A bit of a Conundrum

[Calax]

The Establishment clause of the Constitution of the united states says that the government will make no law promoting one religion over another, Or propmoting a sect over another.

 

then in 1954 the Lesgislative branch passed some legislation that added the words under god.

 

God is a word used to define a divinity, however the christians use it to define their god and ONLY their god. So by using "under god" in our pledge are we promoting one religion over another or not?

[Tale]

Yes. Not all religions even have a god.

[taks]

uh, sorry, but no. the actual clause is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." two problems with your statement... first, adding the words "under god" to an anthem hardly constitutes a law. nobody is required to say them, and the supreme court has upheld that fact. second, "an establishment" would be a church, or some other religious entity, which even this "legislation" does not offer any promotion of.

 

now, if they had put in legislation that said "you must worship god," then yes, it would have been a law and it would likewise be unconstitutional.

 

taks

[taks]

btw, the point of the establishment clause has been misconstrued by everyone that ever had an axe to grind with the concept of government and religion coexisting. the _intent_ of the clause, which was one of the key ideas in the founding of our nation, was that the US would never have a state religion such as the countries our founders came from. i.e., the intent of the establishment cause was to prevent the country from telling everyone that the official religion was catholic, or lutheran, etc.

 

taks

[Enoch]

Taks is correct in that there is nothing official about the Pledge of Allegiance. It cannot be compelled, and all oaths of office officially have no reference to religion (many people customarily add "so help me God" to the end, but that's not required). The "In God we Trust" on currency is more problematic. Personally, I think it does violate the Establishment Clause.

 

But the SCOTUS isn't going to take that issue on in any direct fashion. The Court (or at least the 'swing' Justices who decide these close cases) is very congnizant of the fact that it actually has no real enforcement power. If it issues a ruling that it knows will be derided and ignored by a large portion of the populace, it's legitimacy is threatened. Decades ago, it was willing to do this for the really important cases. Even then, though, Brown v. Board of Ed. outlawed segretated public schools in 1955, but very few schools actually integrated until Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And what people say when they salute the flag or what appears in tiny print on a dollar bill isn't quite as important in the daily lives of Americans.

 

One illustration of this that shocked me happenned in my Constitutional Law class: Teacher-led prayer in public schools was decided to be a violation of the Establishment Clause in 1963. My Con Law professor asked all the students who had gone to public schools to raise their hands. Then he asked all of those students who had never experienced teacher-led prayer in a public school to lower their hands. Only about half of the hands went down. I was shocked, but it drove home the point that, if the Court wants people to listen to it and respect it (it should and does), it has to hand down decisions that the bulk of America can live with.

[Enoch]

btw, the point of the establishment clause has been misconstrued by everyone that ever had an axe to grind with the concept of government and religion coexisting. the _intent_ of the clause, which was one of the key ideas in the founding of our nation, was that the US would never have a state religion such as the countries our founders came from. i.e., the intent of the establishment cause was to prevent the country from telling everyone that the official religion was catholic, or lutheran, etc.

 

taks

If you read the writings of James Madison, the primary author and proponent of the 1st Amendment, you get a very different impression. He was adamant that not even "thruppence" be spent from the public fisc on the promotion of religion of any kind.

[Sand]

Religion and state, you gotta keep them separated. Unfortunately, the Bush Adminstration just doesn't get that.

[Walsingham]

Religion and state, you gotta keep them separated. Unfortunately, the Bush Adminstration just doesn't get that.

 

To take Jesus' advocate for a moment, the man is Born Again, isn't he? That's all about taking Jesus in 100%.

[taks]

Religion and state, you gotta keep them separated. Unfortunately, the Bush Adminstration just doesn't get that.

the bush administration, nor any administration for that matter, does not have any impact on the religion/state separation issue. for that matter, bush has not passed any laws that promote any religion (nor can he since he doesn't write them), so your statement is without merit. additionally, the establishment clause is particularly directed at congress, not the president. i agree, however, that even the president should not make an attempt at favoring one religion over another.

 

taks

Edited March 20, 2007 by taks

[Omelette]

Religion and state, you gotta keep them separated. Unfortunately, the Bush Adminstration just doesn't get that.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong if our president decides to take five minutes for prayer each morning. He's never shoved religion down your throat nor has he passed a law that states you must be a Christian. I see nothing wrong with it if he wants to believe what he believes.

 

Congress is the one in control of passing anything if it were to happen. So, if a law is passed that makes one religion above the other, go blame Congress.

 

And the president is only exercising his own right to freedom of religion, so there's nothing wrong with that. He's a citizen, too.

[Sand]

Religion and state, you gotta keep them separated. Unfortunately, the Bush Adminstration just doesn't get that.

the bush administration, nor any administration for that matter, does not have any impact on the religion/state separation issue. for that matter, bush has not passed any laws that promote any religion (nor can he since he doesn't write them), so your statement is without merit. additionally, the establishment clause is particularly directed at congress, not the president. i agree, however, that even the president should not make an attempt at favoring one religion over another.

 

taks

 

Bush makes his decisions and policies on his religious beliefs and what he thinks is morally right, which comes from his religious beliefs. from his continual vetos on stem cell research to his views on gay marriage, they are come from his religious beliefs and not what is right for those who suffer from crippling diseases that may be cured through stem cell research and those who are getting sick of being disciminated against by right wing bigots.

 

Hell, just take a good look of what type of people hold high level authority in his cabinet and military. Pace is a fine example on that. A top general in the US Army basically telling the gay and lesbian soldiers who work hard in our military, putting their lives on the line for our country, that they are morally as wrong as adulterers because they are homosexuals. That is like saying to a black or asian person that they are morally wrong and a sinner because they were born black or asian. Bush may have not made any direct laws based on his religious beliefs but he has enforced policies, veto bills, and gave people who share his religious views top power.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Sand

[taks]

bush makes his decisions and policies on his religious beliefs and what he thinks is morally right, which comes from his religious beliefs.

wanting someone to NOT make their decisions based on their moral beliefs is a moronic assumption, even for you. by your deficient logic, you have placed a religious litmus test on any candidate for office since it is impossible to separate your moral beliefs from your decisions. that IS unconstitutional.

 

from his continual vetos on stem cell research to his views on gay marriage, they are come from his religious beliefs and not what is right for those who suffer from crippling diseases that may be cured through stem cell research and those who are getting sick of being disciminated against by right wing bigots.

big deal. nothing in the constitution says he cannot base his decisions on his religious teachings.

 

you're just mad that his beliefs aren't the same as yours.

 

taks

[Sand]

No, I am mad because he promotes discrimination and suffering by his actions and inactions.

[taks]

in your view, sure. that doesn't make him in violation of the constitution, however.

 

taks

[Sand]

Actually...

 

Amendment 14

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

That includes gays and lesbians born or naturalized in the United States. Do I see the word "equal" in there somewhere... i think I did.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

additionally, the establishment clause is particularly directed at congress, not the president.

Congress makes law, not the president.

 

And Sand, side stepping the whole separation issue here, please point out where Bush has brought religion into the government or vice versa?

 

Calax, when you throw out the Establishment clause, please do not for get to include the second part of it. If you have forgotten it, it reads: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

A man named Michael Newdow was so incensed that his daughter had to hear the phrase "under God" in school every morning he actually sued to have it removed. The Supreme Court side stepped the issue and Congress passed the Pledge Protection Act last year making the phrase legal and suit proof. But he is still pursuing it. It seems to many atheists it is not enough to simply be atheist. They cannot stand the fact that there might be religious people somewhere in the world going on about their lives.

[Sand]

He makes his decisions based on his religious "moral" values which effects the lives of millions, including those who do not share his religious views. When one makes policy it needs to be unbiased. Just because he hates gays and thinks them immoral does not mean he should use his power to set up laws that promotes discrimination and veto bills designed to fight it.

 

I have no problem people being religious as long as they keep their religious beliefs too themselves. Unless it is in an academic sense in studying religion God has no place in a public state run school. Advocating policies that discriminates a group of people because the Bible says they are morally wrong also has no place in our government or military. And this whole moral argument coming from Bush and his cronies is just a load of bull. They think that it is morally wrong to allow a group of people to show commitment to each other and share intimacy but it is just dandy to lie and falsify documents to justify a war that has gotten thousands killed.

 

What the hell is wrong with that picture?

Edited March 21, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

He makes his decisions based on his religious "moral" values which effects the lives of millions, including those who do not share his religious views. When one makes policy it needs to be unbiased.

 

GWB is a human and the decisions he makes are colored by his character, education, life experience, and yes religion. If you were in office you would do the same. It is impossible for anyone (you too my friend) to seperate the influence of you are on what you do. Everyone knew who this man was and most people voted for him despite of or because of that.

Just because he hates gays and thinks them immoral does not mean he should use his power to set up laws and veto bills that promotes discrimination.

Pure conjecture. You do not and can not know that. And you would be pretty hard pressed to convince me homosexuals are really being "discriminated" against in the same way minorities were . But that is a topic for another thread.

 

Advocating policies that discriminates a group of people because the Bible says they are morally wrong also has no place in our government or military.

 

The military is not a petri dish for social experimintation. Clinton tried to make it one and I hated him for it. The military is not like society at large. It must be run in such a way that is best enables it to do it's job. Right or wrong, homosexuality is just not widely accepted in the US. You know me, I think everyone should be left to do as they please and not be bothered for it but in the military that is out the window. Open homosexuality is bad for morale. I realize that says nothing good about us as a people, but it is true. You were in the military, you know I'm right.

[Sand]

I don't see how it would be bad for morale. As long as every does their work and gets the job done to the best of their ability why does it matter if the soldier is homosexual or not? It wouldn't bother me one bit. When on duty you do the job.

[Guard Dog]

I don't see how it would be bad for morale. As long as every does their work and gets the job done to the best of their ability why does it matter if the soldier is homosexual or not? It wouldn't bother me one bit. When on duty you do the job.

I don't know how it was in the Navy, but in the Marine Corps, you are never off duty really. In a rifle platoon, the men in your unit are right there with you when you wake up, you work with them all day, they are right there when you go to sleep. Military protocol is observed 24-7 when you are around them. Everyone conforms to a certain norm or the machine breaks down. Homosexuality is outside of the norm right now. That is changing however and it is becoming more widely accepted. Fifteen years from now it may be totally normal and people will wonder why there was ever a problem with it to begin with. But if history has taught us anything, change MUST be gradual. If you try to force it, society will force back. And as I said, the military is NOT the proper forum for social experimentation.

 

Respond if you wish but we are wandering OT here.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Sand]

True enough, so...

 

Separation of church and state, eh? Sounds like a good idea.

 

EDIT: When we were ashore we had rotating duty rosters and those not up for duty that day were off by 5 or 6 pm, unless a department was behind on a project, and didn't have to report in til 8 am the next day. When we were out to see we were always considered on duty.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Sand

[Enoch]

Sand, I'm about as adamant a defender of the separation of church and state you'll find, but even I think it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that elected officials can't take their religious sensibilities into account when making decisions related to their job. The Establishment Clause governs actions by the government, not intentions by its officers.

 

 

And GD, your point on using the military as a "petri dish for social experimentation" is exactly the point that was being made in certain circles 60 years ago, with the word "integration" inserted in the place of "homosexuality." History proved those people wrong, and I'd be willing to bet it'll prove you wrong, too.

[Sand]

The intentions of officials may produce laws and policies that might encroach the separation which needs to be maintained. Making policies and laws that discriminates a section of the population because the official bases his or her morality on the Bible is not maintaining separation. Not only do the laws themselves need to be monitor but also the motivations and intentions of our lawmakers. Why are they making this law or support this or that policy? Is it because of some morality that originates from some dogmatic belief and intangible faith or is it becuase they took the time to study the situation and made a decision that not only benefits his constituents as a whole but also supports the greater good of fairness and equality that needs to be shared by all.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

The intentions of officials may produce laws and policies that might encroach the separation which needs to be maintained. Making policies and laws that discriminates a section of the population because the official bases his or her morality on the Bible is not maintaining separation.

 

That is just not a Constitutional issue then. It is an electoral issue. Don't vote for people who don't adhere to your religion. And try to persuade as many people as you can to see it your way. That is the American way.

 

Not only do the laws themselves need to be monitor but also the motivations and intentions of our lawmakers.

 

That sounds a little like "thought police". I don't think you really want that. Ever read 1984?

[Sand]

Yes, I read 1984. Fun little book.

 

I am just saying that when a person is in a position of authority that effects millions of people, his or her own morality needs to take a back seat to and do what is right for the good of all people that you are governing over. Not everyone is a Christian. Not everyone is Jewish, or Islamic, or Buddhist either. Not everyone is Protestant or Catholic, or even Atheist. It is the duty of Congress, the President and his or her Adminstration, and the Judicial Branch to make and enforce laws and policies that need to fair and equal for all people that are governed, regardless if they are the minority or the majority.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Sand