BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2

Subject: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 06:53 PM

The old thread had reached 100 posts. Please continue discussions in this thread.

Part One

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 07:06 PM

Mrzzy said the problem is terrorists perceive us as Christians. I think it would be closer to the truth to say that those terrorists who see themselves as engaging in jihad against us and for the cause of Allah (God) see us as not so much Christians, as Satanists. Remember the Ayatollah Khomeini's characterization of the United States as "the Great Satan". Now, it's true that "Satan" doesn't mean the same sort of thing for most Muslims that it does for many Christians... but still...

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Jim Krause
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 07:17 PM

I have heard devout Muslims disavow any link between the various terrorists and Islam. Quite frankly, I found that somewhat comforting.
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 07:38 PM

Well, one could change "under God" to "under Bush", and revise it as new elections demand.

Reminds me of the 50s campaign to change "Boulder Dam" back to "Hoover Dam" (where it had started out until the early thirties.) Obvious solution was to change the only ex-living (at that time) President's name to Herbert Boulder.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 07:54 PM

LOL, Dick, I like it!

This certainly has given tham all something to huff and puff about; what a bunch of twits! Just saw a lot of indignant posturing on the news. Scary how sure they all are that we are all Christians. Psychos have called the dad who brought the suit and threatened to kill him and his daughter; he's had to put her in hiding. Oh, yeah, land of the free and the brave. What a bunch of sick assholes. And, now they've even intimidated the judge into putting his own decision on hold!

They've won what could be a very disturbing victory, though, in winning school vouchers for religious school, today, via the Supreme Court. Doesn't look as though the Shrub has to find any new judges. Today, I feel even more alienated from my country than ever...being a non-Christian. The religious far right set out an agenda almost 30 years ago and they are reaching the pinnacle of their plan, having reached into the highest office of the land. Sad day for America.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: CapriUni
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 08:57 PM

"One Nation, under Bush"? 'Cuse me, but when I read that, I couldn't help thinking of that children's classic song:

On top of spaghetti, all covered with cheese,
I lost my poor meatball when somebody sneezed.
It rolled off the table, and under a bush,
And then my poor meatball was nothing but mush!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 09:23 PM

My, my, it's really rolling isn't it?

Axman664 - You asked me "Little Hawk, can a country be "one nation…indivisible," and still be comprised of vastly different parts and ideas ("diversity")? How would this differ from our nation?

Yes, you are quite correct. A nation can be one nation and still be comprised of vastly different parts and ideas. Such is often, if not usually, the case with sovereign nations. It is certainly true of the USA and Canada both.

My main point was that to stand up and pledge that your country is "indivisible" is the sort of bravado that people engage in precisely because they are afraid it may be divided, and they are afraid because they know perfectly well that it is, in fact...divisible.

To teach children to say it's "indivisible" is intended to plant an idea in their minds that may later prove useful when you send them out as young adults to kill and die on some battlefield. That is the intention of the phrase. I am suspicious of such intentions...but from the point of military preparedness I can understand why countries do this sort of thing...specially if they expect to be fighting wars at fairly frequent intervals.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 09:27 PM

Naemanson - You said, satirically: "I am offended and I want that offense to go away! I am offended so YOU have to change your ways. It matters not if the resolution to my problem offends you."

YES!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! THAT IS EXACTLY MY OBJECTION TO THIS WHOLE SILLY BUSINESS...and you expressed it in a mere 32 words! Bravo! My hat's off to you!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 09:44 PM

I would venture to guess that the word "indivisable" was put in when it was originally written, about 25 years after the American Civil War, when we had lost hundreds of thousands of people, on both sides, keeping it so.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 09:46 PM

As I'm fond of saying: People will die for an idea providing that idea isn't quite clear to them.

The thread about "The Flag" got me to look up this poem by Edgar Lee Masters----from his Spoon River Anthology :

HARRY WILMANS

I was just turned twenty-one,
And Henry Phipps, the Sunday-school superintendant,
Made a speech in Bindle's Opera House.
"The honor of the flag must be upheld," he said,
"Whether it be assailed by a barbarous trib eof Tagalogs
Or the greatest power in Europe."
And we cheered and cheered the speech and the flag he waved
As he spoke.
And I went to the war in spite of my father,
And followed the flag until I saw it raised
By our camp in a rice field near Manila.
And all of us cheered and cheered it.
But there were flies and poisonous things;
And there was the deadly water,
And the cruel heat,
And the sickening, putrid food;
And the smaell of the trench just back of the tents
Where the soldiers went to empty themselves;
And there were the whores who followed us full of syphyllis;
And beastly acts,
With bullying, hatred, degradation among us,
And days of loathing and nights of fear
To the hour of the charge through the steaming swamp,
Following the flag,
Till I fell shot through the guts with a scream.
Now there's a flag over me in Spoon River !
A flag ! A flag !----------------------------------------------------------

Mudcatters,
I only mentioned the Jehovah's Wtnesses in the first/other thread on this because I know they will not pledge to the flag. This has been a topic for discussion many times in my family. I agree with their stand on this although I do think they abstain for all the wrong reasons. And then I part company with all of their other dogmas.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 09:50 PM

Has anyone given any thought to absolute Godlessness of Bush's administration. No matter where you look, it stinks of money and payoffs. And here he is out there claiming to be a Christain? Hah! If the US was "under God" it would be a Hell (jus funnin') of a lot better off. Problem is that God is money in the minds of the hethens who have seized our country in the name of God. And worse than that, there are a lot of so called Christains who belive the company line... Jesus, wheather prophet or Son of God or neither, would puke at the sight of the antihuman policies of George Bush, Jr.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 09:50 PM

By the way, the REAL god that reigns in America is MONEY. Money and business. Advertising. Marketing. Gross national product and military supremacy. The pursuit of money for the sake of money and for the sake of wordly power IS the dominant national religion of America!!!

That's the truth, people. Deal with it. It is that for which many Muslims hate you...not your democracy or your Christian traditions. Muslims revere Christ as a true prophet of God! Ask them. They do. The Old and New Testaments are among their holiest books, and are second in influence only to the Koran, which came at the founding of their religion by Mohammed's teachings.

Fussing about traditional religions and the use of the word "God" in this or that document at this point in history is like fussing about your malfunctioning barbecue while a forest fire engulfs your property from all sides.

In fact, I think that may be one reason why these things get blown up so big...they distract people from issues that really matter and keep them busy fighting with each other uselessly instead of looking at the big picture. It's pitiable.

Why not change the slogan on your money to "Money doesn't talk, it swears" (thanks to Bob Dylan for that)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 09:53 PM

Yes, the Witnesses have won many court cases saying that they are perfectly within their rights not to pledge to the flag or not to sing tha national anthems of the country or anything else they pretty much choose to not do/ignore---usually because they think it is somehow pagan to do so.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 09:55 PM

Little Hawk: Jinx, free Coke...

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 10:01 PM

From SatireWire.com:

ONE NATION, (SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE). Pretty well worked out.

BTW did anybody notice this from CNN's Kate Snow yesterday?

"The National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC), which coordinates Republican congressional campaign efforts, was set to send a memo to every Republican member of Congress and those running for Congress Wednesday afternoon.

"The memo will urge Republicans to contact their local school boards and tell them to "nullify this decision" and urge them to allow the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited as it is in classrooms tomorrow morning, according to a spokesman for the NRCC, Steve Schmidt."

I find the idea that members of Congress should encourage school boards to "nullify" court rulings somewhere between hilarious and unsettling. That it is the Republicans encouraging this odd form of civil disobedience (or misplacement of authority) I find somewhere on the continuum between comforting and scary. The whole thing has me feeling a little queasy in a sort of subliminally schizophrenic way.

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 10:19 PM

Bobert - LOL! I'm not quite sure what you mean, but you made me laugh...

Oh, wait, I see...sychronicity at work again. Yep. "The love of money is the root of all evil".

Artbrooks - Yep. I figure you're right about that. That's probably just what they had in mind, which is quite understandable in the historical context.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 10:30 PM

Second the general thrust of Little Hawk's last post (not endorsing everything he's said on this) and Bobert's. It is not necessarily unreasonable for people who see things in black and white to see the US as black, not white. And of course our whole cult of nationalism (a worldwide phenomenon) makes it relatively easy to see "Americans" or "Muslims" or whatever where we all need to see human beings.

Jim Krause, most devout Muslims are opposed to terrorism and see it as a travesty of Islamic principles. However, more of them feel the other way than was true twenty, or fifty, years ago. This is the result of the general spread of fundamentalism (a phenomenon affecting all of the world's major religions) coupled with the specific experiences of Islamic peoples in the aftermath of imperial colonialism. For an accessible, informed, concise introduction to the issues involved I recommend Karen Armstrong's Islam: A Short History, in the Modern Library Chronicles series (especially from about p. 141 on, including the section on "Fundamentalism"). Another interesting, thought-provoking article on the subject is This Is a Religious War (written after 9/11, unlike the Armstrong book. Neither of these should be swallowed as if it were directly dictated by an Angel of Allah, but both contain perspectives and information frequently not possessed by "ordinary Americans" (or "ordinary Muslims")...

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 11:11 PM

This is a pledge chanted by children? Every day???

But it gets worse. According to JTT there was a time in the recent past when it would be recited while standing with hand clasped to heart. Someone else even claims to remember the ritual being accompanied by a fascist-style salute!

If this sort of thing was parroted by kids in North Korea (and no doubt it is) I expect DougR and Banjer would be quick to put a name to it. Brainwashing.

Is it too much to hope that the court ruling and the WorldCom fiasco, between them, spell the beginning of the end for Christian capitalism? As for those comments from Bush.... Well for once I'm speechless.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 11:36 PM

I said in part one this was gonna be BIG..(not sane or logical or orderly...just BIG!..*grin*)

Knee jerk reactions from those we expected it from, and political ass-covering from some I didn't expect it from...

It is fascinating to read reactions from other countries where they can't believe we had such an oath to begin with!

Well, we do, and some of us are embarrassed....(just as some of you from other lands are occasionally embarrassed by strangeness in YOUR socities..)..it will all blow over in awhile, and the sheep will continue reciting that pledge as if it really meant something....and the rest will continue ignoring it..but the issue will have been raised, and more folks will be thinking about it...and that's not such a bad thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: toadfrog
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 11:36 PM

Basically, one point has been missed. And that is, aside from whether issues like the Pledge "divide" us, I don't like the decision because it stirs up a lot of controversy that's not needed. There are a lot of real substantial problems that have to be dealt with, and stirring up the religious crazies does not help. Note that not only Bush, but people like Diane Feinstein and Dick Gebhardt feel compelled to weigh in on the side of "under God."

In other words, if one is a "progressive" or liberal or whatever, and wants substantial progress, on this earth, toward a better world, does it make any practical sense to antagonize one's natural friends who are Black or Hispanic or southern white and also gung ho about God? When the issue is purely symbolic?

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 11:53 PM

Toadfrog...I have in my head a half-remembered quote something to the effect that "it's better to stir up a controversy without deciding it, than to decide it without stirring it up"

the latter seems to be the preferred method among many...but I, and many others, do not agree...these issues MUST be raised & debated, even when it is awkward and when no easy solution is obvious. Ask yourself who YOU would designate to decide which ones were 'too sensitive'...and if some of our 'friends' are antagonized by public debate over this, we might well ask how good friends they are.

Subject: RE: BS: US ...pledge of allegiance ruled out!
From: GUEST,Dewey
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:00 AM

I figured there would be a lot of Anti-American, Dis-illsioned Old Hippie Types posting here, Folk song sites seem to attract these.

You folks are in the minority, because decent American's know that the Under God is NOT A PRAYER, it is a proclamation that the country believes in a higher power and the RULE OF LAW! This is this God the Republic is referring to. So try not to get so bent out of Shape over nothing. Should we all start praying to Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed by Name than I would agree you have a case.

Godless Countries like Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia were without laws. They felt they had to answer to no one but themselves. Godless Country are horribly becasue they didn't have ANY GOD thus no rules or anything else to answer for!

SOme Godless Countries COME TO MIND STALIN'S RUSSIA, HITLER'S GERMANY! WERE THEY VERY NICE PLACES TO LIVE??

Putin's Russia has now included the phrase (one nation under God in ITS flag) After years of Godlessness. Stalin didn't believe in GOd. Neither Didn't Hitler. Thus those BAD BOYS had nothing and NO ONE to answer to! We in AMERICA DO! This is why we are ONE NATION (ALL OF US) UNDER GOD!! (RULES, LAWS ETHICS AND A HIGHER POWER)

GOD HELP US IF WE SHOULD EVER LOSE THAT CONSCIENCE!

Being good and decent and Simply mentioning the G word can hardly be considered established religion.

YOu people that hate the flag, pledging to it, supporting the government it represents need to leave this oppressive country and live in some other TRUELY TRUELY GODLESS PLACE! May I Suggest RED CHINA! AND BON VOYAGE!!!!!

I WISH YOU LUCK!!!

Dewey

ANYONE GOT THE RED SKELETON SKIT ON THE PLEDGE OF ALLIGIENCE> WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT POSTED HERE!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:22 AM

I have followed this thread hoping to see a ray of light, but most of the replies are very predictable, sad to say. The conservatives are outraged and the liberals are very understanding of the "don't force your religion on me" line. This issue is not a whole lot different for me than the flagburning, rights to abortion, gun control, and so on issues. Let me explain.

First off, I will tell you that I am a very patriotic liberal. No need to get into the pedigree, but I have proven my love for my country on enough occasions to not have it questioned. But I am the kind of person, a liberal, who believes that the best testament to my love of my land is to continually question and examine its actions/motives/results to see if we are truly on the journey to a better and more caring democratic republic. I never want things to be like they used to be. I want the future to hold on to the best of what is right in our society, and constantly look for ways to expand to as many people as possible, the "American Dream". Now some of you folks think that that dream is two cars, a white picket fence, 2.5 kids, a Martin, Taylor, Appollonia, Collings, and a Larivee on the wall, etc. To me, that dream is for a place where all folks can walk around and not feel strange because of being different. Where we understand that having a different color of skin, gender, belief systems, etc. is what makes us strong, and where it doesn't exclude folks from living a good life. Where all children are valued and nurtured and not made to feel that being different is bad.

Just like in the other issues that I mentioned in the first para, this whole issue is a red herring. Patriotism isn't saying the pledge of allegiance. It is acting on your allegiance. Patriotism isn't nurtured in the schools. It is a product of parents who take the time to teach their kids the wonder of this place we inhabit and the imperfect beauty of the system we have created. It is a product of acknowledging to these precious pieces of clay our mistakes, such as slavery and racial prejudice, sexism, ageism, unfair labor and environmental laws, and show them how the wonder of advocacy and representative democracy can change this land and this world for the better. It is about listening to the wisdom of our wee ones, as we struggle with solutions. Will we be a better and more perfect union because our children recite the pledge until they are old enough to make their own choices, or will we continue the unending quest for perfection by teaching them our values in our homes.

From a pure constitutional standpoint, it seems to me the court made the right decision. Children who don't come from families that don't buy into the "under God" portion shouldn't have to be made to feel that something is wrong with them. From a political standpoint, I am disgusted by the number of politicians that are jumping on this for purely political reasons. Mind you, many of them are acting out of deeply held beliefs, but far too many are simply using it for a political football. From a common sense standpoint, I want my child to understand what being patriotic really means. It is about having values, and caring enough about this country and all countries to always be trying to make a positive difference. Teach your children well, and ignore the vultures.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: toadfrog
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 01:07 AM

Bill D. Stirring phrases, those! I heard lots of phrases like that back in the sixties. They got us 8 years of Ronald Reagan as President. I'd as soon not see another such 8 years. This old world might not survive it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 01:37 AM

Speaking of Godless Countries, seems to me I recall that in the early fifties Albania had a bright idea. It adopted a law that (a) declared Albania "the first completely atheistic country in the history of the world" and (b) ordered that all towns of 5,000 or more population erect "a statue to the god, J. Stalin". I believe this was actually a year or two after the death of that god (though I think it was before his heirs announced his clay feet). I have read this story several places over the years, but have never actually seen what I would consider respectable documentation (and my Albanian is limited enough I probably never will).

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 01:56 AM

Dewey,

Hitler's Germany was not a Godless country (in the sense of atheistic). Hitler was a mystical Christian who believed that the rise of the Aryan people was ordained by God. Plenty of brutal muders have been committed in God's name and in Christ's, and an invocation of those names is no guarantee of goodness, as you well know.

I think many would argue that invoking the name God, in the singular, in tax-funded governmant contexts, is establishing religion, at least establishing that monotheism is the norm. Hindus do not see themselves as being under God, and neither do Shinto practitioners, etc. To include language that treats one person's religious belief as the norm, and another's as anomalous, is precisely what the separation of church and state is meant to avoid. Once again: If you want to say "Under God" in private, nobody gives a damn. But using tax dollars to spread the idea that Christianity is one of the relgions that the government agrees with while hinduism is not, that's a problem!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Dewey
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 02:02 AM

In 8 years he (RONALD REAGAN) also defeated the USSR! THE USSR's Global Terrorist Alliance in the Middle East. Brought Democracy to Eastern Europe! Dismantled the USSR's NUCLEAR ARSENAL.

A fairly peaceful and successful 8 years if you ask me!

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 02:03 AM

Actually, lots of Hindus are monotheists, both the higher-class intellectual types, Vedanta and such, and the lowbrow devotees of Krishna or whoever. And while Shinto is certainly not monotheism, most Shinto practitioners I've known have been extremely dedicated syncretists who have no difficulty being animists and atheistic Buddhists and theistic Buddhists and so on all at once. When I lived in Japan as a kid, most of the neighbor kids' parents were Fuji Bank employees who voted Communist and sent their kids to (Christian) Sunday School. Of course the whole neighborhood (including us Baptists) took part in all the Shinto and Buddhist holidays and festivals. And felt no incongruity let alone blasphemy in doing so.

Liland
who has never got over the experience

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 02:06 AM

Calm down, Dewey, there's no need to shout (indeed, on this sort of topic it might be said there is a need not to shout).

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Dewey
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 02:24 AM

Right! Hitler was a Mystical Christian who ordered the BURNING OF ALL BIBLES.

I REAL GODLY MAN OF THAT HITLER!! A PURE SAINT!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Dewey
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 02:32 AM

Who said I was shouting I was EMPHASIZING. You Can't shout from one computer to the other: a computer doesn't have ears.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Jon Bartlett
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 02:38 AM

He did nothing of the kind, Dewey.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Dewey
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 02:57 AM

There may have not been a physical "ordering" but plenty of Bibles were burned, along with other literature that the state felt threatened by. I will retract the word "ordered" Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 05:12 AM

Since the topic seems to have widened well beyond the pledge itself, what about "The Star-spangled Banner"?

My son, 22 year-old and having lived in the UK all his life, had a holiday in New York a few weeks ago and went to a Blink 182 concert in New Jersey. He was absolutely astonished by the way all these young followers of a rock band stood up to sing the SSB in a very formal and solumn way before a rock concert. It was probably the most "foreign" thing in his whole time in the US.

The differences between the US and Europe on these public displays of allegiance are much greater than many of us appreciate.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: CapriUni
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 06:07 AM

Dewey -- just a note of information. In Internet forums and chats, etc. Writing in all caps is code for shouting... it's just as annoying on the eyes as shouting is to the ears.

If you want to emphesize certain phrases, and don't want to bother with hmtl code, I suggest putting an asterisk before and after the phrase, *like this*.

Just a thought...

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 06:17 AM

The "Don't force your religion on me" argument is fine, as long as it is coupled with the line "and then I won't force my religion, or lack of it, on others!"
This is called 'tolerance', and can be difficult to learn, and sometimes is contrary to personal beliefs (evangelicals etc.,)

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 06:48 AM

"The main weapon that terrorists use against the West is not bombs or guns, but moral obfuscation."

Netanyahu

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 06:53 AM

Fine thoughts, Mick and Bill. As for the last post, (Nigel's) tolerance is precisely what the separation of church and state is supposed to be about. Everyone is free to decide his or her private beliefs or lack of them, to choose a church/creed etc, without the state peddling any one line. What's wrong with that? And what's wrong with a court endorsing that?

OF course the freedom usually gets no farther than the freedom of parents to indoctrinate their kids with their own beliefs. Even in the developed world, with vastly greater access to information than ever before, children overwhelminglyl adopt the beliefs of their parents. Sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 07:26 AM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof...." - First Amendment (Bill of Rights), US Constitution

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 09:33 AM

School vouchers are far more of a danger to the separation of church and state, and the public good in America than any "under God" stuff. Wonder which is getting the biggest press?

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 10:07 AM

Being good and decent and Simply mentioning the G word can hardly be considered established religion. Oh, yes, it can - it establishes that monotheism is the only allowed environment. Do we want people from other countries with polytheistic religions to have to abandon their beliefs to become Americans? Doesn't that rankle horribly? Just because it doesn't distinguish *amongst* the monotheists doesn't mean it isn't *establishing* monotheism. Not to mention the pagans and wiccans and atheists, all of whom should have equal rights, per the rest of the pledge.

How many folks heard the NPR thing on the original pledge, which was specifically intended NOT to be US-patriotic, but universally so?

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 10:43 AM

"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about... The Bible...is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God and spiritual nature and needs of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation. America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture." - President Woodrow Wilson

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Jim Krause
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 11:21 AM

Kat said "The religious far right set out an agenda almost 30 years ago and they are reaching the pinnacle of their plan, having reached into the highest office of the land. Sad day for America."

This illustrates one very important point to me: The Progressive element in American politics was never able to organize as well as the Reactionary element. The fascists know how to use television, the Left doesn't. The Left concentrates on the Presidency, the Right running for school board, city council, county commission, and state legislature. And ultimately the Right gets their men & women into Congress.

While we were marchin' and singin' and shoutin' the right was organizing. They took a page right out of Joe Hill: "ORGANIZE!"
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Amy
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 11:27 AM

Some interesting quotes:

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." - Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." - Benjamin Franklin Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...." [John Adams, "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788] from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 258]

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 11:32 AM

Excellent point, Jim. I'd heard that, for the first time, from a school board member in Wyoming who had been studying the far right since the early 70's. She had them dead to rights so much so that she was threatened several times. She was outspoken and travelled a lot, sharing what she had documented.

Now that we've all focussed on this, how about the school voucher decision AND the fact that ANY child cna be made to piss in a cup for a drug test without any justified suspicion? "They" say drug use is an epidemic...does anyone have the numbers?

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: CapriUni
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 11:33 AM

But, Jim, organizing progressives is a bit like herding cats. Probably because of their Progressive values of giving even minority voices a chance to be heard -- like cats, we're all too independant to follow one leader.

Of course, herding cats can be done. All it takes is an open can of tuna, preferrably packed in oil. For many human Progressives, I think chocolate would be a good substitute ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 11:44 AM

Dewey, the Nazi "Programme," their constitution, adopted "positive Christianity" as the party's philosophy, but was careful to be non-denominational; Hitler, as a Catholic, could not afford to alienate the powerful Protestant presence in Germany and Austria.

Hitler's speeches and policies and books are filled with references to his self-avowed devout Christianity. Here's an example:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice....

And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people....

When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922 [Note, "brood of vipers" appears in Matt. 3:7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the money changers (adders) from the temple. The word "adders" also appears in Psalms 140:3]

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 11:58 AM

This entire controversy is living proof of why the judiciary is and should be a separate branch of government. It doesn't mean they never get bullied and intimidated by the executive and legislative branches into caving, as I believe they likely will in this instance.

The ACLU has come out strongly in support of this ruling, as they should. I hope it stands. The ruling which has me much more concerned though, is the school vouchers ruling. It is just going to lead to more chaos in the public education system, not better outcomes for individual students.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:06 PM

Good quotes, Guest, Amy. Here are a couple of others:

John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."


James Madison: "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Anybody want to volunteer to teach the Shrub some US history?

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:12 PM

Dewey - Yelling something that is simply not true over and over again...will not make it true. You are utterly in error about the Nazis being "godless". As others have already posted here, Hitler and the Nazis were a mystical Christian outfit (albeit a very unusual and nasty one). They worked directly with the Christian churches in Germany and elsewhere, and regarded themselves in fact as the true defenders of Christendom throughout the world.

Every German soldier had embossed on his belt buckle the words "Gott Mit Uns" which means: "God is on our side"

Hitler whipped up his troops and his people against "Godless communism" and the Soviets (who were officially atheistic...with PRECISELY the same sort of inflamed rhetoric used in your original post!

I gather you didn't know this. Read a few historical books about World War II, Hitler, and the Nazis and check it out.

The Spanish Inquisition also committed hideous crimes in the name of God, remember that. Just because people commit evil and criminal actions does not necessarily define them as "unchristian" or "godless" (in their own minds), whether or not you find it convenient to do so.

I can assure you, Hitler DID believe in God, and he thought he was serving God and exterminating "God's enemies" (Jews and communists)! He was deluded...in fact, I'd say he was clinically insane.

You are also wrong to say that the Nazis were "without laws". On the contrary, they had a law on the books for bloody well EVERYTHING! And they had the police and courts to enforce those laws, and did so. The Germans, as a people, are rather fond of laws, rules, and procedures...right to this day, and they are very strong on ethics too.

You also ask if Nazi Germany was "a nice place to live in". Well, that depended on who you were at the time...and your degree of sensitivity to what was going on behind the scenes, didn't it? Millions of Germans thought it was a great place to live in until they began seriously losing the war. In other words, if you were one of those benefiting materially from the system, you probably liked it just fine. If you were one of those persecuted by the system, you didn't. That's pretty typical of human nature everywhere.

Do not make the mistake of thinking I am defending the Nazis in any way. I am not. I think they were absolutely wrong...but they were NOT atheistic.

The fact is, Dewey, a people can have laws, ethics, AND the Christian religion...and STILL manage to put together a vicious dictatorship that slaughters innocent people and violates every teaching Jesus ever gave. Depend on that. It's been done over and over again.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:20 PM

if you are all too independent to follow a leader, what is this thing about all caps again. That is trying to impose a fairly new convention on people who might not like it. I do not like it. I will write in all caps if I want. I will write with no caps if I want..either way is better for your hands and some people with vision problems prefer it and some people just plain prefer it. I was on the internet a long time before I ever heard of that nonsense and I don't subscribe to it. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:29 PM

This argument is stupid. For the vast majority of people who believe in a supreme being, the term god is undefined as Christian in the pledge. For those who have no such belief (a true minority) omit the two words but continue the pledge. Surely we have far more important issues to deal with than this?

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:33 PM

Fair enough, mg...

Maybe I should clarify one thing...I would prefer a country where children were NOT lining up in school each morning, placing their hands on their hearts, and reciting a Pledge of Allegiance or a Loyalty Oath. I don't like the Pledge of Allegiance one bit.

The reason I'm objecting to the present controversy that has been raised about it, however, is that it has been raised around whether or not the phrase "under God" should be in the Pledge... That's a very minor side issue, as far as I'm concerned, and it's a petty one. This is only my own opinion, which is as subjective as anyone else's. What seems petty to me may seem vital to you...

I'm glad there is no such pledge in Canada.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:40 PM

Dewey,

I, for one, really resent being lumped with the drugged and illiterate hippy movement of the stupid seventies. Please call off your dispersions. I never was and never will allow myself to be painted with that ignorant brush whenever I can influence it at all.

BEAT GENERATION, yes, but never the hippy miscreants ;-)

Religions I try to ignore until they, somehow, insist on extending their precepts and, yes, their dogmas into my doings on this best of all possible mortal coils by disrupting my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 12:49 PM

L.H.,

I like your thought processes a lot in your many posts here and figure it'd be great to down a few beers but preferably Scotches (maybe both) with ya if I could convince my doctor to rescind his dictums against my doing that these days.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Gloredhel
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 02:18 PM

This is going to the Supreme Court, depend on it. Removing "In God We Trust" from the money has been tried several times, and failed. That makes the prospects for having "under God" removed from the Pledge not good. Besides which, if they did strike "under God", there would be an awful lot of work to do, like deleting it from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, negating the office of chaplin for Congress and the prayer with which sessions of Congress begin, and removing "that word" from several oaths of office for state and national positions. Do you think they're ready to undertake that sort of task? Do you think that it will ever be undertaken?

I have stated no personal opinion, and I am not going to. But realistically, how do you think this will end up?

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 02:41 PM

Firstly, I think the raising of this issue and between the howls from the rabid right wingers on AM radio, and the bleats of the NPR junkies listening to the FM bands, it's just great to see this country getting back to normal!

The guy talking about godless Germans under Hitler is in his own little world. The racist ideology of the Nazis didn't impede their version of Christianity any more than slavery did for 19th century Confederate Americans.

Meanwhile, while I personally remember putting my hand to my heart and saying the pledge, I don't recall anyone in my elementary school classrooms having a problem with this, except for some school bullies, one of whom I remember saying loudly he wouldn't be able to sleep right if he said the pledge of allegiance. I don't think this was an intellectual disagreement, however.

I remember having the Lord's Prayer recited in school in the morning, and even at the time, as a young kid, I knew it was wrong, because not everyone could say it together.

Therefore, if Jehovah's Witnesses, atheists, Hindus who happen to be my fellow Americans are being separated from other kids due to the words 'under God' in the pledge, the Ninth Circuit Court is correct in determining that the pledge as now constituted is unConstitutional.

BTW, I remember listening to 'God Save the Queen' before seeing a play in London, so I don't think Europeans are that different from Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 03:19 PM

Getting private gods out of our public policy: check out this thread which has an important link...

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 03:25 PM

Ya' know, I'd be all for inserting "with tolerance and understanding for all" instead.......It fits with the rest of the idealistic nature of the Pledge as something nice we'd like to believe about ourselves.

In my little conservative village here, the elementary school has Christmas plays, Christian based. The principal who grew up here and has been the principal for over 20 years openly said from the stage one year that he "knew the community wouldn't mind" the type of skits and plays being done. There are probably only about three non-Christian families here so no one objects. I could of course.....but what would be the point? My son Michael hasn't been harmed by this and we talk when he wants to about what I believe versus what they do in school. I don't put down the school or the religious based aspects of his education but I suggest that other people may believe otherwise and here's some examples. As he gets older we'll continue to talk at age appropriate levels about ethics and morals and beliefs....because that is a parent's job. Some kids would be more troubled by this than Michael I suppose, but so far it hasn't hurt him that I can see.

Now I have talked to my friend Rick, the principal, about it and as long as no one is signing him up for baptism, it's still okay. Rick and I disagree, but even this card carrying ACLU member can have some tolerance as long as he's doing his job as a principal and I mine as a parent......and for the most part, we're happy with each other's performance.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 03:49 PM

"In God We Trust" was added to the paper currency in the 1950s--a result of rampant McCarthyism, as was the "under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

I think if more US citizens knew the history of the religious words being inserted during the anti-communist heyday of McCarthyism, we might see vastly different results in the overnight opinion polls.

The fanatical right wing reaction we are witnessing ought to terrify everyone who thought a revival of McCarthyism could never happen here again.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 04:05 PM

Big Mick - You are entirely correct that "this whole issue is a red herring". Exactly. I wonder what it's intended to distract our attention from?

Peter T. - What is your point about "school voutures"? Please elaborate. Could that be the real issue behind the red herring?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Steve-o
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 04:27 PM

Good Grief, what a sad commentary on us Americans this is!!! The bozo who brought this suit (a doctor, if you can believe it) wants us all to realize that "atheists are people too!!' He always felt left out when he said the pledge, and now he will be able to "feel included". The meathead who started this thread says it's "about time"....we can't be having any of this scary mixing of church and state!! Holy shit, you guys, there are people starving, people ignorant, people fighting and hating, and THIS is what you concern yourselves with?? Get up off your wimpy butts and go do something that might change our world in an important way, you mealy-mouthed victims!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 04:56 PM

Right on, Steve-o! We have a similar bozo here in Ontario, Canada, who started a major legal brouhaha in this province about town councils and various other levels of government saying the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of public occasions, meetings, etc. He actually got the courts to rule it "unconstitutional" according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it might offend someone who is not religious. He did not do it in order to help Hindus, Muslims, or anyone else like that. He did it because he is obsessed with a vitriolic hatred for any and ALL religions.

I've seen said bozo's comments in the press. He is obsessed about the issue, for psychological reasons peculiar to him, and seems to feel that it is his holy mission to expunge all public references to any form of deity whatsoever, in order to protect the rights of atheists everywhere.

What a jerk. By insisting that everyone else behave exactly like him and do exactly what he wants he has caused immeasurable expenditures of time, money, and great unnecessary illwill in hundreds of Ontario communities...and become famous...or infamous...in the process.

I wonder...when will someone similar step forward to defend the rights of @$$holes? And when will someone else step forward to defend the rights of stupid people? Those who are neither stupid nor obnoxious should not be allowed, after all, to behave in ways which are offensive to those people who are!!! Uh-huh.

Society seems to be increasingly dictated to by the terminally insecure, with the aid of high-priced lawyers who delight in counting how many angels are on the head of a particular legal pin.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 05:46 PM

From the Washington Post RE: School Voucher Decision in Cleveland by the Supreme Court

This one is really the decision of the times and shows poor judgement in the extreme by the Court. It's obviously the biggest story here in Ohio where Public Education funding is in trouble anyhow. What really troubles me is that some feel it is simply "alarmist" to feel that this will go any further which is completely out of character as these decisions in the past have always "let the toothpaste out of the tube."........Spaw

From the Washington Post:

A bitterly divided Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an Ohio school voucher program yesterday, ruling for the first time that the government may give financial aid to parents so they can send their children to religious or private schools.

In a landmark church-state decision that could recast the national debate over education policy, the court ruled 5 to 4 that the Ohio program, which applies only to the failing Cleveland school district, is not a de facto subsidy for church-run schools.

Instead, the court said, it gives low-income families freedom of choice between secular and religious education and, as such, does not amount to an official sponsorship of religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

"[T]he Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in the opinion he wrote for the court. "It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice."

Rehnquist was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer dissented.

The case, which called upon the justices to render a legal opinion on one of the most hotly debated policy issues of recent times, drew more intense public attention than any other in this term.

"In practical effect, this is one of the most important constitutional decisions of the last 30 years," said Eugene Volokh, a University of California at Los Angeles law school professor who specializes in church-state issues.

Opponents of vouchers, led by teachers unions, consider them not only an affront to the separation of church and state but also a mortal financial threat to public education itself. Supporters, led by conservative free-market activists, say that the aid is the best hope for thousands of low-income children trapped in failing inner-city school systems.

The intense exchanges between these interest groups were mirrored in the passionate words of the justices yesterday.

Reading from the bench a joint statement from the four dissenting justices as a demonstration of their strong disagreement with the majority, Souter called the court's ruling a "potentially tragic" mistake that would force citizens to subsidize faiths they do not share even as it corrupts religion by making it dependent on government.

In his own dissenting opinion, Breyer said the court "risks creating a form of religious conflict potentially harmful to the Nation's social fabric."

Stevens added that the court has "remove[d] a brick from the wall that was once designed to separate religion from government, [increasing] the risk of religious strife and weaken[ing] the foundation of democracy."

But in an equally forceful opinion expressing his reasons for joining the majority, the court's only African American, Thomas, who often credits his own rise from poverty to the rigorous education he received at a Roman Catholic school in Savannah, Ga., said vouchers are necessary to rescue children from "inner-city public schools that deny emancipation to urban minority students."

"While the romanticized ideal of universal public education resonates with the cognoscenti who oppose vouchers," Thomas wrote, "poor urban families just want the best education for their children, who will certainly need it to function in our high-tech and advanced society."

The court's ruling will not immediately deliver a voucher option to other students in the country, however. It says only that the Constitution permits state legislatures to pass voucher laws similar to Ohio's -- not that they must do so.

But voucher proponents, who had feared that a defeat at the court could be fatal to their cause, said they expect their campaign in the states to be reenergized now that the constitutional cloud over it has been lifted.

"This decision removes a major impediment to school-choice legislation around the country," said Clint Bolick, vice president of the Institute for Justice, a conservative legal organization that led the battle for the Ohio program in the lower courts. "We expect to see major legislative efforts at the federal and state levels over the coming year. At least half a dozen states, including Colorado and Texas, should see significant action after the November elections."

Polls have found the public split on the issue. A Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation survey last summer showed that 50 percent of Americans opposed providing parents with vouchers, while 45 percent approved of the idea. Support for vouchers appears to be stronger among inner-city residents than among suburban voters, however.

In recent years, voters in California and Michigan rejected voucher proposals in state referendums, and a voucher provision in President Bush's education proposals foundered last year in the face of congressional opposition. The Bush administration weighed in on the pro-voucher side at the Supreme Court.

Aside from Ohio, only two states, Wisconsin and Florida, have enacted voucher programs to date.

Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes vouchers, said the court's ruling creates "no reason to think this is going to reinvigorate a voucher movement that has repeatedly been defeated in recent years. The American public may be ahead of the court on this issue."

Robert H. Chanin, an attorney for the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the country, said opponents will pursue legal challenges based on state constitutional law in states that do adopt vouchers. Such a challenge is pending in Florida, said Chanin, who argued against vouchers at the Supreme Court.

At issue in the case the court decided yesterday was a law enacted by the Ohio legislature in 1995 to cope with the near-breakdown of Cleveland's public schools. It provides a maximum of $2,250 each to the families of about 3,700 mostly low-income students, enabling them to attend religious or secular private schools. The bill also makes the aid available for paying tuition at suburban public schools, but no suburban schools have agreed to accept voucher students from Cleveland.

Backed by teachers unions and civil liberties organizations, Cleveland residents who opposed the program sued to block it as a violation of the separation of church and state. They believed they had a particularly strong claim that it was tantamount to taxpayer-subsidized religion, since 96 percent of the students who received aid in a recent year used it to pay for tuition at schools affiliated with churches.

But the case came to a Supreme Court that has been moving in the direction of greater support for including religious schools in government programs that provide aid to education. Majorities composed largely of conservative appointees of Republican presidents had ruled that such funding is not government sponsorship of religion as long as it is provided on an equal basis to religious and nonreligious institutions alike and is channeled through individuals who exercise free choice over how it is used.

In 1986, for example, the court held that a student could use state vocational scholarship money to study at a religious institution to become a pastor. In 1993, the court ruled that federal money could be used to pay for sign-language interpreters for deaf students at religious schools.

In yesterday's opinion, Rehnquist argued that the Cleveland voucher program fits neatly into this line of precedent.

He said that the key consideration is not that almost all of the students who used vouchers went to religious schools, but rather that the vouchers are just one part of an array of alternatives to the traditional public schools that also includes charter schools, magnet schools and special tutoring grants for traditional-school students.

"The . . . question is whether Ohio is coercing parents into sending their children to religious schools, and that question must be answered by evaluating all options Ohio provides Cleveland schoolchildren, only one of which is to obtain a program scholarship and then choose a religious school," Rehnquist wrote.

He noted that the percentage of voucher students in secular private schools would have been higher, but two such schools were converted into charter schools because of the court battle over the voucher program's future.

In his dissent, Souter contended that the issue of whether the program is state-sponsored religion should have been decided strictly on the basis of where the state voucher money went.

"The majority has confused choice in spending scholarships with choice from the entire menu of possible educational placements, most of them open to anyone willing to attend a public school," Souter wrote, accusing the majority of a "dramatic departure from basic [constitutional] principle."

But, crucially, Rehnquist received the unqualified support of O'Connor for this holding. Many court-watchers had speculated that O'Connor might join a pro-voucher majority but write separately to limit the impact of the case.

Instead, O'Connor published a concurring opinion, in which she backed Rehnquist fully, disputed Souter's reasoning at length, and called "alarmist" the concerns Souter and Breyer expressed about possible social division.

The court's ruling was on three consolidated cases: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, No. 00-1751; Hanna Perkins School v. Simmons-Harris, No. 00-1777; and Taylor v. Simmons-Harris, No. 00-1779.


© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 05:49 PM

The Lord's Prayer has no place as a precursor of public (i.e. governmental, scholastic, secular, performance) meetings. There are plenty of non-atheists who are not included in it, since it is Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 06:32 PM

There are plenty of people who are not included in anything one could care to mention, robomatic...except death and taxes. What are we gonna do about it? Pass more restrictive laws?

I find the idolization of flags offensive (somewhat). I find the influence of money in people's lives offensive (in certain respects). I find most television offensive, without a doubt. I find commercial radio programming offensive. I find RAP music offensive. I find backwards baseball caps offensive. I find the Democratic and Republican parties and professional wrestling offensive.

What if I were to find some smart lawyer and launch a legal action against them? What if it succeeded? Then what? Should my personal preferences serve to dictate the way thousands of other people live, and to eliminate their traditions on a whim of mine? I don't think so.

Furthermore, the Lord's Prayer is not exclusively Christian. Jesus was not a Christian! Every major religious teacher I have ever heard of or read from the East Indian tradition (to name just one non-Christian tradition) states that the Lord's Prayer is not an exclusively Christian prayer, but a universal prayer that can be spoken by any religious person anywhere within the context of his own faith. Obviously, they know something about it that you do not. Anyone who is moderately sophisticated in their spiritual outlook can readily see that such a prayer is not confined to one religious tradition only.

God and/or common reason, save us please from literal thinkers who see only the outer cover of a thing and never bother to read the flippin' book!

As for atheists, aren't there already a whole lot of things happening in society which are done in a way which would please an atheist? Should religious people be allowed to ban all those things by law? No! What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Democracy is encouraged by allowing many differences in human behaviour, not by banning certain forms of cultural behaviour in deference to others.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Banjer
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 06:52 PM

In an earlier post, Dewey asked "ANYONE GOT THE RED SKELETON SKIT ON THE PLEDGE OF ALLIGIENCE> WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT POSTED HERE!!!!!" To see and hear it CLICK HERE It's worth a listen and may help explain the pledge to some of our overseas friends who are still confused by this debate. I don't agree with what many of you folks who don't like the pledge have said but one of the beautiful things about our great country is the ability for us to disagree amicably amongst ourselves. At the risk of getting thrown out on my ear....GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Banjer
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 06:55 PM

Well, that clickie didn't like me! Let's try this one TRY THIS ONE. JUst in case this one doesn't work again here is the URL you may copy and paste.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Banjer
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 07:07 PM

Here is the URL which I forgot in take two above....http://home.att.net/~poofcatt/july.html.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 07:17 PM

Banjer - Yep. Well, that was a rather different time...with a different social tone to it.

Actually, many nations attempt to function under those very same basic assumptions...unity, indivisibility, liberty and justice for all. These are ideals and hopes common to many (if not most) countries such as: the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and goodness knows how many others...

There are always gaps between those cherished ideals and their full realization in a given society, but the desire to realize them is certainly there in virtually any population. It's not a situation unique to the USA, although the Pledge of Allegiance itself is unique, of course.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 07:53 PM

But all those other nations don't have the White Man Piebald Personoffspring's Burden of Leading the Free World.

Liland

ps to mary garvey, mary, fact is most people would much rather see all lower case like this than all SHOUTING intended or not. personally, after a few cases of that kind of orthographic assault i simply pass the posts by in silence even if the topic is one i'm interested in. to have to put up with all caps in order to read dangerously revisionist versions of nazi doctrines is asking too much. i am not at all alone in this and those newbies who do much ALL CAPPING deserve (even if, like dewey, they're writing falsehoods) to be apprised of the fact. imho ;-) i would not dream of imposing a "no all caps" rule (well, okay, maybe i would dream of it, but i wouldn't try to act on that dream), but people who use all caps should be made aware that it will cut into their readership and simultaneously irritate a significant portion of the readers who remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Souter
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 09:57 PM

More than being rude and hard to read, WRITING IN ALL CAPS makes all your arguments, no matter how sound and well reasoned, look like the illogical ravings of a fanatic, so people tend to automatically discount them.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: toadfrog
Date: 28 Jun 02 - 10:34 PM

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! TRUE FEALING must be expressed forcefully, or people won't read our

GODLY WRIT

. HOW ELSE PERSUADE THESE HIPPIE COMMIE LIBERALS OF THE EVIL OF THERE WAYS???????????? I could go on writing like this forever..............

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 29 Jun 02 - 12:26 AM

Of course you're right, Justice Souter, but as toadfrog points out, to borrow your phrases,

More than being rude and hard to read, WRITING IN ALL CAPS makes all your arguments, no matter how unsound and ill reasoned, look like the illogical ravings of a fanatic that they are, so people tend justifiably to discount them.

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 02 - 09:41 AM

I think someone should immediately launch a legal initiative to ban all practices which are offensive to illogical raving fanatics with unsound and ill-reasoned opinions. It should be pressed forward right to the Supreme Court, if necessary, until people realize that illogical raving fanatics are PEOPLE TOO!!! BY GUM!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 29 Jun 02 - 01:09 PM

AY-MEN, AY-MEN! AY-MEN! AY-MEN! AY-MEN!

Which may or may not be "religious speech".

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Banjer
Date: 29 Jun 02 - 03:04 PM

'illogical raving fanatics are PEOPLE TOO'

So tell us Little Hawk, did you post that as the the former or the latter? **BG**

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 02 - 03:08 PM

Ummm...wait...lemme think...ummmm...

Hmmmm...

(smoke coming out of ears...)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance history of origins
From: Haruo
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 02:19 AM

As a Baptist Socialist, since the Pledge was written by a Socialist Baptist minister, I dasn't be too harsh in my attitude towards the Pledge. Today SdJotD is featuring a site on the history of the pledge, and I recommend this page, The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History.

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: toadfrog
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 03:55 PM

Banjer, I have no quarrel with Red Skelton's version of the Pledge, which is the one I used to recite in school. (Although, to me. it was one long Mondegreen, and I had no clear idea what it was about.) Circuit Judge Goodwin also had no quarrel with that version. What bothers people is the "under God," which is not a part of Skelton's pledge. Especially in light of the context in which that got inserted.

I have no problem with patriotism, as long as people refrain from inserting their own questionable agendas into the concept of patriotism.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Banjer
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 06:13 PM

The last part of the commentary on the Red Skelton pledgee is what is pertinent to today's discussion:

'Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?

God Bless America!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 10:48 PM

Us polytheists object strongly. Should be "Under gods"

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 11:17 PM

Yes, but are not most polytheisitc religions simply intended to convey different aspects of an overall divinity that is too big to define anyway?

That's certainly the case in India, and I suspect it was the case with most other polytheistic religions...such as the Roman, the Greek, the Egyptian, the Norse, the American Indian...and so on. Each particular aspect of the divine was given a particular name and personality. People from officially monotheistic religions are missing the point of polytheism, I think, and judging the book by only looking at the cover.

This is the kind of stuff people just love<\i> to argue about... :-)

Now, if you define God as intelligence, consciousness, awareness, existence, potential existence, manifestation, thought, matter, energy, and life itself...then WHO does not believe in that God? Tell me. Atheism is just non-belief in conventional religions...it is not necessarily non-belief in God. Trust me on that. (grin)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 11:34 PM

Not to mention that worshippers of Mother Earth object that it should be "one nation over God[dess]"...

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Brían
Date: 30 Jun 02 - 11:38 PM

Thanks, Liland, for the history of the pledge. I found a similar piece on the NPR website. I find it most interesting that the contraversial under God was added much later. That the composer, who was a Baptist minister left out any mention of God is most telling.

Brían

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 01:32 AM

But of course he was my kind of Baptist, not their kind of Baptist. Incidentally, this morning my church, Fremont Baptist Church of Seattle, voted to rename itself "Fremont Community Church" just so people won't presume to know what we think of them. It gets tiresome, being taken for a fundie because you belong to the same denomination as Roger Williams and MLK. Rev. Bellamy was, as the site noted, a Christian Socialist. He was a contemporary of the great Labor Baptist Walter Rauschenbusch.

Liland
Formerly Baptist, newly Community ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: John P
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 08:53 AM

Liland, who's going to paint over the ten foot high "BAPTIST" that's 40 feet in the air on the side of the church? I think Fremont Community Church is a much better name, btw.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: John P
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 09:03 AM

I seem to be detecting a feeling that folks think wanting to remove God from our government is a new idea for lots of us, and we are all excited about it without ever having thought of it before. I'm all excited because it's finally getting talked about by someone other than me. I've been offended by the amount of religion being forced on me by our government for years. Laws against nudity, laws against polygamy, laws agaings homosexuality, laws against drinking on Sunday, laws against taking drugs, laws against various forms of sex between consenting adults, chaplains in Congress, prayer meetings in the Justice Department, official meetings that start with prayers, religious words on our money. What chance is there of anyone beng elected to high office in this country unless they are a professing Christian or Jew?

It's not a new topic, folks. It's just being talked about widely for the first time. I know it will take another 20 cases and 25 years before anything will change, but it's a start.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: kendall
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 10:29 AM

It never fails to piss me off when I hear someone credit Ronald Raygun for bringing down the soviet union. What a crock of right wing horseshit! The soviet union was brought down by: American television, Lec Walesa, the Pope and Mikail Gorbachev. Reagan slept through the whole thing.

By the way, what do we need a pledge for anyway? Does parroting a few patriotic words make you a better American? Is a Canadian less of a Canadian because they have no such pledge? When I was a small boy in school, I repeated that pledge every day without a clue what it meant; now, I know what it means, but, I have no need to show what a good American I am by repeating it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Art Thieme
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 01:58 PM

John P,

You said it all in your last post. Thanks.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 05:49 PM

John, as for the huge "BAPTIST" letters both on the south side of the building and facing east and west along the crest of the roof, it's probably a moot point. I think we're going to redesign the outside of the building to look more like EMP. (kidding; I actually have no idea what will happen)

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: toadfrog
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 11:40 PM

Kendall: I think you are mistaken about who brought down the Soviet Union. If any individual deserves credit for that, it is surely Osama bin Laden! Heavily subsidized, perhaps, by Reagan, but at our expense. The Afghan War really wore Russia down. Generally, ambitious military adventures turn around and bite their authors. Thus the First World War destroyed Austria, its author. The Second would have been fatal to Germany, but for the Cold War which led us to revive it. America was set way back by Vietnam; anyone who lived through the 1960's and 70's can tell you that.

And GWB should be very careful, if he cares at all about our fate.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Guest - Browning
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 02:15 AM

I was actually searching for some song lyrics and came across your little dominion here. And let me say in advance that I am certain that I will be discounted within the community as "right wing". However, I am a patriotic American who makes his living in environmental reclamation, yet votes Republican most of the time (who else will keep taxes from erasing my bank account?), and dearly loves God, and His son, Jesus Christ. For those of you who haven't the same theological bent as myself, I will be praying for you tonight. And....I will exit your little kingdom here, because although I enjoy intellectual conversation and disagreement, I find the America-bashing and Christianity demeaning tone of the website distressing. God Bless........

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 11:17 AM

LH,

I think that your understanding of polytheism is very self-serving. "It's really just one God that has many aspects, so it's basically the same as my religion." That is NOT the ancient Greek, ancient egyptian, etc, concept of polytheism at all. When Akhenaten tried to introduce monotheism to egypt, he succeeded as long as he was alive. Then for generations his visage was scratched out of every frieze and fresco. He became a hated figure for generations, because people did not believe there was just one deity, but many.

Obviously, those religions are gone now. But it's dangerous to assume other religions are just like yours with different outward trappings. They're not. They're different. Reference to any individual religion in a government-funded or mandated program is unconstitutional and obviously runs counter to the idea of the separation of church and state. It's not about whiners or fanatics being offended.

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 12:49 PM

A polytheistic state religion can employ more priests than a monotheistic one. Maybe Akhenaton's image was abominated because the Priests' Union saw monotheism as a threat to job security.

Sorry to see Guest Browning leave like that but at least it's a relief to know s/he'll be praying for all of us.

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 03:56 PM

Nerd - Well, of course my statements about polytheism are self-serving... I'm just as fond of my own opinions as most other people are of theirs! :-) Your point about Akenaton, however, is an excellent one to support your argument...and it had already occurred to me when I posted mine. It's the most obvious retort to mine that I can think of.

The way it is with God and religion is: People will always squabble about the outer particulars...the names used for God, which prophet(s) to follow, which holy books to read, which kind of clothing to wear, what kind of food to eat, one god or many gods, and anything else they can dream up to fight about. All this is due to accustomed mental habits and small-mindedness, IMO. And it all falls short of addressing the real question of divinity and what it means in life. As far as I'm concerned, all religious ideas are different ideas about the same fundamental question. This is why I belong to no specific church or religion, but simply to Life itself. In that respect, all people are my brothers and sisters, whether they know it or not. It's not always easy to get along with siblings...I know that.

Liland - Very good point about why monotheism would have had strong opposition in Egypt.

It is possible to see monotheism through the mechanism of many gods and goddesses...you only need not to be afraid of the idea. If you are afraid of it, you won't countenance it.

God does not prohibit anything. People prohibit things. If God did prohibit anything, it would simply not exist in the first place nor even be able to...God being the actual functioning substance and working of all that is.

People argue about God because they imagine that God is separate from themselves. It is not...it is just larger than themselves in its totality...and they are each one small part of it.

I've got no problem with separating church and state, because as far as I'm concerned, most churches have precious little of any use to say about God, although they never stop talking about Him/Her/It.

It is entirely appropriate in the meantime that American money have "In God We Trust" on it, because money IS God in America. That's what's so ironical about it. The statement fits the shoe that wears it!

You people are piddling around worrying about church and state when the state is already totally bought and dominated by money...and that is what has perverted it. The church was also bought out by money long ago, centuries ago. Money is the great god you must dethrone in society if anything is to change for the better.

That's why this issue about "under God" in the Pledge is a red herring.

Browning - By all means then, pray for everyone of a different viewpoint. Jesus did. He also said "Ye are all gods, and sons of the Most High". That doesn't sound exclusive to me, it sounds inclusive. Hurrah for Jesus! He was a true democrat (small "d"). If he was around now in the flesh, he'd be called a Communist in the West, and something else equally untrue and nasty in Communist China....like a "revisionist saboteur" or something of the sort.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 04:07 PM

John P, I imagine that laws against nudity have more to do with public good taste than religion. Some people are just not pretty to look at without their clothes. Others of us don't like to have to pick hairs out of our food at restaurants, so there's also a sanitary issue.

Besides that, if G(g)od(dess) had meant for us to go naked, we would've been born that way.

Oh, wait.......... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 04:36 PM

Nudity was not much of a problem for most tropical area tribal people...except that they did generally cover the genital area with some bit of clothing. It would be interesting to speculate on why they did that...to maintain social order in public?

Ideas about nudity are primarily a matter of existing social customs...people are usually quite uncomfortable with practices they are unaccustomed to. They then shape the religion to fit the customs, usually.

John P - Yeah, I can just imagine a Muslim, a Hindu, or a self-professed atheist trying to run for President of the USA on the Republican or Democratic tickets! Or a socialist! Not bloody likely. This again, has to do more with existing social customs and expectations than it does with religion.

Major political parties will not nominate candidates who are too unconventional or controversial...that might lose them some votes. This is sheer opportunism at work, not religion. Religion is not the real issue here. Hypocrisy and mental habits are the real issues.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 07:56 PM

Well, I voted for McReynolds in 1980 because I sort of saw the handwriting on the wall as far as who's gonna win, Reagan or Carter, and besides the idea of voting for a gay English prof for prexy and a nun for veep (sorry, have forgotten the Sister's name) was just too delicious to pass up.

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 08:54 PM

As regards the terrible danger of school vouchers after today's decision let me just point up that the Supremes' rationale weas that the vouchers were being distributed without bias to parents so that they could educate their children appropriately. There was in no way an intent or effort to establish any bias toward or away from any religion and therefore, there was no consitutional compromise made.

The Pledge, however, is an act of Congress and as such, it is unconstitutional for mob-o-theistic terminiology to be inserted into it, no matter what Joe McCarthy thinks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 02:51 AM

LH,

The issue may be a red herring, but then why have you been arguing about it for so long? The fact is that you are supporting the use of the word God in the pledge because you believe that God is "the actual functioning substance and working of all that is" In other words, God is something like "The Universe." My point is that, for those who put God in the pledge, this is not what God is. God, to them, is the Christian God-concept, a male all-powerful being who lets you into heaven for righteousness and banishes you to hell for sin. Think of what would happen if at a presidential function someone said "under Allah" or "under Vishnu" or "Under Astarte" and you'd see that the use of the words "under God" isn't about inclusion!

As a member of a minority religion, I think it is wrong to say that it's only the party system that dictates that every single president except Kennedy was a WASP, and that every one in history was a white male christian. In fact, just to say that the parties won't put forth a muslim because it might lose them votes shows you exactly what the issue is: the US does suffer from religious discrimination, and the pledge is part of it. To say that religion is not the issue, but "mental habits" is is meaningless. Both religion and religious discrimination are mental habits, and they are precisely the issue!

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:34 PM

Well, LH, it's HOT in the tropics so the people who have lived there forever are probably a lot more comfortable without clothes. As far as covering up the naughty bits... well, they're kinda sensitive, ain't they? You don't want them getting caught in the door hinge or stepped on or anything like that...

Wasn't it someone on this forum who posted about their dad or granddad being a missionary in the Pacific? He arranged for the native ladies to have t-shirts so they wouldn't have to go about bare-breasted, but they cut out holes for their breasts anyway. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 08:39 PM

Nerd - Not exactly as you say...I'm not supporting the Pledge of Allegiance at all, with or without the words "under God". I don't personally care for the Pledge of Allegiance, and I never did care for it.

I just like discussing philosophical concepts about God and religion, that's all...that's why I keep talking about it. I'm well aware that the religious right does not share my conceptions of God! :-)

And...I am objecting to the petty concerns of people who obsess about specific religious symbols (whether they are for OR against them) and then, on the basis of their obsession, try to get laws passed to FORCE everyone else to either use or not use those symbols, in accordance with their obsession. They are troublemakers, in my opinion, and are lacking in tolerance.

It reminds me of when certain feminists in the 70's started demanding entrance into private male clubs, for instance. I even know of one case of a male pagan who repeatedly demanded entrance into private female gatherings. He was a very insecure person with an attitude problem.

It was the same attitude problem in fact, but the diametrically opposite application. It's always done in the name of freedom, but it's not about freedom at all...it's about having a huge chip on your shoulder and feeling that everyone else must give up their freedom to be who they are on behalf of your freedom to be who you are...by force of law.

One thing though, I agree with you that the US political system DOES practice religious discrimination...and just about every other form of discrimination one could care to mention too. In that way, it mirrors the society in general.

To oppose (on a legal basis) the use of the phrase "under God" in an official statement is indicative of a form of anti-religious prejudice, while to insist (on a legal basis) that it must be there is indicative of another form of prejudice. I think it's a dumb thing to launch legal battles over in either case...and just because some court finally brings down a decision on it doesn't mean diddly. Courts are composed of people, and people are fallible, and many laws are stupid and wrongful, as time has proven over and over again. You see, the legal system isn't God either, although it acts just as if it were.

I would like people to be free to either say "under God" and/or the Pledge itself...or not say it...as they wish...without some stupid law telling them what they must do or not do in that situation.

This isn't support of the Pledge, Nerd. It's support of individual freedom of expression. People should be allowed to think these things out for themselves, and not be dictated to by Big Brother. I don't give a hang if Big Brother is a religious fanatic or an atheist fanatic, he's still Big Brother regardless when he tells me what I can or cannot say in public.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Genie
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 09:35 PM

Actually, I think the suit over the pledge in public schools is based on the right issue, namely that the insertion of the words "under God" by Congress in 1952 was--don't kid yourselves--an attempt to "establish a state religion," even if only a rather amorphous one.  Dewey, if "...it is a proclamation that the country [Italics mine]believes in a higher power..," that proves the point.  As Fionn said, government is not supposed to take a particular stance on religion.  It may not take an action for or against the establishment or exercise of religion.
And that has historically been the key issue in court decisions about religious ceremonies' and symbols' compatibility with the Fourth Amendment.
Nevertheless, you're right, LH--"Fussing about traditional religions and the use of the word "God" in this or that document at this point in history is like fussing about your malfunctioning barbecue while a forest fire engulfs your property from all sides."
The guy who brought the suit, for one thing, is badly in need of a personality transplant, if you ask me -- not the most charismatic spokesperson for atheism -- and, yes, Toadfrog, his timing, in bringing the suit so soon after 9-11-02 seems symptomatic of shoot-oneself-in-the-foot disease.
The public, the "liberal media," and US politicians, on the other hand are, by their exaggerated reaction to the court decision, kinda proving that the suit had merit!  Both sides should pick their battles more judiciously.

Yes, Liland, I, too, find it interesting how people who are one minute screaming about "law and order" and "if you do the crime, you should do the time," can in the next breath be advocating civil disobedience when they think a law or court decision is unjust.

[Fionn, having kids salute the flag and say the pledge is an attempt at indoctrination, but it ain't brainwashing--nor are most attempts at propaganda.  We use the term "brainwashing" much too loosely, I fear.  What do we then call the kind of "attitude adjustment" which has been used on POWs, involving starvation, sensory deprivation, torture, removing a person from all human ties, and doing everything possible to remove all hope--i.e., the sytematic treatment for which the term "brainwashing" was coined?]
 

BTW, well said, Big Mick!!!

Genie
(sans cookie at the moment)

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: GUEST,Genie
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 11:28 PM

Gloredhel, you're probably right that if the Supreme Court held the "under God" in the pledge to violate the "establishment" Clause, they'd have to apply the same logic to the currency, etc.  [Though you could argue that having kids recite the pledge calls for their active endorsement of the concept of God, whereas passing money does not.]
As a practical matter, of course, it would cost nothing to stop saying prayers in government sessions or having "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and relatively little to notify schools and government officials of the decision.   Changing the US money could cost a great deal.
As for the Declaration of Independence, it's a historical document that has no legal status in the way the Constitution does, so it wouldn't need to be changed.  And does the Constitution mention God?  Where?

Little Hawk, I fear that "bozos" like this guy who brought the suit over "under God" are doing more harm than good to the cause of keeping government and religion separate.  The ones like the late Madeline Murray O'Hare who keep suing every time a school mentions anything Judeo-Christian or a church group wants to hold an Easter service on otherwise-unused public land, etc., just fuel the fires of the far Right, who would like nothing better than to impose much of their religious/moral viewpoint on everyone else.

The Religious Right shouldn't get to holier-than-thou about this sort of intolerance, though.  I've heard many of them objecting to public schools' teaching such things as relaxation skills, "because these techniques have their foundation in transcendental meditation, which is based on Buddhism or other non-Christian beliefs."

Liland, thanks for the link to the history of the pledge.  Wonder how many in the Religious Right know the pledge was written by a minister who did not feel it necessary/appropriate to include "under God" in "what is Caesar's"--or that the author was a (Gasp!) socialist!
And the idea of a church that looks like the EMP--now that's a trip!

Guest Browning (who won't read this if you've really exited), I, for one, am not anti-Christian.  Like a number of Christians, some of whom are Mudcatters, I feel it verges on blasphemy to tie Christianity to capitalism, vengeful militarism, intolerance, eye-for-an-eye "justice," etc., the way the Religious Right in the US tends to do.  Jesus said to give Caesar what is Caesar's and give God what is God's.

Genie (still without my biscuit)

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 02 - 09:20 AM

Bravo, Genie! Very well said throughout. These things need to be thought out in depth, not just reacted to in a knee-jerk fashion, which is the trap a lot of people fall into when it comes to "religion".

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Jul 02 - 01:06 PM

Well done, Genie. These days, due to job and time being spent on the Uilleann Pipes, Irish Bouzouki, and Low D whistle, my Mudcat time is spent mostly in reading without writing. I have followed this thread with interest.

Your point about the folks who are upset at this ruling, yet object to any type of other religious influence in our institutions is the most astute of any made so far. That is not to say that there have not been many fine points made in defense of the various positions, but this one grabbed me.

It seems to me that this comes down to the depth of committment to ones values, to ones code, to what one believes. Personally I don't give a damn if my child recites the pledge in school each day, or if the currency has "In God We Trust" on it. In fact I would prefer that they did not, and that it did not. This is because it is much more important to me that she feel the presence of God and that she trust the goodness of S/He That Is Always Watching, in her heart and mind, as opposed to wondering if what her old man is always telling her, and which the teacher is always telling her, and what the other kids are always telling her. I want her to sit on my hill, with a starry sky above and the wonder of the Earth Mother below, maybe with her old man's Low D whistle in hand, and know that she is a part of a wonderful plan. When we are in Mass, I want her prayers to be a conversation with that which is the greatest among us, and not some rote thing she learned in Catechism.

As I was the first to say above, this is all a red herring. It is not worth the bandwidth being devoted to it. When politicians raise an issue like this one, without addressing the meat of it, it is usually done to get your attention off other things. Trust me, I know this system well.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Haruo
Date: 04 Jul 02 - 07:50 PM

Genie wrote, "Jesus said to give Caesar what is Caesar's and give God what is God's." And in the Gospel of Thomas the saying ends with a third line, "and give me what is mine." Interesting; one of those instances where a pretty good case can be made that Thomas preserves a more original form than the canonicals.

Liland

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Genie
Date: 04 Jul 02 - 10:44 PM

Well said, Mick.

Thanks for the info on The Gospel of Thomas, Liland. My quotes of "Jesus" are based on traditionally accepted Biblical verses, without getting into the issues raised in the Jesus Seminar, etc. Even if you accept the King James version of the Bible as is, you can still refute a lot of the spin that some current "Christian" advocates put on its "message" for our society and government.

One thing that, to me, is really clear is that the attitude that American lives are worth more than the lives of Afghanis or anyone else does NOT jibe with what the accepted Bible says was the teaching of Jesus.

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 11:21 AM

Genie - Nope, it certainly doesn't jibe with what Christ taught...but people are usually far more willing to quote Jesus' teachings than they are to actually live up to them!

This is as true of Americans as it is of most other nations.

What makes America different right now is its extreme dominance in technological weaponry and firepower. That was what made the Romans different in their time too, and the British as well between, say, 1815 and 1914.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Genie
Date: 07 Jul 02 - 01:52 AM

LH, I'm not bothered as much by Christians whose human foibles allow them to fall short of their ideals as by "Christians" who distort the ideals themselves.

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Pledge of allegiance ruled out! Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 02 - 12:07 PM

I'm with you on that, Genie...

Various so-called Christians have proven quite adept over the centuries at finding isolated passages in the Bible to support whatever mayhem they had in mind to perpetrate upon a suffering humanity.

The thing I notice is that aggressors may be of the religious variety...or the atheistic variety...or they may simply pretend to be religious if it's politically advantageous at the time...but it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. What matters is their propensity for aggression.

- LH