How far should the US take separation of Church and State?

[syntax252]

Here are the related artical of law' date=' setting president: -

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=510

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=577

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=602

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=465&invol=668#678

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=463&invol=783

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=510[/quote']

 

And how are these cases related to the discussion at hand?

[syntax252]

Do kids technically *have to* recite that part of the pledge' date=' or the pledge at all? No. Are there social and possible physical consequences for not doing so? Hell yes.

 

Story time: Once upon a time, I went to HS in an inner-city school in Lousiana, bussed there as part of the gifted program. Nothing special there. But one day, there was an assembly for a purpose I've since forgotten. Something like a pep rally for homecomming, I think. Anyhow, I was sitting with several of my friends, looking about as unethusiastic as your typical nerds at an event dedicated to sports.

 

Then, the principal asks us all to stand, and begins a prayer. Me and my friends, being atheists, sit down and don't pray. Not being disruptive or anything, just not praying.

 

Cue about a dozen rough-looking guys, most of which were about 2-3 times the size of your average silverback gorilla, *demanding* we stand and pray, with the obvious threat of physical violence as a consequence of failure to comply.

 

Now, we didn't comply and we managed to escape the incident without harm at that point or in the future (though I can't recall just how we did). But the point remains that we're talking about more than just peer-pressure here. We were ballsy, but who *really* thinks that our defiance will happen every time, and that there will be a similar lack of consequences for defiance?

 

It's easy to dismiss social pressure on kids to conform, but it's not so easy when the agent of such pressure has biceps muscles the size of your head.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

 

Well, now let me tell you a story.

 

Once when I was a kid, my Mom sent me to school with money in my pocket to buy lunch at the school cafeteria, and some bigger kids found out that I had money in my pocket and they took it away from me and went to town and bought cigarettes with it.

 

Do you think that we should shut down the school cafeterias in all the schools in the USA because of it?

 

Do you think we should not allow for school pictures to be taken because the Amish do not believe in having their pictures taken?

 

Do you think that we should not have athletic team sports in schools because some of the students are not athletic and would be "forced" to consider themselves as "weaklings?"

 

If a girl in high school is raped, do you think that all the boys should be castrated?

 

Just wondering is all........

[Sayonara]

And your skull? Can't you get it through your skull that when it happens that it is a violation of [b']existing law?[/b]

That's. The. POINT.

 

Now you have acknowledged that unambiguously, I expect this discussion to move on.

 

 

What would make you think that taking words out of the pledge of allegience would solve a problem of abuse when the abusers are already violating the law?

I have not said I think that, so I can't imagine why you're asking me.

[syntax252]

That's. The. POINT.

 

Now you have acknowledged that unambiguously' date=' I expect this discussion to move on.

 

I have not said I think that, so I can't imagine why you're asking me.[/quote']

 

 

Please explain where you are comming from on this.

 

The law says that no one can be forced to say the pledge and if one does voluntarily say the pledge, no one can be forced to say "under God.

 

So what would you hope to accomplish by taking the words out of the pledge?

[Newtonian]

Syntax your directing your question to the wrong person.

Sayo hasnt stated anything one way or the other.

I believe there is only Tiny who is debating this.

[Phi for All]

I'll probably regret this, but let me lend my condensed perspective to what has been posted about the "Pledge Problem":

 

Side A (you know who you are) says there is nothing wrong with using the words "Under God" when saying the pledge of allegiance in schools, since the students are free to recite the pledge any way they want once it has been taught to them.

 

Side B (you know who you are) says they also have no problem with the students saying the pledge any way they want, but a secular education format paid for by taxpayer dollars and run by the state should not be teaching students to say the pledge with religious phrasing in the first place.

 

Neither side objects to the pledge being said, neither side objects to the student's rephrasal (or indeed, refusal) of saying the pledge and neither side supports forcing the students to do anything they feel violates their rights.

 

It seems to me that the real sticking point here is how the pledge is taught in school in the first place. It is, after all, a vow of loyalty to one's country and the principles it upholds to ALL its citizens.

[syntax252]

I'll probably regret this' date=' but let me lend my condensed perspective to what has been posted about the "Pledge Problem":

 

Side A (you know who you are) says there is nothing wrong with using the words "Under God" when saying the pledge of allegiance in schools, since the students are free to recite the pledge any way they want once it has been taught to them.

 

Side B (you know who you are) says they also have no problem with the students saying the pledge any way they want, but a secular education format paid for by taxpayer dollars and run by the state should not be teaching students to say the pledge with religious phrasing in the first place.

 

Neither side objects to the pledge being said, neither side objects to the student's rephrasal (or indeed, refusal) of saying the pledge and neither side supports forcing the students to do anything they feel violates their rights.

 

It seems to me that the real sticking point here is how the pledge is taught in school in the first place. It is, after all, a vow of loyalty to one's country and the principles it upholds to ALL its citizens.[/quote']

 

 

Pretty close, although side B seems to hold that the inclusion of the words "under God" rises to the level necessary to be deemed unconstitutional under the 1st amendment, and should therefore be removed from the pledge. Further, side B seems to argue that not striking the words from the constitution is tantamount to child abuse, since any child who exercises his/her option of either not taking the pledge, or by saying "under_________" will be pilloried by their fellow students and/or their teachers.

 

I (a side a advocate) disagree on both counts.

[syntax252]

Syntax your directing your question to the wrong person.

Sayo hasnt stated anything one way or the other.

I believe there is only Tiny who is debating this.

 

If that is indeed the case, then I offer my apologies to Sayonara.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood where he was comming from on this issue.

[Cadmus]

So what would you hope to accomplish by taking the words out of the pledge?

The pledge has been changed over the years, with the words in question inserted not too long ago.

 

Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of inserting a few more optional references to god in the pledge. Why or why not?

[Phi for All]

Pretty close, although side B seems to hold that the inclusion of the words "under God" rises to the level necessary to be deemed unconstitutional under the 1st amendment, and should therefore be removed from the pledge.

I have to admit, including the words in 1954 did seem like the PTB were trying to add an allegiance to religious beliefs (something the framers of the Constitution were desperate to avoid) in addition to allegiance to country. It seemed like it satisfied someone's political agenda at the time and served no secular purpose.

Further' date=' side B seems to argue that [b']not[/b'] striking the words from the constitution is tantamount to child abuse, since any child who exercises his/her option of either not taking the pledge, or by saying "under_________" will be pilloried by their fellow students and/or their teachers.

This is a problem of specific context, something many laws have trouble with. Side B should realize that something as nebulous as peer pressure dilutes their argument, and analogies to child abuse diverts that same argument.

[syntax252]

The pledge has been changed over the years' date=' with the words in question inserted not too long ago.

 

Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of inserting a few more optional references to god in the pledge. Why or why not?[/quote']

 

I think that if there was very much in the way of an increase in the so-called "religious referrences" that it is possible that it could indeed rise to a level where there might be 1st amendment problems.

 

That, however, is just my opinion.

 

I understand that there are currently prayer sessions held in schools that are not considered to be in violation because they are voluntary and they are not part of the classroom agenda.

[Cadmus]

I think that if there was very much[/b'] in the way of an increase in the so-called "religious referrences" that it is possible that it could indeed rise to a level where there might be 1st amendment problems.

By your use of the word "so-called", are you suggesting that the words under god are not a reference to religion?

 

Are you suggesting that if there are just a few references to god they would not impact negatively on the rights of those who do not wish to hear them?

 

I understand that there are currently prayer sessions held in schools that are not considered to be in violation because they are voluntary and they are not part of the classroom agenda.

I have no problem with a group of children on their own time and in their own location holding prayer sessions on school grounds. Are you equating such a situation with the pledge, which is semi voluntary and is part of the classroom agenda?

[syntax252]

I have to admit, including the words in 1954 did seem like the PTB were trying to add an allegiance to religious beliefs (something the framers of the Constitution were desperate to avoid) in addition to allegiance to country. It seemed like it satisfied someone's political agenda at the time and served no secular purpose.

 

I quite agree that it was a nod in the direction of religion, and I understand it was also meant to underscore the difference between America and communist countries, but I can't see where it imperils anyone's right to a secular government any more that referrences to "natures God" does in the Declaration of Indepebdence.

 

This is a problem of specific context, something many laws have trouble with. Side B should realize that something as nebulous as peer pressure dilutes their argument, and analogies to child abuse diverts that same argument.

 

Agreed.

[Phi for All]

I can't see where it imperils anyone's right to a secular government any more that referrences to "natures God" does in the Declaration of Indepebdence.

Well, the Declaration is not the Constitution, after all. And I believe side A feels imperiled because church and state are not separated in this very important, very impressionable instance.

[Cadmus]

Well, the Declaration is not[/i'] the Constitution, after all. And I believe side A feels imperiled because church and state are not separated in this very important, very impressionable instance.

I have to agree with syntax252. I do not think that this imperils anyone's right to a secular government. It only imperils the implementation of a secular government.

[Phi for All]

I have to agree with syntax252. I do not think that this imperils anyone's right to a secular government. It only imperils the implementation of a secular government.

Definition of "Lip Service".

 

Total, complete separation of Church and State, except in this one instance?

 

Reminds me of Monty Python's Expedition to Lake Pahoe sketch:

"May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit...."

[syntax252]

Well, the Declaration is not[/i'] the Constitution, after all. And I believe side A feels imperiled because church and state are not separated in this very important, very impressionable instance.

 

In life there are few absolutes, taxes and death being two.

 

While we all are relieved that we are not governed over by the pope or by some other religious leader, it is quire feasible for a secular government to acknowledge the existence of God even if that existence is entirely in the minds of man.

 

Only the very most fanatical secularist would object to that and they should not be paid any more attention than is paid to the very most fanatical of religious zelots.

[syntax252]

I have to agree with syntax252. I do not think that this imperils anyone's right to a secular government. It only imperils the implementation of a secular government.

 

Well, I guess that depends on how one defines "secular government."

[syntax252]

Definition of "Lip Service".

 

Total' date=' complete separation of Church and State, except in this one instance?

 

Reminds me of Monty Python's [i']Expedition to Lake Pahoe[/i] sketch:

"May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit...."

 

And what makes you think that "under God" is the only referrence to religion in our government affairs?

 

Can you think of any other ways in which the government either acknowledges religion or engages in religious affaires?

 

Christmas holidays? Easter? A chaplin in the congress? A chaplin for our armed services? "In God we trust" on our money?

 

EGAD How did we last so long?

[Phi for All]

In life there are few absolutes, taxes and death being two.

This is never an excuse for perpetuating something that is easily fixed. Removing the words from the pledge only removes the legal enforcement of teaching them to small children that way.

 

While we all are relieved that we are not governed over by the pope or by some other religious leader, it is quire feasible for a secular government to acknowledge the existence of God even if that existence is entirely in the minds of man.

Acknowledging His existence is one thing, teaching children to pledge allegiance to Him in a secular school setting is another.

 

Only the very most fanatical secularist would object to that and they should not be paid any more attention than is paid to the very most fanatical of religious zelots.

Ad hominem attack, and it really doesn't work in this case anyway. I'm no fanatic but I can certainly see the hypocrisy in making my child take an oath to god outside of a church setting, and a daily one at that.

And what makes you think that "under God" is the only referrence to religion in our government affairs?

 

Can you think of any other ways in which the government either acknowledges religion or engages in religious affaires?

 

Christmas holidays? Easter? A chaplin in the congress? A chaplin for our armed services? "In God we trust" on our money?

 

EGAD How did we last so long?

I'm so very sorry you fail to see the distinction between these examples and teaching small children a daily litany involving religion during their secular education. We are at an impasse.

[atinymonkey]

Good Afternoon. In this weeks show, we bring you the lesser used skills of the intractable debater: -

 

 

 

• Ignorance is bliss, if you can't respond to a statement just ignore it. If you do, it's bound to just go away.
  
• Gross over exaggeration, why not use it to highlight your complete lack of understanding?
  
• Handwaving. In all situations a good bout of handwaving usually clears away all those counterpoints.
  
• Invention. If your opponents haven't presented a point you can argue against, just make some shit up.
  
• Blind denial. If you can be bothered to read back to what was posted earlier, why should anyone else? Just keep recycling the same nonsense, and nobody will be the wiser.
  
• Gibbering. If you can't be bothered making sense, don't worry. The opposition will simply assume that is their problem, for not sufficiently grasping your point of view.
  
• Ignore sources. If the voices in your head cannot give adequate testimony, just deny the real life sources have any more credibility.
  
• Try to use smiles in every post because no matter how many you use they can't possibly make you look crazy .
  

[syntax252]

This is never an excuse for perpetuating something that is easily fixed. Removing the words from the pledge only removes the legal enforcement of teaching them to small children that way.

 

But that is the point. There is no "legal" enforcement of the pledge of allegience, or of the dreaded words. It it completely V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y.

 

Acknowledging His existence is one thing, teaching children to pledge allegiance to Him in a secular school setting is another.

 

Well, as I said before, there are people who think that any referrence to God is somehow damaging to children. I do not consider that to be a reasonable position to take and I would venture that the courts will see it as I do.

 

 

Ad hominem attack, and it really doesn't work in this case anyway. I'm no fanatic but I can certainly see the hypocrisy in making my child take an oath to god outside of a church setting, and a daily one at that.I'm so very sorry you fail to see the distinction between these examples and teaching small children a daily litany involving religion during their secular education. We are at an impasse.

 

This is not an example af an ad hom attack. that is another red herring.

 

I didn't say that you were a fanatic, I just said that the government should pay no more attention to atheist fanatics than they do to religious fanatics. If you want to think that I was referring to you personally there is nothing I can do about that.

 

And as to the referrence to other religious observances that our government officially recognizes, well there are those who think that all of those things should be banned too. They are, in my opinion, atheist fanatics. I have had conversations with atheist fanatics who were willing to state that if a church catches fire that the fire department should not respond because the fire department is paid for with tax money.

 

The question becomes where do we draw the line in appeasing atheist fanatics? In my opinion, we draw the line far sooner that other people might draw that line, but is is, in the final analysis, the job of the courts to make that decision and we will all have to live with whatever that decision is....

[syntax252]

Good Afternoon. In this weeks show' date=' we bring you the lesser used skills of the intractable debater: -

 

 

 

[list']

[*]Ignorance is bliss, if you can't respond to a statement just ignore it. If you do, it's bound to just go away.

[*]Gross over exaggeration, why not use it to highlight your complete lack of understanding?

[*]Handwaving. In all situations a good bout of handwaving usually clears away all those counterpoints.

[*]Invention. If your opponents haven't presented a point you can argue against, just make some shit up.

[*]Blind denial. If you can be bothered to read back to what was posted earlier, why should anyone else? Just keep recycling the same nonsense, and nobody will be the wiser.

[*]Gibbering. If you can't be bothered making sense, don't worry. The opposition will simply assume that is their problem, for not sufficiently grasping your point of view.

[*]Ignore sources. If the voices in your head cannot give adequate testimony, just deny the real life sources have any more credibility.

[*]Try to use smiles in every post because no matter how many you use they can't possibly make you look crazy .

 

 

 

You know tiny, I have noticed the same thing around here.

 

Funny that you should mention it.

[budullewraagh]

anti? read his name: atinymonkey.

a. tiny. monkey.

[Phi for All]

Only the very most fanatical secularist would object to that and they should not be paid any more attention than is paid to the very most fanatical of religious[/b'] zelots.

Ad hominem doesn't have to attack me directly, all it has to do is label your opponent's view as one coming from the "most fanatical of religious zealots". That's a personal attack, thus ad hominem.

 

What you're doing now, what you do with your cutesy smileys, what you do in almost every post you make, THAT'S red herring. You attempt to divert attention from the valid points your opponents make and keep harping, ad nauseum, on points he never brought up.

 

One. Last. Time.

 

It matters not that saying the pledge is voluntary. When it is taught to the students in the first place, it contains an uneccesary religious reference that was added 50 years ago. I like the Pledge without the reference to God. I believe in God. I believe in separation between Church and State.

 

You've said you're thankful we don't live in a country ruled over by religious factions. You've said lines must be drawn far sooner than other people might draw the line. How do you think religious states start? They don't pop-up overnight. They start with the inclusions of little bits of religion where they don't belong, like in secular schools. They start with indoctrination of children, whose minds are more malleable.

 

They start here, now.