respecting
1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.
I assume that the third meaning is applicable.
That means that congress shall make no laws relating to, referring to or concerning. It nowhere states that a pledge of allegiance can not contain references to religion, nor does it state that a civil body may not display the 10 commandments. It also doesn’t say that kids can be given a hard time for praying on school grounds or that atheists don’t have the right to be godless heathens if they so choose. And, even if you are correct in your assertion that “God” is an establishment of religion, the atheist father has no standing as it’s not law, it’s optional.
Thanks for trying to end discussion, but even though somewhere in that long winded diatribe you appear to have found the answer for all, the rest of us will continue to hash it out. Continuation of story.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- One Nation...
One Nation...Follow
just out of curiousity (because I dont know)...how long has atheism (or any other "there is no God" religion) been around or recognized? I assume there has always been but i can't confirm.
so I'm guessing knowing this fact or not, when the words were incorporated either no athiests, etc were around or none spoke up? In either case we are recognizing that as more people adopt new ideas in this country we have to be forced to change and manipulate our laws to accommodate.
While I understand the theory behind this I cannot honestly say I agree. It's opening the door for people to drag our constitution over the coals (even moreso than it is) to satisfy personal ideas...this becomes easier with the more others they get to adopt those ideas.
Thats basically saying that if I can come up with an idea and get enough others to believe it that I can force a change in law as a result. Can you imagine if one of our famed occultists of the times past had made this idea a reality? I know its a broad chance, but as the times pass it seems more of a possibility.
so I'm guessing knowing this fact or not, when the words were incorporated either no athiests, etc were around or none spoke up? In either case we are recognizing that as more people adopt new ideas in this country we have to be forced to change and manipulate our laws to accommodate.
While I understand the theory behind this I cannot honestly say I agree. It's opening the door for people to drag our constitution over the coals (even moreso than it is) to satisfy personal ideas...this becomes easier with the more others they get to adopt those ideas.
Thats basically saying that if I can come up with an idea and get enough others to believe it that I can force a change in law as a result. Can you imagine if one of our famed occultists of the times past had made this idea a reality? I know its a broad chance, but as the times pass it seems more of a possibility.
Quote:
1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
Wouldn't this defintion apply as well and wouldn't the placement of "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance violate that?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
re·spect
To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
To relate or refer to; concern.
establishment
1. The act of establishing; a ratifying or ordaining; settlement; confirmation.
2. The state of being established, founded, and the like; fixed state.
3. That which is established; as: (a) A form of government, civil or ecclesiastical; especially, a system of religion maintained by the civil power; as, the Episcopal establishment of England. (b) A permanent civil, military, or commercial, force or organization.
After reviewing the first ammendment and the definitions of the words respecting an establishment, I do not see how having the words Under God in the pledge of allegiance is respecting the establishment of a religion. The words do not say the Catholic, Baptist, Presbytarian (sp) church, it simply says God.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
By stating that we are Under God does not even conclude that there is a State Sponsored Church it just states the opinion of the citizens that state the pledge believe that we are United as a Nation under God and the principles for what our country stands for.
Edited, Thu Mar 25 18:03:55 2004 by Stok
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
re·spect
To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
To relate or refer to; concern.
establishment
1. The act of establishing; a ratifying or ordaining; settlement; confirmation.
2. The state of being established, founded, and the like; fixed state.
3. That which is established; as: (a) A form of government, civil or ecclesiastical; especially, a system of religion maintained by the civil power; as, the Episcopal establishment of England. (b) A permanent civil, military, or commercial, force or organization.
After reviewing the first ammendment and the definitions of the words respecting an establishment, I do not see how having the words Under God in the pledge of allegiance is respecting the establishment of a religion. The words do not say the Catholic, Baptist, Presbytarian (sp) church, it simply says God.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
By stating that we are Under God does not even conclude that there is a State Sponsored Church it just states the opinion of the citizens that state the pledge believe that we are United as a Nation under God and the principles for what our country stands for.
Edited, Thu Mar 25 18:03:55 2004 by Stok
Dang it Moe we both had the same type of post, and I had customers before I could hit send :)
That is what makes this country so great. Though I do not agree with the arguement at hand, I am glad that people can drag the constitution over the proverbial coals. If people did not question and ask for change then we would not be who we are today. People standing up to government and to the "majority" for what the individual believes in is an awesome right. However, just because the individual has the roght to challenge the laws does not mean that individual is correct as in the case we are discussing here.
Quote:
...It's opening the door for people to drag our constitution over the coals (even moreso than it is) to satisfy personal ideas...
That is what makes this country so great. Though I do not agree with the arguement at hand, I am glad that people can drag the constitution over the proverbial coals. If people did not question and ask for change then we would not be who we are today. People standing up to government and to the "majority" for what the individual believes in is an awesome right. However, just because the individual has the roght to challenge the laws does not mean that individual is correct as in the case we are discussing here.
then like my friend says, I vote to keep "Under God" in the pledge. if you take it out, its supporting atheism, which IS an established religion (or belief or whatever its classified as today). 
Edited, Thu Mar 25 18:11:45 2004 by Empyre
Edited, Thu Mar 25 18:11:45 2004 by Empyre
Hmmm... You almost had me there Stok. I was almost doubting my position until I spoted the discrepency that I should have known was there:
I'm going to make some minor changes to your quote for clarification.
Ok. Key bits here. The law says: we can't pass a law respecing "an establishment of religion". You argue that the use of the phrase "under God" in the pledge is not respecting "an establishment of a religion". Huge difference in meaning there.
Religion means "religion in general". Any relgion. Not one. Not many. Any. So a law respecing an establishment of one religion is wrong. A law repsecting an establishment of all religions is wrong. An law respecting an establishment of just a set number of religions is wrong. "Religion" means any and all things that are religions individually. Whether "God" is something specific to one religion, some religions, most religions, or all religions is irrelevant. The amendments restriction should hold in the case of the pledge.
The problem with the logic in your argument Stok is that you're basically saying that if more then one religion has the same belief, that it's then legal to pass a law "respecting" it. I think that's a pretty poor test. If you mean something else, then I'll need to know a bit more about how you are defining an "establishment" of religion in real terms. The dictionary definition is nice, but is both too broad or too narrow depending on which one you use. I could find hundred of things that could be passed into law that I think most folks would think were clear violations of the doctine of separation of church and state if we were to take it's meaning that strictly.
I'm going to make some minor changes to your quote for clarification.
Stok wrote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... blah...
establishment
1. The act of establishing; a ratifying or ordaining; settlement; confirmation.
2. The state of being established, founded, and the like; fixed state.
3. That which is established; as: (a) A form of government, civil or ecclesiastical; especially, a system of religion maintained by the civil power; as, the Episcopal establishment of England. (b) A permanent civil, military, or commercial, force or organization.
After reviewing the first ammendment and the definitions of the words respecting an establishment, I do not see how having the words Under God in the pledge of allegiance is respecting the establishment of a religion. The words do not say the Catholic, Baptist, Presbytarian (sp) church, it simply says God.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... blah...
establishment
1. The act of establishing; a ratifying or ordaining; settlement; confirmation.
2. The state of being established, founded, and the like; fixed state.
3. That which is established; as: (a) A form of government, civil or ecclesiastical; especially, a system of religion maintained by the civil power; as, the Episcopal establishment of England. (b) A permanent civil, military, or commercial, force or organization.
After reviewing the first ammendment and the definitions of the words respecting an establishment, I do not see how having the words Under God in the pledge of allegiance is respecting the establishment of a religion. The words do not say the Catholic, Baptist, Presbytarian (sp) church, it simply says God.
Ok. Key bits here. The law says: we can't pass a law respecing "an establishment of religion". You argue that the use of the phrase "under God" in the pledge is not respecting "an establishment of a religion". Huge difference in meaning there.
Religion means "religion in general". Any relgion. Not one. Not many. Any. So a law respecing an establishment of one religion is wrong. A law repsecting an establishment of all religions is wrong. An law respecting an establishment of just a set number of religions is wrong. "Religion" means any and all things that are religions individually. Whether "God" is something specific to one religion, some religions, most religions, or all religions is irrelevant. The amendments restriction should hold in the case of the pledge.
The problem with the logic in your argument Stok is that you're basically saying that if more then one religion has the same belief, that it's then legal to pass a law "respecting" it. I think that's a pretty poor test. If you mean something else, then I'll need to know a bit more about how you are defining an "establishment" of religion in real terms. The dictionary definition is nice, but is both too broad or too narrow depending on which one you use. I could find hundred of things that could be passed into law that I think most folks would think were clear violations of the doctine of separation of church and state if we were to take it's meaning that strictly.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
But let's define what the statement in Amendment I was actually intended for and that was making no law respecting an establishment of
The intent of Amendment I was to ensure that the United States Government would not establish the Catholic Church or any church as the offical church of the country. The intent was not to take religion out of society, nor was the intent to remove the acknowledgement of God from the public venue.
IMO the problem with being so vague in the wording of the Amendment is that it allows for these nit picking issues to influence the interpretation of the constitution.
If the first amendment truly meant all references to God where to be removed from government then we would have never become the country we are today. However at the rate we are going with this loose or hard line interpretation of the constitution (depending on your point of view) we are getting closer and closer to George Orwell's 1984 each time an arguement such as removing the words "Under God" from the pledge of allegience takes center stage and erodes the Majorities freedom of speech and expression.
Edited, Thu Mar 25 20:45:09 2004 by Stok
Edited, Thu Mar 25 20:46:26 2004 by Stok
Quote:
A form of government, civil or ecclesiastical - defined: Of or relating to a church, especially as an organized institution.
The intent of Amendment I was to ensure that the United States Government would not establish the Catholic Church or any church as the offical church of the country. The intent was not to take religion out of society, nor was the intent to remove the acknowledgement of God from the public venue.
IMO the problem with being so vague in the wording of the Amendment is that it allows for these nit picking issues to influence the interpretation of the constitution.
If the first amendment truly meant all references to God where to be removed from government then we would have never become the country we are today. However at the rate we are going with this loose or hard line interpretation of the constitution (depending on your point of view) we are getting closer and closer to George Orwell's 1984 each time an arguement such as removing the words "Under God" from the pledge of allegience takes center stage and erodes the Majorities freedom of speech and expression.
Edited, Thu Mar 25 20:45:09 2004 by Stok
Edited, Thu Mar 25 20:46:26 2004 by Stok
Stok wrote:
The intent of Amendment I was to ensure that the United States Government would not establish the Catholic Church or any church as the offical church of the country. The intent was not to take religion out of society, nor was the intent to remove the acknowledgement of God from the public venue.
Hmmm... still have to disagree. If that was the case, they wouldn't have said that congress shall "pass no law". They would have just said congress shall not "make the law" an establishment of religion...
Declaring a state religion is a single "law". A single act. The implication behing the phrasing was that they can't just not make an establishment of religion "the law", but they shall pass "no law". I agree that the intent very much was not to take religion out of society. But it was very cleary worded to prevent religion from undully influencing the government. I would think declaring the nation to be "under God", is a pretty clear example of influence, right?
One need only look at the change in our view of the subject since the phrase was added. Most poeple think it was always that way. How many times have we had a debate where someone insisted that our nation was founded "under God"? How often has the existence of that phrase in the pledge been used as justification for that belief?
I think that alone is plenty clear evidence that the inclusion of that phrase does influence the governent. It makes "the people" believe that the government is "under God". It then makes it easier for folks to see no harm in pushing other (more dangerous) religious practices into our government. After all, why shouldn't a nation "under God" allow prayer in school? Tell me that's not influencing things...
Quote:
IMO the problem with being so vague in the wording of the Amendment is that it allows for these nit picking issues to influence the interpretation of the constitution.
I agree. It's definately worded a bit vaguely. However, I still believe that most of the reason for that is because the language has changed. That use of the term "respecting" isn't really common any more. Also, folks do confuse the "establishment of religion" with "establishing a religion". The first simply revers to any established religion (doesn't have to be state sponsored. It just has to exist). The second refers to actually adopting a religion in an official way (state sponsorship). Heck. You took the same argument. I disagree with your interpretation, but I can see why you might make it.
Quote:
If the first amendment truly meant all references to God where to be removed from government then we would have never become the country we are today.
Again, I have to disagree.
First off, you are strawmaning the argument. No one's saying that all references to God must be removed from government. What we are saying is that you can't pass a law *requiring* a reference to god. The pledge is adopted by an act of congress. Thus, it's a legal mandate. I have no problem with people choosing to add their own words to the pledge if they want to, or choosing to say a prayer if they want to. However, the "official" pledge, that we teach in our public schools, and recite every day in non-religious ceremonies, should not contain a reference to God.
I'm fairly certain we would still be the same nation without the pledge the way it is. You're aware it was changed in the last 50 years, right? So we managed to go through the initial growing pains as a nation, shrugged off a couple of rebellions, formed a stronger federal government, fought a civil war over the strength of said federal government, built up an industrial strength that allowed us to fight through two world wars, all without having a pledge that contained the words "under God" in it. Amazing!
In fact, one could argue that our nation has gone down hill since the addition of those words to the pledge.
Quote:
However at the rate we are going with this loose or hard line interpretation of the constitution (depending on your point of view) we are getting closer and closer to George Orwell's 1984 each time an arguement such as removing the words "Under God" from the pledge of allegience takes center stage and erodes the Majorities freedom of speech and expression.
I'm a bit confused by this though. How does not forcing people to make a religious statement in a pledge *restrict* freedom of speach. Restricting freedom of speach is when you pass laws that either prevent people from saying what they want, or require them to say something they dont want to say. Removing the phrase from the pledge does not prevent anyone from saying it differently if they want to keep using an "unofficial" version. What it does do is stop forcing people who don't agree with the "under God" phrase to have to say it every single day in public (non-secular) schools.
I really really really would like to understand what you think Freedom of Speach means if that's you take on it. I would also argue that forcing shoolchildren to acknowledge some higher power in control of their nation is close to an Orwellian future then not doing so. But that's just me...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
I would think declaring the nation to be "under God", is a pretty clear example of influence, right?
This is not an example of influence but an affirmation that our Country is "...One Nation, Under God, Indivisible with Liberty and Justice For All." The fact is that the Pledge of Allegience has gone through several modifications prior to the addition of "Under God". Perhaps it is time for changing the Pledge of Allegiengce to the Flag, but not by removing the words "Under God".
Francis Bellamy who was a Baptist minister, wrote the original pledge in August 1892.
Quote:
What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
The arguement is more than the two words "Under God" the underlying arguement is what happens if the words included in the Pledge of Allegience 50 years ago is found to be unconstitutional, what are the potential ramifications? Even the supposed atheist who has brought this arguement to the Supreme Court has stated that he is wanting to change the currency and remove all references to God from our symbols as a country. Where will it stop? Will an elected official no longer be able to pray to God or ask for guidance from God when he or she has been elected to office? Will all Chaplains and other religious leaders no longer be able to administer services to our Armed Forces because the Military is a government entity?
Am I over blowing the examples of what atheists desire? I don't think so. What atheist want is life to be painted as they see it instead of how the majority does. If the Government of the United States of America is representative of the people that elect the officials to the office then references to the Christian, Muslim, Judeo and other Deity's should and must be left in government. Not everyone is going to be happy but I BELIEVE that it is better to have a small percentage of the population offended by two words in a pledge of allegience than having a large voting population offended by the removal.
Quote:
I'm a bit confused by this though. How does not forcing people to make a religious statement in a pledge *restrict* freedom of speach. Restricting freedom of speach is when you pass laws that either prevent people from saying what they want, or require them to say something they dont want to say. Removing the phrase from the pledge does not prevent anyone from saying it differently if they want to keep using an "unofficial" version. What it does do is stop forcing people who don't agree with the "under God" phrase to have to say it every single day in public (non-secular) schools.
I do not know how you can be confused when you answer your own state of mind with this statement... "Restricting freedom of speach is when you pass laws that either prevent people from saying what they want,..." by removing the words "Under God" you are passing a law preventing people from saying what they want.
when is halftime? i need a refill and another hotdog.
Quote:
by removing the words "Under God" you are passing a law preventing people from saying what they want.
Not true. The only way the government can prevent anyone from saying anything is to make it illegal. Removing "under God" from the official version of the pledge would not be the same as passing a law making it illegal to say "under God" when reciting the pledge.
knowing how sheepish we are, what kind of floodgate of human rights campaigns do you honestly think a move like this could allow to open? serioulsy...all religion/non-religion views aside, do you really want to live in a place where anyone with a wild hair up their **** can move our government to make quick and thoughtless changes?
its bad enough corporations have as much control over the gov't..if we let idiots become primary shareholders whats left for the honest quiet folk?
its bad enough corporations have as much control over the gov't..if we let idiots become primary shareholders whats left for the honest quiet folk?
Quote:
knowing how sheepish we are, what kind of floodgate of human rights campaigns do you honestly think a move like this could allow to open?
Hell, I'd be happy if all of our laws conformed to the Constitution like they are supposed to.
too late for that one. 
Quote:
Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Dyzalot wrote:
Quote:
by removing the words "Under God" you are passing a law preventing people from saying what they want.
Not true. The only way the government can prevent anyone from saying anything is to make it illegal. Removing "under God" from the official version of the pledge would not be the same as passing a law making it illegal to say "under God" when reciting the pledge.
I'd go a step further with this point. Having the words "under God" in the plege is *forcing* people to acknowlege God as a significant influence over their nation. And forcing them to say it outloud every day. Removing it is not *forcing* anyone to do anything. You are free to believe that God is "on your side" if you want.
I guess I'm just confused here. Freedom of speach means being able to say what you want, and not being forced to say what you dont want. I would think that's pretty clear.
Forcing people to say "under God" is a pretty clear violation of freedom of speach. The other way around isn't. We're removing something that limits peoples free speach. I simply don't see how anyone can think otherwise. There is no law being passed by congress saying that people cannot pray as they wish, or worship as they wish. However, there is currently a law in congress forcing people to affirm the existence of "God" whether they believe it or not. That's clearly unconstitutional.
Edited, Fri Mar 26 19:42:25 2004 by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Heck. Going to revisit this logic Stok, because I spotted yet another discrepancy. I'm again affecting the bolds a bit....
Basically, I just extended the bolded comment in your last paragraph to include the entire phrase: "the establishment of a religion". I think this is where you're getting caught up. You have changed the phrase: "respecting an establishment of religion" to: "respecting the establishment of a religion.
Huge change in meaning. In fact, I believe that this is the reason why you bolded definition number three above. The changes you made make it appear as though the Amendment is prohibing the official "establishment" of a (state) religion. However, when you read the actual phrase "respecting an establishment of religion", the meaning of establishment more closely matches the second definition:
The state of being established, founded, and the like; fixed state.
Basically, anything that exists as a set entity is an "establishment".
If we were to make a law against prostitution that read:
"The city zoning department shall grant no business license to an establishment of prostitution"
Would you not assume that would apply to *all* houses of ill repute? Or do you think that means they are only prevented from granting licenses to a single state sponsored house of prostitution? I'm pretty sure you'd agree that it applied to *all* such businesses.
Same logic applies. The Amendment is not restricted to prohibiting the adoption of a state religion. It limits the influence of *any* religion in the affairs of government. At least in the context of passing laws. So, any action that requires an act of congress (like establishing a plege of allegeance, or establishing an official national motto) cannot reflect any specific religious belief. I'm fairly certain that the existence of "God" let alone God's position "over" our nation is a specific reference to religion. There is no non-religious puprpose for including the phrase. God is clearly an "established" divine figure (ie: religious), thus the phrase very clearly "respects an establishment of religion".
I just can't see how it can be interpreted any other way.
Stok wrote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... blah...
establishment
1. The act of establishing; a ratifying or ordaining; settlement; confirmation.
2. The state of being established, founded, and the like; fixed state.
3. That which is established; as: (a) A form of government, civil or ecclesiastical; especially, a system of religion maintained by the civil power; as, the Episcopal establishment of England. (b) A permanent civil, military, or commercial, force or organization.
After reviewing the first ammendment and the definitions of the words respecting an establishment, I do not see how having the words Under God in the pledge of allegiance is respecting the establishment of a religion. The words do not say the Catholic, Baptist, Presbytarian (sp) church, it simply says God.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... blah...
establishment
1. The act of establishing; a ratifying or ordaining; settlement; confirmation.
2. The state of being established, founded, and the like; fixed state.
3. That which is established; as: (a) A form of government, civil or ecclesiastical; especially, a system of religion maintained by the civil power; as, the Episcopal establishment of England. (b) A permanent civil, military, or commercial, force or organization.
After reviewing the first ammendment and the definitions of the words respecting an establishment, I do not see how having the words Under God in the pledge of allegiance is respecting the establishment of a religion. The words do not say the Catholic, Baptist, Presbytarian (sp) church, it simply says God.
Basically, I just extended the bolded comment in your last paragraph to include the entire phrase: "the establishment of a religion". I think this is where you're getting caught up. You have changed the phrase: "respecting an establishment of religion" to: "respecting the establishment of a religion.
Huge change in meaning. In fact, I believe that this is the reason why you bolded definition number three above. The changes you made make it appear as though the Amendment is prohibing the official "establishment" of a (state) religion. However, when you read the actual phrase "respecting an establishment of religion", the meaning of establishment more closely matches the second definition:
The state of being established, founded, and the like; fixed state.
Basically, anything that exists as a set entity is an "establishment".
If we were to make a law against prostitution that read:
"The city zoning department shall grant no business license to an establishment of prostitution"
Would you not assume that would apply to *all* houses of ill repute? Or do you think that means they are only prevented from granting licenses to a single state sponsored house of prostitution? I'm pretty sure you'd agree that it applied to *all* such businesses.
Same logic applies. The Amendment is not restricted to prohibiting the adoption of a state religion. It limits the influence of *any* religion in the affairs of government. At least in the context of passing laws. So, any action that requires an act of congress (like establishing a plege of allegeance, or establishing an official national motto) cannot reflect any specific religious belief. I'm fairly certain that the existence of "God" let alone God's position "over" our nation is a specific reference to religion. There is no non-religious puprpose for including the phrase. God is clearly an "established" divine figure (ie: religious), thus the phrase very clearly "respects an establishment of religion".
I just can't see how it can be interpreted any other way.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
The American Government is a Godless, soulless, money-grubbing, resource-wasting, land-stealing, lie-to-your-face, inbred, backstabbing, egotistical, self-righteous, self-serving, careless, unforgiving, retarded red-headed step-child...hence, doesn't need "under God" in...really, anything it does.
But that's just me. . .
But that's just me. . .
The reason, Trunks, that Thundra can cuss all she wants without repercusions is something called Extra Special Premium Membership. There is the normal Premium memership where you get to pick a picture for an avatard and search for stuff, and there is a small option at the bottom of the page for the ESPM, not to be confused with the sports programming.
With the hefty price of $49.99 per month that this membership costs you, you get several things unavailable to the unwashed masses such as yourself and me, who choose to be left behind with our thumbs up our a$$e$ because we're too tight to pay. (See? Us tightwads can't even say a&% unless we pay extra for the esses, forcing us to use numbers)
First and foremost, these deep pocketed individuals-- of which Thundra is one of the few I might add --can cuss all they like. And there's nothing you can do about it.
Second, they get to use big swinging balled raccoons for their avatards even if you don't like big balls swinging in your face. Tough. Learn to deal with it.
Third, they get get-out-of-jail-free cards which lets them skate when they cross lines that are never to be crossed, thus enabling them to come back repeatedly from lifetime bannings.
Lastly, for being such a stand-up guy (or girl-- most of us aren't sure which) you get to skew any poll results and vote yourself in as Favorite _______ of the Year.
Just remember this, Trunk, because it will take you far in life:
Money talks, bullsh1t walks.* **
Totem
* kudos to whom they are due, AC/DC rocks.
** there goes me having to use numbers so I can cuss without paying $49.99.
Edited, Sat Mar 27 01:10:48 2004 by Totem
With the hefty price of $49.99 per month that this membership costs you, you get several things unavailable to the unwashed masses such as yourself and me, who choose to be left behind with our thumbs up our a$$e$ because we're too tight to pay. (See? Us tightwads can't even say a&% unless we pay extra for the esses, forcing us to use numbers)
First and foremost, these deep pocketed individuals-- of which Thundra is one of the few I might add --can cuss all they like. And there's nothing you can do about it.
Second, they get to use big swinging balled raccoons for their avatards even if you don't like big balls swinging in your face. Tough. Learn to deal with it.
Third, they get get-out-of-jail-free cards which lets them skate when they cross lines that are never to be crossed, thus enabling them to come back repeatedly from lifetime bannings.
Lastly, for being such a stand-up guy (or girl-- most of us aren't sure which) you get to skew any poll results and vote yourself in as Favorite _______ of the Year.
Just remember this, Trunk, because it will take you far in life:
Money talks, bullsh1t walks.* **
Totem
* kudos to whom they are due, AC/DC rocks.
** there goes me having to use numbers so I can cuss without paying $49.99.
Edited, Sat Mar 27 01:10:48 2004 by Totem
You should sign up for it, it's fu[b][/b]cking great I tell ya!
You know Gbaji after debating this topic with you I have seen what others have against your style of posting. Let me show you some hard facts:
Stok's statement from the top of this page...
The only time that the wording was changed was for emphasis on a specific point in the arguement, not the basis of my entire arguement. Do not take a single phrase and base the entire arguement for your side on symantecs. That dog doesn't hunt here. Use the sentence in the entire context as it was written, not just one sentence to form your complete arguement.
This case which we are discussing is only the first step in having all references to God removed from American society. Pull out a twenty dollar bill and look at the back... i'll wait... ok got it? Now what are the words at the top center of the picture?...i'll wait a bit for you to comprehend them... Ok, it "In God We Trust" This is the next thing to be taken up, the removal of "In God We Trust" from our money. The first step is to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegience, because that is easier and will not have a huge fixed monetary cost to changing it. This is the only reason that this Atheist is going to the Pledge of Allegience first and using his daughter as a means to his cause. Consider the cost, time and man hours that will be needed to change all legal tender to say "In Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll We Trust.".
By the way "In God We Trust" was designated as our National Motto on July 30, 1956 (Title 36, Chapter 10, §186). So again something modified almost 50 years ago is unconstitutional? My question is how did the people of the United States of America let so many "unconstitutional" actions take place? There where definitely enough "watch dogs" around then as there are today.
God to me is not a "religion", God is who I believe created the heavens and the earth and whose Son died for our Sins. My BELIEFS are Christian. However my religion is Independent Baptist.
You see God exists, but you do not have to be "religious" or part of a "religion" to believe in God. There are thousands of people that know God exists but do not attend "religious" ceremony or services to worship. The "institutionalized system" is what the first amendment states
You see as we decipher the meanings of the words used in the first amendment and what definition we utilize in our arguements gives us our different interpretations of what was meant.
Again this entire issue to the side that I have taken is not only about the two words in the Pledge of Allegience but also the extended outcomes that the removal of the words will have if they are found to be Unconstitutional for the government to use them.
Stok's statement from the top of this page...
Quote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Quote:
After reviewing the first ammendment and the definitions of the words respecting an establishment, I do not see how having the words Under God in the pledge of allegiance is respecting the establishment of a religion. The words do not say the Catholic, Baptist, Presbytarian (sp) church, it simply says God.
The only time that the wording was changed was for emphasis on a specific point in the arguement, not the basis of my entire arguement. Do not take a single phrase and base the entire arguement for your side on symantecs. That dog doesn't hunt here. Use the sentence in the entire context as it was written, not just one sentence to form your complete arguement.
Quote:
I think this is where you're getting caught up. You have changed the phrase: "respecting an establishment of religion" to: "respecting the establishment of a religion.
This case which we are discussing is only the first step in having all references to God removed from American society. Pull out a twenty dollar bill and look at the back... i'll wait... ok got it? Now what are the words at the top center of the picture?...i'll wait a bit for you to comprehend them... Ok, it "In God We Trust" This is the next thing to be taken up, the removal of "In God We Trust" from our money. The first step is to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegience, because that is easier and will not have a huge fixed monetary cost to changing it. This is the only reason that this Atheist is going to the Pledge of Allegience first and using his daughter as a means to his cause. Consider the cost, time and man hours that will be needed to change all legal tender to say "In Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll We Trust.".
By the way "In God We Trust" was designated as our National Motto on July 30, 1956 (Title 36, Chapter 10, §186). So again something modified almost 50 years ago is unconstitutional? My question is how did the people of the United States of America let so many "unconstitutional" actions take place? There where definitely enough "watch dogs" around then as there are today.
Quote:
God is clearly an "established" divine figure (ie: religious), thus the phrase very clearly "respects an establishment of religion".
God to me is not a "religion", God is who I believe created the heavens and the earth and whose Son died for our Sins. My BELIEFS are Christian. However my religion is Independent Baptist.
Quote:
re·li·gion
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
You see God exists, but you do not have to be "religious" or part of a "religion" to believe in God. There are thousands of people that know God exists but do not attend "religious" ceremony or services to worship. The "institutionalized system" is what the first amendment states
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
You see as we decipher the meanings of the words used in the first amendment and what definition we utilize in our arguements gives us our different interpretations of what was meant.
Again this entire issue to the side that I have taken is not only about the two words in the Pledge of Allegience but also the extended outcomes that the removal of the words will have if they are found to be Unconstitutional for the government to use them.
Quote:
Second, they get to use big swinging balled raccoons for their avatards even if you don't like big balls swinging in your face. Tough. Learn to deal with it.
And it's giving me nightmares! Is it wrong that I'm enjoying them?
Edited, Sat Mar 27 17:18:56 2004 by Yanari
The news article below got me to thinking.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115375,00.html
When enlisting or re-enlisting in the Armed Forces of the United States of America a person is afforded the opportunity to swear to God or to Affirm their oath of allegience now North Carolina a judge wants to offer a similiar option to people testifying in his court room, I think that providing an option for a person to Swear or Affirm is a good idea, not the option of only one way or the other for everyone. Now to the Pledge of Allegience, the same option should be offered as well, instead of removing the words "Under God" and insulting those that want to say the words, why don't we have a Pledge where one can also Affirm his/her Allegience to the flag and make them both official. Even though right now Atheists and others have the right to skip the words when saying the pledge, let's compromise and have to Pledges.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115375,00.html
Quote:
For more than two centuries, North Carolina courts have invoked the name of God and sworn in witnesses on the Holy Bible.
So when Davidson County District Court Judge James Honeycutt tried to introduce a secular oath involving no hand on the Bible and no "so help me God," the clerk of the court objected.
"None of my clerks will be delivering this oath," said clerk Brian Shipwash. "The judge has the authority to deliver the oath. And if this is the type of way he wishes to swear people in using this improper procedure, he's going to have to do it himself."
Honeycutt denied requests for an interview but in a letter to the clerk, he wrote: "We are seeing in our court system an increasing number of people from ... cultures that are not necessarily Christian in background. We also regularly see 'local' persons who, for reasons of their own, would rather not 'swear on the Bible.'"
But Shipwash argues, "We cannot deny where we began."
The amended oath would still require witnesses to raise their right hand and affirm to tell the truth. Shipwash says state law allows witnesses to request a secular oath but University of North Carolina law professor Arnold Lowey says doing that can backfire.
"Certainly, if I were trying a case and one of my witnesses said in open court, 'I don't want to swear on the Bible, I just want to affirm,' it may well be they would be less credible with the jury," Lowey said.
Honeycutt wanted to implement the new oath by April 5 but he's postponed that decision to allow more time for discussion.
So when Davidson County District Court Judge James Honeycutt tried to introduce a secular oath involving no hand on the Bible and no "so help me God," the clerk of the court objected.
"None of my clerks will be delivering this oath," said clerk Brian Shipwash. "The judge has the authority to deliver the oath. And if this is the type of way he wishes to swear people in using this improper procedure, he's going to have to do it himself."
Honeycutt denied requests for an interview but in a letter to the clerk, he wrote: "We are seeing in our court system an increasing number of people from ... cultures that are not necessarily Christian in background. We also regularly see 'local' persons who, for reasons of their own, would rather not 'swear on the Bible.'"
But Shipwash argues, "We cannot deny where we began."
The amended oath would still require witnesses to raise their right hand and affirm to tell the truth. Shipwash says state law allows witnesses to request a secular oath but University of North Carolina law professor Arnold Lowey says doing that can backfire.
"Certainly, if I were trying a case and one of my witnesses said in open court, 'I don't want to swear on the Bible, I just want to affirm,' it may well be they would be less credible with the jury," Lowey said.
Honeycutt wanted to implement the new oath by April 5 but he's postponed that decision to allow more time for discussion.
When enlisting or re-enlisting in the Armed Forces of the United States of America a person is afforded the opportunity to swear to God or to Affirm their oath of allegience now North Carolina a judge wants to offer a similiar option to people testifying in his court room, I think that providing an option for a person to Swear or Affirm is a good idea, not the option of only one way or the other for everyone. Now to the Pledge of Allegience, the same option should be offered as well, instead of removing the words "Under God" and insulting those that want to say the words, why don't we have a Pledge where one can also Affirm his/her Allegience to the flag and make them both official. Even though right now Atheists and others have the right to skip the words when saying the pledge, let's compromise and have to Pledges.
The pledge has always been one of the things I have been proud about in my country. I am sure I will not be as eloquent as Stok on this one so I will just say that I agree with him.
Recent Visitors: 345
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (345)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- One Nation...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC