Appeals court: Pledge of Allegiance still unconstitutional

[Imran Siddiqui]

That seems like kind of a strange thing to say, no? Just because you don't have a problem with something, he's not entitled to?

I'm saying I don't understand his reasoning.

freedom of religion IS freedom from religion.

Bull! They are different concepts. Freedom of religion means you are able to worship in whichever way you wish, while freedom from religion means you are insulated from other peoples' religions. Not having freedom from doesn't prevent freedom to.

[Berzerker]

Jack - the quote in your sig loses it's impact without the preceding context of Imran claiming opponents of the pledge are violating the religious freedom of those coercing other people's children into affirming a religious belief IMO.

Imran -

Actually it did. Without societal creations your parents likely would not have met.

I feel like I'm debating Hillary. The village didn't have sex to bring Johnny into the world, and society didn't raise Johnny.

Have you spoken to nature?

Do I need to? Why can't you observe nature and see the parent-child relationship?

Why does nature assign it to the parents rather than to the herd? Because you say so?

Because nature says so, I didn't create nature, but I can see it in action.

No it isn't. Why can't someone just walk on land and take fruit? Because we like property. He is coerced to submit to the property interest and work for food.

You accused employers of coercing employees because they need to work to eat. NATURE designed you to eat to survive, not your employer. Place "blame" where it belongs and stop trying to argue in circles.

Both, duh.

You need to look up the words "coercion" and "voluntary" in the dictionary if you think handing lunch money over to a bully is a voluntary act.

Actually true free will means exactly that.

No it doesn't, the victim's free will has been taken away. How can you take away someone's free will and claim they still have free will? Would you also argue that murder - a constraint - is an act of freedom even though freedom requires the absence of constraints?

When does persecution mean killing?

It can, what does that have to do with me refuting your argument?

You can be persecuted without death, and seeing that saying the pledge isn't done at the end of a sword, it is a invalid comparision.

When did I say persecution required death? And why are you trying to link that to the pledge? You said Jews didn't try to hide their religion from persecutors and I refuted your argument, period.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Bull! They are different concepts. Freedom of religion means you are able to worship in whichever way you wish, while freedom from religion means you are insulated from other peoples' religions. Not having freedom from doesn't prevent freedom to.

Freedom from religion means freedom from others imposing their religions upon you, not an insulation from seeing or hearing religious expressions.

[cinch]

Bull! They are different concepts. Freedom of religion means you are able to worship in whichever way you wish, while freedom from religion means you are insulated from other peoples' religions. Not having freedom from doesn't prevent freedom to.

Freedom from religion, at least in the way I interpet it, means that you are free from having religion (of any kind, or even just in general) imposed on you. It's the same as freedom of religion.

A Muslim cannot force his beliefs on a Christian.

A Muslim cannot force his beliefs on an atheist.

What is the difference?

It seems as though atheism as a "belief" (or lack of) is being treated as somehow less valid as Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Judaism, whatever... Why? What is the justification for this?

If I believe in nothing, am I a lesser man than if I believe in magical pig creatures flying out of the top of Mt. McKinley?

[Elden]

Beaureucratic

Stupid American courts already try to prevent Catholics from praying - now this. The U.S.A. more repressive by the minute.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Berzerker:

Jack - the quote in your sig loses it's impact without the preceding context of Imran claiming opponents of the pledge are violating the religious freedom of those coercing other people's children into affirming a religious belief IMO.

True, but I was trying to condense it to a snappy punchline. However, if you insist...

Imran:

In every other Constitutional context, "freedom" means freedom from oppression or persecution, not freedom from exposure. Even the DoI doesn't guarantee freedom from exposure to the British: nobody would use it to round up British tourists or impound visiting British ships or aircraft bearing the Union Jack.

Furthermore, many immigrants were fleeing religious persecution. To them, freedom FROM religion would have meant freedom from the Inquisition, and the bloody struggles between Catholics and Protestants.

Elden:

Stupid American courts already try to prevent Catholics from praying - now this. The U.S.A. more repressive by the minute.

Since when have American courts sought to prevent Catholics from praying? Sounds like a Christian persecution complex there.

The courts have (rightly) sought to prevent schoolteachers imposing a requirement to pray on NON-Christians. The protests about this from some Christians is just another example of their imagined freedom to curtail the freedom of others.

[Berzerker]

Much better Jack, thx, although there isn't much I could do to insist.

Elden -

Stupid American courts already try to prevent Catholics from praying - now this. The U.S.A. more repressive by the minute.

Do you see a difference between a Catholic praying and a Catholic coercing non-Catholic children into praying or affirming religious beliefs they or their parents reject? If not, re-assess whom you're calling stupid.

[MRT144]

whats the real harm in removing it though?

[Elden]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Much better Jack, thx, although there isn't much I could do to insist.

Elden -

Do you see a difference between a Catholic praying and a Catholic coercing non-Catholic children into praying or affirming religious beliefs they or their parents reject? If not, re-assess whom you're calling stupid.

Two things -

First: I said the american COURTS were stupid, not all Americans.

Second - They should make it optional rather than have it compulsory, say it if you want or pause a few seconds so those who want to say it can.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Elden, I still don't see what you imagine the problem is.

If Catholic students want to utter a prayer before going into lessons, nobody is stopping them from doing so.

However, Christian propagandists are certainly giving that impression. There is a "pray-in" campaign among Christian students, who are fighting the imaginary "ban" by "daring" to drop to their knees and pray in the corridors etc.

Even this activity has already been used to harass at least one atheist student: a gang of Christians dropped to their knees and prayed in front of his locker, so that he couldn't reach it. The desire to oppress and persecute in the name of religion is strongly ingrained.

[Elden]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Since when have American courts sought to prevent Catholics from praying? Sounds like a Christian persecution complex there.

I'm refering to prayer in schools, not everywhere - don't twist my words!

[Elden]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Even this activity has already been used to harass at least one atheist student: a gang of Christians dropped to their knees and prayed in front of his locker, so that he couldn't reach it. The desire to oppress and persecute in the name of religion is strongly ingrained.

So because of what a few people do you want to ban prayer ???

Also you act as thougth all Christians are like that, they aren't - I'm a Catholic and one of my best friends is an atheist (or agnostic - I forget)

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Elden

So because of what a few people do you want to ban prayer ???

...Huh? I don't!

If I had been the atheist in this situation, I'd have walked away. After carefully memorizing who the perpetrators were.

Then, later, I'd glue their locker doors shut.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
America is sliding towards fascism. But that's "not important", as long as the trains run on time...

I think I'm gonna make a politics PhD about this

[Ned]

I mentioned this the last time this issue came up several months ago, but the Supreme Court authority on this issue supports the Ninth Circuit opinion.

The Supreme's either will have to artfullly distinguish their own past opinons or overrule them to uphold the pledge. If they instead strike it down, I forsee a constitutional amendment.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by MRT144
whats the real harm in removing it though?

Because it's NOT a law, and it's not compulsory, despite what's been said here already. You have First amendment protection in not saying the pledge due to either religious or protest reasons. School systems are not forced to adapt it.

While were at it, we can talk about abolishing MLK day as well since it forces government offices, and some schools, to close in order to honor a religious figure. We can't have the federal government advancing the Baptist agenda now, can we?

[Sava]

Religion is and should be a private thing... and not present in any form in public schools. Go to Saudi Arabia if you want religion in your schools.

[Ned]

The US was founded in part by Europeans fleeing religious oppression at home. The oppression was impossed, not by atheists, but by state religions.

That is what the founders were trying avoid, state religion. They never intended to ban monotheism from from the state, IMHO. The founders were all monotheists.

I personally am an agnostic. However, I have no problem saying the pledge because I cannot say for certain that there is no God, or that there is no more than one God.

To say that there is no God is also a form of religion based on belief. IMO, that religion should not be imposed on the majority.

[Jack the Bodiless]

DetroitDave:

You still haven't explained why inciting religious hatred is a good thing, and removing it is a bad thing.

Where IS the harm in restoring the Pledge? Why, exactly, should this NOT be done?

Can anyone actually provide a reason?

Ned:

To say that there is no God is also a form of religion based on belief. IMO, that religion should not be imposed on the majority.

...Are we saying that the Pledge should read "one nation, under no God"?

No.

...So wouldn't it be a really good idea if the whole subject of religion wasn't brought up in this context?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
DetroitDave:

You still haven't explained why inciting religious hatred is a good thing, and removing it is a bad thing.

Where IS the harm in restoring the Pledge? Why, exactly, should this NOT be done?

Can anyone actually provide a reason?

Ned:

...Are we saying that the Pledge should read "one nation, under no God"?

No.

...So wouldn't it be a really good idea if the whole subject of religion wasn't brought up in this context?

I am saying that people who do not believe in God should not impose their views on the majority.

The jurisprudence on this issue has gone way to far. As I said, this case may create a tremendous backlash in the Supreme Court. If it does not, a constitutional amendment is almost a certainty.

[Jack the Bodiless]

From the context, I assume you mean that the majority "should" have the right to impose THEIR views on the minority, simply because they ARE the majority.

What is your usage of "should"? What moral, legal or constitutional principle makes this right?

If it's simply "might makes right", then "should" American atheists employ their constitutional right to bear arms, and use them against their oppressors? In principle, that's why they have them, right?

This way lies madness.

[Jac de Molay]

Jack-

You still haven't explained why inciting religious hatred is a good thing, and removing it is a bad thing.

I am agnostic as well, and look at it from a strict First Amendment interpretation.

- It's Not a law, like I said, and no one person, group, or school is mandated by the government to recite it. It's part of the Flag Code, which is not law.

-Anyone who is persecuted for refusing to partake in the pledge, for whatever reason, has legal recourse and protection; that's well in established in the courts. Neither can states themselves mandate that the pledge be recited: that has precedent as well though I don't have the case rule handy.

Contrary to what some people in this thread are asserting, there is no mass movement of coercing children to recite the Pledge. In the absence of this individual case, it's basically a non-issue. A lot of school systems don't use it at all.

Sava--

Religion is and should be a private thing... and not present in any form in public schools. Go to Saudi Arabia if you want religion in your schools.

I agree. That's why children of atheists/atheist students shouldn't be forced to lose a valuable day of school in order to honor someone who was, first and foremost, a religious figure. Namely, Dr. Martin King Jr.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I agree. That's why children of atheists/atheist students shouldn't be forced to lose a valuable day of school in order to honor someone who was, first and foremost, a religious figure. Namely, Dr. Martin King Jr.

Martin Luther King was not "first and foremost" a religious figure. He was, first and foremost, a civil rights campaigner. That's what he became famous for, and why the holiday exists.

And equality is the issue here also. Atheists had that, until 1954.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Neither can states themselves mandate that the pledge be recited: that has precedent as well though I don't have the case rule handy.

The case is West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, IIRC.

[Jac de Molay]

Martin Luther King was not "first and foremost" a religious figure. He was, first and foremost, a civil rights campaigner. That's what he became famous for, and why the holiday exists.

Churches themselves were the center of the civil rights movement. Churches were gathering places for civil rights workers. Martin Luther King began his career, and the movement as a whole, from speaking behind a pulpit. Civil rights protesters sang church songs and hymns.

If that's not a religious-influenced movement, I don't know what is. I sure dont see why atheist children should miss school to honor such a religious-influenced figure and movement. I think that constitutes just as much undue interference as the two words in the pledge.

[Jack the Bodiless]

There is nothing remotely religious about civil rights! After all, the Bible endorses slavery.

Secular Humanists are into civil rights in a big way. So why shouldn't we celebrate?

But this raises the wider issue of why there should be a holiday at all. Most folks feel that the principle of equal rights is an important one: so important that they want the symbolism of a holiday in which everyone is forced to pay attention to the issue, even if only once per year.

Likewise, Christian extremists want the symbolism of a Pledge in which everyone is forced to pay attention to the issue of God's imagined "place" in what America stands for, and the message that atheists aren't welcome is reinforced.

MLK day exists to make racists feel uncomfortable: "under God" exists to make atheists feel uncomfortable.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
There is nothing remotely religious about civil rights! After all, the Bible endorses slavery.

Secular Humanists are into civil rights in a big way. So why shouldn't we celebrate?

But this raises the wider issue of why there should be a holiday at all. Most folks feel that the principle of equal rights is an important one: so important that they want the symbolism of a holiday in which everyone is forced to pay attention to the issue, even if only once per year.

Likewise, Christian extremists want the symbolism of a Pledge in which everyone is forced to pay attention to the issue of God's imagined "place" in what America stands for, and the message that atheists aren't welcome is reinforced.

MLK day exists to make racists feel uncomfortable: "under God" exists to make atheists feel uncomfortable.

Next you will ban chaplains from the army. Then you will outlaw Christmas. If Bush closes his speeches with "May God Bless America" you will sue.

The problem you have is that you do not recognize that the atheism is a religion as well.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Next you will ban chaplains from the army. Then you will outlaw Christmas. If Bush closes his speeches with "May God Bless America" you will sue.

...Good grief.

The 1954 change was a clear, deliberate attack upon atheists. We are oppressors because we are resisting attack?

Sure, and homeowners who defend themselves against burglars are fascist thugs who will next put on swastika armbands and march out to round up their enemies and stuff them into ovens.

The problem you have is that you do not recognize that the atheism is a religion as well.

How is this even remotely relevant?

We are NOT the ones who want schoolkids reciting a national oath which professes loyalty to our "religion"!

Why is this simple fact so difficult to grasp?

Why is it morally wrong to RESIST religious indoctrination?

[Arrian]

While I do not share his vehemence, I must agree with Jack on this.

The '54 change was McCarthyte BS, and I wouldn't at all mind it being reversed.

OTOH, I tend to see it like Vel does: aren't there more important issues to deal with?

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

Oooh, I have a solution to this issue:

Get rid of public education, and make everyone pay for their own! That way, parents can decide if they want religious overtones in education or not