Dec 18th 2011, 6:33:58
Originally posted by Atryn:
A person engaging in their right to free speech on public property is not, IMHO, illegal in and of itself.
However, when the government entity (not an employee, but the agency, institution, etc.) is the one engaging in religious speech or practice, that, IMHO, DOES violate the endorsement clause. I am vehemently against the inclusion of Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance and In God We Trust on our currency. Those are not individual citizens practicing their right to free speech, those are state endorsements of religious belief.</quote>
I think the official pledge should be amended as to declare the pledge without "under god" to be as perfectly valid as the pledge with it, but the words themselves I have no issue with. Were I a teacher saying the pledge with my students and one student did not say "under god", I would teach that such a decision should be respected.
I do not believe that either phrase constitutes a law respecting an establishment of religion. I don't believe that either having "under god" or the national motto "In God We Trust" constitutes endorsing religion or any particular religion.
There have been incidents of athiests crossing out "In God We Trust" on currency and stamping that the line violates the US Constitution. The Federal Reserve reportedly does not pull these altered bills out of circulation and the Secret Service does not consider such actions as being with the intent of making the currency unfit to be reissued. Honestly, I think the Supreme Court would probably rule this to be a "political issue" and say that they have no jurisdiction over the matter.
<quote>A courthouse displaying the ten commandments has always been a bit tougher for me as they are historically speaking, an early document in the realm of law regardless of their religious origin. However, if they are being displayed, I would prefer other similar documents be displayed as well and some educational value be included. I do not appreciate sessions of congress, the Supreme Court or local school board meetings being opened with official prayers, especially denominational prayers.
I respect that private organizations can make certain choices based on religious grounds, as the Boy Scouts of America do, but I won't support them in their discriminatory policies.
However, when the government entity (not an employee, but the agency, institution, etc.) is the one engaging in religious speech or practice, that, IMHO, DOES violate the endorsement clause. I am vehemently against the inclusion of Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance and In God We Trust on our currency. Those are not individual citizens practicing their right to free speech, those are state endorsements of religious belief.</quote>
I think the official pledge should be amended as to declare the pledge without "under god" to be as perfectly valid as the pledge with it, but the words themselves I have no issue with. Were I a teacher saying the pledge with my students and one student did not say "under god", I would teach that such a decision should be respected.
I do not believe that either phrase constitutes a law respecting an establishment of religion. I don't believe that either having "under god" or the national motto "In God We Trust" constitutes endorsing religion or any particular religion.
There have been incidents of athiests crossing out "In God We Trust" on currency and stamping that the line violates the US Constitution. The Federal Reserve reportedly does not pull these altered bills out of circulation and the Secret Service does not consider such actions as being with the intent of making the currency unfit to be reissued. Honestly, I think the Supreme Court would probably rule this to be a "political issue" and say that they have no jurisdiction over the matter.
<quote>A courthouse displaying the ten commandments has always been a bit tougher for me as they are historically speaking, an early document in the realm of law regardless of their religious origin. However, if they are being displayed, I would prefer other similar documents be displayed as well and some educational value be included. I do not appreciate sessions of congress, the Supreme Court or local school board meetings being opened with official prayers, especially denominational prayers.
I respect that private organizations can make certain choices based on religious grounds, as the Boy Scouts of America do, but I won't support them in their discriminatory policies.
I really agree the the Ten Commandments should be considered in the light of why they were placed in the public place. A legislature or court displaying the Commandments among other examples of law would be displaying them not for their religious significance, but for their legal significance. If they were the only display allowed, then that would indicate a religious purpose that endorses the Judeo-Christian faiths above others. In other words, the test with regard to the commandments is of motivation, not the document itself.
I think we more or less agree, except on one issue...I'm a guy.
-Angel1