“…try minding your own business, Pops.”*
****
update: Bill defends the right not to be offended by small inconveniences.
Bible-thumping cousin of update: Bill continues to conflate religious freedom with what he perceives to be his “right” not to be confronted by language he construes might be injurious or coercive to a hypothetical, super-sensitive child.
Ok, it looks like I’m going to have to have a kid now …
I knew that the Supremes would chicken out.
Did you happen to notice which wing of the court was doing the clucking and pecking, Bill ?
“Three court members—Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas—disagreed with the ruling that Newdow could not bring the case. They said they would have ruled that the words “under God” do not violate the Constitution.”
O’Connor (usually) being the swing vote, looks like Newdow would lose any ruling, no matter the underlying basis for it.
Thank goodness for easy outs. Read a personal take on the matter here, if you’re looking for ways to waste your time.
Regardless of the potential outcome, they chickened out. I certainly would have liked to have read the justification for “under God” in the event of an affirmative ruling … following that situational logic would have been like sniffing hairspray from a paper bag.
I’m with Bill, The SCOTUS wimped out. They knew that this issue is so hot right now that there was no way of ruling in a way that wouldn’t drive one half of the country insane. So they punted.
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Seems pretty self-explanatory to me-unless you want to make the argument that requiring “under God” in the pledge or on our money doesn’t establish religion, which I would disagree with.
The big one will be when SCOTUS has to rule on the Muslim call to prayer in Michigan. I don’t think they’ll be able to punt that one….
Tman:
What religion is established by the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge?
While you’re at it, why would the SCOTUS rule on a Muslim call to prayer?
Call me curious.
Forbes – better question: ask yourself what religions are excluded by the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge?
I mean, I know all those polytheistic religions are just plain goofy right? How can they believe in several big men that float in the sky and alternately proffer love and punishment instead of one big man that floats in the sky and proffers love and punishment, right? Right? That’s just plain silly.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but it’s important that people analyze this from a perspective outside a point of view that may be fundamentally determined by a belief in the superiority of traditional religion over non-traditional religion or non-religion.
One man’s bullshit is another man’s worldview. that’s why ol’ TJ and many of the founders kept the issue distinctly separate.
So put a fucking “s” on “God” and get on with it.
De minimis.
Jeff,
I’m with you in the fact that we most certainly do have bigger things to worry about right now. The issue I have with this is that the big problem we’re worrying about right now is religious fundamentalism, primarily displayed in Islam. And right now, Islam is challenging the consitutional basis for seperation of church and state in our own country (see Hammtrammack, MI Muslim Call to Prayer debate). If we can’t get our priorities straight, we are going to lose this battle.
Govmint over here. Religion over there.
‘nuff said.
The 9th Circuit cited “coercion” and “injurious language” as the basis for its ruling, if I’m remembering correctly. I’ve written extensively on why this is wrong-headed and potentially very dangerous.
“Under God” is, in my estimation, a benign, nearly phatic phrase that doesn’t establish a state religion. The opt out clause is enough to satisfy me.
For the record, I have no problem with it’s legislated removal, should it come to such a vote. I do have a problem with it’s judicial removal, however.
So where do we draw the line between religious phrases being benign and damaging?
I agree that the pledge isn’t something we are unable to “opt out of”. But Bill does have a point in children being ostracized in certain areas of the country by “opting out” of this phrase.
My point is, and it’s the same with the church bell/call to prayer argument, since it’s too ambiguous to draw a line, no one gets to have there religion ESTABLISHED within the context of our government.
We’re dangling over a slippery slope by ignoring this. I agree that the pledge isn’t a big deal, hell they probably don’t even recite in most schools anymore, but the principles are a big deal. Even more so in the case of the present conflict versus Islamic fundamentalism.
Right here would be nice. There’s nothing damaging in the phrase “under God”—particularly when you’re within your rights to opt out.
Hell, there are areas in the country where children are ostracized for not having polo ponies on their shirts. Don’t want to see the courts rule on the injuriousness of that, either.
As I say, the phrase “under God” was made into law in 1954 w/o a Constitutional challenge. There’s nothing “established” by that phrase. Should you wish to get rid of it, pass a law. Just stop looking to the courts.
Agreed. I don’t have a problem with it. I won’t get arrested for not saying “Under God”.
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting the initial placement of the “under God” phrase. It was my understanding that the basis for Nedows case was that no one had made a consitutional challenge that made it to the Supremes on this issue since ‘54. I believe it is within the realm of consitutional challenge, as pissant as it may be.
However, I still believe the principal of the establishment clause is our greatest weapon against religious fundamentalism, and anytime we look the other way because the issue “isn’t a big deal”, I get nervous. For the third time, example: Church bells/Muslim Call to Prayer…..
Our priorities should allow us to make distinctions. Here, we have a 50-year old tradition of including the phrase, plus an opt out clause.
What are the particulars of the Hammtrammack, MI Muslim Call to Prayer debate?
I agree, we aren’t so freaking ignorant that we can’t see the distinction. Well, the majority anyways…..
I haven’t heard the latest from Michigan, but here’s the last report I knew of…..
Call to prayer is unsettling in Hamtramck
Thanks, Tman! I’ll take a look when I get a chance and comment then.
Key snippets:
“I do have a problem with it’s judicial removal, however.”
We all know that the failure of the legislative branch is that politicians won’t touch anything that’s even remotely controversial. That’s the purpose of the judicial brnach, to guarantee the rights of the minority in the face of majority opposition. Put it this way Jeff – many atheists aren’t even lawfully allowed to run for office in many state and local jurisdictions. Insane law, right? Why hasn’t the appropriate legistlature changed it?
“50-year old tradition”
Compared to a 60+ year-old tardition of not including it.
“Polo ponies”
The state does not put children in the position of having to have polo ponies on thier shirts.
“So put a fucking “s” on “God” and get on with it.”
Or, even quicker, since it’s merely ceremonial deism and has no meaning anyway, delete the line and get on with it.
Sorry, but at the very least, it’s not an issue that can be so easily dismissed into the “ell those people are dumbasses column.” the only rational argument against changing the pledge, IMO, is to avoid the ridiculously overblown backlash. from a legal standpoint the course of action seems rather clear, given at least 60+ years of supreme court precedent.
Whatever. I just don’t care to argue it any more. If you think the language is injurious, and you interpret the Establishment clause in your particular way, you can stick with your conclusions. I’ll stick with mine. The point of the 50 year thing is that it doesn’t matter. Didn’t need to be changed in the first place, but it was; doesn’t need to be changed now.
But yes yes YES, Jeff, we must change it RIGHT NOW. How can we win the WoT with “God” in our pledge of allegiance ? And we need to get it out of here, too:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
I’m willing to bet some sneaky bastard stuck it someplace else in the public discourse when we weren’t looking, too (my money’s on that Reagan guy – he was always saying stuff with God in it). I say we mount a full court press and root out any references to a higher power than our own hurt feelings. Because otherwise, well, it’s just another Abu-Ghraib waiting to happen.
No court is going to tell me I can’t reference my God when I say my pledge of allegiance. Who’s going to enforce this silliness – the same guys out there now, arresting all you godless heathens for not saying God in your pledge ? Can’t you guys find something to get offended about that’s a little more important, and a lot less petty ?
Time for some history lessons:
1. Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting or ratification of the Constitution, at least in any official capacity. The only Presidents who were delegates to the constitutional convention were George Washington and James Madison. The final draft was prepared by the unjustly obscure Gouverneur Morris; much of the earlier work was done by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (I think), who, together with John Jay, wrote the Federalist papers, urging the people of the state of New York (formally, and, informally, all people in the United States) to support ratification of the Constitution.
2. The phrase “separation of Church and State” does not appear in the Constitution, including any amendments thereto, nor does any phrase resembling it. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the word “church” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The phrase did appear in a letter from Thomas Jefferson (the fellow who had nothing to do with drafting or ratifying the Constitution), and may have made an earlier appearance in a letter written by Roger Williams (the founder of Rhode Island, not the Canadian easy-listening pianist).
3. The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in any Supreme Court opinion until 1947, in the case of Everson vs. Board of Education of Ewing Township. Justice Black, writing for the majority, used it in an opinion holding that reimbursing parents for bus fare necessary to transport their children to and from private (probably Catholic) schools was constitutional. Given that his opinion was that the arrangement was constitutional, the reference is absolutely not essential to the holding.
Please, no appeals to Thomas Jefferson, and no references to a doctrine that is not mentioned in the Constitution and is not mentioned even by name in a Supreme Court decision until 160 years after the Constitution was ratified (and then in an opinion that really had no reason to mention it).
K Jeff, fair enough.
But let me ask Joe and many others this:
Why is it that any time I get into a discussion about this it has to be painted in absolutes? like anyone that doesn’t want their kid to have to pledge allegiance to your God is some sort of fucking maniacal absolutist that wants to nonsensically strip all passive references to religion from the public discourse, just based on principle? get your head out of your ass. the pledge is a compelled ritual that is a fundamental part of a child’s EDUCATION. Religion needs to be far, far away from public EDUCATION. get it? No?
How about, I love my country. I don’t believe in God. If I have kids they won’t either. Considering how seriously many of you take religion (seriously enough to have a goddamn fit over losing those two little words, seriusly enough for religious folks to casually tell atheists that they are bound for eternal suffering), why is it so impossible to understand why someone with diametrically opposite beliefs might not want it shoved down their kid’s throat? How do you feel about some teacher talking to your kids about oral sex, Joe? not their place? just tell them to ignore it – works for a mention of religion! how about how much that teacher thinks that george Bush is a fucking retard? Does that piss you off? What’s that you say? not their place? Just let it slide – it’s not like what kids hear in school has any impact on undermining YOUr belief system, right? Not their place to talk about GOD EITHER, JOE!
just because it’s not in YOUR frame of reference doesn’t mean that others may not have a legit gripe.
just because someone doesn’t agree with you on this doesn’t mean that they are the convenient ridiculous embodiement of your personal bogeyman on the matter, either, joe.
And Joe? Don’t stop saying under god in YOUR pledge allegiance – just keep it the Hell out of the one that my kid will be compelled to say. Not everyone buys the theory about the invisible man in the sky, Joe. hell, while we’re at it, let’s keep under god in the pledge, go a bit farther and get rid of that whole evolution bit. Does it never strike you people that these mythologies are struck down, one by one, and you just keep moving the damn goalposts to adapt to your understanding of the universe? Does any of this bother you?
What if a teacher made comments like this to your kids? to the kid’s of a practicing Christian? That parent would lose their fucking mind. And they wouldn’t have to put up with it because they are in the majority. If you can’t see the parallel, then you are an idiot or a blind ideologue.
One day, when you are old and grey, and demographic shifts perhaps cause a fundamental change in common religious attitudes, and your great-grandkid is forced to pledge allegiance to the pantheon of triple-horned goat Gods as a part of his daily affirm,ation of being American, maybe your short-sighted take on the mattter will retroactively crystalize, and you will mouth into your pureed plums “Bill was right. that goddamned bastard from INDc was right. if only i’d fully supported the Establishment clause of the constitution, little Johnny wouldn’t be smearing goat blood all over the fucking refrigerator and fucking the cat. I’m sorry, Bill from INDC, I’m so sorry!”
The problem, Bill, is that you’re NOT supporting the Establishment clause, but rather some 1970s civil libertarian idea of the Establishment clause, as Sanity Inspector points out. Shame the decision wasn’t rendered today; the Pledge was set to be upheld, and this silliness over with. Your child can opt out of saying it; most children say it by rote and don’t consider the meaning at all. It’s a stupid ritual, if you ask me. But that doesn’t make it an unconstitutional ritual, which is my point.
Now, I hope I can keep myself from posting on this ever again.
Silicon –
Semantics. To assert that Jefferson had little to do with the initial principles and subsequent interpretation of the Constitution just because he was serving as an envoy in France is ludicrous. From that letter:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
From E vs. Bd. of education:
The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.
As far as i’m aware dissenting or ancillary comments put forth by the court have great relevance on future cases. if you’d like me to dig up a list of the cases where the separation of church and state has been the crux of the decision, I can accomplish that …
Jeff – Everson vs. Bd of education was in 1947, 7 years before the pledge was amended. Strictly speaking the amended text would have been found unconstitutional by the court. It reamains to be challenged.
PS – i’m done.
Okay, Bill.
Volokh, citing Thomas, who believes the precedent for Bill’s reading of the EC exists; he would, however, have ruled against that precedent, and moved toward a more strict reading of the EC (as I think SCOTUS should).
Sorry guys, but what’s so damn complicated about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?
I dunno…..maybe church bells?
Nah, calls to prayer. THATS what they meant. Surely.
Cuz it’s not like this Republic would ever face the tyranny of religion again, surely not…..
Again,
Govmint over here, religion over there. Not really all that complicated-prophetic, most definitely, but not really that complicated. Jefferson or otherwise.
Let’s get all the references to religion out of the public eye, ok? I mean, why stop at removal of “under God” from the Pledge (which Bill, bafflingly, is compelled to recite for some reason)? Why not get rid of references to saints? San Francisco becomes simply “Francisco”. San Diego, San Antonio, Santa Barbara, St. Paul, St. Petersburg…you get the picture. But why stop there? Someone might be offended by Corpus Christi…just rename it Corpus. And the Sangre de Christos Mountains? Ditch the Christ part.
The St. Lawrence Seaway, though, might get us in trouble with Canada. Best invade so we don’t have to look at maps with that annoying reference to sainthood.
And for Bog’s sake, let’s get rid of those annoying churches with their obtrusive crosses hanging out where everyone can see. Have you ever tried to avoid driving by these state-sanctioned advertisements for religion? Best to just get rid of them. Because, you know, someone a little like Bill might be highly annoyed by them.
I’m not quite sure what to do with all those guys named Jesús, though.
And don’t even get me started on the days of the week. I mean, it just bothers the piss out of me that tomorrow is Wotan’s Day. Fifty-friggin-two times a year, even. Rather than move to another planet, though, I’m going to force this one to conform to my needs, even if it pisses off a several million people. Because I‘m important, dammit.
Ah Slartibartfast – another of Jeff’s readers that has the inability to make any distinctions. Tell me Slartibartfast: is it hard on the eyes? You know, everything being in black-and-white and all?
And I’m not compelled to recite anything. An eight year-old is. Oh, but i forgot … an eight year-old is supposed to sit down every day while his or her other 40 classmates recite the pledge, if he or she is an atheist.
You know, there are a couple of good arguments for keeping the pledge, but so far I really haven’t heard any. I think that I get the equation now – the intent of the legislature in 1954 is fulfilled – atheists can’t be patriots, and patriots can’t be atheists. It’s that simple.
But the pledge is meaningless, you say? Well then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ARGUING SO VEHEMENTLY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS CURRENT INCARNATION.
The funny thing is, it’s not the inclusion of “under God” that is the really annoying thing out of this – it’s the inability of people to think outside of their own predispositions and grasp how the rights of a minority might be trampled by the explicit exclusion of their belief structure from a unifying public ritual.
This is what fuels liberals; too much personal empathy applied to public policy. I guess the opposite is true for conservatives, and we’re all just building an elaborate network of convenient logic to support all of our “gut feelings,” instead of rationally analyzing issues in the context of the law, precedent and the Golden Rule.
I salivate for the day when I can hear the caterwauling from some of my opponents on this issue over the first instance of a call to muslim prayer echoing through classrooms … or when their children have rotating denominational prayers or diversity workshops on different religions in elementary school.
And when it does, examine why your outrage is directed towards removing some religious reference instead of defending it.
Bill—you seem unwilling or unable to grasp that to many people here (myself included), this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with RELIGION PER SE, and EVERYTHING TO DO with the power of the judiciary and the slippery slope toward legislating away all discomfort. Period. To call “under God” coercive or injurious is to say, LEGALLY, that simple exposure to the phrase “under God” is damaging to people who don’t believe in a God. Which is horseshit—or at the very least, should be horseshit.
Why sit down? Why make a show of it? Why not just NOT say the words? Or replace them with other, more amenable words, like, perhaps, “under puppies,” or “under a tree”?
Again, I think the Pledge is a rather feeble ritual. But you know what? It’s defeat in the current legislated incarnation is certainly not worth setting dangerous legal precedent.
HEY! I thought you guys were done?
Heh.
Anyways, Bill kinda sorta reiterates the point I’ve been trying to make in this thread-
I wouldn’t necessarily say that I’m salivating for this day, but it is already here, it just hasn’t made it to SCOTUS yet, and it will.
Church Bells in your neighborhood violate noise ordinances. They are louder than the allowed decibel levels, but they get a free pass- why? Because they are churches. Yes, I know, most of them are no longer used for what they were intended- a call to prayer- but they still wake me up on Sundays when I’m trying to sleep.
Muslims have a call to prayer as well. In Hamtramck Michigan, a local mosque wants to blare the call to prayer five times a day (they start at 4:30 in the am) through huge loudspeakers.
The argument? Churches get to do it, why not Mosques?
You tell me why we should let one religion continue to wake me up yet not another.
My answer: we shouldn’t let either.
The same thing with the pledge. “Under God” is a religious term, and one that isn’t used by some other religions. That would be an ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION. PERIOD.
I’m suprised that more people aren’t seeing the danger of letting the Supremes punt on this one. Once they establish that “under God” isn’t really religious, they are setting a very dangerous precedent.
Bill:
I don’t have a problem with an Islamic mosque and the call to prayer. How would that be the establishment of religion?
And what would be wrong with a workshop that exposed children to different religious faiths? Schools are about education, no? Congress has made no law establishing a religion, in such an instance.
I think that what many of us, or I do, see as the absurdity of your position is that you wish the removal of any religious references from the public arena, no matter the source. And that if religious references are allowed, it is, per se, sanctioned by the state, thereby establishing religion.
The establishment clause in question includes the phrase “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (I am entitled to my free exercise, just as you are.)
You’ve stated, the majority fails to “grasp how the rights of a minority might be trampled by the explicit exclusion of their belief structure from a unifying public ritual.” Well, I think there are many cases of the exclusion of a “belief structure from a unifying public ritual,” especially as the ritual would no longer be unifying, as when the belief runs counter to public opinion. Yet what you’re suggesting is a tyranny of the minority, by requiring your beliefs to supercede that of the majority.
As Jeff suggested, if you can legislatively enact such changes, then more power to you–it then likely reflects the majority opinion. Your view that people are incapable of thinking outside their predispositions is somewhat strange–one might think that that (belief in one’s predispositions) is basic human nature. You’re, again, asking others to trump their own beliefs and self-interst, with your’s (that strikes me as irrational). If your argument were compelling, perhaps people would consider it, and make the changes you advocate. But isn’t that how it works in our society–convincing a majority of the righteousness of your argument? Otherwise it’s called something else. Anarchy? Despotism?
Perhaps you should ask your principal, or school board, to exclude the recitation of the Pledge to learn whether a majority of your locals think the same way.
Forbes wrote-
I do. I don’t want to be woken up at 4:30 in the morning by a guy screaming in Arabic for me to come pray. And when you allow a religious group to violate laws that the rest of us must abide by, then yes, you are ESTABLISHING a religion in violation of the first amendment.
Tman, sorry, but I call bullshit on this one. There is a carillon less than 100 yards from where I work that goes off every 15 minutes.
Around Christmas (one of those religious holidays I’m sure should be banished) the local fire department wheels around a Santa while ringing their horns which is a clear violation. But since they are allowed to do so, it is clear that the Government is REQUIRING that you believe in Santa.
Tman:
You’re conflating a local noise ordinance violation with the proscription against federal establishment of religion.
Many local options regarding its resolution exist, especially if the mosque is in fact violating a local ordinance.
You can go into state court and sue the local jurisdiction, in order to make same enforce the law. You could also file for an injunction against the mosque, in order to reap additional penalties should they continue to violate the local noise ordinance, thereby violating the injunction.
Failure to enforce a local noise ordinance is not a violation of your constitutional rights, nor is it the establishment of a religion–it is a violation of a local noise ordinance, if such actually exists. (Some localities don’t have them, as they are a relatively modern construct.)
As is often said, “don’t make a federal case out of it.” Reasonable people can arrive at reasonable solutions to local problems.
I have a mosque six blocks down the street from me, and they don’t wake me up at 4:30 am. Yours’ is clearly a local problem requiring a local, and not a federal, solution.
Since both Forbes and Marble are saying the same thing, I’ll respond in kind.
The reason I bring up the Hamtramck case is for one specific reason. Hamtramck is close to Dearborn in Michigan, and they both have very large Islamic immigrant populations. However, the cities also have many non-muslim residents. The call to prayer is issued five times throughout the day, starting at 4:30 in the morning (I dunno about you, but I DO NOT want to hear Arabic chants blaring at my window at 4:30 in the morning). It is a two to three minute chant/prayer telling people to come to the mosque, Allah is great, yadda yadda yadda- all spoken in Arabic. The local mosque applied to have the noise ordinance that was preventing them from blaring the call to prayer lifted. Since there is a muslim majority on the local City Council, this was passed and the call to prayer was on. For obvious reasons, the local non-muslim population filed a petition, thus the ordinance was not lifted. But the Mosques decided to blare it anyways.
Result? I dunno. But I can imagine that if allowed to continue, there will be inevitable backlash from the non-muslim communities, including lawsuits.
And this relates to the Establishment clause because no one has ever challenged the fact that church bells are allowed to ring, and they violate the noise ordinance. If the Mosques are prevented from blasting their call to prayer, they have already stated they will challenge the church’s rights to ring their church bells. And that is my point.
Once any religion is given preference by either state or federal government to violate a law or ordinance, that is a de facto ESTABLISHMENT of religion. I don’t care if it’s for Muslims, Christians, Jews, whoever.
The further we stray from what the founders intended-which was I mistakenly thought was quite obvious- in seperating the government from endorsing or establishing a religion, the more our social fabric suffers. We are not one culture, we are many cultures woven in to one. E Pluribus Unum and all that. I’m afraid that once the door is opened for religious freedom to become the excuse for trampling other freedoms, we will have lost the point of the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION.
Tman:
You have my sympathy. But it is a local problem in Hammtramck. If the Churches are violating the noise ordinance, then they should comply. Very poor public policy to exempt parties from local laws.
Still, under state law, localities don’t generally have the right to waive compliance with local ordinances, but it does happen. Waivers or exemptions require local consent–no different from zoning variances–whereby all property owners within some distance are polled for their consent, etc. Again, these exemptions are still subject to state court challenges.
Again, lots of potential local solutions, but a local problem does not call for a national solution, however egregious, or to wherever you can imagine this problem snowballs.
I don’t care to pursue your suggestion that the sound of the call to worship is the establishment of religion, simply because the municipality allows it to happen–it’s a violation of the noise ordinance. Presumably, when/if they comply with the noise ordinance, that’s the end of story. (You can’t make the case that in light of their compliance with the noise ordinance, there is, still, an establishment of religion question.)
Forbes,
I agree that these issues are best left to the local authorities. But you could say the same thing about the pledge case in the beginning.
That’s my point, the churches are not asked to comply with the noise ordinances that the rest of us adhere to. And people have complained before. (I have friends in Michigan, I live in Tennessee btw.)
Do we just let this slide as we have for years (reasonable, but unconstitutional) or do we allow all churches to violate noise ordinances (unreasonable, yet constitutional-sort of)?
This issue is not going away. That much I can tell you.
It was just about here that I lost any inclination to read further. You don’t know me, Bill. You don’t know anything about me. So: bullshit mind-reading and fumbling psychoanalysis aren’t going to fly with me.
Let us know when you’re inclined to take your fingers from your ears and discuss things like an adult on this issue. Nearly all of what you said has been countered by others on these couple of threads, so I’m thinking yet another reasoned reply is going to meet the same barrier that the others did.
You’ve got a good site, Bill, and you seem like a fellow with his head on straight. I stop by there from time to time and read. In this regard, though, you’re being an utter dickhead. Still, I’d let you buy me a beer or three, providing you don’t regale me about this whole “under God” bit.
I posted on this on another thread but it’s probably not a bad idea to post it here as well. If we are to admit of one of Jefferson’s comments regarding Church and State – that is, an appeal to Founding autorities, then we should look at the history of church and state in America under those foundational authorities, yes?
The Establishment Clause was about States’ rights. Some of the original colonies, future states, had “established” religions. There was concern that the federal government would interfere in state patronage of those religions -patronage such as public funding of churches, sectarian schools and salaries. In order to get the Constitution accepted, the Establishment clause was added to assure those states’ delegates that religion would not be a federal matter. Oh, dear, that *is* a pun these days, isn’t it? The Free Exercise Clause was the guarantor of individual rights. In other words, *states* could have an established religion – Connecticut did until 1818 when it was legislatively disestablished – but states could not burden the practice of other faiths by individuals.
Has the Establishment clause come to have a more individualistic application than was its original tactical purpose? Yes. Perhaps not enough.
Because of compulsory education statues and inequality of family financial resources, many American citizens are forced to send their children to governmentally supported schools that have as their guiding philosophy (note that I don’t say affirmatively teach although it certainly comes close in practice )Secular Humanism.
If that is not an establishment of religion, what is?
Susan
Dunno about where you all live, but in sunny Florida it’s perfectly legal to homeschool. Which means that the pledge is, in fact, elective here. Public school isn’t a requirement, it’s a choice.
>>>>Dunno about where you all live, but in sunny Florida it’s perfectly legal to homeschool. Which means that the pledge is, in fact, elective here. Public school isn’t a requirement, it’s a choice.
Was there something else that was supposed to come after that, Susan?
Don’t know what happened. I even tried posting again but it didn’t appear.
Yes.
Public school isn’t a requirement unless you live in a state where the barriers to home schooling are high or you do not have the resources to home school and you cannot afford private school. Then, because of the compulsory education laws, public school is no longer a choice.