StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Howedar wrote:So your argument is that God is evil enough that alliegence should not be sworn to him?

God is evil enough that no one should be forced to swear allegiance to him, or have him upheld as an example of superior morality in light of the things he's done. It would be akin to referring to Hitler as a fine, upstanding figure in world history.

If the perception of the majority is that God is good, then what does it matter what the literal interpretation of the Bible says?

The perception of the majority in WW2 Germany was that Hitler was good.

Seriously, what the fuck does it matter if the words "under God" are in the Pledge of Alliegence? Does it hurt your feelings? Do you feel oppressed? Do you feel like lashing out and kicking some fundie in the balls?

It's a principle which can be used later as precedent if he wins. Duh. I can't believe I need to actually explain something this simple.

Could you guys be a little more reactionary? You're far too understanding for my taste.

Could you be any more of a jack-ass?

Oh no Mike. not only would they hate you because you are an atheist, but they would also hate you because you are Canadian, Asian, and in an inter-racial marriage, with a white woman no less

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Oh no Mike. not only would they hate you because you are an atheist, but they would also hate you because you are Canadian, Asian, and in an inter-racial marriage, with a white woman no less

And the whole butt-fucking thing wouldn't endear me to the voters either

But at least I wouldn't have my wife running around contradicting everything I'm saying, which is what's causing Newdow to look like a complete idiot.

Darth Wong wrote:Oh yes, because things were going SOOOO well before this happened, and we didn't want to rock that boat

Since we're arguing with boat analogies, here's mine: the seas are rough, so let's drill a hole in the bottom of the boat to let the water out.

The Wall of Separation is made very clear. An important precedent is set. If it holds with what most people regard as a frivolous case, then we can move on to issues of substance. Duh.

In an earlier post, I wrote:Epperson v. Arkansas overturned all state laws banning the teaching of evolution and mandating the teaching of creationism. McLean v. Arkansas struck down "equal time" laws (never reached the SC because the state of Arkansas didn't appeal the Federal judge's ruling). Edwards v. Aguillard struck down a similar law in Louisiana and effectively killed "equal time" as a creationist tactic. Glassroth v. Moore forces that idiot judge in Alabama to remove that 5,000lb granite copy of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court (it's still in appeal). McCollum v. Board of Education banned the teaching of religion in public schools. Engel v. Vitale banned compulsory prayer in schools. Stone v. Graham ruled that Kentucky couldn't mandate the posting of the 10 Commandments in public school classrooms. LeVake v. Independent School District ruled that a school district could fire a biology teacher because she was only qualified to teach creationism. Torcaso v. Watkins struck down religious requirements for public office. Estate of Thornton v. Caldor struck down laws requiring employers to give employees religious holidays off. ACLU v. Ohio tossed out the old Ohio state motto, "With God, all things are possible."

The wall of separation is established. Winning the case would do nothing. Losing it would open the door to overturning all these decisions and unraveling the separationist interpretation of the establishment clause. Duh.

You say it will be a disaster for secularists if Newdow loses. It will be a disaster for religionists if Newdow wins. That's the nature of a conflict; somebody must lose. I don't see what advantage was to be gained by waiting, although I wish we could have chosen a better poster boy than Newdow. Hell, I'd probably be a better frontman for this thing than Newdow, and I'm not even an American

Winning this case alters the status quo very little. Losing it alters it very much. And even if we win, we've done more serious damage to our public image than I think you realize. And yes, other than a card-carrying member of the American Communist party, I can't think of a worse poster boy for athiesm than Newdow.

RedImperator wrote:Since we're arguing with boat analogies, here's mine: the seas are rough, so let's drill a hole in the bottom of the boat to let the water out.

Please justify your claim of harm. I'm not seeing that this case has done anything to make atheists' perceptions go any lower. According to Gallup, Americans are LESS likely to vote for an atheist today than they were 20 years ago, and a solid majority believe that all atheists are untrustworthy and immoral. How is "pushy" going to make that noticeably worse?

The wall of separation is established.

Those were not federal cases. The wall of separation has been established to the satisfaction of those with brains, but an explicit ruling at the federal level would be good for shutting people up.

Winning the case would do nothing. Losing it would open the door to overturning all these decisions and unraveling the separationist interpretation of the establishment clause. Duh.

Ah, so winning at the federal level means nothing, but losing at the federal level is an absolute disaster. Right

Winning this case alters the status quo very little. Losing it alters it very much.

This fight had to take place at the federal level sooner or later. What would have been the benefit of waiting, and what would we have been waiting for? A new administration to come in and turf out the idiots? Perhaps, but I don't get the impression that this new administration is waiting in the wings.

And even if we win, we've done more serious damage to our public image than I think you realize.

I don't think you're being realistic about our existing public image.

And yes, other than a card-carrying member of the American Communist party, I can't think of a worse poster boy for athiesm than Newdow.

I seriously think I would have been a better figurehead for this thing, and given the bluntness with which I would approach publicity, that's saying something.

Darth Wong wrote: God is evil enough that no one should be forced to swear allegiance to him, or have him upheld as an example of superior morality in light of the things he's done. It would be akin to referring to Hitler as a fine, upstanding figure in world history.

According to the literal interpretation of the Bible, which you yourself abhor. Fascinating.

At any rate, I feel that people should not be forced to pledge alliegence to the US Flag, regardless of whether or not it mentions God. God is entirely irrelivent.

The perception of the majority in WW2 Germany was that Hitler was good.

I don't think the Pledge is killing anyone.

It's a principle which can be used later as precedent if he wins. Duh. I can't believe I need to actually explain something this simple.

A precident for what? Semantic changes in government? Which is more important to you, your crusade to eliminate the word "God" from all governmental documents and mantras, or something substantive that will actually improve people's lives?

Could you be any more of a jack-ass?

Sure. Jackass is one word, not hyphenated.

Howedar wrote:According to the literal interpretation of the Bible, which you yourself abhor. Fascinating.

One does not have to believe it's true in order to say that a story of murder and intolerance is bad, dumb-ass. And I'd like to see what interpretation can possibly salvage Biblical morality except for "it's mostly bullshit", which goes way beyond simply abandoning literalism.

At any rate, I feel that people should not be forced to pledge alliegence to the US Flag, regardless of whether or not it mentions God. God is entirely irrelivent.

America is a militaristic nation, with a militaristic ethos and culture. Other nations are taken more or less seriously by America based on their military prowess. It's only natural, given this context, that you make kids stand up at attention to salute the flag every day.

The perception of the majority in WW2 Germany was that Hitler was good.

I don't think the Pledge is killing anyone.

Neither would a pledge to Hitler. Dump it or fix it; I don't see a problem with either solution.

A precident for what? Semantic changes in government? Which is more important to you, your crusade to eliminate the word "God" from all governmental documents and mantras, or something substantive that will actually improve people's lives?

Ah, so if it's less important, then it should be simply ignored completely? Interesting rationale.

Could you be any more of a jack-ass?

Sure. Jackass is one word, not hyphenated.

It fits both ways. Your rebuttals consistently evade the point and bullshit about my intentions. It is not MY "crusade", asshole. I'm simply pointing out that the "no big deal" argument is bullshit. And the masterful way you have evaded addressing the comparisons to Satan or Hitler pledges proves it.

Darth Wong wrote: One does not have to believe it's true in order to say that a story of murder and intolerance is bad, dumb-ass. And I'd like to see what interpretation can possibly salvage Biblical morality except for "it's mostly bullshit", which goes way beyond simply abandoning literalism.

Frankly, I do think that a lot of it is bullshit. Yes, this goes way beyond abandoning literalism. Just doing my job of being an ass.

America is a militaristic nation, with a militaristic ethos and culture. Other nations are taken more or less seriously by America based on their military prowess. It's only natural, given this context, that you make kids stand up at attention to salute the flag every day.

So do you or do you not believe that being forced to pledge alliegence to the flag is appropriate? How is having the passage "under God" in the pledge any worse than forcing someone to pledge alliegence to a flag they do not feel alliegence to?

Ah, so if it's less important, then it should be simply ignored completely? Interesting rationale.

Pick your battles.

It fits both ways. Your rebuttals consistently evade the point and bullshit about my intentions. It is not MY "crusade", asshole. I'm simply pointing out that the "no big deal" argument is bullshit. And the masterful way you have evaded addressing the comparisons to Satan or Hitler pledges proves it.

Forgive me for being daft, but I'm really not seeing how the "under God" passage of the Pledge of Alliegence is hurting anything or anyone. You're having a lot of fun comparing God to Satan, Hitler, and the like, but that doesn't really prove anything except that you think God is evil.

Howedar wrote:So do you or do you not believe that being forced to pledge alliegence to the flag is appropriate? How is having the passage "under God" in the pledge any worse than forcing someone to pledge alliegence to a flag they do not feel alliegence to?

Let's just say that it strikes me as a very American thing to do. It's all about national pride, and serves no useful purpose. If the end-result of this action is to remove the pledge entirely, I certainly wouldn't have an issue with that.

Forgive me for being daft, but I'm really not seeing how the "under God" passage of the Pledge of Alliegence is hurting anything or anyone. You're having a lot of fun comparing God to Satan, Hitler, and the like, but that doesn't really prove anything except that you think God is evil.

So you wouldn't have a problem with your child being asked to swear allegiance to Hitler? After all, it's just words and doesn't actually hurt anyone.

Darth Wong wrote: Let's just say that it strikes me as a very American thing to do. It's all about national pride, and serves no useful purpose. If the end-result of this action is to remove the pledge entirely, I certainly wouldn't have an issue with that.

So if you had a problem with the pledge, it would be its very existence instead of a reference to God. I can accept that, and might go so far as to agree with you.

Forgive me for being daft, but I'm really not seeing how the "under God" passage of the Pledge of Alliegence is hurting anything or anyone. You're having a lot of fun comparing God to Satan, Hitler, and the like, but that doesn't really prove anything except that you think God is evil.

So you wouldn't have a problem with your child being asked to swear allegiance to Hitler? After all, it's just words and doesn't actually hurt anyone.[/quote]Its a kid pledging alliegence to something he doesn't understand. The forcer of the pledge is making kids swear an oath they don't recognize as such. I have just as big a problem with that if they're pledging alliegence to evil incarnate or the Care Bears.

Howedar wrote:So if you had a problem with the pledge, it would be its very existence instead of a reference to God. I can accept that, and might go so far as to agree with you.

I have a problem with both: the unnecessary pledge and the fact that it was consciously and deliberately altered in order to send a McCarthy-era message to atheists that they don't belong in America.

Its a kid pledging alliegence to something he doesn't understand. The forcer of the pledge is making kids swear an oath they don't recognize as such. I have just as big a problem with that if they're pledging alliegence to evil incarnate or the Care Bears.

So if a kid doesn't know anything about WW2 it's OK to make him pledge allegiance to Hitler?

Darth Wong wrote:Please justify your claim of harm. I'm not seeing that this case has done anything to make atheists' perceptions go any lower. According to Gallup, Americans are LESS likely to vote for an atheist today than they were 20 years ago, and a solid majority believe that all atheists are untrustworthy and immoral. How is "pushy" going to make that noticeably worse?

If this were a case to shoot down intelligent design as creationism in a clown suit, or overturn state school board decisions to remove evolution from mandatory science cirricula, or religious requirements for public office, I'd agree that whatever harm our public image takes, the potential judicial gains are worth it. The gains, in this case, are NOT worth, in my opinion, even a marginal amount of bad publicity, especially bad publicity that paints us as anti-American or unpatriotic.

Those were not federal cases. The wall of separation has been established to the satisfaction of those with brains, but an explicit ruling at the federal level would be good for shutting people up.

Ah, so winning at the federal level means nothing, but losing at the federal level is an absolute disaster. Right

This fight had to take place at the federal level sooner or later. What would have been the benefit of waiting, and what would we have been waiting for? A new administration to come in and turf out the idiots? Perhaps, but I don't get the impression that this new administration is waiting in the wings.

All of my quotes have been snipped.

I'm assuming you mean those cases involved state laws, not that they weren't decided in Federal courts (they all were). It doesn't matter that they addressed state laws and not Federal ones, because the Constitution applies more stringently to the Federal government than it does to the states, and all these cases were decided on First Amendment grounds. If the First Amendment says the State of Louisiana can't do something, the Congress of the United States can't do it, either. Saying these cases don't matter because they didn't involve Federal laws is like saying Roe v. Wade doesn't matter because it only involved abortion law in Texas. And anyway, in Welsh v. United States, the Court ruled that it was a violation of the establishment clause to limit conscientious objection to military service to religious grounds only, establishing strict separation in a case involving Federal law. Case precedent has established that the original intent of the founders in adopting the first amendment was to establish a wall of separation between church and state. Anyone who says otherwise needs to actually read the Founders once in a while and take a conlaw class.

But if Newdow loses, suddenly, the momentum will shift. It will be a very serious reversal. If Newdow wins, on the other hand, he's added one more case to the pile in favor of separation and given fundamentalists a reelection issue, and probably created a movement to add "under God" to the pledge via Constitutional amendment.

I don't think you're being realistic about our existing public image.

Perhaps not. Making it worse for little or no judicial gain doesn't make sense either way.

I seriously think I would have been a better figurehead for this thing, and given the bluntness with which I would approach publicity, that's saying something.

You probably would be. You'd make an entertaining talk show guest, at any rate.

Darth Wong wrote: I have a problem with both: the unnecessary pledge and the fact that it was consciously and deliberately altered in order to send a McCarthy-era message to atheists that they don't belong in America.

So you believe that the pledge should be modified because of its original intent? Do you believe that the passage in the pledge still reflects this original intent?

So if a kid doesn't know anything about WW2 it's OK to make him pledge allegiance to Hitler?

Either you didn't read what I said, or I am even less comprendable than normal. I believe that making kids pledge alliegence to something, anything is morally reprehensible. Let me tell you a little story. I went to a private school until the third grade. When I was in kindergarten, the NATO-Iraq war was brewing and occuring, and the teachers at the school decided to have a peace protest with all the kids in the parking lot. None of us knew what was happening, we were just herded out into the parking lot so the newspaper could take a picture. As children, we were used by the staff to further their political views. I see the Pledge of Alliegence in a similar light. If you're 15 and you know what the fuck you're doing, go ahead and pledge alliegence to the USA. But to make little kids do it, when they couldn't even read it off a sheet of paper, I believe is a horrible thing.

RedImperator wrote:But if Newdow loses, suddenly, the momentum will shift. It will be a very serious reversal. If Newdow wins, on the other hand, he's added one more case to the pile in favor of separation and given fundamentalists a reelection issue, and probably created a movement to add "under God" to the pledge via Constitutional amendment.

So you're saying that precedent is important (because a single precedent could change all future laws) but there's already a mountain of precedent going the other way. How can precedent be important if they would override a mountain of precedent going the other way?

BTW, how can they add "under God" to the pledge when it's already there, and has been for more than 40 years?

You probably would be. You'd make an entertaining talk show guest, at any rate.

I can actually be diplomatic if I choose to be. In some ways, people like me are the fundies' worst nightmare. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't gamble, I'm completely loyal to my wife, I take care of my kids, I've never done drugs of any kind, etc. They prefer their atheists to have obvious personal problems like Newdow has; it makes their preconceptions easier to maintain.

Howedar wrote:So you believe that the pledge should be modified because of its original intent? Do you believe that the passage in the pledge still reflects this original intent?

That was not its original intent. It was modified in the 1950's. Its original intent was standard-issue boorish nationalism. That's bad, but the revised intent from the 1950's was much worse; it was altered in order to make a certain class of people feel unwelcome.

Either you didn't read what I said, or I am even less comprendable than normal. I believe that making kids pledge alliegence to something, anything is morally reprehensible. Let me tell you a little story. I went to a private school until the third grade. When I was in kindergarten, the NATO-Iraq war was brewing and occuring, and the teachers at the school decided to have a peace protest with all the kids in the parking lot. None of us knew what was happening, we were just herded out into the parking lot so the newspaper could take a picture. As children, we were used by the staff to further their political views. I see the Pledge of Alliegence in a similar light. If you're 15 and you know what the fuck you're doing, go ahead and pledge alliegence to the USA. But to make little kids do it, when they couldn't even read it off a sheet of paper, I believe is a horrible thing.

So we've gone from "it's no big deal" to "the pledge of allegiance is a HORRIBLE thing even without this divisive issue attached to it?"

Darth Wong wrote: That was not its original intent. It was modified in the 1950's. Its original intent was standard-issue boorish nationalism. That's bad, but the revised intent from the 1950's was much worse; it was altered in order to make a certain class of people feel unwelcome.

I mean the original intent of the addition.

So we've gone from "it's no big deal" to "the pledge of allegiance is a HORRIBLE thing even without this divisive issue attached to it?"

Not quite. I think its a trivial issue that the Pledge of Alliegence refers to God. I think that it is a horrible thing to force people to recite it.

Its a matter of beliefs. I think that you should be able to go to church if you want. I do not think that you should be forced to go. I do not think that parents should bring kids their and indoctrinate them. Its the same thing with the pledge.

Howedar wrote:Its a matter of beliefs. I think that you should be able to go to church if you want. I do not think that you should be forced to go. I do not think that parents should bring kids their and indoctrinate them. Its the same thing with the pledge.

You should move to a different country, then. American citizenship and jingoistic nationalism go hand in hand. But adding social and religious divisiveness to it is even worse, despte your dismissals.

Darth Wong wrote:So you're saying that precedent is important (because a single precedent could change all future laws) but there's already a mountain of precedent going the other way. How can precedent be important if they would override a mountain of precedent going the other way?

The way the Court works, the most recent precedent is usually the most important. Brown v. Board of Education, for example, eradicated more than a century of states' rights precedent in the Court and paved the way for all the civil rights rulings that were to follow. A new ruling is considered to represent a shift in understanding in constitutional law. On the more practical side, since you need 5 justices to make a ruling and justices all serve life terms, it's usually decades before the majority that passed the ruling is replaced.

BTW, how can they add "under God" to the pledge when it's already there, and has been for more than 40 years?

I misspoke. I meant that there would be a movement to make the "under God" version Constitutional by actually passing an amendment which laid out the text of the pledge, including "one nation, under God".

Howedar wrote:If you're 15 and you know what the fuck you're doing, go ahead and pledge alliegence to the USA. But to make little kids do it, when they couldn't even read it off a sheet of paper, I believe is a horrible thing.

No one can make anyone recite the Pledge of Allegiance. At least not since 1943. You can't force a student to say the Pledge if they have religious or philosophical objections.

Would little kids even have religious or philosophical objections at age 10? Peobably not. That's where parents and parenting come in. Again, no one can force anyone's child to make a pledge to anything.

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.

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.

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.

There is absolutely no need to change the pledge like this, and efforts to do it just needlessly excerbate various tensions within the nation. I think, though, that concerns about backsliding are groundless. Naturally social mores flucuate - But the trend post-Industrial Revolution has been that of a decisive, if chaotic, shift. It has not ended, and we likely do not know when and where it will settle, but they are moving in a direction the vast majority of us here will likely approve of.

Marina, you know the history of the Pledge and why it was changed in the 1950's. It is shameful to continue using the McCarthyized version, because all of the whitewashed apologist bullshit that surrounds it will not change the fact that we KNOW what the intent of the change from "indivisible" to "under God" was.

I'm not sure if this has been brought up as I have not read the entire thread, but here's my biggest reason for supporting change to the pledge.

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.

-- George Bush, to a reporter in 1988, while serving as vice-president and running for President


The Under God line is certainly a source of ammo for the fundies *see above* who would like to burn me and every other atheist at the inquisitorial stake.

When a candiate for President can say that atheists aren't Americans using the pledge line as support and STILL get elected, you know you are in a very bad spot.

Therefore, it must go.

Darth Wong wrote:Marina, you know the history of the Pledge and why it was changed in the 1950's. It is shameful to continue using the McCarthyized version, because all of the whitewashed apologist bullshit that surrounds it will not change the fact that we KNOW what the intent of the change from "indivisible" to "under God" was.

The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Nothing about Christianity in the change, Mike. McCarthy was a junior senator blowhard who never harmed a single person in his life directly - He never sat on HUAC and all he did was make a lot of accusations and create a lot of panic (which probably DID harm a lot of people). When someone finally called him on his claims he named George C. Marshall as a communist and damn near got laughed off the floor of the Senate.

Alyrium's claims that atheists were tried and punished or somesuch nonsense is just that. A massive exagerration of what happened during that era by the left that occured during its triumph of the Vietnam era. What did happen was that some people with communist ties - and they really existed - were questioned by HUAC, through a legal process.

There was no blacklist, though some more patriotic screen directors in Hollywood wouldn't give roles to bonafide communists found out through HUAC -- Which started the entire thing. The idea that the process extended to atheists is ridiculous. HUAC operated according to a legal process and was investigating people for violations of the law - ties with the USSR and the Soviet International - not for things like atheism, which in the 50s might earn you at worst a night in a county jail if you profaned God on Sunday in some small southern town, followed by strong advice to keep on going the next day.

This threat to a segment of the society which is imagined as such, simply does not exist within modern times like that. Yes, in the 1880s no doubt atheists would get in a bit of trouble if they got on milk cartons and pontificated atheism to the public. That was also the high victorian era and rather expected. So far I haven't seen any other evidence except vague claims of "McCarthyism" which are always unsubstantiated, and the more serious social conservativism of some populist politicians -- But which I ultimately think is an unrelated issue, and a bit of a backlash which is in general dissipating.

Well....

The "Under God" part is an artificial part of the Pledge that was added to scare Commies. It wasn't part of the original Pledge and so in order to get back to the true spirit of what America was about, it would be struck.

If it came to a choice between striking that phrase or losing the entire Pledge, I'd say just ditch the phrase.

And I have to admit, I sometimes get tired of the constant references to Jesus and "Christ" in everyday discourse.