Justify the Pledge...

[Cecilie1200]

We have a constitutional republic - majority may come into play in elections but the majority does not rule when it comes to rights. This is not a popularity contest or mob rule. The rights of the majority 99% do not trump the rights of any individual.

Unless, of course, that majority votes to amend the Constitution as to what those protected rights are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yep. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your point was that if the tables were turned and the christian "under God" was replaced by "under Allah" in the pledge, christians would be screaming bloody murder instead of saying "Oh, what's the big deal?" as they are now.

I doubt it. Christians living in predominantly Muslim countries live with a far greater amount of indoctrination in their everyday lives than any "poor, downtrodden" atheist is forced to tolerate here.

If you choose to live in a country founded primarily by people with beliefs different from your own, then you are choosing a certain amount of cultural dissonance. The Pledge of Allegiance, like it or not, is a part of America's cultural heritage, and while I don't suggest forcing anyone to say it, I certainly think schoolchildren should be TAUGHT it, just as they are going to have to be taught about the religious foundations of our nation's history. I would expect the Hindu religion to come up in my child's classroom if I lived in India, after all.

 

[Taomon]

I like your post but I think kids in elementary school are a bit young to understand what their constitutional rights are and object if they feel that they're being violated. I remember when I was a kid in elementary school, we were taught that what the teacher said was always right. It was beyond our comprehension to think that the teacher could do something wrong and have to be corrected. She is the teacher, after all! I don't know how difficult it would be to get a 7 year old to understand that he can buck the teacher's authority if his constitutional rights are being violated but that he can't if he is instructed to do his homework. High school students might be a different story.

I'm not saying we should allow students to think they'll get in trouble if they don't recite the pledge. I just think they shouldn't be put in a position where they have to make that decision.

I would not under-estimate the children. They are smarter than you think. Given the right tools, they can be taught anything. Don't believe me? look at China & India.

 

[YWN666]

Unless, of course, that majority votes to amend the Constitution as to what those protected rights are.

Does the general public vote for constitutional amendments?

 

[YWN666]

I doubt it. Christians living in predominantly Muslim countries live with a far greater amount of indoctrination in their everyday lives than any "poor, downtrodden" atheist is forced to tolerate here.

If you choose to live in a country founded primarily by people with beliefs different from your own, then you are choosing a certain amount of cultural dissonance. The Pledge of Allegiance, like it or not, is a part of America's cultural heritage, and while I don't suggest forcing anyone to say it, I certainly think schoolchildren should be TAUGHT it, just as they are going to have to be taught about the religious foundations of our nation's history. I would expect the Hindu religion to come up in my child's classroom if I lived in India, after all.

The conversation was about the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in America. You're comparing apples and oranges since those countries do not have the same Constitution that we do.
By the way, it doesn't matter if the founders of this country were 100% christian or jewish or muslim. The nation was created as a secular one where the rights of an athest are equal to those of any other citizen and vice versa. For you to imply that anyone of a minority belief has suck it up and cave in to the majority runs contrary to what the Constitution demands.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Does the general public vote for constitutional amendments?

Unless my English skills have deteriorated horribly in the last day or so, I'm seeing Article V say that Congress either proposes Amendments or calls a convention to do so when 2/3 of the legislatures apply for it. Said proposed Amendment is then ratified by 3/4 of the legislatures or by conventions in 3/4 of the states.

Except for one Amendment, the 21st, they are typically passed by Congress and ratified by the state legislatures. In the case of the 21st Amendment, which specified in its text that it be ratified by conventions instead, the voters elected delegates to the Ratification Convention.

So while the Amendment process is not a direct ballot issue, the voters can and do have the power to directly effect a change in the Constitution if they want it enough. They need only overwhelmingly pressure the political office holders they have, or elect new ones specifically for that purpose, or insist on Amendment by convention.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The conversation was about the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in America. You're comparing apples and oranges since those countries do not have the same Constitution that we do.
By the way, it doesn't matter if the founders of this country were 100% christian or jewish or muslim. The nation was created as a secular one where the rights of an athest are equal to those of any other citizen and vice versa. For you to imply that anyone of a minority belief has suck it up and cave in to the majority runs contrary to what the Constitution demands.

The post I was responding to asked what Christians would do if the pledge referred to Allah rather than God, so it is a completely valid comparison - not "apples and oranges" at all - to observe what Christians actually DO when living in a country founded on a different religion, which is what would most likely be required for that event to happen.

By the way, it DOES matter what our founders were, because only a complete fool thinks that people can or would even want to found a country with no reference whatsoever to their foundational core beliefs.

And unfortunately for the popular myth, the Constitution does not provide for the minority to override the will of the majority as a regular practice. It only allows for very specific rights, in very specific parameters, to be protected. Not the same thing at all.

 

[YWN666]

Unless my English skills have deteriorated horribly in the last day or so, I'm seeing Article V say that Congress either proposes Amendments or calls a convention to do so when 2/3 of the legislatures apply for it. Said proposed Amendment is then ratified by 3/4 of the legislatures or by conventions in 3/4 of the states.

Except for one Amendment, the 21st, they are typically passed by Congress and ratified by the state legislatures. In the case of the 21st Amendment, which specified in its text that it be ratified by conventions instead, the voters elected delegates to the Ratification Convention.

So while the Amendment process is not a direct ballot issue, the voters can and do have the power to directly effect a change in the Constitution if they want it enough. They need only overwhelmingly pressure the political office holders they have, or elect new ones specifically for that purpose, or insist on Amendment by convention.

So the general public does NOT vote for Constitutional amenments. Electing a representative to vote for an amendment is a far cry from a direct vote by the public.

 

[YWN666]

The post I was responding to asked what Christians would do if the pledge referred to Allah rather than God, so it is a completely valid comparison - not "apples and oranges" at all - to observe what Christians actually DO when living in a country founded on a different religion, which is what would most likely be required for that event to happen.

By the way, it DOES matter what our founders were, because only a complete fool thinks that people can or would even want to found a country with no reference whatsoever to their foundational core beliefs.

There may be references to their beliefs but those beliefs were not installed as our government. Our government was created as a secular one.

And unfortunately for the popular myth, the Constitution does not provide for the minority to override the will of the majority as a regular practice. It only allows for very specific rights, in very specific parameters, to be protected. Not the same thing at all.

So you're saying that a student forced to pledge allegiance under god does fall under that category?

 

[YWN666]

The post I was responding to asked what Christians would do if the pledge referred to Allah rather than God, so it is a completely valid comparison - not "apples and oranges" at all - to observe what Christians actually DO when living in a country founded on a different religion, which is what would most likely be required for that event to happen.

That "when in Rome..." idea doesn't cut it under our Constitution when it comes to rights. It doesn't matter if 99% of this nation were christians. Their rights are no greater (and no less) than those of the minority.

Should an atheist be expected to recite a christian prayer in a public school just because the majority of the class is christian? That is insane and unconstitutional.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So the general public does NOT vote for Constitutional amenments. Electing a representative to vote for an amendment is a far cry from a direct vote by the public.

Oh, hey, WOW. You've managed to bring out that ::gasp!:: our country operates by representation rather than direct ballot. That so TOTALLY contradicts everything I never said about how this is a pure democracy, and demonstrates . . . I have no frigging clue what.

What you were presumably going for was to show me that the people can't really choose to revoke Constitutional rights. You failed. What you proved was that they can't do it by direct ballot vote. In other words, you wasted multiple posts and my time proving me "wrong" about something I never said in the first place.

Was there anything else, or did this shoot your entire worthless wad for the day?

 

[jillian]

I doubt it. Christians living in predominantly Muslim countries live with a far greater amount of indoctrination in their everyday lives than any "poor, downtrodden" atheist is forced to tolerate here.

Only because of people who fight to keep religion out of their government.

If you choose to live in a country founded primarily by people with beliefs different from your own, then you are choosing a certain amount of cultural dissonance. The Pledge of Allegiance, like it or not, is a part of America's cultural heritage, and while I don't suggest forcing anyone to say it, I certainly think schoolchildren should be TAUGHT it, just as they are going to have to be taught about the religious foundations of our nation's history. I would expect the Hindu religion to come up in my child's classroom if I lived in India, after all.

This isn't a Christian country. That's why the First Amendment exists.

 

[YWN666]

Oh, hey, WOW. You've managed to bring out that ::gasp!:: our country operates by representation rather than direct ballot. That so TOTALLY contradicts everything I never said about how this is a pure democracy, and demonstrates . . . I have no frigging clue what.

What you were presumably going for was to show me that the people can't really choose to revoke Constitutional rights. You failed. What you proved was that they can't do it by direct ballot vote. In other words, you wasted multiple posts and my time proving me "wrong" about something I never said in the first place.

Was there anything else, or did this shoot your entire worthless wad for the day?

You could have saved a lot of time and effort by just saying "YWN, you were right".
Seriously, I don't know why you have a bug up your ass but the point I was making that you apparently misunderstood is that constitutional rights are not determined by popular vote. You can save your histrionics for someone who is swayed by them.

 

[Anguille]

If anyone should be embarrassed about anything - atheists should be embarrassed about having their bigotry and intolerance of those who hold different beliefs - so easily exposed.

Your posts are too long winded to read but this caught my eye as I was scrolling by.

The shame belongs on the heads of anyone who would accuse atheists and others who will not vow our country is under God of bigotry and intolerance.

 

[Anguille]

... the point I was making that you apparently misunderstood is that constitutional rights are not determined by popular vote.

Thank God/Allah/Non Entity for that!

 

[FireGod]

Thank God/Allah/Non Entity for that!

You forgot the Pink Unicorn

 

[random3434]

Hope the kid gets an A on his report!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Only because of people who fight to keep religion out of their government.

Wrong. Our country is free because of people who fought to allow EVERYONE to participate in government, and still fight for it, these days against those who feel it their bounden duty to remove religion and those damned religious people from the process.

This isn't a Christian country. That's why the First Amendment exists.

Really? Where does the First Amendment say anything about "We're secular, and you Christians butt the hell out"?

I see government being barred from being involved in religion, not the other way around.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You could have saved a lot of time and effort by just saying "YWN, you were right".
Seriously, I don't know why you have a bug up your ass but the point I was making that you apparently misunderstood is that constitutional rights are not determined by popular vote. You can save your histrionics for someone who is swayed by them.

I could have saved time doing that, but it wouldn't have been true, because you weren't. You were pointless, time-wasting, and ignorant.

"I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about me making a point about something you never said in order to avoid dealing with what you DID say, because I can't answer that." That's all you're really saying, because I NEVER said "Constitutional rights are determined by popular vote". That's just what you WANTED me to have said, because you can't argue anything else.

I tell you what. Your next post on this will deal with the fact that the people CAN change the Constitution to remove rights if they choose to do so, or it will be an admission that I was right. Either way, that point stands, and we're done.

Save your straw man arguments for people as dumb as you.

 

[YWN666]

Wrong. Our country is free because of people who fought to allow EVERYONE to participate in government, and still fight for it, these days against those who feel it their bounden duty to remove religion and those damned religious people from the process.



Really? Where does the First Amendment say anything about "We're secular, and you Christians butt the hell out"?

I see government being barred from being involved in religion, not the other way around.

You're sadly misinformed. There have only been a few dozen Sup Ct cases that specifically prohibited our government from endorsing religion. You've heard of the Supreme Court, haven't you?