Pledge of Allegiance

Originally posted by rwingett
Have there ever been any Supreme Court nominees who claimed to be atheists? I would wager with certainty that there have not. I would love to see some so they can be grilled about the matter.

Even if a non-theist is exempted from reciting the pledge, it is still a state endorsed action, which makes the non-theist's non-participation a glaring mark again ...[text shortened]... socially castigated. I repeat: having the word 'god' in the pledge serves no good purpose.

Have there ever been any Supreme Court nominees who claimed to be atheists? I would wager with certainty that there have not. I would love to see some so they can be grilled about the matter.

If there were, do you think they would be grilled (or even asked) about the matter?

Even if a non-theist is exempted from reciting the pledge, it is still a state endorsed action, which makes the non-theist's non-participation a glaring mark against him. It designates him, conspicuously, as 'the other.'

Isn't that equally true of joining the Armed Forces, or some kind of Reserve Corps etc.?

With children, who generally want to belong to the larger group, it is a form of psychological coersion. They can refrain, but only at the great price of being socially castigated.

Presumably, schools are not obligated to have the Pledge recited. So, if a school decides to go with it, it's reasonable to suppose that the majority of parents there felt it was appropriate (the opposite should also normally hold). A minority may feel "socially castigated" -- but that's going to hold in all kinds of situations (and I don't think you need the Pledge to be socially castigated at school). Should schools do away with all programmes and initiatives that may or may not make a minority feel "castigated"?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No they aren't. Even the most Catholic countries have a spiritual ruler--the Pope--and a temporal ruler--the State. France is secular to the core; the UK has largely forgotten about religion. There is no question of theocracy, in which church and state are one.

Most European countries do have an official, State-endorsed Church (generally called "Church of [insert nation's name here]"😉. Yet, if they are not theocracies (according to you), on what basis does RWillis think that the US will become one?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes. ""Bush is satisfying social conservatives and fundamentalists like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson just by nominating rigid zealots... Bush has nothing to lose in Rove's way of thinking. Rove believes that every under-45 ideologue who does get through will write the future and tilt a circuit." (Jack Newfield, The Nation, October 7, 2003) http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/108-1-248.html

Okay, let's take Newfield's contention that Bush is nominating "zealots".

1. Are they being nominated for their religious views ("X is an Episcopelian Charismatic, hence I nominate him" etc.) or their judicial philosophy?

2. What qualifies them as "zealots" (this might be similar to the "fanatic" discussion earlier in the forum)?

Perhaps it might help to take a concrete example.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Most European countries do have an official, State-endorsed Church (generally called "Church of [insert nation's name here]"😉. Yet, if they are not theocracies (according to you), on what basis does RWillis think that the US will become one?

The purpose of having an officially sanctioned church is to ensure that the State remains in control. That is why Henry VIII created the Church of England. Since the priests do not rule, there is no theocracy, according to anyone.

Cotton Mather writes about a time when the New England Puritans did live under a sort of theocracy. That time could return if the State were taken over by the sort of fanatics that presided over the Salem witchcraft trials. A good novel dealing with the subject of a potential future American theocracy is Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. I recognise some of the posters here among those bearded patriarchs...As for rwingett, I don't know, let him speak for himself.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Okay, let's take Newfield's contention that Bush is nominating "zealots".

1. Are they being nominated for their religious views ("X is an Episcopelian Charismatic, hence I nominate him" etc.) or their judicial philosophy?

2. What qualifies them as "zealots" (this might be similar to the "fanatic" discussion earlier in the forum)?

Perhaps it might help to take a concrete example.

I gather they are being selected for their views on abortion, said views often being directly attributable to their religious beliefs. To me that seems self-evident; not to you. When you start numbering your points for discussion in preparation for blasting clouds of verbiage, I tend to lose interest, so I hope somebody else will take up this discussion with you.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
"Our Creator" could be anyone or anything. It was left intentionally vague, if you want to think it is the Christian God, more power to you. I prefer to think it is in reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

TheSkipper

I actually think it's reference to Muffy 🙂

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The purpose of having an officially sanctioned church is to ensure that the State remains in control. That is why Henry VIII created the Church of England. Since the priests do not rule, there is no theocracy, according to anyone.

Cotton Mather writes about a time when the New England Puritans did live under a sort of theocracy. That time could ret re among those bearded patriarchs...As for rwingett, I don't know, let him speak for himself.

If a theocracy means rule of priests, then only Iran (in the Muslim world) would qualify as theocracy. Correct?

The rest of your post is the usual scare tactic. There is no reason to suppose that, even if the US were to somehow become theocratic, it would necessarily be intolerant.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I gather they are being selected for their views on abortion, said views often being directly attributable to their religious beliefs. To me that seems self-evident; not to you. When you start numbering your points for discussion in preparation for blasting clouds of verbiage, I tend to lose interest, so I hope somebody else will take up this discussion with you.

When I number my points, I do so to clarify the issues under discussion. If that puts you off, then so be it. I'm not sure I have much interest in discussing issues with people who are not prepared to apply critical thinking either.

I don't know how it is self-evident that they are being selected for their views on abortion (as opposed to, say, their views on judicial restraint or Roe). I don't see it as self-evident that such views are attributable to their religious beliefs. Even if they originate in religious belief systems, I don't see it as self-evident that they are sustained purely in terms of religious beliefs (as opposed to, say, a philosophical and scientific defence of the rights and humanity of the unborn child).

Since you're not prepared to back your assertions with evidence, I suppose there is no point asking you to justify any of these.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
When I number my points, I do so to clarify the issues under discussion. If that puts you off, then so be it. I'm not sure I have much interest in discussing issues with people who are not prepared to apply critical thinking either.

I don't know how it is self-evident that they are being selected for their views on abortion (as opposed to, say, the ...[text shortened]... r assertions with evidence, I suppose there is no point asking you to justify any of these.

I still want to know why many Christians think it is *not* a problem that non-Christians who want to recite the pledge (thereby professing their patriotism) must lie in order to do so. There is absolutely no reason to include religion in this country's national statement of patriotism.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I still want to know why many Christians think it is *not* a problem that non-Christians who want to recite the pledge (thereby professing their patriotism) must lie in order to do so. There is absolutely no reason to include religion in this country's national statement of patriotism.

TheSkipper

It's unusual to think in terms of religion simply by acknowledging the Creator, in my opinion. If we're to be that restrictive, then perhaps the DOI should be rescinded?

Moreover, why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied into an overt display of allegiance in the first place? If it is for our children (the first ranking group in terms of application), isn't the application specifically designated to spur thought?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's unusual to think in terms of religion simply by acknowledging the Creator, in my opinion. If we're to be that restrictive, then perhaps the DOI should be rescinded?

Moreover, why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied into an overt display of allegiance in the first place? If it is for our children (the first ranking group in terms of application), isn't the application specifically designated to spur thought?

If you weren't so pathetic, you'd be funny. Spur thought? What a joke.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's unusual to think in terms of religion simply by acknowledging the Creator, in my opinion. If we're to be that restrictive, then perhaps the DOI should be rescinded?

Moreover, why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied into an overt display of allegiance in the first place? If it is for our children (the first ranking group in terms of application), isn't the application specifically designated to spur thought?

The words in the pledge do not simply acknowledge the creator. "One Nation, under God" clearly states that we are a nation led by God. I know many many people who happen to be quite patriotic who do not feel this way. Sadly, if these same patriotic people want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance they must lie in order to do so.

How is this not wrong?

TheSkipper

Originally posted by lucifershammer





Presumably, schools are not obligated to have the Pledge recited.

In the public (state) school system I grew up in, you would presume wrong. Every day, every class, every school, from grade school on up. To say that I could probably recite the pledge before I could read “See Tip run” is probably only a slight exaggeration.

Indoctrination is indoctrination—whether for good or ill (before someone brings up that I was probably indoctrinated at a young age not to run out into bust thoroughfare).

Already we see some on here arguing that the word “Creator” in the Declaration means—and only means—the Christian [understanding of] “God.” They say this is, and ought to be, a “Christian” nation. I have a hard time believing that such folks would not object to someone substituting, say, “Ram” or “Allah” or “the Lord and Lady”—in the pledge or in public school prayer; and for most of them, prayers to the Blessed Virgin, in public in school, would likely not be encouraged either. And in this country, they are not a fringe group.

It seems to me counterintuitive to assume that the purpose of a theocracy—even a partial theocracy—would not be to impose some level of control over the expression of people’s religious beliefs. Whether that theocracy is relatively tolerant of various religious beliefs or not. The problem is that a theocratic system makes the police-power of the state overtly available to (if not subject to) the particular religious authorities. (In our long-ago discussions about the Inquisition, was it not you that pointed out that heresy was a crime against the state, as well as the church?) Was not “witchcraft” in Lutheran Germany (and Puritan Salem) a crime against the state, punishable by death?

Why do you think that Lutherans in Norway, would want all children to be “born into” the Lutheran church, as the state church? (Assuming it is still that way.) Let me ask you, does the server have any advantage in tennis; does the dealer have any advantage in cribbage; does white have any advantage in chess? (I’ll let better players than myself argue that last one.) Advantage does not always translate into “victory,” but there is a correlation, which is why people seek such advantage. Has there ever been an attempt at theocracy that was designed to promote religious pluralism (as opposed to a theocracy which might have practiced religious tolerance)?

I think that a system of separation of church and state—that inhibits any one religious group, no matter how large, from bending the apparatus of government to their will for religious purposes—is an advance.* Perhaps you disagree. I think that using the public schools in a religiously plural society to begin to indoctrinate young children toward particular religious beliefs would be a regression. Perhaps you disagree.

I am the Jew (or in some historical circumstances, the Christian or the Hindu) who does not want the state to enact a law that I wear distinctive clothing. I am the heretic that does not want having non-orthodox beliefs to be a crime against the state, punishable via the state legal apparatus. I am the Roman Catholic who is a offended by the idea that the state might consider my child to be “a Protestant at birth;” and that I not only had to pay a tax in support of a church whose evangelists try to convert people away from Catholicism, but pay a fee to have my child “dis-enrolled” as a Protestant. Etc, etc.

Sometimes, LH, I think that in your rationalism, you try to say “not necessarily, not necessarily”—which may be logically accurate, but historically and politically immaterial. Again: Has there ever been an attempt at theocracy that was designed to promote religious pluralism (as opposed to a theocracy which might have practiced religious tolerance)? Has there ever been an attempt at theocracy that did not seek the advantage of being at least the state-supported religion? Has there ever been a theocracy that was not aimed at exercising some control, via the state, over religious expression? On the other hand, how many attempts at theocracy have been with exactly those intents?


* Note the use of the word “inhibit,” and not “prevent”—inhibition is possible, prevention is likely not, without another form of despotism.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's unusual to think in terms of religion simply by acknowledging the Creator, in my opinion. If we're to be that restrictive, then perhaps the DOI should be rescinded?

Moreover, why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied into an overt display of allegiance in the first place? If it is for our children (the first ranking group in terms of application), isn't the application specifically designated to spur thought?

{Too over the top - even for me}

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Well, gee, if it is simply meant to spur thought why not include some overtly racist and even satanic remarks in the Pledge? Heck, we would be remis if we didn't give voodooism some space.

"I Pledge Allegiance to the flag (which I may or may not use to make a voodoo doll in PM Blair's likeness) of The United States of (White) America...

Now that spurs thought!

Pathetic

TheSkipper

You and rwingett must be fishing in the same thesaurus today. What part is 'pathetic,' exactly: the concept that a public solemn moment is intended to spur thought, or that our nation has recognized the hand of Providence, looked to nature's God since before its inception?

And if, indeed, the spurring of thought is what is intended, is it wrong for a child to be forced to think of the meaning behind the words of the pledge, or are you just insisting it's wrong for them to agree with history?
EDIT: I see you took out the part that I didn't respond to. Care to address that which remained?