Under God

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

How are the robed ones going to rule on this one?

Get your god away from me!
18
58%
Save me Jesus
9
29%
deadlock - establishment clause only meaningful in the 9th district
4
13%
 
Total votes: 31

FredFlash
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:27 am

Postby FredFlash » Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:18 am

The Pledge is an oath of allegiance to the central state, and the "under God" language only serves to deify the state. From the perspective of a Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or James Madison, nothing could be more un-American. After all, they and their contemporaries had fought a long and bloody war of secession to sever their forced allegiance, complete with loyalty oaths, to another overbearing and tyrannical state, namely the British empire.

deskjockey
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:03 pm

Postby deskjockey » Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:13 pm

FredFlash wrote: Why ââ?¬Å?Under Godââ?¬? in the Pledge is Wrong: The Legal Argument

by Fred T. Slicer


The U. S. Constitution of 1787 is one of enumerated and limited powers. It excludes religion from the trust granted to the general government by the people.

The First Amendment is rather ambiguous in the sense that there is more than one reasonable interpretation.
Fred you have argued in the past that it was specified and cited Reynolds V US as an example of Madison�s specific definition of religion is what was intended.

Madison resolved any ambiguity when arguing the various drafts of the establishment clause. ââ?¬Å?Madison responded that the insertion of the word "national" before the word "religion" in the Committee version should satisfy the minds of those who had criticized the language. "He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought that if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent." Id., at 731.

ââ?¬Å?His original language "nor shall any national religion be established" obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. When he replied to Huntington in the debate over the proposal which came from the Select Committee of the House, he urged that the language "no religion shall be established by law" should be amended by inserting the word "national" in front of the word "religion."ââ?¬?

FredFlash wrote: In resolving this ambiguity we must be mindful of the ââ?¬Å?non delegation of authority over religionââ?¬? in the un-amended Constitution. Most of the First Amendmentââ?¬â?¢s ambiguity was resolved, during the first 50 years of the republic, in favor of the Perfect Separation of Church and State as generally articulated by the Jeffersonian Republicans and as particularly articulated by James Madison.
I understand you to mean perfect as in no givernment involvement in God including acknowledging, as you express on all the other websites. Therefore how do you reconcile, Madison making proclamation, funding the Bible Society of Phil., permitting public Sunday worship services in the Congressional building, he promoting the pay and selection of a chaplain, etc.

FredFlash wrote: James Madison held that that religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and is exempt from the cognizance of the government. This was the same principle adopted by the U. S. Supreme Court the first time it had to apply the religious clauses.
Fred we have discussed this case infinitum and you still don�t get it. The Reynolds case said Reynolds could believe anything he chooses, he just can practice his religion if it violates what givernment believes to be the peaceful norm. Givernment thereby stating it has a legal right to make law on religion. Why do you continue to post this stuff all over the net, when we have already proven what the decision is.

FredFlash wrote: Every major political dispute over the meaning of the religion clauses during the Early Years of the Republic was decided in favor of James Madison's view of religious liberty.
Faulty claim as you intend to make it. Many proclamations etc where enacted and many declined. All made no law establishing a religion, but they did make religious law, that of course was what Madison & Jefferson stated in Reynolds, that such religious law making was permitted by givernment.

FredFlash wrote: These early church-state disputes included:

� Whether Congress expressed the correct principle of the establishment clause by appointing Chaplains and paying them from the national taxes. (The House of Representatives in 1811 rejected the Federalist argument that the Constitution was intended to prevent the establishment of a National Church, such as the Church of England and that the correct principle was not violated by the appointment of Chaplains to Congress and paying from the national taxes. The House rejected the same argument in 1832 when it refused to pass a joint resolution to request the President to issue a religious recommendation to the people.)
Fred, the chaplains have been in there since day one. When they make a law removing the chaplains, call me with an argument of substance.

FredFlash wrote: ââ?¬Â¢ Whether the Constitution granted the President authority to issue religious recommendations. (Madisonââ?¬â?¢s view prevailed when Congress, after the proclamations issued during the War of 1812 did nothing but ââ?¬Å?rekindle political hatredââ?¬?, refused to pass resolutions asking for executive religious proclamations and Presidents refused to issue them.
We had proclamations before and after this. The fact that the marriage bill last week was defeated does not mean the founders were against marriage. Because every bill, no matter how redundant such as the national day of prayer being no different than the Thanksgiving holiday national day of prayer, may not pass does not mean that all the others operating in continued acceptance must be ignored. When Congress outlaws Thanksgiving, the National day of Prayer, Easter and Christmas celebration at the White House televised, Under God, In God We trust, on & on, then call me because then you have a valid argument.

FredFlash wrote:� Whether the 1810 Post Office law violated the First Amendment by requiring the Sabbath to be violated. (The House found that it did not)
The post office, for national security reasons operated for a couple hours on Sundays, not to make deliveries but to receive mail and deliver to those who came. The argument was over should the PO be open 1.5 hours during the morning when services are being held, thereby creating a hardship on the workers or move to a later time of the day.

FredFlash wrote: During the early years of the Republic, Congress never once made God the object of human legislation. It abstained from making laws regarding the peopleââ?¬â?¢s trust in their God or their beliefs regarding whether or not this is ââ?¬Å?one nation under God.ââ?¬? The Federal Government never recommended or advised the people to read, reflect upon or to obey particular religious commandments such as those God imposed on the Children of Israel.
Israel is a teleocratic givernment we are nomocratic. No relation nor did the founders many educated in seminaries claim the Bible the basis of a nomocratic document. What the legislature did is pass Thanksgiving momentarily after signing the Consitution that said the following.

ââ?¬Å?A PROCLAMATION
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge to providence of Almighty God --- to obey his will ---to be grateful for his benefits---and humbly to implore his protection and favour: And whereas both Houfes have, by their joint committee, requefted me to ââ?¬Å?recommend to the people of the United States, a day of Publick Thanksgiving and Prayer, to be obferved by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and fingal favours of Almighty God, efpecially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftabifh a form of government for their faftey and happinels. ââ?¬ÂŠ. ââ?¬Å?

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyameric ... ginal.html


FredFlash wrote: Whether or not the nation is "under God" pertains to the duty which we owe to our Creator, over which the U. S. Government has no authority whatsoever. As James Madison declared during the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788 on the Federal Constitution, "There is not a shadow of a right in the general government to intermeddle with religion."

Therefore:

We must conclude that there is not a shadow of a right in the general government to intermeddle with the people�s beliefs regarding religion which includes whether or not God is over the nation. We should remove "Under God" out of respect for the founding fathers.
From the Wallace V Jaffree majority opinion. ââ?¬Å?On the basis of the record of these proceedings in the House of Representatives, James Madison was undoubtedly the most important architect among the Members of the House of the Amendments which became the Bill of Rights, but it was James Madison speaking as an advocate of sensible legislative compromise, not as an advocate of incorporating the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty into the United States Constitution. During the ratification debate in the Virginia Convention, Madison had actually opposed the idea of any Bill of Rights. His sponsorship of the Amendments in the House was obviously not that of a zealous believer in the necessity of the Religion Clauses, but of one who felt it might do some good, could do no harm, and would satisfy those who had ratified the Constitution on the condition that Congress propose a Bill of Rights.(3) His original language "nor shall any national religion be established" obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. When he replied to Huntington in the debate over the proposal which came from the Select Committee of the House, he urged that the language "no religion shall be established by law" should be amended by inserting the word "national" in front of the word "religion."

FredFlash
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:27 am

How in the hell?

Postby FredFlash » Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:28 pm

How in the hell does James Madison's understanding of the version of the "equal rights of conscience" amendment reported to the House Committee of the Whole by the Select Commitee on August 15, 1789 get to be the meaning of the First Amendment when the reported amendment was not even the version that passed the House or passed Congress or was proposed to the States or was adopted by the States?

Below is what the Select Committee reported and what Madison was interpreting on August 15, 1789:

    The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows: Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.'
Below is what Madison said it meant:
    MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
Answer this question for extra credit: Why do those, such as William Rehnquist (may he roast in hell with Oliver Ellsworth) who wish to revive the evil Church-State always leave out what James Madison said about "the rights of conscience?"

Below is what was eventually adopted and became the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The legislative record does not contain James Madison's or anyone else's understanding of "respecting an establishment of religion."

Bambition
Senior Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:21 pm

Postby Bambition » Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:52 am

Ah, another posting by troll FredFlash/deskjockey on politics and religion. Please see his outing by Michael Patrick and myself at this thread:

http://www.thedailypage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16315

Feel free to ignore future postings by a crazy dude who appears to actually live in Virginia or North Carolina and persists in posting the same drivel on boards all over the country.

deskjockey
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:03 pm

Re: How in the hell?

Postby deskjockey » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:34 am

FredFlash wrote:How in the hell does James Madison's understanding of the version of the "equal rights of conscience" �Below is what the Select Committee reported and what Madison was interpreting on August 15, 1789:

    The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows: Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.'
Below is what Madison said it meant:
    MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
Answer this question for extra credit: Why do those, such as William Rehnquist (may he roast in hell with Oliver Ellsworth) who wish to revive the evil Church-State always leave out what James Madison said about "the rights of conscience?"
They didn�t leave out conscience, I don�t know if this counts but 6 hours earlier it was posted http://forums.somd.com/showpost.php?p=1 ... tcount=260 I know six hours is a long time. Fred, still up to your old tricks, eh. Ken King has now figured you out also. I felt it not necessary to retype that entire post again because most people have a 6 hour memory.

Conscience has never ever been an issue so it is bogus to bring it up. It is only the foundation of your bogus claim that givernment must expunge all religion. NO ONE HAS EVER SUGGESTED you can�t believe or that your conscience is not beyond the hand of givernment. So why traffic in these obfuscations.

FredFlash wrote: Below is what was eventually adopted and became the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The legislative record does not contain James Madison's or anyone else's understanding of "respecting an establishment of religion."
Fred it appears to you that moderate Rehnquist went to hell because he wasn�t a Gnostic dualist. Where is this in the Bible?

Now you have argued on the TAV site, among others, that Madison�s Memorial and Remonstrance, that only passed because many churches joined him to give him a majority, proved religious intent. And clearly those churches didn�t share your views. So why do you keep jumping all over the place. Pick one of your arguments and stick to it. It is Remonstrance, it isn�t. It is debates on the floor, it isn�t. It is court decisions, it isn�t. It is bills submitted, it is bills rejected. It is law passed, it is law voted down. Pick one side or the other.

Now for the extra credit. The remainder is Rehnquist opinion cited, ââ?¬Å?On June 8, 1789, James Madison rose in the House of Representatives and "reminded the House that this was the day that he had heretofore named for bringing forward amendments to the Constitution." 1 Annals of Cong. 424. ââ?¬ÂŠThe language Madison proposed for what ultimately became the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment was this:

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." Id., at 434.

On the same day that Madison proposed them, the amendments which formed the basis for the Bill of Rights were referred by the House to a Committee of the Whole, and after several weeks' delay were then referred to a Select Committee consisting of Madison and 10 others. The Committee revised Madison's proposal regarding the establishment of religion to read:

"[N]o religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." Id., at 729.

..... Madison then spoke, and said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." Id., at 730. He said that some of the state conventions had thought that Congress might rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause to infringe the rights of conscience or to establish a national religion, and "to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit."Ibid.

Representative Benjamin Huntington then expressed the view that the Committee's language might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it.".....He hoped that "the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all." Id., at 730-731.

Madison responded that the insertion of the word "national" before the word "religion" in the Committee version should satisfy the minds of those who had criticized the language. "He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought that if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent."
Id., at 731. �

The following week, without any apparent debate, the House voted to alter the language of the Religion Clauses to read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." Id., at 766. The floor debates in the Senate were secret, and therefore not reported in the Annals. The Senate on September 3, 1789, considered several different forms of the Religion Amendment, and reported this language back to the House:

"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 130 (1964).

The House refused to accept the Senate's changes in the Bill of Rights and asked for a conference; the version which emerged from the conference was that which ultimately found its way into the Constitution as a part of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The House and the Senate both accepted this language on successive days, and the Amendment was proposed in this form.

��it was James Madison speaking as an advocate of sensible legislative compromise, not as an advocate of incorporating the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty into the United States Constitution. During the ratification debate in the Virginia Convention, Madison had actually opposed the idea of any Bill of Rights. His sponsorship of the Amendments in the House was obviously not that of a zealous believer in the necessity of the Religion Clauses, but of one who felt it might do some good, could do no harm, and would satisfy those who had ratified the Constitution on the condition that Congress propose a Bill of Rights.(3) His original language "nor shall any national religion be established" obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. When he replied to Huntington in the debate over the proposal which came from the Select Committee of the House, he urged that the language "no religion shall be established by law" should be amended by inserting the word "national" in front of the word "religion."

It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion.

� None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them from the Select Committee, or the evil to be aimed at, would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke who concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly. If one were to follow the advice of Justice BRENNAN, concurring in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 236, 83 S.Ct., at 1578, 10 L.Ed.2d 844, and construe the Amendment in the light of what particular "practices . . . challenged threaten those consequences which the Framers deeply feared; whether, in short, they tend to promote that type of interdependence between religion and state which the First Amendment was designed to prevent," one would have to say that the First Amendment Establishment Clause should be read no more broadly than to prevent the establishment of a national religion or the governmental preference of one religious sect over another.

cheetah_woman
Senior Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:04 pm

Postby cheetah_woman » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:10 pm

I realized that I was an atheist when I was 7. This was in 1969 and we had to say the pledge at Hoyt School, "under God" and all. So I dealt with the situation simply by not saying "under God."

"Under God" was not originally part of the pledge. It was added in the 1950s to distinguish us from the "godless Communists" of the Soviet Union. :roll:

Shpiker
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 11:42 am
Contact:

Postby Shpiker » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:27 pm

cheetah_woman wrote:I realized that I was an atheist when I was 7...


WTF?? I knew I was Batman at age seven and thought hitting my brother was fun.

white_rabbit
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7487
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:44 pm

Postby white_rabbit » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:27 pm

Shpiker wrote: thought hitting my brother was fun.


You still do, don't you?

Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby Chuck_Schick » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:22 am

Shpiker wrote:WTF?? I knew I was Batman at age seven and thought hitting my brother was fun.

And that was all of, what, three years ago?

Shpiker
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 11:42 am
Contact:

Postby Shpiker » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:02 am

Yeah, Chuck. Good job on the math. Maybe mom will let you go on to 3rd grade now as long as you promise to stop flicking boogers at the girls.

Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby Chuck_Schick » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:08 am

Shpiker wrote:Maybe mom will let you go on to 3rd grade now as long as you promise to stop flicking boogers at the girls.

Ouch. Good one.

Your rapier wit is the equivalent of fencing with a pipe cleaner, ass.

cheetah_woman
Senior Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:04 pm

Postby cheetah_woman » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:55 pm

I'm still an atheist, I still think "under God" doesn't belong in the pledge, but I'm realistic enough to know that this country is much too stoned on organized religion ever to take it out.

I also think it's mindless dogma. Much like organized religion.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests