash, little benefit.

Stick with the bigger battles, one that someone can get their reasoning mind behind instead of an emotional item like a symbol. These symbols reflect the attitude of society, they do not create it. If we actually make progress, the symbols will start to become less ubiquitous as well.

[Bob Klase]

I think threat of fine and imprisonment is more of an incentive to tell the truth than threat of some deity you don't believe in.

Based on the Dover transcripts, even the threat of eternal damnation by some deity they DO believe in isn't much incentive to tell the truth.

[gnome]

Based on the Dover transcripts, even the threat of eternal damnation by some deity they DO believe in isn't much incentive to tell the truth.

For those that it would actually matter to, do they think it's OK to bear false witness if they HAVEN'T sworn on a bible?

[Kopji]

Newdow seems similar to Randi, or is of the same stuff: a kind of pioneer. We may not always want to go stand where they are, but it does not make their way wrong or right. They battle for a truth, certainly not the only one, but one that is important to them. If I stand in support of someone like Randi, how can I not also affirm Nedow's right to his battles?

After all, a 'moderate' stand against homeopathy could easily advocate that people be allowed to make whatever concoction sells. Same rationale for psychics. If we criticize Newdow, why not ourselves for opposing 'psychics' and quacks? We are someone else's extremist.

[c4ts]

Maybe Newdow is the most sarcastic person ever, and we don't yet realize it.

[uruk]

For those that it would actually matter to, do they think it's OK to bear false witness if they HAVEN'T sworn on a bible?
If it's ok to kill in the name of the lord, why not lieing in the name of the lord?

[jjramsey]

After all, a 'moderate' stand against homeopathy could easily advocate that people be allowed to make whatever concoction sells. Same rationale for psychics. If we criticize Newdow, why not ourselves for opposing 'psychics' and quacks? We are someone else's extremist.

A lot more is at stake in the case of homeopathy and other quackery, namely people's health and lives. By contrast, the motto "In God We Trust" has become essentially lip service to a ceremonial God rather than a serious religious statement.

[Iacchus]

Based on the Dover transcripts, even the threat of eternal damnation by some deity they DO believe in isn't much incentive to tell the truth.Of course the whole idea of this seems to be an appeal one's conscience. And if that doesn't work, and they think you're lying, they'll say, "Of course you do realize that you're under oath and in danger of perjuring yourself," and bring up the subsequent penalties.

[Melendwyr]

So, when we go in the courtroom and are asked to swear on the Bible, is this wrong too? YES!

[Melendwyr]

A lot more is at stake in the case of homeopathy and other quackery, namely people's health and lives. By contrast, the motto "In God We Trust" has become essentially lip service to a ceremonial God rather than a serious religious statement. Oh, really? Change the word to 'Allah' and see who complains. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts it's the Christian religious groups who complain - and the more fanatical, the louder they'll yell.

[jjramsey]

Oh, really? Change the word to 'Allah' and see who complains. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts it's the Christian religious groups who complain - and the more fanatical, the louder they'll yell.

But that's just it, it would be a change, not something that had been around for a while and had become part of the largely unnoticed background. Your analogy is a false one.

[gnome]

If it's ok to kill in the name of the lord, why not lieing in the name of the lord?

But can you think of an example where the presence of a bible to swear on would make a difference in a person's willingness to tell the truth?

[gnome]

Newdow seems similar to Randi, or is of the same stuff: a kind of pioneer. We may not always want to go stand where they are, but it does not make their way wrong or right. They battle for a truth, certainly not the only one, but one that is important to them. If I stand in support of someone like Randi, how can I not also affirm Nedow's right to his battles?

That's just it... personally, I think he's right. I just consider it incorrect strategy.

[Beerina]

No, that would be illegal. I would support fighting that. (I still wouldn't feel oppresed, but that's another story.) Has tax money been used to build a statue of Jesus somewhere?

My main objection to this lawsuit is that the phrase "In God We Trust" isn't overly offensive. It's almost like cashiers who say "Have a nice day." It's a colloquialism.

The first ammendment isn't about being offended. It's about government officials using religion to gain power.

And this was added to currency precisely because it was a religious statement with meaning. So your assumption that it's a meaningless colloquialism is 180 degrees incorrect. If it's meaningless, what's the big woop about getting rid of it?

[Melendwyr]

But that's just it, it would be a change, not something that had been around for a while and had become part of the largely unnoticed background. Your analogy is a false one.http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm

At the time a change is instituted, it's new. (Obviously.) So how long does a "wrong" change have to exist before it's considered acceptable and therefore "right"?

"What people are accustomed to" is irrelevant. What matters is what reason indicates is correct. This government was neither intended nor permitted to let the opinions of the masses determine policy.

[hodgy]

In the 1960, anti-Vietnam protesters were extremists and reviled by the vast majority of people. But although they were always thought of as extremists, they succeeded in moving the dialogue to the left simply because people were now at least talking about the extreme positions

Its not a fair comparison. The anti-war movement was a mass movement with a large majority in some sectors of society. More to the point, they were arguing the central point - whether one agrees with their position or not one cannot deny the non-trivial nature of the argument. Nedow's issue is a trivial one that probably has as many atheists against it as in favour of it. It is the wrong battle.

In the same way, people who want Newdow to shut up are at least having to defend their positions. When they are forced to think about things like "would you mind if our coins said Allah akbar on them", then they are being forced to reassess their position, and though they are not going to come out and say Newdow was right, the center position has been moved slightly. I believe it has been moved to support that atheism is a rational position. Baby steps, but steps just the same.

But are they steps in the right direction? Look at the different opinions expresssed in this thread - among atheists. Its like the councils in England that ban the word 'Christmas' because of fear of offending other religions - they actually generate and entrench the suspicion and mistrust of other races that promotes racism.

[JLam]

For all the people who make the argument that "In God We Trust" engraved on coins and bills is a very serious problem that causes you harm and is worthy of a big sting, then answer me this: How would your life improve if the phrase was removed from our money?

[TragicMonkey]

For all the people who make the argument that "In God We Trust" engraved on coins and bills is a very serious problem that causes you harm and is worthy of a big sting, then answer me this: How would your life improve if the phrase was removed from our money?

Has anyone made such an argument, that it's "a very serious problem that causes you harm and is worth of a big sting [stink?]"?

It's a matter of principle. Some people actually stick to their principles, even in the small matters. You can call them idealists, or impractical, but at least you can't call them unprincipled.

[kuroyume0161]

Has anyone made such an argument, that it's "a very serious problem that causes you harm and is worth of a big sting [stink?]"?

It's a matter of principle. Some people actually stick to their principles, even in the small matters. You can call them idealists, or impractical, but at least you can't call them unprincipled.

Well said, TragicMonkey.

Yet, yes, this could end up as "a very serious problem that causes you harm..."

Do you mind if we put "In God We Trust" on all currency? Okay

Do you mind if we put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Okay

Do you mind if we make people swear on the Bible in court and when being sworn into office? Okay

Do you mind if we put monuments to the Ten Commandments in court houses?
Pray in Congress?
Pray in public schools?
Pray at school sporting events?
Teach ID/Creationism in public schools?
Allow hiring based on religious discrimination?
Ban abortions and overturn Roe vs. Wade?
Deny scientific research into stem cells?
Remove science from public schools?
Teach Christianity in public schools?
Start persecuting non-Christians?
Encourage lynching of non-Christians?
Have theocratic governmental institutions?

Yes, I am going down the slippery slope intentionally. Not that this would likely happen easily. Some of these things are being heavily fought against from many fronts, but not all and not all are winning.

Every inch given is another inch toward theocracy...

And remember Rome was once a Republic before it became a lineal dictatorship. And there are still nations today wherein most of these conditions are actually existent!

[Kopji]

That's just it... personally, I think he's right. I just consider it incorrect strategy.
I think we agree, and Tricky said it very well too. I do try to find a moderate response to most things, but the 'extremes' have a place and purpose in keeping moderation from becoming complacency. Ideas should be held in a kind of tension, not comfort. (sorry, I don't know a better way to express that).

A question I ask myself is if Newdow's extremism has value, are people like Jack Chick and Pat Robertson expressions of 'good' extremism too? I come up with an answer of 'no'. Sure I could be wrong, hopelessly blinded by my dislike of liars. But it is 'no' because their extremism is not an engine of change to challenge and expand our understanding. They would tear everything down and replace it with an illusion. Their extremism is more similar to that of suicide bombers.

I can understand the sentiment: 'even though we agree with Newdow's goals we stand against him because we think it it will hurt our larger cause'.

My response to that is that whatever we do, we must build toward our goals from an honest foundation. 'Honesty' in this sense is kind of like product quality: It can't be plastered on after everything is done, but be integral from the beginning.




Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt

[TragicMonkey]

Do you mind if we put "In God We Trust" on all currency? Okay

Do you mind if we put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Okay

Do you mind if we make people swear on the Bible in court and when being sworn into office? Okay

Do you mind if we put monuments to the Ten Commandments in court houses?
Pray in Congress?
Pray in public schools?
Pray at school sporting events?
Teach ID/Creationism in public schools?
Allow hiring based on religious discrimination?
Ban abortions and overturn Roe vs. Wade?
Deny scientific research into stem cells?
Remove science from public schools?
Teach Christianity in public schools?
Start persecuting non-Christians?
Encourage lynching of non-Christians?
Have theocratic governmental institutions?

Yes, I am going down the slippery slope intentionally. Not that this would likely happen easily. Some of these things are being heavily fought against from many fronts, but not all and not all are winning.




You left out the FDA.

[hodgy]

Well said, TragicMonkey.

Yet, yes, this could end up as "a very serious problem that causes you harm..."

Do you mind if we put "In God We Trust" on all currency? Okay

Do you mind if we put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Okay

Do you mind if we make people swear on the Bible in court and when being sworn into office? Okay

Do you mind if we put monuments to the Ten Commandments in court houses?
Pray in Congress?
Pray in public schools?
Pray at school sporting events?
Teach ID/Creationism in public schools?
Allow hiring based on religious discrimination?
Ban abortions and overturn Roe vs. Wade?
Deny scientific research into stem cells?
Remove science from public schools?
Teach Christianity in public schools?
Start persecuting non-Christians?
Encourage lynching of non-Christians?
Have theocratic governmental institutions?

Yes, I am going down the slippery slope intentionally. Not that this would likely happen easily. Some of these things are being heavily fought against from many fronts, but not all and not all are winning.

Every inch given is another inch toward theocracy...

And remember Rome was once a Republic before it became a lineal dictatorship. And there are still nations today wherein most of these conditions are actually existent!

This is ridiculous and illustrates the muddled thinking behind the objection. In England we do not have separation of Church and State, never mind a garauntee of it. We have religious symbols everywhere, from the national flag to the crosses on the Queen's crown (the symbol of the crown being ubiqutous on police and military uniforms, postage stamps, coins, badges of office etc...). We have mottos of religious and semi-religious origin everywhere including on coins 'Dieu et mon droit' (God and my right) and ELIZABETH II D. G. REG. F. D (Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith).

These are seen for what they are - part of the rich cultural, political and religious heritage of the country. I do not expect that we will sliding down the slippery slope towards 'lynching non-Christians' anytime soon. In fact, despite the plethora of religious symbolism we are becoming a more secular society.

As I said - Nedow is fighting the wrong batle. Its not just that there are bigger and infinitely more significant fish to fry (which there undoubtedly are in the US) - bringing the public's attention to causes like this one is likely to damage your ability to fight those more important battles. Furthermore - it is not even clear that this is an atheist vs religion issue since there are many atheists who would (as this thread suggests) prefer to retain such historical peculiarities.

The motto on the coin makes (as has been pointed out) no material difference to anyone. If you justify removing it you open the door (or open it wider) to other sorts of petty intolerance (with regards to religion, atheism, culture and politics) - and that is your real slippery slope.

[David Swidler]

Well said, hodgy.

The "slippery slope" argument works well in terms of one's own internal struggles (dieting comes to mind), but when it comes to struggles between people and groups it's a lot less productive. It leads to escalation, especially if both sides adhere to it, and I'd rather have a few symbols redolent of religious ideas around - even government-sanctioned ones - than an escalation of this conflict to real unpleasantness.

[gnome]

I think we agree, and Tricky said it very well too. I do try to find a moderate response to most things, but the 'extremes' have a place and purpose in keeping moderation from becoming complacency. Ideas should be held in a kind of tension, not comfort. (sorry, I don't know a better way to express that).

A question I ask myself is if Newdow's extremism has value, are people like Jack Chick and Pat Robertson expressions of 'good' extremism too? I come up with an answer of 'no'. Sure I could be wrong, hopelessly blinded by my dislike of liars. But it is 'no' because their extremism is not an engine of change to challenge and expand our understanding. They would tear everything down and replace it with an illusion. Their extremism is more similar to that of suicide bombers.

I can understand the sentiment: 'even though we agree with Newdow's goals we stand against him because we think it it will hurt our larger cause'.

My response to that is that whatever we do, we must build toward our goals from an honest foundation. 'Honesty' in this sense is kind of like product quality: It can't be plastered on after everything is done, but be integral from the beginning.




Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt

Well said. :clap:

[KingMerv00]

Well said, TragicMonkey.

Yet, yes, this could end up as "a very serious problem that causes you harm..."

Do you mind if we put "In God We Trust" on all currency? Okay

Do you mind if we put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Okay

Do you mind if we make people swear on the Bible in court and when being sworn into office? Okay

Do you mind if we put monuments to the Ten Commandments in court houses?
Pray in Congress?
Pray in public schools?
Pray at school sporting events?
Teach ID/Creationism in public schools?
Allow hiring based on religious discrimination?
Ban abortions and overturn Roe vs. Wade?
Deny scientific research into stem cells?
Remove science from public schools?
Teach Christianity in public schools?
Start persecuting non-Christians?
Encourage lynching of non-Christians?
Have theocratic governmental institutions?

Yes, I am going down the slippery slope intentionally. Not that this would likely happen easily. Some of these things are being heavily fought against from many fronts, but not all and not all are winning.

Every inch given is another inch toward theocracy...

And remember Rome was once a Republic before it became a lineal dictatorship. And there are still nations today wherein most of these conditions are actually existent!

I don't doubt that there is some truth in the slippery slope argument but we have to stop the current slide first. We have to start by removing religiously based laws like those against homosexuality, prostitution, gambling and abortion. We are wasting our efforts by complaining about a nearly invisible harm.

More importantly, we are poisoning the well of public opinion. Guys like Newdow, while technically right, are making the atheists, agnostics, and secularists look like chicken little.

[kuroyume0161]

This is ridiculous and illustrates the muddled thinking behind the objection. In England we do not have separation of Church and State, never mind a garauntee of it. We have religious symbols everywhere, from the national flag to the crosses on the Queen's crown (the symbol of the crown being ubiqutous on police and military uniforms, postage stamps, coins, badges of office etc...). We have mottos of religious and semi-religious origin everywhere including on coins 'Dieu et mon droit' (God and my right) and ELIZABETH II D. G. REG. F. D (Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith).

These are seen for what they are - part of the rich cultural, political and religious heritage of the country. I do not expect that we will sliding down the slippery slope towards 'lynching non-Christians' anytime soon. In fact, despite the plethora of religious symbolism we are becoming a more secular society.

As I said - Nedow is fighting the wrong batle. Its not just that there are bigger and infinitely more significant fish to fry (which there undoubtedly are in the US) - bringing the public's attention to causes like this one is likely to damage your ability to fight those more important battles. Furthermore - it is not even clear that this is an atheist vs religion issue since there are many atheists who would (as this thread suggests) prefer to retain such historical peculiarities.

The motto on the coin makes (as has been pointed out) no material difference to anyone. If you justify removing it you open the door (or open it wider) to other sorts of petty intolerance (with regards to religion, atheism, culture and politics) - and that is your real slippery slope.

But you didn't read that very well did you? More than half of those questions are already in practice. And there are dozens more. This isn't about 'mottos on coins', this is about a consistent drive to make a particular religion's point of view into laws and statutes and post-traditions and practice. And they would easily 'slip' in most of them if noone was cognizant and vigilant against their never-ending barrage and push.

President Bush, in his first year in office (before that darned 9/11 distraction) was fervently pushing a religious agenda.

We now have things like:

* 'Don't ask, don't tell' (based on religious and Neanderthalic views on homosexuality - Clinton's near support, but couldn't offend the religious)
* The Defense of Marriage Act (based on an unredressed threat from allowing marriages of two people in a dedicated non-heterosexual relationship)
* Faith-based initiative (sole purpose is to give money, my money, to religious institutions who ALREADY ARE TAX EXEMPT!!!, with no notion of protection from hiring discrimination based upon religion and against indoctrination)
* Banning of most stem cell research (based solely on religious objection with no rationale)
* The quickly passed 'Terry Schiavo Law' (a federal law to protect one person in a persistent vegetative state from being euthanized because it offends the religious right)
* Laws in the works to outlaw euthanasia for terminally ill patients - even if by their own consent and desires. (again, archaic religious views forcing the hand of federal government)

That is the list that I can name offhand.

I agree with KingMerv00 that Newdow is attacking this long list of intrusions by certain religious factions into federal, secular government from the wrong end. Instead of attacking redresses that DO harm people - like those listed above (and they are not slippery slope - they are enacted), he instead jousts at windmills.

The CoE and the religious right fanatical fundamentalists of the USA are very different beasts. To say that this is just tradition or cultural/religious heritage would be incorrect. These intrusions go way beyond these mundane similitudes.

[LW]

But can you think of an example where the presence of a bible to swear on would make a difference in a person's willingness to tell the truth?

Yes, I can.

But I don't think such situations are common in practice.

The case is such where the presence of the Bible reminds a devout believer that perjury is a sin and he or she might face a supernatural punishment for it after death, and so the person decides to speak truth to avert this punishment.

It used to be the custom in Finnish courts that an accused who refused to confess a crime were sent to have a personal discussion with a pastor. The idea was that the moral authority of the church and fear for divine judgement would make the criminal to confess.

There are a couple of cases where this worked. I remember reading about several thefts that were solved this way and at least one case where a servant girl killed his illegitimate baby.

But the all of the successes had one thing in common: the accused were not career criminals. The practice was in effect for about 250 years or so. During the whole time there is no evidence that even one single career criminal broke down and confessed because of sermon from the priest. In fact, the practice was counterproductive: when a criminal got sent to the pastor, he immediately knew that the evidence against him was not strong enough to convict him without his own confession. So, he knew that he could get free by just keeping his mouth shut. [Barring the rather rare occasion that he would be sentenced to jail "until he confesses", a judgement that was reserved for murder cases where there was almost enough evidence for conviction].

[JLam]

My main problem is this. Newdow is making us look ridiculous.

He's fighting the wrong fight, and when the right fight comes along (perhaps the Kansas school board decides to start teaching kids about how Adam and Eve named the dinosaurs) we'll be looked at as a bunch of kooks.

"Oh, the atheists are making a stink again, Gertrude."

"Aren't they the ones who were making the fuss about the word 'God' on coins. They're crazy."

In a marriage, one learns to choose his battles. I think Newdow would be well served to learn the same lesson.

And let's all just refrain from using the slippery slope argument. If that argument held any water, we'd all be sending our tax payments to the Church of The United States by now.

[kuroyume0161]

True and this is my stance. Newdow is fighting the incorrect battle.

Sorry about my 'slippery slope' argument. But one cannot deny that there have been constant attempts at just that. Do you think George W. Bush actually became president (twice no less) because he is a good politician? He did so because he pleased his base - religious right winger fundamentalists - to whom he has been trying very hard to impart fulfilment of many religious agendas.

Luckily, for now, our system of checks & balances and other forms of compartmentalism of government in general contain such outright idiocy. Again I remind you of Rome. The general populus is not extremely well educated and easily swayed - look how easily they were convinced that the PATRIOT Act was a necessary 'evil' and that Iraq was a potential threat and harbinger of terrorists. Never assume that things cannot change quickly.

ETA: And one must distinguish between the notion that, say, allowing homosexuals to marry will slip into allowing people to marry their cats and the notion that these changes in governmental policies are systematic trends. When do we concur that too much religious doctrine in a supposedly secular government proclaiming 'separation of church and state' constitutes a theocracy? Do we wait to see where this delineation occurs (at which time it is too late) or do we keep the delineation from being blurred and shifted?

[hodgy]

But you didn't read that very well did you? More than half of those questions are already in practice.

But that's not due to having the motto on the coins. Removing the motto will not somehow undo all that other stuff. More to the point, focussing on the motto may damage your ability to fight the other issues and antagonise those who would otherwise be your allies. I read it perfectly well.

This isn't about 'mottos on coins',

Erm, yes it is and my point is - it shouldn't be.

this is about a consistent drive to make a particular religion's point of view into laws and statutes and post-traditions and practice. And they would easily 'slip' in most of them if noone was cognizant and vigilant against their never-ending barrage and push.

Right - so stop worrying about the motto and go and fight the real issues.

We now have things like:

* 'Don't ask, don't tell' (based on religious and Neanderthalic views on homosexuality - Clinton's near support, but couldn't offend the religious)
* The Defense of Marriage Act (based on an unredressed threat from allowing marriages of two people in a dedicated non-heterosexual relationship)
* Faith-based initiative (sole purpose is to give money, my money, to religious institutions who ALREADY ARE TAX EXEMPT!!!, with no notion of protection from hiring discrimination based upon religion and against indoctrination)
* Banning of most stem cell research (based solely on religious objection with no rationale)
* The quickly passed 'Terry Schiavo Law' (a federal law to protect one person in a persistent vegetative state from being euthanized because it offends the religious right)
* Laws in the works to outlaw euthanasia for terminally ill patients - even if by their own consent and desires. (again, archaic religious views forcing the hand of federal government)

All of which are absolutely nothing to do with the motto on the coin.

I agree with KingMerv00 that Newdow is attacking this long list of intrusions by certain religious factions into federal, secular government from the wrong end. Instead of attacking redresses that DO harm people - like those listed above (and they are not slippery slope - they are enacted), he instead jousts at windmills.

Ok - so we sort of agree. Having said that I think that you should be wary of assuming that all atheists will agree with your position on all of the laws you mentioned. Some of those are really just political issues - some supporters of those laws may be religiously motivated and others may not.

The CoE and the religious right fanatical fundamentalists of the USA are very different beasts. To say that this is just tradition or cultural/religious heritage would be incorrect. These intrusions go way beyond these mundane similitudes.

Yes - but I'm not talking about all those 'intrusions' I'm talking about a tiny motto on a coin that has been there for years and is basically just a little piece of your nation's history.

[jjramsey]

But that's just it, it would be a change, not something that had been around for a while and had become part of the largely unnoticed background. Your analogy is a false one.

At the time a change is instituted, it's new. (Obviously.) So how long does a "wrong" change have to exist before it's considered acceptable and therefore "right"?

Whether the change is wrong or right isn't the issue. The point is that you were making a false comparison. To change from "In God We Trust" to, say, "Allah Akbar" would make quite a powerful statement. By contrast, the motto "In God We Trust," as it stands, has become empty in practice. Basically, you were likening a new motto that would be fresh with religious significance to an old one that has become a wan platitude.

[Rocky]

True and this is my stance. Newdow is fighting the incorrect battle.


This statement has been used quite a few time in this topic... So,
What do you (and others) think is the CORRECT battle?


Before I criticize Newdow or anyone else (I have issues with him but have never publicly criticized him) I have a specific idea of what I would like him to do. If your ideal plan for Newdow is that he just go away, than I wont join you. I may not favor his fight but I can't think of a more important battle for him to fight so I'll just keep quiet for now.

[Robin]

Oh, really? Change the word to 'Allah' and see who complains. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts it's the Christian religious groups who complain - and the more fanatical, the louder they'll yell.
The word already is 'Allah', just in a different language.

[ceo_esq]

In a marriage, one learns to choose his battles. I think Newdow would be well served to learn the same lesson.

Of course, Newdow never married his child's mother, but considering how the relationship turned out, it's a lesson from which he might have benefited back then.

[Melendwyr]

The word already is 'Allah', just in a different language. So? Do you think people wouldn't complain, anyway?

[TragicMonkey]

Do you eat a grape or two at the grocery store without buying them?

The source of conflict here seems to the scale, not the principle. The principle is that the state shouldn't be invoking deities. The scale, however, is small, and it has been said that something that small doesn't matter and isn't important. Likewise you wouldn't get a bunch of police cars to surround the grocery store if you eat a grape...but that does that make it okay to do so?

I think it boils down to how big a fuss you think someone ought to make relative to the scale of the offense to principle. I don't think Newdow is going too far because taking it to court is not that big a deal. That's what the legal system is for. He's just going through the regular channels to effect minor change in a civilize manner. If he were holding rallies, or inciting civil disobedience, or setting fire to cars or something, clearly he'd be going too far. But people are mad at him for what amounts to complaining to the complaint department? It's not extremism if the only other option given is "shut up and deal with it."

[hodgy]

Do you eat a grape or two at the grocery store without buying them?

The source of conflict here seems to the scale, not the principle. The principle is that the state shouldn't be invoking deities. The scale, however, is small, and it has been said that something that small doesn't matter and isn't important. Likewise you wouldn't get a bunch of police cars to surround the grocery store if you eat a grape...but that does that make it okay to do so?

I think it boils down to how big a fuss you think someone ought to make relative to the scale of the offense to principle. I don't think Newdow is going too far because taking it to court is not that big a deal. That's what the legal system is for. He's just going through the regular channels to effect minor change in a civilize manner. If he were holding rallies, or inciting civil disobedience, or setting fire to cars or something, clearly he'd be going too far. But people are mad at him for what amounts to complaining to the complaint department? It's not extremism if the only other option given is "shut up and deal with it."

Its not just an issue of scale. There are 2 further issues:

1. Its not an intellectual excercise - its being done in public and may damage the general credibility of the atheist cause.

2. Many atheists may disagree with Nedow's position because they like having tokens of their country's history around them and do not automatically see something like that motto as an infringement of their rights.

[Gregor]

Not that I'm defending W or opposing Newdow, but let me correct some serious errors. . .



* 'Don't ask, don't tell' [snip]

* The Defense of Marriage Act [snip]

* Faith-based initiative - [snip] no notion of protection from hiring discrimination based upon religion and against indoctrination)

* Banning of most stem cell research [snip]



You're wrong on these items (and maybe the other two, as well).

1. The military provision was an IMPROVEMENT over the old 'inquire and expel' policy.
2. The DMA was in response to activist judge's striking down traditional laws on marriage on perceived consitutional grounds
3. Faith-based organizations (IIRC) are still subject to anti-discrimination laws.
4. W did NOT ban stem cell research. He restricted federal dollars to research on existing lines.

[TragicMonkey]

Its not just an issue of scale. There are 2 further issues:

1. Its not an intellectual excercise - its being done in public and may damage the general credibility of the atheist cause.

2. Many atheists may disagree with Nedow's position because they like having tokens of their country's history around them and do not automatically see something like that motto as an infringement of their rights.

1. Violation of principles is necessary because it might "look bad"?

2. Then they can make an argument for keeping it as a historical relic (although then one wonders why they don't feel the same love of history when having the Ten Commandments all over the place). As for "automatic" and "infringement of their rights", that's a mischaracterization of the whole deal. The point is that the motto is an improper religious invocation on a public institution, something that is supposed to be secular. It's not a question of rights, it's a question of principle. Perhaps it's our culture, but there seems to be a sort of insistence that things must do you harm in order for them to be wrong, and if they don't harm you there can be nothing wrong with them.

[hodgy]

1. Violation of principles is necessary because it might "look bad"?

Its only a principle if you make a principle out of it. Do you really believe that it is necessary to purge every last vestige of insignificant religious symbolism from your national identity? Do you really think that that will promote a tolerant, intelligent society?

2. Then they can make an argument for keeping it as a historical relic (although then one wonders why they don't feel the same love of history when having the Ten Commandments all over the place). As for "automatic" and "infringement of their rights", that's a mischaracterization of the whole deal. The point is that the motto is an improper religious invocation on a public institution, something that is supposed to be secular. It's not a question of rights, it's a question of principle. Perhaps it's our culture, but there seems to be a sort of insistence that things must do you harm in order for them to be wrong, and if they don't harm you there can be nothing wrong with them.

Well - its your country so I'll leave you to it. I personally think its ill-advised and I, as a dyed-in-the-wool atheist would oppose the removal of that motto if I was a citizen of the US.

[TragicMonkey]

Its only a principle if you make a principle out of it.

That is true of any and every principle.

Do you really believe that it is necessary to purge every last vestige of insignificant religious symbolism from your national identity? Do you really think that that will promote a tolerant, intelligent society?

Did I make that claim?

A secular government isn't supposed to be invoking gods.

Do you think a tolerant, intelligent society can be promoted through hypocrisy?

[hodgy]

Do you think a tolerant, intelligent society can be promoted through hypocrisy?

So - go ahead, get rid of the motto. I can't help feeling your country will be a little poorer for it though.

[FredFlash]

I can't stand crap like this. Most of this country trusts in a god, and we atheists need to recognize that we're in the minority. I'm against school prayer, I'm against the state forcing us to worship a god, and I'm against being forced to fund religious programs. Fortunately, we're not forced to do any of those things. But "In God We Trust"??? Please.
Can any atheist out there seriously argue that he/she is oppressed? That they're being prevented from not worshipping a god? That the state is forcing religion down their throats? Give me a [rule 8] break. Shut up and do something productive with your life.


Freedom of religion is the total absence of any type of attempt by a human authority (as opposed to a divine authority), such as the government, to influence our opinions regarding the manner and methods we employ to discharge the duties that we owe to our Creator.

During the Early Years of the American Republic, those who advocated nonsense like the government empoying the nation's coins to set up the people's duty to trust in God were considered by the majority of Americans to be fools or enemies of Christ and the religious liberty that he ordained. Even executive religious recommendations such as the one issued in 1789 by George Washington were deemed improper. From 1817 to 1860 twenty-two U. S. Congresses in a row refused to ask the President to issue religious recommendations.

Baptist Minister Gilbert Beebe’s famous 1845 sermon “My Kingdom is Not of This World” expressed the view of most Americans that the principle established by the Constitution was the leaving the religion of the people as free as the air they breathe from government influence.

John 18:36 · "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence".

Thus spake the Son of God when mantled in the flesh. He stood arraigned at the bar of Pilate; and when, if there had been anything in the elements of this world which could contribute to the defense or benefit of His kingdom, they must have been called into action. All the interests of the kingdom which He claimed as His own, centered in Him, and the destiny of the kingdom, for weal or woe, was at that important moment hinged upon the result of what was at that time progressing.

None of the princes of this world knew Him; He had not made a revelation of what He was, even to those who sat empowered to deliver Him to death. He had not labored in His ministry to make Himself familiar to the crowned heads of the nations of the earth. He had proposed no treaties or terms of alliance with them; not had He called on them, or any of them, to propose terms for His acceptance; for the nature of His kingdom was so radically different from every kingdom under heaven, that it was not possible that an alliance could be entered into that could subserve the true interests of either party. His kingdom truly was destined to encounter the violence, enmity, wrath, strife, and persecution of kingdoms of men, both in her King and in the subjects of her government.

The powers which should oppose Him in person and in His people were not such as He was compelled to succumb to for what of power to resist, for He reminded Pilate that he would not have had any power, if it had not been given him; and on another occasion He declared that He was able to call on His Father, who would instantly honor His requisition for more than twelve legions of angels--a force sufficient to overwhelm all earthly powers engaged against Him; but how, in that case, could the Scriptures be fulfilled? Not an intimation was made of raising up an earthly force to resist the assaults of the enemies of His kingdom, even if a force had been requisite, He would have called from the heavenly world.

We may well conclude, that if in that most trying hour, when His holy soul was pressed within Him, He had nothing to ask of the rulers of this world, there never could a period arrive when the powers of earthly princes should be required to defend Him or His cause. To those who tempted Him with their questions concerning tribute money, He said, Render unto Caesar the things which belong to Caesar, and unto God the things which belong to God; thus clearly intimating that the governments were not only distinct from each other, but that the distinction should be perpetual; and that the requisitions of Caesar, or of the governments of the nations, had to do with men as citizens of the world, and that their obligation to earthly magistrates and rulers was not relaxed nor abolished by the administration of His laws. And again, that the things of God were not to be rendered to Caesar, but unto God.

Things of a civil nature, relating to the natural rights of men, were to be settled by God's own providential appointment, by human legislation; but the things aside from a respect for and obedience to earthly potentates, in natural matters, belonging to God, such as matters of faith, of conscience, of religion, were not things over which the kings of the earth had any supervision or power, and things in which His subjects were not at liberty under any circumstances, to submit to the dictation or legislation of any other than God Himself.


The kingdom of Jesus is not of this world. In its origin, elements, provisions, policy, protection, government, or destiny. Its origin is heaven-- it is a heavenly kingdom. The King is the Lord from heaven; He said, "I proceeded forth and came out from the Father;" and again, "What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before," etc. The subjects of his kingdom are of the same origin, for "Both he sanctifies, and they that are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren" and he said, "Thine they were and thou gavest them me." "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." etc.

The laws for the regulation of this heavenly kingdom are not of earthly enactment. Christ the anointed of the Father, is the sole Legislator, and he, by His Spirit, writes his law upon, and sets it up in the hearts of his children. The elements, or component parts, viewed separately or collectively, are all of God, and every plant that the heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up.

The provision on which this kingdom is sustained, were given us in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world, and being prior to, could not be of the world. Grace, mercy, peace, righteousness, and truth, with all things else necessary for the commandment of the everlasting and unchanging decree of God, were treasured up in the Head of the church before the world began; and all the provisions of his spiritual house on which His poor are fed; were brought down from the abounding and overflowing fountain from which every good and perfect gift comes. And he will abundantly bless her provisions and fill her with bread.

The policy of this kingdom is from above. "For our conversation is in heaven," and it is therefore as becomes the children of God. All earthly religions have to depend on human policy, human wisdom, and humanly devised means; but not so with the kingdom which no man can see except he be born again. The protection of that kingdom is of him who is a wall of fire round about it, and the glory in its midst. All anti-christian religious establishments desire the arm of human government--regal power, and human means for their protection; but not so with the kingdom of Jesus Christ; the eternal God is the refuge of His people, and underneath them are the everlasting arms. All provisions on which the subjects of the kingdom of our Lord are fed, comforted, instructed, and secured, are spiritual, and therefore cannot emanate from any but a spiritual fountain. Although the world, the flesh and Satan have volunteered like the aliens about Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah, to furnish God's people with food, the order of the government forbids the traffic with them; and it is impossible that the children of the kingdom should be fed with any other food than that which God has graciously provided, and abundantly blessed.

Should the government of the kingdom of our Redeemer be to any extent divided with angels or men, whatever part or portion these should administer, must necessarily detract so much from the power and glory of Christ. "The government shall be upon his shoulder; and of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end." So stands the record of the Holy One. The subjects of his government are forbidden to call any man, master, or father, as their Master and spiritual Progenitor is in heaven, and nothing can be born of the flesh but flesh; so that without being born again, no man can see the kingdom of God. A legislature of unregenerate men who cannot see the kingdom, would be very poorly qualified to legislate for a kingdom which is to them absolutely invisible; and if there were none but regenerate men seated in legislation, they being by the new birth qualified to see the kingdom of God, would to a man, know by the same illuminating work of the Spirit, that they could do nothing to aid in the legislative or executive departments of the Messiah's kingdom.

The destiny of the kingdom of which we write, differs essentially from that of all other kingdoms. The best systems of human government are destined to crumble to the ground. In the providence of God, empires are founded, kingdoms and republics are raised up, they reach their climax, and then decline, and finally cease to be reckoned among the things that be; but the kingdom of Jesus is an everlasting kingdom, and a dominion that shall never end. It shall never be changed, superseded, or transferred to other hands. The mountains shall depart, the hills shall be moved, the earth and the sea shall pass away, and all the elements of this world shall be dissolved, but the kingdom of our God shall survive them all, and flourish in eternal bloom. How presumptuous then, for monarchs of the earth, whose transient glory is as a withering flower, or human legislatures which God shall obliterate, to prepare the way of the rising empire of his to reach forth the guilt-polluted fingers of their power, to point out the course in which God requires his children to move.

Seeing, then, that we look for such things--seeing that we have received a kingdom which is not of this world, which cannot be moved--let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and Godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire.

[Complexity]

Just wanted to add 100% disagreement with the OP.

All traces of religion in the US government should go, and pursuing this goal is appropriate and honorable.

For those of you who are comfortable with these religious intrusions, replace 'God' with 'Allah' and you may begin to get a sense of how I feel about it.

Oh, yes, some of you argue that 'Allah' and 'God' mean the same thing. I assure you that Jewish and Christian Americans generally interpret 'God' as 'my God' and would interpret 'Allah' as something very different.

How would you feel if you showed up at a courthouse for a trial that you are party to only to read a Muslim quotation in mosaic that praised Sharia law? Would you not swallow hard at the thought that the majority, including possibly the judge and the jury, were comfortable with the thought of honoring and applying Sharia law rather than the law of the land?

When you open your wallet to pay for dinner, and see bills that say 'In Allah we trust', would you not feel excluded, a second-class citizen, an outsider, and at greater risk?

[JamesDillon]

Can any atheist out there seriously argue that he/she is oppressed? That they're being prevented from not worshipping a god? That the state is forcing religion down their throats?

When children are forced in public school to stand with their hands over their hearts and state, five mornings a week, that the nation in which they live is one "under God"? How is that not an instance of the state "forcing religion down their throats"? I don't buy the argument that the "under God" language is purely ceremonial, or devoid of religious content. If it were, why is the religious right so adamantly opposed to removing it? The fact that it is a less egregious violation of religious freedoms than some others that can be imagined doesn't diminish the fact that such language has no place in a state institution.

[elliotfc]

I think the best thing religious fundamentalist types have going for them is Michael Newdow. And since I'm sypathetic to them...well...I wish/hope Michael Newdow appears on 93 television programs a week.

He gets people who aren't hot and bothered about this stuff...hot and bothered. In opposition.

I'm assuming Michael Newdow is a sincere idealist. If he's an arrogant publicity whore I'd wish he'd shut up...if it weren't for what I said above. Whatever his motivation, he's great publicity for religious fundamentalist types. He either is ignorant of this fact, could care less about this fact, or is cognizant of it but can't help himself.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I think the best thing religious fundamentalist types have going for them is Michael Newdow. And since I'm sypathetic to them...well...I wish/hope Michael Newdow appears on 93 television programs a week.

He gets people who aren't hot and bothered about this stuff...hot and bothered. In opposition.

I'm assuming Michael Newdow is a sincere idealist. If he's an arrogant publicity whore I'd wish he'd shut up...if it weren't for what I said above. Whatever his motivation, he's great publicity for religious fundamentalist types. He either is ignorant of this fact, could care less about this fact, or is cognizant of it but can't help himself.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I think the best thing religious fundamentalist types have going for them is Michael Newdow. And since I'm sypathetic to them...well...I wish/hope Michael Newdow appears on 93 television programs a week.

He gets people who aren't hot and bothered about this stuff...hot and bothered. In opposition.

I'm assuming Michael Newdow is a sincere idealist. If he's an arrogant publicity whore I'd wish he'd shut up...if it weren't for what I said above. Whatever his motivation, he's great publicity for religious fundamentalist types. He either is ignorant of this fact, could care less about this fact, or is cognizant of it but can't help himself.

-Elliot

[phildonnia]

Michael Newdow has earned a place in the hearts of the true believers as the archetypical atheist. When you hear crap about atheists from Rush Limbaugh, and wonder what the hell he's talking about, he's probably got someone like Newdow in mind. He (Newdow) has taken his dogma to such an extreme that he is an embarrassment to the mainstream atheist.

In other words, he is the atheist equivalent of Pat Robertson.

(He also apparently lives down the street from me.)

[jj]

So, when we go in the courtroom and are asked to swear on the Bible, is this wrong too?


Been there, done that, no bible in evidence, no "so help me dog", either. Simply "do you swear or affirm that you are about to tell the truth and nothing but the truth", not even "the whole truth".

[jj]

I'm sort of sorry that people are beating up on Newdow. After all, the "under God" was added to the pledge during the red scare, as a way of deliberately vilifying atheists as "reds" by a psychotic Senator from Wisconsin(among other things).

The "In God We Trust" came earlier, but is also just as illegal. It does cost money to add that message to the coin die, and that is government money. It's illegal, plain and simple, and for that reason alone, should be, IF we are a nation of laws, removed and not permitted.

Not doing so is a full, complete, and final admission that the USA puts religion above law. It is that simple. Every new coin struck is another admission that religion is above law in the USA.

[jj]

The fact that it is a less egregious violation of religious freedoms than some others that can be imagined doesn't diminish the fact that such language has no place in a state institution.

Or that it is demonstrating, every time it happens, that in the USA, religion comes before law.

I can't see any possible legal issue here, it's endorsement of religion by government, plain and simple. No more, no less.

[geetarmoore]

I'm sort of sorry that people are beating up on Newdow. After all, the "under God" was added to the pledge during the red scare, as a way of deliberately vilifying atheists as "reds" by a psychotic Senator from Wisconsin(among other things).

The "In God We Trust" came earlier, but is also just as illegal. It does cost money to add that message to the coin die, and that is government money. It's illegal, plain and simple, and for that reason alone, should be, IF we are a nation of laws, removed and not permitted.

Not doing so is a full, complete, and final admission that the USA puts religion above law. It is that simple. Every new coin struck is another admission that religion is above law in the USA.

Yep. I support removing both of these things. I don't care what kind of 'image' the guy gives to atheists. He's correct, and doing what is right.....

[kmortis]

Yep. I support removing both of these things. I don't care what kind of 'image' the guy gives to atheists. He's correct, and doing what is right.....
geetarmoore,
I disagree. Look at how bull-headed fundies are treated here. Christians that are mild, live their life by example are well accepted here; whereas the "bang the Bible on the street corner" stripe are ridiculed, berated and openly insulted. The former would actually have a chance in getting some of us to see "the errors of our way", whereas the later don't have a snowball's chance in Pheonix.

I see the same thing the other way. Newdow is an ass. He bludgeons his view point upon everyone, expecting them to accept him because he's COnstitutionally speaking, right.

Think about it this way. There was very little difference in the rhetoric of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas PAine. By all historical accounts, however, TJ wasn't a bull headed ass. TJ went on to be one of the greatest presidents the US has ever seen, Paine? He got exiled to France, where he helped the Revolution...until they decided that he was an ass. He got shipped back to England, where he died penniless, and his bones were stored in a chest-of-drawers until a supporter bought it and buried his remains. Now, both TJ and PAine were instrumental to the US Revolution. But why is one remembered favorably and one not?

Well, that's my two cents, and I could be wrong...

[geetarmoore]

geetarmoore,
I disagree. Look at how bull-headed fundies are treated here. Christians that are mild, live their life by example are well accepted here; whereas the "bang the Bible on the street corner" stripe are ridiculed, berated and openly insulted. The former would actually have a chance in getting some of us to see "the errors of our way", whereas the later don't have a snowball's chance in Pheonix.

I see the same thing the other way. Newdow is an ass. He bludgeons his view point upon everyone, expecting them to accept him because he's COnstitutionally speaking, right.

Think about it this way. There was very little difference in the rhetoric of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas PAine. By all historical accounts, however, TJ wasn't a bull headed ass. TJ went on to be one of the greatest presidents the US has ever seen, Paine? He got exiled to France, where he helped the Revolution...until they decided that he was an ass. He got shipped back to England, where he died penniless, and his bones were stored in a chest-of-drawers until a supporter bought it and buried his remains. Now, both TJ and PAine were instrumental to the US Revolution. But why is one remembered favorably and one not?

Well, that's my two cents, and I could be wrong...

I can understand your argument, and I guess you could go on to say that people shouldn't have fought to remove the 10 commandments monument from Roy Moore's courtroom, that we should just accept prayer in school, and we should just roll over when it comes to all the other over-steps of the non-secular world. I mean, who is it hurting, really?

But we haven't rolled over on these things, and we shouldn't. To remain consistent the effort needs to be focused on all areas that are unconstitutional, as we need to focus on the fact that these are moderate battles, not extremist viewpoints. To uphold the constitution can not be allowed to be seen as 'extremist'.

These two topics - 'under god' and 'in god we trust' are constantly thrown in the face of seculars by people who defend the 'Christian nation' viewpoint. It is, of course, all historical revisionism, but they don't see it that way, and the most recent presidential election shows that we are loosing the battle to these people. We are a nation of Christians, because it's in our pledge, and on our money, and that is the bottom line, despite what history and the constitution tell us.

If I am an 'fundamentalist' for wanting to follow the constitution, then so be it . At least I am fundamental in regards to an actual historically correct and verifiable document. ;)

[FredFlash]

Most of this country trusts in a god, and we atheists need to recognize that we're in the minority.

Was the U. S. Government established by the people to declare the people's trust in God?

I'm against school prayer

Why not? It was never forced on anyone.


Can any atheist out there seriously argue that he/she is oppressed? That they're being prevented from not worshipping a god?

Can any genuine Christian argue that he is not concerned when the government trespasses upon the jurisdiction of Christ and his exclusive authority to direct his people regarding the duty which they owe to their Creator? James Madison urged us to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.

Our ancestors followed Mr. Madison's wise advice until 1864 when they stood by and allowed President Lincoln, Treasury Secretary Samuel Chase and a professed theocrat/Satan worshiper named James Pollock to establish the duty of all American's to declare their trust in God on the nation's coins. During the Early Years of the Republic they would have shot James Pollock as an idiot instead of appointing him Director of the Mint at Philadelphia.

It was with a kiss that Judas betrayed his divine Master; and we should all be admonished -- no matter what our faith may be -- that the rights of conscience cannot be so successfully assailed as under the pretext of holiness.

Fred Von Flash of Dallas Texas USA


*******************

[FredFlash]

'Under God' and 'in God we trust' are constantly thrown in the face of seculars by people who defend the 'Christian nation' viewpoint.

The problem with trivial and seemingly reasonable and harmless deviations from the pure doctrine of no government authority over religion (the duty which we owe to the Creator) is the principles underlying them. They are the very same principles that lay beneath the Unholy Satanic Union of Church and State that is the shame of Christendom and resulted in seventeen hundred years of bloody persecutions throughout Europe.

Take for example the exploitation of the government’s law making authority to "declare the trust of our people in God" on our national coins. [See Note] The underlying premise is that a uniformity of religious beliefs and opinions is required; the government has the moral duty to promulgate and defend the true faith; therefore, the government must be authorized to decide what an individual’s duties to God are and ensure that those duties are discharged, using force and violence if necessary. Stamping "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins was one small step for the National Reform Association and a giant leap for Satan into the jurisdiction of Christ.

[Note] Treasury Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. (Note: "The people" was one Counterfeit Christian minister in the employ of the Devil who wrote a letter to the Director of the Mint)

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

Fred Von Flash Dallas Texas USA

[slingblade]

Was the U. S. Government established by the people to declare the people's trust in God?

I don't know. Was it? If you're asking, I say no. If you're making a claim, I say show me some proof.

Why not? [School prayer] was never forced on anyone.

It was in my experience. My evidence is anecdotal, and therefore not really evidence, but I witnessed a student being told he would either pray or be punished. He chose punishment, every single time. He was Jewish, you see, and refused to utter the Lord's Prayer.

Can any genuine Christian argue that he is not concerned when the government trespasses upon the jurisdiction of Christ and his exclusive authority to direct his people regarding the duty which they owe to their Creator? James Madison urged us to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.

I'm supposed to care when a Christian's "duty" to a being I consider imaginary is tresspassed upon by the government? Why? Well, okay, I admit that if the government suddenly decided to make church attendance against the law, I'd be concerned. Just as I'd be concerned if the gov't tried to make it mandatory. But the point is, you don't make a lot of sense.

Our ancestors followed Mr. Madison's wise advice until 1864 when they stood by and allowed President Lincoln, Treasury Secretary Samuel Chase and a professed theocrat/Satan worshiper named James Pollock to establish the duty of all American's to declare their trust in God on the nation's coins. During the Early Years of the Republic they would have shot James Pollock as an idiot instead of appointing him Director of the Mint at Philadelphia.

I have to be misreading this, somehow. Why would a Satan worshiper want "In God We Trust" on the money? It's antithetical. Can you prove this claim that Pollock was a Satan worshiper? Can one be a theocrat and a Satan worshiper? Satan isn't a god, according to Christian dogma; only God is god. So how and why would a person want a God-centered government and yet worship Satan at the same time?

It was with a kiss that Judas betrayed his divine Master; and we should all be admonished -- no matter what our faith may be -- that the rights of conscience cannot be so successfully assailed as under the pretext of holiness.

What?


(edited, spelling)

[geetarmoore]

I don't know. Was it? If you're asking, I say no. If you're making a claim, I say show me some proof.



It was in my experience. My evidence is anecdotal, and therefore not really evidence, but I witnessed a student being told he would either pray or be punished. He chose punishment, every single time. He was Jewish, you see, and refused to utter the Lord's Prayer.



I'm supposed to care when a Christian's "duty" to a being I consider imaginary is tresspassed upon by the government? Why? Well, okay, I admit that if the government suddenly decided to make church attendance against the law, I'd be concerned. Just as I'd be concerned if the gov't tried to make it madatory. But the point is, you don't make a lot of sense.



I have to be misreading this, somehow. Why would a Satan worshiper want "In God We Trust" on the money? It's antithetical. Can you prove this claim that Pollock was a Satan worshiper? Can one be a theocrat and a Satan worshiper? Satan isn't a god, according to Christian dogma; only God is god. So how and why would a person want a God-centered government and yet worship Satan at the same time?



What?



I'm with you. I'm here scrathing my head, trying to figure out if there is a point burried somewhere within any one of his postings this morning.......

[slingblade]

Geetarmoore, I think I sense kittens and recipies in the offing, and soon.

[RandFan]

I'm with you. I'm here scrathing my head, trying to figure out if there is a point burried somewhere within any one of his postings this morning.......Yeah, I agree, what the hell was that all about?

[JLam]

http://www.saunalahti.fi/%7Eveizrail/pics/kittens/dscn2044.jpg

[RandFan]

Geetarmoore, I think I sense kittens and recipies in the offing, and soon. How about kitten recipies?


http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/383/cat2jy.jpg

[slingblade]

I wish those two posts meant I'd just won a million bucks.

I coud sure use a million bucks. ;)

[elliotfc]

I'm sort of sorry that people are beating up on Newdow. After all, the "under God" was added to the pledge during the red scare, as a way of deliberately vilifying atheists as "reds" by a psychotic Senator from Wisconsin(among other things).

The "In God We Trust" came earlier, but is also just as illegal. It does cost money to add that message to the coin die, and that is government money. It's illegal, plain and simple, and for that reason alone, should be, IF we are a nation of laws, removed and not permitted.

Not doing so is a full, complete, and final admission that the USA puts religion above law. It is that simple. Every new coin struck is another admission that religion is above law in the USA.

Is "In God We Trust" commensurate to religion?

If so, what religion is it advocating? Religion in general?

Let's take Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was pretty obsessed with God, more and more so as the Civil War dragged on. Yet he wasn't religious.

My point is that I don't see how mentioning God is the same as advocating or promoting religion. Could it be? Sure. Does it have to be? No.

I personally don't believe this means the government should have license to put God any and everywhere (although the fearmongers sure are painting that picture, eh? Fear is powerful).

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Yep. I support removing both of these things. I don't care what kind of 'image' the guy gives to atheists. He's correct, and doing what is right.....

So he's on a moral mission. That's good, I guess. No, by definition it has to be good, because he's on a moral mission.

I like your attitude btw on this one. Image be damned, stand up for your principles. Christians believe the same thing (or, they ought to).

The difference then, between Pat Robertson and Michael Newdow, is that you accept Newdow's morality, and you reject Robertson's, image be damned.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I don't know. Was it? If you're asking, I say no. If you're making a claim, I say show me some proof.

FredFlash will, I think, address each of these points on his own...but all I can say is that I've studied the histories of the continental congresses, each session always started with prayer, and perhaps the most revolutionary concept driving the philosophies behind the continental congresses was that rights do not come from the state, but from God. As for proof, it is manifold, but I've got a book pre-ordered called "The Faiths of our Founding Fathers" by David Holmes which will no doubt be a terrific compilation of all the proof that you'll need to understand FredFlash's point. It's being released this week.

It was in my experience. My evidence is anecdotal, and therefore not really evidence, but I witnessed a student being told he would either pray or be punished. He chose punishment, every single time. He was Jewish, you see, and refused to utter the Lord's Prayer.

So he wasn't forced to pray. He had an alternative. What was the punishment by the way? In true theocracies, if you didn't follow the state dictated religion, you were also punished...imprisonment, whipping, banishment, sometimes execution, seizure of property, the usual.

By the way, what was the name of the school that this happened in, and in what year? I'm curious, I find these anecdotes interesting and I, for one, take them seriously. Students (in public schools) ought not to be punished for not saying prayers, and these anecdotes deserve to be followed up.

I have to be misreading this, somehow. Why would a Satan worshiper want "In God We Trust" on the money?

In order to have something else to desecrate, of course. :)

Can one be a theocrat and a Satan worshiper? Satan isn't a god, according to Christian dogma; only God is god. So how and why would a person want a God-centered government and yet worship Satan at the same time?

A Satanist also believes in the Judeo-Christian god...they would define him differently of course.

-Elliot

[geetarmoore]

So he's on a moral mission. That's good, I guess. No, by definition it has to be good, because he's on a moral mission.

I like your attitude btw on this one. Image be damned, stand up for your principles. Christians believe the same thing (or, they ought to).

The difference then, between Pat Robertson and Michael Newdow, is that you accept Newdow's morality, and you reject Robertson's, image be damned.

-Elliot

The difference is, the Christians don't have the constitution backing them up, and Nedow does..

You lose. Bahhhhhhhh.;)

[elliotfc]

The difference is, the Christians don't have the constitution backing them up, and Nedow does..

You lose. Bahhhhhhhh.;)

Where in the Constitution does it say that there can not be prayer in state funded schools, or, In God We Trust on money?

Religion actually only appears in the constitution once, in Article 6.

In the first Amendment, the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from establishing religion. I don't see how school prayer establishes religion. Which religion? A secular religion?

Exactly which religion has been established by sporadic school prayer and In God We Trust? Religion in general? What is religion in general?

Is theism religion? I say no, particularly in regards to the constitution, because the founding father's invoked God all of the time...without invoking particular religions. So they obviously knew the difference.

-Elliot

[JamesDillon]

In the first Amendment, the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from establishing religion. I don't see how school prayer establishes religion. Which religion? A secular religion?

What the First Amendment actually says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." (emphasis added). "Respecting an establishment of religion" would seem to have a broader meaning than "establishing religion." The United States Supreme Court interpreted this language in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), to mean that in order to satisfy the First Amendment,
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman.

I don't see how prayer in school, or the recitation of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, can pass this test.

What is religion in general?
That's a matter for the courts to decide when interpreting the First Amendment, but I would think that actions tending to suggest belief in a supernatural deity would fall within any reasonable definition of the term.

Is theism religion? I say no, particularly in regards to the constitution, because the founding father's [sic] invoked God all of the time...without invoking particular religions. So they obviously knew the difference.
Please direct me to one reference to God in the Constitution of the United States. There are none, and this was not by accident. As you conceded, the only reference to religion in the primary text of the Constitution appears in Article 6, which states that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office of the United States. Many of the framers of the Constitution may have held private religious views, but they unanimously agreed that such beliefs should not be imposed on the public via the mechanism of government.

[gnome]

elliotfc... let's even back up to the reasons behind this... do you not see a problem with a teacher-led prayer in public school? Parents can send their children to whichever church they prefer, if they don't like the prayers. Most cannot, however, send their students to a different public school. Even districts that have school choice cannot be expected to cover the variety of prayers students may require.

I favor the current system. The students can pray all they want, provided they do not interfere with lessons.

[geetarmoore]

Where in the Constitution does it say that there can not be prayer in state funded schools, or, In God We Trust on money?

Religion actually only appears in the constitution once, in Article 6.

In the first Amendment, the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from establishing religion. I don't see how school prayer establishes religion. Which religion? A secular religion?

Exactly which religion has been established by sporadic school prayer and In God We Trust? Religion in general? What is religion in general?

Is theism religion? I say no, particularly in regards to the constitution, because the founding father's invoked God all of the time...without invoking particular religions. So they obviously knew the difference.

-Elliot

Geeze.

As long as you're cool with my wife, the Satanist, leading a prayer to Satan in your child's class, then I guess I'm cool with prayer in school.

With Prayer in school, you take your chances... ;)

[boojum]

...but all I can say is that I've studied the histories of the continental congresses, each session always started with prayer,

Do you have a reference for this? I ask, because I recently read a biography of Benjamin Franklin (_Stealing God's Thunder : Benjamin Franklin's Lightning Rod and the Invention of America_) that mentions a proposal (perhaps tongue-in-check) for opening prayers by Benjamin Franklin himself. The proposal was roundly defeated, and I'm unaware of any later action that instituted prayers.

[elliotfc]

What the First Amendment actually says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." (emphasis added). "Respecting an establishment of religion" would seem to have a broader meaning than "establishing religion." The United States Supreme Court interpreted this language in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), to mean that in order to satisfy the First Amendment,

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman.

I don't see how prayer in school, or the recitation of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, can pass this test.

You mentioned 3 points...the kicker being the first "legitimate secular purpose".

Purpose...subjective...too vague for me...can mean anything. Is there a secular purpose for, say, prayer in school? Sure. It can advance unity, spiritual/emotional health, allow student's to express themselves.

As for the broader meaning....that's what you say. Like FredFlash was asked for evidence, I'd need to see evidence that this "broader meaning" concept was what they were after.

That's a matter for the courts to decide when interpreting the First Amendment, but I would think that actions tending to suggest belief in a supernatural deity would fall within any reasonable definition of the term.

The constitution was against (reasonably) the institution of an official religion. Everyone understood that back then. It's TODAY that we have the faulty misunderstanding. They knew what it meant. As for reasonable...theism was the most reasonable concept of all. Why did the Constituion have to even bother contrasting that (reasonability of theism) with the institution of religion (i.e. England)? Duh.

Please direct me to one reference to God in the Constitution of the United States. There are none, and this was not by accident.

You're imposing this secular statement onto them. Was it by design? Again, like FredFlash was asked for evidence, I'd have to see the debate where this was discussed. That the design of the federal constitution should exclude a mention of God. That it does? Sure. Bare bones document. Doesn't mention abortion either (and abortions happened back then). And God knows the Constitution supports abortion.

As you conceded, the only reference to religion in the primary text of the Constitution appears in Article 6, which states that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office of the United States. Many of the framers of the Constitution may have held private religious views, but they unanimously agreed that such beliefs should not be imposed on the public via the mechanism of government.

You know, every extant state constituions had mentions to God while the federal constitution was being written. And they were not invalidated...and state constitutions written after the fed constitution mentioned God. So this doesn't mean much to me. States run public schools, always have.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

elliotfc... let's even back up to the reasons behind this... do you not see a problem with a teacher-led prayer in public school?

I might have a problem with it, which is why I would not be for teacher led prayers in public school. I have no problem with teacher led prayer in public school before/after the school day. I have no problem with coaches leading prayer before sporting events. During the "official" school day, I agree that teachers/administrators shouldn't lead prayers.

And if they do, oh well. Case by case. If they're vague theistic prayers, I frankly don't care. I'm not a fan of public schools anyhow, so whatever.

Parents can send their children to whichever church they prefer, if they don't like the prayers. Most cannot, however, send their students to a different public school. Even districts that have school choice cannot be expected to cover the variety of prayers students may require.

Agreed, which is why the prayer would have to be vague/theistic/vaccuous.

I favor the current system. The students can pray all they want, provided they do not interfere with lessons.

Agreed.

Now, a student led prayer to start the school day? Say, over the PA? Sure, why not. A muslim prayer one day, a Jewish prayer one day, an atheist prayer one day, why not.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Geeze.

As long as you're cool with my wife, the Satanist, leading a prayer to Satan in your child's class, then I guess I'm cool with prayer in school.

With Prayer in school, you take your chances... ;)

I have no problem with a Satanist leading a prayer, say, over the PA. Exceptions would be if the Satanist was, in doing so, directly attacking other religions, or people, or, if he was advocating behavior that was malicious.

Throw 'em all bones, diversity is great.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Do you have a reference for this? I ask, because I recently read a biography of Benjamin Franklin (_Stealing God's Thunder : Benjamin Franklin's Lightning Rod and the Invention of America_) that mentions a proposal (perhaps tongue-in-check) for opening prayers by Benjamin Franklin himself. The proposal was roundly defeated, and I'm unaware of any later action that instituted prayers.


Give me a few days on this, I'll back it up.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Geeze.

As long as you're cool with my wife, the Satanist, leading a prayer to Satan in your child's class, then I guess I'm cool with prayer in school.

With Prayer in school, you take your chances... ;)

And another thing. There *ARE* Satanists in public schools already. Tough to miss them. They tell EVERYBODY that they are Satanists. They don't hide it. They may be restricted in the T-shirts they can wear.

Now, if they can whip up a prayer that does not attack others, that's fine. For example, I can imagine that their prayer would be something like "May Satan help us all this day and help us get good grades and cheeseburgers falling from the sky". They probably wouldn't take it very seriously. Very well. This is great education for religious students who would take it seriously.

The more I think about it, the better I think it is for Satanists to lead school prayers. Show 'em what you're made of.

-Elliot

[gnome]

Now, a student led prayer to start the school day? Say, over the PA? Sure, why not. A muslim prayer one day, a Jewish prayer one day, an atheist prayer one day, why not.

-Elliot

Why not? Waste of time. The purpose of mass prayer is for people of similar religion to share in worship. The required similarity happens at a church, not at a school. I firmly believe that with any kind of prayer at school that involves all students, it will either step on someone's toes, or be so vacuous as to be pointless (and still step on the toes of atheists).

Leave it up to the children to worship as they choose, individually. Group prayers can be done at churches... there's no shortage.

[fishbait]

I wonder exactly how the motto would be removed from Federal currency.

Little black censor lines?http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/fishbait/100dollarbill.jpg

[JamesDillon]

You mentioned 3 points...the kicker being the first "legitimate secular purpose".

Purpose...subjective...too vague for me...can mean anything. Is there a secular purpose for, say, prayer in school? Sure. It can advance unity, spiritual/emotional health, allow student's to express themselves.
Maybe it can, the question is whether it does. Purpose is an objective inquiry, despite the fact that it can be discerned only circumstantially. You're right that, in theory, one could articulate a "secular purpose" for school prayer-- but the courts could shoot it down it they find it to be a sham, as they did with the Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act in Edwards v. Aguilard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). But even if the courts were to accept a purported "secular purpose" for school prayer, which I find highly implausible, it would still fail the other prongs of the Lemon test.

As for the broader meaning....that's what you say. Like FredFlash was asked for evidence, I'd need to see evidence that this "broader meaning" concept was what they were after.
That observation was based on the plain text of the document. "Respecting an establishment of religion" seems on its face to be a broader concept than "establishing religion." That, too, would be a matter of interpretation for the courts, but they seem to have adopted the interpretation I suggested.


The constitution was against (reasonably) the institution of an official religion. Everyone understood that back then. It's TODAY that we have the faulty misunderstanding. They knew what it meant. As for reasonable...theism was the most reasonable concept of all. Why did the Constituion have to even bother contrasting that (reasonability of theism) with the institution of religion (i.e. England)?
So, how is state-sponsored prayer in school not the "institution of an official religion"? Even a "vague, theistic" prayer is an institution of a vague theism, which, as an atheist, I would find to violate my religious freedoms.

Duh.
Blast! The one argument I can't refute! Fine, I guess you're right. Praise Jebus.

You're imposing this secular statement onto them. Was it by design? Again, like FredFlash was asked for evidence, I'd have to see the debate where this was discussed. That the design of the federal constitution should exclude a mention of God. That it does? Sure. Bare bones document. Doesn't mention abortion either (and abortions happened back then). And God knows the Constitution supports abortion.
Christopher Hitchens talked about this issue at TAM, and according to his upcoming biography of Thomas Jefferson, the omission of references to God in the Constitution was, in fact, intentional. Does anyone have another source for this?

You know, every extant state constituions had mentions to God while the federal constitution was being written. And they were not invalidated...and state constitutions written after the fed constitution mentioned God. So this doesn't mean much to me. States run public schools, always have.
The First Amendment does not apply directly to the states; its text plainly states that it applies only to "Congress." The First Amendment was made applicable to the states by way of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) ("The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in [the Fourteenth Amendment] embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment."). Thus, until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there was no Constitutional prohibition of state-sponsored religion. That is no longer the case.

[elliotfc]

Why not? Waste of time.

It wasn't too many years ago that I was in public high school...the first 15-20 minutes of the day (homeroom I guess) IS, basically a waste of time. Some schools require that students watch a tv program before school. Some schools have students do announcements via video (including weather and sports and general news). 30 second prayer a waste of time? Sure, why not. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The purpose of mass prayer is for people of similar religion to share in worship.

How limiting. It doesn't have to be that way. I'd say the only similarity would have to be some sort of monotheism.

The required similarity happens at a church, not at a school.

Bah. Mass prayers don't have to happen in a church.

I firmly believe that with any kind of prayer at school that involves all students, it will either step on someone's toes, or be so vacuous as to be pointless (and still step on the toes of atheists).

I agree that it would be vacuous and perhaps theological fluff. As for pointless, that is up to the individuals involved. I can't tell you HOW MANY THINGS I thought were pointless in high school...in particular school rallies where you'd spend an hour and a half sitting in the gym while football players mumble things and people jump up and down. Step on toes? Being exposed to other people's views should be part of the high school experience.

Leave it up to the children to worship as they choose, individually. Group prayers can be done at churches... there's no shortage.

I believe that school prayer should be driven by students, and not administrators.

This is all very theoretical to me I admit...I suppose I'd vote in favor of such ideas if they came up as ballot initiatives. High school, shmigh school.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Maybe it can, the question is whether it does. Purpose is an objective inquiry, despite the fact that it can be discerned only circumstantially.

No, nothing has inherent purpose. Humans assign purpose. Unless you believe in God...then there could be objective purpose.

For example, take a tree. Is the purpose of the tree to give me shade, or allow me something to climb, or give me wood to keep me warm? Or is it just a tree?

Purpose can be analyzed...in an objective sense...where you think outside of humanity (trees give squirrels a place to live). But trees are trees.

You're right that, in theory, one could articulate a "secular purpose" for school prayer-- but the courts could shoot it down it they find it to be a sham, as they did with the Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act in Edwards v. Aguilard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). But even if the courts were to accept a purported "secular purpose" for school prayer, which I find highly implausible, it would still fail the other prongs of the Lemon test.

The Supreme Court is ideologically driven...30 years from now they could rule differently, and would you cite them then? That's why I'm not to worried about what the Supreme Court says. Roe v. Wade can be struck down in 30 years. Does that mean everyone will agree with the Supreme Court then?

That observation was based on the plain text of the document. "Respecting an establishment of religion" seems on its face to be a broader concept than "establishing religion." That, too, would be a matter of interpretation for the courts, but they seem to have adopted the interpretation I suggested.

I dunno. Yes, it is certainly a matter of interpretation for the courts.

So, how is state-sponsored prayer in school not the "institution of an official religion"? Even a "vague, theistic" prayer is an institution of a vague theism, which, as an atheist, I would find to violate my religious freedoms.

OK, so then vague theism is a religion. But the people participating in vague theism are themselves members of specific religions. In that sense it is unificative. Schools ought to bring people together.

As for state-sponsored, schools do and always will sponsor the initiatives and activities of students.

Re: official religion, I understand that we, today, translate that into anything that smacks of God. But official religion means, oh I don't know, the ANGLICAN CHURCH or PURITAN CHURCH or ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. That's what the Bill of Rights protects us from...the government instituting or aligning itself with a particular truth.

As for atheists or polytheists being offended, they must be offended a million times a week. What, public school should be there buffer or safe haven then from the theism that surrounds them. They are not being forced to believe anything they don't want to believe. If a 15-30 second prayer offends them, they can commiserate with the kids who are offended by evolution in science class, sex ed in health class, chess geeks at school pep rallies, tone deafs at school musical concerts, and vegetarians when they serve meatloaf during lunch. No sympathy from me. If you want to shield your kid, home school him or her.

Blast! The one argument I can't refute! Fine, I guess you're right. Praise Jebus.

I didn't say doh, and if you think it's spelled Jebus, maybe they do need to teach some religion in schools. :)

Christopher Hitchens talked about this issue at TAM, and according to his upcoming biography of Thomas Jefferson, the omission of references to God in the Constitution was, in fact, intentional. Does anyone have another source for this?

Uhhhh, pardon my shouting but THOMAS JEFFERSON DID NOT ATTEND THE CONSITUTIONAL CONVENTION. If Hitchens is referring to correspondences, I am aware that he primarily griped to Madison about the lack of a Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment does not apply directly to the states; its text plainly states that it applies only to "Congress."

Exactly. We're talking about schools, not Congress.

-Elliot

[JamesDillon]

No, nothing has inherent purpose. Humans assign purpose. Unless you believe in God...then there could be objective purpose.
This is not a metaphysical discussion. The word "purpose," as used in the Lemon test, is an objective inquiry into the actual purpose behind the state action in question-- i.e., the government's actual motivation, not any hypothetical motivation that could be ascribed to it. Take a look at Edwards v. Aguilard, cited in my last post, for an illustration and further discussion.


The Supreme Court is ideologically driven...30 years from now they could rule differently, and would you cite them then? That's why I'm not to worried about what the Supreme Court says. Roe v. Wade can be struck down in 30 years. Does that mean everyone will agree with the Supreme Court then?
Sorry to break it to you, but the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. The fact that the Court could reverse itself later doesn't change that fact. It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing; the law is whatever the Court says it is.

OK, so then vague theism is a religion. But the people participating in vague theism are themselves members of specific religions. In that sense it is unificative. Schools ought to bring people together.
It's not "unificative" to people like me, who are not theists in any sense.

As for state-sponsored, schools do and always will sponsor the initiatives and activities of students.
Indeed they do. But there's no Constitutional prohibition of intramural basketball.

Re: official religion, I understand that we, today, translate that into anything that smacks of God. But official religion means, oh I don't know, the ANGLICAN CHURCH or PURITAN CHURCH or ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. That's what the Bill of Rights protects us from...the government instituting or aligning itself with a particular truth.
Once again, the meaning of the Bill of Rights is determined by the Supreme Court, which, at the moment, gives the First Amendment a much broader reading than you do. (See Lemon, cited above).

As for atheists or polytheists being offended, they must be offended a million times a week. What, public school should be there buffer or safe haven then from the theism that surrounds them. They are not being forced to believe anything they don't want to believe. If a 15-30 second prayer offends them, they can commiserate with the kids who are offended by evolution in science class, sex ed in health class, chess geeks at school pep rallies, tone deafs at school musical concerts, and vegetarians when they serve meatloaf during lunch. No sympathy from me. If you want to shield your kid, home school him or her.
It isn't a question of being "offended," it's a question of state endorsement of one group's religious viewpoint over that of another, which is constitutionally prohibited. Private citizens and groups (such as churches) have rights to free speech and free exercise under the First Amendment that allow them to practice and preach their religions with no interference from those of us who disagree. But the other side of that bargain, which some religious people can't wrap their heads around, is that the Constitution also compels the government to remain neutral in these religious debates.


Uhhhh, pardon my shouting but THOMAS JEFFERSON DID NOT ATTEND THE CONSITUTIONAL CONVENTION. If Hitchens is referring to correspondences, I am aware that he primarily griped to Madison about the lack of a Bill of Rights.
I didn't say that Hitchens said that Jefferson had anything to do with it; he said that the issue is addressed in his upcoming biography of Jefferson. It perhaps would make some sense to talk about the constitutional convention in a biography of Jefferson, regardless of whether he was there in person. But, again, I haven't read the book yet, so maybe I misunderstood something.



Exactly. We're talking about schools, not Congress.
Did you read the rest of my post, or stop at this part? The First Amendment does not apply directly to the states, but the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made its provisions applicable to them. States are now subject to all of the restrictions of the First Amendment. This, however, was not the case until 1868, so all of those official state churches back in the early days of the republic were not in violation of the federal Constitution at the time. The situation has now changed. Individual state governments are now bound by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

[gnome]

It wasn't too many years ago that I was in public high school...the first 15-20 minutes of the day (homeroom I guess) IS, basically a waste of time. Some schools require that students watch a tv program before school. Some schools have students do announcements via video (including weather and sports and general news). 30 second prayer a waste of time? Sure, why not. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

So, you're in favor of intentionally adding something you admit is a waste of time, just because they already waste time? Seems an odd argument.

How limiting. It doesn't have to be that way. I'd say the only similarity would have to be some sort of monotheism.

There are so many differences in how monotheists worship, I still fail to see the benefit of a universalized prayer.

Bah. Mass prayers don't have to happen in a church.

Again, is there any benefit to taking up school time for it?

I agree that it would be vacuous and perhaps theological fluff. As for pointless, that is up to the individuals involved. I can't tell you HOW MANY THINGS I thought were pointless in high school...in particular school rallies where you'd spend an hour and a half sitting in the gym while football players mumble things and people jump up and down.

Again you propose deliberately adding vacuous fluff. I just don't get it.

Step on toes? Being exposed to other people's views should be part of the high school experience.

Being exposed to something is different than having something announced over loudspeakers and being one of the only ones not participating. There is benefit to exposure to people's beliefs... why not make it a formal lesson?

[elliotfc]

This is not a metaphysical discussion. The word "purpose," as used in the Lemon test, is an objective inquiry into the actual purpose behind the state action in question-- i.e., the government's actual motivation, not any hypothetical motivation that could be ascribed to it. Take a look at Edwards v. Aguilard, cited in my last post, for an illustration and further discussion.

If student's are behind it, there would be no governmental motivation, besides allowing students to express themselves.

Sorry to break it to you, but the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.

No it doesn't. If it did, the Supreme Court would be limited to repeating the sentences within the Constitution.

The fact that the Court could reverse itself later doesn't change that fact. It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing; the law is whatever the Court says it is.

I assume, then, that if the Court does reverse itself, you would back the Court and argue that school prayer is permissible.

If you are saying that your arguments center on avidly supporting the Supreme Court positions of the day, I can understand and respect that. I have been conversing with you assuming that you are arguing more from a position of belief. If your belief is dependent on the decree of the Supreme Court then most of my comments have been misdirected.

It's not "unificative" to people like me, who are not theists in any sense.

Right. Probably no activity, actual or imaginable, is unificative to everybody.

Indeed they do. But there's no Constitutional prohibition of intramural basketball.

Nor is their a Constituional prohibition of school prayer (now it's your turn to say that there is because the Supreme Court says so, I can't do any better than repeat myself and vice versa).

Once again, the meaning of the Bill of Rights is determined by the Supreme Court, which, at the moment, gives the First Amendment a much broader reading than you do. (See Lemon, cited above).

I must take heart in the fact that the Supreme Court has been wrong in the past, and I will take heart that other men, greater and more moral than myself, have taken stands against the Supreme Court in the past. I am content with my position.

But the other side of that bargain, which some religious people can't wrap their heads around, is that the Constitution also compels the government to remain neutral in these religious debates.

Religious debate? It's a secular vs. religious debate, isn't it?

The federal government ought not establish religion. I got that just fine. The Constitution did not *compel* the Supreme Court to rule as they did, or do. If that was true, that the Constitution did *compel* justices to rule in a certain way, we could nominate dogs and meatballs for the Supreme Court. Enter punchline here.

I didn't say that Hitchens said that Jefferson had anything to do with it; he said that the issue is addressed in his upcoming biography of Jefferson. It perhaps would make some sense to talk about the constitutional convention in a biography of Jefferson, regardless of whether he was there in person. But, again, I haven't read the book yet, so maybe I misunderstood something.

Hitchens is forever bringing up Jefferson in interviews; Jefferson is celebrated as a man of contradictions, a glorified hypocrite. I'm sure Jefferson said just about everything; he also said that all men were created equal and owned slaves. Which is understandable, given the times he lived in (actually I don't believe that, but it's sure a nice phrase, isn't it!). I'll take Quincy Adams, who had to be practically gagged and bound as a Congressman. Poor guy wasn't as amenable to the decrees of the Supreme Court either. He just fought the good fight is all.

Did you read the rest of my post, or stop at this part? [B]The First Amendment does not apply directly to the states, but the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made its provisions applicable to them.

If the state is not making any law about state prayer, for or against, or enforcing any law about state prayer, for or against, I still don't see how it applies.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

So, you're in favor of intentionally adding something you admit is a waste of time, just because they already waste time? Seems an odd argument.

Hey, I'm not a high school student. I can have any opinion I want (and do) about high school activities. If high school students want it, that's the kicker, not what I think. Maybe it is odd.

There are so many differences in how monotheists worship, I still fail to see the benefit of a universalized prayer.

Is benefit in the eye of the beholder?



Who determines benefit? If we were talking about making it an entire period in the school day, I'd be against that. See, I'm trying to keep my personal feelings out of this. Other people, notably high school students, may argue that it doees serve a beneft. *And if they don't, then it's a non-issue*.

[QUOTE]Being exposed to something is different than having something announced over loudspeakers and being one of the only ones not participating.

You're assuming that. Maybe 2%, maybe 20%, maybe 87% wouldn't participate. I used to do homework or read back when I was subjected to video announcements.

There is benefit to exposure to people's beliefs... why not make it a formal lesson?

Sure.

-Elliot

[JamesDillon]

If student's are behind it, there would be no governmental motivation, besides allowing students to express themselves.
Concededly, student-initiated prayer is a trickier issue than prayer initiated by a teacher or administrator. If a group of students want to get together during lunch and pray quietly in a corner or empty classroom somewhere, I don't see a big problem with that. But if you're talking about broadcasting a prayer over the school's PA system every morning, and forcing all students to listen to it, then that crosses the line and puts the state's imprimatur on an expression of religious faith, which clearly constitutes the establishment of religion.


No it doesn't. If it did, the Supreme Court would be limited to repeating the sentences within the Constitution.
This seems to be a fundamental point of disagreement in a number of your responses, so let's try to get it all out of the way here. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. The Court's interpretation is legally binding, regardless of whether we agree with it. The only legal meaning that any Constitutional provision, or statute, has is that which the Court gives it. If five Justices of the Supreme Court say that "respecting an establishment of religion" means government action that 1) lacks a secular purpose, 2) advances or inhibits religion, or 3) results in an entanglement between government and religion, then that's what the phrase means.

That's not to say, of course, that we're precluded from arguing that the Supreme Court's interpretation is a bad one, or from urging the Court to change its mind. My point here is that there is no objective, Platonic "meaning" behind the Constitution other than what the Supreme Court gives it. If you want to argue for another interpretation, you have to do so on the basis of policy, not by appeal to some higher authority than the Court. You have made some such arguments in this thread, and note that I responded to those with policy-based arguments. But the idea that there is some authoritative interpretation of the Constitution beyond the Supreme Court's rulings is simply false.

Right. Probably no activity, actual or imaginable, is unificative to everybody.
So, again, why condone or permit a government-sponsored activity that is going to create ingroups and outgroups on the basis of religious belief? Isn't it better to leave the government out of it entirely?


Nor is their a Constituional prohibition of school prayer (now it's your turn to say that there is because the Supreme Court says so, I can't do any better than repeat myself and vice versa).
Yes, there is, because the Supreme Court says so. Hopefully my comments above regarding the Supreme Court as ultimate arbiter of Constitutional meaning will move the discussion of this point forward, so that we're not both just repeating ourselves.


I must take heart in the fact that the Supreme Court has been wrong in the past, and I will take heart that other men, greater and more moral than myself, have taken stands against the Supreme Court in the past. I am content with my position.
"Wrong" in comparison to what? Yes, the Court has made many decisions that were "bad" from a particular standpoint of policy preferences. The Court has reversed many of its own decisions. Again, we're free to argue about which interpretations of the Constitution would best advance certain social preferences, and to urge the Court to adopt our views. But the fact remains that the Supreme Court's rulings are the only authoritiative interpretation of what the Constitution actually means (aside from the interpretations of the lower courts, which are authoritative only insofar as they do not contradict a ruling of the Supreme Court). If the court reverses itself, then, yes, the Constitution now means something different. That's just the way it goes.

(To offer a bit of ammunition to your rebuttal, the view I'm defending here is essentially that of legal realism/positivism articulated by Oliver Wendell Holmes and H.L.A. Hart. An alternate view exists, defended most prominently by Ronald Dworkin, that legal interpretation is bound by "natural law" and "morality," such that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of Constitutional meaning. With due respect to Professor Dworkin, I've never found that view very persuasive).

Religious debate? It's a secular vs. religious debate, isn't it?
Is this anything other than a purely semantic point? I am referring to the ongoing cultural debate about which, if any, religious viewpoint is the correct one. However you want to characterize it, this seems to me to be a debate in which the government should refrain from taking sides, and, as it happens, the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) agrees with me.

The federal government ought not establish religion. I got that just fine. The Constitution did not *compel* the Supreme Court to rule as they did, or do. If that was true, that the Constitution did *compel* justices to rule in a certain way, we could nominate dogs and meatballs for the Supreme Court. Enter punchline here.
I don't understand your point. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Could it rule in a manner other than it has in the past? Of course it could; many cases are decided on 5-4 majorities in which a single Justice could have swung the Court in the other direction. That doesn't undermine the fact that the Court's majority opinions are the only binding interpretations of the Constitution.

Hitchens is forever bringing up Jefferson in interviews; Jefferson is celebrated as a man of contradictions, a glorified hypocrite. I'm sure Jefferson said just about everything; he also said that all men were created equal and owned slaves. Which is understandable, given the times he lived in (actually I don't believe that, but it's sure a nice phrase, isn't it!). I'll take Quincy Adams, who had to be practically gagged and bound as a Congressman. Poor guy wasn't as amenable to the decrees of the Supreme Court either. He just fought the good fight is all.
I really have no idea. I was hoping someone else would jump in with more information about Hitchens's assertion that the Constitution omitted references to God on purpose, because I have only a vague memory of what he said at TAM.


If the state is not making any law about state prayer, for or against, or enforcing any law about state prayer, for or against, I still don't see how it applies.
Public schools are agencies of the state, and therefore actions taken by public school administrators constitute state actions. If the state (in the form of the public school) is compels students to participate in a religious activity, that action is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states (and thereby to the public school system) by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Edit: From your reply to gnome:
Other people, notably high school students, may argue that it doees serve a beneft. *And if they don't, then it's a non-issue*.
Since when do we allow high school students to determine their own curriculum? If religious expression is so important to these students, why can't they do it on their own time, after school, rather than intruding on educational time with non-academic activities?

[elliotfc]

Concededly, student-initiated prayer is a trickier issue than prayer initiated by a teacher or administrator. If a group of students want to get together during lunch and pray quietly in a corner or empty classroom somewhere, I don't see a big problem with that. But if you're talking about broadcasting a prayer over the school's PA system every morning, and forcing all students to listen to it, then that crosses the line and puts the state's imprimatur on an expression of religious faith, which clearly constitutes the establishment of religion.

You get disclaimers all the time in a variety of forums. If a speaker is invited to speak at a school, would all of the opinions of the speaker necessarily represent the opinions of the school/state?

I can't agree that it "clearly" constitutes the establishment of religion. All I can say in regards to our back and forth is that *IF* the Supreme Court was to be more amenable to what I'm talking about in the near future, you will no doubt be on my side on this. Because you are arguing from what the Supreme Court is saying. If they say otherwise, my viewpoint will be aligned with your *dependent* viewpoint, as your viewpoint depends on Supreme Court decree.

You are ably defending the Supreme Court as interpreter of the Constituion, and you clearly are more infomed about this topic that I am. I could go for a low blow here...I could suggest that if you had lived in the 1850s you would have supported slavery because the Supreme Court supported slavery via Dred Scott and fugitive slaves laws...that would be the extreme case I admit. But it is educational and suggestive that interpretations change over time. So when you say that there is an "objective" basis for the Supreme Court, it doesn't resonate for me.

So, again, why condone or permit a government-sponsored activity that is going to create ingroups and outgroups on the basis of religious belief? Isn't it better to leave the government out of it entirely?

Because I don't see why religious belief needs to be stifled so inexorably and so absolutley. I am trying to balance it with freedom of expression.

See...if I were to wipe my brain clear of the *specifics* of what we are talking aobut, and if I were to read your statement "why condone or permit a government-sponsored activity"...I would think about the state *requiring* schools to institute a program where students would be directed to, I dunno, deliever prayers every hour or something. Your statements are suggestive of some sort of significant government directive. And that isn't happening. And then you take the *specifics* of today, and link them to your statement, and I consider that a stretch. And then you're back to Supreme Court decree.

And I take your second statement "better to leave government out of it entirely" and I agree *on the other side*. Why should government *care* if student led prayer, with *severe* limits, occurs in school? Why should courts and legislatures get involved if some good sense is applied to the practice?

I'm assuming that you don't consider by viewpoints unreasonable, and I'm sure you understand my point of view. I don't consider you out of order in your perspective either. I'm out of things to say on this, and to respond to each of your well-thought out points would just be to restate my positions. I must admit that your points have a validity that probably is closer in line to laws as interpreted by the Supreme Court, so most likely I'll have to hope that individual school districts will run the risk of allowing student prayer, and hope that they get funding to take their case to the Supreme Court.

If the court reverses itself, then, yes, the Constitution now means something different. That's just the way it goes.

If I can get you to relent on one point...you would admit that if the Supreme Court reverses itself, you will then support school prayer with the same enthusiasm (is that a fair word?) as you support their position now, right?

(To offer a bit of ammunition to your rebuttal, the view I'm defending here is essentially that of legal realism/positivism articulated by Oliver Wendell Holmes and H.L.A. Hart. An alternate view exists, defended most prominently by Ronald Dworkin, that legal interpretation is bound by "natural law" and "morality," such that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of Constitutional meaning. With due respect to Professor Dworkin, I've never found that view very persuasive).

I'm not so interested in that to be honest, not when it applies to public schools.

However you want to characterize it, this seems to me to be a debate in which the government should refrain from taking sides, and, as it happens, the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) agrees with me.

This suggests, to me, that you will only argue from the *because the Supreme Court says so* position when the arguments agree with you. Is that unfair? Maybe not, there are only a finite number of things that someone can argue about, and we do have to pick and choose.

Since when do we allow high school students to determine their own curriculum? If religious expression is so important to these students, why can't they do it on their own time, after school, rather than intruding on educational time with non-academic activities?

1. My vision of school prayer would be extra-curricular.
2. College students are given more and more...power...to determine their own curriculum (in various ways, probably minor ways). If, for instance, a good percentage of students in a social science class wanted to have an eductational discussion about religious matters from a non-theologically directed perspective, I don't see how that has to do with establishment of religion. In fact, I'm sure students ask religiously-associated questions in classes quite often, and teachers may have ways to address them in their curriculums.
3. Students do what you say...there are extra-curriculur clubs where prayer happens. The question is whether homeroom is considered extra-curricular. I say yes, because you hear a litany of *extra-curricular* activity information during homeroom.
4. I think intrusive too severe a word. To be, intrusive would be a priest coming into school to deliver a prayer.

-Elliot

[JamesDillon]

Elliot,

I think perhaps we're not in such complete disagreement as appears, and there seem to have been some miscommunications that I will try to clear up.

You get disclaimers all the time in a variety of forums. If a speaker is invited to speak at a school, would all of the opinions of the speaker necessarily represent the opinions of the school/state?
Shouldn't it? Teachers and school administrators speak for the state in all of their professional dealings with school children. The state sets the curriculum that will be taught in each classroom. If the school holds a mandatory assembly at which, say, a Christian pastor preaches about salvation, how is that not putting the state's imprimatur on the religious views expressed? You can argue that "the speaker's views are his own," but when children are compelled to attend and the school principal introduces this speaker on school time, it sends a message to children that the principal, as a representative of the state, endorses the views expressed by the speaker.

You are ably defending the Supreme Court as interpreter of the Constituion, and you clearly are more infomed about this topic that I am. I could go for a low blow here...I could suggest that if you had lived in the 1850s you would have supported slavery because the Supreme Court supported slavery via Dred Scott and fugitive slaves laws...that would be the extreme case I admit. But it is educational and suggestive that interpretations change over time. So when you say that there is an "objective" basis for the Supreme Court, it doesn't resonate for me.
Slavery is a great example of the distinction between objective and normative discussion that I was inarticulately groping at in my last post. Had I been alive in the 1850s, I would like to think that I would have held the view that slavery should be made illegal. That is a normative view-- it doesn't purport to reflect the way the world really is, but only the way it should be. At the same time, I would have readily conceded that, under Dred Scott, slavery was, in fact, Constitutionally permissible. That is an objective view-- it purports to say something about the way the world really is, not the way it should be. In the area of Constitutional law, there is no basis for an objective statement of what the law is superior to the interpretive decisions of the Supreme Court. Any argument that the Constitution "means" something other than what the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean is simply nonsensical-- there is no higher authority against which to evaluate the Court's interpretations.

This does not mean that we can't make normative judgments about what the law should be, and it certainly doesn't mean that we're bound to accept the court's decision as always being the "best" interpretation in a normative sense. It's perfectly consistent to argue that the law is X, but a better interpretation would be Y.

In the case of school prayer, I happen to think, normatively, that the law should be what the Supreme Court has objectively said it is. It's nice when the Court sees things my way :) You disagree, and you're making two arguments when I suggest you should only be making one-- you seem to be arguing that the Constitution objectively does not say what the Supreme Court says it does, and that, normatively, the Supreme Court's interpretation is a bad one. The latter argument is perfectly valid, and we can debate that in terms of social policy, which we have been doing. As to the former, though, that the First Amendment "really" means something different than the Court has said it means, for the reasons stated above, I think that is simply nonsensical.

Because I don't see why religious belief needs to be stifled so inexorably and so absolutley. I am trying to balance it with freedom of expression.
How is keeping religious expression out of the school system an "inexorable and absolute" "stifling"? Kids are in school for 8 hours a day; that leaves 16 hours, plus weekends, to exercise their religious beliefs however they want. Isn't that a pretty fair balance, and the best way to protect the rights of competing religious groups-- i.e., by declaring the public schools a neutral zone?


And I take your second statement "better to leave government out of it entirely" and I agree *on the other side*. Why should government *care* if student led prayer, with *severe* limits, occurs in school? Why should courts and legislatures get involved if some good sense is applied to the practice?
...
1. My vision of school prayer would be extra-curricular.
This is the part where I think we don't necessarily disagree. As I've said before, if I group of religious students want to get together on their own time, during lunch or something, and hold Bible study or pray or whatever in some part of the school where they're not forcing other students to be exposed to their religious views, I don't really have a problem with that. I'm not sure what the legal status of such activity is, but, normatively speaking, I tend to think that that sort of limited expression of religious belief on school grounds should not raise a Constitutional problem. If you have a teacher involved with, or leading the group, though, that becomes a trickier situation.


If I can get you to relent on one point...you would admit that if the Supreme Court reverses itself, you will then support school prayer with the same enthusiasm (is that a fair word?) as you support their position now, right?
Of course not, but I would readily admit that school prayer is Constitutionally permissible under the First Amendment in that situation. I would just argue that it shouldn't be. I hope my discussion of objective vs. normative interpretive arguments above helps clarify why that isn't inconsistent.

2. College students are given more and more...power...to determine their own curriculum (in various ways, probably minor ways). If, for instance, a good percentage of students in a social science class wanted to have an eductational discussion about religious matters from a non-theologically directed perspective, I don't see how that has to do with establishment of religion. In fact, I'm sure students ask religiously-associated questions in classes quite often, and teachers may have ways to address them in their curriculums.
College is an altogether different environment, because college students are legal adults and presumed not to be so impressionable as younger students. Colleges can do all sorts of things that primary and secondary schools can't do. I have no problem with religious student groups making use of campus facilities-- but even public colleges can't officially endorse a religious position.

I hope this has been somewhat helpful-- it seems that we're perhaps not quite so far apart as I had thought.

[FredFlash]

Thomas Jefferson, The Christian Indians, The Moravian Brethren And The U. S. Government Promoting Christianity?


It has be asserted that President Thomas Jefferson did not envision that the Separation of Church and State would prohibit the United States from making reasonable accommodations to religion and recognizing God on its currency, in its courts or in its classrooms. Jefferson's actions as President by extending three times a pre-Constitution act that had designated lands "for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity" demonstrate that he was misinterpreted. See Michael Gaynor; The U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily took separation of church and state much too far; July 19, 2005.

I say Michael Gaynor is full of hooey!

[JamesDillon]

Do you have a link to the Gaynor article (or book?) that you cite?

Offhand, it seems to me that there are plenty of non-religious reasons for Jefferson to have shown some preference for the "Christian" Indians and the efforts to "civilize" them. Civilized Christian Indians are probably less likely to raid white settlements than their "wild" brethren. And it wasn't unusual for the time to use "Christian" as a synonym for "civilized."

[FredFlash]

Do you have a link to the Gaynor article (or book?) that you cite? Offhand, it seems to me that there are plenty of non-religious reasons for Jefferson to have shown some preference for the "Christian" Indians and the efforts to "civilize" them. Civilized Christian Indians are probably less likely to raid white settlements than their "wild" brethren. And it wasn't unusual for the time to use "Christian" as a synonym for "civilized."

I have a link to Mr. Gaynor's article, but I am not permitted to post links yet. I go directly to it by googleing "The U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily took separation of church and state much too far".

On May 20, 1785 the Continental Congress enacted “An Ordinance for ascertaining the mode of disposing of Lands in the Western Territory.” It ordained that the towns of Gnadenhutten, Schoenbrun and Salem, on the Muskingum, and so much of the lands adjoining to the said towns, with the buildings and improvements thereon, shall be reserved for the sole use of the Christian Indians, who were formerly settled there, or the remains of that society, as may, in the judgment of the Geographer, be sufficient for them to cultivate. Journals of the Continental Congress, May 20, 1785.

On July 27, 1787 Congress passed the following resolution.

Whereas the United States in Congress Assembled have by their ordinance1 passed the 20th May 1785 among other things Ordained "that the Towns Gnadenhutten, Schoenbrun and Salem on the Muskingum and so much of the lands adjoining to the said Towns with the buildings and improvements thereon shall be reserved for the sole use of the Christian Indians who were formerly settled there, or the remains of that society, as may in the judgement of the Geographer be sufficient for them to cultivate".

Resolved That the board of treasury except and reserve out of any Contract they may make for the tract described in the report of the Committee which on the 23d instant was referred to the said board to take order, a quantity of land around and adjoining each of the before mentioned Towns amounting in the whole to ten thousand acres, and that the property of the said reserved land be vested in the Moravian Brethern at Bethlehem in Pennsylvania, or a society of the said Brethern for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity, in trust, and for the uses expressed as above in the said Ordinance, including Killbuck and his descendants, and the Nephew and descendants of the late Captain white Eyes, Delaware Chiefs who have distinguished themselves as friends to the cause of America.

To make a long story short, the Moravians were pacifists missionaries from Germany who “Christianized” some Delaware Indians in Pennsylvania in 1742. The Indians became successful farmers on some land in Ohio.

When the Indians declined to take up the hatchet against the Americans during the war, they were forced off their land in 1781 by the British and removed to the south shore of lake Erie and left to starve. In 1782, the Pennsylvania Militia murdered ninety of the Indians when the Indians returned to their fields searching for food. The Indians scattered.

When the war ended the Moravians tried to round up the Indians and aid them to claim the land in Ohio promised them by the Continental Congress if they remained neutral during the war. The Moravian believed that the Indians were being threatened by some Americans not to return to their land.

The Moravians asked Congress to convey the land to the Moravians in trust to cut off any hope of the Americans to gain title to the land. Congress complied with the Moravian’s request.

The efforts of the Moravians to round the Indians up and settle them permanently on the land in Ohio failed due to a variety of reasons detailed in an 1822 report to Congress. The Moravians conveyed the land back to the U. S. in the 1820's.

FVF

[FredFlash]

I'm sort of sorry that people are beating up on Newdow. After all, the "under God" was added to the pledge during the red scare, as a way of deliberately vilifying atheists as "reds" by a psychotic Senator from Wisconsin(among other things).

The "In God We Trust" came earlier, but is also just as illegal. It does cost money to add that message to the coin die, and that is government money. It's illegal, plain and simple, and for that reason alone, should be, IF we are a nation of laws, removed and not permitted.

Not doing so is a full, complete, and final admission that the USA puts religion above law. It is that simple. Every new coin struck is another admission that religion is above law in the USA.


The Founders Of Our Republic Were Heathens Who Disowned God?

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:


Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

Declaring "the trust of our people in God" on our national coins was an intentional slap in the face of the founders of our Republic. It was the Congressional act that officially extinguished any claim that this was a "Genuine Christian Nation."

FVF


FVF

[FredFlash]

The 1832 Religious Proclamations Fight In House of Representatives


Those who like to mix religion and politics and want the government to assume authority over religion often cite President Washington's 1789 issuance of a religious proclamation as a legitimate legal precedent for the use of legislative authority to express the religion of the people, to recommend certain religious opinions to them or to advise them to obey certain religious commandments.

I reject this argument for several reasons. First, the issuance of the 1789 proclamation did not involve the use of the national legislature's authority to make laws. Secondly, Congress did not intend to establish a legal precedent but intended the resolution to be a one-time exception to the principle of no government power over religion. Thirdly, after experimentation with religious proclamations by three of the first four Congresses and Presidents, it was decided that the practice was inconsistent with the principles of religious liberty and a violation of the separation of church and state. Fourthly, Congress, during the early days of the Republic, came to reject the view that it was a legitimate precedent.

It appears that the religious proclamation that President James Madison issued in 1816 was the last one ever issued by a President pursuant to a joint resolution of Congress. In 1863, President Lincoln issued the first religious proclamation in 47 years, but it was not done at the request of Congress.

There was only one attempt to pass a joint resolution to ask the President to issue a religious recommendation during those 47 years. In July of 1832 a worldwide cholera epidemic had reached Canada and was headed for New York. President Andrew Jackson refused a request from the Dutch Reformed Church of New York to issue a religious recommendation to the people. His letter of refusal was released to the press and was widely published.

In violation of what many considered the rules of morality and etiquette, the Senate passed and sent to the House a resolution to ask the President to issue a recommendation of fasting and prayer. In the 1830’s many held that a gentleman should not request another gentleman to perform an act that went against the other man’s conscience and convictions. The House took up the matter on June 30, 1832 and again on July 5, 1832.

The opponents of mixing religion and government argued that no one could believe that the General or State governments ought to have anything to do with the subject of religion; the President of the U. S., unlike the King of England, was not the head of the Established Church; the Constitution conferred no authority on the President to appoint a day for religious purposes; the President had made it known to the public that he believed he had no power to issue religious recommendations; and that although it was only a recommendation it would come to the people clothed in executive authority. The advocates of mixing religion and politics argued that that Madison, Washington and Adams had issued religious recommendations. One supporter advanced the nonsensical argument that the resolution should not be objected to on Constitutional grounds because it was not obligatory. He then argued that was an “extra official act based on upon no claim to legal authority.”

The debate deteriorated into a partisan argument over whether Congress was being intimidated by the President. The statesman of the day was Representative Gulian Verpanck, the future mayor of New York, who urged the House to reject the argument that President Madison’s issuance of religious proclamations during the War of 1812 as legitimate precedent. He recounted that:

“I well remember that fact, as well as the other days of political religious observance under State authority during the same eventful period.

That fast, I well remember, was kept, not in that unmixed spirit of humility and innocence enjoined by President Madison in his peculiar style of accurate and condensed eloquence, but (as it will now be allowed on all hands) with to much of the “old leaven of malice and bitterness.” The pulpit was made the rostrum of turbulent and rancorous political declamation. The language of scripture itself was employed by divines in their sermons, and by magistrates in their proclamations, to point political sarcasm and to rekindle political rage.

Such was then, and such will always be, “the inequities of our holy things,” when they have been made subject to political legislation.”

Verplanck closed with the words, “Let us leave prayer and humiliation to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not to the bidding of the State.” The resolution was defeated.

The experiments conducted during the Early Days of the Republic led to the conclusion that government recommendations of prayer, fasting and thanksgiving were a deviation from the strict principle. James Madison learned from the experiment and warned us about the magnitude of the evil comprized in the precedent and advised up to exert wisdom and watch out for evil lurking under plausible disguises. Resist the first encroachment.

FVF

[FredFlash]

Did God Kill Abe Lincoln For Putting "In God We Trust" On The Nation’s Coins?

Some of those who campaigned in favor of declaring the people's trust in God on the nation’s coins argued that it would place the nation openly under "divine protection." On April 3, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the bill that made it lawful for the director of the mint to cause the motto “In God We Trust” to be placed on the nation’s coins? Eleven days after the nation signaled its intentions to place itself under "divine protection" God allowed President Lincoln to be assassinated.

[slingblade]

Offhand, it seems to me that there are plenty of non-religious reasons for Jefferson to have shown some preference for the "Christian" Indians and the efforts to "civilize" them. Civilized Christian Indians are probably less likely to raid white settlements than their "wild" brethren. And it wasn't unusual for the time to use "Christian" as a synonym for "civilized."


Well, now, and there's a white man for you, pontificating on that which he can never experience.

Define "civilized," and then explain how it could be used to denote people who were trying to protect themselves and their home from invasion?
Do remember that just because a civilization does not emulate yours, that doesn't make it uncivilized. They raided white settlements because the whites were trespassing and killing THEM. I'm so sorry they didn't have the good sense to roll over and give up immediately.

Did the natives here have laws? Of course they did. Did they have rituals and ceremonies for important life events? Of course they did. Did they do anything with their dead, anything at all ceremonial? Yup, they sure did.
Did they educate their children? Yup. Did they have some form of medicine or health care? Yes. Did they have any art, music, or dance? Wow, gee, they did.

Why, then, did they suddenly need civilizing? Surely they weren't hanging from trees, gibbering, flinging poo, and eating their young?

What the natives were "missing" was tech. Not civilization. Technology.

I hate it when people say such inhumane, ignorant things about their fellow humans.

And If I've misunderstood, I really, truly don't give a rat's fat behind. Say what you mean.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

I don't see why it's Newdow and not the fundies who are raising this issue. (Well, I do see why, but I have a point to make.)

Jesus, himself, was in favor of the separation of Church and State when it came to currency. There were in Palestine at the time, two separate currencies. A Roman coinage with Caesar's face, and a religious coinage for use in the Temple. Jesus' tacit agreement with this arrangement led to two incidents being recorded in the Gospels.

The first is the "scourging of the Temple" recorded in Matt 21, Mark 11, and Luke 19, in which Jesus rebukes the moneychangers who are making obscene profits from the necessary process of exchanging secular money for Temple money. The second is the "Render unto Caesar" speech recorded in Matt 22, Mark 12 and Luke 20, where he argued that taxes to Caesar are as inevitable and even necessary as tithes to the Temple. And he used the two different coinages to "prove" the point.

[JamesDillon]

Well, now, and there's a white man for you, pontificating on that which he can never experience.

Define "civilized," and then explain how it could be used to denote people who were trying to protect themselves and their home from invasion?
Do remember that just because a civilization does not emulate yours, that doesn't make it uncivilized. They raided white settlements because the whites were trespassing and killing THEM. I'm so sorry they didn't have the good sense to roll over and give up immediately.

Did the natives here have laws? Of course they did. Did they have rituals and ceremonies for important life events? Of course they did. Did they do anything with their dead, anything at all ceremonial? Yup, they sure did.
Did they educate their children? Yup. Did they have some form of medicine or health care? Yes. Did they have any art, music, or dance? Wow, gee, they did.

Why, then, did they suddenly need civilizing? Surely they weren't hanging from trees, gibbering, flinging poo, and eating their young?

What the natives were "missing" was tech. Not civilization. Technology.

I hate it when people say such inhumane, ignorant things about their fellow humans.

And If I've misunderstood, I really, truly don't give a rat's fat behind. Say what you mean.

With due respect, slingblade, what the hell are you talking about? It's perfectly apparent from the context of that post that I was speaking from the perspective of an 18th-century American aristocrat, who would indeed have lacked a certain sense of objectivity as to the merits of native culture (hence the prolific use of scare quotes). Your apparent interpretation, that the post reflects my personal views on the matter, go well beyond the realm of absurd into outright irresponsibility. There is simply no reasonable interpretation of my post that could lead anyone to believe that I was speaking from any other perspective than that of Thomas Jefferson, in explaining why his alleged preference for Christian Indians might not indicate a belief in the Christian religion. The fact that you seem to have found such an (unreasonable) interpretation suggests that you must have been trying very hard indeed.

[scribble]

Edit: stupid

[elliotfc]

I don't see why it's Newdow and not the fundies who are raising this issue. (Well, I do see why, but I have a point to make.)

Jesus, himself, was in favor of the separation of Church and State when it came to currency. There were in Palestine at the time, two separate currencies. A Roman coinage with Caesar's face, and a religious coinage for use in the Temple. Jesus' tacit agreement with this arrangement led to two incidents being recorded in the Gospels.

The first is the "scourging of the Temple" recorded in Matt 21, Mark 11, and Luke 19, in which Jesus rebukes the moneychangers who are making obscene profits from the necessary process of exchanging secular money for Temple money. The second is the "Render unto Caesar" speech recorded in Matt 22, Mark 12 and Luke 20, where he argued that taxes to Caesar are as inevitable and even necessary as tithes to the Temple. And he used the two different coinages to "prove" the point.

Well said.

[Imrational]

Newdow gave a speech here in Vegas this past June. Here is a link to the youtube playlist if anyone is interested in watching it.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CC5B0160D83B7FE
The videos have been minimally edited, so they run well over an hour when played back to back (you've been warned).

If anyone else is interested, I just finished my newest youtube video, "Why do Atheists care about Religion". Here's the link to that: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CC5B0160D83B7FE

[Wheezebucket]

Newdow speaks calmly and intelligently about what many of us atheists consider a very important issue. I don't see how that does us any harm. I can see how it might if he went about it as so many here seem to portray him - flailing and whining about imagined injustices, but that doesn't seem to be the case to me. He's going through the proper channels and arguing his case competently. I hope more people around the country take notice so that maybe someday I won't have to be reminded of Christian lunacy every time I buy candy or porno or what have you.

I think James Dillon has done an amazing job defending this point so far. Go man, go!