Well, Bill, when you cite The Nation on us, it's like pulling out a Colt at a knife fight. I guess we'd better throw in the towel now and slink away with what little dignity we still have intact.

In fact, I guess we ought to thank you for not citing RWSparkle on us and REALLY handing us our hats!

Gosh, Bill, you sure are filling the old cyberspace with gasoline fumes these days. :-)

While I think a minority of us can stay moral without God, I also think most of us would be "more moral" if engaged in a constant questioning, a measuring, of whether our conduct satisfies God. It's kind of like a rudder.

To my mind, ASV's philosophy -- "I answer to me. I am my own higher power." too often turns into "What's good is what's good for me." (PLEASE NOTE -- I DID NOT SAY ASV IS "IMMORAL!" HECK, ASV MAY BE THE MOST MORAL PERSON IN CYBERSPACE. I DON'T KNOW ASV.)

If you look at the philosophies that killed the most people in the 20th century, it seems to me they are joined by a lack of concern for what a God might think. [Godless] Communism did its ravages in the Ukraine (1930's), China (Great Leap Forward), Cambodia (the Killing Fields), etc. because man became the ultimate arbiter of what was "moral."

I think Jefferson himself might be a cautionary tale, as much as I admire and defend his contribution to individual freedom. I DO NOT believe it's been PROVEN that TJ is the father of Sally Hemings' children, but I think Alexander Hamilton was on to something when he called TF "a secret voluptuary." IMHO, TJ believed he was so smart he could place himself above common morality, and could make his own rules. I believe up there on his mountaintop he became his own higher power. So he kept the slaves and enjoyed a great lifestyle, including the favors of Sally, who of course, looked like Beyonce.

I feel burned already.

spongeworthy -

Heh. I wasn't busting it out to "win a fight," I pulled it because it's interesting.

The publication is less important than the historical quotes that are cited. Personally, I think that the article is overwrought and flawed in places, never really making the specific argument that it intends to make.

But in other places, it makes a few very good arguments, as well as gathers interesting quotes and factoids, many of which, I did not know.

Hmmm, well spongeworthy, so you dislike The Nation. Certainly I also dislike its longstanding dedication to America always being wrong. However, on domestic matters it frequently carries insightful pieces, like the one Bill quotes from.

What say you about the substance of the piece, as opposed to dissing the source?

While I think a minority of us can stay moral without God, I also think most of us would be "more moral" if engaged in a constant questioning, a measuring, of whether our conduct satisfies God. It's kind of like a rudder.

Yes, but why does the question have to be "does my conduct serve a deity," as opposed to "does my conduct satisfy a concept," like "altruism?"

Because he can smite us?

Salt Lick, historically millions have been tortured and executed in religious wars. At the moment, the West is engaged in a war with crazed, devout religious fanatics. Indeed, Daniel Pipes, is sounding a note of caution regarding the good news coming out of the Middle East:

one main danger threatens to undo the good news: that a too-quick removal of tyranny unleashes Islamist ideologues and opens their way to power. Sadly, Islamists uniquely have what it takes to win elections: the talent to develop a compelling ideology, the energy to found parties, the devotion to win supporters, the money to spend on electoral campaigns, the honesty to appeal to voters, and the will to intimidate rivals.

His whole article here: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2447

Besides, even if it were the case that religion(s) has a necessary civilizing influence, that a belief system is useful does not thereby render it true.

I'm only goofing on Bill, Mona. I am the last guy to seriously bust on the source rather than the substance.

Unless the source is like Michael Moore. Then I really don't have time to search for the substance.

The only thing I have to say about the piece is that it has the same flaw you see in a lot of these things. It spends a lot of time proving the Founders weren't Christians. It spends a lot of space talking about how the country wasn't to be a Federal theocracy. It short-shrifts the fact that many states did indeed have a state religion.

Ultimately, it selects what data confirm it's agenda and denigrates what doesn't. Fine for an opinion piece, but hardly definitive.

And Bill's still a big bully for pulling out the Ultimate Source--The Nation. Spare us, Tiger!

heh.

You nailed the main flaw in the argument - it assumes that because they weren't particularly religious, then they naturally endorsed the complete separation of religion from government.

I still think that the Constitution's intent is pretty specific and advocates Jeffersons's really, really super-duper high "wall of separation," but I can see this logical flaw in the piece.

spongeworthy writes: The only thing I have to say about the piece is that it has the same flaw you see in a lot of these things. It spends a lot of time proving the Founders weren't Christians. It spends a lot of space talking about how the country wasn't to be a Federal theocracy. It short-shrifts the fact that many states did indeed have a state religion.

I don't know how the fact that many states had established religions -- which none now do -- undermines the fact that many Founders were Deists, and not believing Xians, even if they went to church for show. The fact is that the most free nation in human history was midwifed by a good many men who lacked belief in a personal, intervening deity.

Now, it is likely true that the social glue religion provides can be beneficial, and perhaps even necessary, to a nation's stability and prosperity. I remain, as it were, agnostic on that question.

I used to subscribe to the Nation. They have some good writers, & some good muckraking. But like Hitchens, I eventually figured the ratio of moonbattery to gold wasn't worth the time.

Jefferson, like many of the FFs, wasn't a Christian but a Deist. But "I am my own HP" sounds like psychopop doggeral

Mona says:
"The fact is that the most free nation in human history was midwifed by a good many men who lacked belief in a personal, intervening deity."

...but they all believed in a deity nonetheless.

In light of that, why can't Intelligent Design Theory be taught alongside Evolution?

Still misses the point for me.

People will not fight without a cause nor willingly risk their lives without belief in a higher calling. Since freedom requires eternal vigilance, it would not long survive without such people.

I personally don't support Judeo-Christianity because I believe it's true (who knows?) but because it seems to work.

One more thing ...

If you understand my point, does it not seem that my POV is closer to Jefferson's than anything else on this website?

"In light of that, why can't Intelligent Design Theory be taught alongside Evolution?"

*deep breath*

Because. It. Isn't. Science.

It is not a scientific theory. It does not adhere to the rules of scientific inquiry. If it is going to be taught it belongs in a class on theology or metaphysics or philosophy. To the ancients, all those disciplines melted into each other, but since the scientific method was developed, science became something else. So teach science in science class, and metaphysical or ontological speculation somewhere else.

The Nation article is a fine example of picking out points that fit your view (not that there is anything wrong with that). They pretty much lost me after they chose one quote from Madison that is, in my view, rather misleading as to his point of view.

Madison is considered "The Father of the Constitution", and he had a hand in drafting the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that Jefferson was so proud to claim. I'd say Madison's views on "separation" and his religious outlook would be relevant.

His arguments were (over-simplified) that when a state tries to impose a religion on it's populace, bad things happen. Not because of religion, but because of man's desire for power. A pretty easy position to come to given world history at the time (Catholic Church, Inquisition, Pilgrims, Religious Freedom, etc...) However, he was adamant that the foundations of this (our) government were based on religious principles. Godless Constitution, my ass.

Perhaps "God" wasn't mentioned in the Federalist Papers because, you know, it's not necessary to mention the obvious. So some of the FF's were Deists; Many of them were Masons, and that carries a few beliefs as well... Involving morality and Supreme Beings and organized religion.

People will not fight without a cause nor willingly risk their lives without belief in a higher calling.

Sure, but that higher calling doesn't need to be God. Could be family or country.

Do you think that soldiers die for God? They die for their friends.

Yehudit says:
"*deep breath*"

Please explain to me what you mean by this.

I was asking an honest question to stimulate debate.

"It is not a scientific theory."

I'm speaking to Intelligent Design Theory, not Judeo-Christian Creationism.

What's so different with someone looking at all the evidence concerning evolution has to offer and concluding that there was no Creator, and someone looking at nature and concluding that there must be a Creator?

And yes, you have to have faith in Science to believe that everything came from nothing. There is no concrete proof either way in regards to Intelligent Design and Evolution. So why has one been ordained as Science and the other as bullshit?

Scientific theory and evolution don't posit that there is no creator, they just say "this is what we know, or reasonably theorize to be" from the evidence. Taking the leap to declare intelligent design or ultimately mindless randomness is beyond the scope of a school's curriculum, unless you are discussing philosphy.

Mona wrote: "Salt Lick, historically millions have been tortured and executed in religious wars. At the moment, the West is engaged in a war with crazed, devout religious fanatics."

Mona, sometimes I wonder if comparing Western Christianity to radical Islam is like comparing a domesticated dog to a wolf. They might look the same, but they are not.

And:"Besides, even if it were the case that religion(s) has a necessary civilizing influence, that a belief system is useful does not thereby render it true."

Right, but the question was whether man can be moral without God, not whether God exists.

"Scientific theory and evolution don't posit that there is no creator they just say "this is what we know, or reasonably theorize to be" from the evidence."

Thanks, Bill.

That certainly makes sense. I suppose it depends on what science feels is "evidence". To me, and many other people, simply looking around at nature is evidence enough that there must be a creator.

When you say, "reasonably theorize to be from the evidence", I wonder whose reasoning you mean. I certainly believe that this complex world and the mysterious cosmos beyond allows me to reasonable theorize that there is a Creator.

"Taking the leap to declare intelligent design or ultimately mindless randomness is beyond the scope of a school's curriculum, unless you are discussing philosphy."

It's interesting that you say,"ultimately mindless randomness is beyond the scope of a school's curriculum". Do you mean to tell me that there is no mindless randomness being taught as science curriculum in our schools? What about the Big Bang Theory?

Bill wrote: "...why does the question have to be 'does my conduct serve a deity,' as opposed to 'does my conduct satisfy a concept,' like 'altruism?'
Because he can smite us?"

Both good questions, Bill, and I suppose all I can say is that in my experience, the notion of satisfying "a concept" doesn't seem to carry the same poignancy as satisfying a caring deity. I don't see the same boundaries set either -- IIRC, Pol Pot started out as a low-level altrustic clerk who sincerely thought Communism would better lives.

I dunno, Bill. I'm an atheist and all, but ouch. Factoids? Ow.

Bill, et al.

Why is it so hard to take the 1st amendment at its literal word? I for one, given the evidence I have seen, do not believe that the FF wished to abolish the influence of Christianity, or any other religion, in our government. Rather, they feared two extremes. On the one hand, the Church of England was a living example of what can happen when the state governs religion. On the other hand, they feared just as much a Catholic like arrangement where the state was held in thrall to the church as was the case in most of the European monarchies. In between those extremes had to be a better path, but no evidence I have seen shows that the FFs thought that middle road to be an atheistic state. If that were so, then why does the Declaration of Independence makes its statements of fact on authority of "the Creator"?

Notice too, that TJ fought the battle of separation of church and state at the state level. If he, and the other founders, believed this to be a federal issue, then why did they not pursue a route through the federal legislature and/or courts?

Jim -

Well excuse the fuck out of me for not having read that NRO article.

INDeCent Bill and other folks in the comment land some thoughts

#1) the way the people 200 years ago, 400 years ago, 1000 years ago, and 2000 years ago thought of christianity were all vastly alien to each other. So we can't compaire a TJ and a John Adams who were in the mainstream of their own era's religious christian thought... but not todays
#2) Wars are never fought over religion... religion is however one of the ways the people who send "some poor ******* off to die for his country" go off and die. All the so called religious wars had political and socio-economic trumps which your higher ups in society would aknowledge.
#3)Deists were no more or less christian. Deists just believed in a limited role of god ( just as they believed in a limited government)
#4) "Islamists" aren't actually about religion. In Saudi Arabia and most of the muslim world the State controls the mosque, not the other way around. those states and organizations they sponsor ( such as the Muslim Brotherhood) control or create mosques in the free world

now to the meat of the topic

do not use the christian definition of theism ( and don't use the word Judeo-Christian as that is an utterly meaningless word as the two religions are fundementally incompatible) the reason Atheists are often viewed as immoral has to do with one of those steps 12 steppers point out. Its easy to deal with right and wrong when it comes to things that are easy. However their is a dark pit out in this world that some times truely you are not in a position to get out of (Addiction, depression, etc.) folks in those pits who do not do as the 12 steppers do and surrender themselves to a higher power and ask for help and guidence often become bitter, attack faith, attack society as a form of regressive angry behavior.... this i will also add isn't just something you have to be a hard or soft atheist to have as a problem.... a lot of good bible believing christians Don't believe in a power of god in their own lives. In that higher power as a reserve that is their when they are beyond any other court of last resort. Its when you get that desperate you can become like Jean ValJean a man who became a hardened vile criminal after his injustices.... but it took the priest giving him christian charity to buy his soul that helped him live a moral life

it wasn't god that made ValJean moral it was that higher power, that sense of dedication to something greater then himself which made him moral. because it enabled val jean to deal with the slings and arrows and survive

Deists were no more or less christian. Deists just believed in a limited role of god

I don't believe that deists believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God or believe in the Bible, so I'd say they were "less Christian."

I have seen shows that the FFs thought that middle road to be an atheistic state.

Who the heck is advocating an "atheistic state?"

It's not the role of the state to be "theistic" or "atheistic."

Do you think that soldiers die for God?

Soldiers don't set out to die period.

My point is that faith may help one deal with fear of death and therefore affect willingess to risk one's life. Cultural or innate, mox nix.

"I don't believe that deists believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God or in the Bible, so I'd say they were less Christian."

And on the other side of the coin, the root of a Christian's belief is that Christ is an integral part of your existence as he is responsible for your salvation.

So, by definition, a Deist can not be a Christian.

It is a matter of record that TJ was a Deist, what other FFs were Deists?

So, by definition, a Deist can not be a Christian.

Exactly.

The Deists?

Benjamin Franklin:

“Scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself ”

“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Thomas Jefferson:

"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Ethan Allen:

"Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian."

Thomas Paine

"My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

"Whenever we read the obscene stores (of the Bible), the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness which which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the Word of God."

As well as Washington, Madison and Monroe, I believe.

deltanine says: "this complex world and the mysterious cosmos beyond allows me to reasonable theorize that there is a Creator."

Well, the Creator capable of creating such a complex world would seem to be pretty complex Himself… and if complexity implies “creation” or “design” then who or what created the Creator?

More to the point, you are quite free to conclude whatever you want about complexity, but that doesn’t make it science or a theory. There is abundant evidence of complexity emerging from randomness. In fact there’s a computer program called Avida which, through random mutations of its code has evolved all sorts of complex functions. There is plenty of literature on it and you can download your own copy to try it yourself at http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/ .

The entire intelligent design “theory” rests on the feeling that complex stuff just can’t come from random mutations. That’s it. There is NO evidence other than that natural, though thoroughly refuted, assumption. Therefore it is not a science in any reasonable definition of the word and has no place in a science course.

the understanding of MODERN christianity that role of christ is indeed central

but that was not the case at the time of the founders when living as christ taught and trying to build the kingdom of god on earth was the christian thing to do

karasoth -

see quotes above.

Who the heck is advocating an "atheistic state?"

Well, I would say that anyone who advocates a wall between church and state built so high that the state can not display the ten commandments or use the motto "In God We Trust" are advocating an atheist state. That would be also be a state where there is no acknowledgement of any divine authority which grants rights to individuals which the government can not constrain.

It's not the role of the state to be "theistic" or "atheistic."

I agree that it is not the role of government to be either theistic or atheistic, but the government should not be divorced from its constituents over such a fundamental issue as faith. The FFs did not wish there to be a "Church of the United States", but they did not believe that we would survive long as a nation without some appeal to divine authority. Hence, they used terms such as "the Creator" and "Divine Providence" to acknowledge divinity without establishing a formal federal religion.

The reason that the government must acknowledge some divine authority, is that it is our hold over the government. By divine authority, we constrain the government to our will and from impinging on our rights.

Interesting stuff, Brian.

"Well, the Creator capable of creating such a complex world would seem to be pretty complex Himself… and if complexity implies “creation” or “design” then who or what created the Creator?"

If I believed the Creator exists in our limited physical universe, this argument would make sense to me.

"The entire intelligent design “theory” rests on the feeling that complex stuff just can’t come from random mutations. That’s it. There is NO evidence other than that natural, though thoroughly refuted, assumption. Therefore it is not a science in any reasonable definition of the word and has no place in a science course."

You're mistaken here. Intelligent Design doesn't just hinge on something as simple as that, although that is a very concise way of putting it. However, it doesn't do the theory justice.

It's not just about complex "stuff", but irreducable complexity. And I'm not talking about biological evolution here. I happen to believe in biological evolution.

Intelligent Design Theorists use discoveries in physics to postulate that the universe is irreducably complex. Meaning that it is physically and mathematically impossible for the universe to exist the way it does now without a catalyst.

kbiel,

I agree with everything you said except:
"Well, I would say that anyone who advocates a wall between church and state built so high that the state can not display the ten commandments or use the motto "In God We Trust" are advocating an atheist state."

I would say you are describing a secular state and not necessarily an athiest state.

Look, I'm a Christian that believes in the seperation of church and state. Not so much because I want religion out of gov't(although that's a good thing), but because I want the gov't out of my religion.

I don't see where removing the 10 commandments from courthouses, taking "in God we Trust" off of our money, and removing "under God" in our pledge is contradictory to appealing to a higher power. As long as they don't tell me it's illegal to worship God, I have no problems.

If I believed the Creator exists in our limited physical universe, this argument would make sense to me.

Seems to me like dodging the question by appealing to the mysterious nature of God. Well, either He exists or He does not. If He does He must be fairly complex to have created everything, no? If you agree up to here, then I wonder, why is it ok to postulate someplace beyond our “limited physical universe” where complexity does not need to be created or designed nor is irreducibly complex, yet rule out that possibility in our “limited physical universe?” What evidence have you for that? Faith? I have no problem with that, but it is not science.

As for IR, it has been demonstrated to be bunk. For example the Avida software mentioned above evolved functions that by the standards of IR folks would have been impossible. There is no such thing as being irreducibly complex. IR and intelligent design is clearly based on a religious view, not on anything scientific. And I restate, yes, the only evidence is a “belief” that complex things can’t come into being without a designer or creator. I await any other evidence you may offer. And, calling something irreducibly complex is not evidence. Believe whatever you want, just don’t pretend it’s science and don’t expect that we should teach it as such.

Well, I would say that anyone who advocates a wall between church and state built so high that the state can not display the ten commandments or use the motto "In God We Trust" are advocating an atheist state. That would be also be a state where there is no acknowledgement of any divine authority which grants rights to individuals which the government can not constrain.

1. And I'm sorry, but I would say that the idea that the expression of inalieable rights needs to be an explicitly theistic reference is just silly.

2. I think that you have your wires crossed here. The absence of religion in government is neither atheistic nor theistic. You view such an absence it as some sort of victory for atheism because you actually want government to endorse theism.

but the government should not be divorced from its constituents over such a fundamental issue as faith.

Which constituents are those again?

"Seems to me like dodging the question by appealing to the mysterious nature of God. Well, either He exists or He does not. If He does He must be fairly complex to have created everything, no? If you agree up to here, then I wonder, why is it ok to postulate someplace beyond our “limited physical universe” where complexity does not need to be created or designed nor is irreducibly complex, yet rule out that possibility in our “limited physical universe?” What evidence have you for that? Faith? I have no problem with that, but it is not science."

Like you said to me, Brian, you can postulate whatever you like. But this argument doesn't wash with me because you are applying rules onto the Deity that I believe he is not contrained to. That's just my postulation. What I mean by "limited physical universe" is the one you and I inhabit. It's not just faith that it is limited. The laws of physics are our limitations, unlss you're saying that physics is nothing more than faith.

If science says there was a beginning to the universe and through entropy there will be an end, isn't that a limitation to our physical universe?

The difference between you and I is that you apply the same rules to the Creator as you do to his creation. What evidence do you have for this? faith?

"As for IR, it has been demonstrated to be bunk. For example the Avida software mentioned above evolved functions that by the standards of IR folks would have been impossible. There is no such thing as being irreducibly complex. IR and intelligent design is clearly based on a religious view, not on anything scientific. And I restate, yes, the only evidence is a “belief” that complex things can’t come into being without a designer or creator. I await any other evidence you may offer. And, calling something irreducibly complex is not evidence."

I'll be sure to check out the software you linked to if you promise to do a bit more reading up on irreducable complexity and intelligent design. I don't fully subscribe to everything that Intelligent Design Theorists suggest, but I believe some of what they say has merit. I've been interested in their cosmological postulations in particular. I don't intend to lay it out for you because I'm no scientist and obviously I'm doing a poor job of it by reading your responses. I'll point you to a book called "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russell Humphries IIRC.

"Believe whatever you want,"

I intend to, and you do the same.

"...just don’t pretend it’s science and don’t expect that we should teach it as such."

Oh, nevermind. I thought you were sincere that I should believe what I want.

1. And I'm sorry, but I would say that the idea that the expression of inalieable rights needs to be an explicitly theistic reference is just silly.

Then by what authority does that right gain its inalienable status? There must be some appeal to authority to guarentee those rights. The FFs made it clear in the Declaration of Independence that their appeal was to divine authority. I happen to agree with them, no matter how silly you believe my argument to be. Perhaps you should try giving me counter arguments to convince me otherwise.

2. I think that you have your wires crossed here. The absence of religion in government is neither atheistic nor theistic. You view such an absence it as some sort of victory for atheism because you actually want government to endorse theism.

Let us be clear on the definition of religion as I am using it in this context. For the purposes of this discussion, I define religion to be the systematic worship of divinity.

I very much advocate the absence of religion in our government, but I believe that it must acknowledge God or the "Creator" or "divine Providence" in some form. I do not wish there to be a formal federal dogma either instituted by our government or followed by it. I do not wish to see open worship of God in any form on the Senate floor. Appealing to authority of God, though, is quite within the bounds of the 1st amendment as I read it and very much approved of by the FFs.

Which constituents are those again?

That would be the vast majority of US citizens. When the day comes when you can convince most of the public of the delusion of faith, then I am sure the government will follow suit. As it is today, the percentage of the population that are atheists is in the single digits.

Just a few points:
1) The problems with interpreting the 1st Amendment as meaning "separation of church and state":
a) Jefferson is the only one who demonstrably ever used the phrase
b) Jefferson was not the main writer of the constitution
c) Indeed, as the article points out, Jefferson doesn't even reference the constitution as one of his 3 top works
d) Madison and Morris were considerably more influential - both were demonstrably more adamant about the value of religion, and are silent re: "separation" of God from state
e) If the 1st Amendment was not intended to mean "Congress shall not pass laws establish a religion or restricting its exercise", why does it use the words "Congress", "law", "establish", and "restricting"? Why not say "Congress shall make no reference to any religious concept" if that's what they in fact meant?

Consider: King George calls in the High Lords of Religion - Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants, etc. King George says, "Guess what, I've decided to _establish_ a religion!" Everyone waits with baited breath - what religion will he establish?

"Here it is - There is a God!"

Long pause.

Everyone who thinks K.G. just "established" a religion, and that the 18th Century religious minds would agree, raise your hand.

The absence of religion in government is neither atheistic nor theistic.

A reasonable counter claim is that excluding even reference to providence from a government that is far more pervasive in every aspect of life than ever before is indistinguishable from atheistic.

deltanine: "Oh, nevermind. I thought you were sincere that I should believe what I want."

I was scincere in everything I said.

ugh, pardon my typo: sincere... it's been a long day :)

"I was sincere in everything I said."

uh-huh. and I don't expect ID to be taught in schools. What I expect is an honest debate concerning the issue.

Thanks for the link, BTW. I read about something similar about five years ago or so.

It was some sort of 1st-person video game that evolved as you played it, rewriting the code itself as you played.

Interesting stuff.

hey, brian...

I read this wrong before and totally made a nonsensicle response:

"If you agree up to here, then I wonder, why is it ok to postulate someplace beyond our “limited physical universe” where complexity does not need to be created or designed nor is irreducibly complex, yet rule out that possibility in our “limited physical universe?” What evidence have you for that? Faith? I have no problem with that, but it is not science."

sorry, man... long day for me as well.

Which constituents are those again?

That would be the vast majority of US citizens. When the day comes when you can convince most of the public of the delusion of faith, then I am sure the government will follow suit. As it is today, the percentage of the population that are atheists is in the single digits.

The Constitution is not set up to protect the sensibilities of "the majority," specifically with regard to religion.

Christianity as a religion is in the 80th percentile. Hard atheism is around 4%, I believe. Soft atheism, another 4-8.

Judaism? 2.4%

So why don't we skip all these "God" references and just go with "Jesus?"

Then by what authority does that right gain its inalienable status? There must be some appeal to authority to guarentee those rights. The FFs made it clear in the Declaration of Independence that their appeal was to divine authority.

Because the document is not given power as one conscrated with the will of God; it's given power by man's willingness to adopt it and play by its rules, die to defend it. "Rights given by the Creator" could just as well be versed as "Rights given by nature," or "Inalieable Rights given to man, by the will of man."

As it is, I have no problem with the language that's used; I find the concept of rights given by a Higher Power to be an elegant device, at least.

But this device or the literal interpretation has little to do with other religiously purposeful insertions of religion by the state. Question: if atheists are a mere one-digit population, what about the 10 Commandments Statue in that court house? I tend not to care about the issue because it's a passive reference (no one ties you down and forces you to recite them), but strictly speaking, this is a very specific reference to specific religious belief, not an oblique reference to "God."

Is it reasonable for those with contrary beliefs to feel uncomfortable as they stand before a court of law?

This says it all for me, even more because of the source.
"Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness." --Whittaker Chambers

so ... intelligent atheists are beasts? Or is there a more general, metaphorical interpretation? "Man" in general?

The second half of the quote is certainly self-evident.

Denise quotes Whittaker Chambers: "Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness."

I love Chambers, and have read him over and over, and also the superb bio by Sam Tanenhaus. But the guy was a depressive and given to apocalyptic thinking -- he tried more than once to kill himself and felt the West was doomed by its godlessness to fall to Communism. He was right about so much, and also wrong about a good deal.

Bill one of the guys who got me into blogging you miss the point

the founding father's deistic view of christianity was NOT CONTRARY TO CHRISTIANITY as it was understood in the 1700s

it is quite contrary to the christianity we worship today... it was the Liberal Church of its day ( but not nessecarily the Unitarian church of its day)

you still didn't address that point ;-)

you still didn't address that point ;-)

Reread the quotes. Denouncing Jesus Christ and the Bible is NOT "the liberal" form of Christianity. Of this day, that day, whatever day.

Bill.. Christianity of that time period was less focused on the role of christ to the individual christian, and more focused on the community of christ.

such thoughts were the intellectual vanguard of christianity in europe. Movements like the puritans were the exception to the rule.

I Don't want to have to go into my attic and do a disertation on the changes in christianity from the 1700s to the 1800s which were two entirely different religions and to the 1900s which while related to the 1800s was even more alien to the church of the 1700s

Jefferson was on the fringe end of christianity of his day, but he wasn't outside the fold of the christianity of his day. Neither was adams, or any of the other people you quoted. they were akin to the liberal church movement of today

this was also what lead to (irony) the conservative christian church we have today because it made highly democratic and independent local churches -which lead to the revivals and the baptist movement-

karasoth offers; the founding father's deistic view of christianity was NOT CONTRARY TO CHRISTIANITY as it was understood in the 1700s

Where to begin. The deistic founders were not believing Xians. Period. Full stop. Whether yesterday or today, a Xian must believe Jesus was divine and the son of a god, birthed by a virgin. The deists rejected all of that, as well as any notion that dead people rise after three days --no Xian of any stripe can deny The Resurrection. They rejected all claims to the miraculous in the Bible and elsewhere. In sum, the Founder Deists were not Xians.

Mona: in the 1700s the nature was not to focus on the resurection at an individual level but on helping to build the kingdom of god on earth as part of the reserection

it was less individualistic

so stop trying to put 21st century christian theology on 18th century christianity

it don't fit

the christianity we know and love today was a product of the 1830s and 40s and several movements started then (largely in north america)

which is why christianity in north america and those areas missionized by north americans is surviving

karasoth: what MUST one believe to qualify as a Xian?

that has changed over the centuries of christian faith.....various dogmas have raised and lowered in importance. In the early days the apostalic succession was more important. during the dark ages resurection became more important... less important during the reinassance and enlightenment period we were refering to ( in which the focus came on living a life as christ taught to bring forth his kingdom on earth)

Christianity has changed throughout the ages and will change again

karasoth writes:Christianity has changed throughout the ages and will change again
Ok. And what must one believe in any age to qualify as a Xian? Please list bare minimums.

karasouth,

whether the focus of Christianity was the salvation of the individual or the community, it still implies an involvement of God.

Deists believe God created the universe but that's as far as His involvement with humanity goes. That doesn't sound like any form of Christianity I've ever heard of.

You must believe what the church says you must believe

that's the only consistancy. the resurection through christ has not only been a insignifigant detail in the past, it is only signifigant during traumatic periods of the church (roman persecution, muslim invasion, begining of the "modern" age, etc)

the only consistant requirement is orthodoxy to what the church says. and that changes constantly

Deism taught god was uninvolved unless he had to move in the invisible hand to correct the ballance

like a big clock... occassionally the gears can get bent or warped or damaged

to the deist from time to time god would adjust things so the clock ran in harmony

not inconsistant with christian or jewish thought

"that's the only consistancy. the resurection through christ has not only been a insignifigant detail in the past, it is only signifigant during traumatic periods of the church (roman persecution, muslim invasion, begining of the "modern" age, etc)"

the resurrection was insignificant detail in Christianity? Sounds like you've been reading the DaVinci Code.

The resurrection of Christ has been central to Christianity at least since the New Testament was written.

But what did the reserection mean?

are we all saved automatically?
Do we have a get into new jerusalem ticket?
Do we have a shot at getting into heaven?
Did his sacrifice help us establish a closer relationship to god-which is more important in building out salvation?

Until you can say what the resurection means you cannot say it is a central belief of the faith

christianity has taught all 4 of those doctrines and many others regarding the resurrection of christ....

and based on how the church intreprets its value determines if it was central to the lives of the believers at the time.

in the 1700s the death of christ on the cross and the resurecttion was more about an empathic bridge between god and man to aid us in building new jerusalem ( which is nessecary for the second coming and eternal peace so sayith the gospel of St. John the Divine)

and i am sure it'll change again

"are we all saved automatically?
Do we have a get into new jerusalem ticket?
Do we have a shot at getting into heaven?
Did his sacrifice help us establish a closer relationship to god-which is more important in building out salvation?"

Central to all of those examples you cite is the resurrection of Christ. Without the resurrection, none of those are possible, correct?

However you slice it, the resurrection has always been central to the Cristian faith.

ooops... i meant Christian.

Central means it is the most important thing

If the role of the death of christ is to teach us to be little christs, it is the act of being christians "little christs" which is central to the faith -not the death of christ-

now, if you take the modern view that salvation without christ is impossible then it becomes central

if you take the view that obidence to christ's apostolic successors is nessecary to be a good christian then you can be denied the promise of the reserection by those he appointed to head his church and thus it is not central or even important

it was a catalysist for a variety of christian doctrines, but the same way the virigin birth ( a doctrine that originated out of a arameic translation by some one who was ignorant of hebrew) has changed over time and has a lot of variety.. its not central to many christians but it is to the majority because without the virigin birth christ couldn't be a man-god and thus couldn't die for our sins

so.... does that mean it is nessecary to buy into the immaculate conception as taught by the catholics? aboslutely not

so likewise a doctrine which has its genisis at the reserection does not make it a central doctrine

if the doctrine puts christ buying your soul with his blood then it does

but that isn't a consistant christian doctrine

karasoth again:but that isn't a consistant christian doctrine
Again,what is the minimum necessary belief to qualify as a Xian? Rejection of The Resurrection seems to be ok w/you, so what are the have-to-believes?

whether the resurrection meant being automatically saved, getting on the inside of New Jerusalem, getting into heaven, or becoming closer to God, it's all the same thing.

All of that implies that a Christian is saved because of the resurrection of Christ. And if you are saved it means you've received salvation.

"if you take the view that obidence to christ's apostolic successors is nessecary to be a good christian then you can be denied the promise of the reserection by those he appointed to head his church and thus it is not central or even important"

i don't take that view. that view is espoused by Catholic Christians. Although they still believe Christ died for my sins.

"so likewise a doctrine which has its genisis at the reserection does not make it a central doctrine"

the resurrection is the entire point of the New Testament.

I'm not saying that the church over the years hasn't manipulated an ignorant populace, but since we can all read these days, it's not hard to understand that the central theme of the New Testament is our salvation through Christ's resurrection. You only need to read the gospels.

Mona: As i said its whatever the church says you have to believe

Delt: Well just cause we read a 14th/15th generation translation of a book one way does not mean a closer generation translation was read the same way. the language and culture evolve christianity evolves. We'll have to agree to disagree on how central the doctrine of the resurection is because you seem to be stuck on modernity

So why don't we skip all these "God" references and just go with "Jesus?"

A difference between Jews referencing Jesus and an atheist referencing God is that Jews would be violating the 1st commandment damaging their relationship with God and putting their eternal souls at risk.

Where's the downside for the atheist?

A difference between Jews referencing Jesus and an atheist referencing God is that Jews would be violating the 1st commandment damaging their relationship with God and putting their eternal souls at risk.

Where's the downside for the atheist?

Once again, you are getting into ridiculous distinctions. It's not government's job to navigate the intricacies of various faiths. But since you ask, using the pledge as an example, the downside for the atheist is being excluded from the definition of American patriotism.

For example, in the mind of a child that grows up without a belief in God, not saying the line along with classmates isn't a cynical exercise of, "oh, I'll just skip this part because it's meaningless;" rather, it very well could be: "if that part's meaningless, this whole construct is meaningless. Patriotism = Belief in God. I think the God thing is BS, therefore it follows that patriotism is on shaky ground."

The best way to envision this is an example that makes a religious distinction bewteen Cristianity and Judaism or Islam, for example. Contradicting these belief structures in concert with a government function naturally diminishes faith in the government function.

Which is why, in a land that's very pluralistic and very diverse, it's probably best for government to just stay out of the issue.

Religion will survive and flourish without government involvement. Government strives to be just and machine-like, religion is a very human thing.

Mona

IIRC there are a number of modern Christian theologians who do not believe in the Resurrection as a historical fact. Karasoth makes excellents points about the church of our fathers is not the church of our children.

Bill

Certainly religion will survive w/o government involvement; however, what about when the involvement is hostile? Certainly the bowdlerizing efforts by the "A"CLU in crisscrossing the country with magnifying glasses to bully municipalities into removing tiny historical crosses from city/county seals is not neutral.

When fear of government action leads to a public school curriculum that dilutes or skips the role of religion in American history, who benefits? who is harmed? California has a very rich past steeped in religion. Heck, from San Francisco to San Diego even the place names are religious! I'm waiting for the acolytes of the Church of the Easily Offended to go after them next. How dare the state government be located in a city named :::gasp::: Sacramento?

In reference to ASV Michele's post (which I picked up on here) I will restate that morality is not dependent on a belief in God. However, it does make it harder to defend the morality one chooses when the only argument you can offer is "because I say so." I don't believe the FF's appeal to a higher power was merely elegant, but a deliberate appeal to an authority that makes peers of kings and paupers.

Once again, you are getting into ridiculous distinctions. It's not government's job to navigate the intricacies of various faiths. But since you ask, using the pledge as an example, the downside for the atheist is being excluded from the definition of American patriotism.

For example, in the mind of a child that grows up without a belief in God, not saying the line along with classmates isn't a cynical exercise of, "oh, I'll just skip this part because it's meaningless;" rather, it very well could be: "if that part's meaningless, this whole construct is meaningless. Patriotism = Belief in God. I think the God thing is BS, therefore it follows that patriotism is on shaky ground."

The same discomfort is felt by Jehovah's Witnesses who are not supposed to pledge allegience to anything not of God. Except, they would feel that discomfort with or without the "one nation under God" line.

The point I think that you are missing here Bill, is that the FFs certainly did have a reliance on divine authority and established our government with that in mind. If you wish to change that today then you will need to build a majority to vote for the correct people and amend the constitution to change the wording of the first amendment. The first amendment was not designed to keep all references to divine authority out of our government, it was designed to stop the government from codifying religion. The fact that our government cannot and does not codify religion and is not controlled by any specific religion makes it, by definition, a secular government. From everything I have seen you write on this subject, it seems that you wish to have an atheistic government. That is certainly your right to want that, but ranting about it here and highlighting articles that misrepresent the FFs intentions are not going to persuade many people to subscribe to your point of view.

Bill wrote:
The Constitution is not set up to protect the sensibilities of "the majority," specifically with regard to religion.

I don't the the Constitution is set up to protect the sensibilities of anyone, majority or minority. It is setup to protect specific rights, a quite different concept.

Is it reasonable for those with contrary beliefs to feel uncomfortable as they stand before a court of law?

Oh, so we're adding another amendment to the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law that causes someone to feel uncomfortable."

FWIW, I'm not a believer. But ceremonial references to a diety don't make me "uncomfortable". Government does do plenty of things that I don't like, but I think that, in general, the proper way to address them is through the democratic process, not by the profoundly anti-democratic method of having judges write my policy preferences into the Constitution.

Jim

scarhill -

So you don't like my choice of words. No one is advocating that "Congress shall make no law that causes someone to feel uncomfortable," smartass.

But the "rights" that you speak of guarantee that the government will not impose a specific religion on the citizens of the United States, which is my interpretation.

FWIW, I'm not a believer. But ceremonial references to a diety don't make me "uncomfortable".

I love this argument, it's my favorite. "Uncomfortable" was a euphemism for "stark raving pissed off;" namely the way many people - of varying faiths - get when their religion is subsumed in the public square by another. Once again, it's not YOUR feelings that matter. It's not government's role to champion any of these faiths - government shouldn't go anywhere near religion, unless it's to protect the freedoms of those that wish to worship.

Government does do plenty of things that I don't like, but I think that, in general, the proper way to address them is through the democratic process, not by the profoundly anti-democratic method of having judges write my policy preferences into the Constitution.

Sort of like segregation? Jim Crow?

Without the courts we'd be 20 years behind the curve on this. (at least) Are these "policy preferences" ok?

the wording of the first amendment. The first amendment was not designed to keep all references to divine authority out of our government, it was designed to stop the government from codifying religion.

The words of teh First Amendment suit my purposes just fine. They don't say "Congress shall make no law establishing a specific religion" or a "state religion," they say "establishing religion."

This is open to interpretation, no matter how you'd like to crow about definitive intent. And I'd say that two generations of legal precedent comes closer to my interpretation ... but I guess those legal scholars were all fools as well.

From everything I have seen you write on this subject, it seems that you wish to have an atheistic government. That is certainly your right to want that, but ranting about it here and highlighting articles that misrepresent the FFs intentions are not going to persuade many people to subscribe to your point of view.

1. I did not endorse the article completely, I merely said that it was interesting, admitted its fundamental flaw in a comment and even highlighted a contradictory passage that supports my opponents' point of view. So you misrepresent my intent, as well as my form. This tends to piss me off.

2. For the last time: I do not "wish to have an atheistic government." Buy a dictionary. "Atheism" is a belief that there is no God; it's an article of faith. The government that I desire does not render a judgment about God. This is an ignorant distortion of the term, similar to your exhortation that Deists (that shunned Jesus, all revealed religion and the Bible) were merely "Christians Lite."

3. but ranting about it here

I didn't realize that I was "ranting." You haven't seen me rant, though I've been sorely tempted to after some of your patently silly comments that misrepresent the religious beliefs of some of the founders as Christians.

Certainly religion will survive w/o government involvement; however, what about when the involvement is hostile? Certainly the bowdlerizing efforts by the "A"CLU in crisscrossing the country with magnifying glasses to bully municipalities into removing tiny historical crosses from city/county seals is not neutral.

I do belive that the active removal of passive, ceremonial historical religious references is pretty silly and bizarrely hostile. But -

1. I DO think that the pledge is an example (daily, active, compelled pledge) that steps over the line, though it doesn't keep me up at night that the phrase exists.

2. I DO think that it's a smart idea for government to refrain from stepping into this arena - at all - henceforth.

Pssst... Bill?

It was judges that gave us Dred Scott...

The words of teh First Amendment suit my purposes just fine. They don't say "Congress shall make no law establishing a specific religion" or a "state religion," they say "establishing religion."

Would you please point to an example of a non-specific religion? Again, religion is the worship of a diety or dieties. And since we are parsing words, what part of "congress shall make no law" means that no government building may have a statue depicting the ten commandments? Is placing a statue on public property the same as making a law?

1. I did not endorse the article completely, I merely said that it was interesting, admitted its fundamental flaw in a comment and even highlighted a contradictory passage that supports my opponents' point of view. So you misrepresent my intent, as well as my form. This tends to piss me off.

And

But in other places, it makes a few very good arguments, as well as gathers interesting quotes and factoids, many of which, I did not know.

It makes good arguments for what? What was your intent on highlighting this article? Yes, you may have called it flawed, but you found something in it with which you agreed. I may have misinterpreted your intent, but it looked as if you were endorsing the point of view of the author while stating that it didn't quite make the argument.

2. For the last time: I do not "wish to have an atheistic government." Buy a dictionary. "Atheism" is a belief that there is no God; it's an article of faith. The government that I desire does not render a judgment about God. This is an ignorant distortion of the term, similar to your exhortation that Deists (that shunned Jesus, all revealed religion and the Bible) were merely "Christians Lite."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

Godlessness? This is a distortion of the word? Atheism is not only a movement but it also means without God. I have been up front about how I believe the FFs appealed to divine authority and that I agree with their reasoning. So far I have seen you advocate a government that can not even acknowledge that there might be a divine authority. That would make it godless or atheistic (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=godless).

Speaking of distortions and misrepresentations, at what point did I exhort that Deists were merely "Christians Lite."? Is it my turn to be pissed?

I apologize if you were insulted, but the only thing that I have posted that I see to be insulting is calling your postings (in these comments) "rants". That is certainly the tone I have taken from your comments directed at me calling my arguments silly and calling other people smartass. It would seem that you take this issue way too personally for us to have a reasoned discourse or an amicable disagreement.

A difference between Jews referencing Jesus and an atheist referencing God is that Jews would be violating the 1st commandment damaging their relationship with God and putting their eternal souls at risk.

Where's the downside for the atheist?

Once again, you are getting into ridiculous distinctions.

So if I don't agree that a Jew referencing Jesus is no different than an atheist referencing God then I'm being ridiculous. Ok, seems to me you are ducking the issue.

My point is that atheism is not a religious belief comparable to theism because it implies no consequences for false worship. I think you get that but prefer to dance around the flaw in your logic.

It's like claiming a non-smoker actually just smokes invisible cigarettes.

You POV is like claiming that banning smoking from restaurants, bars, public buildings, schools, sidewalks, airplanes, trains and busses ... isn't really anti-moking, it just smoke-neutral. Yeah ok, if you can still smoke in your own bathroom with the door and windows closed, then what's the problem?

Bill, you’re certainly doing yeoman’s work in carrying on the fight in a very reasonable and articulate manner, against some rather determined and disingenuous misreading of your argument, but I just can’t help thinking of Cool Hand Luke and that line, “…some people you just can’t reach.” Hey, who could resist a “smartass” or “silly” when constantly subjected to such nonsense?

For example: “So far I have seen you advocate a government that can not even acknowledge that there might be a divine authority. That would make it godless or atheistic.”?

Wtf? Bill has stressed time and time again that it is not government’s role to take a position one way or another on issues of religion. Where do you get the idea that government needs to “acknowledge” the possibility of a divine authority (might they also acknowledge the possibility of aliens while they’re in this speculative mood)? What does that even mean? Where do we go to find this divine authority? How does this divine authority feel about the war in Iraq or income tax rates or government spending? Again, why does government even need to go anywhere near the question of divine authority? Is it going to stumble upon it and declare the preferences of one group or another “ordained?”

And second, what does all that have to do with compelling people to recite a statement that evinces a belief in the aforementioned “divine authority” when they do not? It just stretches credulity to say that forcing kids recited the words “under God” is not religious!? Just because it doesn’t say “Jesus” (as Bill has so often pointed out) and therefore might be seem to represent Christians and Jews (and perhaps Muslims) doesn’t make it less religious.

Bill, I am not going to lose any sleep over this issue either, but to hear the idea of government compelled religious statements defended as a legitimate purpose by all the appeals to the founding father’s beliefs (they seemed to be ok with slavery too so I don’t think we need live by their beliefs but by the principles laid down in the constitution, which again, makes no mention of God.) is worrisome.

As is often the case, you have been the voice or reason, Bill. Keep it up!

So if I don't agree that a Jew referencing Jesus is no different than an atheist referencing God then I'm being ridiculous. Ok, seems to me you are ducking the issue.

And it seems to me that you are dense. FROM THE STANDPOINT OF GOVERNMENT. It can very well be argued that a Jew pays a higher price for reciting allegiance to Jesus than an atheist to Jesus or God, but it is NOT the government's job to make these distinctions over who pays a higher price for what, rather to stay out of such ridiculously subjective and emotional judgments altogether.

And thanks, Brian.

Bill wrote:

So you don't like my choice of words. No one is advocating that "Congress shall make no law that causes someone to feel uncomfortable," smartass.

Sorry you think I'm a smartass. You used the words 'sensibilities' and 'uncomfortable'. Apparently that's not what you meant.

But the "rights" that you speak of guarantee that the government will not impose a specific religion on the citizens of the United States, which is my interpretation.

I agree.

I love this argument, it's my favorite. "Uncomfortable" was a euphemism for "stark raving pissed off;" namely the way many people - of varying faiths - get when their religion is subsumed in the public square by another.

Whether you meant 'uncomfortable' or 'stark raving pissed off' doesn't really change my point.

It's not government's role to champion any of these faiths - government shouldn't go anywhere near religion, unless it's to protect the freedoms of those that wish to worship.

This is a reasonable point of view. But I don't think it's what the first amendment meant to the people who adopted the Constitution.

Sort of like segregation? Jim Crow?

Without the courts we'd be 20 years behind the curve on this. (at least) Are these "policy preferences" ok?

Oh, so not only am I a smartass, I'm in favor of Jim Crow as well. I'm not sure there's a point to continuing this discussion, but let me try one more time.

If you don't think that the original meaning of the Constitution is important, then what prevents the Supreme Count from declaring it to mean whatever its policy preferences are at a particular time? You and I agree that segregation was a bad thing. But keep in mind that "separate but equal" was a doctrine created by the Supreme Court too. What will be your argument when you disagree with a decision? More importantly, what will you do about it--fight a war, pass a constitutional amendment or wait 50 years and hope the misguided Justices retire or die?

I'd prefer to try to elect Senators and Representatives who agree with me, and get them to change the law.

Jim

Wtf? Bill has stressed time and time again that it is not government’s role to take a position one way or another on issues of religion. Where do you get the idea that government needs to “acknowledge” the possibility of a divine authority (might they also acknowledge the possibility of aliens while they’re in this speculative mood)?

I did not say that the government must acknowledge a divine authority. I did say that it should be able too. I did say that it is important the the Declaration of Independence invokes divine authority to protect our rights from the same government.

As for silly arguments, there is certainly nothing stopping the government from acknowledging the possibility of aliens. You certainly won't see me running off to the US Supreme Court trying to get an injunction against Roswell, NM using pictures of flying saucers or stories of alien contact to promote tourism.

What does that even mean? Where do we go to find this divine authority? How does this divine authority feel about the war in Iraq or income tax rates or government spending? Again, why does government even need to go anywhere near the question of divine authority? Is it going to stumble upon it and declare the preferences of one group or another “ordained?”

It means that the government is restrained from doing certain things that would violate my rights as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Those rights are afforded to us, according to the author, Thomas Jefferson himself, by the Creator and are inviolate by any government. I prefer that my government recognize that.

And second, what does all that have to do with compelling people to recite a statement that evinces a belief in the aforementioned “divine authority” when they do not? It just stretches credulity to say that forcing kids recited the words “under God” is not religious!? Just because it doesn’t say “Jesus” (as Bill has so often pointed out) and therefore might be seem to represent Christians and Jews (and perhaps Muslims) doesn’t make it less religious.

Who's compelling anyone to recite a statement which evinces a belief in God? I challenge to find a documented story where a child was forced to say the words "under God". If you want to make an argument about discomfort as Bill has, then do so, but please don't make stuff up.

By your definition of religion, the Masons are a religious organization, though they claim to have members who are Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and Atheists. Would you consider any organization that invites various religious leaders to say a prayer before meeting to be religious in general? Could they not be just recognizing that most of their members have some kind of faith without subscribing to a particular religion?

It can very well be argued that a Jew pays a higher price for reciting allegiance to Jesus than an atheist to Jesus or God.

Grudgingly admitted.

You don't want the state to distinguish between atheistic belief and theistic belief any more than it does betwen Christian and Jew. Yeah I get it. It's like comparing smoker/non-smoker to smoking Camels verses Marlboro. Sure it is.

Oh, so not only am I a smartass, I'm in favor of Jim Crow as well. I'm not sure there's a point to continuing this discussion, but let me try one more time.

I didn't say that you were in favor of segregation or Jim Crow, I was merely making the point that these are also issues that, had they been left to popular will, would have carried injustice for decades.

If you don't think that the original meaning of the Constitution is important, then what prevents the Supreme Count from declaring it to mean whatever its policy preferences are at a particular time?

I never definitively agreed with your "original meaning of the Constitution," thus your leap to judge that I don't find it important is kind of odd. It's open to interpretation, and has been interpreted by a great deal of intelligent legal scholars as advocating a "high and impregnable ... wall of separation between church and state."

Pssst... Bill?

It was judges that gave us Dred Scott...

Not sure I follow your point ... do you think that I'm advocating the superiority of the judicial?

Though it were legislatures that gave us anti-miscegenation laws, slavery, etc.

By your definition of religion, the Masons are a religious organization, though they claim to have members who are Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and Atheists. Would you consider any organization that invites various religious leaders to say a prayer before meeting to be religious in general? Could they not be just recognizing that most of their members have some kind of faith without subscribing to a particular religion?

Posted by kbiel at March 10, 2005 06:41 PM

as a Freemason, possibly the only one on here let me say this

#1) Atheists are prohibited from regular masonry ( mainstream masonry) the only exception is a curious branch of Masonry that originates from france and they do not PERSAY admit atheists but they do not ask
#2)Freemasons are a religous organization, but not a organization of a religion

Hey..... Whats the record for a bill comment forum?

“Who's compelling anyone… please don't make stuff up.”

Who is making anything up? What counts as compulsion in your mind? Holding a gun to the child’s head? Threatening detention? Come on let’s not quibble about what technically counts as legal compulsion, that is juvenile – we all know how kids are and that any teacher lead classroom recitation is de facto compulsion. Besides, you know the compulsion angle isn’t going to work for you here – if we replaces “under God” with “under Allah” NOBODY would be defending this by saying “But they’re not compelled!” So let’s admit this is not about compulsion but about whether the phrase “under God” rises to a level of religious content that is impermissible. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, chances are, it’s a duck… and it IS compulsion.

“I did not say that the government must acknowledge a divine authority.”

And if you read my comment, you will see I never said you did. So what of it? But fine, let them pass a resolution saying there is a possibility of a divine authority; I have no problem with that. Of course we will never know that authority but by the word of man, so take it with a grain of salt.

“As for silly arguments, there is certainly nothing stopping the government from acknowledging the possibility of aliens.”

And, as I just said, there’s nothing stopping them from acknowledging the possibility of a divine authority, nor would such an acknowledgment bear any more connection with a proper function of government than the alien one, which was the point of that somewhat facetious “silly argument”

forced recitation is quite verbotten

forcing kids to say the pledge period is verbotten

so sorry you lose out as most kids stop doing the practice in middle school and high school

and lets not even go into newdow's fraud

Newdow wasn't an atheist
his daughter wasn't an atheist
his ex wife wasn't an atheist

that means he in addition to no standing had no tort

forced recitation is quite verbotten
forcing kids to say the pledge period is verbotten
so sorry you lose out as most kids stop doing the practice in middle school and high school
Ugh, here we go again… If you are going to refute someone’s argument it would help to read what they said and address the points made. I don’t mean to be rude or condescending but asserting that forced recitation is verboten is pretty much pointless with respect to anything I said. I made a case that this is not about compulsion
Once again, if the pledge were exactly the same, except that in some fit of “political correctness” and “reaching out” to the Muslim community congress suddenly changed the words to “under Allah” do you think many people on your side would say, “well as long as it’s not ‘forced’ I guess it’s ok.” Are you kidding me? They would be going apoplectic in a fit of rage at the thought that their little Johnnie would be expected to appeal to Allah as part of a morning ritual. So lets stop with the not forced, compelled, or whatever, arguments, this is not about the compulsion, it’s about the words.

#1) if the kids are not forced dejur, and most kids as a matter of behavior ignore it defacto then where is the force or peer pressure?

and secondly how do you know what side i am on? I'm not christian.. and if a school district added that i'd tell my kid "do what i did and just not say it cause its boring and a waste of your time"

and lets not forget school districts are already doing just such a thing

Whatever side your on not withstadning, that argument would never be taken seriously. If they were all expected to say "Allah" as sure as that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, the "nobody is forced to say it" argument would not be heard from the vast majority of those now supporting the "under God" version. Therefore, I stand by my point, this is not about compullsion.

Schools do not legally (in rules or in law) expect children to say "under god"

there is no social pressure from their peers and limited argument on social pressure from authority to say it

so force doesn't apply

and a school in california already won a case of forcing educating children in muslim religous rites including having the children take muslim names and going on a mock hadj

me... if that were the case with my kid i'd find out what the kid needs to do to pass and teach him how to screw with authority

and, to a person of west asian origin allah subplanted god a long time ago so its really a synonim

so the schools don't have it in law, or in the rules... and most kids are still shaking off sleep when the pledge happens so they don't care

its not force

I'd also like to add i have no problem with UNDER GOD as kids can just not say it. The schools can't even force you to do homework ( while failure to do homework has consequences they cannot discipline you for said action)

go to a classroom and volunteer. Kids don't say it.. it is meaningless ritual to them much as most religous services are meaningless ritual to the bulk of the people in attendance

but as for my side i am a theist but i don't believe in religion at all. I've met few atheists who had a well balanced reason for being atheists. I've met many atheists who reject the dictionary definition of atheism.... but few who have a sane reason for their atheism

Um, Brian just spent a paragraph making the point that he didn't think it was about force, yet you reemphasize the point that it wasn't about force.

For the record, I do think there is natural compulsion. For this ...

there is no social pressure from their peers and limited argument on social pressure from authority to say it

so force doesn't apply

... is the "ravings" of a man in an alternate universe. The only kids that ever avoided the pledge in my school were Jehovahs, and they were considered very odd for it.

And once again, you seem to marshall made up facts mixed in with real ones:

and lets not even go into newdow's fraud

Newdow wasn't an atheist
his daughter wasn't an atheist
his ex wife wasn't an atheist

Newdow was, is an atheist. His child and ex-wife were not. This cast a shadow on the relevant issue of whether he had "standing" to file the case, or whether there was an injured party.

But now, the same case is making its way up through the lower courts, with a group of atheistic families, presumably with atheistic children. So, "Newdow's fraud" won't make a difference.

#1) Mr. Newdow's Rabbi who see's him at services every High holy day disagree's with your assesment and Newdow's presentation. but thats ok because Newdow lied about his daughter, lied about what his wife has had to say and has had a history of sueing every city,county, and state he has lived in with a public refrence to god in it (more then enough cause to throw out his whole case)

because due to Newdow's charecter at suing and bringing suits at a drop of a hat a federal judge could throw out the whole case just because of how fake newdow is

Now the federal courts won't do that because they lack a spine. If courts all around the country tossed out lawsuits by people who are utterly litigous in charecter the system would be better off.

#2) Bill In Peoria Illinois, Sarasota Florida and osprey florida ( three cities) none of us did the pledge because we all considered it a waste of time. we stood up and waited till the little deal was over then went back to being productive

now as to what i was saying his entire argument is based on the premise of force. If the school says the Kids have to say "Under Satan" but does not compell the kids to do so then they are not being forced to acknowledge satan, nor is their any establishment. Its a quaint ritual folks just ignore

for their to be establishment their must be compulsion to do an act or believe in an act. Without compulsion nothing is established.

again holy crow this is a long comment thread ;-)

also as his wife and he had a demonstratable case that their joint custody ( which wasn't settled until after the first federal judge accepted the case) were intending to raise his daughter as a christian so once again he had utterly no standing and utterly no grievence

except against the word god in a public venue

I actually think the most interesting question here is the one that has only been tangentially addressed, yet it touches on many other volatile issues beyond the Pledge:

To what extent should the Constitution be interpreted as meaning what it originally (and in this view, has always) meant, and to what extent should it's interpretation respond to changes in the social climate of the country?

I don't really buy an argument that the courts are possessed of some moral superiority lacking in the legislature or the executive. Misguided judges can and have made blindingly stupid rulings, just as misguided congressmen or state legislators have passed awful laws and unwise presidents and governors have executed the law incompetently or worse. By the same token, each branch can point to cases where it led the way in ending one form of injustice or another.

The difference between branches is not in their innate wisdom, but in their responsiveness and accountability to the people. It is easier (in principle, at least) to vote out a congressman or president than to correct a mistake by the courts.

To my mind, the primary purpose of the courts in this regard is to offer a remedy to blatant injustice. That to me implies real (as in, for instance, Brown v. Board of Education), rather than imagined or theoretical harm, to begin with, before a set of unaccountable justices overturn the democratically expressed wishes of the people, much less (as in Roe v. Wade, for example) declare an entire topic of wide disagreement settled by fiat, and off limits to further political consideration.

the theory is the courts are more of an enduring voice

or at least thats the theory

To what extent should the Constitution be interpreted as meaning what it originally (and in this view, has always) meant, and to what extent should it's interpretation respond to changes in the social climate of the country?

My view: The plain English interpretation. If there is disagreement, then argue what the English means, not the constitution. It was not written for legalistic interpretation, it was written in plain English of the day. If someone is unclear about the meaning of a phrase, such as well regulated militia, then historical context should be used.

The meaning of the phrase becomes clear if you use a common substitute term for the militia, "irregular forces". The somewhat alliterative phrase "well regulated irregular forces" is counter redundant, but reveals the intent of the language.