9th Circuit Appeals court upholds Pledge ruling

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-03-02 04:25am

Even if "under God" was supposed to apply to every creed (which is unlikely), it still neglects those who do not recognize any god. You can stretch the term to apply to Buddhists and Hindus, though that's an obvious retroactive fix, and therefore pretty disrespectful, but you cannot possibly apply the term "under God" to those who do not believe in any god whatsoever.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-03-02 12:01pm

Robert Treder wrote:Even if "under God" was supposed to apply to every creed (which is unlikely), it still neglects those who do not recognize any god. You can stretch the term to apply to Buddhists and Hindus, though that's an obvious retroactive fix, and therefore pretty disrespectful, but you cannot possibly apply the term "under God" to those who do not believe in any god whatsoever.

If you've seen some quotes by McCarthy, "Under God" was added to attack "Godless Communists", so I'm assuming it wasn't intended to be a Desitic God.

Anyway, I believe that "Under God" isn't needed in the Pledge, and there are bigger fish to fry. Before we do stuff like that, I think it would be better for people to improve the general image of Atheism to the American public. Newdow only made Atheists seem immature and desperate.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-02 12:32pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Durandal wrote:Yes, but look at the context. You've got a child who knows no better than to conform to his or her surroundings. Therefore, that child will say the Pledge with "under God" tacked on. That undermines the authority of the parent to teach the child whatever he or she wants.
It's the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America. There's absolutely no purpose in modifying it. Besides: The God in question is not specified. The Framers were Deists, and did in fact believe in a God of some form, a creating Deity or philosophical spiritual construct perhaps. In that context it's entirely reasonable to keep "God" in the pledge. "Yawhew" would be different, one thinks, but "God"? Quite acceptable and understandable.

Marina, you're full of shit. The clause was added after a Christian organization campaigned for it to be, specifically the Knights of Columbus. They were not campaigning for religious inclusiveness. No religion aside from Christianity and Judaism refers to its higher being as "God." Therefore, Muslims (maybe, this can go either way), Hindus and Buddhists (who have no god) are excluded. The clause amounts to the government endorsing religious beliefs which is not allowed, period.

Aside from that ... if there is no purpose in modifying it, why was it modified in the first place? The framers believed in a God who didn't interact with the universe, so how can the United States swear allegiance to him? He doesn't give a shit! Would you please exercise some critical reasoning skills, here?

Incidently, the point about Buddhism or Hinduism is a false one. Hindus believe that all their gods are simply different facets of a single God - And so saying "In God we Trust" for them can be effectively acknowledging the single god of which all their other gods are aspects. For Buddhists, again, "God" can be considered a philosophical concept which fits appropriately into their religion, and is hardly limited to the Judeo-Christian definition of the word.

Ah, the "it can refer to anything" argument rears its ugly head. I expect this kind of shit from the more ignorant moderates and older people in my family, but certainly not from you. There is no conceivable way "God" refers to a set of philosophical beliefs. One is a supreme being; the other is a set of tenets. This rationale of "it can refer to anything" gets more tiresome every time I hear it. If you seriously think that "God" naturally implies a set of philosophical beliefs, you desperately need a refresher course in the English language. It's quite obvious that you're taking the definition to monstrously broad lengths in order to fit your preordained conclusion that God has a place in the Pledge. When you have to resort to distorting the meaning of a word to the extreme you are, chances are your argument is bullshit.

Even if you were correct, and atheists can set whatever they want up as God, why can't I get religious exemption? If I claimed that my "God" was my subwoofer, would the government consider my subwoofer a religious icon? Somehow, I have a hard time believing they would. That's what we call a double standard. That's why the government was supposed to stay out of religion entirely in the first place.

Furthermore, you're still not addressing the fact that atheists don't believe in a god, so their beliefs are disrespected. Of course, you'll say something ridiculous like, "Well the god in the Pledge could refer to [insert random thing that no reasonable person would ever take as synonymous with "God" here] for atheists." Bullshit. Everyone knows what God references. It references a supreme being at the very least, and under context, it references the Christian god.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-02 12:37pm

Robert Treder wrote:Even if "under God" was supposed to apply to every creed (which is unlikely), it still neglects those who do not recognize any god. You can stretch the term to apply to Buddhists and Hindus, though that's an obvious retroactive fix, and therefore pretty disrespectful, but you cannot possibly apply the term "under God" to those who do not believe in any god whatsoever.

You're obviously underestimating the stupidity of the people who originally thought up this argument. Watch as they begin claiming that atheists' "God" can be the material world (even though that's twisting our beliefs and forcing them to fit their definitions, which qualifies as religious persecution) or science or even the belief that there is no god.

I'm not joking; I've heard every one of these before, even the last one.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-03-02 05:09pm

Durandal wrote:Yes, but look at the context. You've got a child who knows no better than to conform to his or her surroundings. Therefore, that child will say the Pledge with "under God" tacked on. That undermines the authority of the parent to teach the child whatever he or she wants.

Well again, a diligent parent is needed here. The child of an atheist should say the Pledge with the class, and NOT say "under God", or simply not say the pledge at all.

However, I know that when I was in school, I could have given less of a fuck about the Pledge, and just mouthed it along with the class. I knew that if I sat quiet, I'd be targeted, even at that age.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-02 05:30pm

Lord Poe wrote:I knew that if I sat quiet, I'd be targeted, even at that age.

Thus the pledge performed its new intended purpose; to forcibly remind non-Christians that they're outsiders, from the youngest possible age. And people don't see the problem?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-02 05:32pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Lord Poe wrote:I knew that if I sat quiet, I'd be targeted, even at that age.
Thus the pledge performed its new intended purpose; to forcibly remind non-Christians that they're outsiders, from the youngest possible age. And people don't see the problem?

I believe this is a non-Christian nation, so the phrase is disingenuous.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-02 05:32pm

Lord Poe wrote:
Durandal wrote:Yes, but look at the context. You've got a child who knows no better than to conform to his or her surroundings. Therefore, that child will say the Pledge with "under God" tacked on. That undermines the authority of the parent to teach the child whatever he or she wants.
Well again, a diligent parent is needed here. The child of an atheist should say the Pledge with the class, and NOT say "under God", or simply not say the pledge at all.

However, I know that when I was in school, I could have given less of a fuck about the Pledge, and just mouthed it along with the class. I knew that if I sat quiet, I'd be targeted, even at that age.

The last thing young children want is to be alienated from their peers. If everyone else says "under God," chances are the child of an atheist will too, to avoid being an outsider. And I'm not going to tell my child, "Now when they say the Pledge, be sure not to say 'under God'." That would be me using my child as a weapon to advance my political cause, and at a young age, children really don't understand the whole god debate anyway. The only people influencing their religious beliefs should be their parents. Not their peers or teachers, and especially not the government.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-02 05:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Lord Poe wrote:I knew that if I sat quiet, I'd be targeted, even at that age.
Thus the pledge performed its new intended purpose; to forcibly remind non-Christians that they're outsiders, from the youngest possible age. And people don't see the problem?

I don't see it having any real effect. One word at most once a day for half the year is not going to have any impact on people. Not in the context of a pledge anyway. People don't think about it enough for it to have such an effect.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-02 05:38pm

jegs2 wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Lord Poe wrote:I knew that if I sat quiet, I'd be targeted, even at that age.
Thus the pledge performed its new intended purpose; to forcibly remind non-Christians that they're outsiders, from the youngest possible age. And people don't see the problem?
I believe this is a non-Christian nation, so the phrase is disingenuous.

I suspect you're more aware of this than most people in your country, judging by Gallup polls etc.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-02 05:39pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:I don't see it having any real effect. One word at most once a day for half the year is not going to have any impact on people. Not in the context of a pledge anyway. People don't think about it enough for it to have such an effect.

Then why are they fighting to keep it in? Low-level repetition is a form of mild brainwashing.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-02 05:41pm

jegs2 wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Lord Poe wrote:I knew that if I sat quiet, I'd be targeted, even at that age.
Thus the pledge performed its new intended purpose; to forcibly remind non-Christians that they're outsiders, from the youngest possible age. And people don't see the problem?
I believe this is a non-Christian nation, so the phrase is disingenuous.

When the phrase is added after a bunch of Christians campaigned for it, I think it's safe to say that the phrase references a particular deity.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-02 06:25pm

I'd love to see the Under God, In God We Trust, and all that' claptrap go but I think this case is a bad thing really for two reasons:

1) This is blown way out of proportion. Compared to something like Creationism in Schools, Anti-homosexuals, and Sex Ed in schools this is a pissant issue. It's a big showy issue that every politician can easly come down on the religious side and that means even a win will cost influence that could be better spent on something meaningful.

As an postscript to that, most people aren't aware of the realy history of "Under God" and that makes this a case of "liberal wackos" attacking a Founders tradition. It's a battle that is skewed away from any possible victory for aethists.

2) It's a weak case legally and it's going to go against a conservative court. All they have to do is rule that the father doesn't have the right to file the suit and it's gone and the Under God stay. All of this for nothing.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-02 06:27pm

I see it as an opportunity to educate people on why it's there.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-03-02 06:54pm

Okay, so how about attacking it from a non-atheist standpoint? "Under God" does not include, for example, Hindus or Buddhists and alienates them.

Sorry if this wasn't worth addressing, but I don't think most Hindus or Buddhists would have a problem with "Under God" considering all Hindus and many (if not most.. I am not sure about the US though) Buddhists are theists.

Hindus certainly DO have a god. (330 million of them to be exact), though many of them believe will point to a "trinity" of main gods, or the "ultimate reality" (atman-brahman). When pressed, they'd probably say that the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god is just "one" of the many, and a few might just say its another face of the brahman. Some buddhists (Zen buddhists and Therevada Buddhists probably wouldn't recognize gods, if they exist, which isn't important) believe in god(s), that is they believe that Buddha (and the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas after the historical Siddhartha) were incarnations of the ultimate reality (which is essentially a monistic deity, but becomes personal with the incarnation.. incarnate deities are also common in Hinduism.. note Rama and Krishna).

Muslims call their deity "Allah" and despite what some fundie Christians will tell you, it IS the god of abraham (according to the Qu'ran) which makes him/her/it the same deity as in Judaism and Christianity, despite their differing interpretations of him/her/it. "Allah" is not a personal name but rather the Arabic word for god (literally "the god"). Arab Christians and Arab Jews (who speak arabic) will use the term "Allah" for their deity of choice as well.

(Joke) I guess during the pledge, Hindus and (non feminist) Wiccans could mutter an "sss" after the word "God" and affirm their consciences. ; )
And atheists could cough out a "no" before it, and agnostics could shrug their shoulders as they say the word. (/Joke)

It's true, there are atheistic religions, but even then, most of them probably wouldn't say positively no gods exist, just that they're not important enough to spend time worshipping. Anyway, just a little tangent...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-02 07:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:I see it as an opportunity to educate people on why it's there.

But it isn't happening at a national level so it's going to be damn near impossible to win this thing.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-02 07:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:I don't see it having any real effect. One word at most once a day for half the year is not going to have any impact on people. Not in the context of a pledge anyway. People don't think about it enough for it to have such an effect.
Then why are they fighting to keep it in? Low-level repetition is a form of mild brainwashing.

Allot of people I know who support keeping it in are doing so just because they think its a stupid waste of money and court time and think the guy who started the case is an idiot. "My child who has never attended school was damaged by the pledge being spoken there." Sure she was.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-02 07:12pm

Kurgan wrote:
Okay, so how about attacking it from a non-atheist standpoint? "Under God" does not include, for example, Hindus or Buddhists and alienates them.
Sorry if this wasn't worth addressing, but I don't think most Hindus or Buddhists would have a problem with "Under God" considering all Hindus and many (if not most.. I am not sure about the US though) Buddhists are theists.

Some sects of Buddhism do not believe in a god. They don't worship the Buddha, nor do they consider him a god. They consider him a teacher. Calling him a god just for the sake of trying to make Buddhism fit into the Pledge's religious bigotry just goes to show how weak the argument for it is.

Hindus certainly DO have a god. (330 million of them to be exact), though many of them believe will point to a "trinity" of main gods, or the "ultimate reality" (atman-brahman). When pressed, they'd probably say that the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god is just "one" of the many, and a few might just say its another face of the brahman. Some buddhists (Zen buddhists and Therevada Buddhists probably wouldn't recognize gods, if they exist, which isn't important) believe in god(s), that is they believe that Buddha (and the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas after the historical Siddhartha) were incarnations of the ultimate reality (which is essentially a monistic deity, but becomes personal with the incarnation.. incarnate deities are also common in Hinduism.. note Rama and Krishna).

So how is many gods the same as one god? They're two completely different belief systems, and the Pledge endorses only one. Again, the fact that you need to utterly twist the definitions of other religions' beliefs to fit into the predefined concept of "under God" means that it's religious bigotry. "Under God" does not, in any way, imply multiple gods, philosophical beliefs or anything else. It implies a supreme being, period.

It's true, there are atheistic religions, but even then, most of them probably wouldn't say positively no gods exist, just that they're not important enough to spend time worshipping. Anyway, just a little tangent...

So again, why should those religions be disrespected? If they don't think God is important enough to worship, why should the government disrespect their beliefs by endorsing the opposite idea by having every swear allegiance to him?

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-03-02 07:15pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Then why are they fighting to keep it in? Low-level repetition is a form of mild brainwashing.
Allot of people I know who support keeping it in are doing so just because they think its a stupid waste of money and court time and think the guy who started the case is an idiot. "My child who has never attended school was damaged by the pledge being spoken there." Sure she was.

Ad-hominem fallacy; the point is not affected by the personal problems of the guy who launched the case. And there would be no money being wasted if the Congress simply decided to change it back to a less exclusionary form (and despite Marina's bizarre evasions, it's pretty goddamned obvious who "God" is in the pledge), which they could do in about five minutes if they weren't a bunch of jack-asses.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-02 07:16pm

Kurgan wrote:<snip argument that's been heard over and over again>

That interpretation totally disregards the history and context of the phrase. it's very clear "Under God" means the Judeo-Christian God. The debates on the matter are public record. Everyone from Eisenhower on down meant "under God" to be the Judeo-Christian God, and they freely admitted as much, which frankly puts them one level above the phrase's apologists today, who are cooking up horseshit arguments like, "Well, to an athiest, 'God' could mean the self-determining man". "God" refers to the God of the Old Testament. Period. And even if it DIDN'T, the Establishment clause restricts Congress from endorsing religion in any way, shape, or form--the argument that "the 1st Ammendment isn't violated if Congress supports all religions equally" is shot down by records of the debate over the wording the Establishment Clause in the Senate, in which alternate wording that would have allowed precisely that were shot down in favor of the wording actually used.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-02 07:24pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:which they could do in about five minutes if they weren't a bunch of jack-asses.

To some of the members' credit, nearly all of these people are members of the bar, and at least some of them will have spent time studying the Constiutional issues involved and come to the same conclusion most of the people on this board have. However, all of them have spent a lot more time studying political science in practice and unless they're from a very liberal district, coming down pubically on the side of Newdow is going to get them pounded on election day, regardless of which party they're from. Now, some of you are probably going, "Well, those hatfuckers should take a stand on principle", but I wouldn't want any representative who even occasionally sees things our way to burn political capital and risk his relection chances over something this trivial.

EDIT: Changed the disgraceful "their" as a third person singular neuter to the proper "his".

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-02 07:29pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Then why are they fighting to keep it in? Low-level repetition is a form of mild brainwashing.
Allot of people I know who support keeping it in are doing so just because they think its a stupid waste of money and court time and think the guy who started the case is an idiot. "My child who has never attended school was damaged by the pledge being spoken there." Sure she was.
Ad-hominem fallacy; the point is not affected by the personal problems of the guy who launched the case. And there would be no money being wasted if the Congress simply decided to change it back to a less exclusionary form (and despite Marina's bizarre evasions, it's pretty goddamned obvious who "God" is in the pledge), which they could do in about five minutes if they weren't a bunch of jack-asses.

You asked why people where against changing. I gave an explanation that I've found to be true in many cases. As for time, it took two hours to pass a law which said if you caught a million dollar ball at a baseball game and donated it to charity you didn't have to pay income tax on it.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-02 07:38pm

AdmiralKanos wrote: Ad-hominem fallacy; the point is not affected by the personal problems of the guy who launched the case. And there would be no money being wasted if the Congress simply decided to change it back to a less exclusionary form (and despite Marina's bizarre evasions, it's pretty goddamned obvious who "God" is in the pledge), which they could do in about five minutes if they weren't a bunch of jack-asses.

Honestly, the only reason I'm defending it - I think the change was stupid and rather silly myself - is the fact that it would be unpatriotic to change it back. National symbols are just that, and ultimately when you think of the fact that there were schoolchildren who recited the pledge with the words "under God" in it on 9/11, I can't imagine how anyone would want to modify it, nor should it be modified even if some do want it changed.

Yes, it's an entirely irrational argument. But a nation is more than a collection of people and a set of laws and a fixed definition of territory. Its history, culture, and ideals, the aspirations and the deeds of everyone in it, living or dead, have shaped it and given it a sort of life, at least within the minds of people - And that life should be appropriately honoured, the composite of the nation not stripped down and reduced through artificial means.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-02 07:39pm

RedImperator wrote:
Kurgan wrote:<snip argument that's been heard over and over again>
That interpretation totally disregards the history and context of the phrase. it's very clear "Under God" means the Judeo-Christian God. The debates on the matter are public record. Everyone from Eisenhower on down meant "under God" to be the Judeo-Christian God, and they freely admitted as much, which frankly puts them one level above the phrase's apologists today, who are cooking up horseshit arguments like, "Well, to an athiest, 'God' could mean the self-determining man". "God" refers to the God of the Old Testament. Period. And even if it DIDN'T, the Establishment clause restricts Congress from endorsing religion in any way, shape, or form--the argument that "the 1st Ammendment isn't violated if Congress supports all religions equally" is shot down by records of the debate over the wording the Establishment Clause in the Senate, in which alternate wording that would have allowed precisely that were shot down in favor of the wording actually used.

Do you know where those records can be found? I'd be interested in reading them and shoving them in my political science professor's face.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-02 07:46pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Honestly, the only reason I'm defending it - I think the change was stupid and rather silly myself - is the fact that it would be unpatriotic to change it back.

It's already been changed from the original- to an exclusionist phrasing no less- and this would simply be fixing that. So what's the problem?