|
United States24513 Posts
Disclaimer: This is not intended to be a religious discussion, but rather one having to do with US law/code.
The Bill of Rights is interpreted to prohibit "the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another." There is no official religion, regardless of how widespread one might be. There is no religion that is not permitted, regardless of how few people support it (certain religious activities could be blocked if they interfered with other laws, the same way freedom of speech has reasonable limitations). I support the above position of the USA.
"God" is a concept that comes up in many religions. Most modern religions are monotheistic, and since "God" doesn't specify which religion's God is being named, the word can be interpreted to be referring to most, if not all monotheistic religions. Polytheistic religions, while much less common, do not refer to a single God, so when the word "God" is used, it's implied that the polythestic religion is excluded. You could make a similar argument for some other types of religions (but as I understand it, most religions, past or present, that aren't monotheistic were polythestic). In other words, when referring to "God," you are referring to a purely religious belief of some (not all) religions.
This won't be anything new to most readers, but the word "God" comes up several times in the US government's official documentation. For example, the United States Flag code is where the Pledge of Allegiance is written. For those who don't know it be heart:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Flag Code does not carry any penalties for people who disobey it. However, it is officially part of the US Code. As people have argued before, this particular line of the code is providing a preference of one (or several) religions over others. Of course, any citizen can just refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe the word "God" should technically be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance as a violation of the Amendments to the Constitution. The reasoning I've given however, is so insignificant that it's not worth the time and effort it would take to get the code updated (nor would it make sense for me to bother writing a blog about it, however low my standards might be). Perhaps some people who feel more strongly than me on this matter would even disagree with me here.
The problem with the Pledge of Allegiance is that it is recited in public schools and at other public events. Children are not infinitely impressionable either, but the government is specifically banned from giving preferential treatment to any religion(s). Indoctrination of children with religious preference is a much more serious offense than causing adults a minor inconvenience. Some would argue that it isn't indoctrination since children are just as capable of not reciting the pledge as adults are (schools should not be permitted to force students to recite it, even though this does happen in some areas) but young children especially aren't all capable of understanding this issue. I believe this problem is severe enough to justify removing the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. I'm aware of the circumstances in which the words were added (during the Cold War) but I don't consider them relevant. Violations of the Constitution should be fixed when they are identified, regardless of what mistakes created them in the first place (I'm not even placing blame on whoever did something half a century ago; I just want things done right).
To a lesser extent, the same general argument can be made for money. It does not make sense, in a country which cannot prefer one religion over another, to place words on the currency that show preference for one religion over another. The issue is not so pressing that all bills and coins should be recalled, but a plan should be enacted to redesign future printed money and minted coins to exclude text which violates the first amendment.
Proposed patch notes for USA v1.01:
- Update the US Flag Code to remove the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance
- New printed money will not have the words "in God we trust" or anything like that
"But the USA is a 'Christian Nation' so it's ok"
I wish to refer the speaker of such an argument to a map of which countries have state religions
You might already be sick of discussions about removing the word "God" from money and the pledge in the USA. I'll offer another example that is discussed much less often: Blue Laws. While I'm not a big drinker myself, making it illegal for stores to sell alcohol at times that correspond with the worship schedule of certain religions doesn't sit well with me. In fact, it should be overturned in all remaining areas in the USA where it is still in effect. It is in direct violation of the first Amendment.
One last thought: My proposed USA patch note to remove the word "under God" from the pledge has an unfortunate side effect: some people, such as congregations at Church, might want to recite the current version of the pledge. If my 'fix' gets implemented, they will need to violate US Code (although, without penalty) in order to do this. I propose rewording the pledge to say something like this:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation<optional religious reference>, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
This wouldn't give preferential to any religion, nor nonbelievers!
Maybe I'll just stick to the original patch note.
 
|
I like that our fiat currency says "In God we Trust" it makes me chuckle. Iit really should be "In the full faith and credit of the US government we trust
|
I don't know if I get this wrong, but isn't the word God kind of neutral; being valid for a multitude of religions?
|
On October 21 2012 03:08 grs wrote:
I don't know if I get this wrong, but isn't the word God kind of neutral; being valid for a multitude of religions?
It's neutral to monotheistic religions but not to polytheistic religions or non-religious people. Also I guess it refers to Christianity and not other monotheistic religions though not explicitly.
|
United States24513 Posts
On October 21 2012 03:08 grs wrote:
I don't know if I get this wrong, but isn't the word God kind of neutral; being valid for a multitude of religions?
Being valid for many religions is not the same as being valid for every religion. I haven't even given mention to the large chunk of Americans who specifically do not believe in any religion.
|
"God", "oh my god", "Gosh"... are all so entrenched in the English language, in particular the American deviation of the language that it means nothing more than "the superior authority in which we trust" IMO. It can be the government or any God from any religion as far as i'm concern. Even tho i understand your point completely and tend to agree with it, i think it'll never make a big case because, correct me if i'm wrong, people just use the word "God" thousand times a day without even believing in any kind of religion.
|
United States24513 Posts
On October 21 2012 03:22 Enearde wrote:
"God", "oh my god", "Gosh"... are all so entrenched in the English language, in particular the American deviation of the language that it means nothing more than "the superior authority in which we trust" IMO. It can be the government or any God from any religion as far as i'm concern. Even tho i understand your point completely and tend to agree with it, i think it'll never make a big case because, correct me if i'm wrong, people just use the word "God" thousand times a day without even believing in any kind of religion.
Yeah, and this contributes towards why I wouldn't even bother to mention it if it weren't for the child indoctrination component. Blue laws on the other hand...
|
On October 21 2012 03:25 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:22 Enearde wrote:
"God", "oh my god", "Gosh"... are all so entrenched in the English language, in particular the American deviation of the language that it means nothing more than "the superior authority in which we trust" IMO. It can be the government or any God from any religion as far as i'm concern. Even tho i understand your point completely and tend to agree with it, i think it'll never make a big case because, correct me if i'm wrong, people just use the word "God" thousand times a day without even believing in any kind of religion. Yeah, and this contributes towards why I wouldn't even bother to mention it if it weren't for the child indoctrination component. Blue laws on the other hand...
Indeed, that's where i agree with you. What i can't figure out is what to do to make it fair for everyone?
In France, we tried making laws and state/political institutions as neutral as possible. Instead of solving any issue, we created new ones. For instance, french muslims are now forcing cities to build mosque, school's refectory to not make any pork or have a different meal for muslims etc etc. At some point, you have to draw a line and say "we got a culture, we got a background and you cannot do shit because you believe in X god or Y god, we won't build a mosque (for example) next to our 14th century church". Someone at some point will not be happy whatever you do.
|
Out of curiosity, when was the last time you were in public education? You're right that students are suppose to say "one nation under God" and the pledge of allegiance every morning (or actually, I think they're only suppose to stand), but if you actually listen to the students (especially high school), you will find the most unenthusiastic bunch ever. Some don't actually say the pledge, most say it in the most apathetic matter, and only a few actually say it as if they mean it. Students aren't being indoctrinated by the pledge, they're smarter then that. I can say with confidence that saying "under God" does not affect students beliefs at all. In fact, the biggest discussion is about the fact that you're suppose to say "one nation under God" rather then "one nation, under God".
|
United States24513 Posts
On October 21 2012 03:57 NationInArms wrote:
Out of curiosity, when was the last time you were in public education? You're right that students are suppose to say "one nation under God" and the pledge of allegiance every morning (or actually, I think they're only suppose to stand), but if you actually listen to the students (especially high school), you will find the most unenthusiastic bunch ever. Some don't actually say the pledge, most say it in the most apathetic matter, and only a few actually say it as if they mean it. Students aren't being indoctrinated by the pledge, they're smarter then that. I can say with confidence that saying "under God" does not affect students beliefs at all. In fact, the biggest discussion is about the fact that you're suppose to say "one nation under God" rather then "one nation, under God".
As I said, younger children are more susceptible. A 17 year old senior in high school is usually as immune to the threat as you or I. When I was in elementary school, it was different.
|
What exactly is the frame and methodology of implementation you're talking here? While a compelling argument for the removal of religious language from US political documents can certainly be made (as you've shown), when it comes to political change here in the US, how we are to go about effecting change is oftentimes more important than justification itself. Are we speaking hypothetically, or are you advocating a grassroots campaign of sorts?
|
United States24513 Posts
On October 21 2012 04:11 farvacola wrote:
What exactly is the frame and methodology of implementation you're talking here? While a compelling argument for the removal of religious language from US political documents can certainly be made (as you've shown), when it comes to political change here in the US, how we are to go about effecting change is oftentimes more important than justification itself. Are we speaking hypothetically, or are you advocating a grassroots campaign of sorts?
My goal would be to get most people to agree... I don't have a grand plan to effect actual change.
At this point, this is just my viewpoint, expressed in a blog. I would support efforts to get these changes made, however.
|
As much as people, like you Micronesia, want this to happen, it violates a couple American philosophical principles.
- Freedom to worship how you please is not exactly true, freedom to choose your religion is, but freedom to worship how you please is not because of Judicial Review
- Not having a state religion does not mean that this country, along with all other countries laws, is not founded upon religious principles such as the God of nature (since a majority of the founding fathers were Deists)
Basically removing what you are saying will do 0 and will annoy a lot of people. It does not descriminate against people who do not believe in god, if you don't believe in god then saying this country was created by one should just not matter to you. One should not ruin other people's (the vast majority) beliefs because they disagree with a phrase that does not play a major role in life or even a phrase on money which again people don't care too much about.
In fact I disagree with your final statement about not showing preference by taking the phrase about god out since, even though the phrase was added later, that would descriminate against the majority by leaving out what they feel is an important factor in existence. This is just my point of view though, very well written blog Micro  .
|
On October 21 2012 04:32 docvoc wrote:
It does not descriminate against people who do not believe in god, if you don't believe in god then saying this country was created by one should just not matter to you
Your 2 arguments didn't make sense and this is just strange. I'm an atheist, and I don't "trust in God". I know for a fact that many atheists in the US, millions in fact, walk around with money that says "In God We Trust" even though it's a complete lie. Why is this necessary? Why would the motto exclude an important chunk of the population? Why is there no attempt at neutrality?
To remove the bias doesn't ruin anybody's religion in the slightest. If you live in a country which pretends to believe all people are equals, then your law shouldn't use language that favor a classification of people. It's not an attack on them. Given how rigid laws can be, and how sometimes they even define a country, it would be nice to make them as neutral as possible, as to include everyone.
"A nation under God" is a damn poor representation of today's multicultural US.
|
United States24513 Posts
On October 21 2012 04:32 docvoc wrote:This is just my point of view though, very well written blog Micro .
Thanks. I'm happy to consider contrary viewpoints and I recognize this isn't a 100% open and shut issue (otherwise it probably would have been changed already). I want to consider a few things you said, albeit out of order.
- Freedom to worship how you please is not exactly true, freedom to choose your religion is, but freedom to worship how you please is not because of Judicial Review
This is actually in agreement with what I said in the OP. I don't see it as counter-evidence for my overarching claim, though.
- Not having a state religion does not mean that this country, along with all other countries laws, is not founded upon religious principles such as the God of nature (since a majority of the founding fathers were Deists)
I don't see how this would change the interpretation I used of the first amendment. The religious views of the founding fathers were irrelevant to how we should treat religion in this country since they specified how religion should be treated in this country. As always, there is room for interpretation of the documents written by the founding fathers, though.
Basically removing what you are saying will do 0 and will annoy a lot of people.
I would argue that removing from US Code a regulation that violates the first amendment a good (great than 0) thing. Indeed, it will annoy a lot of people. Likewise, a lot of people (you even said 'people', such as me) are annoyed by how things stand right now. Which party of potentially annoyed people is larger is not really relevant, however.
It does not descriminate against people who do not believe in god, if you don't believe in god then saying this country was created by one should just not matter to you. One should not ruin other people's (the vast majority) beliefs because they disagree with a phrase that does not play a major role in life or even a phrase on money which again people don't care too much about.
Whether or not it bothers or doesn't bother me, or a devout Christian, or someone else, isn't really relevant. As I've attempted to establish, this word usage violates the first amendment. Removing words giving preferential treatment to certain religions from US Code is not ruining their beliefs. It is not even discrediting them. Also, this 'vast majority' isn't as vast as it was, according to recent polls (although I would rather not cite sources since it shouldn't matter how big the majority is/isn't). As for whether or not the phrase 'plays a major role,' I will make a statement at the end of this post.
In fact I disagree with your final statement about not showing preference by taking the phrase about god out since, even though the phrase was added later, that would descriminate against the majority by leaving out what they feel is an important factor in existence.
I'm not trying to suggest an action that would be devoid of all discrimination; I'm trying to suggest an action that would remove from US Code text that is in violation of the first amendment. However, I don't see how my proposed changes are discriminatory. Making things fair, and follow pre-established rules, is not a punishment.
As much as people, like you Micronesia, want this to happen, it violates a couple American philosophical principles. As I said earlier, there are a large number of people (albiet not necessarily a majority) who agree with me overall, so an argument about how we shouldn't "make most people suffer to pacify one or two people," while still irrelevant I'd argue, doesn't carry much weight anyway.
The only reason why I have made any type of a big deal about this though is for something you didn't acknowledge: the effect this has on children (again, I'm not focusing on older, high school aged children). It's nowhere as bad as lots of other problems children face, but it's still inexcusable to indoctrinate children by exposing them forcibly to words that violate the first amendment (moral issues aside, even).
|
The vast majority of people simply do not care. Making an issue out of it confuses them and they try to search for an answer.
The easiest answer to grab is:
"This person hates religion / Christianity / America and wants to make everyone else do what he wants."
That's as far as most people think, and it makes them defensive because they feel that their cultural identity and by extension they themselves are being attacked for no good reason.
I disagree with your interpretation of the First Amendment (as have the courts). There is no justification under the Constitution to push religion and government so far apart as to make it impossible for them to interact at all in the public sphere. The First Amendment says that the government cannot create an official state religion or give one (or more) religions favor, directly or indirectly, over others. It doesn't say anything about the government not being able to acknowledge religion or even not being able to promote it indirectly (as can be seen from the close relationship religious institutions have with government on many issues where their functions overlap, charity, welfare, social work, etc.).
You can't make a serious argument that the government is trying to promote religion in general or one religion in particular with "In God We Trust" on money. It's a cultural artifact.
The Pledge is different as it does require an affirmative act by the person saying it, but that's why a school can't require you to say it (and while that does still happen, legally that is not okay anywhere, and people should sue a school that requires all students to say it).
But the impact of a 5 second rote phrase is infinitesimal next to what a child receives from his parents and relatives and friends and neighbors. All that leaves is that the Pledge and the motto are offensive to some people's sensibilities, which isn't enough.
Being valid for many religions is not the same as being valid for every religion. I haven't even given mention to the large chunk of Americans who specifically do not believe in any religion.
It isn't a large chunk. It's about ten percent of the adult population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#No_religion
The idea that any chunk of the population, no matter how large or small, can wave the Constitution (wrongly) and try to impose its will on the rest of the people not to stop discrimination, not for equality, but rather to appease sensibilities and personal beliefs, is insidious to a free society.
But thankfully, common law demands that someone must prove actual harm to themselves if they wish to successfully prosecute a lawsuit. Sensibilities and opinions don't count, and the inability to prove harm has been used again and again to rightly dismiss these kinds of arguments from courts of law.
In short, stop trying to impose your opinion by waving the Constitution when what you are upset about causes no actual harm - sorry, the idea that the Pledge is going to harm children in any way is just laughable, or that anyone is harmed by "In God We Trust" on money - because all you do is piss off a majority of the people who actually give enough of a damn to think about it and make them wonder why you're such a jerk.
|
The hell :/
You can't make a serious argument that the government is trying to promote religion in general or one religion in particular with "In God We Trust" on money. It's a cultural artifact.
You don't see a complete lack of consistency in that? A religious message printed on a federal bill is a cultural artifact? Did you honestly write that with a clear mind? You have a massive human brain capable of so much. Your sentences are generally coherent and well articulated, and yet you're capable of making this stuff up? I truly am amazed :/.
In short, stop trying to impose your opinion by waving the Constitution when what you are upset about causes no actual harm - sorry, the idea that the Pledge is going to harm children in any way is just laughable, or that anyone is harmed by "In God We Trust" on money - because all you do is piss off a majority of the people who actually give enough of a damn to think about it and make them wonder why you're such a jerk.
I think it's strange that you started off being reasonable, saying that most people don't think beyond "that person hates religion" when in fact the position is more about equality than religion. You say he's "trying to impose" his opinion, but he's only arguing for it - arguing, at least it seems to me, that equality should supersede the "cultural" or "religious" preferences of the majority, at least as far as the public sector is concerned. The public sector does not need a personality.
|
United States24513 Posts
On October 21 2012 06:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The vast majority of people simply do not care. Making an issue out of it confuses them and they try to search for an answer.
The easiest answer to grab is:
"This person hates religion / Christianity / America and wants to make everyone else do what he wants."
That's as far as most people think, and it makes them defensive because they feel that their cultural identity and by extension they themselves are being attacked for no good reason.
Does any of this (excluding anything else you said below) question the legitimacy of what I said earlier, or are you just pointing out that less people care than I'd make it out to believe? Either way, I'd think there is a strong correlation between those who claim to not care, and those who subscribe to a monotheistic religion... not that this really matters based on the case I was trying to make.
I disagree with your interpretation of the First Amendment (as have the courts). There is no justification under the Constitution to push religion and government so far apart as to make it impossible for them to interact at all in the public sphere. The First Amendment says that the government cannot create an official state religion or give one (or more) religions favor, directly or indirectly, over others. It doesn't say anything about the government not being able to acknowledge religion or even not being able to promote it indirectly (as can be seen from the close relationship religious institutions have with government on many issues where their functions overlap, charity, welfare, social work, etc.). Can you specify which federal court case illustrates this?
You said my interpretation is wrong (I've only actually talked about a small component of the amendment of course) but you said, and I quote, "cannot create an official state religion or give one (or more) religions favor, directly or indirectly, over others." That is literally what I was saying. They are giving religions which have a 'God' favor over religions (or possibly alternative to religion, but I haven't gone there). If the courts consider this minor enough to dismiss it, then I should look at what statements they issued when they made the ruling for that case (again I'm focused on federal courts as this is federal code I'm interested in). In terms of technicality, I don't see how what you said rendered what I said wrong, but I recognize that this isn't necessarily black and white.
You can't make a serious argument that the government is trying to promote religion in general or one religion in particular with "In God We Trust" on money. It's a cultural artifact. The reason why it is intended to be there is not really relevant in determining whether or not it is favoring one religion over another. I freely admit that it's doubtful the government has some secret plan to indoctrinate people with the pledge of allegiance (at least, nowadays).
The Pledge is different as it does require an affirmative act by the person saying it, but that's why a school can't require you to say it (and while that does still happen, legally that is not okay anywhere, and people should sue a school that requires all students to say it). The effect of the pledge persists though; especially for young schoolchildren. In private school it's pretty clear what religious affiliations are there. In public school, it's clear from the pledge that monotheistic religions get preference over other ones (especially the ones which typically use the word 'God' to refer to their sole deity). Not legally forcing a 6 year old to recite the pledge doesn't mean that the inclusion of God into their daily activities won't impact how their religious views develop.
But the impact of a 5 second rote phrase is infinitesimal next to what a child receives from his parents and relatives and friends and neighbors. All that leaves is that the Pledge and the motto are offensive to some people's sensibilities, which isn't enough. It would be enough if law somehow dictated that "under god" was appropriate in the pledge, instead of inappropriate as I have attempted to show. As I requested before, if you have evidence that US law actually says the opposite of how I have interpreted it, it should be brought to light.
Show nested quote +Being valid for many religions is not the same as being valid for every religion. I haven't even given mention to the large chunk of Americans who specifically do not believe in any religion. It isn't a large chunk. It's about ten percent of the adult population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#No_religion
The idea that any chunk of the population, no matter how large or small, can wave the Constitution (wrongly) and try to impose its will on the rest of the people not to stop discrimination, not for equality, but rather to appease sensibilities and personal beliefs, is insidious to a free society. As I mentioned, I want to see how this is wrongly using the constitution. This issue has been somehow painted over the years to be "it's up to those darn atheists to prove 'under god' shouldn't be in the pledge", instead of "it's up to anybody to prove that "under god" actually can be in the pledge."
But thankfully, common law demands that someone must prove actual harm to themselves if they wish to successfully prosecute a lawsuit. Sensibilities and opinions don't count, and the inability to prove harm has been used again and again to rightly dismiss these kinds of arguments from courts of law.
In short, stop trying to impose your opinion by waving the Constitution when what you are upset about causes no actual harm - sorry, the idea that the Pledge is going to harm children in any way is just laughable, or that anyone is harmed by "In God We Trust" on money - because all you do is piss off a majority of the people who actually give enough of a damn to think about it and make them wonder why you're such a jerk. My major reason for actually caring enough to bring this up is because of the potential indoctrination of children. You have dismissed that by saying it is laughable, without actually making an attempt to prove yourself right on that issue. I am very interested on legal precedent, as that can very easily counter many things I have said (that's how this country works). I am not interested in being told what I said was laughable. Do back it up if you actually can, though.
|
Wait, do British people not utilize Oh My God a lot? Here, I thought that religion is much more ingrained there than in North America.
|
The majority of US is still Christian, like almost 75%. Thus it would make sense that they can preserve their religions traditions. That's democracy. Democracy is not about removing every single religions affiliation to make sure that no minority is offended. When Christianity makes up less than 50% of the US population is when it will be time to remove the "God reference".
Just because it's there, it doesn't mean it has to have any meaning to you. IMHO, trying to change this is a really unworthy pursuit, especially when it is so miniscule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
