Pledge of Allegiance and a federal court

[whiteflag]

I wonder when the Declaration will be ruled unconstutional.

I wonder when any reference to God in the Constitution will be struck from it due to some radical athiest complaining that they are offended by such language and made to feel like a second class citizen.

Has anyone ever wondered at the fact that as we have gotten farther and farther from religion, that our nation has sunk farther and farther from the kind of greatness that founded it in the first place? The kind of greatness that was present in this nation even as far back as WWII when an entire generation of men carried chest pocket Bibles or yarmulkes into combat?

Has anyone ever stopped to realize that whenever something good has been done or some wrong has been stopped in this country it was due largely to the conscience of religious believers leading the way?

I once read a story about a religious skeptic who became a Christian after visiting Mother Teresa's missions in India. He said it was because he didn't know of any secular humanist doing the kind of work that she was doing. In fact he couldn't even imagine a secular humanist doing the same kind of work that she was doing.

I think that most all of us are naturally good people whether we believe or not, but I think that it takes some kind of relgious belief to be great. God help us if the drive to accomodate unbelievers suceeds in driving all acknowledgement of Him from our public life.

 

[mug222]

I wonder when the Declaration will be ruled unconstutional.

I wonder when any reference to God in the Constitution will be struck from it due to some radical athiest complaining that they are offended by such language and made to feel like a second class citizen.

Has anyone ever wondered at the fact that as we have gotten farther and farther from religion, that our nation has sunk farther and farther from the kind of greatness that founded it in the first place? The kind of greatness that was present in this nation even as far back as WWII when an entire generation of men carried chest pocket Bibles or yarmulkes into combat?

Has anyone ever stopped to realize that whenever something good has been done or some wrong has been stopped in this country it was due largely to the conscience of religious believers leading the way?

I once read a story about a religious skeptic who became a Christian after visiting Mother Teresa's missions in India. He said it was because he didn't know of any secular humanist doing the kind of work that she was doing. In fact he couldn't even imagine a secular humanist doing the same kind of work that she was doing.

I think that most all of us are naturally good people whether we believe or not, but I think that it takes some kind of relgious belief to be great. God help us if the drive to accomodate unbelievers suceeds in driving all acknowledgement of Him from our public life.

As I was saying to Bubba, this is the type of sentiment that scares me to death. In particular:

"Has anyone ever wondered at the fact that as we have gotten farther and farther from religion, that our nation has sunk farther and farther from the kind of greatness that founded it in the first place?"

 

[Skeksis]

Thoughts

Well good points on both sides. I am not quite atheist, but definitely agnostic. I totally and completely agree with this particular ruling-- and seperation of church and state in general. Regardless, I do tend to give humanity and the universe we live in more credit than most. I absolutely do not need a god to declare the unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's really insulting to humanity, I think. And I also need no god to explain the creation of the universe, or even humanity itself. I understand how some people do, but I do not. This said, it is important to recognize the impact the concept of god has on our culture not only in anthropoligical studies, but in politics as well. However, the fact still remains that the term "under god," which was, as mug pointed out, a knee-jerk McCarthy-style reaction, clearly is an endorsement for religion. So the issue is whether the government should be endorsing religion, which, despite trying to intepret the amendment to the contrary, it should not. Or maybe then the real issue then is whether the term "god" equals "an establishment of religion." Maybe not quite in semantics, however the god concept and religion are undeniably and inseperably intertwined and there would be no religion without a god or gods. How much further must we go? Do we pretend that there really is such a fine and clear demarcation between "god" and "church" as if the church could somehow go about its daily business without the existence of a god concept to worship? No, instead of truly and completely respecting all beliefs, those who would erode the seperation of church and state would have us believe this is not so and tilt the argument. Whatever. I could assure you if, in this day and age here in Christian America, we were pledging allegiance to "one nation, under gods" everyone surely would be outraged. After all, there are at least 90,000,000 born-again Christians in America, not to mention any other monotheistic religions which might take offense to such a proclamation. But certaintly the 1,126,000 Hindus in America don't mind when their children are daily subjected to such an affront to their faith in public schools. I could have sworn that written somewhere, we were assured of living in a country that didn't endorse or take preference in any or no religion, but, by god, I could be wrong afterall...

One more note, mug222, I must say I have to agree with most everything you've said in this post. And joyfulgirl, at risk of moving outside the argument, I will agree with you also that the word "god" in america is, by majority at least, loaded as a Christian god.

 

[joyfulgirl]

great post, Skeksis...

I absolutely do not need a god to declare the unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree with you here...I also agreed with speedracer's point about this in terms of what the founding father's might have said (i.e. that the above is granted to each individual by the God Almighty) simply because while it does not appear that the majority of them were Christians, many of them seemed to have some kind of spiritual beliefs and a belief in a higher power but that all such references to that have been largely misinterpreted, in my opinion, to mean that they were Christian. I hope that makes sense--I'm fading quickly here at the end of my workday.

 

[STING2]

Skeksis,
Actually, confucionism in China(which is a religion) is based on ancester worship. Not the belief in a God. So again, this idea that GOD=Church or Religion is simply false! In addition there is something of a cultural tradition in the USA with the use of the word GOD, and its most likely because of that fact that this will never change. Imagine going to another country and trying to change one of their cultural traditions. Sorry but here in the USA were not going to let a tiny minority of people define the constitution for the rest of us, its our country too. Oh and oh the Horror that the Hindus have suffered because of the "Pledge". Yes I'm sure thats what most Hindus think about when they go to sleep at night.

I can see how the public school can't lead the class in prayer because is most likely or at least risk endorsing a certain church or religion. The word God clearly does not.

I do question logic and intelligence of the parent that brought this entire thing up. Now his childs home is subjected to death threats and hate messages. I'm sure he is thrilled with the attention he gets and being able to be on TV and all, but what about the effect on his child? You don't need half a brain to realize the outrage that doing this would cause and the fact that his goal is impossible to achieve. Clearly the 8 year old does not need this drama that has been caused by his actions which are futile. Its still his right of course. Its his child. But in my opinion, I can't see how he could be acting in her best interest by doing this. This guy is clearly uneducated as well. Suddenly in his mid-40s he realizes that GOD is on many building in DC and apart of the Declaration of Independence. I wonder if he noticed its on the money he has been using all his life!? The fact is, he is probably not dumb, but just an attention seeker who found a clever way to get on national television.

 

[melon]

I learned the value of secularism in my Catholic education. This turn of events doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Melon

 

[whiteflag]

Mug,

If you are going to say something about my comments, then I would appreciate it if you addressed it directly to me. Otherwise I get the feeling you are holding me up as some kind of hopeless example. Unless of course, you really do think that there is no use trying to talk to me. Do you think that way about me?

Why are my remarks so "scary"?

Do you naturally assume that because of I associate belief with greatness that I am prescribing wall to wall religion for everyone like it or not? That would be scary if I believed anything even close to that. But I don't. Is that what you are thinking about me?

You might not have termed my remarks like you did if you had only asked me questions about my comments.

You may be relieved to discover that I believe there should be reasonable room for the accomodation of both believers and non-believers in our corporate expression as a nation. By that I mean that respect is a two way street. Since atheists find theistic expression offensive and theists find its absence offensive, I think that we could be adults and be willing to look the other way from time to time. Is it so unreasonable to think that non-believer and believer alike should be able to put up with some discomfort or is only the minority entitled to being comfortable all the time?

I strongly believe that religion should not be oppressive but I just as strongly believe that it should not be banished from our shared public life (and for me public life includes any pledges we make in public as a united people). To do the former would be unfair to unbelievers and to do the latter would be nothing short of dictating what should be the proper place of religion in the lives of believers.

As for the remark that you singled out, why that one in particular? Is it scary for me to have the opinion that our country is in trouble due to too little belief? Is it scary for me to have arrived at my particular conclusion relying on a set of beliefs that I have done quite a lot of thinking about? How do you know what I am like or how I reach my conclusions?

Can you read my mind? Or do you just automatically assume that any religious person's views are "scary" until proven otherwise? Isn't assuming something negative like that usually a mark of prejudice?

I don't feel any disrespect for your views, so could I please get some respect from you for mine?

 

[Ballistic Tweed]

Here's a great commentary on the decision of the 9th Circuit. Like it or not, I think it CLEARLY explains why the decision was made.

As a nation, I believe our greatest strengths are diversity, pluralism, tolerance and liberty. We are a republic. It is CONSTITUTIONAL ,and therefore imperative, that the rights of the individual and the minority always be represented and not suppressed.

http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm :attn:

 

[STING2]

This suppresses NO ones rights! This is about the interpretation of the constitution. The minority has no right to interpretate the constitution for the majority. Ultimately and indirectly, the majority does decide these things because after all, only the majority can make changes to the constitution, and only the majority can elect Judges that reflect their views, of course it is the election of the politician and then the appointment of the Judge, but indirectly, the majority decides.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

"I absolutely do not need a god to declare the unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Really?

I may need to clarify my position slightly: while a belief in God, per se, is not necessary to claim any rights, a recognition in something supernatural is absolutely necessary.

Let us take, for instance, the right to life. The "right to life" means, "no one else should take my life." The question I ask is, "why not?" and I believe naturalists - those who believe in a material universe and nothing more - CANNOT provide an answer.

Let's say that I wish to take a naturalist's life, and he claims a right to life, an assertion that I should abstain from the act. I ask the obvious question: why?

The naturalist could say, "I don't want my life taken from me." That fact is true, but that doesn't explain why his concerns should matter to me. He could say, "I have the ability to reason," or "I would feel pain," or "I'm of the same species," but NONE of these facts about our universe says anything about whether the facts are actually relevant in determining my behavior.

Ultimately, I believe a naturalist will fall into a circular argument: "You shouldn't kill me because I have the right to life; I have that right because... well... just because."

Only a higher power - something beyond the material universe - can provide laws that say what man should and should not do. Only a higher power can thus endow something with any rights - including rights inalienable and self-evident.


All of this, I think, distracts from the real issue at hand: whether the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional.

It seems that quite a few of you - most recently Skeksis and joyfulgirl - are praising the decision on your personal preference: "I believe the government should be absolutely secular; the court decision is in agreement with my belief; therefore, I agree with the decision."

That's not the way our process works. This decision hinges, not on personal opinion, but on the content of the U.S. Constitution: "I believe the Constitution mandates an absolutely secular government; the court decision harmonizes with that mandate; therefore, I agree with the decision."

I naturally do not subscribe to the above argument, but THAT is the type of argument supporters need to start making.

And, in order to do that successfully, I believe the supporters of the decision should start pointing out where I am wrong in my beliefs, found in these three main points:

1. The content of the U.S. Constitution is to determine whether something is unconstitutional - how the nation is, not how you personally think the nation should be.

This seems like a "gimme," but I won't be too terribly surprised if someone questions me on this one.

2. When the meaning of the Constitution is unclear, we must interpret the meaning by looking at the intent of the authors.

I'm not surprised that the "living document" supporters disagree with me, but I really think their arguments are weak as water: as I showed above, interpretation without an investigation of intent can lead to SO MANY different conclusions that the document becomes worthless.

A Constitution that can be interpreted to mean anything ultimately means nothing.

3. If one examines the Founders' intent via their actions from within public office, there is no way one can conclude that the First Amendment makes illegal the pledge's "Under God" clause.

There is simply too many instances of the Founding Fathers invoking the name of God to suggest that they were breaking their own rules.

 

[mug222]

Bubba: You may be unable to construct and follow your own moral code, but I and most others certainly are not.

Whiteflag: My comment was in fact directed right at you and at no one else. However, I've been debating religion and politics far too much in the past few days--here and elsewhere--and I simply cannot bring myself to argue anymore right now. View this as a cop-out if you wish to (it may be a cop-out, but I'm pretty sure I'm just fatigued), but understand that I do respect your views and that it was never my intent to do otherwise. And if I was too quick to judge, as it seems I was to some extent, I apologize. I have just been extremely wary considering recent political events.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Tweed:

I believe that "great" commentary makes one massive, MASSIVE error:

Just what does ?respecting an establishment of religion? mean? I believe that this means that our founding fathers didn?t want the Congress to make any law that could be construed as elevating any particular religion or religious belief to a position superior to that of any other religion or religious belief. In other words, the Congress should not make a law that could be seen as endorsing one particular religious belief over another.

He believes this, based on.... what, exactly?

It's certainly not the actions of the Founding Fathers as they served in the early years of the Congress and the Washington Administration.

(I would say "Congress and the White House," but Washington never lived in the White House: his actions predate even that.)

As I mentioned before, Congress recommended to Washington the proclamation of Thanksgiving as a national holiday. Specifically, they recommended "to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

And, in the years following the Bill of Rights being ratified, President Washington, a VERY careful servant of the Constitution, CONTINUED to invoke the name of God in his annual address to Congress.

So, if he's not trying to ascertain the intent of the First Amendment's authors, how is he reaching his conclusions?

I'll tell you: his own personal opinion.

He believes so-and-so is how to interpret the First Amendment because it serves his own opinion - and that's a ludicrous way to judge our country's ruling document.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Bubba: You may be unable to construct and follow your own moral code, but I and most others certainly are not.

Oh, sure, I can do that, but the self-evident truth of "inalienable rights" doesn't require a personal moral code.

It requires an absolute and universal moral code.

Only an absolute moral code allows one to assert to another, "Hey, you SHOULD NOT kill me, because I have a RIGHT to live."

And no humanist in existence can conjure an absolute moral code from the natural universe.

Unless, of course, you care to prove me wrong...

 

[mug222]

Oh, sure, I can do that, but the self-evident truth of "inalienable rights" doesn't require a personal moral code.

No, but it doesn't require religion either. Religion in this instance is completely extraneous. Are you implying that if we removed the few mentions of God in the constitution that it would immediately lose its power, and could no longer serve as a legal and moral backbone to our nation? Frankly, that's ludicrous.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

No, I'm saying that, if we removed the Almighty from our legal documents, the idea of "rights" vanishes - rights merely become a list of things that we agree are off-bounds, rather than claims that are inalienable and self-evident.

Maybe the most obvious example will provide some clarity. Let's take the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Let's remove the Creator from the equation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they - claim? - certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

On what basis do men claim these rights?

 

[Sherry Darling]

Bubba: You may be unable to construct and follow your own moral code, but I and most others certainly are not.


Mmm.....I'm not sure history proves you right on this.

SD, disgesting the points made here....

 

[anitram]

Skeksis,
Actually, confucionism in China(which is a religion) is based on ancester worship. Not the belief in a God. So again, this idea that GOD=Church or Religion is simply false!

No.

Confucianism is not considered a religion in China. It's considered a philosophy.

Also, in the early 20th century, Confucius was elevated to deity status like Shang-Ti, and the Lord on High.

ETA: Your example works well with Daoism, though.

 

[Ballistic Tweed]

No, I'm saying that, if we removed the Almighty from our legal documents, the idea of "rights" vanishes - rights merely become a list of things that we agree are off-bounds, rather than claims that are inalienable and self-evident.

Maybe the most obvious example will provide some clarity. Let's take the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Let's remove the Creator from the equation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they - claim? - certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

On what basis do men claim these rights?

Well, if you really want to look at the truth here. How can our forefathers claim that God has created ALL men equally and ALL men are endowed "by their Creator" with unalienable rights... Yet, these same forefathers bought, sold, owned, beat, tortured and slaughtered other men created by the very same Creator?

How can you go on and on about how flawless the Constitution is and how "most" of our forefathers were Christians, yet not ADMIT that they themselves were involved in the most horrific, ungodly behavior that still brings shame and pain to our country.

This is why they set up the government as it still exists today. It is in fact a living document, in which we must continually and relentlessly pursue an evolving process of the equal rights of ALL men. It is our duty to constantly analyze and improve upon the foundation that our forefathers layed. Even they understood that they were very flawed human beings and the fact that they were not above reproach.

I think the biggest obstacle that Christians, as I am, face today is with this 9th Circuit decision is the reputation that has developed of what we represent. For example, when I think of the modern day, American Christian, Jesus is unfortunately the farthest thing from my mind.

WHY? They/we are the most intolerant, arrogant, close-minded, opinionated, unloving, judgemental people in this country. They haven't the first clue of how compassionate Jesus was. How He never sought to shove His message down people's throats. His unconditional love was unprecedented. The "true" followers of God hated Him for it. He embraced homosexuals, pro-choice advocates, atheists, Muslims, Mormons, Eminem, Howard Stern, Bill Clinton, Ozzy Osbourne, Anton LeVay with an unconditional love and compassion. He knew that these were the humble people with open hearts.

The only people Jesus rebuked and rejected were the Jerry Falwells, the Pat Robertsons, the Pat Buchanans, the Christian Coalitions, the Strom Thurmans. These are the ones that spread an intolerant message of division, hate and exclusion. This is the true evil in our society today.

As a Christian, I am at fault and to blame for this. I have tolerated and allowed them to spread this message of hate and I have done nothing to stop them. As a Christian, I openly apologize for the unforgiveable behavior and actions that these depraved people spew upon America. If they ever seized control of the government, we would certainly turn into the next Afghanistan.

This is the VERY reason why there is such an outcry to remove "One nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. I think that America is finally sick and tired of dealing with the division and intolerance brought about by so-called Christians that have managed to make many people cringe at the very mention of God. Christians have ruined and destroyed the name of God and the reputation of Jesus. And for that, we should be very ashamed of ourselves and be more compassionate and understanding as to the reason this decision has been made.

I hope it angers Christians! I hope it wakes them up! It's time to fight for tolerance, love, equality, inclusion, compassion. Now is the time to humble ourselves and learn the fact that Jesus was a servant of men. I think the closest thing I could compare to the personality of Jesus would be Dr. Martin Luther King. At least that's who I think Jesus was like. WOW! Imagine if when you heard "God" or "Christian" that's the thought that automatically popped in your mind! Christian = Dr. Martin Luther King.

Maybe someday...

 

[speedracer]

Well, if you really want to look at the truth here. How can our forefathers claim that God has created ALL men equally and ALL men are endowed "by their Creator" with unalienable rights... Yet, these same forefathers bought, sold, owned, beat, tortured and slaughtered other men created by the very same Creator?

I think the great political thinker Voltaire once wrote something to the effect that "blacks cannot possibly be human, because if they were human, they would have the same rights we have, and that would mean that we were violating their rights by making them slaves."

 

[dream wanderer]

This is interesting...when the word God is mentioned...those who are not Christians visualize a Christian God...

Meanwhile...myself and many other Christians don't. When I see that word God on the money and bandied about in the public arena...I see a kind of generic secular god that has has little meaning for me...


dream wanderer

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Well, if you really want to look at the truth here. How can our forefathers claim that God has created ALL men equally and ALL men are endowed "by their Creator" with unalienable rights... Yet, these same forefathers bought, sold, owned, beat, tortured and slaughtered other men created by the very same Creator?

How can you go on and on about how flawless the Constitution is and how "most" of our forefathers were Christians, yet not ADMIT that they themselves were involved in the most horrific, ungodly behavior that still brings shame and pain to our country.

Apparently, you haven't been keeping up with everything I've said on this thread.

Mug brought up many of the same points you did:

Am I wrong in saying that this essentially forms the backbone to your post? Because it is incorrect--the Constitution has been attached with the phrase "living document" so often that it is nearly a cliche, and yet it is absolutely a necessary and correct. If we want to apply the ideals of liberty, freedom, and equality to the 21st century, we must be ready to depart from following the strict intentions of the founding fathers. (Additionally, I might add, the document they created was far from perfect--I need not mention its rulings on slavery as proof of that.)

I will RESTATE my reply:

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba
Must we depart from the strict intentions of the Founding Fathers? Perhaps, but that's what amendments are for.

Is the document perfect? I must say that, being manmade, it cannot possibly be perfect - however, I believe that the last 230 years have demonstrated that it is perhaps the closest thing to perfection any political document has ever achieved.

(As a God-fearing Christian, I must also admit that it seems possible that its creation was guided by - as Washington put it - the Author of all Good.)

You mention its stance on slavery, but how was this position overturned? The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments - NOT through a re-interpretation.

Let me be even more clear:

The Founding Fathers were correct in their claim that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights (including the right to live). However, they were INCORRECT in limiting their definition to white men (just as we are probably incorrect in limiting our definition to humans AFTER birth).

But the solution was NOT through a reinterpretation (particularly considering that Article I, Section 2 instituted the process of counting slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of assigning representatives).

THE SOLUTION WAS THROUGH AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.

Do I think the document perfect? Certainly not, but there's a RIGHT way and a WRONG way to change it.

This is why they set up the government as it still exists today. It is in fact a living document, in which we must continually and relentlessly pursue an evolving process of the equal rights of ALL men. It is our duty to constantly analyze and improve upon the foundation that our forefathers layed. Even they understood that they were very flawed human beings and the fact that they were not above reproach.

Again, I agree, but the way you improve the Constitution is the lengthy and difficult process of ratifying amendments; to do anything else - in particular, to simply reinterpret the document - is to bypass the system of slow, deliberate evolution that the Founders put into place.

I think the biggest obstacle that Christians, as I am, face today is with this 9th Circuit decision is the reputation that has developed of what we represent. For example, when I think of the modern day, American Christian, Jesus is unfortunately the farthest thing from my mind.

WHY? They/we are the most intolerant, arrogant, close-minded, opinionated, unloving, judgemental people in this country. They haven't the first clue of how compassionate Jesus was. How He never sought to shove His message down people's throats. His unconditional love was unprecedented. The "true" followers of God hated Him for it. He embraced homosexuals, pro-choice advocates, atheists, Muslims, Mormons, Eminem, Howard Stern, Bill Clinton, Ozzy Osbourne, Anton LeVay with an unconditional love and compassion. He knew that these were the humble people with open hearts.

Certainly, Christ is accepting of all people - but NOT of their actions. There's a difference that MUST be made clear.

To the degree that Christians are intolerant, it's because they have strayed from Christ Himself... but I'm not at all certain that Christians are the most intolerant people in this country.

After all, people STILL criticize Attorney General John Ashcroft for daring to start his day with prayer.

This atheist in California who filed the suit can't stand the idea that a public school teacher could lead a VOLUNTARY recognition of a vague deity.

And people have called me and fellow conservatives sexist, racist, bigoted, homophobic, NAZIS who want to starve children, kill old people, and destroy the environment; they MEANT their claims, even when reality suggests that they could not be more wrong.

And WE are the intolerant ones?

The only people Jesus rebuked and rejected were the Jerry Falwells, the Pat Robertsons, the Pat Buchanans, the Christian Coalitions, the Strom Thurmans. These are the ones that spread an intolerant message of division, hate and exclusion. This is the true evil in our society today.

I disagree: Christ DID criticize the falsely spiritual (though I don't know whether everyone you mention qualifies), but He also criticized the godless pagans. Consider Matthew 6:

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. 7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Verses 5 and 6 are certainly critical of the falsely religious, but 7 and 8 are EQUALLY critical of those who do not worship the Judeo-Christian God - Anton LeVay, etc.

It's wrong to assert otherwise.

As a Christian, I am at fault and to blame for this. I have tolerated and allowed them to spread this message of hate and I have done nothing to stop them. As a Christian, I openly apologize for the unforgiveable behavior and actions that these depraved people spew upon America. If they ever seized control of the government, we would certainly turn into the next Afghanistan.

That's, frankly, absurd and irresponsible.

"If they ever seized power..." How would they do that? A military coup, or winning a fair and democratic election? Can't you see that there's a difference?

And to suggest, either way, that we would not only become an Afghanistan - but that we would certainly do so is, well, idiotic. At the VERY worst, they would - if they could - force the country to revert to the era of Eisenhower. If you can't see the difference between that and Afghanistan, then YOU'RE the one with the problems about Christianity.

This is the VERY reason why there is such an outcry to remove "One nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. I think that America is finally sick and tired of dealing with the division and intolerance brought about by so-called Christians that have managed to make many people cringe at the very mention of God. Christians have ruined and destroyed the name of God and the reputation of Jesus. And for that, we should be very ashamed of ourselves and be more compassionate and understanding as to the reason this decision has been made.

What outcry?

This has NOTHING to do whether "America is finally sick" with Christian intolerance. This has to do with ONE LIBERAL COURT trying to force its ideals of an atheistic government onto the nation, regardless of what the Constitution says on the matter.

And need I remind you of the groundswell of spirituality following 9/11? Of Congressmen and baseball players, companies and families repeating one refrain of "God Bless America"?

And what about the intolerance of Muslim fundamentalism? Is it politically incorrect to mention the willingness of some Muslims to ram airplanes into American office buildings and carry bombs into the Israeli civilian population?

I hope it angers Christians! I hope it wakes them up! It's time to fight for tolerance, love, equality, inclusion, compassion. Now is the time to humble ourselves and learn the fact that Jesus was a servant of men. I think the closest thing I could compare to the personality of Jesus would be Dr. Martin Luther King. At least that's who I think Jesus was like. WOW! Imagine if when you heard "God" or "Christian" that's the thought that automatically popped in your mind! Christian = Dr. Martin Luther King.

Maybe someday...

Until then, I suggest you read up on the Constitution - and you quit comparing Christians you disagree with to the thugs of Afghanistan.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Besides, Tweed, you didn't answer my question:

Let's remove the Creator from the equation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they - claim? - certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

On what basis do men claim these rights?

 

[STING2]

Tweed,
your gravely mistaken if you think there is a "popular outcry" against the word GOD being in the pledge. The House voted 432 to 3 to condemn the court ruling and the Senate voted 99 to 0. Would have been 100 to 0 if Jesse had been there. People do not want GOD removed from the Pledge for many reasons, and the guy who started this knows that. He just likes to be on CNN and MSNBC.

 

[Skeksis]

"I absolutely do not need a god to declare the unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Really?

Yes.

I may need to clarify my position slightly: while a belief in God, per se, is not necessary to claim any rights, a recognition in something supernatural is absolutely necessary.

How wonderfully ignorant and woefully righteous.

Our understanding of physics, biology and anthopoligical studies have increased significantly in recent years. Many studies have in fact shown that both human and animal moral and social behavior is a natural, rational, and evolved process. Study of chimpanzee societies clearly demonstrate moral codes of conduct and societal structure which include certain rights and priviledges. Chimps don't, for example, fuck their own sisters, because this produces fucked-up babies, which in turn get eliminated through the process of natural selection. Over a million or so years, this becomes instinctive and seems "right." Nor do they kill those from their own group without reason, such as a challenge of leadership, without punishment. Humans seem to have evolved a higher standard in this respect, and tend to impeach their leaders, although this is arguable in some third-world countries. As another example, chimpanzees sometimes do fight and war between other groups of chimpanzees, and this it seems, is an act that humans have not evolved very far from. Regardless, one can either choose to accept the data gathered from these studies, analyze and verify them, integrate them into our larger understanding, and start coming to some rational conclusions, or accept a "higher power" explanation.

Ask any true intellectual and scientist, and (s)he'll say its really impossible to truly prove any theory without accepting some basic assumptions of existence. I believe mug pointed this out, in what descartes was trying to do with "i think, therefore i am" --else, I've argued myself out of the argument and therefore is nothing more to say. Probably the biggest reason why it is so difficult to argue with those who believe in a higher power is that reason and logic ultimately break down because god is all powerful and as such anything can be explained away on a whim due to this power. After taking away any holy manuscripts (which can not ever be logically used as a reference) and every other supernatural act, those who believe and those who do not are really on the same playing field, following the same laws of math, logic, physics, and biology as everybody else. These are phenomenon that stand on their own - and they constantly work. One can, of course, continue to believe in blind faith, or due to personal experience (god revealing himself to them), whatever they wish. But, to the scientifically minded, just because something is not yet understood, doesn't mean its explanation defaults to a "higher power." Every piece of knowledge uncovered by the human scientific process so far has pushed god to the next outer limit, better known as the "god of the gaps" theory. This is where "god" lies where we yet do not understand, and as it is, this could soon be coming to a close with recent additions to our understand of string theory and p-branes - thanks prof. hawking! So could a god exist? Possibly, although what a twisted god to set up such elaborate scientific traps for unbelievers. More rationally though, the god concept might more probably stem from a universe that could have god-like qualities, as indicated by some rather new and provoking research done in the field which suggests that, quite mathematically sound in fact, the quantum fabric of the universe displays properties of memory and intelligence.

Either way, as I indicated in my earlier post, I accept that some people need a god to explain away the endowment of unalienable rights. But, as you should quite clearly be able to see, I, fundamentally and absolutely, need no god or "higher power" other than the laws of the universe to consider myself a fucking moral person with the same rights as anyone else.

*(Pages 314-315 from Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.)

Chimpanzee society has an identifiable set of rules that most of it's members live by. They submit to those of higher rank. Females defer to males. They cherish their parents. They care for their young. They have a kind of patriotism, and defend the group against outsiders. They share food. They abhor incest. But they have, so far as is known, no lawgivers. There are no stone tablets, no sacred books in which a code of conduct is laid out. Nevertheless, there is something like a code of ethics and morals operating among them - one that many human societies would find recognizable and, as far as it goes, congenial....

 

[mug222]

That was a brilliant post, Skeksis.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

I too applaud your post - aside from calling me ignorant and self-righteous. Unfortunately, it does not offer enough of an answer.

Allow me to quote myself:


Let's say that I wish to take a naturalist's life, and he claims a right to life, an assertion that I should abstain from the act. I ask the obvious question: why?

The naturalist could say, "I don't want my life taken from me." That fact is true, but that doesn't explain why his concerns should matter to me. He could say, "I have the ability to reason," or "I would feel pain," or "I'm of the same species," but NONE of these facts about our universe says anything about whether the facts are actually relevant in determining my behavior.


Now, if the naturalist is aware of your argument, he may say, "Through evolution, our species has gained an instinct of morality, in which we are innately aware of human rights and priveleges."

Not to be flippant, but I would still reply, "So what?"

If the instinct was irresistible, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Everyone would respect each other's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government would become redundant. It's clearly not irresistible.

Not only that, the instinct is not that strong, if human history is any indication. Look at the millenia of recorded history, oppression is the norm - slavery, tyranny, and war.

Third, the fact that something is found within our instincts just doesn't imply that the instinct should be obeyed. If we saw a man drowning in a rushing river, we'd feel two perfectly natural instincts: one to save the man, and one to preserve ourselves and not risk endangerment. We do not have to obey either instinct; in the end, we must reject one of them.

Finally, above all else, science can only explain WHY we as a species can come to believe we have rights - not whether we actually POSSESS THOSE RIGHTS.

This entire argument is really analogous to the socialogists' and psychologists' explanation of why we come to believe there is a God. Let's say the Freudians are right: we believe there is a God out of some innate need for a "father figure." That doesn't come CLOSE to answering the question, "Is there really a God?" It's not even trying to answer that question.

But let's move on to particular comments within your post:

Our understanding of physics, biology and anthopoligical studies have increased significantly in recent years. Many studies have in fact shown that both human and animal moral and social behavior is a natural, rational, and evolved process. Study of chimpanzee societies clearly demonstrate moral codes of conduct and societal structure which include certain rights and priviledges. Chimps don't, for example, fuck their own sisters, because this produces fucked-up babies, which in turn get eliminated through the process of natural selection. Over a million or so years, this becomes instinctive and seems "right." Nor do they kill those from their own group without reason, such as a challenge of leadership, without punishment. Humans seem to have evolved a higher standard in this respect, and tend to impeach their leaders, although this is arguable in some third-world countries.

So are you then suggesting that some groups of humans are more evolved than others (those in third-world countries)? Pardon me for saying so, but that smacks of eugenics.

Further, what you're saying does not approach what the Founders were asserting. What you seem to be saying is that chimps have social structures (as do ants and other insects, I may remind you), and that these social structures appear to include certain rights. We've watched their behavior, and rights seem to be part of the equation.

What the Founders asserted was this: even in the worst cases of oppression and tyranny, in which there was no indication of any rights whatsoever, all humans have rights. Hence the word, "inalienable."

It seems their assertion is not based on any observation of what behavior is, but on a belief of what behavior should be.

Probably the biggest reason why it is so difficult to argue with those who believe in a higher power is that reason and logic ultimately break down because god is all powerful and as such anything can be explained away on a whim due to this power. After taking away any holy manuscripts (which can not ever be logically used as a reference) and every other supernatural act, those who believe and those who do not are really on the same playing field, following the same laws of math, logic, physics, and biology as everybody else. These are phenomenon that stand on their own - and they constantly work.

Look: I'm not explaining rights away "on a whim." I am asserting that God has granted us these rights because no other explanation is sufficient. No explanation that says why we have come to believe what we believe says anything about whether we are to obey that belief.

Human reason is a similarly difficult thing to arrive at. Naturalists assert that we arose through a chaotic and rather random process of "survival of the fittest," and through that process, we gained the ability to reason. And yet, they assume this ability to reason is trustworthy - that, if we can apply enough human logic and human reason to the world around us, we can arrive at conclusions that are simultaneously not immediately evident AND YET worthy of our trust.

I believe further that such things - morality, human rights, human reason - have NOT been explained by the naturalists for two reasons. First, they make very supernatural assumptions: that we SHOULD in fact obey the conclusions we've drawn about human rights, and that our human reason IS somehow fairly close to an external ideal of Reason. Second, they seem to be having quite a bit of trouble coming up with a purely natural explanation as to why we should obey the moral laws and why we should trust our abilities to reason.

And I further submit that what we believe about rights and morality have little to do with the laws of math, physics, and biology, the laws that "constantly work."

Math, physics, and biologiy all answer questions about the current state of the universe - how things are. Morality and rights tell us how things should be. No detailed explanation of the former can ever bring us to the latter; a perfect description of how things are can NEVER imply that things should be otherwise - much less WHAT that "otherwise" state should be.

But, to the scientifically minded, just because something is not yet understood, doesn't mean its explanation defaults to a "higher power." Every piece of knowledge uncovered by the human scientific process so far has pushed god to the next outer limit, better known as the "god of the gaps" theory. This is where "god" lies where we yet do not understand, and as it is, this could soon be coming to a close with recent additions to our understand of string theory and p-branes - thanks prof. hawking! So could a god exist? Possibly, although what a twisted god to set up such elaborate scientific traps for unbelievers. More rationally though, the god concept might more probably stem from a universe that could have god-like qualities, as indicated by some rather new and provoking research done in the field which suggests that, quite mathematically sound in fact, the quantum fabric of the universe displays properties of memory and intelligence.

Let's say the "new and provoking research" is right (keeping in mind that science is plagued with dead ends). Let's say that the universe does in fact display intelligence, and has done so since its beginning. That still doesn't answer the question, what - if anything - gave it intelligence, nor does it answer the two biggest gaps: where did the universe come from, and why is it here?

Current scientific theory says that physical laws break down at the birth of the universe itself, so physics cannot answer the question - and scientists who say they have an answer are generally meddling in theology and presenting their own beliefs, not applying any credible scientific method of research.

And, further, not every scientific advance has closed the gap on God. Thanks to Newton's laws, we believed that we could some day hope to explain the universe as a deterministic machine - that if we ever completely knew one state of the universe, we could "advance the film" to predict the next state and "rewind the film" to see the state before it.

THEN CAME QUANTUM PHYSICS, which says that things are not deterministic but probabilistic; that the more we study something, the less we can learn about it (thank you, Heisenberg!); and that there are probably absolute limits on what we can learn.

If anything, modern science may be suggesting that some gaps cannot be filled.

But let's return to the topic at hand.

Either way, as I indicated in my earlier post, I accept that some people need a god to explain away the endowment of unalienable rights. But, as you should quite clearly be able to see, I, fundamentally and absolutely, need no god or "higher power" other than the laws of the universe to consider myself a fucking moral person with the same rights as anyone else.

Nope: don't see it.

You can offer a theory explaining why we believe we have rights, but that doesn't explain why we should recognize those rights.

 

[STING2]

Skepkis,
People don't believe in GOD because they need to but because they feel its the truth. It may be a surprise to you to know that most Scientist and "true intellectual" people believe in GOD including my Grandfather who is a Scientist! This idea that science has pushed GOD to the back is ridiculous. Did it ever occur to you that many people consider nature itself to be GOD. Science only defines what we as primates can detect with are physical senses one way or the other. The fact that Chimps have some morals and rules is not relevant to the discussion. Their apart of everything like we are. I agree a natural, rational and evolved process goes on all the time, in my belief, to understand the mind of GOD. You need no God. Fine, great, wonderful, who cares. Nor do we, we believe because it is the truth.

But back to the main point, the simple word GOD does not = Religion or Church.

 

[speedracer]

But, to the scientifically minded, just because something is not yet understood, doesn't mean its explanation defaults to a "higher power." Every piece of knowledge uncovered by the human scientific process so far has pushed god to the next outer limit, better known as the "god of the gaps" theory. This is where "god" lies where we yet do not understand, and as it is, this could soon be coming to a close with recent additions to our understand of string theory and p-branes - thanks prof. hawking!

I'm going to assume that you're not an authority on string theory, since you're holding up Stephen Hawking as one of its champions instead of Ed Witten or Cumrun Vafa. Nowadays Hawking is merely the PR man for theoretical physics.

I'm not an authority on the subject either, but I've studied enough of it to know that it's really far away from having any real relevance to the physical world. For the last 50 years particle physicists have been saying that the end--the "Grand Unified Theory"--was near for theoretical physics. Perhaps for the first 30 years or so they really believed it, but nowadays any physicist who says something like that is pandering to the public.

And besides, much simpler phenomena like turbulence and quantum-mechanical collapse and uncertainty present enough ontological problems for us anyway, as Richard Feynman and Werner Heisenberg recognized.

End of tangent.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Well said, Sting and Speedracer.

If we may end the tangent - as Speedracer correctly called it - I'd like to return to the issue of Constitutionality.

Wednesday, I mentioned the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg address as indicative of the fact that our nation has always embraced the existence of the Creator. Yesterday, I cited several other sources, including Washington's proclamation of Thanksgiving - and I also affirmed what mug222 the "fundamentally unacceptable" belief in interpreting the U.S. Constitution according to the intent of the authors.

Why do I mention this again? Well, people here certainly disagreed with me - mug222 and Ballistic Tweed come immediately to mind.

I mention it because what I did - cite other historical documents and affirm interpretation by intent - is apparently not unique. Yesterday, the United States Congress did the same thing...

...in a bill the Senate approved 99 to 0.

(The one absent vote was Jesse Helms, the ranking Republican from North Carolina; he's absent because of illness. His biography mentions that Senator Helms "is a Baptist, and prior to his election to the Senate served as a deacon and a Sunday School teacher at Hayes Barton Baptist Church in Raleigh." Does ANYBODY think JESSE HELMS would have voted AGAINST this bill?)

I will shortly post the bill itself, but first, commentary from National Review Online:

The second Senate action, Senate Bill 2690, titled "A bill to reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance," was authored by the Republican minority leadership. Unlike the resolution of the day before, it is a law that will go to the House and the president's desk. And, also unlike the resolution, it is a deeply political, carefully worded document that might one day come back to haunt some Democrats ? and perhaps even a few justices on the United States Supreme Court.

...

Then the bill moves on to this paragraph:

On June 15, 1954, Congress passed, and President Eisenhower signed into law a statute, that was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to read, "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 interesting thing about the wording is that it declares Congress's action in 1954 as being clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution....

One of the reasons Republicans went to the trouble to reaffirm a law that was already on the books was GOP unhappiness with the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Atkins case, in which the Court outlawed executions of the mentally retarded. In that case, some of the justices relied on public opinion polls and the actions of state legislatures to argue that public views on the execution issue had changed. Senate Bill 2690 is a refutation of that kind of thinking. Not only does it approvingly cite the "text and intent" of the Constitution, it also makes clear that public views on the nation's historic commitment to God remain just as they were fifty years ago. "There cannot be any question about whether public attitudes on this issue have changed since 1954, because we just passed it again," says one Republican. That, in turn, might become useful in future cases involving religion and the First Amendment. The Senate made clear that it supports "under God" not because it sounds good, or that many Americans support it, but because it is clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution.

The bill itself is forthcoming, but first, allow me a moment to smirk.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Here then, is the bill, Senate Bill 2690.

For your convenience, I have color-coded the text. Words in green are documents that I cited earlier in this thread. Words in red are the all-important affirmation of interpreting the Constitution according to the intent of its authors.

Enjoy.

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2690


AN ACT
To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: `Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,'.

(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.

(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'.

(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.

(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: `It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'.

(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'.'.

(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed, and President Eisenhower signed into law a statute, that was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to read: `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.'.

(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national motto of the United States is `In God We Trust', and that motto is inscribed above the main door of the Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States.

(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), in which compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: `But untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.'.

(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), in which a city government's display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, stated: `There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789. . . . [E]xamples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto `In God We Trust' (36 U.S.C. 186), which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see (31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) (1982 ed.)), and in the language `One Nation under God', as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children--and adults--every year. . . . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent--not seasonal--symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.'.

(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court's holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words `under God,' stated `In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge , as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.'.

(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words `under God' was constitutional.

(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, (9th Cir. June 26, 2002) that the Pledge of Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.


SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

`The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: `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.', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Council shall make no change in section 4, title 4, United States Code, but shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Pledge for decades.


SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 302 of title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 302. National motto

`In God we trust' is the national motto.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Council shall make no change in section 302, title 36, United States Code, but shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Motto for decades.


Passed the Senate June 27, 2002.