On The Pledge Of Allegience

[JoeyKnothead]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

[East of Eden]

Demonstrations of belief are constitutional. What is not allowed, if only in my opinion, are government sanctioned displays. I offer my opinion as a reasonably and logically derived take on the issue. I do agree that East of Eden's position has validity, but consider it wrong, IMO.

Then as far as the Constitutionality issue, why don't we drop it as we disagree and nobody cares what we think anyway? That leaves us at what do the majority want, IMHO. I'm sure there are plenty of locales that would want no part of school prayer.

As it is an issue of who's take is "correct", I contend a sanctioned prayer is wrong because it can't be shown to work, and is known to be divisive.

What was divisive was the imposition by six men of a wrong interpretation of the Constitution (IMHO) that disregarded the opinions of the majority of Americans, many of whom would testify prayer definately does work.

How many times are you going to dodge the question of what constitutes a 'non-sectarian' prayer?

I already posted the 1962 non-sectarian prayer at issue, and a newspaper article discussing Obama's non-sectarian praryer. Funny the newspaper editors didn't anticipate the public having a problem with this term as you have.

I point out that I don't see East of Eden advocating for "hate" or "harm" or in any other way but as a theist who seeks to align the law to his religious beliefs, a not nefarious notion in and of itself.

Thank you. Is it only OK for atheists to try to align the law to their beliefs? What you are advocating is to exlude Christians (and I assume all other religions?) from the democratic process.

Again, lacking proper references I can only consider this based on hearsay. As such, I will withhold comments until the claim can be verified.

I ask again for a reference link that is specific to this woman, and her case. The previous link did not include the referenced video, at least not for my system, which works on nigh on all other websites.

Joey, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe try on another computer? I just went back on this thread and clicked on it and it came right up.

[micatala]

Demonstrations of belief are constitutional. What is not allowed, if only in my opinion, are government sanctioned displays. I offer my opinion as a reasonably and logically derived take on the issue. I do agree that East of Eden's position has validity, but consider it wrong, IMO.

Then as far as the Constitutionality issue, why don't we drop it as we disagree and nobody cares what we think anyway? That leaves us at what do the majority want, IMHO. I'm sure there are plenty of locales that would want no part of school prayer.

I have to step in and reiterate that the majority does not always get, and should not always get, what it wants, whether they want prayer or no prayer.

The rights elucidated in the constitution, including the first amendment rights, are there specifically in order to keep the government and the majority from inappropriately infringing on the basic rights of minorities.

As it is an issue of who's take is "correct", I contend a sanctioned prayer is wrong because it can't be shown to work, and is known to be divisive.

What was divisive was the imposition by six men of a wrong interpretation of the Constitution (IMHO) that disregarded the opinions of the majority of Americans, many of whom would testify prayer definately does work.

Obviously I differ from joey, being a theist. For me, the issue of whether prayer works or not is pretty irrelevant to the prayer in school debate.

How many times are you going to dodge the question of what constitutes a 'non-sectarian' prayer?

I already posted the 1962 non-sectarian prayer at issue, and a newspaper article discussing Obama's non-sectarian praryer. Funny the newspaper editors didn't anticipate the public having a problem with this term as you have.

I would agree the prayer previously posted was pretty neutral. However, this is in the context of people already believing in God. I can see that it would not be considered "non-sectarian" to an atheist or perhaps even to a person who believes in many Gods. Whether having the prayer be non-sectarian is sufficient to pass constitutional muster is again a constitutional interpretive question. I don't know that we can ever get around that issue, and the fact that the courts are the venue to determine such questions.

I point out that I don't see East of Eden advocating for "hate" or "harm" or in any other way but as a theist who seeks to align the law to his religious beliefs, a not nefarious notion in and of itself.

Thank you. Is it only OK for atheists to try to align the law to their beliefs? What you are advocating is to exlude Christians (and I assume all other religions?) from the democratic process.

I am not sure how you get to this conclusion. I don't see that prohibiting school prayer is excluding Christians from the democratic process or aligning the law to atheism.

In my view, a law which has as its essential or predominant purpose to further a religious view is unconstitutional. However, this does not mean that a law cannot align with a certain religious viewpoint. The key is whether the law has a legitimate secular purpose. Banning murder aligns with a Christian world view, but it is not the law of the land because of this alignment. The law exists for other reasons and the alignment is simply a by-product.

Some laws might, as a by product, align with an atheist's views and not a typical Christian world view. This is OK, as long as there is legitimate secular rationale for the law.

In my view, if the ONLY purpose of a law is to align with a particular groups views, be they Christian, atheist, Muslim, whatever, then the law is unconstitutional. Alignment that occurs as a by-product is OK, as long as the law passes constitutional muster. Groups are certainly free to advocate for laws that align with their views, but the courts often will, and should, strike down those laws if their only purpose is to further the groups views. Other citizens, even if they are minorities, are also free to oppose what they see as the unjust promotion of a particular view through the democratic process or the courts.

These processes are admittedly imperfect and sometimes take a long time. Witness the centuries it took for blacks to get even close to equal treatment under the law. However, it works pretty well most of the time.



As a final comment, I am still not seeing the harm done by not allowing officially sanctioned prayer in public schools. I do not see that this is an infringement on anyone's freedom of religion, given that individual prayer is allowed.

What is the problem???

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 10 Post 91:

Then as far as the Constitutionality issue, why don't we drop it as we disagree and nobody cares what we think anyway? That leaves us at what do the majority want, IMHO. I'm sure there are plenty of locales that would want no part of school prayer.

I consider the issue important, and debate here so observers can better understand the issues.

What was divisive was the imposition by six men of a wrong interpretation of the Constitution (IMHO) that disregarded the opinions of the majority of Americans, many of whom would testify prayer definately does work.

Yet you have still not offered any verifiable evidence that prayer works.

A majority of folks believing something says nothing about whether that something works.

I already posted the 1962 non-sectarian prayer at issue, and a newspaper article discussing Obama's non-sectarian praryer. Funny the newspaper editors didn't anticipate the public having a problem with this term as you have.

An example is not a definition.

Again I ask, how can a prayer be non-sectarian, given the many who don't wish the prayer for themselves?

Thank you. Is it only OK for atheists to try to align the law to their beliefs? What you are advocating is to exlude Christians (and I assume all other religions?) from the democratic process.

I seek to exclude Christians (or any religion) from having the government sanction prayer in schools, yes.

However, I do not seek to exclude Christians (or any other religion) from praying.

Joey, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe try on another computer? I just went back on this thread and clicked on it and it came right up.

I finally saw the video. Between my gross stupidity and my peculiar setup I was totally looking over it.

It is the one I'm aware of, and it is one-sided, and doesn't offer the arresting officer's view. It doesn't offer the full written complaint, or any other way of knowing exactly what that lady or the group did to get in trouble. It also seems they were eventually released, and it can be legally considered (I'm no lawyer) they were exonerated, or otherwise not guilty of any hate crimes.

[Kadmon]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

If You Take The Time And Read / Say The Pledge Of Allegience Your'll See It Has Nothing To Do With '' God '' It's All About The Republic !!!!!

[JoeyKnothead]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

If You Take The Time And Read / Say The Pledge Of Allegience Your'll See It Has Nothing To Do With '' God '' It's All About The Republic !!!!!

Then why bother inserting "under God"?

You kinda make my point. We are asked to pledge allegiance to "the Republic" as being "under God" without any understanding of who this "God" is.

[Kadmon]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

If You Take The Time And Read / Say The Pledge Of Allegience Your'll See It Has Nothing To Do With '' God '' It's All About The Republic !!!!!

Then why bother inserting "under God"?

You kinda make my point. We are asked to pledge allegiance to "the Republic" as being "under God" without any understanding of who this "God" is.

Are you asking who is '' God , Or the concept?

[JoeyKnothead]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

If You Take The Time And Read / Say The Pledge Of Allegience Your'll See It Has Nothing To Do With '' God '' It's All About The Republic !!!!!

Then why bother inserting "under God"?

You kinda make my point. We are asked to pledge allegiance to "the Republic" as being "under God" without any understanding of who this "God" is.

Are you asking who is '' God , Or the concept?

I'm saying the inclusion of "under God" in the PoA is a violation of the principle of separation of Church and State.

[Kadmon]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

If You Take The Time And Read / Say The Pledge Of Allegience Your'll See It Has Nothing To Do With '' God '' It's All About The Republic !!!!!

Then why bother inserting "under God"?

You kinda make my point. We are asked to pledge allegiance to "the Republic" as being "under God" without any understanding of who this "God" is.

Are you asking who is '' God , Or the concept?

I'm saying the inclusion of "under God" in the PoA is a violation of the principle of separation of Church and State.

Ohhhhhhhh I Don't Care One Or The Other .

[Artheos]

In my view, a law which has as its essential or predominant purpose to further a religious view is unconstitutional. However, this does not mean that a law cannot align with a certain religious viewpoint. The key is whether the law has a legitimate secular purpose.

Are you sure about the requirement for secular purpose, why wouldn't that reasoning that come up against the second portion of the establishment clause?

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.

[micatala]

In my view, a law which has as its essential or predominant purpose to further a religious view is unconstitutional. However, this does not mean that a law cannot align with a certain religious viewpoint. The key is whether the law has a legitimate secular purpose.

Are you sure about the requirement for secular purpose, why wouldn't that reasoning that come up against the second portion of the establishment clause?

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.

How is insisting that a law have a secular purpose preventing individuals' rights to free exercise of religion?

As long as the law does not prevent or infringe on religious practice, having a secular purpose is not unconstitutional.

We have laws against speeding to promote public safety. This is a secular purpose. Do speeding laws infringe on religious freedom?