Posted on 06/26/2002 11:25:21 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
UNBELIEVABLE. BREAKING ON FOX: SF APPEALS COURT SAYS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ENDORSES RELIGION, AND IS THEREBY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The basic tenet of the foundation of the US was for religious freedom, whether you are Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Muslim, whoever, this nation was set up for people to worship how they want.It's claimed by many that atheism is a religion, and therefore deserves no more consideration than other faiths in the legal arena. I would agree with that assessment. A public school may not have an Athiests Club if it disallows other religious groups, and vice versa.
You can't have it both ways though. If atheism is a religion, then belief in God is also a "religion", and the words "One Nation Under God" are a religious affirmation.
-Eric
That is incorrect - contrary to popular belief, the pledge is not a pledge to God. The phrase "under God" is a phrase that describes the nation.Describing the nation as being subordinate to God is very much a religious assertion. If one is pledging allegiance to the Nation, and the Nation is subordinate to God, then.....
-Eric
Religious affirmations are not unconstitutional, not even when made by Congress (who are only prohibited from making laws establishing religion, or laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof. They're also the only body prohibited from doing so by the BOR.). An affirmation is not an establishment.
If you could be so kind as to define what constitutes a "formal setting",
The official use of oaths, pledges and national symbols by the public. For one example, we obviously cant display Canada's flag in an official or "formal" setting as representing our national symbol in either a school or political setting. I can pledge allegiance to the magic pop can if I want to, but it doesnt make it the official pledge of this country.
Take the God words out, put them back in, I dont care, doesnt bother me. But this is one less national symbol we have
I simply tend to see this as part of a broader picture attempting to broach American narrative, and by extension weaken our soverignty. This may help you understand where Im coming from a little bit better. In it, John O'sullivan outlined 6 points used to weaken a nations principles of soverignty. One of them was the de-constructing and re-constructing the self- understanding of America.
Out of interest for the country I tend to feel this is not a good thing to have happening when looking at the larger picture. It adds nothing positive and instead takes away weakening us as a nation.
Care to say exactly why, Doctor, or do you just want to throw bricks back and forth?
The Nativity may no longer be displayed on "public" property. Such behavior is not worthy of the American people. "Someone might be offended" and we are not offensive people.
The American flag is no longer allowed to be displayed in many public schools and colleges. Desplaying such a "divisive" icon is not worthy of these institutions, who are mostly American people. "Someone might be offended."
In fact, in the weeks following 9-11, many "objective journalists" refused to wear the small red, white and blue pins the rest of us in America wore...because such a display is unworthy of "objective" American journalists....and "someone might be offended".....
The portraits of the founding fathers of our country are no longer displayed in many public buildings, because it's been over two centuries since they founded this country, and they did mean things, like some of them owned slaves. America is above that stuff now, and these "old dead guys" may "offend" someone. The list can go on and on.
"Offend"..."Oddended"...."Offensive" ...the most overused words of the past decade, and the new Third Way/Third Reich keyward signifying the distruction of this country by the enemies of freedom...finally, after all these years, it looks like they are succeeding.
"...awards and posters, but also displays in an eloquent way every manner of national Kitsch. One an hardly believe what money-hungry fantasies have brought to the market. Thank God, such "citizens" are called too account by the watchful eye of National Socialist [THIRD WAY] propagandists. The display provides an educational display of what decorations and goods are worthy of the German [AMERICAN] people, and which are not."
Source: 14 Days in a Gau Propaganda Office --August Sill
Everything.
This has also already been covered btw, scroll up.
Baldly- are we citizens of our state or 14th Amendment citizens?
How can "context" make that statement into anything other than what it is?
Read the quote. "Character of emnity" is the main point, and a more clear (to modern ears) description of the relevant part of "founded on Christian Religion" as would be seen by the Sultans and Beys. The context at issue is the relationship betweeen the European nations and the Muslim nations. Much of the correspondence of the time refers basically to a continuation of the Crusades from the Muslim nations point of view - this continuation being the basis for the tributes most European nations paid to be excepted from the piracy (Under which the colonies had been part of Britain's protection until Britain recognized the Colonies independence)..
The more full quote: “Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”
By the way, good job getting the signer right. Most erroneously attribute it to George Washington, since the treaty was made during his second term - forgetting that it didn't arrive to be ratified until after Washington left office.
Some semi-relevant commentary: “Note Regarding the Barlow Translation. The translation is that of Barlow as written in the original treaty book, including not only the twelve articles of the treaty proper, but also the receipt” (p. 383).
“It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate . . . and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.
“The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic . . . . Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,’ does not exist at all [in the Arabic]. There is no Article 11 [in the Arabic]. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.
Absolutely they wouldn't. Part of the debate was whether a National Church would supplant such enteties as Maryland's State Church.
Even this is a gross overstatement. The emphasis was in not allowing a church to enforce sectarian edicts. Even those who were Deists would not and did not take the stand that Christianity had no place in government.
Maybe not, but a Christian did:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
That is hardly a renunciation of any role in government. It is a renunciation of types of Establishment of a government church - which at least at the Federal level - is not what is being debated.
Yet the religious Seven Noahide Laws are *it seems* 'worthy', and have been recognised as "the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded" AND "these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization" --- by the Federal government and the Bush administration.
Ever heard of these laws? Can you EVEN find them in the Bible? (If they cannot be found in the Bible, then how is that fact consistant with the 'Judeo-Christian' ethic our country was founded on??) Is a resolution of Congress recognising them a violation of Amendment 1 when the Very First of these laws prohibits idolatry?? And others prohibit 'adultry' or 'improper relations'?
Might be from the "Judaeo" part....though the Rebbe seems ultra-Orthadox to the point of serious religious extremism. While my grandfather was Jewish, he eventually converted to Catholicism. Personally, I'm a generic Christian. In other words, I don't even know who the Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.