To me, an implication has to be backed up by something other than the implication. Is there anything else to indicate that non-theists (I don't see the Pledge as a Christian Pledge as I've explained)

But even some of the theists are still left out of the equation. Using the definition of 'theist' at Dictionary.com, I'd say I fall under that category. But as far as I'm concerned, the Pledge still doesn't apply to me.

is does the Pledge constitute a church and state violation as expressed in the First Amendment? I myself would say no, but I recognize that the First Amendment is incredibly vague in discussing what is a church/state violation.

Needless to say, it is my opinion that it does. It was the government, after all, that inserted said phrase into the Pledge to begin with, and it is this altered version of the Pledge that is being spread around the states. That is being recited in public schools.

Just as a complete aside, when I quit Christianity and went to atheism, I quit reciting the Pledge altogether. I've not uttered it since, and I have no plans, at this time, to utter it at all. But that's another topic altogether.

Morgan, remind me to have a talk with you about my values as a Wiccan. Better yet, I'll take this over to the Wiccan board.

1. You didn't answer my question; is there anything else to indicate that non-theists or theists who don't believe in a set god are not as valued to the United States other than an implication based on two words in a non legally-binding statement of values?

2. Needless to say, it is my opinion that it is not a church/state violation. It is not a prayer. It is not religious instruction. It explicitly favors no church over another. Can you give me a past precedent case that this could fall under (not saying that there isn't one, I just don't know)?

Thank you for the new board. It's crizappy!

BTW and OT, it's my birthday today. I would go out and get drunk if it wasn't for the fact I don't drink.

Happy Birthday, MikeC!

Is there anything to indicate we're a Christian nation and that MJ and I are not as valued? Sure. Could MJ's coven get federal funding under faith-based initiatives?

But we were talking about the Pledge, and personally I don't want my comments taken as being about anything other than the Pledge.

Somewhat (okay very) off topic, but there is nothing LEGALLY to prevent the coven from getting federal funding under faith-based initiatives if the proper legislation was proposed and passed (and I find the concept of faith-based initiatives bordering on a separation of church/state violation anyway). Would the legislation pass? That's a different question.

There is plenty of evidence on the other hand to indicate that we are not a Christian nation.

Engel v. Vitale outlawed nonsectarian, nondenominational school prayer. A "moment of silence" that could be construed to mean prayer was similarly outlawed in Wallace v. Jaffree. Prayers at graduation (this one by a rabbi) were taken out at Lee v. Weisman. Prayers before football games (these student-led) were taken out at Santa Fe School District v. Doe.

Stone v. Graham removed the Ten Commandments, a benchmark of Judeo-Christian ethics, from schools.

Edwards v. Aguillard stated that the school board could not require the teaching of "creation science." Peloza v. Capistrano said a teacher does not have a right to teach creationism in a biology class. Freiler v. Tangipahoa said that any disclaimer before teaching evolution was religious in nature.

County of Allegehny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter struck down a city's Nativity scene (but not a menorah display).

Texas Monthly Inc. v. Bullock said that religious publications are not exempt from the sales tax.

Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith eliminated drug usage for religious reasons.

ACLU v. Ohio removed the slogan "In God, All Things Are Possible" from Ohio.

Williams v. Lara declared an "all Fundamentalist" prison section (even on a volunteer basis) was unconstitutional.

ESA v. Rylander (this is a Texas District Court case) said that religion cannot be defined by a belief in a god.

These cases seem to indicate that Christianity and theists in general are NOT any more favored in the sense of a political basis. Do I agree with all of these decisions? No.

But you say--am I just shooting myself in the foot? Don't these cases indicate that the Pledge should have to be changed too, especially when looking at ACLU v. Ohio?

Not exactly. The Ohio state motto was sectarian in nature--it was a direct quote from the Bible. The Pledge is not sectarian and cannot be equated with this motto or with the Ten Commandments. The Pledge, at least in my interpretation, is not a prayer and does not fall under any of the prayer cases. It is not doctrinal in nature and does not fall under the Creationism cases.

The closest thing is probably ESA v. Rylander which states that religion cannot be defined by a belief in God and I suppose this could be construed to make the Pledge as discriminatory against religious people that do not believe in God. But

a. That's just a District Court's ruling
b. I don't know if you can even do that with ESA v. Rylander--that case ruled that a religious group not believing in God deserved a religious tax exemption (which makes sense). That was defending that religious group's legal right. Is the Pledge on the same level as that?

My point in listing these cases is to show that we are not a Christian nation in which Christians and theists have different legal and political rights; we are merely a nation that values and has respect for religion and illustrates it through our Pledge of Allegiance.

Happy Birthday, Mike!

"As for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

My revised argument for the Pledge

You are either for the Pledge or you are an anti-American. If we remove the Pledge, then our children will become godless and life would have no meaning. Any reasonable person can see this and in fact, a majority of Americans feel this way. You could argue against the Pledge, but this would be nothing more than an attack on American values.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has in fact stated that the Pledge should be kept the same and as have several other respected government officials. I also asked the people at my church and they all agreed with me.

Anyway, what is wrong with recognizing God? Godly people work hard and isn't that what we want in our country? It is good to be respectful of religion and that's what we're doing, isn't it? Because a lot of kids want to be able to say "under God," who are we to deny them?

When the "under God" was put into the Pledge, several years later, the Cold War ended. Obviously, this had an effect. Americans armed with their strength in God fought off the Communists and must continue to do so against its current threats. And since God exists, we should definitely recognize Him. Don't you want to support people's freedom to express themselves? Or are you trying to get religion from ever being mentioned in a public setting?

I hope you accept this argument; I spent a lot of time working on it and I'm just a poor college student.


(All right, so how many logical fallacies there? It's harder than you think not to make sense)

You are either for the Pledge or you are an anti-American.

False dichotomy.

If we remove the Pledge, then our children will become godless and life would have no meaning.

False, since when has faith required state sponsorship?

Any reasonable person can see this and in fact, a majority of Americans feel this way.

Not an argument.

You could argue against the Pledge, but this would be nothing more than an attack on American values.

That assumes agreement on "American values."

Anyway, I'll let others handle the rest... ;)

Josh, you may have missed some sarcasm, but i dont think Mike was being all the way serious...

The last 2 lines give it away:
I hope you accept this argument; I spent a lot of time working on it and I'm just a poor college student.


(All right, so how many logical fallacies there? It's harder than you think not to make sense)

I think Josh was just pointing out of some my logical fallacies, I don't think he took it seriously (at least I hope not).

Because do you know how much nonsensical arguments cost around here?

I dunno Gary, how much DO they cost?

I think Josh was just pointing out of some my logical fallacies, I don't think he took it seriously (at least I hope not).

Well, you're not Peter. ;)

For a brief second, I thought he was Peter... ;)

Okay mike, those are your sarcastic ideas, what do you really think??

Haven't you been reading the last 1000 K of posts? It's all there, including Luigi Novi's duplicates.

at 9:00 eastern time, i offically pronounce this thread dead

It's dead, Jim.

I've been dead before.

Ah but death is the last great adventure

MikeC: Now to Luigi's points: 1. Ah, so it doesn't matter that it's important to others? I see.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure what the number “1” you place in front of this quote is a reference to, and I’m not sure what you mean by “doesn’t matter.” As I’ve stated before, the fact that religion is important to many individual citizens does not mean it’s important to the entire country, on a national level, particularly to the extent that it is elevated to the status of a founding national principle like freedom, equality, etc.

MikeC: Should we force the schools to remain open on Christmas because my tax dollars go to fund it and by having it closed we're recognizing a religious holiday over other things (actually, I don't think any public school does officially close for Christmas--or am I wrong?)
Luigi Novi: Christmas is no longer a religious holiday. Many non-Christians give gifts. I’ve had Jewish friends that bought Hannukah gifts for their extended families, and bought Christmas gifts for their non-Jewish ones. But to argue the point, let’s say it was a religious holiday. Would it have to be closed? No, but those who are required by their religion not to attend wouldn’t have to show up. I believe the same already holds true for Jewish holidays, doesn’t it?

MikeC: I'd like to really get the country to withdraw Columbus Day as an official holiday because I don't like having to find Columbus important.
Luigi Novi: Fine by me. Given that Columbus was a murderer, slave-driver and a rapist, I think there many other historical Italians that Italian-Americans (and Americans in general) can be proud of.

But you’re still missing the point.

Columbus’ actions did not merely affect those who liked him or continue to like him. They affected the entire world, and anyone living in the U.S. today does so as a result of them. You again miss the point that religion does not speak for all Americans or is something that pertains to all Americans. Columbus’ actions, on the other hand, have affected all Americans. Even ones like me who don’t like the guy.

MikeC: This moment of silence for President Reagan--I think he was an evil guy who doesn't deserve even a peep of silence, why am I being forced to be quiet and respectful?
Luigi Novi: Because he wasn’t President of those who liked mim. He was President of the entire country. Hence, his significance is on a national level. Religion isn’t.

MikeC: The answer to all of these questions--Because it is important to a large amount of people in our nation.
Luigi Novi: And there in lies the fundamental in your entire viewpoint on this matter. You think that religion is something that the theistic majority should be allowed to fraudulently attach to the country’s basic fundamental principles, simple because they’re the majority. Sorry, but that’s not how it works. We don’t rewrite our landscape to ignore the Separation of Church and State, and our history, simply because theists want to pretend that religion is something that goes hand in hand with things like freedom, equality, etc. “Important to a large amount of people” has nothing to do with the criteria by which we should decorate currency or pledge allegiance to our flag.

MikeC: Basically what I'm saying is that if all those things I cited are separation of church and state violations (which I don't think so), then our country has been violating them since basically day one (George Washington said "so help me God!" when he was sworn in;
Luigi Novi: Wrong. Him making a personal} statement is not the same thing as currency that everyone is forced to use, or pledges that every schoolchild or citizen has to recite. You continue to ignore the difference between these two things.

MikeC: Jefferson wrote "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution closes with "in the year of Our Lord") with no one batting an eye. I find it hard to believe that they are separation of church and state violations.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that “Nature’s God” doesn’t mean “God,” the Declaration of Independence is not a binding law or other ceremony required of citizens. “The year of Our Lord” may have simply been how years were commonly referred to; I’m not sure if “Common Era,” or C.E., which is used today, was used back then, so it’s possible there was not an alternative. Even so, a phrase used to date things is, like the Declaration, not something schoolchildren have to recite.

MikeC: All right, so let me replace Reagan with Martin Luther King Jr. who has his own national holiday. King was not the President of the United States; he was instead (gasp!) the leader of a group sharing a particular spiritual belief! Isn't giving him a national holiday and asking people for a moment of silence being discriminatory towards those that supported him (and King had a LOT of enemies)? Note: I don't think so, I'm just making a hypothetical statement.
Luigi Novi: Again, King’s spiritual beliefs had nothing to do with how his actions changed America, any more than Jefferson’s spiritual beliefs had to do with the Founding of the country, or the fundamental principles thereof. Like Columbus, King’s actions affected all the citizens of the U.S., not just those who liked him.

MikeC: You think that government should be neutral with respect to religion? What exactly does this mean? What constitutional bearing do you have to support this--the First Amendment--Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion? What does this mean? Does this really mean what you're suggesting--that the country should be 100% neutral via never mentioning religion in any official government business? I don't know; I guess it could. It's pretty vague after all.
Luigi Novi: What “bearing” do I have to support this? I’m sorry, did I simply not say “Separation of Church and State” enough times? What does this mean? Again, have I not said so? The government has no business instituting policies or otherwise make binding decisions that give the appearance that it, as an institution, favors religion, or that it favors one religion over an other, or that discriminate against one group. While the individuals who work in it should practice their religion to their hearts’ content, that doesn’t mean that should be able to require its citizens to use currency that recognizes the existence of a God (when many don’t believe in God, and many believe in many Gods), or to recite national pledges, particular its public schoolchildren, that require acknowledging the existence of God, or to decorate its courtrooms with the Ten Commandments, etc.

MikeC: Might I suggest that you're being biased to feel offended every time God is mentioned?
Luigi Novi: Sure, you can suggest it. Just as I can reply by saying that I’m not. If I were offended by the mere mention of God, wouldn’t participating in threads like this give me an aneurysm?

MikeC: I said Mark was being silly because he was being silly and he himself has admitted to being silly; I didn't say his reasoning was silly, I said he was starting to get silly.
Luigi Novi: And I disagreed.

MikeC: I completely disagree with you regarding religion, which I believe to be one of the values of the nation. Now you can be an American without having all of its values.
Luigi Novi: Again, you have yet to establish that religion is an American value, and it is extremely arrogant for you to pretend that you have. You haven’t. If there are many people who A. are American, and B. do not value religions, then we have established that religion is not an American value. It is a value that many Americans hold, which is not the same thing. You continue to attempt to assume, that your personal values are somehow “national” ones, as if to elevate them so that you can convince yourself your country and government somehow ratifies your personal beliefs institutionally. Sorry, but that’s not the case.

MikeC: I believe America values military service. Now I can be a pacifist and not want to serve in the military and basically think that's a crummy thing to value. Does that make me any less of an American?
Luigi Novi: America does not value military service.

America is a country, not a person, and as a country, it is an inanimate object. Inanimate objects don’t have opinions. Only people do, and not all people in the country value military service. If someone wanted to put “under the military” on coins or in pledges, it would be a dumb decision that I would oppose.

MikeC: No! I believe America values religion. Now I can be an atheist and think that's a crummy thing to value. Does that make me any less of an American? No!
Luigi Novi: “America” has no position on religion. It’s a country. And a country’s national values are not embodied by one group, simply because it has become a powerful majority. The U.S., as a country, does not value your viewpoint or beliefs any more than it does my own.

MikeC: We have different conceptions over what our country should be.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, you think your personal values should be elevated to national status, over the values of those who don’t think religion is important. I think the U.S., given its stated principles going back to its founding, recognizes that your values and my values are equal under its laws. Sorry you don’t think so.

MikeC: I don't view the Pledge as a loyalty oath because that implies a strict contract--pretty big for a 5-year old as you said. I view the Pledge more of as a reminder, and I don't see it teaching schoolchildren that to be an American is to believe in God.
Luigi Novi: So the words “pledge” and “allegiance” are not clear to you? They only become “reminders” if you change the definitions of those words.

MikeC:To me, an implication has to be backed up by something other than the implication. Is there anything else to indicate that non-theists (I don't see the Pledge as a Christian Pledge as I've explained) are not as valued to the United States other than an implication based on two words in a non-legally binding statement of values? The Pledge DOES indicate that religion is a value of this nation; it DOES NOT (at least to me) indicate that those that do not share this value are not Americans.
Luigi Novi: This is a contradiction. You can’t have it both ways. To say that this is a national value, but that if you don’t hold it, your status as member of the nation isn’t called into question, is false.

Vargo: Since we have yet to even reach an agreement on the "specific god" argument, what would happen if we just subtly switched the "G" to a "g" would that make you any happier??
Luigi Novi: As I’ve stated many times before, the entire line should be removed, and the Pledge returned to its pre-1954 version, before it was mutilated.

MikeC: BTW and OT, it's my birthday today. I would go out and get drunk if it wasn't for the fact I don't drink.
Luigi Novi: A belated Happy Birthday. What’re you, twenty? As for not drinking, tell you what. Next time I go to Chevy’s (I went last week), I’ll get a margarita, and you can live vicariously through me.

MikeC: My revised argument for the Pledge… (All right, so how many logical fallacies there? It's harder than you think not to make sense)
Luigi Novi: Lots. What was your point with that passage?

My last passage was a reference to the RM board, where I said I wanted to make a post that used every logical fallacy.

I typed "1" because I was going to number my points.

1. So you're saying that Columbus' actions affected America while religion did not? Religion definitely pertains to all Americans, whether directly, positively, indirectly, or negatively. Let's say that I'm an atheist; I have never gone to church nor do I make contributions to any religious-related charities. I am still affected by the historical impact that religion had.

2. "Important to a large group of people" has nothing to do with the criteria for our currency or pledge? Pardon me, but where in the Constitution does it say this? Isn't the whole point of a democracy that something that IS important to a large group of people be recognized--majority rule, as long as it does not infringe upon minority rights as expressed in the Constitution? And as Duke of Earl Grey pointed out, do you have a right to never be offended by the government? Is there some right that the government cannot recognize a value that you do not share?

3. Wow, King's spiritual beliefs had nothing to do with his actions; that would be news to him, I suppose (I think that isn't what you meant to say). So now the criteria for being recognized on a national level is having their "actions affect all citizens of the U.S."--hasn't religion, in some form or another, affected every citizen of the United States?

4. "Separation of church and state" is never mentioned in the Constitution and can only be construed from the First Amendment, which as I have pointed out, is pretty vague. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." You've said how you yourself interpret it. I disagree.

5. If there people who are A. American and B. think that equality is bogus because the white man should rule, then we have established that equality is not an American value. If this is true for religion, why is it not true for equality?

"You continue to attempt to assume, that your personal values are somehow “national” ones, as if to elevate them so that you can convince yourself your country and government somehow ratifies your personal beliefs institutionally."

I have never said that I want the government to ratify my personal beliefs institutionally; I mentioned once that as wrong as I think it would be, I would accept a national referendum on the Pledge which removed "under God" or "In God We Trust" from currency because it is the peoples' will and I don't need to have my faith validated by a government ruling. My major concern in this case is not that I want the government to protect the name of God, something it is doing a p i s s-poor job doing if that is its intention; my concern is that I think the line of "separation of church and state" is being drawn farther and farther with no constitutional backing.

6. This is not about equality of values and I really dislike how you are trying to paint me as an arrogant fruitcake. First of all, as I put it to Mark, is there any sign of a theist or Christian if you prefer bias in this nation besides the interpretation of two words in a non-mandatory pledge? Secondly, to me, when I say, "I am neutral on this subject," this means that I inherently do not have an opinion. The government inherently did not impose that we say "under God in the Pledge." It was instead placed there through the legal process of democracy and majority rule because it was thought that the pledge should indicate this particular value, which means that it also can be removed without being a violation of any inherent government law. I believe that IS satisfying the government's neutrality on the subject (it would be different if it was a separation of church and state, which I do not believe it to be, going by past cases that defined what the separation was). I'd like to see a national referendum on the issue, actually.

7. It's called a pledge but I don't think it's legally binding and I wouldn't want it to be because these are little kids who really don't understand. I'd prefer to call it "Reminder" or something, but that's just not marketable.

8. I do not see the contradiction. Religion is a national value. I, being an atheist, do not regard it as important. Let me turn it around. I would argue that secularism is a national value because of its impact on our history and because of current legal impacts. I being religious, do not regard secularism as important. That DOES NOT mean I am not an American. As someone pointed out, what if we wanted to add the words "under no God" to the Constitution? Well, I disagre with that certainly, but there is nothing inherently saying that we cannot (after all, it is a secular value). If it went through the democratic process and was approved, so be it! If somebody wanted to add the words "under Deputy Dawg" to the Constitution, there is nothing legally preventing that person from doing it, in my opinion.

9. I am 20, but I don't really drink anyway after seeing what it did to people in my family. I don't have a problem with others drinking.

10. Maybe we just have a different interpretation of the Constitution; I'm a Hamiltonian and you're a Jeffersonian.

I thought you said he was dead.

(Shrug) He got better.

(From the M*A*S*H ep, "A Full, Rich Day".)

He's only mostly dead!

...And as everyone knows, mostly dead is slightly alive.

I can't take this thread. It's not dead.

No, no no... God is dead.

Nietsche is dead.

Nietzsche is peachy.

Moderator? Since this discussion has been going on about the Pledge in particular, and has only barely touched on the Supreme Court, I would suggest that it be moved to its own topic under one of the Debate Issues.

MikeC: So you're saying that Columbus' actions affected America while religion did not?
Luigi Novi: Your original point was about religion’s importance to all Americans, and its status as a value. Religion’s effect on the country would be a separate question, and I don’t think any look at all of its effects, good and bad, would make it seem like a value.

MikeC: Religion definitely pertains to all Americans, whether directly, positively, indirectly, or negatively. Let's say that I'm an atheist; I have never gone to church nor do I make contributions to any religious-related charities. I am still affected by the historical impact that religion had.
Luigi Novi: Which doesn’t mean that the atheist finds religion important, or holds it as a value, personal, national, or otherwise.

And I think that whether it affects Americans negatively is a salient point. If it you concede that it might affect some Americans negatively, then why claim it as a national value?

MikeC: "Important to a large group of people" has nothing to do with the criteria for our currency or pledge? Pardon me, but where in the Constitution does it say this?
Luigi Novi: The Pledge is not the Constitution.

MikeC: Isn't the whole point of a democracy that something that IS important to a large group of people be recognized--majority rule, as long as it does not infringe upon minority rights as expressed in the Constitution?
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that we’re a republic, and not a democracy, the answer to your question depends on what you mean by “recognized.” If by this you mean that something can be elevated to the status of a fundamental national value rather than a value belonging to one group of people, the answer is no. America has certain fundamental values tied to its unique identity. Freedom. Equality. Religion is not one of these, nor can you simply rewrite things to pretend that it is because you happen to be in the majority. Theists have no more right to fraudulently elevate religion to a national value than atheists have to elevate atheism to a national value. Doing so does infringe upon minority rights because it creates the appearance that the nation favors one of those groups over the other. Separation of Church and State says otherwise.

MikeC: And as Duke of Earl Grey pointed out, do you have a right to never be offended by the government? Is there some right that the government cannot recognize a value that you do not share?
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about being offended. We’re talking about right and wrong vis a vis the Separation of Church and State.

MikeC: Wow, King's spiritual beliefs had nothing to do with his actions;…(I think that isn't what you meant to say).
Luigi Novi: And in point of fact, it’s not what I said.

You have changed the wording of my statement.

I didn’t say his beliefs had nothing to do with his actions. I said his beliefs had nothing to do with the manner in which his actions changed the country. His actions caused changes to our laws with respect to issues of race. These laws didn’t change according to what religion you belonged to. Whether you were the Buddhist owner of a diner that refused service to Jewish patrons, or the Methodist bus driver of a bus that was used by Wiccan passengers, or a Catholic cop patrolling a beat that included a water fountain that couldn’t be used by Scientologists, the law affected you equally.

You are making a deliberate confusion between the derivation of King’s beliefs, and the context in which his actions affected Americans. Spirituality may have had a role in the former. But it doesn’t mean it has anything to do with the latter.

Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Walt Whitman, Susan B. Anthony, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, George Bernard Shaw, Clarence Darrow, Frank Lloyd Wright, Robert Frost, Albert Einstein, Margaret Sanger, DH Lawrence, Charlie Chaplin, Ernest Hemingway, Linus Pauling, Howard Hughes, Robert Heinlein, Katherine Hepburn, Gene Kelly, Burt Lancaster, Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov, Charles Schultz, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Carl Sagan, and Douglas Adams were all Americans who had a profound effect on Americans’ lives. They were also all atheists, agnostics, or were opposed to religion. Using your logic, non-theism/lack of spiritual belief affected all Americans (even if the actions of these people were not necessarily tied to their spiritual beliefs), and therefore, lack of belief, or a denial of the existence of God, is a national American value that is important to every American, and would not be a SoCaS violation if it were in the Pledge.

MikeC: So now the criteria for being recognized on a national level is having their "actions affect all citizens of the U.S."--hasn't religion, in some form or another, affected every citizen of the United States?
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily in a good way. Not in a way that non-theists would celebrate. Racism, sexism, slavery, disease, poverty, and lots of other things “affected” every citizen of the U.S. That doesn’t mean those things are “values.”

MikeC: "Separation of church and state" is never mentioned in the Constitution…
Luigi Novi: Neither is the freedom of black people. Your point?

The Constitution is not the only place from which our laws derive.

MikeC: and can only be construed from the First Amendment…
Luigi Novi: Um, and the Treaty of Tripoli.

MikeC: If there people who are A. American and B. think that equality is bogus because the white man should rule, then we have established that equality is not an American value. If this is true for religion, why is it not true for equality?
Luigi Novi: Equality is written into our laws and our most fundamental documents as a governing principle of the country. Religion is not.

Luigi Novi: "You continue to attempt to assume, that your personal values are somehow “national” ones, as if to elevate them so that you can convince yourself your country and government somehow ratifies your personal beliefs institutionally."

MikeC: I have never said that I want the government to ratify my personal beliefs institutionally…
Luigi Novi: It certainly seems that way to me, given your euphemistic interpretations of the “under God” line, your rewriting of history, and the false analogies and non sequiturs you constantly use throughout this thread, despite your assertion that you wouldn’t mind if the line were removed from the pledge and currency. But hey, maybe it’s me.

MikeC: This is not about equality of values and I really dislike how you are trying to paint me as an arrogant fruitcake. First of all, as I put it to Mark, is there any sign of a theist or Christian if you prefer bias in this nation besides the interpretation of two words in a non-mandatory pledge?
Luigi Novi: The question is moot, because it is those two words themselves that are being disputed as an example of bias. Second, the Pledge is mandatory for some schooldchildren, and third, I believe we’ve mentioned currency and courtroom oaths as other examples. I believe I also mentioned Roy Moore’s attempts to sneak in the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.

MikeC: Secondly, to me, when I say, "I am neutral on this subject," this means that I inherently do not have an opinion. The government inherently did not impose that we say "under God in the Pledge." It was instead placed there through the legal process of democracy and majority rule because it was thought that the pledge should indicate this particular value, which means that it also can be removed without being a violation of any inherent government law. I believe that IS satisfying the government's neutrality on the subject
Luigi Novi: What does the manner in which it was enacted into law have to do with satisfying neutrality? The phrase “under God” inserted into the Pledge satisfies neutrality on the issue of Church and State, simply because it was enacted by majority rule? What does majority rule have to do with neutrality? This is a non sequitur.

Also, I thought you mentioned that the insertion of that phrase was Eisenhower’s doing. How was he the “majority”?

MikeC: I do not see the contradiction. Religion is a national value. I, being an atheist, do not regard it as important. Let me turn it around. I would argue that secularism is a national value because of its impact on our history and because of current legal impacts. I being religious, do not regard secularism as important. That DOES NOT mean I am not an American.
Luigi Novi: Secularism is a governing principle of the country, even if things like prayers before Congressional sessions violate it. Religion, on the other hand, it not a governing principle.

MikeC: As someone pointed out, what if we wanted to add the words "under no God" to the Constitution? Well, I disagre with that certainly, but there is nothing inherently saying that we cannot (after all, it is a secular value).
Luigi Novi: No it isn’t. It’s an anti-religion value, and for that reason, I would oppose it, because it would discriminate against those who believe in God, and violate SoCaS.

MikeC: Maybe we just have a different interpretation of the Constitution; I'm a Hamiltonian and you're a Jeffersonian.
Luigi Novi: As I stated above, the Constitution is not the only source of our laws. If it were, blacks would be slaves, and women wouldn’t be able to vote.

We're starting to argue two different things. One is what we started with, about religion being a national value, etc. The second is the legal technicalities of separation and church and state. Since I don't think we're going to convince each other at all on the first issue, let's just drop that. I think religion is a national value of great importance, you do not. Fine.

Now back to separation of church and state:

1. Slavery is outlawed in the Constitution; see Amendments 12-14. See the 19th Amendment for women being able to vote. How did these things come about? Amendments through the political process involving majority rule. That is why I said I wouldn't mind a referendum on this issue; have someone put up a law or an amendment regarding the Pledge or currency and see what the people thinks.

2. I assume your reference to the treaty of Tripolis meant President Adams' quote that the "government of U.S. is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Well, yes, I would agree with President Adams. But I believe he was making a factual statement as opposed to forming a legal doctrine of separation and church and state. I could bring up the fact that the government was in no way founded on women's rights, which had to be added in via Amendments, but I digress. You could have brought up Jefferson's famous letter in which he talks about a "wall of separation between church and state," I guess. But here too, Jefferson is vague--what is separation, per se? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It's tough to say what exactly is such a law--some things are obvious--making a "Church of the United States," outlawing religions, etc. But it's also very tough to say on several other things. It's just vague.

3. I agree with your logic that "denial in the existence of God" is a national value (one of them) and it is not a Separation of church and state violation (inherently) if it was placed on the Pledge. That was my example of "under no God" referred to. Would I like it? No way, and I probably wouldn't say it. But my point is that I do not believe it to be an inherent separation of church and state violation, and thus if it was the will of the people, it is not the Supreme Court's place to arbitarily declare it wrong.

3. Well, I've rewritten history, made false analogies and non sequiturs, and created euphemistic interpretations. What will I do for an encore? I don't want the government to ratify my personal beliefs personally (if I did, I might as well shoot myself over the last half-century's Court cases); I'll repeat it again. I AM concerned about the line being rewritten of separation of church and state, in my opinion, arbitrarily. It's not the Pledge, the Pledge, for most schoolchildren, is a bunch of words. It's not the Ten Commandments in schools; do they realistically have an effect? It's the precedent; it's saying "these are violations of separation of church and state," in my opinion, quite wrongly. It's making a new precedent and carving a line without the public getting a chance to do anything about it.

Now, if "under God" was removed through the normal political channels (Congress proposing a law, President signing it or an amendment), I would be angry and mad, but I could tolerate it. Why? Because it was removed fairly and squarely, in my opinion, not through an arbitrary declaration of it as a violation of separation of church and state.

4. The only things you can cite as an example of this bias are vaguely said words, almost none of which are mandatory or have any legal standing. I'll give you currency (perhaps). But you do not have to swear by God in a courtroom. You do not have to say the Pledge if you do not wish to. Judge Moore was thwarted precisely because there is no Christian bias. If there was a Christian bias, Judge Moore would still have the Ten Commandments in his courtroom (and I generally agree with the higher court on this ruling anyway).

5. I assume, not knowing the specific details, that the President had to have some sort of approval on the Pledge issue. I assume he signed it into law, which would imply Congressional approval, which being a republic, implies the people's approval.

6. So "under no God" discriminates against those that believe in God? You're saying it's unfair. Perhaps it is. But how exactly is that a violation of the Constitution? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." I don't see Congress establishing a religion by putting in "under no God," do you? Unless you count atheism as a religion.

My point is that you cannot just call something a "separation of church and state" violation. Where is your constitutional support? We get our laws from things other than the Constitution, you say? Such as what? Is there an alternate law that I'm not familiar with that clearly defines the separation of church and state?

MikeC: I agree with your logic that "denial in the existence of God" is a national value (one of them) and it is not a Separation of church and state violation (inherently) if it was placed on the Pledge. That was my example of "under no God" referred to. Would I like it? No way, and I probably wouldn't say it. But my point is that I do not believe it to be an inherent separation of church and state violation, and thus if it was the will of the people, it is not the Supreme Court's place to arbitarily declare it wrong.
Luigi Novi: Well, I guess we’re at the agree-to-disagree boundary, since think such a thing would be a violation, and thus I don’t think it would be arbitrary for SCOTUS to declare it wrong.

MikeC: Judge Moore was thwarted precisely because there is no Christian bias. If there was a Christian bias, Judge Moore would still have the Ten Commandments in his courtroom (and I generally agree with the higher court on this ruling anyway).
Luigi Novi: You asked me for an example of a Christian bias in this country. Obviously, Moore was deeply biased, which is disturbing, given that he’s not just some schmuck down the street, but a judge, who you would assume would be able to display a modicum of objectivity with all things pertaining to the court.

MikeC: I assume, not knowing the specific details, that the President had to have some sort of approval on the Pledge issue. I assume he signed it into law, which would imply Congressional approval, which being a republic, implies the people's approval.
Luigi Novi: Unless he used an Executive Order.

However, it states here that Democratic Congressman Louis Rabaut of Michigan introduced House Joint Resolution 243 to change the pledge on April 20, 1953, which was passed on June 7 and signed into law by Eisenhower on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.

MikeC: So "under no God" discriminates against those that believe in God? You're saying it's unfair. Perhaps it is. But how exactly is that a violation of the Constitution? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." I don't see Congress establishing a religion by putting in "under no God," do you? Unless you count atheism as a religion.
Luigi Novi: Article VI, Section III of the Constitution:

"but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government

-Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) p 705.

Also:

(T)he phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles (pp. 118). –Separationist scholar Leo Pfeffer , Church, State, and Freedom.

MikeC: My point is that you cannot just call something a "separation of church and state" violation. Where is your constitutional support? We get our laws from things other than the Constitution, you say? Such as what? Is there an alternate law that I'm not familiar with that clearly defines the separation of church and state?
Luigi Novi: In 1947, with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black defined the First Amendment Establishment Clause, declaring that any aid or benefit to religion from governmental actions is unconstitutional. As Justice Black said, "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."

Charles Schulz?! Sparky was most certainly not an atheist, agnostic or deeply opposed to religion. Schulz was very much a deeply spiritual and religious man. How anyone can read "Peanuts" and not know that is beyond me. (Unlike Johnny Hart, Schulz may have made his religious convictions known, but he did not seem try to convert people.)

[List of names] ...were all Americans who had a profound effect on Americans’ lives. They were also all atheists, agnostics, or were opposed to religion.

Einstein developed and published his theories while he was still a German citizen, and he also believed in a God -- being a scientist is not synonymous with being an atheist. Science is an academic discipline, not a religion (despite what some extreme fundamentalists think).

And I believe that some of the others on that list were British not American: Shaw, Heinlein, Lawrence, and Adams.

Chaplin was also British, but since he made his impact in American movies, I'll let that one go. (Besides I'm not sure whether he was ever naturalized.)

Pick, Pick, Pick!

(Well it is a Nitpickers' board.)

I'm surprised that you call Charles Darwin an American citizen; I thought he was british.

Side question, Luigi: you mentioned above that the US "is not a democracy, but a republic". How do you define these two terms to make them in some way opposites??

For me, a republic is a way of organizing a country of smaller states (dezentralization instead of zentralisation), which doesn't imply a certain from of government (a republic can be totalitarian or democratic).

A democracy is a way of governing, which can be used in a republic or in a zentralistic state.

For me, the US is a republic and (partly) democratic both.

Benn: Charles Schulz?! Sparky was most certainly not an atheist, agnostic or deeply opposed to religion. Schulz was very much a deeply spiritual and religious man. How anyone can read "Peanuts" and not know that is beyond me. (Unlike Johnny Hart, Schulz may have made his religious convictions known, but he did not seem try to convert people.)
Luigi Novi: In an interview in 1999, Schultz said that although his philosophical views evolved over the years, "the term that best describes me now is 'secular humanist.'"

TomM: [List of names] ...were all Americans who had a profound effect on Americans’ lives. They were also all atheists, agnostics, or were opposed to religion.

Einstein developed and published his theories while he was still a German citizen, and he also believed in a God -- being a scientist is not synonymous with being an atheist. Science is an academic discipline, not a religion (despite what some extreme fundamentalists think).
Luigi Novi: First of all, Tom, I never said science was a religion, or that being a scientist was synonymous with being an atheist, and if you read any of my posts in threads pertaining to such discussions, you’ll see that I often respond to anti-science theists who claim science and/or atheism are religions by firmly asserting that they are not.

As for Einsteins views:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954, which is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, by Princeton University Press.

Also:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

TomM: And I believe that some of the others on that list were British not American: Shaw, Heinlein, Lawrence, and Adams.

constanze: I'm surprised that you call Charles Darwin an American citizen; I thought he was british.
Luigi Novi: My mistake on Shaw, Lawrence and Adams. That was really sloppy fact-checking on my part, and I apologize for it. As for Chaplin and Darwin, I should’ve remembered that they were British, for I already knew that.

Heinlein, however, became an American.

constanze: Side question, Luigi: you mentioned above that the US "is not a democracy, but a republic". How do you define these two terms to make them in some way opposites??
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say they were.

I was thinking of the strict definition of a democracy as a the method of government wherein the members of the group vote directly on all matters of legislation. Since on a large scale we elect legislators to work for us, and they are charged with making legislative decisions on our behalf, ours is a republic, but then again, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that our republic is governed by a representative democracy. The U.S. has also been referred to as a democratic republic, so perhaps I was not being inclusive enough. I should’ve been clearer on that point, but since it was a passing comment made as an aside, I didn’t place that much importance in it.

Perhaps on a nitpicking site like this, I should’ve known better.

I was thinking of the strict definition of a democracy as a the method of government wherein the members of the group vote directly on all matters of legislation.

I have heard this definition only for direct-democracy, since it quickly runs into organizational problems once past a certain number of voters. Only small countries like Switzerland etc. still practice direct democracy (and even they have a parliament with representative members in Bern for foreign relations etc., AFAIK).

I'll agree with you on representative democracy, but this isn't related to republic or not. (That's why I gave the defintions of republic and democracy. Democracy itself comes then in different flavors.)

Since you used a "but", (not a democracy, but a republic), this indicates to me that the two terms are in some way contrary or opposite to each other. (If not, you should have used a different qualifier.)

And you're welcome to being nitpicked...

1. An example of Christian bias is not just one judge that is thwarted by higher-up judges. To me, a Christian bias would be if the Court agreed with Judge Moore.

2. Yay! No religious test used for qualification for public office or public trust! Except the Pledge isn't being used for either. I've read Justice Black's opinion as well, and I happen to think he's a tad extreme as do other Supreme Court justices. Even if you use the "wall" analogy, I would argue that the Pledge does not necessarily violate it since the situation is different than that of Emerson.

Wow, that was a fairly short post.

Pray the Pledge of Allegiance in School and Testify for Jesus!

Heinlein was definitely American. He was born in MO. He served in the US Navy. He died in Santa Cruz, CA in 1988.

I love satire like that--aren't Christians morons? Ha ha ha.

Come on electron (or rather whoever it is that made up that name, you know who you are) Do I post sites that randomly slam your religion? I could, they are out there, lets grow up a lil shall we?

I think the very notion that you took time out to find that shows intolerance on your part. I personally do not spend my days surfing the internet looking for ways to make other religions look bad. It's bad form, bad form indeed.

Um, Electron didn't slam your religion. He posted a link to Landover Baptist Church, which is a satricial website. I'm assuming he didn't create that site, and I've seen people referencing it on other message board sites, like Peter David's blog. I don't see why finding it necessarily required him to "take time out," much less shows "intolerance" on his part.

Also, Derrick, Electron has been around here for quite a while.

It may not be bad form on Electron's part (as he merely posted it sans comment), but I dislike satire that ridicules with no real understanding of the subject.

I have a friend who grew up in a state where the Baptist Church was a strong force, and he's said that site is on the mark with it's satire.
On the other hand, I can see how some people would find such satire offensive.

The particular article Electron linked to illustrates (or rather, beats home with a sledgehammer) that ONUG refers to a particular god, and that as it appears in the Pledge, it means that America is under that particular god. The implication, of course, is that there is no room for any other points of view. Which is what so many people have been trying to point out here.
Regardless of my own or anyone else's personal beliefs about any god, the Pledge should not be that restrictive! I think that a Supreme Court ruling which reflects that would not deny that religion has a history in America, but would instead prevent anyone from presuming that one particular religion is the only acceptable way of belief for the whole country.

I think you have every right to feel that way about the Pledge's restrictivity (is that a word?), but I don't think the Supreme Court should be the one making the decision because I do not feel it is a separation of church and state violation as determined by the Constitution or by prior cases. I would suggest having legislation introduced by Congress regarding the matter.

As odd as it may seem, Justice Scalia seems to agree with me that the Court is doing (Fred Dalton Thompson voice kicks in) more legislatin' than judiciatin'.

MikeC: An example of Christian bias is not just one judge that is thwarted by higher-up judges. To me, a Christian bias would be if the Court agreed with Judge Moore.
Luigi Novi: The fact that someone in a position of power like Moore would be so oblivious to why what he did was wrong is most certainly an example of bias, regardless of whether he was thwarted. The mere fact someone in a position like a judge lacks the enlightenment to understand why it was wrong is quite telling, as was the reaction to the 9th Circuit court’s decision by people like Joe Leiberman, Bob Barr, and Tom Daschle, as well as other members of Congress who, sometime after the court’s decision, opened a session of with the Pledge, and recited the “Under God” part with raised voices. George W. Bush himself stated, "We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights are derived from God,” and And his father, shortly before his own election, stated that atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots. What else do you need, Mike?

This shows me that there are leaders with Christian beliefs and biases. But where are the examples of legislation? Of concrete legal persecution against non-Christians? Again, Judge Moore was thwarted after a huge public outcry--hardly the sign of a pervasive bias. The Congressmen did what they did as a sign of protest over the Court's incorrect decision, and I hesitate to use the Pledge of Allegiance to show a Christian bias because that will lead us into another circular round of discussion because I don't think that is showing Christian bias.

Bush's comments (and do you have any third-party references for your weblink other than an article by Madalyn O'Hair?) reflect that yes, he could be operating from a bias. And if Bush Senior passed a law, for instance, making atheists non-citizens, well, that would be obviously bias. But he didn't. He was stating his opinion. A biased opinion, sure. But opinions aren't legislation.

I'll grant you Bush Junior's comment is a little stickier bias because it implies that Bush will be appointing more conservative judges that share his religious views, but since he has not appointed any such judges yet, we'll wait and see if this bias manifests itself in anything tangible.

Whether I believe in a God or not, I would feel safer with a court comprised of judges who see human rights as divine appointments rather than governmental allowences to be given and taken at the will of the State.

Very True, If someone deems that the rights are from someone higher than themselves, they are more likely to stick to it rather than someone who does it because someone just like him is telling him this...

MikeC: This shows me that there are leaders with Christian beliefs and biases. But where are the examples of legislation? Of concrete legal persecution against non-Christians?
Luigi Novi: You said “Christian bias.” Christian bias does not mean legislation or concrete legal persecution.

MikeC: Bush's comments (and do you have any third-party references for your weblink other than an article by Madalyn O'Hair?)…
In what way does the fact that the article is by Madalyn O'Hair mitigate the remark? The exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George H.W. Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

O'Hair is (was?) a known atheist activist. That doesn't mean she's a liar or anything, but I would prefer a third party source like one of the news networks, AP reports, etc. It may very well be true, I just wanted some more insight.

A bias without any legal ramifications does not strike me as a very large bias.

"Was" is correct; O'Hair died under mysterious circumstances some years ago. (Scroll down about 60% of the way to get to the bit about her disappearance; the rest is about some email forward invoking her name for some cause or another.)

We're are a mixed regime. Part Tyranny, part Oligarcy, part Mob rule, and the bad parts cancel each other out. None of this Port Huron statment junk about what a Democracy really is.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127188,00.html

I place blame on the Welfare state and that silly Law of the Land clause being applied to everyone who makes it across the Rio Grande.

Well, I think I know how to liven this board up again.

I remember hearing about (albeit third-hand kind of information) about how the Supreme Court decided that WISHIGN the President was dead was NOT the same as issuing a threar or being a clear and present danger to POTUS.

Woo-hoo, that menas I won't go to jail for that dream I had last night! And it was good too, all in slow motion like a Peckinpah flick. Jason Voorhess would've been proud.

Did we really need the Court to say this? I mean, how could they know your thoughts, aside from a visit from Andrea Thompson (come to think of it, that's not all that bad...)?

Your a sad sick twisted lil man Brian

Brian W: You cannot be convicted for thinking about doing a crime. Making a threat agaist the president would be an action towards a crime and would thus be conspiracy to do a criminal act.

Of course you could always say that the thoughts inside our head are the only true freedom we have, but I've never been that much of an idealist.

Oh, and Brian, stop trying to impress Jodie Foster.

Vargo: Thank you.

Pesti: I wasn't saying "thinking" now was I? The case, IIRC was in reference to an Eminem lyric.

"I don't care about Dead Presidents/I just wish the President was dead."

BTW, nice one with the Jodie Foster crack. How much you wanna bet that a couple of people won't get it?

Here’s a thought that occurred to me while reading the lengthy Pledge of Allegiance discussion. When someone says the Pledge, they are implicitly saying, “I believe in God.” Otherwise, instead of

"...one nation, under God..."

the Pledge would say something like

“…one nation, founded upon a belief in God…”

An atheist wouldn't believe this nation is "under God" even if it was a theocracy. Only a believer in God could say this Pledge and honestly mean it. So...a)is it really the place of the government to encourage people to affirm a belief in God? And b)to exclude non-believers from being able to say the pledge as it is now written? That may not be Christian bias, but it certainly is religious bias (religion placed over non-religion). (“Founded upon a belief in God” may be overstating it – maybe “whose founding was influenced by belief in God.” Probably no one would be interested in that – it’s not as catchy.) “In God We Trust” on the money has the same implication. By using the money, are you agreeing that you are part of “we”? What if I don’t want the coins to speak about me falsely?

Also I would like to point out that laws against killing, stealing and lying under oath shouldn’t necessarily be attributed to the Ten Commandments or any other source. Those laws are basic to the functioning of society; it virtually couldn’t exist without them. So it seems to me those three should not be counted as inspired by the Commandments unless there’s some visible link (I know that’s an old discussion, but no one else brought up this point)

Is the Pledge still mandatory? Mike says it isn’t mandated, Luigi says it is mandated in some places. Also, are there any circumstances in which teachers are required to lead the class in reciting it?

Re: Ten Commandments. Yes, these are basic laws, and I'm not suggesting the Ten Commandments originated them. But they are a part of Judeo-Christian ethics, which I'm sure you would acknowledge dominated European thinking; the Founding Fathers were products of this culture. Yes, I know the Enlightenment thinking, etc. But if you told them, "You weren't inspired by Judeo-Christian ethics," they'd probably say "No way!"

Nove Rockhoomer: the Pledge would say something like “…one nation, founded upon a belief in God…”
Luigi Novi: Except that it wasn't founded on a belief in God. It was founded on a desire for freedom and self-determination from Britain.

Mike, but trying to say the law were founded because of judeo-christian ethics makes no sense because every society has some form of those laws even if they are judeo-christian.

True, Brian, but what society did the Founding Fathers come from? Judeo-Christian ones.

Maybe this will clarify the issue. What I was trying to say is: there may have been Judeo-Christian influences, BUT you can't prove it by comparing our laws to the Ten Commandments and noting similarities between them.

Well, my thread idea went nowhere. Oh well. Whose up for a sexy party? *starts doing Benny Hill impersonation*

Yes but if those values are universal (even to non christians) than doesn't it mean that those ideas influinced the Judeo-chriustian ones and not that the 10 commandments are the source of them?

Couldn't different ideas simultaneously spring up from different sources?

Sorry Mike, but I think that question just makes Brian's point. If every civilization comes up with the same "core" values, they must be universal, and not the "property" of any one culture. We could call those values commandments 4 through 9, and paraphrase Exodus and Deuteronomy or we could use similar passages from the Quran, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, the Chang Tzu, the writings of Confusius, or those of Socrates, etc. Unless we aknowlege all of them, it is like telling the others that they know nothing of civilized values.

But there is a difference between acknowledging that they are universal values and then pointing out which of these universal values pragmaticaly apply.

For instance, Judeo-Christian societies, Islamic societies, Confucian societies, and Hindi societies have some of the same values. True. These are "universal." Which one MOST influenced the Founding Fathers? That's all I'm talking about here--influence.

But don't you see? While historically you have a point, saying that the founding fathers' understanding of these universal values was the result of their Western (Judeo-Christian) background, politically, claiming that the values themselves are "Christian" denies the universality; denies that non-Christians can just as fully believe in them and enact them into their societies..

I was unaware I was trying to make any other point besides a historical one. If I wasn't being clear, I apologize.

Here's the Supreme Court's ruling on ONUG being in the pledge.

"First we kill all the lawyers."

In other words, "We don't want to look at this right now, so we'll let the dismissal on a technicality stand."

So, apparently, there are those in Congress who think they can tell the Supreme Court what to do.

This doesn't sound remotely constitutional to me, but I've only a smidgen of the framework needed to make such a claim. Does anyone else have a thought on the subject?

Oh, and I took a pretty good look around LM for a relevent topic to post this in, but I didn't find one. If there was such a place, I heartily encourage the moving of this post.

I support the Pledge as is, but this is a dangerous precedent, folks. How about just a simple referendum?

Highly unconstitutional, IMNALO. I suspect that if it passes, some entity (ACLU?) will sue to have this law thrown out. Since it's not about the Pledge, but about legislation about the pledge (meta-suit, anyone?), it could go forward.

In addition, does anyone else see SCOTUS throwing this out should it be challenged? I suspect that SCOTUS has a much better grasp of the constitutionality of this than the political whores on both sides who are playing games with the Constitution.

Actually, I looked this up once. Congress has the power to decide the jurisdiction of any court it likes, so technically, they *can* do this. (See Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.") This does become interesting, however, because if a case is something like "Quincy v. West Virginia" (or whatever), my reading of that clause would seem to indidate that Congress can't restrict the Court from ruling on it. But it is fairly clear that Congress can regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court more or less as it sees fit, and in retrospect, I kind of wonder why they haven't tried this before in history. Or if they have, why it hasn't worked.

Now, the lesser federal courts are a much easier case; they are created by act of Congress, and Congress can do whatever it likes with them. If they decided tomorrow that the Fifth Circuit should no longer be able to judge cases involving, I don't know, defective automobiles, or whatever, they could make it so.

MikeC, the referendum doesn't exist on the federal level, and since the Pledge was constituted by federal law, it needs an act of Congress or a Supreme Court decision to be changed. A referendum is not a viable solution to the current problem.

I guess I feel that people would be more comfortable accepting a decision that they themselves "agreed" upon, rather than Congress or the Supreme Court.

IMNALO?

Okay, I'll bite, Scott. What does the "NAL" mean?

I don't really see why that would be necessary, Mike, because "the people" did not establish the Pledge in its original form or in the form we have today. We just don't do direct democracy like that when enacting federal law.

Maybe in an amendment form?

The statement "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" could be interpreted to mean that the Supreme Court always has appellate jurisdiction unless Congress gives it original jurisdiction rather than a statement that Congress can negate all jurisidction if it desires.

Luigi- (Re: Scott's IMNALO) In My -Not A Lawyer- Opinion as in "I'm not a lawyer but I play one on Nitcentral."

NSetzer- I agree that was probably Madison's intent in that phrasing, especially since it is Congress, not the Constitution which creates the lower courts from which to appeal the cases.

Presumably the idea was that if in the circuit that included the Capital there weren't enough cases to keep both SCOTUS and a circuit court busy, they could be consolidated.

The problem is that Congress is free to read the paragraph the other way. It might make an interesting scenario. In another showdown/power play in ambiguous separation of powers, usually between the Executive and Legislative branches, if accommodation can't be reached, the Judicial's interpretation of the Constitution has the final say. In this case, would Congress accept SCOTUS ruling?

I once read about this in American Government. James Q Wilson called this situation, a "Snake trying to devour it's own tail." It's never happened before, to avoid this kind of situation.

Basically, it's a constitutional defect. The Founders never saw the court using judicial review to such an extent, and would have never saw the court as having any power. This is the first country where Courts have the power to overturn a law. No one else is that crazy.

I think the system works just fine that way for the most part. All the judiciary does is interpret law and in the case of SCOTUS, overturn it if it's incompatible with the Constitution.

The Founders never saw the court using judicial review to such an extent,

The founders never considered judiciary review at all. James Madison, author of the Constitution did not write judicial review into SCOTUS' duties and was surprised when they first claimed jurisdiction in the landmark case Marbury v Madison. However since there is no provision at all to prevent a "Snake trying to devour it's own tail," the judiciary, being the least partisan branch of government has been accepted as the arbiter ever since.

The "checks and balances" on the judiciary is that they can only rule on specific cases brought before them. Their power to change the landscape of the political and social structure is a result of cases setting precedent for similar future cases (so for example, when they found for "Jane Roe" in Roe v Wade on the basis of certain rights, all other similar cases were settled in light of this ruling and new cases were not begun.) If a party believes that he can show that his case is sufficiently different from an earlier one, the court will hear it and may decide it differently. Thus, in Stanley v. Georgia 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the Court extended the Griswold privacy right to the private possession of pornography in a citizen's bedroom. (Georgia tried to get the Court to agree that pornography was less protected than "sodomy" between a married couple.) Later, it refused to extend Stanley to cover child pornography [Osborne v. Ohio 495 U.S. 103 (1990)] (The difference that the court focussed on in this case was that in child pornography there is a victim that the State has a special interest in protecting.)

Someone actually tried to get child porn protected????

I think it was someone who got arrested for having/selling some. I think he argued that since he had nothing to do with making it he should be legaly able to do whatever he wanted with it.

Not "whatever he liked" just to "keep it in the privacy of his own bedroom," which was the ruling in Stanley concerning privacy rights to adult porn.

The current US President seems to believe in the Pledge staying the way it's currently drafted. I recently saw a large highway billboard for the Bush-Cheney campaign, which contains one sentence: "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" on a plain blue field. The Bush/Cheney logo is below that, with what appears to be a cross. As you get closer to the sign, the cross actually resolves to be an outline of a star, but with some of the lines missing and some of the lines very thin. In other words, it was deliberately designed to look like a cross at a glance, or when viewed from a distance. The effect is also noticeable when viewed in a car's rear-view mirror.
From a design standpoint, it's brilliant. (I studied graphic communications in college, and one professor stressed the importance of what isn't shown being as important as what is shown... this star/cross logo is a great example of that.) Unfortunately, from a politcal standpoint, it's disturbing in a number of ways. It stirs up the Pledge controversy at a time when there really are more pressing matters that need attending. The ad's blatantly pro-Christian, which (as had been mentioned on the last board) seems to ignore--or at least minimize--other religions in this country, by implying that the Pledge refers only to a Christian God. Finally (this last point is actually in defense of religion!), it trivializes religion--in particular Christianity--by making it a mere political slogan.
Anyone else see ads/billboards of this nature?

Probably out of date now, sorry.

Virginia's conservative Christian legislators bring in the pastors of local churches to open the sessions with prayer.

Recently it was the turn of the Rev. Debra Peevey of Journey of the Heart Ministries in Reston, Virginia to offer the invocation in the House.

Rev. Peevey's congregation is largely GLBT, and she herself is a lesbian. Several sources quote her prayer (or the relevant portion of it):

"Holy One, bless the people of this chamber. Bless them, their staffs, and their families. In your blessing, also convict their hearts.

"Holy One, convict those who are using their power not to lead or to guide, but to harm gay and lesbian citizens, a small minority within this commonwealth. We need to be reminded of what unites us, not pitted against one another. A house divided, you have warned us, cannot stand."

including attempting to repeal the 220 year old Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, which was authored by Thomas Jefferson

Because they understand the Bill of Rights so much better than Jefferson.

Yes, that was sarcasm.

Jefferson, I believe, regarded that as one of his top three accomplishments--Declaration of Independence, religious freedom, University of Virginia. President? Chicken feed.

Judge bans Wicca for kid. Lovely. Just lovely.

Wow. Not a good sign. I do have to agree that not only is it bad that the judge had to meddle like that in what the parents wanted for their child but the children's service did such a disservice to the child. This will not go well for the child's future.

The thing is both parents are Wiccan. No one except the judge had any problem with the child being raised Wiccan. It is not the government's right to interfere unless the child is in clear and present danger.

And you can bet that this judge has now been fast-tracked by Bush's advisors for a federal position.

Apparently someone at children's services had a problem with it and told the judge about it. So more than just the judge had a problem with it.

But you are right it does look like some folks have earned themselves mega brownie points in herr dubya's court.

The Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau report expressed concern over the boy's possible confusion between his parents beliefs and those of his classmates at the Catholic parochial school he attends. There is nothing in the original report from Indy*Star to indicate that the Bureau made any specific recommendations.

If the Bureau were really concerned about the boy, they could recommend that he transfer to a secular school.

Catholic schools often include children of other faiths, and usually accommodate themselves to the parents concerns.

The father had attended Catholic school when he was young, and had not been traumatized by the divergent beliefs.

I attended a Catholic grade school, and when I was in the eighth grade, and our class included an Indian or Pakistani boy who was not Catholic. Although he participated in Religion class, at least to the extent of reading along with everyone else, IIRC, he did not receive a grade in it. I am unaware of any problems he or his parents had with his being in the school.

NO but even if they didn't make any recommendations the mere fact that they felt it was a big enough "concern" for them to mention is troubling.

What else might they find "concern" over in other cases?

It sounds to me like someone in the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau saw a chance to try and force a conversion or at least prevent someone from practicing something they believe in that isnt "mainstream".

It sounds to me like someone in the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau saw a chance to try and force a conversion or at least prevent someone from practicing something they believe in that isnt "mainstream".

Quite possibly, but a person like that would normally know enough to work quietly with a whisper in Judge Bradford's ear. If there is no paper trail, it might not get noticed by anyone but the parents who often don't know enough about their rights to complain to the right people.

And Children's Services departments normally list all sorts of minor "concerns" in their reports.

No one is a perfect parent and listing these points shows that they carefully considered all aspects of the child's environment. Children are placed in adoptive and foster homes or parents are awarded custody all the time despite these "concerns."

So it is likely that it is only because Judge Bradford has a personal bug-a-boo about Wiccans or was given a heads-up by your "someone in the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau."

Aaarrrggghhh!

How did the reference from R's post get in the middle of my reply instead of before it? I always read the preview page to avoid these errors.

Fixed it, Tom.

Thanks

Either way whispers in the dark or paper trails in the light interfereing in somehting like this is not right.

Out of curiosity, how does one "enforce" this ruling? Will Child's Services continually check up on the child, including using quizzes and interviews, to determine if she has been taught Wicca?

Take the kid away from both Wicca parents and put it into a catholic orphanage, so there's no confusion between school and "home"? (typed with tongue in cheek - though it may come true, given the treatment some kids have received in other - non-custody - cases previously?)

Sad to say i could see it happening constanze.

And Mike the child is a 9 year old male. So he has probably already been exposed to wicca during the formative years.

Either way whispers in the dark or paper trails in the light interfereing in somehting like this is not right.

I know I wrote this up yesterday and thought I posted it. Either (extremely low probability) Luigi or one of the poving mods dumped it, or (overwhelmingly more likely) I got distracted and closed the window without hitting the "Post" button first.
I fully agree. Either way it is totally reprehensible. It's just that the evidence we have now does not point to an organized, endorsed policy on the part of the Bureau. We are still (theoretically) a country of "innocent until proven guilty."

Blast those poving mods!

No this does not exactly smell of a conspiracy or organized policy on the agency. It seems like someone saw an opportunity to take a pot shot at an innocent person who had a belief they disagreed with and ook their chance.

They had a judge who was willing to take action and with the right word or phrase, boom suddenly the parents have no say in raising their child in the belief they wanted.

Maybe they should have a poving mod come and talk to them. ;-)

Although religion can't be taught in public schools, it can be taught about in classes such as "The Bible as Literature." The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, based in Greensboro, NC offers one such course, which is used in more than 300 school districts in 37 states.

Recently, the Odessa, TX school board voted to include this course in their district. The Texas Freedom Network, a watchdog organization, which includes clergy of several faiths, has documented that that the course characterizes the Bible as inspired by God, that discussions of science are based on the biblical account of creation, that Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, and that archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible's historical accuracy.

Mark A Chancey, a biblical scholar on the faculty of SMU, who examined the course materials on behalf of the TFN, said the course also suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document.

"No public school student should have to have a particular religious belief forced upon them," the Rev. Ragan Courtney, pastor of The Sanctuary, a Baptist congregation in Austin, said at a news conference held by Texas Freedom Network.

.......

The producers of the Bible class dismissed the Texas Freedom Network as a "far left" organization trying to suppress study of a historical text.

.......

Elizabeth Ridenour, president of the Bible class group, accused the Texas Freedom Network of censorship.

"They are actually quite fearful of academic freedom, and of local schools deciding for themselves what elective courses to offer their citizens," she said in a statement.

I don't really have enough information to decide one way or the other; some of the accusations probably deserve investigation, others seem sort of hard to avoid (in a Bible class, you probably will be studying why Jesus is thought to fulfill Old Testament prophecies).

It certainly sounds like religious indoctrination to me. The Bible was never one of the founding documents of this country and is definately not as important as the Constitution or Declaration of Independence to the government of this country.

I have no problem with the discussion of religion or the bible as an elective course. But only so long as the discussion/study stays with the bible and religion as the story/mythos that it is and leaves government and science to the harsh world of reality that they belong to.

R: Plymouth, Mass. and Conn. were founded directly as religious utopias. Maryland, Rhode Island and North Carolina were founded as religious refuges, and Pennslyvania was founded on religious ideals, and all this occured 100 years before the constitution. And the ideological foundation of what we call America arose as a result of the First Great Awakening. All this happened long before the founders did a constitutional do-over.

Those settlements were not the United States of America. When the U.S. was founded as a country, it was not founded as a Christian country.

Also, Matt Pesti, the various colonies were formed as religious utopias and refuges for different religious traditions. The Puritan is going to have a far different spin on Biblical interpretation than is the Catholic. Which of these, then, should be considered "America's religious tradition?"

I don't really have enough information to decide one way or the other; some of the accusations probably deserve investigation, others seem sort of hard to avoid (in a Bible class, you probably will be studying why Jesus is thought to fulfill Old Testament prophecies).

But if it's studying it as literature than it should examin the historical context of what the bible says vs what other sources say, right? Not simply say "the bible is right and the others are wrong.

Yes, but either way, you're still studying why Christians believe Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies; I suppose you can throw in the disclaimer that this is the belief of Christians and not all people.

"The Bible As Literature" to me implies that you do not approach it as a religous work, but rather as a literary work (possibly fictional, *REGARDLESS OF YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS*), and apply the standard literary criticism process to it. Whether or not Christians believe Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies is irrelevant to the literary criticism of the Bible.

I tend to differentiate between the theocratic colonies and the constitutional USA. The colonies where not exactly nice places to live and I would most certainly not call them utopias. They where essentially theocracies that would punish, torture or otherwise banish anyone who did not toe the line and follow the teachings of the religious controlling elite.

For example Roger Williams the founder of rhode island was banished from the massachussets bay colony for the crime of teaching tolerance and seperation of church and state. Also this overly religious government and lifestyle led directly to the salem witch trial murders.

So in that hundred years between the colonies and the constitution thigns did change and evolve under natural process from a system of intolerant essentially theocracies where only the colonie's leader's POV are valid to a secular, tolerant (at least on paper) democracy where all POV are equally valid and accepted. Not exactly a do over but a normal and essential evolution of society from less free and mature to one more free and mature.

Exactly ScottN. For example if you study about Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism it doesn’t mean that you have to be told by the instructor that Buddha’s ideas are true, Mohammed was the profit of Allah or that the Book of Mormon is a factual account of history. Along the same lines if you studied the Odyssey or the Iliad you talk about the historical context and what is really known about the real Trojan War. You ceartanly wouldn't be told that Neptune and the other Greek Gods really played the role in the Trojan War that they do in the story.

ScottN:

Whether or not Christians believe Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies is irrelevant to the literary criticism of the Bible.

Be not hasty. There are many points in the Gospels that make direct reference to the propechies that are supposedly fulfilled (including at least one reference in Matthew to a passage that either doesn't exist, or that we don't have). Discussion of whether said prophecies were in fact fulfilled would quite naturally follow from a standard literary criticism perspective. It's just that one can examine earlier portions of a text to see if their predictions are wholly fulfilled later on without proclaiming that it was done by the will of the Holy Spirit and let's all praise God for doing it so wonderfully.

But if I were examining a piece of literature that put forth statements that it later claimed to fulfill (see, I don't know, One Hundred Years of Solitude for a book that does this an awful lot), of *course* one would examine the text closely to see if it were in fact done, regardless of the actual content.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. Regular literary criticism would lead to the things that Matthew described.

It would be quite interesting to give the results of the last hundred or so years of bible research done at the Universities by scholars, since these results are often not known even to christians (since pastors probably don't like to teach all the doubts and relativeness of a faith).

Luigi Novi: That statement doesn't make any sense. Religion was a state matter, and the Bill of Rights did not affect state matters. That's like saying, "The New York/ New Jersery Port Authority was not founded as a Christian organization." Religion was beyond the scope of the federal government, besides a general respect for it.

Second of all, the United States is only the sum of it's parts, it's parts being the 13 sovereign states that agreed to form it, and all latter states that agreed to join it.

Third, any government "grows" out of the culture that fertiziled it. The contributions made by religion to the national characther made the success our democratic experiment possible. The classic argument was in Democracy in America.

Matt Patterson: Well, since we are talking about the question of the Bible and it's position as a American State Paper, I would have to go with the Bible. If you want to go with what has had the most cultural influence on America, it wins.

R: It was a utopia, if you were a Puritan, (Life Expectancy was 80, free from Religious persecution, free exercise of religion). A Utopia in this context is a experimental settlement formed for the purpose of testing ideas on how the perfect society should look like. It's something of an American tradition. So far, every one has failed after a few generations, but that's life.

And yes, every society breeds dissidents. Thats what New Haven (Well, not the kind of dissident you were thinking of), North Carolina and Rhode Island were for. Everyone was doing what they wanted to, sounds like a great solution.

The Constitution was the sum of the colonial experiance, not a breaking from it. And yes, it was a do-over, as the first one failed, the original couldn't pass, and the Bill of Rights was needed to convince the remaining states otherwise.

Constanze: Historical Criticism is still in debate by most theologians, mainly over criticisms that it undermines the authority of scripture, or places it's meaning in the hands of men, rather than the text.

Bonus: Roger Williams was a Baptist, The Puritans became the United Church of Christ. Just to keep things in perspective.

Sounds like nazi germany was a utpoia by that criteria as well. Freedom from persecution as long as you where nazi, free exercise of your rights as long as you where a nazi, etc.....) Not exactly the kind of place I would want to live.

And yes unfortunately the christian bible has had too much influence on american society and look at the mess we are in. Hate groups and crimes are consistently high, intolerance and hatred of anyone who does not bow down and kowtow to the christian taliban, prudish behavior enforced by a government that is afraid to remain neutral (or even worse is controlled by a christian taliban dubya) instead of doing the right thing and letting the market drive what people want to see, hear or play. (basically if you dont wanna see boobies or listen to rap then dont but you have no right to stop someone who does want to as long as there is no actual harm done)

And the fear of a theocratic government controlling personal lives as was done in the early colonies and european empires is embeded in the constitution and bill of rights forbidding the government from establishing or endorsing a national relgion. Seperation of church and state is one of the cornerstones of this country.

The Bill of Rights was required to convince the states that the new federal government would not be a new monarchy taking the power to self regulate away or trample on the self determination rights of the people.

And the puritans became the United Church of Christ. Is that the good church of christ that recognized Same gender marriage or the evil ones that still promote hatred and intolerance?

Matt Pesti, you're being a little bit deliberately obtuse here. Yes, the Bible is the document upon which all the Christian faiths are based. No, they do not all teach that it means the same thing. Not even close. They don't today, and they didn't then, and it's pretty much an insult to all of them to claim that modern evangelical Christianity somehow miraculously duplicates all of their teachings simultaneously. I say once again, there is no one single "influence" the Bible had on early American society, and pretending that the issue is simple enough to be covered in a single high school class is an insult to scholarship.

Also, your criticism of the historical-critical method is probably unwarranted here, because who care what the theologians think about it in this case? We're discussing its use in a secular public high school course, and it's the best way we've thus far to come up with to evaluate a sacred text independent of whatever a religion says is its divine import.

Y'know, this Christian Taliban that everyone keeps talking about...for all the talk about it imposing morality on everyone and so on, you would think we live in Iran or something. As far as I can tell, you can see boobies just fine if you want to and listen to rap as much as you want in this country without getting in trouble. What's funny is what started this discussion: It was an (elective) class about the Bible! Horrors! Right up there with the Nazis and Saddam! How evil!

(Note: I am not saying that the class is perfect--it may require some revisions in order to fit into a secular school system. I am just sort of rolling my eyes at the hyperbole being thrown around on this board.)

Hey if you're gonna bole you might as well be hyper about it.

Matt Pesti: Luigi Novi: That statement doesn't make any sense. Religion was a state matter, and the Bill of Rights did not affect state matters.
Luigi Novi: No, religion is not a state matter. It’s a personal one.

And what does that have to do with my above statement? R pointed out that the Bible was never one of the founding documents of this country and is definitely not as important as the Constitution or Declaration of Independence to the government of this country. You responded that the numerous colonies you pointed out were founded as religious utopias, that they predated the Constitution, and that the Founders did a “constitutional do-over.” My response is to point out that our country subsumed those colonies, and the constitution is the foundational document of that country, so those colonies, regardless of whatever part religion played in their origin, were made moot, and our country was not founded on the principles that they were. The Constitution, therefore, is not a “do-over.” It is a document in which the fundamental principles of Americanism were decided, and the idea that this is a Christian nation is not among them.

Matt Pesti: That's like saying, "The New York/ New Jersery Port Authority was not founded as a Christian organization." Religion was beyond the scope of the federal government, besides a general respect for it.
Luigi Novi: The NY/NJ PA is an organization under the jurisdiction of those two states, which are in turn under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. No one is trying to use that organization to argue that the Bible was a founding document of our country, or that it is more important than the Constitution or Declaration of Independence to the government of this country.

Matt Pesti: Second of all, the United States is only the sum of it's parts, it's parts being the 13 sovereign states that agreed to form it, and all latter states that agreed to join it.
Luigi Novi: And any laws of those colonies that were inconsistent with SoCaS were rescinded after they joined it.

Matt Pesti: Third, any government "grows" out of the culture that fertiziled it.
Luigi Novi: Which does not mean that therefore, ipso facto, the Bible was a founding document of this country, or that it is more important to our government than the Constitution or DoI.

Matt Pesti: Matt Patterson: Well, since we are talking about the question of the Bible and it's position as a American State Paper, I would have to go with the Bible.
Luigi Novi: The Bible is a foreign document that predates the country by millennia. How, therefore, is it a “state paper”?

Matt Pesti: The Constitution was the sum of the colonial experiance, not a breaking from it. And yes, it was a do-over, as the first one failed, the original couldn't pass, and the Bill of Rights was needed to convince the remaining states otherwise.
Luigi Novi: No, the argument was that the Constitution, as written, did not explicitly enumerate or guarantee the rights of the people, and as such needed an addition to ensure such protection. That hardly qualifies it as a “failure,” except to those who need to embellish with overly exaggeratory language.

Luigi, although your last statement is essentially correct, I think that you mis-read Matt Pesti's statement to which it responds.


There was a "failed Constitution" -- the Articles of Confederation -- that had to be scrapped, and so the current Contstitution is a do-over. The Articles had made the central government too weak, and the new Constitution gave it more "teeth," so the lack of a guarantee of of rights -- rights of the citizens, rights of the "people" collectively, and rights of the States -- was seen as one of the dangers of too strong a federal government.

On the other hand, if that is what he means, Pesti's statement also seems to be somewhat non-sequiter to the one (by R, not Matthew Patterson) to which it responds. ("So in that hundred years between the colonies and the constitution thigns did change and evolve under natural process from a system of intolerant essentially theocracies where only the colonie's leader's POV are valid to a secular, tolerant (at least on paper) democracy where all POV are equally valid and accepted. Not exactly a do over but a normal and essential evolution of society from less free and mature to one more free and mature.")

No MIke You can't see boobies or listen to rap without getting in trouble. The FCC enforces censorship so that songs are chopped and mutilated or breasts are forced to be blurred out. A man can walk shirtless down the street and not get in trouble even if he has big boobs while a small breasted woman cannot. If a woman wants to go topless on the beach she is charged with a crime as if there was somethign indecent about a pair of breasts.

R; Re:Utopia: Well, yeah. The Nazis claimed so, and the Soviets said the same thing about their system. For someone who claims "everything is relative," you seem to have some problems with applying that concept.

Re: Bibical "Influence": Hate crimes barely happen, The most popular sitcoms are about the promiscous, the homosexual, and even a transsexual, if memory serves, and the current Grand Theft Auto crisis is propelled by the once and future Democratic presidential canidates. Some Crisis.

Re: Separation of Church and State: Not quite. The First Amendment only affects the Federal Government (Congress shall make no law.) Each state has their own Constitution and Bill of Rights, most which protect religious liberty. However, some kept the state established church going, like Mass and New Hampshire, as far as 1821.

In addition, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and some parts of Germany still have established churches, and France and Canada meddle in religious affairs and schools. Again, keeping things in perspective.

Re:"was neither united, nor a church, nor Christian" The United Church of Christ is a proper misnomer for a church that recently appeared in the news over same sex marriage.

re: Homosexuality: If you want to claim that Christian Doctrines concerning homosexual are wrong, you have to do so within the context of Scripture and Theology, not your opinions on civil rights.

Matt Patterson:
Re: Bible: I am not making that claim, I claiming that a thesis that claims that the Bible is more important than the Constitution is a sound one, based on the influence the document has had on the cultural and social history of the United States, which goes beyond political and legal history.

Re: Historical Critism: I was explaining to Constanze what the prevailing American Attitude was in this country.

Luigi Novi: Re: Religion: At the time of the revolution, Religion was a state matter, and the aims of the revolution were not to end that, and the Bill of Rights makes no claim to end that. Your personal beliefs or the prevailing attitudes of the 21th century were not nessicarly the same of the 18th century or the constitution.

Where do you get the idea that the states unconditionally surrendered their sovereignty to the Federal Government when they joined the union? And where do you get this idea that the Federal Constitution defines "Americanism." Have you read it recently? It mostly talks about what the federal government looks like, and what it can and can't do.

The Port Authority is of the same kind as the Federal Government, an agreement between the states over how to deal with matters of common concern. The point is it doesn't have to declare if it is a Christian organization, religion is out of it's scope.

What State laws did the adaptation of the federal constitution overturn? Printing coin and currency? Granting letters of Maquis and reprisal? Because the legal groundwork for imposing the Bill of Rights on the states did not exist until the 14 amendment, and such arguments were not applied until the 1950's.

Nobody has claimed the Bible is superior to the constitution in legal matters. I'm mostly speaking of cultural matters and history.
And the Bible is as important as the DOI to our government, as in neither have any legal standing.

Re: Do-over: As Tom M pointed out, the Articles of Confederation was the first constitution, it failed, and the second one was drafted. That one couldn't pass until the Bill of Rights was promised. In any case, your claim is void, as the New Government claimed to be the sucessor to the previous one in the assumption of Revolutionary War debt.

Tom M: I was elaborating on what I meant,the Constitution wasn't some grand, watershed moment in which all enlightenment theory was crystalized, and The United States Of America appeared out of thin air, or something to that effect, but was an attempt to correct the previous constitution, that this country predates the republic, and that American History does not suddenly begin in 1791.

Re: Separation of Church and State: Not quite. The First Amendment only affects the Federal Government

Or at least, it used to. Regardless of whether or not you like the Fourteenth, it causes the First to be applied to the States.

Going back to MikeC, 14 July 2004:

George W. Bush himself stated, "We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights are derived from G-d”

Technically, this is in line with the Declaration of Independence:

---

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

---

You have the legal option of buying material to see as many boobies as you want. You can show or look at as many boobies as you want in the privacy of your own home. While FCC regulations block excessive profanity in rap on the airwaves, you can buy CD's that have as much profanity as you want. Christian morality's dominant effect? Let's try mild deterrances...

Matt Pesti: These days, one could argue that Harry Potter has a greater cultural and social influence than the Constitution. However, Albus Dumbledore is not in charge of the government, we don't have Aurors carrying out law enforcement, and the Wizengamot does not hear judicial cases. Saying "The Bible is important in history" is one thing. Saying "the Bible has *equivalent importance to the Constitution* in American history" is quite another, and simply incorrect. It may in fact be more important, as you claim, but its influence is in substantially different areas.

While FCC regulations block excessive profanity in rap on the airwaves,

And specifically, what is the constitutional basis for this?

---

Quote:

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Matt Pesti: Re: Separation of Church and State: Not quite. The First Amendment only affects the Federal Government (Congress shall make no law.) Each state has their own Constitution and Bill of Rights, most which protect religious liberty.
Luigi Novi: Federal law supercedes state law when the two are in conflict. The First Ammendment doesn’t hold for the federal government. It holds for Americans.

Matt Pesti: re: Homosexuality: If you want to claim that Christian Doctrines concerning homosexual are wrong, you have to do so within the context of Scripture and Theology, not your opinions on civil rights.
Luigi Novi: Not really. One can opine that scripture or theology are wrong.

Matt Pesti: Re: Bible: I am not making that claim, I claiming that a thesis that claims that the Bible is more important than the Constitution is a sound one, based on the influence the document has had on the cultural and social history of the United States, which goes beyond political and legal history.
Luigi Novi: Except that R’s original comment was clearly about the political and legal. Not culture.

Matt Pesti: Luigi Novi: Re: Religion: At the time of the revolution, Religion was a state matter, and the aims of the revolution were not to end that, and the Bill of Rights makes no claim to end that.
Luigi Novi: Funny, I don’t recall making any argument that they were.

Matt Pesti: Where do you get the idea that the states unconditionally surrendered their sovereignty to the Federal Government when they joined the union?
Luigi Novi: Nowhere, since I don’t hold such an idea. I never said anything about “surrendering sovereignty.”

Matt Pesti: And where do you get this idea that the Federal Constitution defines "Americanism."
Luigi Novi: The point is that the Bible is not a state, national or founding document. The Constitution and the Declaration of the Independence, on the other hand, were.

Matt Pesti: The Port Authority is of the same kind as the Federal Government, an agreement between the states over how to deal with matters of common concern. The point is it doesn't have to declare if it is a Christian organization, religion is out of it's scope.
Luigi Novi: Agreed. So why did you bring it up? The only one who brought it up as an analogy was you.

The First Amendment is not a license to do or say anything and the Supreme Court has consistently placed limitations on it. I would imagine the FCC's fines are equivalent to say, somebody walking around nude in public and getting arrested for lewd behavior (which isn't free speech anyway) or somebody falling victim to a profanity law. If CBS wants to use public airwaves, they should obey FCC laws.

BTW, Scott, you were quoting Luigi, not me in your 1:18 post. Luigi was responding to me.

Ok as I am at work and there is too much to respond to immediately and in depth I'll just say this. Thank you luigi that is what i was pointing out legally the bible is not a state paper nor had any influence in what is america. Legally, and on paper.

Yes everything is relative but when one thing (colonial "utopia" and naxi orsoviet "utopias" parralell each other it is too much to not point out)

And censorship is still censorship.

There has never been a society without censorship.

Matt Pesti,

Historical Criticism is still in debate by most theologians, mainly over criticisms that it undermines the authority of scripture, or places it's meaning in the hands of men, rather than the text.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. What do you mean by Historical Criticism? (I may have a problem translating into the proper terms). And who are "most theologians" you refer to?

Since I don't understand Greek or Hebrew, I haven't read the theological discussions directly, but rather the summaries and updates of their research by people like Peter DeRosa or Deschner (who hasn't been translated, AFAIK). Have you read Küng (there are some english editions of his works, I think)?
The other theologicans I've heard - Sölle and Schrottoff - are influenced by the Latin America "Befreiungstheologie" (Liberation theology?) and feminist interpretation, so it's more the today application of the bible and not textual criticism.

If I understand you right, and any approach of the Bible other than it to be divinly inspired undermines its authority - then no critical discussion is possible, and teaching can only happen in religious context, not historical or literacy study.

In addition, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and some parts of Germany still have established churches, and France and Canada meddle in religious affairs and schools. Again, keeping things in perspective.

Yes, and Germany has seperation of Church and State despite established Churches. Some years ago, a parent went all the way to the High Court, because he didn't want his children to sit in a classroom with a cruxifix hanging on the wall (as is customary in catholic, tradition-bound Bavaria), but to grow up free, and the Court agreed that children shouldn't be forced to sit under a religious symbol if they don't share that belief.
And it's because the established churches over here aren't as fundamentalistic and interfering that christian religious belief have less of an influence on our political and daily life today (thank God) than in the US. We don't raise an uproar about our politicans sex lifes (the mayor of Berlin said: "I'm gay, and that's good so", and stayed, our foreign minister has married an intern as fourth wife, I think, our chancellor has been divorced....)

Re: Historical Critism: I was explaining to Constanze what the prevailing American Attitude was in this country.

Well, I missed that bit. Next time, please mention a bit more clearly whether you're stating your own opinion or the prevailing attitude. And please explain the term a bit more detailed, too. Otherwise, I'll get lost....

Tom M: I was elaborating on what I meant,the Constitution wasn't some grand, watershed moment in which all enlightenment theory was crystalized, and The United States Of America appeared out of thin air, or something to that effect, but was an attempt to correct the previous constitution, that this country predates the republic, and that American History does not suddenly begin in 1791.

Well, as the current discussion shows, enlightment still doesn't seem to have reached all of the american population, since a certain (vocal) part still is fundamentalistic religious.

And yes, there was a lot of history in America before 1791. There even was a lot of history before 1492! And there was a lot of history outside the US, too!

There has never been a society without censorship.
If there has never been a society without censorship then perhaps it is time we start. By censorship I am talking about government imposed censorship. Self imposed censorship of your own behavior is always acceptable.

Let me give an example. As you may have noticed I have a tendency to speak my mind and let the buffalo chips fall where they may. But if I am speaking to someone who is not as enthusiastic or relaxed about language and i like and respect them then i censor my language. If i dislike or do not respect them then i still talk however i please. That is good behavior. Having the government impose restrictions on music or television shows or movie because a few backwards prudes got upset is wrong and evil. To give another example there are 2 rap/urban/r&B stations in cincy (107.1 and 100.9) there are also 2 christian stations (93.3 and 104.1) in the market. I do not listen to christian and avoid those like the death plague but i do not call the fcc and complain or call the station and complain about them or try to get them shut down. I just don't listen to them. If you don't wanna hear the rap or what goes on those stations don't listen to them. There are switches on the radio that takes you to another station, no one is holding a gun to your head to force you to listen to those station.

The legal right may still be there right now at the federal level but people like simon leis have tried to destroy that right and make any "immoral" items illegal to have, buy or otherwise posses in hamilton county and cincinnati.

Also I sincerely hope I am misreading you when you said this somebody walking around nude in public and getting arrested for lewd behavior but it sounded like you are equating nudity with lewd behavior. There is nothign lewd about a person nude or a topless woman even. I mean a naked pair of breasts are like a gun they are only dangerous depending on what you do with them. Another example: I was watching a travel show on PBS (Not the one with Rick Dees but the other one with the scrawny irish blonde guy) and the show was about Rio. This meant of course when they went to the beach that there would be topless women there. they blurred out the breasts. Why bother? It was not sexual or lewd but nudity that was nonsexual situational nudity.

I mean correct me if I am wrong someone but europe has had nudity on their tv for quite a few years and there has been no general collapse of society as a result.(and in many ways europe's society is better than america's)

What is the constitutional basis for the FCC being able to fine CBS for showing Janet Jackson's boob, or Howard Stern for being a jerk?
From what i can figure out there is no constitutional validity for the FCC to be able to do that except for the much abused interstate commerace clause.

Now speaking about the constitution. The founding fathers themselves said or aluded that the christian bible was not one of the documents considered as a inspiration or source for the constitution. The magna carta, declaration of independence, among others are the legal inspiration. I posted a link once befoer to the government website where this is discussed.

The cultural influence and inspiration of the christian bible has been a large part of the american culture. Although it too has risen and fallen in status among americans. The founding fathers where not christians but deists, Jefferson himself even rewrote the bible to remove the deific status of jesus. But it is still just a book to many people (myself included) and is just one of the many holy books in the world.And this is taking all the various interpretations and versions of the christian bible together as a whole.

Ok as for relative and universal there are some thigns like good and evil behavior that are universal and things that are relative like morals, ethics and sin. And by universal i mean they are outside the boundries of culture, religion or personal opinion.

Which leads to my staetments about homosexuality. This is the way these people are. They are no different than you or I other than what turns them on sexually. They have the same loves, drives, frailties and strengths as anyone else. Adn for an organization to say that they are less than worthy and not good people just because of how they feel is wrong and evil on a universal scaale because it does them harm. By permitting two people who love each other and want to have a legal commitment to each other to do so is good on a universal scale.

This is one reason I do not favor marriage to be the exclusive property of the church. My wife and I did not get married in a church because neither of us felt that we wanted that.

Ok I am not sure what else to say right now so this should be enough. :-)

What is the constitutional basis for the FCC being able to fine CBS for showing Janet Jackson's boob, or Howard Stern for being a jerk?
From what i can figure out there is no constitutional validity for the FCC to be able to do that except for the much abused interstate commerace clause.

And technically, since the First Amendment is a limitation on the powers of Congress enumerated in Article I, the Interstate Commerce Clause should not apply.

No censorship, huh?

Well, I'll guess I'll start by:

a. shouting fire in a crowded theater
b. spreading libelous rumors about people
c. printing classified government information
d. preaching the Bible in school

My point is that censorship runs both ways; it is not always about trying to keep somebody down, censorship is not an inherently bad thing. It is the misuse of it in which it becomes wrong. And I understand your point about Howard Stern and Janet Jackson. Actually, I think in those instances, private organizations should self-police themselves in response to the public's wishes. If people were offended by Janet on CBS, they'd complain to CBS and CBS would be forced to handle it themselves. Market of ideas and all that jazz. But to simplistically say "Get rid of all censorship" is missing the point, in my opinion.

Also, yes, I think somebody being nude (and I'm talking about NUDE--sans clothing period) is lewd behavior. You have the right to do what you want in the privacy of your own home. We have the right to expect a level of decorum in the public arena.

But should it be criminal behavior? Who decides what is "decorous"? What standards do they use?

The public decides what is decorous based the standards they determine. I don't know how "criminal" it should be, but it should be a reasonable person test. For instance, yelling fire in a crowded theater has been determined to NOT be free speech, but rather a crime. Any reasonable person should see that this is dangerous behavior and should be censored. The same with spreading libel, selling state secrets, and other things.

Then, there's the gray area. Should there be censorship of racial slurs and profanity? Certainly not in your own private conversations. But at some level when you use them against other people it becomes harassment and should be censored.

For the most part, I am in favor of free speech. But there are limits.

Wouldn't taking down the Ten Commandments and forbidding the pledge in schools actually INTERFERE with my freedom of religion?? The Constitution should protect all religious expressions. It is our right.

You have a very strange definition of lewd. From dictionary.com: Preoccupied with sex and sexual desire; lustful.
Obscene; indecent.
I find nothign obscene or indecent about the naked human form. Being naked on the beach or in a park or otherwise in an area where it would not pose a health or safety hazard is no biig deal to me. of course I've been to a nudist resort and go as naked as possible around home or my hometown.

There is a difference between common sense and stupidity. Shouting fire in a crowded theator is stupidity. Not listening to a radio station that plays music you dont like is common sense.

So to use ytour 4 examples:
A is stupidity and bad
b is just plain rude and evil and bad
c is illegal but depends on the information as it is our government and there should be open books for us to keep tabs on our government.
d is illegal and i find offensive and immoral and indecent and evil and should NEVER be permitted.

Shoot, Mike, you stole my response to R. Still, here some others you didn't mention:

e. False advertising
f. Threatening someone
g. Perjury
h. Any act that could be considered "expression" but is rightfully illegal, such as blowing up a building, flashing someone, etc.

WIT, I'll bite.

In a private school, there's no issue with that.

In a public school, it's a government sanctioned location, thereby stating that "The Government promotes this particular religious belief".

And... if you believe that the 10 Commandments are just general rules for living, may I refer you to the first four commandments (Jewish version, slightly paraphrased).

1. I am the Lord your G-d who led you out of Egypt to be your G-d. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make unto you any graven image.
3. You shall not take the name of your Lord G-d in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.

How would posting these four commandments *NOT* be respecting an establishment of religion?

In addition, my parenthetical raises another issue. *WHOSE* version of the 10 Commandments should be posted? The Jewish version? The Protestant version? The Catholic version?

As for the Pledge, I have no problem with it, once the words "Under G-d" are removed. Revert the Pledge to it's pre-1954 state. Those words were only inserted to show how much better we are than the godless Commies.

Here's something: Students are allowed to pray in school. Should they be allowed to post the Ten Commandments say, on a classroom wall, or on their lockers? In that case, it wouldn't be the school (thus, the state) respecting an establishment of religion, but rather an individual.


R, do you see the inherent conflict though regarding censorship? You say that certain things are evil or immoral and should be banned (censored). Who gets to decide these things? If I think walking around buck naked is immoral, why is my opinion any less than yours?

And I think, being in a PUBLIC place completely naked, is indecent (and thus, lewd). When I mean public, I'm not talking about a nude beach, a nudist colony, or even a park. I'm talking about very public places where there are people that don't want to see you or touch you.

Luigi, Mike, R,

I don't quite get how these examples A to H are censorship.

a. shouting fire in a crowded theater

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theory is dangerous and therefore forbidden.

b. spreading libelous rumors about people

Is against privacy rights, just like calling somebody names directly is an insult, and therefore a privatly punishable matter.

c. printing classified government information

Like how to build an a-bomb yourself, which I believe some people, taking "Freedom of speech" a bit far, posted on the internet? Obviously dangerous information can be forbidden to be published to everybody. (The same goes for privacy rights, too, after all - I have the right to forbid a newspaper to print details about my private life, if I don't want them to.)

d. preaching the Bible in school

Teaching the Bible in context - no problem. Preaching in a private school - no problem. Preaching a religous belief in a public school - violation of SoCS.

e. False advertising

Untrue advertising is against Consumer protection and therefore forbidden.

f. Threatening someone

Which is threatening a criminal act, I guess (beating somebody up is bodily harm, etc.)

g. Perjury

That means lying in court? If you say you will tell the truth as witness and then lie, you're endangering the accused's life, if he's wrongly sentenced.

h. Any act that could be considered "expression" but is rightfully illegal, such as blowing up a building, flashing someone, etc.

Again, harming/destroying somebody else's property/life.

I don't quite see where censorship's involved here, it's just a case of these cases breaking other laws by harming other people's rights. The right to free speech doesn't mean you can call me names, because that's harming my right. The right to go where I like doesn't mean I can step on your toes.

And where does being naked on the street fit in? It's certainly not an aesthetic thing I'd want to see in most cases, and in some areas, it would be unhygienic, but whose rights are harmed? (If you don't like it, don't look.)
Why would a naked guy want to touch you????

You got my point: R was lumping all kinds of censorship together--my point was that censorship is not inherently wrong, as you yourself has stated (you didn't call it censorship, but that's what it is).

What's the difference being between naked on the street and flashing someone?

Why would a naked guy want to touch me? I don't know. But in a crowded street, on a subway car, on a bus, invariably, he will be touching you. That's a violation of my rights--it's also a public health risk.

Here's something: Students are allowed to pray in school. Should they be allowed to post the Ten Commandments say, on a classroom wall, or on their lockers? In that case, it wouldn't be the school (thus, the state) respecting an establishment of religion, but rather an individual.

Kids can post the ten comandments in their lockers just like they can wear crosses, stars of david or whatever. Posting on the CLASSROOM WALL is another matter because that's where the TEACHER puts up stuff for you to learn by.

Actually Mike I was not trying to lump several things under the censorship banner. I was talking about the censorship of breasts in magazines, television and to a lesser extent movies. As well as the music indistry, primarily rap. Basically like i have said and will continue to say I do not believe that it was right for the FCC to cave in to the backwards, repressive, repressed prudish jesus freaks and impose censorship on music or tv. If you dont wanna listen to rap and you know a station plays that kind of music there are plenty of others on the dial to choose from. I do not like the christian stations in cincy and i will not listen to them. But I do not try to get them yanked off the air or call them and complain or do anythign other than self impose censorship by not listening to them. That is the right thing to do, not do like the freaks have done and call the station and tell them they are going to hell or that they will pray for them, (WEBN one of the local rock stations takes those phone messages and plays them on the air making fun of the CT freaks I love it because it shows just how stupid the freaks are and out of touch with reality)( and before anyone says anythign on the answering machine it says that if you leave a message you agree that the station has the right to play that message on the air and if you do not give that right then you may not leave a message).

I was talking about the travel program on PBS which had been the last bastion of sanity on tv but has apparentlyt had to cave in as well. A show on rio that visits the beach is going to have topless women in the background and foreground occasionally. that is nonsexual nudity. There is nothing wrong with that and people should get the corn cob out of their arse and not worry about seeing a naked pair of boobs.

Ok about the public nudity thing. I was talking about a topless woman not being able to do the same thing a topless guy can. Personally if i saw a topless woman walking done the street and not fondling or fingering herslef i would see nothign wrong as there is nothing obscene, indecent, criminal or lewd about her behavior. also there is no more of a health risk from that than from a topless guy or even a guy in a sweaty t shirt.

Further i said if it didnt pose a health or safety risk. I live in a county that has about half the population of the least populous NYC borough. We do not have subways, public bussing or such in highland county and i am not familiar enough with riding buses to say anythign. the last bus i rode was my freshman year of high school. I drive everywhere i go because i live 4 miles from the nearest gas station, post office or mini mart.

But back to the topless woman. I would look at her I would say hi (i look at clothed women too) and not just her breasts but her face too. (my wife has trained me well enough to not be that big a dog ;-) ) I would treat her no differently than a clothed woman as I do not see anything lewd or indecent as there is nothing lewd or indecent in her behavior. now if she was walking down the street cupping and rubbing her breasts that would be a differnt story as that would be sexual behavior and not quite appropriate for public sidewalks.

Now if I saw a guy walking down the street carrying a bible and preaching at the top of his lungs i would consider that more indecent than a topless woman as that is actually causing a disturbance and being a public nuisance.

The difference between being naked and walking down the street and flashing someone is that the first behavior is merely existing, the second is knowingly doing something that offends or disturbs people generally for the motivation of sexual self gratification. It is a matter of intent and degrees. A person who is naked because it is hot and they are more comfortable that way is not doing somethign for sexual gratification so they are doing nothing wrong unless their safety or anothers is harmed by it.

When I talk about evil I am talking about behaviors. People are not evil, things are not evil only actions can be good or evil. Relgion is not the end all and be all when it comes to describing good and evil behaviors. Good helps, evil harms. Unfortunately religion when it represses people and promotes ignorance and hate is doing harm so it does evil. NOTE is not evil but does evil when it acts like that. Freeing peoples minds, helping promote education and learning, helping bring people together is good behavior. And relgion on occasion does do that. The UCC was behaving in a good manner when they recognized samegender marriage. The episcopal church was doing good behavior when they ordained a homosexual bishop.

And who determiens good and evil? Humanity in general. Good behavior causes people to respond in positive ways, continuing to spread the good around. Evil behavior causes people to respond with resistence, discord and strife. Simple psycholgical cause and effect, unless people are so brainwashed or inured to the evil that they no longer care or enjoy the feeligns of behaving evilly.

And I agree putting anythign religious on the classroom walls is not a good idea as that does violate socs as already been described.

Constanze I thank you for you level headed-ness and i was trying to explain to luigi and MikeC that their examples was not examples of censorship as the examples they used where more of the stupidity of speech rather than censorship or even the freedom of speech. Also I am very glad to have your POV and sensible comments from the european POV. Sometimes I think some of european social and culture is better than parts of american. Its too bad that americans will not learn to be better world citizens.

I am not some kind of lunatic here crying out for total anarchy. I do believe firmly that there needs to be boundries in society. What I do not believe is that religion is uniquely or superiorly qualified to set those boundries. As a matter of fact i believe that religion is very unsuited and inferior to set those boundries as relgion is too repressive and too controlling as it is.

Also sicne you cannot even get the various "christian" sects to agree on one simple interpretation of a passage from the bible (hell you cant even get everyone to agree to use the same version of the bible) much less on how to deal with homosexuality or sexuality in general this invalidates the "christian" claim to have a right to impose their morals on everyone else. Morals are for each individual person to develop and learn for themselves based on their family, their situation, their life experiences and their surroundings.

I have lines I will never cross, lines I will cross for a price or the right motivation and lines that i cross so often they come with their own crosswalk. Everybody does.

I am not sure what else I can say right now. I am agitated and irritated by this. On a personal note the reconcilliation between my exfriends and exgirlfriend brokedown as they do not see me as a good person since i will not acknowledge the superiority of religion and she said that without religion you cannot be a good person. Which as we all know is nothign more than plain out right straight up BS. A person can do good thigns and be a decent person and what would be called for lack of a better term a good person without religion.

The critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still.

A highly critical article in The Journal of Law and Education in 2003 said the course "suffers from a number of constitutional infirmities" and "fails to present the Bible in the objective manner required."

The journal said that even supplementary materials were heavily slanted toward sectarian organizations; 83 percent of the books and articles recommended had strong ties to sectarian organizations, 60 percent had ties to Protestant organizations, and 53 percent had ties to conservative Protestant organizations, it said. </i>

The critics say it ignores...that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still. - Brian Fitzgerald

That's an old myth. As a matter of fact, I first heard about somewhere around 1973, '74. The fact is, there is no way NASA could make that claim. Especially under the circumstances normally given for it. (I haven't read the article Brian linked, but usually the proof is discovered when NASA is trying to figure out the orbit of the Sun, or Moon or Earth however many thousands of years ago. They were doing it for one of their space missions. Somehow or another, a day is mysteriously discovered to be unaccounted for. That is, their calculations show that a day has been lost. The scientists are baffled, until one of them, who just happens to be a Christian/Bible Scholar/Whatever remembers the story of the Wall of Jericho. The scientists are, of course, dutifully awed. Why they would need to know that sort of thing [the past orbit of the Earth/Sun] is never explained. But the fact is, such a loss of a day couldn't be mathematically determined.)

If you want proof, just read this Snopes.com article.

One correction: I said the missing involved the Wall of Jericho. That's wrong. It involved "Joshua's defense of Gibeon from the five kings of the Amorites." We regret the error.

constanze: I don't quite get how these examples A to H are censorship.
Luigi Novi: They're not. They're examples of things that should be censored.

Can we have a new board, Luigi?

Luigi et al.,

I guess we're talking about different definitions of censorship, not censorship itself.

I was (without looking it up in a dictionary) working from the definition that censorship means forbidding some expressions motivated either by religious reasons (women have to wear a certain amount/special type of clothing, in order to cover their breasts/hair/whatever...) or politically (the media is not allowed to criticize the govt.)

There is another, broader, definition of censorship: that everything that prevents or encroaches the right of free speech is censorship.

Personally, I find the latter definition unpractical in a normal discussion, since freedom without any discipline and sensible rule of law isn't freedom, but anarchy. In every civilized, democratic country, there are certain basic rights (and duties), which are nevertheless bound where they cross other rights, common sense or other laws.

My right to free movement ends on your toes. Therefore, my right to free speech ends when I call you names.

Also, when people use the term "self-censorship", it usually refers to the former and not later (the media not criticszing the current govt. because they might get into trouble; not showing controversial religious issues because they might get flamed, etc.)
I haven't heard the term "self-censorship" applied when people refrain from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater - that's using common sense and showing regard for fellow human beings.

R,

thanks for the kind words. I try to be level-headed, but I also tend to get into a temper with some issues. (You guys would never have noticed that, right? )

Luigi:

why should they be censored, if they're already forbidden by other laws or are in violation of other rights? Isn't that like forbidding people to use a gun to shoot somebody else - it's already forbidden under bodily harm/murder.

You are welcome constanze. i try to be level headed and calm most of the time too. Unfortunately like my wife says I have an atomic temper. When I blow everyone around me gets a bit of the fallout but It gets better. (And she gives as good as she gets, probably one of the reasons the marriage has worked as long as it has)

About the censorship thign. I think you are the first to understand what I was trying to get across. There are three levels. The common sense dont shout fire in a theator. The self censorship of if you dont like rap then dont listen to a rap station. And the governmental censorship of this group isnt able to censor themselves and gets upset if you see boobies so we wont let anyone see boobies.

And constanze since you are in europe can you tell us if nudity on the tv has affected society in anyway? I was talking to one of the salesmen who got back from france and he said he saw tv commercials with topless women. When he freaked about it his hosts reacted like he was nuts (the proper reaction) and said its no big deal. Is that the general reaction or did he wind up with the french equivalent of liberals?

And dont try and figure out the american legal system. There are times where 1 action can result in 4 different charges. A slight bit of overkill as instead of picking the most appropriate charge cops/prosecuters just throw as many as they can at the person and see which ones stick sometimes.