US Advancing Towards Theocracy
Source: www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006- 07-19-pledge_x.htm
WASHINGTON — The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."
"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."
Ok first, the obvious...our history is about a bunch of Protestants coming to the new country to avoid religious prosecution and in search of religious freedom...hmmm, they are basically say screw religious freedom. If you're an atheist, no matter, you have to say "Under God" even if it violates your own beliefs. It's our beliefs we are worried about not yours.
Secondly, the first six presidents were deists we would call Secular Humanist or Atheist today.
Deism is defined by the view that reason and logic, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge. Deism has also come to be identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.
Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justic and specifically rejects reituals and ceremonies as a means to affirm their life stance.
Atheism is the absence of theism (the belief in the existence of deities, and most commonly of God). This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not.
Yes, we cannot "rewrite history", so why don't you actually learn about it before offering up this incredibly faulty argument.
Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and would deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.
So, the President is expanding his "Presidential Powers" and eliminating the checks and balances set up by our forefathers, and now the House has got into their heads to do the same thing, effectively attempting to reduce the Judiciary's powers. It's all about POWER POWER POWER. Give me a break.
"We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Finally, someone gets the threat of instituting this kind of legislation.
The pledge bill would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the pledge. State courts could still decide whether the pledge is valid within the state.
Supporters argued that the "under God" phrase, added to the pledge in 1954, was intrinsic to the nation's heritage and traditions and must be shielded from unelected judges. "This is an issue that clearly resonates to what we are about as a country," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Ok, read the comment above in regards to this nation's heritage and traditions...just like a true Republican and Christain (yes, I know not all, but I'm generalizing here to classify this type of Christain, which there are more out there than most want to admit), always using only those parts of history/bible in which fits their needs rather than looking at it as a whole. Yuck.
FYI... here is what TJ has to say about Christainity:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular Superstitions of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men women and children since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
I really love that statement. Maybe our forefathers were really smarter than the rest of us.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said the effort to strip courts of authority could come back to haunt his fellow conservatives if liberals gain control of Congress in the future. As an example, he said Congress could prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on a state's decision to ban guns.
OMG, a smart Republicn, who gets the threat to the Judiciary's branches power.
The bill is H.R. 2389
posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 07.20.06 (5:52 pm)
You are aware, I'm sure, that religion has played an important and positive role in the shaping and continuing of our country. Jefferson, Washington, Adams, etc. may not have been like the mainstream Christians of today, but they were without a doubt quite serious about their faith. Jefferson even produced his own version of the Bible. Washington understood himself to be lead of Providence and protected of God. It is, I think, unfair to portray these men as devoid of religious influence.
Indeed, I think, there is a battle shaping up between the Legislative and Judicial branches of government, perhaps spurred by an out-of-control Judiciary where one federal judge can negate the ballot box.
I don't think we should require the Pledge in school or civic meetings. Like prayer, make it optional. But, why must we wash all vestiges of God from the public arena? To have God as part of the pledge is no more coercion than a manger scene in the public square. This kind of absolute animosity toward religion is what spurs the fundamentalists, and even the normal believers of our society, to strike back.
I truly believe in the separation of church and state. It is a bedrock principal of my Christian Denomination. But I don't believe in a state which has an animosity toward religion.
Just sharing some thoughts- not trying to pick a fight!
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 07.22.06 (9:45 am)
I don't want to wash vestiges of God from the public arena - that would be a violation of religious liberty. I agree with taralynn, the government should not favor one religion or religious belief over another, since that is establishing a state religion de facto.
posted by: taralynn (reply)
post date: 07.24.06 (4:12 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
I'm not taking any offense to you comments and I am glad you posted them. See I am on the other side of the spectrum. Let me explain a little more my intentions and my views. I am not a Christian, but I am spiritual. Growing up in a predominantly Christian nation I have had the Christian "God" and beliefs shoved down my throat. So, my instinct is to fight back, just like the fundamentalists. I believe my relationship with "God" or the higher power (as I'm still on my spiritual journey and attempting to learn more I try not define the higher power so as not to restrict it, but I'll use God as a reference so people can relate), is something extremely personal. I worship in my everyday life through my actions. I do not need traditions, churches or communing with others in order to develop my relationship.
I do enjoy the discussion however, I just really hate when the religious "Christians" (I use quotations because I am generalizing here and understand not all Christians are like this) use arguments of faith rather than logic when arguing for or against public policy. The problem I see with this is that they are falling back on tradition rather than logic and reason. I agree that there should not be governmental animosity towards religion, but we have to protect those that are not Christian and are the minority in this country. My spirituality has only come about in the last couple of years and yet I have not seen my political beliefs change. When I argue for against a policy, I do not draw on my faith or spirituality for an argument as I understand not everyone holds the same beliefs as I do.
My reasons for using the quotes or history of our forefathers was not to deny their faith, but rather to show that they were deists who believe in reason and logic rather than tradition and revelation when dealing with God. I think this would also spill over into their dealings with everyday life and politics. Also, my intentions to use these quotes were to underscore their beliefs in the dangers inherent in religion. I think many “Christians” interpret the Freedom of Religion to mean their religion and not others because it is in the majority in this country. Moreover, I believe many believe, their way is the right and only way and it is their duty to spread the message of God. This then spreads to public policy and people, like me, are forced to have decisions made for them because of some others persons religious beliefs. I feel like it is being shoved down my own throat and my Freedom of Religion is being violated everyday. In addition, I do not understand why they fear the separation of Church and State so much. Are people’s values/beliefs going to change because government is no longer marked by religion? It shouldn’t. Ok, I hope this clarifies my beliefs and intentions for using those quotes. Again thanks for the comments.
posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 07.24.06 (1:46 pm)
Great post... I missed it. Isn't that statement by Jefferson just great?
posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 07.27.06 (5:02 pm)
Reply to: taralynn
As a pastor, what I want government to do is leave my church alone. I believe such a disconnect with government is a big part of the reason why the church and personal faith are so strong in America. The church has pretty well died in Europe, where so many nations have had state-sponsored churches. So, I want the government to not be pro or con- just out of the church-sponsoring business. And I think, probably, you and I agree on this matter.
But, I don't see why the government must pretend there is no God, and try to erase any reference to God or religion from the public square. If you or anyone else wants to be Atheist/deist/pagan/whatever, then that should be your freedom, and without opression. But when you imagine that "opression" is for the state to make any inference/reference to deity that is different from your undestanding, then I believe you go too far.
Let's say I find myself living in a nation steped in Muslim tradition. Most of the citizens are Muslim. I think I would understand if much of the culture, including the government, was hued by the Muslim faith. I would not be offended if some Muslim holidays were nationalized, or if chidren were given opportunity during schooltime to pray their requisite 6 times per day. As long as I would be given the freedom to believe differently, and opt out of anything that I found incompatible- then I would understand. I just do not believe we must completely secularize the public venue in order to be true to the concept of seperation.