Newdow Goes After the Pledge Again.

[Stephen Maturin]

Michael Newdow has again filed suit in federal court to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. His complaint names as plaintiffs Newdow himself along with several children who attend classes in the Elk Grove School District and their parents.

Newdow is raising most of the same arguments he asserted in the original Pledge case along with some new ones. In one of the new claims he avers that the federal Pledge statute violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by imposing a "substantial burden" on the free exercise rights of non-monotheists.

The complaint is available for download here (http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/docs/2005-01-03%20complaint.pdf) (PDF, 141 pages). The document looks and reads much more like an appellate brief than a complaint, but it's an interesting read.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

I was just reading about this on Beliefnet.

"Newdow Refiles Pledge Case, Attempts to Halt Inaugural Prayers" (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/158/story_15892_1.html)
In the new case, Newdow has been joined in the suit by three families who include atheists and claim they are offended "to have their government and its agents advocating for a religious view they each specifically decry."

Defendants in the case include the Congress, California, the United States and several school districts.

The U.S. Supreme Court determined last June that Newdow did not have standing to bring the legal challenge.

Two weeks before refiling the pledge suit, Newdow filed suit in a Washington district court to try to halt designated clergy from uttering prayers at Bush's Jan. 20 inauguration.

Newdow said in the Dec. 21 filing that prayers such as those offered at the 2001 inauguration by the Rev. Franklin Graham and Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell made him feel like a "second-class citizen."
Some IIDB readers know that I turned down a chance to work with Michael Newdow in filing a Pledge Case in the Third District Court, but that I backed down due to concerns about my family's privacy, financial responsibility for the case, and potential lack of standing in New Jersey (my school district does not require Pledge recital).

There is more on Newdow's refiling of the Pledge case online, including:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14642

Indicating that Newdow's previous attempt was dismissed because he lacked standing, the AP reports:
In the latest challenge filed in Sacramento federal court on Jan. 3, eight co-plaintiffs have joined the suit, and all are custodial parents or the children themselves, Newdow said.

The plaintiffs’ names have been withheld from the suit.

“It’s because of the potential adverse impacts of having your name on a case like this. That’s why they are not named,� Newdow said yesterday in a telephone interview.
In a country where many nonbelievers are afraid to even call themselves atheists, is this any surprise? I wonder what sort of things I might accomplish if I weren't so afraid of the backlash from supporters of theocracy.

[Toto]

. . . The document looks and reads much more like an appellate brief than a complaint, but it's an interesting read.

The last time I heard Newdow speak, he explained that he started off consulting with FFRF. Their case against IGWT on the currency was dismissed because they had not made their complaint specific enough on one issue, and they were not allowed to amend it (don't have the time now to clarify what was going on.) But as a result, Newdow decided to throw everything into his complaints - facts, theories, the kitchen sink. . .

[Writer@Large]

Newdow's last run at this was brilliantly argued, and sadly dismissed on a technicality. I dearly hope this one gets judged on its merits (which the last one WAS, until SCOTUS).

--W@L

[Dick Springer]

I refuse to recite the pledge, not only because of the "under god" phrase, but because it is mostly an official statement of untrue beliefs. Do you really believe that there is "liberty and justice for all"?

Nevertheless, there are many more important issues, this is a hot-button issue, and any decision in the current climate is likely to uphold "under god" and is likely to include language that will haunt us in the future. We should wait on this one, while campaigning to have as many people as possible refuse to say the words.

[fromtheright]

This is exactly why I wish SCOTUS had decided on the merits. Though I'm sure my desired outcome is the opposite of most folks on this board, I wish they had put this matter to rest (as much as a Supreme Court decision can do so, anyway).

I'm curious about an item from the First Amendment Center's article: would Scalia have to recuse himself again? My guess is not because he did so while Newdow's first case was working its way through the appeals process and its over, but it remains the same issue.

[StrictSeparationist]

I'm curious about an item from the First Amendment Center's article: would Scalia have to recuse himself again? My guess is not because he did so while Newdow's first case was working its way through the appeals process and its over, but it remains the same issue.
Interesting question, as typical reasons for recusal are generally case-specific (e.g. the judge once worked for a company that now has a case before his/her court). When it's a matter of pre-judging, however, I can't see how the passage of time would have ameliorated the problem that forced Scalia to recuse himself initially.

In any event, I tend to agree that this sort of thing does more good than harm, though of course I'm rooting for Newdow every step of the way. The result is not going to be determined by whether or not Scalia decides to recuse himself, in any event--Kennedy is the only conservative/moderate vote up for grabs.

Of course, I'm getting ahead of myself here. There's no guarantee that the Ninth Circuit will rule the same way did originally, as en banc panels of the Ninth Circuit, the nation's largest Court of Appeals, are not always comprised of the same judges. If the Ninth Circuit were to rule against Newdow on the merits, I'm sure the Supreme Court would be only too happy to decline to grant cert., thus dodging the bullet a second time.

[Stephen Maturin]

But as a result, Newdow decided to throw everything into his complaints - facts, theories, the kitchen sink. . .

Not a bad idea, either. A dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" generally qualifies as an on-the-merits judgment having full preclusive effect. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure call only for "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief", quite a few judges want to see much greater particularity in complaints.

I'm curious about an item from the First Amendment Center's article: would Scalia have to recuse himself again?

I doubt it. AFAIK, the duty to recuse has always been viewed as case-specific rather than issue-specific.

Even so, I suspect that asking Scalia to recuse himself again is what Newdow had in mind when he named himself as plaintiff. The merits of Newdow's personal Establishment Clause claim will never be adjudicated because of standing problems. The Supreme Court killed his parental standing claim, and the rest of the standing allegations in the complaint range from dubious to downright frivolous. However, Newdow can keep his own claims alive by appealing an adverse ruling on his standing at the same time he handles the appellate work for the other plaintiffs. By keeping himself in the case all the way to the Supreme Court, he would lay the groundwork for arguing that present circumstances are substantially similar to those that existed when Scalia recused himself in the first case, so Scalia should recuse himself again.

That argument passes the straight face test easily, but I doubt it'll have much effect on Scalia. Then again, I was wrong about Scalia's willingness to recuse himself in the first case, so what the hell do I know? :D

[Mathew Goldstein]

Of course, I'm getting ahead of myself here. There's no guarantee that the Ninth Circuit will rule the same way did originally, as en banc panels of the Ninth Circuit, the nation's largest Court of Appeals, are not always comprised of the same judges. If the Ninth Circuit were to rule against Newdow on the merits, I'm sure the Supreme Court would be only too happy to decline to grant cert., thus dodging the bullet a second time.

Newdow is clearly planning to try to force the reluctant Supreme Court to revisit the issue by initiating lawsuits in most of the circuits if necessary, provided he can find suitable plaintiffs. Presumeably it will be the decision(s) favoring non-establishment that will be appealed.

I think the Newdow lawsuits give us one more reason to try to defend non-establishment of mono-theism in the mass media at every opportunity to prepare for the possible backlash should he win in the Supreme Court. Arguably the worst outcome would be a constitutional amendment that over-turns the Supreme Court.

[Toto]

Letter to the editor of the NY Times from Edd Doerr: Get Used to Under God (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/opinion/l13pledge.html)

Although Congress's 1954 insertion of the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance is of doubtful constitutionality, Michael Newdow's attempts to have the courts remove the phrase are unwise, as I pointed out in a debate with him last spring (at an A.C.L.U.-sponsored meeting at the University of Maryland).

Should he win in the Supreme Court, the country's response would surely be an unstoppable constitutional amendment that could well shred the First Amendment. Should he lose, the ruling would likely also damage the First Amendment.

Defenders of religious freedom and church-state separation should expend their effort on more important issues, such as blocking efforts to force all taxpayers to support faith-based schools or to impose faith-based limits on reproductive freedom.


Sad but true.

[fr8trainman]

If "...under God..." became a constitutional amendment, how would it impact the 1st amendment?

Wouldn't this defacto make monotheism an official religion?

Can one amendment bepassed if it conflicts so directly with an earlier one?



I'm really trying to get smarter here,

fr8trainman

[Nectaris]

If "...under God..." became a constitutional amendment, how would it impact the 1st amendment?

Wouldn't this defacto make monotheism an official religion?

Can one amendment bepassed if it conflicts so directly with an earlier one?

I'm really trying to get smarter here,

fr8trainman

Yes. The best example are the 18th and 21st amendments, the former was the national prohibition act, while the latter repealed the 18th. Fortunately, amending the Constitution is difficult, although not impossible.

Dave

[themistocles]

Letter to the editor of the NY Times from Edd Doerr: Get Used to Under God (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/opinion/l13pledge.html)



Sad but true.

I've never felt that this was an appropriate battleground for secularism for that very reason. If the American public is going confound "strict seperation" with "declaring war on religion", then the secularist is going to have be a little more politically shrewd, and less doctrinaire ideologically. To disagree is to argue for the impractical.

[GaryP]

So where should we start? It still seems to me that a discussion about how the phrase got into the Pledge in the 1st place and how it discriminates against all citizens except monotheists might be a good beginning for equal recognition of non-believers.

Since it is difficult to change the Constitution, perhaps enough citizens would realize the folly of amending it during the process.

Back when the ERA was in the process of being ratified, it seemed a done deal to me. But it didn't make it. Perhaps this would be the same.

It is no doubt a gamble. And I understand the trepidation for many of us. But several generations have grown up saying the POA the way it is. Not bringing this up would make it even more entrenched.

Can we really hope to change Faith based initiatives and vouchers etc. if Christians feel such entitlement as being the chosen ones in this country? "Undr god" and IGWT and hands on Bibles for Presidential oaths go a long way in confirming the 2nd class citiznship of atheists and indeed all but Christians.

[capsaicin67]

There simply are no credible and charismatic voices in popular culture [or damn few] to back this sort of thing up. There is the legal battle and then there is the Culture War. As with slavery. We need active, courageous voices explaining the virtues of Enlightenment Ideals daily, and not just legal voices, but popular and charismatic ones too. I find it shocking that there are almost no voices that speak up and explain the virtue of the 9th's Pledge Ruling, and defend it passionately. The bulk of the media and citizenry have this great historical amnesia.

One without the other is always going to be weak and perilous, but I believe that the cultural foundation is needed for the legal one to hold---unless the SCOTUS gets a rash of integrity of extraordinary boldness to defend Core Founding Principles of the US/Revolution etc.

[Toto]

Here is someone who supports Newdow, but with supporters like this. . .

THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & OTHER PRAYERS FOR AUTHORITARIANISM (http://magic-city-news.com/article_2760.shtml) The author of the pledge of allegiance (Francis Bellamy) was a self-proclaimed National Socialist and vice-president of the "Society of Christian Socialists" wherein he advocated "military socialism" (a Bellamy phrase) and the nationalization and militarization of all of American society. Bellamy's original hand-salute to the flag was not the hand-over-the-heart but was a straight-armed salute that was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The pledge began with a military salute which was extended outward toward the flag for the straight-arm salute and that is how the military salute in the USA evolved into the salute style of the Nazis. The claim that the straight-arm salute was an old Roman salute is a myth that has been debunked by the undersigned attorney. In his original pledge speech, in which he promoted his totalitarianism, Bellamy included the words "under God" in an effort to deify his dogma.

[themistocles]

So where should we start? It still seems to me that a discussion about how the phrase got into the Pledge in the 1st place and how it discriminates against all citizens except monotheists might be a good beginning for equal recognition of non-believers.

A good, but difficult question to answer. Your own answer to the question seems reasonable, but in this America where the right is increasingly defining "politically correct" (as opposed to the left dominated 90s), then it might be important to define "discrimination" in meaningful and practical terms. Being offended or feeling excluded are not explanations that are going to cut it in the current political climate.

Since it is difficult to change the Constitution, perhaps enough citizens would realize the folly of amending it during the process.

I think amending the Constitution to ensure "under God" stays in the Pledge is more plausible than an amendment to either outlaw or safeguard gay marriage, and it's certain that we're going to have to consider such an amendment. The thing is, I don't see or expect an amendment to be offered to protect "under God", but who knows? :huh:

Can we really hope to change Faith based initiatives and vouchers etc. if Christians feel such entitlement as being the chosen ones in this country? "Undr god" and IGWT and hands on Bibles for Presidential oaths go a long way in confirming the 2nd class citiznship of atheists and indeed all but Christians.

Perhaps this is my problem with ultra-secularism: the belief that being an atheist is somehow akin to being a victim. I've been an atheist for quite some time, and I've never felt--never felt--that anyone held it against me, or that I was somehow "a second class citizen". Are other atheists truly feeling otherwise? What is the reason for feeling as such?

There simply are no credible and charismatic voices in popular culture [or damn few] to back this sort of thing up. There is the legal battle and then there is the Culture War. As with slavery.

I find the cause of secularism as doomed to complete failure if anyone's going to equate it with abolitionism.

We need active, courageous voices explaining the virtues of Enlightenment Ideals daily, and not just legal voices, but popular and charismatic ones too.

What is lacking in our society which requires "Enlightenment Ideals"?

I find it shocking that there are almost no voices that speak up and explain the virtue of the 9th's Pledge Ruling, and defend it passionately.

I don't. I think the desperation displayed by those who desperately want to vanquish the whole two words appears to the public at large as an irrational act of ideological fundamentalists. I don't think the public feels that those two words have denigrated them as a body, and that the vigor of the opponents of those two words appears entirely as the efforts of a tiny minority who oppose religion in general. A position which won't fly in this country, religious as it is.

The bulk of the media and citizenry have this great historical amnesia.

This is likely true, but I have to wonder whether or not the public would change its mind given full knowledge of the history of the Pledge....

The author of the pledge of allegiance (Francis Bellamy) was a self-proclaimed National Socialist and vice-president of the "Society of Christian Socialists" wherein he advocated "military socialism" (a Bellamy phrase) and the nationalization and militarization of all of American society. Bellamy's original hand-salute to the flag was not the hand-over-the-heart but was a straight-armed salute that was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The pledge began with a military salute which was extended outward toward the flag for the straight-arm salute and that is how the military salute in the USA evolved into the salute style of the Nazis. The claim that the straight-arm salute was an old Roman salute is a myth that has been debunked by the undersigned attorney. In his original pledge speech, in which he promoted his totalitarianism, Bellamy included the words "under God" in an effort to deify his dogma.

This story is obviously bs considering the Pledge was introduced in 1892 and Bellamy died in '31.

Whoops. :rolling:

Can't even claim historical amnesia. Sounds like outright lying to me. :thumbs:

[GaryP]

Perhaps this is my problem with ultra-secularism: the belief that being an atheist is somehow akin to being a victim. I've been an atheist for quite some time, and I've never felt--never felt--that anyone held it against me, or that I was somehow "a second class citizen". Are other atheists truly feeling otherwise? What is the reason for feeling as such?

I've never felt a victim either until I tried to obtain equal access to a public area. There are certainly cases of atheists losing jobs and being threatened for seeking changes. For example, the families who asked that prayers be stopped before HS football games in Texas were permitted to remain anonymous by the judge.

There are various degrees of being a "second class citizen". It does not only occur when one is threatened with violence or discrimination. I think it can happen when a citizen is denied the same consideration as the majority.

[themistocles]

I've never felt a victim either until I tried to obtain equal access to a public area. There are certainly cases of atheists losing jobs and being threatened for seeking changes.

Well, I would consider such cases as extreme and shameful, but I would also assume such cases to be of such rarity that they are not relevant to the issues such as the Pledge and other "is this over the line?" sort of Seperation cases. There is not a conspiracy to snuff out the atheist in this country. It is a highly religious country, but it is by and large sensitive to the value of personal beliefs.

For example, the families who asked that prayers be stopped before HS football games in Texas were permitted to remain anonymous by the judge.

I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I've always felt that high school football is something of a club in nature, in which all participants are there voluntarily, and that there is a unique culture which surrounds such events that is not appropriate to relate or compare to other situations. To complain about prayer at a high school football game is a bit nit picky, in my opinion. I can appreciate being annoyed, bored, or uncomfortable, but it's not the routine krystalnacht some ultra-secularists make it out to be. I think it's more annoying, and frankly selfish to stand up and do something about it, if it's a routine that the overwhelming majority (heck, perhaps the unanimous consent) prefers.

There are various degrees of being a "second class citizen". It does not only occur when one is threatened with violence or discrimination. I think it can happen when a citizen is denied the same consideration as the majority.

Well, I have my doubts lately that there is a pressing need for every last person to receive "the same consideration" as everyone else (mainly "consideration for what?" and "why?", really). Being an atheist myself, with absolutely no qualms about admitting it, I have serious doubts that my odds at doing anything I'd like to do are at stake because of my (non) belief. For me, this is the measure of being a "second class citizen".

For me, the bottom line is that secularists have been overly zealous in selecting their battlegrounds and that the result has been the impression towards the public at large (who appreciates the freedom of religion), that religion is being threatened. That some atheists/secularists have no problem explaining religion away as a blight against humanity does not help their cause, if they are to enforce their view on a nation with democratic institutions (majority wins, typically). I think there should be a clarification as to what is injust or discriminatory behavior, before you can combat such behavior. That clarification does not exist. And, furthermore--and this is a rant in general, not a reply to a specific post here, but if a political interest is going to wave the banner for protecting freedom of conscience, then they cannot also wave the litmus religious test of their public officials. I can understand the logic that "well, that guy is ultra-religious, so he's going to threaten our secularist values", but there's something inherently contradictory about worrying about a person's own personal beliefs, arguing those beliefs as evidence the person is unfit for office, and then doing so in the name of protecting 1st amendment values....But I guess that's neither here nor there.

[capsaicin67]

themistocles: It is a highly religious country, but it is by and large sensitive to the value of personal beliefs.

Although I think that GaryP summed it up fairly, I must say that your statement here is not my experience of late. While I think that theism has learned to tolerate theism---finally---fairly well, they have not, however, expanded this view to include nontheists, generally. People that don't go to church because they are sleeping off a hangover or just don't like to think too deep are tolerated well also. People that are thoughtfully, decisively atheistic are viewed as a mutually exclusive threat--that is, their metaphysical position is viewed by many theists as an assault on supernatural religion by their very existence. Like Judaism used to be--you know, the people that crucified Christ and don't worship him and have tiny horns in their curly hair?

TLC last noc had on a show about Satanism that treated the topic seriously, not just in the sense that some people engage in cult activities or worship Satan, but more importantly, from what I saw, *minus* any criticism or acknowledgement that Satan himself may or probably does not exist at all. Many people think it is a small divide between atheism and Satanism from my personal conversations. Our only salavation is that they tell themselves that we are still searching, haven't really considered religious matters, or are simply confused. There is the NE religiousity that is about keeping your religion to yourself, and then there is the kind that is more actively evangelical, ambitious, intrusive and judgemental. The latter is the kind that worries me.

It doesn't have to get to Krystalnacht for people to care. I want to prevent that type of scenario, not redress it after the fact. I don't want to see C/SS continue to incrementally erode. I have experienced negative comments and reactions from those that became aware of my nontheism. They didn't tar and feather me, but they definitely felt threatened. Also, I see a *growing* fashionable trend of denigrating atheists in the media and misrepresenting them, very little supporting them. That is not a good trend. Do you think that a decisive, out, atheist could be elected President currently? I don't. Based on that issue alone.

Lastly, I would say that in my mind the religious extremists/evangelicals are determined to continue to try and erode C/SS and rewrite US history. And it all started when evangelicals originally supported C/SS as a strategic avenue to protecting their movement until it built up enough momentum/numbers to destroy C/SS once they could dominate the commons/govt. This is nothing new, it's a steady thing. They are stronger than ever, freethought-C/SS, formally, are more unpopular than in a long time, too, IMHO.

The Pledge isn't just about the Pledge. And while I would not have tilted at that issue first and foremost, it in principle should not have been hijacked theistically. And many citizens are not simply saying "it's not big deal", they are stating that C/SS itself, and reason, are not important American ideals. The Pledge, like the snowy owl, is an Indicator Species of the health of a culture that respects Reason and Enlightenment Ideals I think.

That is why I think these issues are significant. The country's citizenry doesn't get any longer [and an organized effort is under way to further mislead them] that the Core Founders fought to steer things toward science, reason, liberty, tolerance, and *specifically* fought over these issues because they saw their [I]significance and vulnerabilityas well.

[scombrid]

It is a highly religious country, but it is by and large sensitive to the value of personal beliefs.

That depends on where you live and who you ask. Tune into the radio stations on the low end of the FM dial or TBN/Superchannel on the television and run this by me again. Many of them aren't far from wanting us jailed to keep us from corrupting them or bringing the wrath of god on them.



To complain about prayer at a high school football game is a bit nit picky, in my opinion. I can appreciate being annoyed, bored, or uncomfortable, but it's not the routine krystalnacht some ultra-secularists make it out to be.

Simply annoying? Try being the one kid on the football team that believes different. I was a bully in high school until early in grade 10 when I realized how fucking cruel I was being. I know how we treated the "different" kids. It didn't matter how they were different. Funny hair, acne, wrong shoes, athletically inferior, wrong beliefs, etc.... I'm lucky my targets didn't get revenge. Once I quit bullying I fell out of grace with the cool kids and became a target. The only thing that saved me severe abuse was that I was strong enough that some of the cool kids were afraid to push me too far. I know how it is from both sides. I garrantee that in relgious type schools, a kid that would dare abstain from a team prayer would probably get his ass kicked in the locker room. Yeah, this country is oh so sensitive to personal beliefs.


For me, the bottom line is that secularists have been overly zealous in selecting their battlegrounds and that the result has been the impression towards the public at large (who appreciates the freedom of religion), that religion is being threatened.

Yeah, we need to pick our battles more carefully. I think we should stop using the courts even when we are technically correct but the issue doesn't cause direct harm (ie. prayer at football games, nativities at city hall, etc...). Using the courts fuels the public perception (spun oh so well by the Bushies et al.) that the minority is suppressing the majority's freedom. Speaking out without using the coersion of law will probably do more good in the long run. Let the rightwingnuts be the aggressors. Most people didn't pay enough attention in American history or civics classes to understand the importance of minority rights or the distinction between private action/expression and infringement of another's rights.

but if a political interest is going to wave the banner for protecting freedom of conscience, then they cannot also wave the litmus religious test of their public officials.

This is a fair point.

I can understand the logic that "well, that guy is ultra-religious, so he's going to threaten our secularist values", but there's something inherently contradictory about worrying about a person's own personal beliefs, arguing those beliefs as evidence the person is unfit for office, and then doing so in the name of protecting 1st amendment values....But I guess that's neither here nor there.

Yes, simply excluding someone from consideration simply because he is ultra-religious would be the same as the existing automatic exclusion of anyone not religious from public office.

However, I don't often see the case where we dislike someone just because he is religious. It is actions that flow from certain forms of religions that are a problem. Evangelical religion tends to automatically put politicians at odds with the first ammendment because they have supreme difficulty separating their personnal belief and private actions from their duties as officers of the state. The judge in Alabama that has the 10C embroidered on his robe is an example of this. He refuses to act as an impartial arbiter of the law based on his belief. If he simply acted as an impartial judge we'd never know his personal belief in order to dislike him for it.

Wouldn't it be great if we were unable to distinguish an unreligious politician from a fundamentalist like the president because they both simply execute the laws of the state. If Bush simply went to church all the time, attended prayer vigils, and such but acted in a secular manner in office (you know, instead of advocating his religious belief as public policy) then I doubt anybody would find fault with his beliefs.

[nixon]

Originally Posted by fr8trainman
If "...under God..." became a constitutional amendment, how would it impact the 1st amendment?

Wouldn't this defacto make monotheism an official religion?

Can one amendment bepassed if it conflicts so directly with an earlier one?

I'm really trying to get smarter here,

fr8trainman


Yes. The best example are the 18th and 21st amendments, the former was the national prohibition act, while the latter repealed the 18th. Fortunately, amending the Constitution is difficult, although not impossible.

Dave

Notice however that the 21st amendment stated in plain language that the 18th was repealed. I would expect for a future amendment to work for bringing in religion to govt, it would have to revoke / alter parts of the first. Now would people vote for a constitutional amendment that stated on the face that it was altering the 1st amendment? I can tell you this: If they do, I am so outta here.

[themistocles]

An excellent counter-argument, capsaicin67, but I will disagree/comment on a few points.

Also, I see a *growing* fashionable trend of denigrating atheists in the media and misrepresenting them, very little supporting them. That is not a good trend. Do you think that a decisive, out, atheist could be elected President currently? I don't. Based on that issue alone.

Perhaps a good test, and I think you're probably right. However, I would like to come back to this after the next point I'd like to address:

Lastly, I would say that in my mind the religious extremists/evangelicals are determined to continue to try and erode C/SS and rewrite US history. And it all started when evangelicals originally supported C/SS as a strategic avenue to protecting their movement until it built up enough momentum/numbers to destroy C/SS once they could dominate the commons/govt. This is nothing new, it's a steady thing. They are stronger than ever, freethought-C/SS, formally, are more unpopular than in a long time, too, IMHO.

For one, I would dispute the conscious drive of evangelicals to consolidate some hegemonic political power specifically for advancing their religious vision, nor would I assume their political capital to be limitless. I view this largely in a political and cultural context, and I am of the impression that strict seperationists such as Newdow have come off to the public not as people protecting basic fundamental rights, but rather as ideological zealots waging war against religion. I think that is the message interpreted by mainstream America. I think most of America feels more threatened by C/SS than Christian evangelicals, and for purely cultural reasons. Rather, the motivation of evangelicals is not rather revolutionary, but to protect the cultural status quo from what it views as a creeping infringement against that culture, in my opinion. Keeping "God" on our coins and in our Pledge to them is not about turning the nation into a theocracy, but rather it elicits a "well, what's wrong with God?" from that crowd. I thought Judge Moore's 10 Commandments in his courtroom, and his supporters to keep those Commandments were acting in defiance of ultra-secularism, frankly, that there was some level of spite in their actions, on top of their sincere religious beliefs. I think there simply is a disconnect of motivation, and perhaps from both sides of the aisle.

As for an atheist president and "fashionable" trends to bash atheists in the media. There could be a cultural holdover from previous times (those godless Commies!), but I wouldn't put too much stock into that. I think it has directly to do with what I've pointed out in my previous paragraph: the stereotype of the "militant atheist" who is out to destroy religion. In light of this, I think it is possible for an atheist or agnostic to win a high office, but not on the same footing as a religious person. For one, they would have to have incredible assets as a political candidate up front to merit consideration at all. I think the prototypical freethinker politician would have to be frank with their beliefs publicly, to meet the mudslinging "he's/she's an atheist!" accusations head on. But they would specifically have to go out of their way to stress that they respect religion and even perhaps would have to tip their cap to religion at uncomfortably high levels. And, I think they would have to avoid rocking the boat on C/SS issues. Now, this might sound unsavory to many strict seperationists, but we are talking in terms of politics, an unsavory world to begin with, and you have to take the political leverage where you can find it.

The Pledge isn't just about the Pledge. And while I would not have tilted at that issue first and foremost, it in principle should not have been hijacked theistically. And many citizens are not simply saying "it's not big deal", they are stating that C/SS itself, and reason, are not important American ideals. The Pledge, like the snowy owl, is an Indicator Species [Issue] of the health of a culture that respects Reason and Enlightenment Ideals I think.

Well, this may be so, but do you want to test these ideals before a vote for the Constitution? Should we really continue to raise the stakes at every opportunity?

[themistocles]

That depends on where you live and who you ask. Tune into the radio stations on the low end of the FM dial or TBN/Superchannel on the television and run this by me again. Many of them aren't far from wanting us jailed to keep us from corrupting them or bringing the wrath of god on them.

Every stripe of belief has their own cranks who make bombastic statements.

Simply annoying? Try being the one kid on the football team that believes different. I was a bully in high school until early in grade 10 when I realized how fucking cruel I was being. I know how we treated the "different" kids.

Well, there's something to be said for the importance of solidarity on a football team. I never played sports, but I suppose if I were put in that situation--a voluntary one, it should be noted--then I would see such a thing as nothing more than a ritual (and high school sports, of course, is steeped in rituals), and taking part in such things is a show of solidarity with your teamates.


I garrantee that in relgious type schools, a kid that would dare abstain from a team prayer would probably get his ass kicked in the locker room. Yeah, this country is oh so sensitive to personal beliefs.

Well, strictly in the context of school sports, that kid would probably be viewed as selfish, which is not a useful trait in a context where cooperation is necessary. But, in a more broad context of school, I don't think personal beliefs are necessarily ruinous to an individual in a high school. Every school has its own culture and context, of course, but before college, I'd only experienced Catholic school, and the diversity of personal beliefs grew exponentially with every year and I can't recall anyone having been troubled for their differences. Some of the most insidious secularists I've ever known in my life went to a freakin' Jesuit school across town. :D

Yeah, we need to pick our battles more carefully. I think we should stop using the courts even when we are technically correct but the issue doesn't cause direct harm (ie. prayer at football games, nativities at city hall, etc...). Using the courts fuels the public perception (spun oh so well by the Bushies et al.) that the minority is suppressing the majority's freedom.

This is actually true. Many will point out that judges of high standing are not elected. There is a religious undercurrent to gay marriage, for example. It might be noteworthy to compare states which have approved of such unions, and which ones have disapproved, and consider whether the approval/disapproval was arrived at by court/public edict or at the polling booth. I think this might be considered an important litmus test towards the public's perception of what the "minority" is interested in....

Speaking out without using the coersion of law will probably do more good in the long run.

At the current rate, ultra-secularism is being marginalized at the fringe. The White House and Congress is Republican and may be for quite some time. The 9th Circuit has been ridiculed as the 9th Circus. We are closer now to amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage and protect the word "God" in public referances than we are to having a Constitutional amendment to protecting strict-C/SS interests.....is the current C/SS strategy working?

Let the rightwingnuts be the aggressors.

Let them be. Frankly, I thought Falwell and co. were an albatross around the necks of the GOP, the Democrats have just been more adept at shooting themselves in the foot, politically. I don't think the political capital of the religious right is limitless. They can, however, "get away with it" so long as their direct political opposite is seen as waving a threatening banner and denouncing a fundamental cultural bastion. The fundamentalists aren't in their position solely from their own merits....

Most people didn't pay enough attention in American history or civics classes to understand the importance of minority rights or the distinction between private action/expression and infringement of another's rights.

This is undoubtedly true. But it doesn't help when people are posting arguments that Francis Bellamy was a national socialist who wanted to emulate the Nazis to get unthinking patriotism out of the public. :D

Remember, that holding "dissent" or being a member of a "minority" also doesn't mean being right, necessarily. Most people are not creationists or flat earthers, after all.

However, I don't often see the case where we dislike someone just because he is religious. It is actions that flow from certain forms of religions that are a problem. Evangelical religion tends to automatically put politicians at odds with the first ammendment because they have supreme difficulty separating their personnal belief and private actions from their duties as officers of the state. The judge in Alabama that has the 10C embroidered on his robe is an example of this. He refuses to act as an impartial arbiter of the law based on his belief. If he simply acted as an impartial judge we'd never know his personal belief in order to dislike him for it.

I totally agree in sentiment, although see my last reply for the 10C/Alabama. I do think there's a level of spite and defiance in the act of some public figures and their supporters, and while this is indeed wrong, I think their actions stem (by definition, if its spite/defiance, I guess) from a reactionary mindset, rather than, say, a proselytizing of their faith. And, remember we are still talking within the realm of politics: Judge Moore was forced to remove his 10Cs by the state attorney general, who is an avid supporter of our president, an evangelical Christian. Some of Bush's appointments have failed because there was a concern for their religious sway. So, at the very least, we cannot claim that the evangelicals/fundamentalists are unlimited in their sway.

[Mathew Goldstein]

I've never felt that this was an appropriate battleground for secularism for that very reason. If the American public is going confound "strict seperation" with "declaring war on religion", then the secularist is going to have be a little more politically shrewd, and less doctrinaire ideologically. To disagree is to argue for the impractical.

Would you call the lawsuit against Christian public school prayer an example of "strict seperation" and "declaring war on religion"? I think that case was an example of straightforward equal protection, family privacy and free exercise and government non-establishment. I don't see any qualitative difference between that and "Under God" Christian compatable monotheism in the public school patriotic pledge ritual. Indeed, the political mixing of the patriotism and monotheism by the federal government is obnoxious. Non-establishment is a valuable and helpful for promoting just government, fair democracy and as a counter-weight to prejudice.

[Mathew Goldstein]

I think amending the Constitution to ensure "under God" stays in the Pledge is more plausible than an amendment to either outlaw or safeguard gay marriage, and it's certain that we're going to have to consider such an amendment. The thing is, I don't see or expect an amendment to be offered to protect "under God", but who knows?

There is such an amendment which was submitted to Congress during the first Newdow lawsuit and it hasn't gone anywhere because the Newdow lawsuit was rejected. I agree with those who think that the odds that an amendment would succeed should Newdow win in the SCOTUS is substantial and that this is a big problem. The idiotic flag anti-consecration amendment has almost passed and Newdow winning the Pledge case would generate more public hysteria and elected official grandstanding than that has. No elected official could get re-elected who votes against such an amendment in any of the red states which substantially outnumber the blue states and the same is true for many election districts in the blue states. I think Doerr is correct, an amendment upholding establishment of Christian compatable monotheism would sail through, maybe in historically record time.

[capsaicin67]

themistocles: For one, I would dispute the conscious drive of evangelicals to consolidate some hegemonic political power specifically for advancing their religious vision,

I don't think they are a homogeneous Borg, but I do in fact believe that there are financial and opinion leaders within the religion industry that have this very much as their goal, all the way back to the Revolution. And many like-minded, and misguided minions as well amongst the rabble.

nor would I assume their political capital to be limitless.

I wouldn't either, but the last 10 years have turned all prior assumptions on their heads. When everyone was sniggering about the Church Lady and Newt's flopping against the great glass pane of Bill Clinton's charisma, we would have thought today's political climate nigh impossible too! What changed is that the RR figured out that they had to change the culture as much or more than the legal aspects. Their media machine spews their marketing 24/7, and they are softening the culture in order to be taken more seriously legally IMO.

I view this largely in a political and cultural context, and I am of the impression that strict seperationists such as Newdow have come off to the public not as people protecting basic fundamental rights, but rather as ideological zealots waging war against religion. I think that is the message interpreted by mainstream America. I think most of America feels more threatened by C/SS than Christian evangelicals, and for purely cultural reasons.

I agree. Though I think that is in large part because Enlightenment Ideals, and C/SS are not explained and promoted by any prominent opinion leaders. The Left has slipped from a position of leading on convictions and serious populist concerns to being a party of Ghosts of Populism and Values Victories Past. The public sees the Xtreme Garbage that passes for entertainment on tv and even fairly open-minded people wonder where the bottom is. Now in some respects, as an adult, I'm pretty openminded. But I see hatefulness and the most banal immaturity passing for family entertainment in the mainstream regularly. I can see a dilemma as well. All that and the lack of a visible block of constructive, thoughtful citizens openly out and organized as nontheist neighbors combines to create the climate favorable to reactionary etremism culturally.

OTOH, supernaturalism and reason are always mutually exclusive---and that truth is always lurking just beneath the surface of polite conversation. And both realize that the unchecked growth of one, does in fact negate the other. "Balancing" them is the work of nuanced thinking, something harder to sell and soundbite and think about. Thus, defensiveness prevails and is easily sold.

Rather, the motivation of evangelicals is not rather revolutionary, but to protect the cultural status quo from what it views as a creeping infringement against that culture, in my opinion.

Somewhat. But I believe that many are ambitious, both evangelically, and financially. And intolerant. And not especially thoughtful in an expansive manner.

Keeping "God" on our coins and in our Pledge to them is not about turning the nation into a theocracy, but rather it elicits a "well, what's wrong with God?" from that crowd. I thought Judge Moore's 10 Commandments in his courtroom, and his supporters to keep those Commandments were acting in defiance of ultra-secularism, frankly, that there was some level of spite in their actions, on top of their sincere religious beliefs. I think there simply is a disconnect of motivation, and perhaps from both sides of the aisle.

Judges and political opinion leaders should be leading and explaining "what the big deal is". That is a huge part of the problem. Our society should be about correcting bad ideas. Those are bad ideas.

I think it is possible for an atheist or agnostic to win a high office, but not on the same footing as a religious person. For one, they would have to have incredible assets as a political candidate up front to merit consideration at all. I think the prototypical freethinker politician would have to be frank with their beliefs publicly, to meet the mudslinging "he's/she's an atheist!" accusations head on. But they would specifically have to go out of their way to stress that they respect religion and even perhaps would have to tip their cap to religion at uncomfortably high levels.

Maybe. They'd definitely have to play the Kennedy game of saying that they would be serving the country and not the Atheist Pope: Satan. :rolleyes:

And, I think they would have to avoid rocking the boat on C/SS issues. Now, this might sound unsavory to many strict seperationists, but we are talking in terms of politics, an unsavory world to begin with, and you have to take the political leverage where you can find it.

Not rocking the boat on C/SS issues is what keeps allowing the erosion. ANY dissent is seen as an "attack on religion". What needs done, is *effectively* promoting C/SS while reaching the mainstream with why it is in their own best interests too. And taking a clue from the playbook of evangelicals and organizing and building our representation and visibility and credibility to levels where we cannot be shut out or ignored. The culture needs to "get" again why C/SS was an American Ideal that we should all feel proud of, and want to defend.

Well, this may be so, but do you want to test these ideals before a vote for the Constitution? Should we really continue to raise the stakes at every opportunity?

As I am wont to say, NO, I sure don't. A lot of essential groundwork needs done prior.

[capsaicin67]

me: OTOH, supernaturalism and reason are always mutually exclusive---and that truth is always lurking just beneath the surface of polite conversation. And both realize that the unchecked growth of one, does in fact negate the other. "Balancing" them is the work of nuanced thinking, something harder to sell and soundbite and think about. Thus, defensiveness prevails and is easily sold.

I wanted to clarify: personally I don't think that "reason" needs checked. But others do. I was just lumping together their perspective with that of nontheists and commenting that both feel strongly that their angle is better. I would totally agree that reason is "superior" to super-stition/naturalism. Naturally, I think that is so. But liberty of conscience will include many who subscribe to the latter indefinitely, and thus we need to be able to live together.

That being said, many supernaturalists believe that it is necessary for everyone to believe as they do for the sake of their supernatural souls post-death etc, and many reason-lovers recognize that reason is better for living now with respect to problem-solving/responsibility/empowerment and would certainly prefer that a majority if not all people would share this view. Some in both camp recognize that both must coexist for both to survive, but just as at the time of the Revolution---those in the majority are less interested in compromise than those in the minority. And the ideas are mutually exclusive. But difficult to say how to resolve this difficult part of the Culture War---which is a struggle between supernaturalism and reason. The same struggle the Core Founders grappled with. But, I think they thought that new scientific awareness would resolve this simmering and occasionally flaring dilemma incrementally, naturally. My impression is that they felt they pushed the envelope as far as they could in their era, and figured people would work the rest out after knowledge, literacy, prosperity and democratic/republic-an ideals spread....

It is hard to say whether Newdow is a what you see is what you get pot-stirrer, or if his strategy extends to believing that even if the pendulum swings wildly the wrong direction, this will serve another purpose---helping people to see "what the big deal is", and especially forcing the hand of complacent nontheists and moderates and making them fight for what they have taken for granted, even if under protest.

[Tigers2B1]

Forgive me for asking this question – I'm sure it's been answered here before – but reading through this thread I've noticed that "monotheism" is equated with a "religion" – and an "established religion" after that. This seems to be unquestioned. Yet, in my way of thinking – monotheism relates to a classification - not a religion. I would be interested in hearing responses indicating why it is reasonable to assign the moniker of 'religion' to what I see as the classification called "monotheism?"

[Toto]

Forgive me for asking this question – I'm sure it's been answered here before – but reading through this thread I've noticed that "monotheism" is equated with a "religion" – and an "established religion" after that. This seems to be unquestioned. Yet, in my way of thinking – monotheism relates to a classification - not a religion. I would be interested in hearing responses indicating why it is reasonable to assign the moniker of 'religion' to what I see as the classification called "monotheism?"

It's really just imprecise language. By establishing "monotheism" people are really talking about discriminating against non-believers.

When the first amendment was written, it was aimed at the problem of one type of believer forcing his views on believers in a different sort of religion. But secularism has advanced enough in the last 200 years that believers in any sort of God feel the need to cling together to combat atheism.

President Eisenhower (who signed the law putting "under God" in the Pledge) said that "everybody has to believe in something."

[Tigers2B1]

It's really just imprecise language. By establishing "monotheism" people are really talking about discriminating against non-believers.

When the first amendment was written, it was aimed at the problem of one type of believer forcing his views on believers in a different sort of religion. But secularism has advanced enough in the last 200 years that believers in any sort of God feel the need to cling together to combat atheism.

President Eisenhower (who signed the law putting "under God" in the Pledge) said that "everybody has to believe in something."

So it's really not "monotheism" - since "believers in any sort of God feel the need to cling together to combat atheism." It's theism - right? Also -- I'm having problems with your point that "monotheism" is a religion per se. By definition and in practice - it isn't. Christianity is a religion – Judaism is a religion. Islam is also. But monotheism is not and neither is polytheism. Those are concepts – classifications of religions, not the religions themselves. But either way - "monotheism," 'polytheism,' or just plain 'theism' – none of these are 'religions' – they’re the groups we put religions into - as I understand the term.

[Toto]

But it is still a violation of the First Amendment to promote a group of religions, or religion in general, over non-belief. The First Amendment prohibits anything regarding an establishment a religion, and these words have been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court.