Now the courts are noticing that the separation of church and state in this country is a joke? NOW? It took THIS LONG?
I’m sorry, it just seems silly to go after the Pledge of Allegiance. I mean, who are we fooling? “In God We Trust” appears on everything from the money to the walls of courtrooms. People pledge to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help them God. Government offices are closed on Christmas (although not, I believe, the Jewish high holidays. I *think* you can take them off if you’re Jewish, but the offices remain open, thereby indicating that some Gods are More Equal than others.)
I’ve been saying for years that lip service is paid to separation of Church and state, but it’s a little late in the game to start trying to expunge mentions of God from everyday life. It’s simply too ingrained. I feel sorry for Atheists, I suppose, but if Jews can deal with the entire country celebrating the birth of a savior we don’t believe in every year, Atheists can cope with “under God.”
PAD
• 
Yeah, I you are correct. That is especially true when factoring in the knowledge that the “separation of church and state” is not in the constitution, but is an idea proposed by Thomas Jefferson in an unrelated letter.
In this letter he was suggesting that the STATE remain away from the CHURCH not the misapplication of his ideas as seen today.
Yeah, you are correct. That is especially true when factoring in the knowledge that the “separation of church and state” is not in the constitution, but is an idea proposed by Thomas Jefferson in an unrelated letter.
In this letter he was suggesting that the STATE remain away from the CHURCH not the misapplication of his ideas as seen today.
As an infidel without portfolio, I can accept that religion has use to some people who need it, and I can enjoy participating in a bible discussion from the perspective of ethics. With that disclaimer out of the way, I’m delighted by the idea that the Powers that Bewilder are frightened by the notion that government is not automatically Holy. Next, we introduce the idea that since politics is the art of the possible, government should restrict itself to what can actually be counted, quantified or otherwise clearly defined. Let religions worry about values, sanctity of marriage, etcetera.
As an agnostic, I have to raise an objection to your Christmas analogy…Jews don’t HAVE to celebrate Christmas. Kids are required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in class.
But that’s just a nit. I think spending time on this is silly. I’d like to think that atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians, and everyone else would actually rather improve our school system–including teachers, test scores, and children’s lives.
The major problem is where the person who filed the complaint/lawsuit is receiving death threats.
Bullying him, calling him “un/anti-american”, telling him to “watch his back”. That’s ridiculous.
Being atheist myself, I’m not really crazy about having the word “god” everywhere on my money but that’s what it is to me, just a word. If you don’t believe in it, don’t pay attention to it.
Besides, it’s not like the school is forcing his daughter recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
I don’t know of any schools around here that require a kid to say the Pledge (or “under God”), just that in this backwater-Southern Baptist area you would probably be shunned if you didn’t.
Anyway, all you need to do is ask “them”, would you want your kids saying – One Nation, under Allah…
But I agree with Peter, we’ll have to live with it. Especially after the circus show Congress put on Wed for the cameras.
-Joe
What baffles me is that the original pledge didn’t even include the “under G-d” wording. It was added by an act of Congress in 1954. Not sure why they did it, but I think it was in response to McCarthy’s red-baiting.
Being agnostic (my beliefs are actually a little more complex than that, but ‘agnostic’ is the closest I can get if I have to sum it up in one word without confusing all heck out of people), and British, I have a different perspective on this anyway.
I am glad that in this country there are plenty of schools to send children to that have nothing to do with religion (or politics, which is just as bad) whatsoever.
My own school had a fantastic religious education programme which treated EVERY belief system with equal respect, and didn’t try to say ‘THIS religion is the TRUTH but we’ll teach you about all the others so you can understand all those nut-jobs that are out there…’ like the school my partner teaches at does.
In this case, I’m glad I live in Britain. I would like to live in a country that was a true democracy though. (What? You thought Britain WAS a true democracy? Nah… ‘Monarch’ is just a nice way of saying ‘Dictator’. Think about it…)
You don’t have to be in a “backwater-Southern Baptist area” to be shunned for not saying the Pledge. The guy who raised it and got it past the 9th Circuit Court is from just outside the San Francisco Bay Area and his daughter and family are being shunned, called names and threatened. That is what really scares me.
It is also what I got scared of shortly after 9/11 when almost everyone was flying flags and being patriotic. Several people that I work with were not pleased that I had chosen to not exhibit my patriotism. I was even called un-American for not actively partcipating in flag waving.
It’s this group think which scares me because the targets can be so arbitrary at times. There’s not much stopping people from switching their religious zealousness over keeping “under God” in the Pledge to discovering that God is shown as a kid with a baseball bat (Supergirl).
But then I’m preaching to the choir. 🙂
Thanks PAD!
As always, you said perfectly what I’ve been trying to express to people since Wednesday about this.
As a reluctant agnostic, I would have to agree that the words “in God We Trust” and “Under God” don’t affect my daily life at all. What does upset me though is when our politicians shoot down funding for genetic research such as stem cells and cloning because they don’t think we should be “playing God” or that they don’t think it’s our place to meddle in such matters and disrupt God’s plan for us. I understand the ethical matters in play with these issues but when the reasoning given by politicians as to why they are willing to allow men, women, and children to suffer and die are based on blanket religious statements rather than actual moral and ethical arguments that that can be debated without anyone trying to say “Because the Bible or God said so” or “because I think it has a soul”, it gives me a pretty clear idea that any actual separation of church and state is a illusory at best.
The reason I say I am a reluctant agnostic is because I would like to believe, as in many religions, that the soul exists and has the equivalent of super-powers. The soul is normally portrayed as having super-powers ranging from intangibility, invisiblity, telepathy, the ability to see the other dead, immortality of the soul, flight at the speed of thought and/or teleportation, omniscience, reincarnation, and either empathy or ectoplasmic pheromones (used to attract 100 virgins) depending on which religion you subscribe to. I mean as implausible as any or all of that sounds just written out like that, at least it would be preferable to the eternal void of nothingness I’m expecting. At least for a while. Eternity is a long time, even if you’re Space Ghost.
*Frank Baker writes: That is especially true when factoring in the knowledge that the “separation of church and state” is not in the constitution, but is an idea proposed by Thomas Jefferson in an unrelated letter. In this letter he was suggesting that the STATE remain away from the CHURCH not the misapplication of his ideas as seen today.*
Don
I’ve gotta agree with you on this one, PAD. The word “God” is deeply ingrained in our society, and I don’t think it’s going anywhere soon.
Also, I’ve gotta say that seeing all of the members of Congress reciting the Pledge of Allegiance together has to be one of the silliest things I’ve seen.
What they should do is, every morning when they arrive at their office(s), raise their right hand, and solemnly recite their oath of office. And throw in the Bill of Rights for good measure. Making sure to emphasize “so help me God”, of course.
I’m also wondering how many heated calls from DC the judge in San Francisco received before he had his change of heart.
Actually, you *don’t* have to swear “so help me Gd” in court or take an oath on a Bible when assuming office. The law clearly states in all these places that one must take an “oath OR affirmation” so American’s aren’t obligated to swear by religion.
Oh, and to answer another poster, kids aren’t REQUIRED to say the pledge every morning; the supreme court dealt with that before “under Gd” was added.
but it’s a little late in the game to start trying to expunge mentions of God from everyday life. It’s simply too ingrained.
That’s about the only part of Peter’s post that I have a problem with. I mean, I know what he’s trying to say. BUT…
How ingrained was slavery all those years ago?
How ingrained was apartheid in South Africa, and how ingrained is it still?
How ingrained is injustice?
How ingrained is fundamentalism in some people?
Should we not try to change what we feel is wrong in the world?
An ironic statement, I know, because that’s basically something that motivates those same people who support discrimination, apartheid, fundamentalism. But trying to change injustice does not, of course, mean force change upon others by any means you deem necessary. It should mean by any civilised means necessary. Which, I gather, taking someone to court is – no matter the reputation of lawyers.
As I said, I know – or at least am pretty sure – Peter didn’t mean that you shouldn’t fight what you perceive as inequity. I guess he meant it more as an uphill struggle kinda thing. But just because something’s difficult, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make the effort if you bellieve it to be worth it.
(Though in the context Peter provided, it does seem somewhat nonsensical. Then again, that’s obviously not what the guy in question thought.)
On to another big issue in this discussion: I believe that religion should have no place in politics or government, except as moral guideline. And even then, one has to be careful, because each conviction has its own morality, which isn’t necessarily superior or inferior. It’s a fine line to walk, taking into account every way of life, before deciding what is proper. And you’ll likely always end up favouring one opinion over another, but that, I believe is life: making compromises. Just make sure you use your head and not just your heart – or your dogma…
Live as best you can, without hurting others.
Here’s the problem, Guido. Slavery, apartheid, social injustice…these are things huge, slavering mounds of people are against. These are things that people in opposition to it can take the moral high road.
But to the vast, vast, vast majority of people in this country, the moral high road stems from God. And many people in this country still don’t really understand the First Amendment, feeling that it should be used to defend any speech that they themselves approve of, but speech they *don’t* like should be squelched. The latter fight is still fightable, because at least the courts stand behind it. But the former?
Guido, a few years ago I was sitting in a courtroom during my divorce proceedings, and I noticed the words “IN GOD WE TRUST” in raised letters on the wall behind the judge’s podium. And I asked my attorney, “How can those words appear in a court building when we’re supposed to have separation of church and state?” And my very wise and very savvy attorney stared at them and said, “I have absolutely no idea.”
I’m not saying one shouldn’t fight to try and fix inequities. But especially in these times where America is big time “God is on our side” tub thumping to generate higher morale for fights against terrorists, there is simply no way in the universe that God is going to be excised from American daily life. If for *no* other reason than that if you pull one thread, you have to pull them all. Ready to fight the fight for having “In God We Trust” removed from currency? To eliminate Christmas break as a Federal holiday? Man, I love a good hopeless fight as well as the next Quixotic idiot, and even *I* won’t take those odds. For crying out loud, the country was *founded* by people searching for religious freedom. God was inserted into the Declaration of Independence. I don’t mind a fight that may be lost, but a fight that’s lost centuries before it’s begun?
Ironically “under God” was added in 1954 and “In God We Trust” inserted in 1957. I’m reasonably sure they’re both holdover from the days when we were trying to show the Godless Commies just how holy this country is.
PAD
Hmmm… pretty disturbing. That a country founded on Christianity would look to God for guidance. I guess you were the dozen or so folks who weren’t praying for our nation on September 11th.
That’s all fine — but to compare God to Apartheid and slavery, as something that should be expelled from society? You’re a fool. As in, “the fool has said in his heart…”
But I *do* understand the First Ammendment — God bless it — and I understand that I’m in the vast, vast minority in this thread, so let the bashing begin!
Pro-God-guy,
Davey
You have a point, I wont deny that. Still, overlooking the myth that most people seem to have that this country was “founded on religous freedom” (Jamestown was the first settlement, and they were looking for gold, not God–truly the ancestors to our capitalist America ^_~), there’s another side to this issue alltogether that has nothing to do with religion. I’m surprised no one has brought up.
When I was in grade school, I HATED saying the pledge. I didn’t fully understand what I felt was wrong with it until I was much older, though. Yes, the “god” bit was part of it, but the main thing that irked me, I eventually realised, is that people are forcing children to make a pledge they don’t even understand! I said the words, but didn’t undertsnad what I was saying till I was in middle school and really LISTENED to the words one day. When I realised just what exactly the teachers were insisting upon–basicaly brainwashing children into blind patriotism– I refused to participate. Thankfully, I was lucky enough to have a morning teacher that let me sit quietly, although I consider having to LISTEN to it an act of cruelty in it’s own right.
It’s not that I hate America exactly–although, I’d like to point out that it’s not my fault I was born here instead of the UK, where I belong (as my coven sister says, “I look at the Boston Tea Party as an act of vandals who’s crimes have denied me my right to a British passport!”), nor is it my fault I’m a pagan born into a predominantly xtian nation– but rather that it should be up to each individual to choose, when they are old enough to understand, where their allegiances lie. They shouldn’t have religion or patriotism forced on them– instead, they should simply be taught the facts, so that when they are adults, they can decide for themselves without peer or family pressure, or having been brainwashed. It’s not TRUE patriotism then, so how can it ultimatley even be trusted? I personally see my allegiance to this planet and ALL its peoples, rather than to one country (the “one country” thing strikes me as fanatical as sports allegiances, and about as ridiculous–just my view, folks).
For those of you out there who are patriotic, that is your right, but it shouldn’t be forced on others, just as I’m sure you would agree that the beliefs of a group of fanatical muslims shouldn’t be projected upon a whole nation of arabs. Standing on the outside, the two sides really don’t look so different as people convince themsleves they are. Each side believs they have god-given right to do whatever they do, and who can dispute logic like that? That’s why divine patriotism is dangerous.
And yes, we have been doing it for years, but does that make it right? We had slavery for years, too–at the time that it ended, one could agrue that it was as much a part of this country’s founding as “God”. Why SHOULD we put up with it? If you think it’s too troublesome to change things, that’s your perogative, but why ridicule others for putting a stop to something that should have ended a long time ago? We are about to make new currency– why not get rid of “in God we trust” and put “In eachother we trust”?
Whew! Sorry, Peter, I have the utmost respect for you, I do– just thought I would offer a different perspective …
You have a point, I wont deny that. Still, overlooking the myth that most people seem to have that this country was “founded on religous freedom” (Jamestown was the first settlement, and they were looking for gold, not God–truly the ancestors to our capitalist America ^_~. And how about the Native Americans who were here first? Or the fact that the Puritans most definitley did NOT believe in religious freedom, but rather that THEY should be free to impose their belief on others and kill people who didn’t believe as they did?), there’s another side to this issue alltogether that has nothing to do with religion. I’m surprised no one has brought up.
When I was in grade school, I HATED saying the pledge (and regardles of laws protecting us, which 5 year olds would not even KNOW were there to protect them, we WERE forced to say it). I didn’t fully understand what I felt was wrong with it until I was much older, though. Yes, the “god” bit was part of it, but the main thing that irked me, I eventually realised, is that people are forcing children to make a pledge they don’t even understand! I said the words, but didn’t really understand what I was saying till I was in middle school and really LISTENED to the words one day. When I realised just what exactly the teachers were insisting upon–basicaly brainwashing children into blind patriotism– I refused to participate. Thankfully, I was lucky enough to have a morning teacher that let me sit quietly, although I consider having to LISTEN to it an act of cruelty in it’s own right.
You could say it’s just words, but some ofd us take our oaths ver serioulsy, and I realy done’t appreciate being FORCED to make one.
It’s not that I hate America exactly–although, I’d like to point out that it’s not my fault I was born here instead of the UK, where I belong (as my coven sister says, “I look at the Boston Tea Party as an act of vandals who’s crimes have denied me my right to a British passport!”), nor is it my fault I’m a pagan born into a predominantly xtian nation– but rather that it should be up to each individual to choose, when they are old enough to understand, where their allegiances lie. They shouldn’t have religion or patriotism forced on them– instead, they should simply be taught the facts, so that when they are adults, they can decide for themselves without peer or family pressure, or having been brainwashed. It’s not TRUE patriotism then, so how can it ultimatley even be trusted? I personally see my allegiance to this planet and ALL its peoples, rather than to one country (the “one country” thing strikes me as fanatical as sports allegiances, and about as ridiculous–just my view, folks).
For those of you out there who are patriotic, that is your right, but it shouldn’t be forced on others, just as I’m sure you would agree that the beliefs of a group of fanatical muslims shouldn’t be projected upon a whole nation of arabs. Standing on the outside, the two sides really don’t look so different as people convince themsleves they are. Each side believs they have god-given right to do whatever they do, and who can dispute logic like that? That’s why divine patriotism is dangerous.
And yes, we have been doing it for years, but does that make it right? We had slavery for years, too–at the time that it ended, one could agrue that it was as much a part of this country’s founding as “God”. Why SHOULD we put up with it? If you think it’s too troublesome to change things, that’s your perogative, but why ridicule others for putting a stop to something that should have ended a long time ago? Iit may seem small to you, but I garauntee you it’s no small matter to kids who are threatened by their peeps for not saying it. Wheb does it become a big enough concern to do something about it? When some gun-toting child decides, thanks to their parents, that anyone who wont pledge allegiance must be a terrorist and eliminate those who don’t wish to say it? What seems small often becomes large, all things have effects we don’t even realise. “A butterfly flapping it’s wings will cause a Hurrican on the other side of the world.” “One grain of rice can tip the scales.”
And on the taking God out of currency issue, we are about to make new currency– why not get rid of “in God we trust” and put “In eachother we trust”?
Whew! Sorry, Peter, I have the utmost respect for you, I do– just thought I would offer a different perspective …
How pleasant to find discussion of this topic that is both intelligent and polite. I’d like to toss in 3 points.
1. A slight correction. PAD writes “It’s a little late in the game to start trying to expunge mentions of God from everyday life.” I don’t think that’s what the person who brought this suit is trying to do. I think the attempt is to remove mentions of God from compulsory and semi-compulsory activities — something which I, as a Quaker, strongly agree with.
(Indeed, I’m surprised and disappointed that more religious people aren’t speaking out to support this court ruling. Why would any person who truly believed in God want people to be coerced to mouth words of belief?)
In 1962, when coerced prayer was struck down by the Supreme Court, some people tried to portray this ruling as “kicking God out of the school” even though it did no such thing. All it did was forbid organized, coerced prayer among captive audiences (such as school kids). People were still perfectly free to pray voluntarily. (Or as free as anyone is to speak during school hours. Just as atheists are not free to disrupt class with assertions there is no God, theists are not free to disrupt class with assertions there is one. But no one is being arrested for praying quietly to themself — which, after all, is what Jesus recommends to those who wish to pray sincerely. And during the times in the school day when people are allowed to talk freely, such as in the hallways between classes, people are as free to pray as to make any other vocal comment.) (Freer, actually; I can think of several expressions of unpopular political and religious opinion that would more likely get the speaker into trouble.)
Similarly with this new ruling on the pledge. It’s an attempt to striked down a coerced expression of belief in God at an inappropriate time, not to strike down all mentions of God in everyday life. If people want to pledge their allegiance to the flag, inserting the words “under God”, first thing in the morning when they get out of bed, last thing at night before they get into bed, right before they eat their meals, or any other time of their choosing, they are free to do so. (For that matter, if two people want to say it before getting into bed together, they are free to do so. Depending on their marital status, they are more likely to get into trouble for going to bed together than for mentioning God together.) If someone wants to come up to me and start reciting the pledge, they are free to do so (although if they do that too often I’ll probably start avoiding them as poor conversationalists.) They can even do it in a classroom or in a crowded movie theater as long as they do it quietly and unobtrusively; just as there is no right for moviegoers to inflict professions of their belief on other patrons who have come to hear the movie, there is no right to inflict such professions of belief on students who have come to school to learn.
2. A number of people have criticized people who object to the phrase “under God” in the pledge for making such a big fuss over something so trivial. I find this amusing (in a depressing pot-calling-the-kettle-black way).
Yes, this person brought a big-deal lawsuit to get the phrase removed; but the people who want to keep the phrase are making much more of a fuss, from calls to amend the constitution to death threats against those who oppose the phrase. If trying to remove the phrase is making a big fuss over a small matter, why isn’t this same criticism being levelled at those trying to restore the phrase after it was struck down? I have yet to see a letter to the editor saying, “Gee, I really liked having the phrase ‘under God’ in the pledge, and wish the court hadn’t struck it down, but the court did and there are so many more important matters in the world so lets just drop this and move on.”
3. People who think that inserting phrases such as “under God” into the pledge is in keeping with our country’s religious heritage may not realize that there are 2 separate religious traditions that underlie the founding of America.
In European countries, there was generally a state-sponsored religion, and those who didn’t conform to it were persecuted. One reaction to this (typified by the Puritans) was to come to this new land to set up a new system where they were in charge and could impose their beliefs and practices on those who chose to live in their colony. This is certainly an understandable reaction — “We were oppressed under the old system, and didn’t like it, so now it’s our turn to be in charge.” The early Massachusetts colony is a good example, where people were expected to conform to the majority religion, and those who didn’t were subject to expulsion and execution.
But there was another reaction by some of the refugees. “We were oppressed under the old system, and didn’t like it, so we’ll set up a new system where no one is oppressed that way.” The colony of Pennsylvania is a good example of this second tradition. The Quakers who set up Pennsylvania had their own strongly-held beliefs and practices, but they deliberately set up a system in which no one was to be coerced into subscribing to others’ beliefs; all were to be free to practice their own religion. It was this new and radical notion which caught the imagination and quickly spread to other colonies.
Those who today defend such things as organized school prayer and “under God” in the pledge as part of our American heritage, and who think this is a “Christian nation”, are drawing on that first tradition. But the one which inspired the rebels who broke free from Britain and created a new system of government was the second one.
We may not always succeed in living up to that ideal. In some cases it may take us 50 years (or longer!) to correct mistakes, such as the insertion of “under God” into the pledge (and putting “In God We Trust” on money) (and numerous other acts of Congressional posturing). But it still strikes me as an inspiring ideal, and one well worth striving for.
^_^’ sorry for double-posting– I got an error message the first time, and it didn’t show up right away. Gomen nasai!
I’m an agnostic patriot, but I don’t practice. I think I was the only one still laughing on September 12th. Not at the attack, mind you, as that really wasn’t very funny, but at the stuff I was laughing at on the 10th.
One thing that annoys me about the attack and issues like this in contrast to them is that people are still saying, almost a year after the attack, that the world is forever changed, except, oh, well I guess that crap’s still the same.
This is exactly the kind of issue that would have sprung up before 9-11. There was an atheist guy I kept hearing about who would sue the Boy Scouts every time one of his kids got old enough to join, and then was coerced to swear to … let’s see… “do my best to do my duty to god and country” or something like that. He sued once, and then again a few years later, and like that, never once willingly acknowledging that BSA is a privately owned organization and not subject to “Church and State” laws (It may not be in the Constitution, but there are laws about it now).
I see the point of suing over the pledge. I agree with it, even. Even should the sole purpose of it be to draw attention, and maybe even a media circus. The reaction is the thing that’s changed the most since 9-11, though. The other guy never recieved any death threats. He just got a few inches in “News of the Weird.”
But so what? Why is it even newsworthy that this is happening? It shouldn’t be considered some kind of controversy. After all, it’s just a guy pointing out something that the enforcers of the Constitution missed. He’s not asking that anything be done save for what the law calls for. Just like asking for organized prayer to be removed from schools is just something the law already calls for. It’s a black and white issue. The supreme court can either do what the guy asks, like the Constitution says, or they can enforce an unconstitutional law.
Admittedly, the timing of this could be better. A confusing war is going on in which the only things most people are certain of is that the bad guys are they way they are because of their religion, and any attack on patriotism is clearly the mark of an evil alQuaida terrorist plot.
As one of Mr. David’s contemporaries, Terry Goodkind, wrote, “People will believe anything they want to believe, and anything they are afraid is true.”
I have to say I actually disagree with PAD on this matter. In some places the pledge is still being forced on children. In fact there was a problem when the principle of one of the schools was asking teachers to take names down of the children who were refusing to participate. Having gone to a school where the pledge was forced on the students I know that it is not easy for a child to just refuse. They are ostrasized for doing so. There was one girl in my class who’s religion forbade her to take any pledge of allegience to anything but “Jehova”. Her parents told her not to say the pledge in school. Because of this she was treated badly by the teachers. She stood out. This sort of thing can be used against children. And yes, one can say maybe the parents shouldn’t put their kids in that position by telling them not to say the pledge BUT the kids shouldnt’ have to make the decision to refuse. The school should not be forcing it on them in the first place. Granted there were some places that passed legislation that said the pledge could not be forced on the students because it contained the words “under God”. The pledge of allegience was first created in 1892 without the “under God” part. It existed for over 50 years without it. When it was added it was during an era of paranioa and bigotry. The fact that it represents that era of intolerance is enough for me to dislike it.
Hmmm… pretty disturbing. That a country founded on Christianity would look to God for guidance. I guess you were the dozen or so folks who weren’t praying for our nation on September 11th.
Now see, this is exactly the kind of inflammatory confrontational stuff that results. Anyone who speaks out against non-secular ways is accused of being unpatriotic. The accusation of saying someone wasn’t praying for our nation is in the same line as saying that they didn’t care and are not patriotic. It also suggests that there are less aetheists/agnostics than there really are. It comes off as someone with a sense of superiority for being in the majority. It has a condescending tone as well as being inaccurate. They assume that there are only a small handful of dissenters. People with more information know that there is a much larger number of agnostics/aetheists than commonly believed. There are many ways to be patriotic and to extend your condolences and well-meaning thoughts towards people without prayer or expressing some belief in a deity.
As for the Boy Scout matter, it actually IS an issue of seperation of church and state because the Boy Scouts enjoy the benefits of a government charter. Because of their non-secular intolerance they actually do not meet the qualifications to receive said charter. So the Boy Scouts should either have their government charter revoked (thus losing all privileges associated with the charter) or they should stop being bigoted and allow members who do not want to pledge an oath to a deity in. Excluding kids because of religion is not cool. It’s particularly sad because the original founder of the Boy Scouts did not include religious clauses in the oath and his intent was to create an organization that ALL boys could participate in regardless of creed or religion. The girl scouts were smart and removed the non-secular oaths.
As to the “In God We Trust”, even that was a Johnny-come-lately. Quite frankly I think it should NOT be on our currency or inside a courtroom. I really feel that our justice system needs some reworking. For instance, we should not have to ask for secular affirmation when being sworn in. Having to ask for your affirmation to be different and not invoke an oath to some deity you do not believe in is not exactly easy. People view you as a troublemaker and may possibly hold it against you. Most of all, religion is a private thing. You should not have to expose your personal beliefs if you don’t want to to someone by having to ask to have secular affirmation. Even if you do not state your religion people may make assumptions about you (even if untrue) and then you can be discriminated against.
Some people may not think some simple words are worth the grief, but wars have started over less. And if you were in the minority and felt that someone else’s religion was forced on you, maybe it would have more meaning to you. Lack of belief in a deity is just as important as someone else’s belief in one. What if you’re an Xtian and they wanted you to say you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you Vishnu? Or Buddha? Would you want to just take the advice of the people from the majority religion who are forcing that phrase on others and just ignore it, even if it makes you feel that your oath cannot be true because of it? Our right to believe what we do is important to all. America is supposed to have freedom and justice for all. Not the majority. All.
I know I just said something, but two things I wanted to add.
Lis said: Actually, you *don’t* have to swear “so help me Gd” in court or take an oath on a Bible when assuming office. The law clearly states in all these places that one must take an “oath OR affirmation” so American’s aren’t obligated to swear by religion.
Not many people know that they can ask for secular affirmation when going to court. In fact, they are not always told that there will be a non-secular oath prior to their arrival in court. I found this out the hard way when I (ignorantly believing that there would not be a non-secular oath because I knew it was unconstitutional) went to jury duty and found myself in the courtroom having to recite a non-secular oath. It was very disturbing. Nowhere in my jury duty papers did it say there would be such an oath or that I had the right to opt for a secular affirmation.
I also forgot to mention a good source of information for matters concerning religious freedom can be found at http://www.ffrf.org
It quotes the First Amendment which says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”
The test of knowledge about the seperation of church and state is pretty interesting at the FFRF website.
I just have to say that it says alot for the quality of fan that Peter David attracts that a a discussion of an issue of this kind can be conducted with such civility.
As a Canadian and an agnostic I can say that I see no need for the refference to God and all that, but in the end it doesn’t affect me any.