|
Post by RowanMoonWynd on Mar 24, 2004 17:39:59 GMT -5
www.thewgalchannel.com/education/2945243/detail.htmlWASHINGTON -- Years of legal wrangling boil down to minutes in a courtroom Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court hears a case involving recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms. Newdow, who brought the case to the court system on behalf of his daughter, who attended an Elk Grove school, told the court Wednesday that the government should stay out of religion. He said the disputed words amount to "indoctrinating children." While schoolchildren don't have to recite the pledge, Newdow said classroom recitations still put pressure on children such as his 9-year-old daughter. But some justices said they're not sure if the words are aimed at expressing religion -- or simply uniting the country. Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted that Congress unanimously added the words "under God" to the pledge in 1954. The pledge was written in 1892. Newdow replied, "That's only because no atheists can be elected to office." Some in the audience started clapping, and the chief justice threatened to kick them out. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Newdow, ordering students in Western states within its jurisdiction to abstain from saying "Under God" in the pledge. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, and attorneys on both sides have been preparing for months. "It's not about people who believe in God versus people who don't believe in God. It's people who believe the Constitution had a brilliant idea to keep government and religion separate," Newdow said. Sacramento attorney Terry Cassidy has prepared to represent the school district's position that the pledge is about patriotism, not religion. "We feel that the pledge, the way it's currently worded, is an appropriate reflection of the political philosophy of the government," Cassidy said. Attorney Steven Aden of the Christian Legal Society said removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance would deny the source of American liberties. But Newdow said it's bizarre to argue that his right to be an atheist comes from God. And, he said,the pledge tells schoolchildren that their government believes there's a God. Aden responded that "the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was enacted to protect citizens from the imposition of a state religion, not to enforce a functional state atheism." Each Side Gets 30 Minutes Before Court Each side gets 30 minutes before the court. And during that time, the justices will interrupt and ask questions. "A lot of it is trying to anticipate what they'll ask and how you should respond," Cassidy said. "I've been working on it. I should be able to do a good job, hopefully, a great job," Newdow said. Susan Bloch, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, said the Pledge of Allegiance is a hot-button issue. "The justices are very well prepared even for the most boring cases. They will be especially prepared for this one," Bloch said. The superintendent of the school system near Sacramento said it's not a popularity contest. He called it a "common sense issue." Custody Dispute May Lead To Dismissal Of Challenge Wednesay's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance might never have reached the U.S. Supreme Court except for a collision of faith between two parents. The girl's mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian locked in a bitter custody dispute with Newdow, whom she never married. Backed by former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, she has told the justices that her daughter has no objection to reciting "under God" in school each day. Should the justices wish to sidestep the church-state issues, the parents' custody quarrel offers them an easy out. They may just decide that Newdow, because he did not have custody at the time, could not sue without the mother's consent, and dismiss the case outright. I saw this on the news last night and just couldn't believe it. Myself, not being Christian, have no offense to the words "Under God" being in the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Mar 24, 2004 18:44:49 GMT -5
The words "under god" do not offend me (but I guess I don't really count since I am a Christian), but I suppose I could see why an athiest parent wouldn't want their child to recite it every day. It does suggest a relationship between religion and the government (but so do a lot of other historic government documents), which is prohibited by the constitution. I would have no problem with them taking it out. But I won't fight for it, either.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Mar 24, 2004 19:04:41 GMT -5
I think that its an integral part of the American government because America is founded on Abrahamic law and created by Christians. Just a simple look at its codified law brings this into perspective. Not to mention looking at the trend towards elected officials (virtually all Christian). America just needs to admit it once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Mar 24, 2004 19:36:22 GMT -5
Just because it's been that way for a long time doesn't mean it's right. I don't think America should admit it's Christian. At least, not unless immediately afterwards come laws and/or amendments to rectify it. Church and state should be separate.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Mar 24, 2004 19:46:17 GMT -5
There are WAY too many of them to change that. Our entire legal system is based on Abrahamic law.
Ex. "Thou shalt not kill". Ring a bell? Prior to European conquest, non-Christian nations never had a law against murder. If you were in pre-British India, if you were a warrior/noble, you could kill any peasant if they so much as disrespected you. In feudal Japan, samurai were allowed to kill any person on their land (or owned by them) at whim. The same thing goes for China, Korea, and even some of the Native American tribes.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Mar 24, 2004 21:05:51 GMT -5
Once again, just because it's been around doesn't make it right. I don't think anyone would agree with you if you wanted to eliminate the law prohibiting murder. We don't need to change every law that's based on one of the ten commandments. If one of those laws is unfair or wrong then there are ways to remedy that (case in point is the argument going on now in several states about gay marriage). However, phrases like "under god" ("so help me god", "endowed by their creator", "In god we trust", etc) imply an obvious connection between religion and the state. A law against murder doesn't obviously link back to religion (morality maybe, religion no). They do not enforce a certain religion (in fact, most of the founding fathers were decidedly NOT Christian, they were Deists), but they do suggest that "god" (however you choose to define it/him/her) does exist. So while it doesn't establish a national religion, it does eliminate religions (or the lack thereof) that deny the existence of god. As I said earlier, the mention of god or a creator does not offend me in the slightest, but I can understand why people want it out. And I say, go for it. Some links about the religion in the US: The Founding Fathers on ReligionWikipedia: United States religious history
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Mar 24, 2004 23:40:57 GMT -5
Despite their religious affiliation, the Founding Fathers were raised in a decidedly Christian manner (and even if not, they were raised in Christian-based countries).
Morals are directly related to religion. Would you consider it moral for a widow to burn herself to death so that she could follow her husband to the afterlife? A 16th century Indian would. Would you consider it moral for a lord to be able to crucify and kill members of his township at will? A 16th century Japanese would. (Note: I'm only using old examples to show times prior to European influence and conquest. A 16th century European would most likely share whatever your opinion would be.)
As such, I think that instead of trying to remove divine decree from their laws (which is nigh impossible), America should merely admit that their laws are influenced by Abrahamic scripture and as such have an inherent religious basis and connotation.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Mar 25, 2004 8:22:32 GMT -5
Now there's a revisionist bit of history. I must have missed where all those Viking courts tried murder. As did Pagan Rome, Greece, and many, many other countries. Trying to say that morality comes from the Christian church is rediculous. A 16th Century Christian may not have burned herself for being a widow, but would have no problems tying another woman to a piece of wood and lighting the match. All in the name of Christian morals. Gimme a break.
For example, a quick glance comes up with this, a list of laws for the common people in Edo period Japan:
Take special note of Number 3. Don't hurt anybody. I think that would include murder.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Mar 25, 2004 9:03:38 GMT -5
EK, the fact that many of our laws were influenced by Christianity is a moot point. We've lived with them for so long and we consider them just. They are not unique to Christianity as Hussar pointed out. Nor are they unique to religion in general. Were this country to have been founded on atheism I believe that similar laws would have been passed. There may have been some differences, but not in the "important" laws (i.e. murder). Yes morality is influenced by religion, but it is not determined by religion. Christianity is guilty of its own moral sins (the burning of witches, is one example). The act of throwing a bound woman into a lake to see if she floats (at which point she would be declared a witch) was encouraged by the church but is by no means considered moral in America today. Morality changes. Laws change to reflect that. I like to think that morality is changing for the better (leading to one "true" morality, if such a thing even exists), and the bad morals (witch burning) get left behind while the good morals (thou shalt not kill) are kept. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter where our laws came from, be it god way way far down the line or an atheist.
America was founded on the idea of separation of religion and state. The reason most people came to the New World (those who came voluntarily, that is) was to escape religious persecution. Even if all our laws were taken word-for-word from the Bible/Torah, we are now separate from religion. We have the freedom to change our laws to digress from the Bible. We don't have to, and I don't think we need to in most cases. It's that freedom that matters. And this dad thinks his child's freedom is being stifled by making her recite an allegience to her country that proclaims it "under god." Maybe it was under god at one point, but it's not anymore. People can worship god (pick a god, any god, I won't look) all they want, but the government shouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Mar 25, 2004 12:11:47 GMT -5
Hussar - laws like that were posted for the benefit of the non-samurai classes purely for the reason that the local daimyo needs living workers in order to generate revenue. There are many instances in the Hagakure where a samurai would go around killing peasants or even lesser samurai indiscriminately and would get nothing more than a mild punishment. This is not even to mention swordsmen like Miyamoto Musashi who killed well over 60 people in his lifetime (some of them government officials), and was never prosecuted, but was instead made daimyo of his hometown (and backed by the Hideyoshi shogunate). Why? Because he was samurai, and there are more important things than life.
Also, who's to say that murder is wrong? "Thou shalt not kill" exists, and was obeyed by Abrahamic nations, but for the underlying reason that you should treat others as you would like to be treated (Golden Rule). However, take a look at Musashi (see above) and you can see that the rationale is not cross-cultural. There's no mention at all in Buddhism/Hinduism that looks down upon killing (just look at the violent histories of the parent nations for examples) - its only the mindset of uncontrolled anger that was looked down upon.
Who's to say that all men are created equal? A Christian would argue that God created all people equal, but a Hindu would say that people are born better or worse according to their karma.
As for the burning of witches, it was neither amoral nor unjust. Considering that it was backed by the local church, and that the consensus agreed upon its implementation, there can be no one who has the right to judge that it was wrong (otherwise, what's the point of majority rule?).
Merkuri, I agree with you that the government should separate itself as much as it can from religion. However, consider that while the Puritans went to America to escape religious persecution, they still managed to give America's indigenous people hell until they converted to Christianity. This continued well into 20th century (even now, non-Christians are stereotyped and suffer an unconscious bias) and is prevalent in all aspects of life. America is still one of the most Christian-slanted countries in the world (Newsweek had an article on it about a year and a half ago). Perhaps establishing a state religion is a bit excessive, but America should at least take responsibility for itself.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Mar 25, 2004 12:41:39 GMT -5
Maybe I just don't understand what's the point of having America admit that it is a Christian-based nation. Yes, the majority of American's are Christian. Yes, we have a Judeo-Chrisitan morality/law system. So? All "admiting it" (as you put it) would do is alienate the non-Christians in our country (and there are quite a few nowadays). The only point in "admiting" our bias would be so that we could begin going about removing it. There are already movements trying to eliminate the last strands of our laws that directly link us to religion, such as the removal of "under god" from the pledge, and the debates about gay marriage. Our current president seems to want to move in the other direction, but that's just Bush and his party playing to the religious right. To stand up and say, "America is Christian" is treading mud (lots and lots of mud) one of the key tenents of our constitution. Such a declaration has no point unless it's followed by "and we aim to change that!"
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Mar 25, 2004 13:03:06 GMT -5
I concede. However, I don't think that the path towards that end is as easy as it looks (not from the point of view of appeasing the religious right, but in that secular laws are pretty hard to come by).
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Mar 25, 2004 13:31:42 GMT -5
It may not be easy, but it's a worthwhile cause.
We don't have to completely eliminate the influence of religion, just make sure that it's fair. Religion is a major part of many people's lives (including our senators, representatives, and even the president), and to deny that is just fooling ourselves. We have to be sure that all religions are represented fairly. Determining what is "fair" is the hard part. It's okay that many of our laws will stem from Christian morality because the majority of our country is Christian (not being prejudiced, it's just a fact). We just have to make sure the minority is represented. We can't decree that all women have to wear headscarves because Muslim morality says that the public display of hair is lewd, because that would step on the rights of most of the women in this country. We can, however, decree that it's legal to wear such headscarves in public, because that doesn't hurt anybody's rights. And we can't be afraid of going against the Bible. Once again, I'm gonna bring up the issue of gay marriage because it's been such a widely reported debate lately and it's a good example. Marriage is one of those things that you can point at the Bible/Torah and say that we got our laws pertaining to it from here. The folks who don't believe in the Bible (or who just don't believe that part) want to be able to enter into a legal union. Because we don't want to offend the Christian majority states have begun debating amendments to their constitutions (the strongest "law" they can make) to prohibit gay marriage. In my mind, this is just wrong, because it is predjudicial towards atheists and others who disregard that part of the Bible. This is where we really need separation of church and state to speak up and say "whoa! what's this for?"
Yes, it's hard. But it needs to be done.
|
|
|
Post by RowanMoonWynd on Mar 25, 2004 14:24:05 GMT -5
You pose a good argument Merkuri. I didn't have anything against it, but I can see from your point of view how separation from church and state is a must, and yes, something does need to be done about it.
As far as gay marriages go, who says it's wrong? The bible? Well if the bible says it's wrong, just another reason why church and state need to be separate, and everyone given equal rights. I think if we take religion out of government altogether, then people will have fair rights, and I do believe more people will be treated equally.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Mar 25, 2004 16:26:54 GMT -5
I've got no problem with the words under god in the pledge. Or the In God We Trust on money or any of that sort of thing, but I've got no problem with it being removed.
If I take exception to the pledge it would be that and to the republic bit. I have no great loyalty towards the government in its current form, and think we should indoctrinate our children to look for the newest and best form of government rather than loyalty to the current one. Currently the pledge of allegiance implies that it is wrong to be anarchist, communist, socialist, monarchist, or supporter of Athenian style true democracy.
It is hypocritical for a government founded on rebellion and treason to go overboard in preserving its own stability.
|
|