Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

[bodecea]

This should piss the so-called athiest off.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."


The Facts

This shouldn't make an atheist angry. IMO.

Unless they have some kind of agenda they are pushing for, then it would piss them off. But most athiests in america are normal, freedom loving, americans who dont want to stifle other people's freedom of expression through religion.

IMO.

If you are an atheist who is angry at this maybe you should examine exactly WHY this makes you angry especially considering you aren't forced to say it if you dont want to (i used to say under ME instead of under GOD when I said the pledge in school because I was a good little atheist boy).

I don't see how you can speak for most atheist. Madalyn Murray O'Hair founded the American Atheist organization and she was instrumental in getting prayer out of schools. How many members do you think they have and how many do you believe actually think as you say they think?

Prayer is out of school? Since when?

 

[Againsheila]

The object of their indignation is Babylon – the international power at the time – and it is against Babylon that they are protesting. In this psalm, they are recalling everything that Babylon had done to them; they are also remembering their children, whom the Babylonians had killed by dashing them against rocks, and they feel their indignation overflowing. As a result, they are inclined to add that whoever renders unto the Babylonians the same malice that they had shown to the Judeans, will be worthy of being blessed. This would make them feel vindicated for their calamity.

This is the cry of anger by parents who had witnessed their children being dashed to death against rocks by the Babylonian soldiers, and their yearning for retaliation

So the 'context' is that the jews are no better than the evil Babylonians they're claiming are so bad?

That's like saying it'd be fine for Israel to nuke every German city in existence as revenge for Hitler.

wrong^2 =/= right

The context is as it's been explained which is a lot more than what you did when you cited the one verse. If you don't understand the Bible then perhaps you should cease quoting it.

hear hear!

 

[froggy]

The best news i heard of the gov. in a long time.

 

[saveliberty]

This shouldn't make an atheist angry. IMO.

Unless they have some kind of agenda they are pushing for, then it would piss them off. But most athiests in america are normal, freedom loving, americans who dont want to stifle other people's freedom of expression through religion.

IMO.

If you are an atheist who is angry at this maybe you should examine exactly WHY this makes you angry especially considering you aren't forced to say it if you dont want to (i used to say under ME instead of under GOD when I said the pledge in school because I was a good little atheist boy).

I don't see how you can speak for most atheist. Madalyn Murray O'Hair founded the American Atheist organization and she was instrumental in getting prayer out of schools. How many members do you think they have and how many do you believe actually think as you say they think?

Prayer is out of school? Since when?

You may have a point. Superintendents have probably been praying for funds pretty hard the last year or so. Other than that, your just playing dumb.

 

[Father Time]

If you didn't like the letter E would you not use it. If its American, and you claim to be American, then live like An American.

Well, since we said the pledge for 62 years without "under GOD" and have only been saying it for 56 years with "under GOD," I'd say that, based on those numbers, it's more "American" without "under GOD."

That makes as much sense as anything else...

Some around here are fond of saying we need to progress. Looks like 56 years ago we did. The courts say we still can. Some of you have God issues. Work them out without stepping on my Constitutional rights. Thanks.

And what right is being violated by removing two lines from the official pledge?

 

[Father Time]

This should piss the so-called athiest off.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."


The Facts

This shouldn't make an atheist angry. IMO.

Unless they have some kind of agenda they are pushing for, then it would piss them off. But most athiests in america are normal, freedom loving, americans who dont want to stifle other people's freedom of expression through religion.

IMO.

If you are an atheist who is angry at this maybe you should examine exactly WHY this makes you angry especially considering you aren't forced to say it if you dont want to (i used to say under ME instead of under GOD when I said the pledge in school because I was a good little atheist boy).

Because government should not be endorsing religion, ever.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Funny.


'Allah Ahkbar' - righties go nuts

'Under my genocidal god'- righties love it and to object makes you unamerican

Noun

• S: (n) hypocrisy, lip service (an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction)
• S: (n) hypocrisy (insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have)

It seems like the only people with any principles are those objecting to forced pledges and all references to any religion.

 

[Meister]

Principles? right......that's it, principles.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This shouldn't make an atheist angry. IMO.

Unless they have some kind of agenda they are pushing for, then it would piss them off. But most athiests in america are normal, freedom loving, americans who dont want to stifle other people's freedom of expression through religion.

IMO.

If you are an atheist who is angry at this maybe you should examine exactly WHY this makes you angry especially considering you aren't forced to say it if you dont want to (i used to say under ME instead of under GOD when I said the pledge in school because I was a good little atheist boy).

I don't see how you can speak for most atheist. Madalyn Murray O'Hair founded the American Atheist organization and she was instrumental in getting prayer out of schools. How many members do you think they have and how many do you believe actually think as you say they think?

Prayer is out of school? Since when?

Since the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending government sponsored prayer in American public schools.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This should piss the so-called athiest off.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."


The Facts

This shouldn't make an atheist angry. IMO.

Unless they have some kind of agenda they are pushing for, then it would piss them off. But most athiests in america are normal, freedom loving, americans who dont want to stifle other people's freedom of expression through religion.

IMO.

If you are an atheist who is angry at this maybe you should examine exactly WHY this makes you angry especially considering you aren't forced to say it if you dont want to (i used to say under ME instead of under GOD when I said the pledge in school because I was a good little atheist boy).

Because government should not be endorsing religion, ever.

You can deny the facts all you want to, it doesn't change them. Fact is this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but that's not to say that the United States of America was founded upon the Christian religion.

 

[bodecea]

I don't see how you can speak for most atheist. Madalyn Murray O'Hair founded the American Atheist organization and she was instrumental in getting prayer out of schools. How many members do you think they have and how many do you believe actually think as you say they think?

Prayer is out of school? Since when?

Since the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending government sponsored prayer in American public schools.

Do you ever look at what you yourself post? Now....show us that prayer itself is now out of our schools? That MIGHT require you prove that people do not have the capacity to pray without government assistance.

 

[bodecea]

This shouldn't make an atheist angry. IMO.

Unless they have some kind of agenda they are pushing for, then it would piss them off. But most athiests in america are normal, freedom loving, americans who dont want to stifle other people's freedom of expression through religion.

IMO.

If you are an atheist who is angry at this maybe you should examine exactly WHY this makes you angry especially considering you aren't forced to say it if you dont want to (i used to say under ME instead of under GOD when I said the pledge in school because I was a good little atheist boy).

Because government should not be endorsing religion, ever.

You can deny the facts all you want to, it doesn't change them. Fact is this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but that's not to say that the United States of America was founded upon the Christian religion.

No, this country was founded on Enlightenment Principles. The first to do so...the European countries we were trying to distance ourselves from were founded on Judeo-Christian principles and we were sick of their oppression.

 

[Coyote]

Because government should not be endorsing religion, ever.

You can deny the facts all you want to, it doesn't change them. Fact is this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but that's not to say that the United States of America was founded upon the Christian religion.

No, this country was founded on Enlightenment Principles. The first to do so...the European countries we were trying to distance ourselves from were founded on Judeo-Christian principles and we were sick of their oppression.

True and often forgotten - many of the founders of our system of government were products of the Enlightenment - but, that doesn't mean a total rejection of Judeo-Christian heritage but rather a critical examination of the role of religion in government (and the cause of many European wars) and a rejection of the long held idea that people could govern themselves - they did not need a king (who was also usually the head of the church as well) or a Pope.

They also recognized certain inherent rights that could not be taken away (rights stipulated as given by a creator but specifically avoids mentioning anything biblical because those rights do not exist in the Bible) - that is a product of the Enlightenment.

 

[bodecea]

You can deny the facts all you want to, it doesn't change them. Fact is this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but that's not to say that the United States of America was founded upon the Christian religion.

No, this country was founded on Enlightenment Principles. The first to do so...the European countries we were trying to distance ourselves from were founded on Judeo-Christian principles and we were sick of their oppression.

True and often forgotten - many of the founders of our system of government were products of the Enlightenment - but, that doesn't mean a total rejection of Judeo-Christian heritage but rather a critical examination of the role of religion in government (and the cause of many European wars) and a rejection of the long held idea that people could govern themselves - they did not need a king (who was also usually the head of the church as well) or a Pope.

They also recognized certain inherent rights that could not be taken away (rights stipulated as given by a creator but specifically avoids mentioning anything biblical because those rights do not exist in the Bible) - that is a product of the Enlightenment.

And some of the key Enlightenment philosophers in Europe were getting in serious trouble with church authorities. This was not lost on our Founders.

 

[Father Time]

This shouldn't make an atheist angry. IMO.

Unless they have some kind of agenda they are pushing for, then it would piss them off. But most athiests in america are normal, freedom loving, americans who dont want to stifle other people's freedom of expression through religion.

IMO.

If you are an atheist who is angry at this maybe you should examine exactly WHY this makes you angry especially considering you aren't forced to say it if you dont want to (i used to say under ME instead of under GOD when I said the pledge in school because I was a good little atheist boy).

Because government should not be endorsing religion, ever.

You can deny the facts all you want to, it doesn't change them. Fact is this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but that's not to say that the United States of America was founded upon the Christian religion.

Prove it. There's no reference to Jesus or Christianity or the Bible anywhere in the Constitution and some of our founders were deists. Also our Constitution guarantees the right to do things forbidden in the Bible.

 

[Foxfyre]

You can deny the facts all you want to, it doesn't change them. Fact is this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but that's not to say that the United States of America was founded upon the Christian religion.

No, this country was founded on Enlightenment Principles. The first to do so...the European countries we were trying to distance ourselves from were founded on Judeo-Christian principles and we were sick of their oppression.

True and often forgotten - many of the founders of our system of government were products of the Enlightenment - but, that doesn't mean a total rejection of Judeo-Christian heritage but rather a critical examination of the role of religion in government (and the cause of many European wars) and a rejection of the long held idea that people could govern themselves - they did not need a king (who was also usually the head of the church as well) or a Pope.

They also recognized certain inherent rights that could not be taken away (rights stipulated as given by a creator but specifically avoids mentioning anything biblical because those rights do not exist in the Bible) - that is a product of the Enlightenment.

I don't see 'the Enlightenment' in the vast majority of the writings and arguments of the Founders. I know Atheists and Agnostics are fond of characterizing most of the Founders as Deists; i.e. children of the Enlightenment, but that simply doesn't hold up under honest scrutiny. The Enlightenment, like all Humanist trends/thought, puts the power in the hands of humans to be directed by human logic and reason.

The Founders, while assigning unalienable rights to the individual, and while placing responsibility to act and consequences for acting wrongly on the individual, were also almost uniformly agreed that those rights were from the Creator and only by the power of that Creator will a religiously faithful and moral people be able to act rightly. In other words, the Constitution would work for no other.

That was quite different from humanist doctrines/the Enlightenment.

What the Enlightenment did accomplish was to break the prescribed molds and promoted freedom of thought and conviction free of consequences of threats of hell, excommunication, the Inquisition, etc.

And the Founders did incorporate that into their conviction to no longer allow the Church of England or any other religious entity have power to restrict the people's freedom of thought or any other freedoms against their will.

 

[bodecea]

No, this country was founded on Enlightenment Principles. The first to do so...the European countries we were trying to distance ourselves from were founded on Judeo-Christian principles and we were sick of their oppression.

True and often forgotten - many of the founders of our system of government were products of the Enlightenment - but, that doesn't mean a total rejection of Judeo-Christian heritage but rather a critical examination of the role of religion in government (and the cause of many European wars) and a rejection of the long held idea that people could govern themselves - they did not need a king (who was also usually the head of the church as well) or a Pope.

They also recognized certain inherent rights that could not be taken away (rights stipulated as given by a creator but specifically avoids mentioning anything biblical because those rights do not exist in the Bible) - that is a product of the Enlightenment.

I don't see 'the Enlightenment' in the vast majority of the writings and arguments of the Founders. I know Atheists and Agnostics are fond of characterizing most of the Founders as Deists; i.e. children of the Enlightenment, but that simply doesn't hold up under honest scrutiny. The Enlightenment, like all Humanist trends/thought, puts the power in the hands of humans to be directed by human logic and reason.

The Founders, while assigning unalienable rights to the individual, and while placing responsibility to act and consequences for acting wrongly on the individual, were also almost uniformly agreed that those rights were from the Creator and only by the power of that Creator will a religiously faithful and moral people be able to act rightly. In other words, the Constitution would work for no other.

That was quite different from humanist doctrines/the Enlightenment.

What the Enlightenment did accomplish was to break the prescribed molds and promoted freedom of thought and conviction free of consequences of threats of hell, excommunication, the Inquisition, etc.

And the Founders did incorporate that into their conviction to no longer allow the Church of England or any other religious entity have power to restrict the people's freedom of thought or any other freedoms against their will.

Um, does John Locke...an Enlightenment philosopher....ring a bell?

 

[Coyote]

I don't see 'the Enlightenment' in the vast majority of the writings and arguments of the Founders. I know Atheists and Agnostics are fond of characterizing most of the Founders as Deists; i.e. children of the Enlightenment, but that simply doesn't hold up under honest scrutiny. The Enlightenment, like all Humanist trends/thought, puts the power in the hands of humans to be directed by human logic and reason.

The Founders, while assigning unalienable rights to the individual, and while placing responsibility to act and consequences for acting wrongly on the individual, were also almost uniformly agreed that those rights were from the Creator and only by the power of that Creator will a religiously faithful and moral people be able to act rightly. In other words, the Constitution would work for no other.

That was quite different from humanist doctrines/the Enlightenment.

What the Enlightenment did accomplish was to break the prescribed molds and promoted freedom of thought and conviction free of consequences of threats of hell, excommunication, the Inquisition, etc.

And the Founders did incorporate that into their conviction to no longer allow the Church of England or any other religious entity have power to restrict the people's freedom of thought or any other freedoms against their will.

I agree with some of what you are saying but the while the founders did have a general consensus on morality, that consensus lay with competing authorities. Some believed it lay with religion, others considered the possibility of a secular moral authority.Their positions were complex and hardly unified. Because they did not agree on the foundations of morality they defined it in both religious and secular terms. I think that the fact that they entertained such thought indicates the influence of the Enlightenment.

I don't know if "most" of the Founders were Deists, but a significant number were, with more showing signs they may have been at least thinking in that direction.

I always found it interesting that they referred to "their Creator"...not God.

 

[Foxfyre]

True and often forgotten - many of the founders of our system of government were products of the Enlightenment - but, that doesn't mean a total rejection of Judeo-Christian heritage but rather a critical examination of the role of religion in government (and the cause of many European wars) and a rejection of the long held idea that people could govern themselves - they did not need a king (who was also usually the head of the church as well) or a Pope.

They also recognized certain inherent rights that could not be taken away (rights stipulated as given by a creator but specifically avoids mentioning anything biblical because those rights do not exist in the Bible) - that is a product of the Enlightenment.

I don't see 'the Enlightenment' in the vast majority of the writings and arguments of the Founders. I know Atheists and Agnostics are fond of characterizing most of the Founders as Deists; i.e. children of the Enlightenment, but that simply doesn't hold up under honest scrutiny. The Enlightenment, like all Humanist trends/thought, puts the power in the hands of humans to be directed by human logic and reason.

The Founders, while assigning unalienable rights to the individual, and while placing responsibility to act and consequences for acting wrongly on the individual, were also almost uniformly agreed that those rights were from the Creator and only by the power of that Creator will a religiously faithful and moral people be able to act rightly. In other words, the Constitution would work for no other.

That was quite different from humanist doctrines/the Enlightenment.

What the Enlightenment did accomplish was to break the prescribed molds and promoted freedom of thought and conviction free of consequences of threats of hell, excommunication, the Inquisition, etc.

And the Founders did incorporate that into their conviction to no longer allow the Church of England or any other religious entity have power to restrict the people's freedom of thought or any other freedoms against their will.

Um, does John Locke...an Enlightenment philosopher....ring a bell?

Sure. I have read a lot of Locke, include a lot of his quotations, embrace his basic philosophy re human rights, property, and economics. He was something of a rebel in his religious views, but I would not describe him as a Deist. Still, even if he was, you are aware that he died in 1704 which would be....let's see....72 years prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and 80 some years prior to the debates re the principles that would be incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. So, he isn't really a 'founder' is he?

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see 'the Enlightenment' in the vast majority of the writings and arguments of the Founders. I know Atheists and Agnostics are fond of characterizing most of the Founders as Deists; i.e. children of the Enlightenment, but that simply doesn't hold up under honest scrutiny. The Enlightenment, like all Humanist trends/thought, puts the power in the hands of humans to be directed by human logic and reason.

The Founders, while assigning unalienable rights to the individual, and while placing responsibility to act and consequences for acting wrongly on the individual, were also almost uniformly agreed that those rights were from the Creator and only by the power of that Creator will a religiously faithful and moral people be able to act rightly. In other words, the Constitution would work for no other.

That was quite different from humanist doctrines/the Enlightenment.

What the Enlightenment did accomplish was to break the prescribed molds and promoted freedom of thought and conviction free of consequences of threats of hell, excommunication, the Inquisition, etc.

And the Founders did incorporate that into their conviction to no longer allow the Church of England or any other religious entity have power to restrict the people's freedom of thought or any other freedoms against their will.

I agree with some of what you are saying but the while the founders did have a general consensus on morality, that consensus lay with competing authorities. Some believed it lay with religion, others considered the possibility of a secular moral authority.Their positions were complex and hardly unified. Because they did not agree on the foundations of morality they defined it in both religious and secular terms. I think that the fact that they entertained such thought indicates the influence of the Enlightenment.

I don't know if "most" of the Founders were Deists, but a significant number were, with more showing signs they may have been at least thinking in that direction.

I always found it interesting that they referred to "their Creator"...not God.

No, they seldom referred to God as 'the Creator'. They sometimes did so in official documents to reflect that we would not be a theocracy in America, but rather a place where people would be free to follow their own beliefs and convictions and where people would be allowed liberty by whatever name they called or referred to their God. The 'Enlightenment' was a product of a new interest in the classics and resurgence of the original 'enlightenment' in ancient Greek thought. It was the same trigger that provoked the Reformation and a concept of humanism. However, while it affected their overall culture, just as Hellenism affected first century Judaism, it was not where the Founders were at the time they created this great nation.

However much they included the necessity and importance of religious tolerance in the law of the land, you will find very few, if any, Deists in the group, They were pretty much of one accord that if America should ever abandon its Christian values and roots, the great experiment would then fail.

The First Charter of Virginia (granted by King James I, on April 10, 1606)
• We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God…

William Bradford• wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
2) “The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world

John Adams and John Hancock:
"We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" [April 18, 1775]

John Adams:“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

Samuel Adams: “He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

John Quincy Adams:• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?"

Elias Boudinot: “ Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”

Benjamin Franklin: “ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

Alexander Hamilton: “"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

John Jay: “ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816.

Thomas Jefferson: “The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

James Madison: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

And we could go on and on and on with the quotations that almost all wrote into their speeches, letters, written treatises, etc. etc. etc.