The Pledge of allegiance

[Bobby]

This has been a hot topic for a few. I personally have always had a problem with the pledge taking place within the schools. Especially with the words; 'under god.'
With the pledge of allegiance being a daily practice within our schools, why isn't it better that it be brought back to its original form that would allow it to be suitable for all walks of life?
Maybe the pledge should be removed all together. Maybe school rooms are not the place to pledge ones allegiance to their flag. Maybe this act should be done at the post office.
What do you think?
[/i]

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

This is why they invented judges--so they can argue the fine points of legal interpretation and consistency with the Constitution. We could keep at this for years, each trying to convince the other. The trouble is, we're both right about the specific points we make; the issue is the extent to which either view is weighted in the overall equation.

Yep and it's unfortunate that all too often judges provide an eisegesis of the Constitution, rather than an exegesis. I look at interpreting the Constitution the same way as interpreting the Bible. There is only ONE true way to interpret it. If done appropriately, there will be no contradictions. That's what "interpretation" is after all - discovering what something says/means. It isn't determining what it means. We could have 100 people tell us different ideas on what they *think* it means...however there can be only one idea of what it really means. Since we allow for judges to give official eisegesis' of the Constitution, we subsequently have many contradictions between judicial rulings.

I think that since the Constitution is a rights-based theory, it MUST be interpreted in that context. To do so in any other way is twisting it, which means one is no longer interpreting the Constitution exegetically...

Just for laughs, what might we think if Congress had put in "godless" instead of "under God"? Would you still hold to the view that it is irrelevant because it is not obligatory? I think that my argument would then resonate with Christians, who would not want their children told, daily, that the country is godless. In your view, they would have no valid ground on which to object.

Oh I have no doubt your argument would resonate with many Christians if that were the case. But yes, they'd have no valid ground on which to object Constitutionally. I believe both this debate and that debate SHOULD be fought in Congress.

OT RE Bush/Kerry: it's interesting how differently we see them. I see Bush as a tyrant wearing blinders, who blunders ahead whether he has adequate information or not, just because he thinks he's right. I wouldn't mind his "certainty" if I thought his decisions were right, but I believe that most have been dead wrong.

Perhaps that's what I don't mind. I feel *most* of his decisions have been good ones. I disagree with him on some issues, but then again I wouldn't expect any politician to truely represent my views - that would be political suicide

but I am pretty firm about the PoA..either it should state one nation under God, Buddha, Siddhartha, Muhammed and etcetera forever, or it should claim no religious affiliation. What is the pledge as it stands stating but that if you aren't Christian then you aren't American?

That's an appeal to political correctness sure. But that argument should not be a legitimate appeal before the SCOTUS.

Though 76.5% of America is in fact Christian (Adherents.com), that leaves 24.5% of the population that isn't, and doesn't neccessarily believe in "God" at all. I still am aghast at what a horrible message this is to anyone, let alone a young child! What a way to ingrain into young Christians heads the thought that if you aren't one of us than you are wrong, an outsider, and definitely not a part of my country. This seems fundamentally wrong at its very core, and a deep throwback to the days where to be American was to be a hypocrite at the root of your being (christian and slaveowner? puritan period? seems pretty shifty. let alone that whole "religious tolerance" thing).

I don't see how the pledge and "under God" can possibly be used as a premise showing that 'Christians' in this country are a tyrannical majority; it's non-obligatory after all. Since it's the IDEA of "God" that some minorities "fear" (for lack of a better word) is not the only solution to censor "God" from the public?

[aschenox]

I don't see how the pledge and "under God" can possibly be used as a premise showing that 'Christians' in this country are a tyrannical majority; it's non-obligatory after all.

I don't see how it can't be used as an example of tyranny. It's obvious when you look at it that practically every tradition in America was spawned from Christianity, every idea, and at least every moral. Christianity reigns the country, and that's all there is to it. When you have small children who can barely write their own names pledging allegiance to a nation under God, that's setting up a foundation for another generation of children who know God because that's what they were taught.

Also, you can't even use the non-obligatory arguement, because truly that only applies in higher middles school through high schools. In elementary school children do what everyone else is doing- it's an extremely rare case when someone lower than 6th grade has the independent thought capabilities, let alone the cojones, to take on the Pledge.

Since it's the IDEA of "God" that some minorities "fear" (for lack of a better word) is not the only solution to censor "God" from the public?

This I disagree with simply because I wouldn't want my atheism stifled, just as Christians don't want their Christianity stifled- also the fact that this is simply sensational statement because everyone knows that killing off Christianity in the media/puble/schools is about as plausible as the Pope learning how to fly of his own ability. Consider- what religion has televised sermons/mass? Chrisitianity. There is a Christian channel and a Catholic channel- but no Buddhist or Zoroastrian? Truly, you cannot get rid of God in the public eye.

...however unfortunate this may be.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

I don't see how the pledge and "under God" can possibly be used as a premise showing that 'Christians' in this country are a tyrannical majority; it's non-obligatory after all.

I don't see how it can't be used as an example of tyranny. It's obvious when you look at it that practically every tradition in America was spawned from Christianity, every idea, and at least every moral. Christianity reigns the country, and that's all there is to it. When you have small children who can barely write their own names pledging allegiance to a nation under God, that's setting up a foundation for another generation of children who know God because that's what they were taught.

Considering where this country stands in the world today, I think it's absolutely absurd to call it tyrannical, especially using the pledge as a premise to that conclusion.
ABSURD.
The "Christian" majority (I have a hard time calling it that since I believe it takes more than just simply call yourself a Christian to actually BE a Christian and the statistics don't consider that) has not violated the rights of any minority. That would require unjust obligations imposed. Where are these obligations that make up this terrible tyranny you would have us believe exists in this country? Show me where a person's rights have been violated by the pledge? I think the facts have shown that the pledge is voluntary. A person can refuse to say the pledge for ANY reason.

Also, you can't even use the non-obligatory arguement, because truly that only applies in higher middles school through high schools. In elementary school children do what everyone else is doing- it's an extremely rare case when someone lower than 6th grade has the independent thought capabilities, let alone the cojones, to take on the Pledge.

So we're to interpret the Constitution arbitrarily - based on a perception of the impressionability of a person's mind? That's also absurd.
Anyways, that's a baseless assertion. Show me some statistics that correlate religiousity with the pledge for children in grades K-6.

This I disagree with simply because I wouldn't want my atheism stifled, just as Christians don't want their Christianity stifled- also the fact that this is simply sensational statement because everyone knows that killing off Christianity in the media/puble/schools is about as plausible as the Pope learning how to fly of his own ability. Consider- what religion has televised sermons/mass? Chrisitianity. There is a Christian channel and a Catholic channel- but no Buddhist or Zoroastrian?

Yes - you don't want your "atheism stifled." What would it take to "stifle" your atheism? It would take the imposition and enforcement of (unjust) obligations. But that's not the case here. This is what the Constitution is all about: protecting people's fundamental and civil rights from law-making bodies that have the ability to create obligations upon citizens. I know this obviously irks your chain regarding the free exercise of religion we have here, but that's exactly why we're supposed rely on a rational document, rather than irrational minds.

Truly, you cannot get rid of God in the public eye.

...however unfortunate this may be.

Man, you must really hate America. I say this because just above you said this:

It's obvious when you look at it that practically every tradition in America was spawned from Christianity, every idea, and at least every moral.

But seriously, in this country, whatever worldview you subscribe in, you must find a way to co-exist with other worldviews. That is the simple logic behind the Constitution. This is accomplished by keeping government in line with the rights-based theory that's been established, exactly how I've laid out in this thread.

No unjust obligations imposed/enforced = rights secured = Constitutional.

[ENIGMA]

The "Christian" majority (I have a hard time calling it that since I believe it takes more than just simply call yourself a Christian to actually BE a Christian and the statistics don't consider that) has not violated the rights of any minority. That would require unjust obligations imposed. Where are these obligations that make up this terrible tyranny you would have us believe exists in this country? Show me where a person's rights have been violated by the pledge? I think the facts have shown that the pledge is voluntary. A person can refuse to say the pledge for ANY reason.

Just as a witness can choose to affirm their statements in a courtroom instead of swearing on a Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. However, if the judge wishes to raise a stink about it, then one might as well tell the witness to go home, since they have, in all likelyhood, been judged by the jury as evil incarnate and thus disregarded anyway.

Same thing with the pledge, except the teacher is the one who can raise a stink about someone not standing and speaking the pledge.

Oh... and no, I am not speaking hypothetically. The latter case has in fact happened to me.

So we're to interpret the Constitution arbitrarily - based on a perception of the impressionability of a person's mind? That's also absurd.
Anyways, that's a baseless assertion. Show me some statistics that correlate religiousity with the pledge for children in grades K-6.

So then I take it that you have no problem with allowing the KKK to do an assembly at an Elementary school... Free speech and all that.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

Just as a witness can choose to affirm their statements in a courtroom instead of swearing on a Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. However, if the judge wishes to raise a stink about it, then one might as well tell the witness to go home, since they have, in all likelyhood, been judged by the jury as evil incarnate and thus disregarded anyway.

Same thing with the pledge, except the teacher is the one who can raise a stink about someone not standing and speaking the pledge.

I hoped I had already made it clear. As far as the pledge itself is concerned, there is nothing [constitutionally] wrong with it. However, a mandatory imposition/enforcment by an authority figure is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with the content, but rather the application. If a teacher chastised you about not saying the pledge the "right" way, that was wrong. Unless of course, you went about refusing to say the pledge in such a way that it was disruptive to the class.

So then I take it that you have no problem with allowing the KKK to do an assembly at an Elementary school... Free speech and all that.

The way I see it in such a case, it's up to the school district. I certainly wouldn't consider a KKK speaker in a school unconstitutional. I'm not familiar with all the judicial rulings of free speech in schools, but I do know there are specific limitations to free speech, such as "fighting words" and "hate speech." And I know these caveats to free speech are not justified by the impressionability on a person's mind.

[Jose]

I hoped I had already made it clear. As far as the pledge itself is concerned, there is nothing [constitutionally] wrong with it. However, a mandatory imposition/enforcment by an authority figure is unconstitutional.

But, as ENIGMA and I have both stated, there actually is mandatory enforcement by authority figures. We have both experienced it. The enforcement specifically deals with the religious content of the Pledge, not with the patriotic content. This, plus the fact that young children are required to participate in this ritual before they are able to formulate accurate values of their own, indicates that the Pledge serves to inculcate in children's minds one religious view. This is definitely a matter for SCOTUS. It's unfortunate that they shirked their duty (wrongly, in my opinion) by pretending that a father has no right to bring a suit in support of his daughter.

The "Christian" majority (I have a hard time calling it that since I believe it takes more than just simply call yourself a Christian to actually BE a Christian and the statistics don't consider that) has not violated the rights of any minority. That would require unjust obligations imposed. Where are these obligations that make up this terrible tyranny you would have us believe exists in this country? Show me where a person's rights have been violated by the pledge? I think the facts have shown that the pledge is voluntary. A person can refuse to say the pledge for ANY reason.

You make some interesting points. I'll address the last one first. The facts (as experrienced by myself and ENIGMA) have shown that the pledge is not voluntary. A person can refuse to say the pledge for any reason, and be punished for said reason. There is coercion, whether you have seen it yourself or not. Thus, the rights of children to be free of religious indoctrination have, indeed, been violated. You may opine otherwise, but the fact remains that said rights have been violated.

The other interesting point that you make is that you would divide Christians into Christian-Christians (perhaps "true Christians") and non-Christian-Christians (the mere pretenders). If this is so, then the (true) Christian majority is really a minority. It is the (true) Christians who fight most fiercely for keeping the phrase Under God in the Pledge. The pretenders often agree that the Pledge does represent an enforcement of religious doctrine. By this logic, it is tyranny of the Christian-Christian minority. As you say, you think it absolutely absurd, but then, you're not looking at it with the eyes of those who have been tyrannized. (Admittedly, it's minor tyranny, and nothing like being drowned as a witch simply because your grain had a mycorrhizal fungal infection, but it remains an imposition by one group upon others.)

Yes - you don't want your "atheism stifled." What would it take to "stifle" your atheism? It would take the imposition and enforcement of (unjust) obligations. But that's not the case here. This is what the Constitution is all about: protecting people's fundamental and civil rights from law-making bodies that have the ability to create obligations upon citizens.

It seems to me that the entire issue here is that the phrase Under God is expressly for the purpose of stifling atheism. It was phrased as something like "reasserting our faith," but this is just a euphemism. By forcing this upon impressionable children, at the ages when they are most impressionable, the intent is to give them exposure to God. Thus, they question whether there might really be a God, thereby stifling atheism.

Why would anyone want to stifle atheism? As I understand it, it's the same reason the same group (pretty much) wants creationism in the schools and wants evolution not to be true. The ID folks even go so far as to state their long-term goal of having creationism supplant evolution as the main scientific teaching (ie, stifle perceived atheism in science). This is pretty intense. The logic seems to be that it is the Bible, and only the Bible that gives us a moral code. Without the Bible to reign us in, we'd all behave like animals, and there'd be no morality. The Under God lobby thinks they are protecting the world (at least the US) from moral decay and depravity. It's very sad, really, that so many people seem to think that the Bible is so weak that it's moral teachings can be undermined by a mere scientific finding (evolution), or by the logic that the Bible was actually written by Man. What else can it be? If they believed the Bible were strong, then these minor issues wouldn't nullify its teachings.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

I hoped I had already made it clear. As far as the pledge itself is concerned, there is nothing [constitutionally] wrong with it. However, a mandatory imposition/enforcment by an authority figure is unconstitutional.

But, as ENIGMA and I have both stated, there actually is mandatory enforcement by authority figures. We have both experienced it. The enforcement specifically deals with the religious content of the Pledge, not with the patriotic content. This, plus the fact that young children are required to participate in this ritual before they are able to formulate accurate values of their own, indicates that the Pledge serves to inculcate in children's minds one religious view. This is definitely a matter for SCOTUS. It's unfortunate that they shirked their duty (wrongly, in my opinion) by pretending that a father has no right to bring a suit in support of his daughter.

Any mandatory enforcement whatsoever of the pledge with or without "under God" is unconstitutional. See I want to make it clear here that it's not the phrase that makes it unconstitutional, it's the unjust obligation. The SCOTUS is relevant when the issue deals with unjust obligations, as in the cases your talking about. BUT, their decision ought to be focused on the unjust obligation imposed by the teacher and NOT the content of the pledge.

And no, young children are not "required" by law to participate in this "ritual." I've already shared my state statute to prove this. Show me yours. The pledge is voluntary.

You make some interesting points. I'll address the last one first. The facts (as experrienced by myself and ENIGMA) have shown that the pledge is not voluntary. A person can refuse to say the pledge for any reason, and be punished for said reason. There is coercion, whether you have seen it yourself or not. Thus, the rights of children to be free of religious indoctrination have, indeed, been violated. You may opine otherwise, but the fact remains that said rights have been violated.

The problem resides with the teacher and NOT the pledge or the "law" regarding the pledge. The law says that the pledge IS voluntary and no person can be punished for not saying it. Go back to the MCA statute I posted. The pledge is not unconstitutional. A teacher who makes the pledge (with or without "under God") obligatory upon his students is being unconstitutional. Content is moot.

The other interesting point that you make is that you would divide Christians into Christian-Christians (perhaps "true Christians") and non-Christian-Christians (the mere pretenders). If this is so, then the (true) Christian majority is really a minority. It is the (true) Christians who fight most fiercely for keeping the phrase Under God in the Pledge. The pretenders often agree that the Pledge does represent an enforcement of religious doctrine. By this logic, it is tyranny of the Christian-Christian minority. As you say, you think it absolutely absurd, but then, you're not looking at it with the eyes of those who have been tyrannized. (Admittedly, it's minor tyranny, and nothing like being drowned as a witch simply because your grain had a mycorrhizal fungal infection, but it remains an imposition by one group upon others.)

That's not what I said, and that doesn't follow my logic. That is just burning a strawman.

I've already made the case that your rights aren't being violated via a non-obligatory pledge. A "tyranny" (if you would call it that) only exists in classrooms that ignore the "law" relating to the pledge. I won't argue with you on that! That kind of classroom policy that makes the pledge obligatory is unjust and unconstitutional. I'm not trying to defend that. I'm trying to show ya'll what ought to make a legitimate appeal to the Constitution and what appeals have no legitimate basis.

You completely misunderstood my comment on the label of a Christian. I believe it is impossible to determine who are Christians in quantitative research which is what produces the majority/minority results. I don't believe a survey exists that could accurately determine who is a Christian.

That said, I don't believe it is consistant with Christ's teachings to try to create/enforce laws based on Christian doctrine. I think the Roman Catholic Church's past history in Europe was an abomination. I prefaced at the outset of my participation in this thread that I am debating this issue on the basis of proper and meaningful way of interpreting the Constitution. I actually believe the DoI and the Constitution are predicated on CHRISTIAN teachings. I understand the purpose of these documents is to prevent the tyranny of the majority (through the government) upon a minority.

My argument shows that the pledge in and of itself is non-obligatory. Statutes regarding the pledge establish it as voluntary and state that no punishment can come from refusal to say it. Therefore no one can accuse the pledge or its statutes of being "tyrannical" or unconstitutional. One can make the case for isolated classroom policies made by "tyrannical" teachers, but one cannot go beyond that case-by-case basis because the pledge in and of itself is not unconstitutional.

It seems to me that the entire issue here is that the phrase Under God is expressly for the purpose of stifling atheism. It was phrased as something like "reasserting our faith," but this is just a euphemism. By forcing this upon impressionable children, at the ages when they are most impressionable, the intent is to give them exposure to God. Thus, they question whether there might really be a God, thereby stifling atheism.

First off, I believe that's ridiculous. Secondly, don't atheists want children to honestly question if there is a God? It seems like atheists are trying to censure God in as many public forums as they possibly can and justify it by say they're just "protecting their children." But isn't this teaching their children to be close-minded? Isn't the purpose of education to make our children aware of the plethora of worldviews of exist in this country, especially the prevailing worldveiw that God does exist?

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to censor the free exercise of "God." By censoring God, I mean make it obligatory upon public institutions to NOT make reference of God whether it be formal or informal settings. Whether it be in the form of a pledge, prayer, plaque or religious symbol. Atheists are trying to impose that unjust obligation through the SCOTUS. I think it's hypocritical to sit here and argue for one and not the other.

I believe all worldviews ought to have free exercise, freely express their beliefs, in a public institution (including schools) as long as the means by which the worldview is exercised is non-obligatory. This belief of mine is consistant with the Constitution.

Why would anyone want to stifle atheism? As I understand it, it's the same reason the same group (pretty much) wants creationism in the schools and wants evolution not to be true. The ID folks even go so far as to state their long-term goal of having creationism supplant evolution as the main scientific teaching (ie, stifle perceived atheism in science). This is pretty intense.

No doubt some creationists would like to see that. I wouldn't. I believe ID ought to be taught as a competing theory to macroevolution. Each are philosophical conclusions. Origin science should be taught separate from life science or biology. No one was there to observe the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life. The best we can do is create different theories based on the SAME evidence. Introducing competition to macroevolution is not "stifling" atheism. Unless atheism is an anti-intellectual, close-minded worldview, which from what I understand is not.

The logic seems to be that it is the Bible, and only the Bible that gives us a moral code. Without the Bible to reign us in, we'd all behave like animals, and there'd be no morality.

Funny, the Bible doesn't say that. Certainly without our moral faculties we would be like animals. Much of the natural law (morality) can be discovered through rational thinking as well as through God's Word.

The Under God lobby thinks they are protecting the world (at least the US) from moral decay and depravity.

I won't argue that many people do believe this. I personally do not because I believe we're already past that point and have been since original sin. That's why I believe my argument here is an important one to get out to the public. It makes no emotional appeal to morality. It makes no attack on worldviews that oppose Chrisitanity or religion. It simply manifests the legitimate litmus test of the Constitution.

It's very sad, really, that so many people seem to think that the Bible is so weak that it's moral teachings can be undermined by a mere scientific finding (evolution), or by the logic that the Bible was actually written by Man. What else can it be? If they believed the Bible were strong, then these minor issues wouldn't nullify its teachings.

I agree. Many people are ignorant to the issues and thus insecure if their beliefs are challenged. That stems from the rise in anti-intellectualism and certain worldviews that have become the status quo - in our public institutions AND our churches.

Scientific evidence has never undermined the Bible itself. It has admittedly undermined many interpretations of the Bible, but that's not a big deal. Certain scientism theories seek to undermine it, but that's not a big deal either. Philosophers have been doing that since before Christ walked the earth. It's important that we are able to distinguish between evidence and the interpretation of evidence. I believe in evolution to some extent. I don't make the same philosophical commitments naturalists do though.

[Jose]

Any mandatory enforcement whatsoever of the pledge with or without "under God" is unconstitutional. See I want to make it clear here that it's not the phrase that makes it unconstitutional, it's the unjust obligation.

The bottom line here is that we are talking about the same thing. I agree with you entirely that the law, as written, specifies that the pledge is voluntary. Therefore, the law per se is not in violation of the constitution. I accept your argument on this. On the other hand, the common practice--common interpretation of the law--does impose de facto obligation. It sounds like you agree on this point as well, that such obligaion is inappropriate. I've been discussing it from the viewpoint of the actual practice in many classrooms; you've been discussing it from the viewpoint of legal interpretation. I think we're both right...

This came up, of course, because there was an appeal of the de facto obligation, and it did reach the Supreme Court. This seems to indicate that the legal interpretation by various judges is that the issue is not entirely straightforward. The Supreme Court even agreed to hear the case, although they wiggled out of dealing with the issue on a technicality. If such an appeal comes up again, we'll see what happens then.

...don't atheists want children to honestly question if there is a God? It seems like atheists are trying to censure God in as many public forums as they possibly can and justify it by say they're just "protecting their children." But isn't this teaching their children to be close-minded? Isn't the purpose of education to make our children aware of the plethora of worldviews of exist in this country, especially the prevailing worldveiw that God does exist?

I can't speak for all atheists, who are a very diverse group. However, I would think that, in general, you are right that they want their children to question honestly whether there is a god. This is how my grandfather believed. He concluded that the only way to do so was never to expose children to religion until they are old enough to question honestly. He developed this view while raising his family in a particular city that has a particular religion that is wildly different than the one he was raised in, and he didn't want his children indoctrinated into that "foreign" religion. It is in this vein that I see the "under god" phrase of the Pledge: exposure of children to this religion before they are able to question honestly.

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to censor the free exercise of "God." By censoring God, I mean make it obligatory upon public institutions to NOT make reference of God whether it be formal or informal settings. Whether it be in the form of a pledge, prayer, plaque or religious symbol. Atheists are trying to impose that unjust obligation through the SCOTUS. I think it's hypocritical to sit here and argue for one and not the other.

I agree that censoring the free exercise of "God" is inappropriate. I disagree that this means that public institutions can carry out particular religious observances (pledge, prayer, plaque, etc) to the exclusion of others. To do so represents state sponsorship of one religion. Either all must be equally represented, or none must be. They must all be treated equally by the State. This is state sponsorship, which is not the same as an individual expressing his or her beliefs. The latter is a right we should protect vigorously.

The ID folks even go so far as to state their long-term goal of having creationism supplant evolution as the main scientific teaching (ie, stifle perceived atheism in science). This is pretty intense.

No doubt some creationists would like to see that. I wouldn't. I believe ID ought to be taught as a competing theory to macroevolution. Each are philosophical conclusions. Origin science should be taught separate from life science or biology.

I referred specifically to the Wedge document, which states exactly that. I interpret this to mean that the purpose of ID is to get creationism into the schools, and to supplant science. If this were simply an opinion, it wouldn't bother me. But, it has become a major political agenda that is taking over certain political parties that shall remain nameless, and is therefore something we should all be worried about. Do we want one particular religion's view taught as if it were science? I think not. We should either teach them all, or teach none, and stick with the science.

It is impossible to teach origin science separate from life science/biology. The origin of life is part of life science, by definition.

The logic seems to be that it is the Bible, and only the Bible that gives us a moral code. Without the Bible to reign us in, we'd all behave like animals, and there'd be no morality.

Funny, the Bible doesn't say that. Certainly without our moral faculties we would be like animals. Much of the natural law (morality) can be discovered through rational thinking as well as through God's Word.

I didn't think the Bible said that, either. I agree with you that rational thinking leads to the same morality. And yet...this seems to be how the thinking goes. It's not my thinking--I'm just trying to understand where it comes from. It seems to be the thinking that underlies the intense desire to show that evolution cannot be true, to get those ten commandment monuments into the state house, to keep "under God" in the pledge, etc. I find it quite fascinating.

Scientific evidence has never undermined the Bible itself. It has admittedly undermined many interpretations of the Bible, but that's not a big deal. Certain scientism theories seek to undermine it, but that's not a big deal either. Philosophers have been doing that since before Christ walked the earth. It's important that we are able to distinguish between evidence and the interpretation of evidence. I believe in evolution to some extent. I don't make the same philosophical commitments naturalists do though.

I feel much the same. The Bible shouldn't be challenged (or challegeable, if that's a word) by science. You'd think we could let science classes teach science, in the form of looking at the evidence, and discussing how to interpret that evidence. You wouldn't think we'd have to bring Biblical teachings into it.