|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
I totally agree with you. Why change the customs of something that this country was basically built upon.. is like changing the whole white house structure, because it does not fit modern times structures.. and it bothers the people that walk outside to watch such an old greek like structure..... I know the analogy is not quite the same, really.. but I hope you people know where Im getting at. Jeezz.. leave history and those customs by itself, just respect it, learn and live to respect... you can say the whole pledge and not say the word god.. how can it bother you much? |
Why change customs like Monarchy, then? If a custom is beneficial, then it could be justified with something a little stronger than "why change [it]," and if it isn't beneficial then it is useless and ought to be replaced.
Break, break the old tablets! |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by djsubsonik
i find it amazing how some1 can try to take out something our country was founded on.. |
Looks like someone doesn't know their history. Under god was added in the 1950s, the original pledge didn't have any religions references in it, period.
| quote: | | when the pilgrims came here in the 1600s they came for religious freedom and guess what, they were Christians .. they believed in God... and so did every single on of the founding fathers... |
Yes, they believed in god, but there were numerous deists. Thomas Paine is a prime example of this, he was vehemently opposed to Christianity, hell - he even wrote a book on it.
Further to that - if you'd ever read your own constitution you'd realizer that there is strict separation of church and state enforced. I don't believe in god, but that doesn't mean I yearn for the day when every school will coerce students into saying a pledge that affirms the non-existence of god. Government should remain neutral on all matters religious.
| quote: | | so i cant stand that people have went to the extent to separate church and state |
They're doing that because the founding fathers wrote it into the constitution.
| quote: | | and now are trying to modify our pledge of allegiance... |
Once again, the original pledge did not contain 'under god'. It was added in the 1950s.
| quote: | | the nation was founded by people who believed in God.. suck it up |
Again, utterly irrelevant. The founding fathers believed in god (although not the same gods as each other), but unfortunately for you - they realized that the government and religion should be kept strictly separate. They didn't try and push their 'god belief' onto others.
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
I totally agree with you. Why change the customs of something that this country was basically built upon.. |
Because the country wasn't built on something added in the 1950s? |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Seems like you were less exposed to religion than I was at school then. At kindergarten here we were forced (yes forced - bloody Lutherans!) to say prayers pretty much before we did anything. Neither of my parents are religious, so I didn't even know what this "God" was meant to be when they asked me to lead in prayer. :-/
At primary school here they'd always let proselytisers from the local church in to speak to us. There's something very wrong about taking a couple hours out of the weekly syllabus to let idiots indoctrinate 5 and 6 year olds with their very particular fire and brimstone religion (and that's how it was - none of this liberal Christian crap - it was fear and threats all the way. One of my friends in another class was traumatised when this weird, weird woman told him that he was going to burn in hell because he didn't pray at night. His parents understandably complained though, and she never came back).
When I lived in England we'd have to pray at the start and the end of every school day and sing hymns at assembly at the primary school there. Same deal as with Australia as well: they had no problem with letting protestant nut-jobs in to indoctrinate the children on school time (wonder if they'd let an atheist - or a Muslim - go in to do the same thing?). These are all state-schools I'm talking about as well, btw. So much for separation between church and state, huh? :rolleyes:
And well, I went to an Anglican high-school so lots of hymns and prayers there as well understandably. Anglicanism is a pretty liberal facet of Christianity, so I never had any specific problems there (except when the esteemed reverend dragged me up during Religious Education class - more accurately described as Christian Apologetics class - and tried to prove that atheists don't exist after I raised an objection to something he said). No-one I knew at the school was in any way religious though, so no-one took any of it particularly seriously.
So from the sounds of it, there's a bigger overlap between religion and state schools in Australia and England (from my experiences anyway) than Texas from what you've described. That's a little disconcerting... :-/ |
Hehe, I find that rather amusing since most foreigners seem to think we are all radical Fundies or something, though Bush is trying his best to return creationism, abstinence only sex ed, forced prayer, etc. to the public schools.
The main problem with this, of course, is that not all of us share the same belief systems.
Yes, the only time I can remember that I was more or less indoctrinated by an instructor was when we were asked to pray in kindergarten. That was during the Gulf War, so it must have been around 1991.
I went to public school in a more pluralistic, open city, and I often wonder how it would have been different had I gone to public school in a smaller town. :)
There are Christian and other faith organizations on campus in public schools, such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, but students lead them and attendance is completely voluntary. This is how it should be.
I forgot to mention, after the high school graduation ceremony there was a student-led prayer service, of which the name escapes me at this time.
It's completely voluntary though, and one is not forced to attend.
Voluntary, student-led faith organizations and events are vastly superior to indoctrination by an instructor.
Religious indoctrination by public school instructors has been unconstitutional in the US since at least the 1960s, though I'm not sure about the legality of handing out Bibles on school grounds (outside the schools).
It doesn't really harm anyone, so I see no problem with it.
Overall, everything is as it should be, and as long as Bush does not appoint, and the Senate confirms, two more like-minded judges beyond the Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist minority to the SC, freedom of religion will be protected.
Thomas' dissent in the pledge case seems to indicate to me he'd be fine with individual states adopting their own state religion(s). Then again, he’s also fine with trashing the Voting Rights Act (granting people of color the right to vote), despite the fact that he grew up Black in the South during the time of Jim Crow. My father, a lawyer, calls Thomas the “first anti-Black, Black justice.”
I'd bet the farm he and Scalia will also rule that the Bush Administration has the right to lock up American citizens without right to trial and attorney in the Padilla case:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5175105/sit...k/site/newsweek
Here is some case history for church/state separation:
| quote: |
"The [First] Amendment's purpose... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." " U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States (1879)
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.
1954: The Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling, Tudor v. Board of Education against the distribution of Bibles by outside groups like the Gideons.
1960: Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued the Baltimore MD school system on behalf of her son William J Murray, because he was being forced to participate in prayer in schools.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.
1962: The Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, disallowed a government-composed, nondenominational "Regents" prayer which was recited by students .
1963: In a number of major decisions (Murray v. Curlett; Abington Township School district v. Schempp) mandatory Bible verse recitation was ruled unconstitutional.
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state’s attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave. , Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City’s ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion. |
|
|
|
| DaveSZ |
My own experience in public school, and meeting many people with diverse beliefs, has convinced me that people like Bush who wish to tear down the wall between church/state are in the wrong.
This case was the last major church/state separation case that I remember made headlines (before the pledge case):
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/s...choolprayer.01/
| quote: |
Supreme Court bars student-led prayer at high school football games
By Raju Chebium
CNN Interactive Correspondent
June 19, 2000
Web posted at: 1:10 p.m. EST (1710 GMT)
The central question was whether allowing prayer violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which states that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
"We recognize the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions' significance," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
"But such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First Amendment," he added.
The school district policy
Two students and their mothers filed suit in 1995 and were joined by the American Civil Liberties Union. The students, one Mormon and one Catholic, and their mothers were not named in court papers.
The 4,000-student southern Texas school district, until 1995, had a policy in which students elected student council chaplains to deliver prayers over the public address system before the start of high school football games.
While the lower courts were considering the legal challenge, the school district adopted a new policy under which student-led prayer was permitted but not mandated. Students were asked to vote on whether to allow prayer and to vote again to select the person to deliver them.
A lower court retooled that policy to allow only non-sectarian, non-proselytizing prayer. An appeals court found the modified policy constitutionally invalid. The nation's highest court agreed with the appeals court Monday.
Details of the majority ruling
The high court rejected the argument that the pre-football prayer was an example of "private speech" because the students, not school officials, decided the prayer matter.
But Stevens wrote that the students were able to deliver only religious messages deemed "appropriate" by the school district. That meant, he wrote, "that minority candidates will never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced.
"Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship," he wrote.
The other justices in the majority were Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
The dissent
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing a strongly-worded dissenting opinion, accused the majority of "distorting existing precedent" to rule that the policy violated the First Amendment, which gives the freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court says prayer led by student representatives during public school events are "not properly characterized as private speech"
"But even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court's opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause," Rehnquist wrote, noting that the nation's first president, George Washington, himself had called for a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer."
Rehnquist also pointed out that the Santa Fe policy allowed students to discuss purely secular topics, not just prayer, though he acknowledged prayer would be the topic of choice nine times out of 10. He said the choice of topics and speakers was to be made by the students, not the school.
"The students may have chosen a speaker according to wholly secular criteria -- like good public speaking skills or social popularity -- and the student speaker may have chosen, on her own accord, to deliver a religious message. Such an application of the policy would likely pass constitutional muster," he wrote.
Joining him in the dissent were justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs and the school district were not immediately available for comment on the decision.
Previous prayer cases
School prayer opponents protest pre-game prayer in Texas
The current Supreme Court has been steadfast in its objection to large prayer ceremonies in government-funded schools.
In the 1992 Lee v. Weisman case, the court said no to a rabbi's prayer at a public middle school.
The next year, the Supreme Court refused to hear the Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School District case, in which the lower court allowed "non-sectarian, non-proselytizing, student-initiated, student-led" prayers at graduation ceremonies.
The Santa Fe case was filed to challenge both the Supreme Court's decision to reject the Jones case and to void the Santa Fe district's policy.
In 1963, the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools.
The case is Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe.
|
|
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by djsubsonik
when the pilgrims came here in the 1600s they came for religious freedom
so i cant stand that people have went to the extent to separate church and state,
|
^^
How do you reconcile these two statements in the same breath?
That they knew the perils of religious persecution is the reason why you and I are free to believe as we wish in this country.
I don't know what is so hard to understand about that, but clearly our president doesn't understand it either.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/d...ry/bar1796t.htm
| quote: |
The Barbary Treaties :
Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796
ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
|
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl...er_tripoli.html
| quote: |
President Adams signed the treaty and proclaimed it to the nation on 10 June 1797. His statement on it was a bit unusual:
"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof." |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Looks like someone doesn't know their history. Under god was added in the 1950s, the original pledge didn't have any religions references in it, period.
Yes, they believed in god, but there were numerous deists. Thomas Paine is a prime example of this, he was vehemently opposed to Christianity, hell - he even wrote a book on it.
Further to that - if you'd ever read your own constitution you'd realizer that there is strict separation of church and state enforced. I don't believe in god, but that doesn't mean I yearn for the day when every school will coerce students into saying a pledge that affirms the non-existence of god. Government should remain neutral on all matters religious.
They're doing that because the founding fathers wrote it into the constitution.
Once again, the original pledge did not contain 'under god'. It was added in the 1950s.
Again, utterly irrelevant. The founding fathers believed in god (although not the same gods as each other), but unfortunately for you - they realized that the government and religion should be kept strictly separate. They didn't try and push their 'god belief' onto others.
|
I think it's more accurate to say that our Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as sanctioning church/state separation, but the court has used the guidance and wisdom of the Founding Fathers as their methodology.
:);)
http://atheism.about.com/library/FA...sep_danbury.htm
| quote: |
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
Jefferson
|
|
|
|
| DaveSZ |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...004Jun14_2.html
| quote: |
Ruling in favor of Newdow last year, the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit cited a 1992 decision by the Supreme Court that said a rabbi's nonsectarian prayer at a public high school graduation violated the First Amendment clause that prohibits the establishment of an official religion -- because nonreligious students might feel psychological pressure to join in, even if not formally required to do so.
Though public school students have long been free to remain silent during the recitation of the pledge, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that since Newdow's daughter in elementary school had to choose between saying "under God" or risking ostracism by skipping it, his right as a father to instruct her in religious matters without state interference was violated.
Even some conservative legal analysts called the 9th Circuit's ruling a plausible reading of the Supreme Court's precedents. Indeed, in his concurring opinion yesterday, Thomas said that the 1992 ruling "would require us to strike down the pledge policy," which is why, he said, the 1992 precedent should be overruled.
Still, the 9th Circuit decision sparked a political uproar, as the ruling was denounced by the president and nearly the entire membership of Congress. All 50 state governments, the National Education Association and the National School Boards Association also weighed in at the court in favor of the existing pledge.
An April Gallup poll showed that 91 percent of the public wanted the pledge to remain as it is, while 8 percent wanted to see "under God" expunged.
Thus, the court was under intense pressure to uphold the pledge, but a satisfactory legal argument for doing so was not readily apparent.
Lawyers for both the Elk Grove schools and the Bush administration urged the justices to find that "under God" was not a religious affirmation, but, as the administration's brief put it, a simple acknowledgement of "the role that faith in God has played in the formation, political foundation, and continuing development of this Country."
But in the end, only Rehnquist and O'Connor adopted such an interpretation, in concurring opinions that referred to Newdow's suit as a bid for a "heckler's veto" over a widely accepted patriotic exercise.
|
|
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| It's funny that in America many people would like to see strong integration between the state and fundamentalist branches of the church, yet the state and religion are more seperated than they are in Europe where noone really cares about religion anymore. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Wait a tick - our country was founded in the 1950's? It was founded in rebellion against godless Communism?
Goodness, we all learn something new every day, don't we? |
|
|
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
tranceaddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate
|
