Pledge of Allegiance

Ozarker · Jun 29, 2002

I am always amazed when an Atheist brings a suit in an attempt to claim that his/her rights are being violated in some manner. To be an Atheist, one must first reject the concept of "unalienable rights" and, since the Constitution does not grant any rights, must voluntarily surrender any claim to rights.

The entire Bill of Rights, an enumeration of rights retained by the people, is offensive to an Atheist. Retained rights are those in existence prior to the existence of the government and were bestowed on man by a power greater than man.

Atheists reject the idea that there is a power greater than man so must reject the concept of rights retained by man. Since there are no rights in the US Constitution other than those retained by man, Atheists must reject any claim of rights.

Chuck52 · Jun 29, 2002

Ozarker,

Neat definition. Sure answers all my concerns. Absolutely defies argument too. Kinda like religion.

Chuck

Bird · Jun 29, 2002

the majority opinion in some states that terminally ill people have a right to seek a painless death should be honored, shouldn't it?

Amen!!! I still say the best doctor in the USA is in prison in Michigan.

paccorti · Jun 29, 2002

RanchMan,

I hope I didn't ruffle too many feathers such as yours or Randy's or any other Christian on this board. What set me off that day was to read that Senator Byrd of West Virginia refer to the the judge of the 9th circuit court as "that atheist judge". I sounded prejorative to me. If you replaced atheist with Jew, Black or even Christian in the statement you wouldn't be happy with the effect. And this from a Senator!

Like many others on this board, I live happily among Christians. In fact I am pleased at the recent supreme court ruling allowing school vouchers to be used for private religious schools. Like many have said this harms me not at all and I'm glad that parents can get the education that they believe in for their kids. I don't see this as state endorsement of religion at all. It simply lets parents spend their own voucher their own way. Hurray for choice!

I personally would not have brought about this lawsuit as the guy in CA did. Indeed his skin may be kinda thin (I don't know). But, technically I agree with the guy. The United States government endorses no religion. Zip nada. In fact the Constitution (separation of Church and state) explicity prohibits that. A pledge to the government should not contain ANY reference to religion because (drum roll please) the government is not a religious institution. If someone can point out where I'm wrong in this logic I'm glad to listen. The fact that we've had this for a while dosen't make it less wrong or the people who believe it's wrong petty.

Separation of church and state is a good thing for state and for church. If the government sanctioned religion suffered the recent pedaphile cases of the Catholic church you might not be very happy with reform results. Through the years your religion may get watered down considerably from what you would like.

As for those who have preconceptions about atheists I think you'll find were are just like anybody else. Most are good, some are bad, just like the rest of you. In fact if you met me you'd never know that I'm an atheist. My political opinions are all over the place, some conservate and some liberal. The fact that I'm an atheist tells you just one thing about me, the rest.. you'll have to hear it from my mouth to know.

Now onto more important things. For example, after spending 1.5 hours searching for the handle to my hydraulic jack I need to ask my wife why she pounded it into the ground to hold up a Japanese beetle trap in the yard. Sigh.

Peter

Ozarker · Jun 29, 2002

'A pledge to the government should not contain ANY reference to religion because (drum roll please) the government is not a religious institution. If someone can point out where I'm wrong in this logic I'm glad to listen. "

OK, here goes:

1. The pledge of allegiance isn't a pledge to the government. It is a pledge of allegiance to the flag and the nation. What's the difference? The government is the set of laws and the people we have elected to govern. The Nation is the people. We can change the government and remain the same nation.

2. God is not a reference to any religion. It is the English word for "higher power". All religions have a "God", even satanic religions.

3. There is no constitutional separation between church and state. That is a fantasy based on a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group.

The first amendment is simple. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" All that means is that the Congress can't establish an official state religion. Uttering the generic word "God" is not a law and doesn't establish a religion. Having the generic word "God" in a simple pledge or on money is not a law and does not establish a religion.

If it doesn't establish an official US religion, there is no violation of the first amendment to the constitution. Any judge that says it does is making new law and should be immediatly removed from the bench.

RanchMan · Jun 30, 2002

Paccorti -

Don't worry 'bout me - your postings on this subject haven't especially offended me so far.

I'll go ahead and try and respond to a couple of your points, hopefully to help give a different perspective, not just to "argue for argument's sake." Please take it as such (hopefully that will help keep everyone's "feathers" flat. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif)

As to Senator Bird's remarks - I haven't heard what he said directly, and admit I'm not very familiar with many non-Texas Senators (unless they have been vocal on some of the subject matters I've followed in the past.)

I can see where, from an atheist's perspective, his statement may seem insulting or to belittle atheists. But flipping the coin for a second, there is a bit of logic, even if its not rock solid, in his statement.

Now, before you read further, I'm not saying that he should have or shouldn't have said what he did - just trying to figure out what he was thinking at the time - always a dangerous endeavor.../w3tcompact/icons/sad.gif

Anyway, my guess as to his logic is that an atheist is more likely to rule as the two 9th circuit judges did, and that a person of religion would be less likely to do so. It boils down to each individual's personal value system, in that what one views as "right & proper" is tied to their beliefs, of which religion (or lack thereof) is one.

Does it mean that the judges who ruled against allowing the pledge are atheists? Not necessarily. Conversely, does it mean that the judge who dissented with the ruling is a religious zealot? Not necessarily. (e.g. Sen. Byrd’s logic certainly wouldn't be "mathematically solid" )

Inserting "... Jew, Black or even Christian...", forgetting the whole inflammatory aspect, wouldn't make much sense. If atheism is the doctrine that there is no deity, and Mr. Byrd was complaining about how the judges essentially (not literally) called for the removal of the words "Under God", there is a logical association because of atheistic doctrine. 2 of the 3 examples you give, while associated with religious beliefs, aren't generally associated with the denial of God, but the promotion thereof. The third - well, since there are no inherent religious associations as with the others, I don't see any applicability.

"Like many others on this board, I live happily among Christians....As for those who have preconceptions about atheists I think you'll find were are just like anybody else." Believe it or not, some of my closest friends are atheists! Obviously, we disagree on some major points, but that doesn't stop me caring for them or valuing them as friends. I won't go further into this aspect, just to say that I understand you're point.

"But, technically I agree with the guy." Although I disagree with your technical point, I believe you (and others) definitely have the right to voice it.

"I personally would not have brought about this lawsuit as the guy in CA did....The fact that we've had this for a while doesn't make it less wrong or the people who believe it's wrong petty." Well, I "kindof" disagree, but I agree too - let me clarify. Believing differently or that it is "wrong", in my book, doesn't make one petty.

What does make it petty is when someone takes it upon themselves to take action to change something, as I said before, that (1) doesn't cause real physical/emotional damage, (2) in order to make themselves not feel bad, left out, or uncomfortable, and (3) to impose their minority views upon the majority who disagree. The length of term the "sky is falling issue" has really been a "non issue" can be a good barometer for determining such an effect - not always, but often.

You come across as a well adjusted, sane, successful component of society. While I can't guarantee this, I'd be willing to bet that you don't wring your hands every night thinking about how those "Evil Religious Fellows" have ruined your life & probably don't curse the money you have in your wallet or bank account. You probably never spent a lot of your time stewing about how witnesses swear on bibles, how the Legislature opens with an invocation, etc. etc. etc.

In other words, by not filing a lawsuit, it basically it tells me that you follow the "live & let live" doctrine I was talking about. (at least with regards to those around you who are religious and the society that reflects many of said values.)

Sure, you may be offended at times (just as I am on other subjects), but you are more focused on living your life as you see fit without shoving your beliefs down the throats of others.

Religion has always been a touchy subject. I'm not trying to shove my religious beliefs down anyone's gullet, actually my whole point isn't even focused on religion - just on those who I believe who take unjustified actions in the name of "victimism".

I didn’t get to address all your points, but I didn’t want my “essay” to be too long..../w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Chuck52 · Jun 30, 2002

This thread is now so long I can't go back and read it all at home because my connection is too slow! So, has anyone pointed out yet that the founding fathers we're all using to defend our various views would not have taken this oath, not because of the "under God" line, but because they did not plan to form "one nation...indivisible"? Except for the Federalists. perhaps. The oath was due to the efforts of that other group of founders, A. Lincoln, U.S. Grant, and W.T Sherman, during the War of Northern Aggression!

Chuck

rmorgan · Jun 30, 2002

Richard--I was surprised by a couple of things in your post. By way of caveats: (1) I grew up the son of a devoutly religious woman and an atheist man. They got along just fine for 54 years of marriage, and their sundry offspring ended up more-or-less in the middle. (2) I recited the 1954 version of the pledge--which we should remember came into legislative being in the waning months of that especially bright spot in American history known fondly as the "McCarthy era," and for the express purpose of injecting religious thought into the pledge--every day of my school life. I survived, although I hardly found it to be a matter of religious inspiration. But, I find the concept of being one nation "indivisibile" a good deal more appealing than being one nation "under God;" Trusting that there is a God, one would think that strong faith would not mandate requiring those who believe differently to parrot feigned belief a deity simply because a majority does.

Anyway. First, the pledge issue has nothing to do with anyone telling anyone else what to "believe in" as your post suggests. And this is not, of course, a "democracy;" It is "the REPUBLIC, for which it stands." There are many republics around the world; the Republic of Iran, for example, and the Republic of Botswana. There is no pure democracy, for were there, we would all have to vote on everything; we don't. To undigress, the pledge issue is about minority perspectives not having to recite phrases in which the majority DO believe. James Madison (no raving liberal by any stretch, and coindicentally one of the framers of the Constitution), in Federalist Paper #10, addressed in some detail the necessity to preserve and protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority (Madison's term), a principle which arguably addresses such matters as being left alone in one's sexual preference and--shall we open up another one of these threads?--diversion of my real estate tax dollars to the selfsame Catholic shools which it took my wife and her seven sisters decades to recover from. While this staggeringly-impressive Republic of ours was certainly founded by folks who ascribed to Christian theology, they quite strongly believed that no one should be subject to the rule of ANY king whose rule they did not believe in. They also wished, for better or worse, to avoid the intermingling of religion and politics. And that is all this is about.

As to Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, while I am sure there are many who ARE offended by them (the world's Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist majority comes to mind, as well as those Christians who strongly believe that Santa Claus represents a grotesque trivialization of the meaning of Christ's birth and death and an offensive cheapening of the meaning of the birth and resurrection) it's hard to see the connection; isn't it pretty unlikely that anyone believes in any of those cultural diversions as divine givers of life?

And finally . . . I must ask, although this may be too personal . . . as a physician who interacts with the skeletal system of humans seven days a week and undoubtedly has engaged in extensive study of genetics, do you personally have serious questions that there as much proof of a genetic link between the human animal and simians as there proof of, say, the apparent connection between compressing organic for a few thousand years to produce coal?

MikePA · Jun 30, 2002

Here's a <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm>link</A> with the history of the Pledge. Interesting.

wroughtn_harv · Jun 30, 2002

Thanks Mike, I guess because the "under god" was inserted to reflect the predjudices of some religious organization doesn't mean we need to take it out do we?

What have you decided to do on the fence?