|
|
|
|
LyricalReckoner
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
 Posted - 03/14/2003 : 15:15:52
|
The Pledge of Allegiance ruling goes to the Supreme Court? Maybe. Who knows? But if it does, what happens when it gets there? Who knows?
Perhaps it will fall victim to the curious concept of Ceremonial Deism. Who knows?
Read (not quite) all about it:
http://www.misterthorne.org/ESSAYS/SCFA_art_01.htm
Enjoy!
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2003 : 17:06:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by LyricalReckoner
Perhaps it will fall victim to the curious concept of Ceremonial Deism. Who knows?
Isn't that the same as "paying lip-service"? A curious concept indeed!
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2003 : 20:00:33 [Permalink]
|
The whole concept of invoking "ceremonial deism" is amusing. It reduces to something like, "The phrase 'under God' has no specific meaning and refers not to a specific deity, so we shouldn't particularly care about its inclusion, but we're going to fight tooth-and-nail to keep it because we're Christians."
Duh.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 10:00:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by LyricalReckoner
The Pledge of Allegiance ruling goes to the Supreme Court? Maybe. Who knows? But if it does, what happens when it gets there? Who knows?
Perhaps it will fall victim to the curious concept of Ceremonial Deism. Who knows?
Read (not quite) all about it:
http://www.misterthorne.org/ESSAYS/SCFA_art_01.htm
Enjoy!
Fall victim to Ceremonial Deism?
Perhaps the pro-"under God" crowd would like to explain how on Earth the 1954 Act which change the Pledge to it's current state did not respect the establishment of religion? The First Amendment (remember that?) states that Congress may make no law which respects the establishment of religion. Case law has taken that to mean that laws must have a legitimate secular purpose for their enactment.
(Cases of note Watson v. Jones, SCOTUS, 1872; Melvin v. Easley, SCOTUS, 1860; Engel v. Vitale, SCOTUS, 1962)
The 1954 Act had no secular purpose what-so-ever. Herein lies the quotes from the legislators who enacted this Act and the President that signed it into law.
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty" -- President Dwight Eisenhower while signing this legislation (100 Congressional Record 8618)
"At this moment of our history the principals underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual." -- H.R. Rep. No. 83-1693 at 1-2 (1954)
Do you see any legitamate secular purpose to this law? I see the primary function of this law is to advance religion. This is a forbidden area for the government to be in.
Cerimonial Deism, my ass.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 10:36:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Perhaps the pro-"under God" crowd would like to explain how on Earth the 1954 Act which change the Pledge to it's current state did not respect the establishment of religion? The First Amendment (remember that?) states that Congress may make no law which respects the establishment of religion.
A small nit, but the Ammendment actually states "an establishment" (establishment is a noun in this instance). I point this out only because so many seem to think that the First Ammendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion (what "respecting the establishment" might imply; "establishment" in this case is a verb), whereas "respecting an establishment" means prohibiting the creation of a state religion and, very importantly, prohibiting Congress from passing laws that involve established religions of any kind.
Such as adding "Under God" to the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" to our currency.
[All IMHO, of course.]
|
| Edited by - Tokyodreamer on 03/17/2003 10:57:02 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
