• Part 2: Oh, and Another Thing.... March 20 - 6:51 pm

• Related Topic in Political Musings

I'm not sure either one should be protected from the other so much as just kept separated from each other. But had I my druthers (I know they're around here somewhere; I just gotta find 'em) I'd want the guvmint pertekted from the church.

On another subject I also think that churches should pay taxes just like the rest of us and not be exempt. It's really not fair to the rest of us poor saps.

MarkN, why should we have to give what we believe to be "God's due" to the government? I believe there was a verse in the Bible that says, render to Ceasar (the Government) what is Ceasar's and render unto God what is God's.

So start up a church, Mark.

I think it's fair--My family attends church AND pays taxes.

MikeC, it's (understandably) really hard to convince the IRS that you're actually setting up a church and not just a tax dodge. It's not really worth it.

Then claim religious persecution.

You can even flee to Rhode Island like they did back in the colonial days, (assuming you don't live there already, of course.)

I'm afraid I don't get the Rhode Island reference.

Most of the New Englanders who did not fit in with the strict Puritanism in Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut colonies found Rhode Island to be a lot more tolerant. So much so that the other colonies nicknamed it "Rogues' Island" because of all the Sabbath-breakers and heretics who moved there.

Matt Duke, I live in California and haven't the money to go to Rhode Island, but if I did it'd only be as a tourist.

So start up a church, Mark.

Then claim religious persecution.
If only it could be that easy. Of course, considering I'm agnostic don't you think that the IRS would find it highly suspicious for me to start a church to begin with, were they to find out, that is? There's also a website called The Agnostic Church but it's only a website.

::Most of the New Englanders who did not fit in with the strict Puritanism in Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut colonies found Rhode Island to be a lot more tolerant. So much so that the other colonies nicknamed it "Rogues' Island" because of all the Sabbath-breakers and heretics who moved there.:: TomM

Thomas Jefferson was considering having Rhode Island physically separated from the rest of the country according to his book called, "Notes on the State of Virginia." At least, I think it was that book. IF not that it was in "Slavery in the Antebellum South." It was a passing reference in a letter he made to someone. He wanted to do it until his people made him realize that that was physically impossible.

Why did Jefferson want that exactly?

Are you saying the government won't let you set up an agnostic church? Isn't that...(dum dum dum)

anti-anti-religious bigotry?

lol Well, I guess so, Mike, if ya wanna look at it that way. "The government's violating my First Amendment right to freedom from freedom from religion, and I don't take that kindly!" (and yes, I meant to say it exactly that way).

::Why did Jefferson want that exactly?:: Matt Duke

From what I read in those 2 books, Jefferson had this weird hatred or at least a strong dislike for everything about Rhode Island so he wanted to physically separate it from the rest of the country by digging a trench that would make it not physically part of the country.

After seeing "Me, Myself and Irene", I say that's a great idea!

Finally, the Matt has come back to nitcentral.

Okay, I'm not touching Interreligious board until part two is created. So don't bug me about it.

Based on original intent, the 1st amendment was designed to prevent the establishment of a national church by Congress, a reasonable precaution when a federal system exists. Religion was too be a state matter, as several states had established churches until the 1820's.

Ultimately, this is a issue everyone would be happy about if Federalism was used. The Supreme court seems to forget we are not a federal nation state.

I'm with Pesti on Interfaith. I'm resorting to a text-only browser just to read it.

Where's Part Two?

Based on original intent, the 1st amendment was designed to prevent the establishment of a national church by Congress, a reasonable precaution when a federal system exists.

He is right that back when the bill of rights was written it was because they were worried about the federal government controling people's lives (that is why they are all worded "congress shall make no law............"). To their was of thinking the states were represenative of the people and could not possibly trample people's rights. Over time they learned that most civil rights abuses tend to origionate at the state leval (segregation and the like) now we have the "...equel protection under the law..." amendment which basicaly has been used to say that all of the amenments apply to the sates as well.

I wonder why the specific word "Congress" was used in the First Amendment when the word "government" existed. Anyone understand that?

The Bill of Rights (and, I believe, the entire Constitution) was originally intended to only apply to the federal government. Hence, "Congress."

1 Originally, the doctrine now known as the Constitution was intended to be merely an amendment to the Articles of Confederation. Under the earlier session, there was only one political entity, the Copntinental Congress. Any legislation or proclamation was published as being from "the United States, in Congress assembled." Although it quickly became apparent a whole new system was necessary, much of the early drafts came through the process with little change.

2 Even under the new system, the legislative body was called the Congress. No other branch had the power to pass any laws, so it was not necessary to restrict them from specifically passing religious laws.

3 As Matthew mentions above, the powers and restrictions of the original Constitution and of the pre-Civil War amendments were narrowly interpretted to apply only to the Federal government.

So the ONLY reason "Congress" is used is just because that's the only branch that can make the laws? What about the others being able to influence the law by the "Checks and Balances" system?

But they can't make laws. It doesn't make sense to forbid the Supreme Court to make laws respecting the establishment of a religion, since the Supreme Court can't pass a law anyway. It makes no sense to forbid a body to take an action that it's incapable of taking anyway.

Jwb-

The executive branch's power to influence the law by the "checks and balances" is limited to the negative influence of the veto. The only influence for positive legislation is the "bully pulpit the president has a head of state and leader of his party.

There are, in fact very few "checks and balances" placed on the Court, because the drafters of the original documents saw their role in the government as very limited -- almost to the point of being peripheral. It wasn't until Marbury vs Madison that the Court gained the duty of interpretting the constitution. It wasn't until they used that power to interpret the "Equal protection" clause of the fourteenth ammendment that they were involved in cases that originated in State courts And it wasn't until Congress realized that they could pass laws the Constitution didn't specifically grant them the right to legislate if they made it an appropriations bill, and the other clauses were "just" restrictions on the use of the money, that there were a lot of federal laws to generate federal Court cases.

M. Jenkins and I agree on something! The Adminstator of Insufficent light has to be freezing his dragon behind off.

In the orignal conception of the Constitution, the President just acted as a elected Monarch, the commander of the non existant army, and head of the bureucracy. The Supreme Court was, well, I think it was handeling disputes concerning the law, between the other two branches, the state and federal levels, and serving as a ultimate court of appeals. The lifetime appointments were to keep the judges protected from an unfavorable discesion. When the 14th amendment was passed, it was designed to protect the Civil liberies of freed blacks, but was used to apply the bill of rights to the states. Supreme Court began to inflat after Griswald vs. Connecticut, which marks the invention of new rights, and the transfer of powers from the States to the Court. Their are plans to reform the court, as it's current powers are basically at the level of English Parilment (Which can do anything but make a man a woman and a woman a man) bound only by the conciuous of it's justices. The Presidentcy was based on the man in it, and other than a handful of strong presidents, were mostly guys with beards. After the Great Depression, the Bureacracy created by FD"I want a 100% tax bracket and I don't need congress to pass it"R expanded the Government, combined with the Average wartime powers expansion, turned the presidentcy into the hulk it is today.

Supreme Court began to inflat after Griswald vs. Connecticut, which marks the invention of new rights

I remind you, there is no such thing as a "new right". The Ninth Amendment specifically states that even if a right is not enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, it still exists.

::But they can't make laws. It doesn't make sense to forbid the Supreme Court to make laws respecting the establishment of a religion, since the Supreme Court can't pass a law anyway. It makes no sense to forbid a body to take an action that it's incapable of taking anyway.:: Matthew Patterson

How about "No other part of the government can influence laws either way with respect to religion."? To me, that sounds like something that should be put into law.

It doesn't need to be, though, because no matter how laws are influenced, Congress is expressly forbidden from passing laws establishing a church ot that limit the freedom of speech, assembly, the press, or the free exercise of religion. It doesn't matter what kind of laws get debated. Only the ones that get passed matter. Since Congress is the only body that can pass them, they're the only ones that need be forbidden from making them. QED. You're making the situation more complex than it is.

It never seemed very simple in the first place to me.

No it isn't simple -- now. At the time of the writing though, the federal governments powers were concieved as far more limited. And, as I said before, the "checks and balances" were there to allow the branches to limit each others' powers and did not grant them anypositive power. The president could veto a law but could not force one's passage, etc.

::The president could veto a law but could not force one's passage, etc.:: TomM

I know I'm an idiot and all, but isn't there something called a "lame duck" rule?

I think what you're talking about is called a "pocket veto", wherein the President vetos a bill after Congress goes into recess. They can't get back to override in time.

The "lame duck" is actually, I think, a President (or other office holder) who has been voted out of office, but the change of power has not taken place yet. It can also refer to an office holder in his last term, when he can't run again. (Why it's called lame duck, I don't know. Sounds like a Chinese food dish to me! )

Yeah, margie, but Jwb was wondering if there was a "lame duck" rule where the Pres could force passage of a law.

Perhaps he was thinking of all those last-minute Executive Orders that Clinton made?

'Cuz lame ducks don't do much--they just sit in the water waiting for things to happen. A "lame duck" President sits, waiting to be taken out.

LAME DUCK PRESIDENTS: THE LIST
*John Adams, who didn't attend Jefferson's inauguration, and attempted to spite him via "midnight judge appointments."
*John Quincy Adams, who didn't attend Jackson's inauguration (like father, like son--think about it, won't you?).
*Martin Van Buren, who I think DID attend Harrison's inauguration.
*Grover Cleveland the first time.
*Benjamin Harrison, who at least didn't follow in his grandfather's footsteps and become a DEAD president.
*William Howard Taft, who came in THIRD.
*Herbert Hoover, for mysterious reasons.
*Gerald Ford, who may not be considered a lame duck, as he was never elected in the first place.
*Jimmy Carter, who just recently laid the smackdown on Dubya.
*George H.W. Bush, and we'll see if HIS son follows in his footsteps.

And then there's the Presidents that failed to even get the nomination from their party (Pierce, Buchanan, etc.), and the Presidents that wanted to serve again but chose not to due to bad popularity (LBJ).

No, MikeC, by definition, every president except the ones who died in office, Nixon, and Dubya has been a lame duck. You only listed single term lameducks. A two-term president is a lameduck during the time there is a president-elect.

I think I have a way to explain what I mean, but I don't know what it is called. What is it called when a president leaves a bill alone for a certain amount of time because they refuse to sign it and have their name attached and then it becomes law anyway because they left it alone for long enough? I remember this vaguely from somewhere in my High School Government class.

It does sound familiar, Jwb. I remember something like that from a "Schoolhouse Rock" about passing bills. It's been a looooooong while, but, IIRC, if the President vetoes a bill or decides not to sign it, it goes back to Congress, who could pass it anyway. It doesn't automatically become a law, but after the second tour of Congress, it could then.
Scott, I knew what Jwb was asking, but I thought I'd offer an explanation to him about the phrase he used. I know when a phrase comes into my mind like that, if I don't know the correct meaning, I appreciate it being told to me. Otherwise I'd sit there forever, trying to remember where I'd heard that phrase!

I think JWB is thinking of Article I Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, the second paragraph:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law

I italicized the relevant portion.

But what about popular Presidents that have seen successors they approve of get elected--they couldn't really be lame-ducks, especially if they Congress on their side, because they would still have power to make laws?

(Not that this really has happened a lot in American history--perhaps George Washington; Thomas Jefferson; James Madison; James Monroe; Andrew Jackson; Ulysses S. Grant [sort of]; Rutherford B. Hayes; Theodore Roosevelt; Calvin Coolidge; and Ronald Reagan could be considered "power ducks")

>could be considered "power ducks" <

Or how about Mighty Ducks?

What kind of Mickey Mouse operation would name a team after a duck?

I think I have a way to explain what I mean, but I don't know what it is called. What is it called when a president leaves a bill alone for a certain amount of time because they refuse to sign it and have their name attached and then it becomes law anyway because they left it alone for long enough? I remember this vaguely from somewhere in my High School Government class.

It's called a "pocket veto". For most bills that congress passes the pres must either sign it or veto it in a certan amount of time, if he does neither it becomes law. The exception is; if it is passed in the last few days of the congresional session. Any bill passed during this period if not signed or vetoed will not become law, the bill just quitely dies. It's called a pocket veto because it's like he just puts it in his pocket and forgets about it. Politicians use it to play games on the US population. The congressmen can say "I passed the bill, it's not my fault it didn't become law" the president can say "I didn't veto it it's not my fault it didn't become law".

But what about popular Presidents that have seen successors they approve of get elected--they couldn't really be lame-ducks, especially if they Congress on their side, because they would still have power to make laws?

"Lame Duck" is simply what the pres is called during the period between the election and the swaring in of his successer. Even if the pres is popular and his VP is his successer; that is simply the name for it. Some members of the media incorrectly use the term to mean any president who has lost his popularity and ability to get things done at any point in his term.

Brian Fitzgerald, I think that is what I am talking about. I wish I had more of a memory than I do because I would know better if that is what I am remembering from almost 5 years ago lol.

MY CLASSIFICATIONS
Mighty Duck--Presidents that are still popular, and have seen their programs succeed
Lame Duck--Unpopular Presidents that were voted out of office
Dead Duck--Deceased Presidents
Dick Duck--Richard Nixon

How funny. J's post comes before Mike's that's from an earlier time that same day. Might be cuz of the two different areas where he and Mike live, or when they just happened to post, or something. Maybe it's the Enterprise syndrome: lack of continuity. Hey! Did I just coin a new phrase? I did, didn't I? Oh, I'm so proud of myself!

I think the board is having temporal hiccups.

I think you both aren't paying attention to minor details.

J's post comes first, 'cause he posted shortly after midnight. Mike's post comes last, 'cause he posted shortly prior to noon.

Midnight is 12am. Noon is 12pm.

Thank you for playing...for your departure prizes, please see Scott in the Council chambers.

Ohhh! Do I get to pull the lever?!?!?!?!?

No, but you get to push the button.

Yes, Scott. You get to pull the lever.

And just for Dr Forrester, you get to push the button. The one that will electrocute him periodically, that is...

Uh, yeah, Machiko. We were just making sure you were paying attention. Yeah, that's it. Glad to see you didn't disappoint us.

And welcome back, O Most Bodaciously Beautatious Queen Aradia! All hail the Queen! Long live the Queen! Long live the Queen!

Scott N: But the court didn't use the 9th amendment. It used unreasonable search and seizure, to create a right to marital privacy. Which dosn't exist amoung social beings, and exists only amoung the married or active heterosexuals, which means it's not something God given, or for those of you who try his patience by not beliving in God, for just being a human being.

Lame Duck President: Refers to the period of time between an election and a inauguration, where the sitting president has no moral authority, only legal, and mostly just tries to pack up stuff. It's basically like "No one listens to the king, when they know he will be dead in 4 months."

Weak presidents and strong presidents are the prefered terms for desiginating Presidents. Almost all Presidents before 1932 are weak presidents, with certain exceptions depending on personality (Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincon, Rosevelt, and Wilson).During Early American history, Congress had the power and conflict was sectional. After FDR, the presidency expanded to it's current size, based on the enlarged federal powers and employment. All presidents in the last half century have been strong, except Ford, but he didn't want to be president. Vice Presidents always seem to be weak, when they become president.

Recess appointments: A pocket veto occurs when Congress is out of session, and a bill is not signed. When Congress is in recess, it dosen't occur, as decided in court case brought up by Ted Kennedy.

What about Carter, Clinton's second term, and Dubya?

Carter had problems up the wazoo, and only appeared to be weak, Clinton's second term was his own creation and no crisis really occured, and he held his own agaist Congress. Dubya has only been President for 6 months, thus it is too soon to tell.

Addendum: The First admendment was designed to protect churches from the Government, as 1. everything in the Bill of Rights is a negative right and 2. Government has tanks and such and dosen't protection from the Church.

Matt Pesti-- The First admendment was designed to protect churches from the Government,... Government has tanks and such and dosen't protection from the Church.

They had tanks when this country was founded? Am I reading your post right?

The First admendment was designed to protect churches from the Government, as 1. everything in the Bill of Rights is a negative right

Lots has changed since than. For example the decleration of independance lists England keeping a standing army as a grevance aginst England. These days anyone who opposes keeping a large standing army is seen as a commie-lib who wants the US to be defenceless.

2. Government has tanks and such and dosen't protection from the Church.

Since the government doesn't use tanks aginst it's own people, it does need protection from the church when it comes to them trying to get their narrow view made law.

Matt, what's wrong with a literal reading of the First Amendment?

"We won't tell you what religion to worship, and you keep your religion out of our government".

Sorry, my bad. That's not literal.

"We won't support any religion, and we won't knock down any other one."

Brian: Well, if a Church was trying to make it's views law they would need 51% of vote wouldn't they? 51% dosen't sound very narrow. In fact ideology is nonthing more than secular religion, so nonthing esposed by an ideology should be made law either, right? There have always been more state run churches than church run states.

Scott N. The Bill of Rights is a document that protects your God given rights from the Government. The document is framed as "Congress shall not." This is why you have Freedom of Religion and not Freedom from Religion, as the latter would require a government aid.

In fact ideology is nonthing more than secular religion, so nonthing esposed by an ideology should be made law either, right?

Sorry, no such thing. That's an empty conservative phrase.

Oh, a masterful rebuttal, "Empty conservative phrase". Why we should take that as infailible! NOT!

An ideology is built upon a abstract idea, that it's adearants belive, would bring the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. What is Marxism but a series of beliefs built upon abstract ideas about oppression. What the Patriarchy to feminists if not the Devil? Heck, Environmentalist worship nature, and consider it sacred, and not recycleing a can a sin. Despite this nameless posters Staw man argument, ideology has been defined in non conservative textbooks as a Secular religion. But Why Am I argueing with shadows?

Pesti, there most certainly is freedom from religion in this country, and one person's freedom of religion ends when it infringes upon another's freedom from religion, cuz frankly no one has the right to impose their religion or religious views onto anyone else. That's part of what the First Amendment says. After all, you sure wouldn't want someone else imposing their religion onto you, would you?

If a religous group holds a street fair on your street is it a violation of your Civil liberites. Perhaps it would be easier if you defined what you consider Freedom from Religion, so that we can debate it better.

Why should I explain what freedom from religion is to you? If you can't fathom it already then no explanation will suffice for you, would it?

Besides, I believe I'd already made myself clear with my Tuesday, September 11, 2001 - 12:44 am post.

The First Admendment prohibits the government from adbridging your freedom of religion. The nature of the Bill of Rights being negative and only affecting the government, does not create a freedom from anything, no more than you have a freedom from speech, or a freedom from the press. Having freedom from something requires something to protect you from it. As part of your God given rights as a human being, you have freedom of conscience, which the government is prohibited from adbriding it. But no where are you gurranteed a offense free existance.

True, you are not guaranteed "freedom from religion", but you are guaranteed that the government will not sponsor anything religious.

"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The very first words of the First Amendment.

9th Circuit Court rules Pledge of Allegiance Unconsitutional.

Who agrees or disagrees? And why?

Beat me to it, MJ.

I think it's a good ruling. Consider if it had said, "Under Allah".

Alternatively, if you're not Christian, consider if it had said, "Under Jesus".

Actually, I think a good alternative is "Under Satan."

Considering that "Under God" was added in 1954, and the Pledge has been around since something like 1892, all I'm saying is that it's about time. I don't particularly trust things from the McCarthy era.

Addendum:

Newdow vs. US Congress

Here is the national anthem in its entirety.

************************************************
The Star-Spangled Banner
-Francis Scott Key, 1814

O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Brian (in case you haven't seen this on PM), you've reached the end of my patience. From now on every single one of your posts on RM and PM will be removed. You've repeatedly ignored the rules about posting foul language and thus I've no choice but to remove all of your posts on those boards. You have a problem with it you know who to talk to.

I'm not sure, but I think the last stanza is not part of Key's original poem. "In God Is Our Trust", as modified to scan correctly, or more properly "in God We Trust" did not become the country's motto until sometime later. If this is true, it can be dropped without doing violence to the spirit and history of the anthem.

For some reason, this has got me extremely irked. Partly because of the knee-jerk reaction of many people without an understanding of the reason behind the decision. I also have no doubt that Newdow will receive death threats because he didn't think "under God" belonged in the Pledge.

ScottN, I thought the same thing -- why not "under Buddha", "under Krishna", or "under Spock"?

Personally, I like to use "the Universe" when referring to the great omnipotence. Hey, how about "One nation under All"? (Maybe too close to "under Allah"?)

(Apologies for any punctuation errors in the above)

"In G-d We Trust" is not the country's motto. I believe that's still E Pluribus Unum.

As far as I know "In God We Trust" didn't get started until the US started printing its own money, which was after the Revolution and after the poem was written.

Here's the Treasury's official comments on "In G-d We Trust".

Oh, and you mean the Civil war, not the Revolution.

Matt,

Quick question. If 51% of Americans convert to Shite Muslms (Sp?) do you believe we should have sharia (sp?) law?

I forget the name of the TV show, but a character who was supposed to be a rock star who was "kidnapped" by Fish Fry Baby because he stole a blues song without attribution was sworn in in court. After the balif asked, "Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you God," he said "I don't believe in God. Can I swear to Satan?"

In regards to the school voucher program....

Yes, in the short term, the public school systems will suffer. However, private schools almost always turn out a smarter, more well-rounded student. I went to public schools and my younger sisters goto private schools. My 14 year old sister is learning things that they didn't teach us until my senior year in High School. My 6 year old sister is learning a second language in Kindegarden (Spanish) and is learning math that wasn't taught to us until 3rd grade. So, yes, in the short term, public schools will suffer from this. When these students get older, they will see how much better their education was than their peers who stayed at public school, and do their best to improve the system. Many of the people I've talked to who went to public schools and who had siblings in private schools are trying to improve public schools, as are many of my friends who went to private schools.

Also, the seperation of Church and State issue doesn't really seem to enter into the situation in the way that many spokesmen are claiming. If the students were being FORCED to goto private schools that taught religious ed then I would see a problem. However, they are given a choice.

Yes, in the short term, the public school systems will suffer. However, private schools almost always turn out a smarter, more well-rounded student.

Once more, correlation is not causation. I believe that part of the reason for this is that the private schools are allowed to pick and choose their students, while the public schools HAVE to take everyone.

"In God We Trust - all others must pay cash."

m,

It was a joke, but since you mentioned it... MarkN, you are an Atheist. If I gave you 100 $1 bills would you say no because of the slogan? If you would accept them, how would you rationalize it?

That's simple enough.

In order to live in a capitalist nation such as this, those who are nonChristian are forced to be hypocrites. There is no alternative to present day American currency.

Not that many people care (including the lawmakers who are making me want to coldclock some idjits). After all, [begin sarcasm] anyone who is not a Good Christian is clearly not a Real American, and therefore should not be given currency to live within the means of Real American Capitalism.[/end sarcasm]

Oh yeah. For those of you are moaning and groaning about how "that means that the money would need to be changed, etc." I don't buy it. The state quarters have gone into circulation. The $5, $10, $20 bills got changed and put into circulation. Nothing's wrong with printing up bills sans "In God We Trust" (although I prefer the "In Harvey We Trust" alternative).

MarkN, you are an Atheist.
Correction: I'm agnostic.

If I gave you 100 $1 bills would you say no because of the slogan?
No, since I have no choice in the matter of what's printed on our currency.

If you would accept them, how would you rationalize it?
Simple: I need the money! So, please give me all the money you can spare! I'll gladly accept it, all denominations (no pun intended), as long as it's good old U S of A currency. Blank checks are also gladly accepted but please have several thousands of dollars in your account because I have expensive tastes.

MJ,

I'm surprised by your response. I thought "God" was so generic it included your folk (or whatever you call yourselves [Wiccanites?]) Heck, it might include MarkN's folk, maybe.

It leaves out the Goddess, for one thing, a key element of their religious belief. Nothing with the term God would apply to most forms of Buddhism and to no form of atheism.

I don't believe in the existence of the supernatural; why should I have been forced to pledge allegiance to it, when I was a school employee?

Yes, the term of "God" is generic.

The connotation leaves no doubt as to which deity is in question, though.

Yes, the Goddess is excluded, which I don't approve of anyway.

But it doesn't matter to which religion I belong. I'm extremely militant about the separation of Church and State (this is probably the one thing I'm most militant about). When the first line of the First Amendment is that Congress shall not respect any establishment of religion, then said Congress turns around and is now talking about making an amendment that authorizes the usages of 'God' in the Pledge...this is what will REALLY get me frothing at the mouth.

::When the first line of the First Amendment is that Congress shall not respect any establishment of religion:: My Dear Miss M

That's not what it says. It says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. No law was made in this case when "under God" was put into the pledge. Congress should not be authorizing anything of the kind.

No law was made in this case when "under God" was put into the pledge.

... except the law that Congress passed in order to do so...

If Buddhist don't believe in a long white bearded guy, what do they believe in? (Don't answer Al Gore's campaign.)

God, Goddess. Potato, Potahto. Does SHE mind or is SHE used to it by now?

Matthew Patterson, why would a law be necessary to change the Pledge of Allegiance? It's not some legal document.

Does it matter why? All that matters is that they did it. Let me go research this some.

Berry -

I'll take your query to the appropriate board.

This is a link/url to a letter in the Union City Reporter that prompted me to respond:

What follows is my response:

---In the July 21 issue, Elaine Flood, touching upon the recent court ruling declaring it unconstitutional to force atheist schoolchildren to recite a pledge with a reference to God, says that she simply can’t comprehend that all human beings who died on September 11 were not praying in their final moments to God, any god, to spare their lives. What a shame that Elaine’s imagination is limited by theocratic narcissism, that she simply can’t accept that there indeed atheists and agnostics in the world, or that perhaps their position is simply a sham that evaporates in times of crisis. I wonder, Elaine, how insulted you’d feel if someone suggested the converse: that there were theists among those victims whose faith evaporated in those moments? Indeed, people often lose their faith during tragedy, so it’s not an unreasonable scenario. But yes, Elaine, there are most certainly people that might not have been praying to any god that day. Perhaps people killed instantly who didn’t have time. Perhaps people trying to focus on survival. Maybe some of them were too busy thinking about other things, like how tasteless and cheap it is to exploit a tragedy to make a point. Perhaps some were thinking, "Ya know, I wish more people would use intellect and objectivity when making a point, and not emotionalism." Or perhaps some of them just didn’t believe in a god.
---And of course, just like many theists who see attempts to separate church and state as some type of attack upon them, rather than the converse as attacks upon the non-religious (or people of different religions), she claims that "we’re prohibited from using the words ‘under God.’ Well, not really, Elaine. We’re prohibited from FORCING atheists, agnostics and non-Judeo Christians to do so.
---Elaine claims, "These words were instituted in 1954 and have not caused a problem for 48 years." Really, Elaine? Says who? Just because the recent case in question is the first such you’ve heard of means atheists or agnostics have not felt it a problem up til now? Perhaps it HAS been a problem, one that they’ve simply been unable or unwilling to address publicly.
---Elaine asks, "Do not the majority of us believe in God or some other Supreme Being?" Well, I think we do, Elaine. I also think it’s irrelevant. What’s right and wrong in a government that should be secular has nothing to do with PERSONAL individual beliefs. To force atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. to make a reference to God in a national pledge in a public school is wrong, period. This is an enlightened principle that has nothing to do with the majority of people’s personal beliefs. Countries like Iran are governed according to one national religion. We should not be. Atheists and Agnostics and the like aren’t some "tolerated second class." They’re citizens who should be given the same consideration as theists like you I, Elaine. I wonder if you’d be in such a hurry to approve mandated spiritual references in public schools if the god was Allah, Japanese wind spirits, or the Hindu Holy Trinity.
---Elaine asks, "Can’t [those in the minority] refrain from reciting those two words?" Maybe they can, Elaine. Can theists simply read the pledge without it, and pray on their own time, since we’re not living in a theocracy?
---Elaine asks, "Should we remove ‘In God we trust’ from our currency…or swearing on the Bible in court?" Well, in a word, Elaine, yes, we should.
---Elaine says, "Loss of religion means loss of values." Nonsense. In the first place, I will never understand why theists seem to think atheists are some amoral breed of savages who can’t live moral, valuable, decent lives, whom the theists are somehow superior to. In the second place, removing references to spirituality from mandated public areas has nothing to do with "loss of religion." It has to do with keeping religion in the personal arena, rather than forcing it upon people of different faiths or no faith in the public one.

Luigi, I've fixed the link for you. MarkN

Pledge smedge there is another question involved here. If a Church takes government money to fund a soup kitchen there will be concern over the height of their urinals. (No, I'm not making that up. Perhaps the Americans with Disabilities Act will grandfather parts of the building, but they won't just go away.)

A church can be crazy, but harmless if left alone. The government is anal-retentive and never leaves things alone. One side effect of the separation of church and state is it protects churches from government.

Thanks Mark.

Berry, I think you are wrong about the separation protecting the church from the government. I think it protects the people from the church. Just watch some of those political church people (Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson) and ask yourself if you would really want people like that to have a hand in making the laws that govern you.

Brian Fitzgerald,

I agree. I also agree that was its intention. An important side effect is it protects the church from the state. (Unless the church dominates the state [like Iran] it will be corrupted by anything Federal. [OK, almost anything Federal in theory.])

BTW, can I just start calling you BF instead of always wondering if I spelled your name coorectly in the portion of the screen that scrolled up? (Hey, it works with MJ.)

Luigi--

The offer's still open, if you'd like me to post that.

Blue Berry, you can call me BF, BMF, Fitz or Fitzy (like B. Webber does) It's all fine with me.

Thanks, Hannah. The reason I asked you at the time was because I wanted people here to be able to read Ms. Flood's original letter, and it wasn't online at the time. The UCR's site now has it, though, along with my response to it.

But if you still want to post my letter on your site, (and a link to hers as well), go right ahead.

Okay, cool. I'll post it as a "Guest rant," and link to your e-mail address..any particular screen name you want me to use? Or your real name?

I'm glad you posted first, because as soon as I typed it out, I realized what I said (out of context) could be taken several different ways.

Thanks for refraining from making a bad joke (you too, Mark).

Any out of context meaning in your post went totally over my head, Hannah.

And you can use my real name if you wish.

CC,

His real name is Martha Stewart.

I wish. I could use her money.

You don't want to be her though because she's not very nice in public. An acquaintance of mine said she's very rude to strangers when not on camera.

Plus, she may be indicted for insider trading in the ImClone scandal.

Luigi, K-Mart will cause her financial downfall. She didn't bail (out of loyalty, maybe. I think she's a shrew) out when they went down, and her monetary value has gone/will go down faster than half the girls in my school.

Still, she's probably got more money than me. I wouldn't mind trading places with her for a day. Big house, nice food, an entire staff to kiss my butt, etc.

Elaine Flood has responded to my letter, which appeared in the August 4th Union City Reporter. Her response can be found here.

This is my response.

---In her Aug 18th letter, Elaine Flood, takes offense to my criticisms of her July 21 statements, and accuses me of cynicism and negativism. Well, I’m crushed she feels this way about me, but I could take Elaine more seriously if she were more honest. She says she was "merely suggesting that most of the victims of September 11th" prayed to someone." Sorry, Elaine, but that’s not what you had said. What you said was, "It is incomprehensible for me to believe that all were not praying to God." Now you’re backpedaling, referring to your earlier statement as a "suggestion," and alleging that you thought "most of the victims" prayed, when in fact, you said "all" of them, which suggests that atheists’ outlook is a façade, and that deep down, everyone is a theist, "just like you." Indeed, making a good point usually involves expressing a new perspective, going out on a limb, or saying something controversial. Finding it incomprehensible that not everyone prayed on September 11th qualifies. Saying afterwards that "most" people believe in a god doesn’t, because it’s factually true. After all, you’re not really going out on a limb when you’re saying something that most people already know to be statistically true.
---I’m not particularly cynical, Elaine. I just don’t like it when some imply that atheists are morally inferior, confused or ambiguous. I don’t like it when someone makes one statement that I find questionable, then backpedals after I call them on it, falsely asserting to have made a completely different one. I don’t appreciate the hypocrisy of people who do this and then accuse ME of being "cynical" or "negative" when I simply point it out to them. To me, THAT is cynical and negative, Elaine and quite self-serving.
---Elaine then takes offense at my "suggestion" that she invoked September 11th to make a point about school prayer, and asks if Mr. Nanfro did so with the Lucci family. First, I didn’t "suggest" your invoking September 11th to comment on school prayer was irrelevant and cheap; I’m saying it outright. The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with God, period, and even less to do with September 11th. To include "under god" in the Pledge, but have atheists omit it would create different versions of it for different religious persuasions, marginalize those who don’t believe in God, and make the Pledge a divisive activity, defeating the entire purpose of a NATIONAL pledge. I am quite tired of people trying to use September 11th to make a point about an entirely unrelated matter, and it is THAT which I find "insulting" and "disrespectful." As for this Mr. Nanfro, I’m not familiar with him or his letter, and it’s irrelevant. Whether someone else used a similar cheap tactic has no bearing on whether or not you did. Discussions on subjects like the separation between church and state, and how the Pledge of Allegiance should reflect this, should be done with common sense, reason, logic, consistency, and equality. Invoking tragedies for the sake of emotionalism isn’t needed.
---Elaine suggests expressing one’s opinion be done in a more respectful manner. I’m gratified you feel this way, Elaine. I’ll tell all the atheists to whom I related your statement that you couldn’t comprehend that all were not praying on September 11th that you’ve resolved to do so. They’ll be pleased.

Luigi,

When someone is retreating (or backpedaling) you have two choices.
1) Let them go and drink champaigne to celebrate the victory.
2) Pursue and crush them.

Decide wich you perfer.

(Note: this only applies when you are not "sparring" and in the rare instances you are right.)

I don't see her second letter as a "retreat." She realizes what she said might be seen as offensive (saying that loss of religion means "loss of values"--yeah, that's a really nice attitude to have about atheists and agnostics, isn't it?), and is not trying to retroactively change what she said--not admitting that she should've chosen a different wording or anything, mind you, but trying to tell me that she said something completely different, and that's bullsh:t.

Her attitude towards those not of her religious pedigree, like that of many "Christians," sickens me, and for her to then try and turn this on me by saying that I'm the one who's "cynical" or "negative" (when I, personally, have never made such judgements or statements about people without religion), is, to be fair, hypocrisy.

Only you can decide what you will do next. Taking a minute to tell me to mind my own beeswax might afford you extra time to decide how you want to proceed. (I put the "you's" in italics because some people might think I'm telling you what to do.)

First, in the phrase above, "is not trying to retroactively change", please delete the word "not." It shouldn't be there.

I'm not sure I follow, William. You're saying Elaine said this as some type of diversionary tactic to preface a stronger response? That doesn't make sense to me. Maybe on a field of battle it would, but not in letter writing. Whatever ultimate response she would want to give (assuming I'm understanding you correctly--I unfortunately haven't been able to follow some of your statements of late), is the response she should've given. She doesn't need "extra time" to respond. She has all the time she needs. She can take her time and write her response whenever she wants it and send it to the editor whenever she please. For what reason would one have to stall for time in writing letters to an editor?

No, I'm saying you may not be thinking straight. (Yeah I know a double post is thin gruel for that, but when have you known me to mind my own business?) Before you proceed get out your emotions. (That sounds Vulcan.) You are right but you (or anyone) can blow it and emotions are not helpful. (All this from a double post! You should see my imaginary psychology degree.)

I didn't realize these were copies of an exchange of newspaper letters. (You can not accuse me of not reading the thread; I admit it!)

I did not mean to imply that she is using some sorta stalling tactic. I meant that you have to decide if pursue her is worth the time to compose you letter. (I assume you have a life beyond here.) If she's backpedaling she is trying to exit while saving face. Your victory will not be against her viewpoint, but against her. (That ain't your fault. No matter how you, or anyone, argues it the moron next to her will say the same thing but she will learn to keep her mouth [or pen] shut.)

(BTW, since it can confuse you, read the post cutting every sentence with a "")

I forgot to add the preface and the link in the first post, so I had to post it again with the second, and emaild MarkN to ask him to delete the first. He hasn't done so yet or gotten back to me.

As for writing letters, sure it's worth it. If it's not, I don't write them. I am personally sick and tired of the incoherent, and outright ILLITERATELY-written letters that the Union City Reporter sees fit to publish.

It states that it reserves the right to use editor's notes to clarify points that may be inaccurate or libelous, yet on SEVERAL occassions they've printed the same anti-science diatribe by this one Biblical literalist retard who sends the same letter containing a list of falsehoods about Einstein and relativity, they've printed another by a Nazi apologist who defends Holocaust denier David Irving's distortions, and one particularly illiterate rube is constantly getting his incoherent little diatribes about killing all the pigeons, or whatever other irrelevant subject he decides to scribble about.

That alone makes it worth it to occasionally write a letter from someone who can articulate logic a bit better than these clowns, and for that matter, write a sentence with better structure. The most recent letter to Elaine Flood took maybe an hour or so to organize, not a big diversion from other things, but thanks for your concern, dude.

Luigi,

Velcome to ze freedom ov ze press zat is only for ze people who own vone. (Translation without using a bad WWII german accent [it don't write well]: Welcome to the freedom of the press that is only for people who own one.) I'm beting that some conglomerate based far, far away from you runs your paper. Start one with the express intention of following their rules.

I live in a city with a "we will will print what we want to print and claim we do not regularly break our own rules" paper. If I had the start up seed money I start competing. Any monopoly will be complacent until it is too late and newspapers are not regulated to death (If you don't have employees.)

If religion is forbidden from being in State, then wouldn't State be forbidden from being in religion?

Is a pastor or minister breaking the law if he/she preaches anything that is FROM the State.

Like mentioning taxes, referencing a political party, helping the needy(example: State does Welfare)

with regards to the last one:

If I help feed the homeless, Can I be sent to jail?? or If Helping the needy is a religious duty, is welfare against the law??

Feed The Homeless, Go to Jail,

Actually, Yes. Watch /i{Sienfeld} or try handout homemade bread that has not been tested.