[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

I'm not sure a day goes by when my kids get vetoed on something by my wife or me.

Can we have ice cream tonight? no - you had it last night
Can I stay up another 15 minutes to watch this TV show? no - it's time for bed
Will you let me use the car tonight? no - you didn't take care of it last time, so you have lost that luxury
I don't want to go to church today. well, get dressed, 'cause you're going anyway

Veto, veto, veto... that is part of being a parent. The more important part is love, love, love. So, while we do veto often, we also understand, listen, ask questions and explain things along the way. It's our job and right to influence and guide our children until they are adults.

All parents are different, of course. However, when it comes to being able to influence or veto my child's beliefs, I do surely have the right to do so if I believe it is warranted.

I wasn't intending to refer to requests for material things or privileges, or even requests to skip out on church. Instead I was asking whether it was right for a parent to demand (in this example) that their child accept a particular set of religious beliefs, regardless of the child's thoughts on the matter.

If you tried to raise your child as a Protestant Christian, but your child felt no spiritual connection to that religion, would it be right to try to compel them to discover Christianity? What if they instead were convinced that there was no god but Allah, and that Muhammed was his prophet (i.e. they believed in Islam)? Would it be proper to treat your child as if he were a Christian, when in fact he believed himself a Muslim?

And even if you don't initially agree to let the child find their own faith, as the child becomes better able to make important decisions on their own, shouldn't your veto cease to be effective at some point? Given that we already assign all sorts of rights, privileges and duties to high school students, wouldn't it be fair to say that for the most part, they're ready to decide what they want to believe when it comes to religion? (Some people might be ready earlier, some later.) Is it ethically justifiable, or even productive, in this instance, to stand in their way?

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Remember that no one outwardly expressed atheistic doctrine at the formation of this nation or for that matter well into the twentieth century.

If I'm not mistaken, atheism has existed in Western culture since the ancient Greeks—philosophers Socrates, Diagoras and Epicurus did not believe in gods, and wrote or lectured extensively on the matter (in their cases, they did not accept the traditional Greek pantheon). While you're right that it wasn't very popular for centuries thereafter, prior to the founding of the U.S., European philosophers Voltaire and Hobbes espoused rather atheistic ideas as well. Among prominent early American statesmen, Jefferson, Paine and Franklin were deists who believed in some form of universal divinity, but did not believe in the Abrahamic god—it is not certain whether they would have characterized their nation as one "under God", or instead believed in a god with a hands-off approach (who did not watch over America in particular, or even Humanity in general).

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I disagree that the words "under God" is establishing a particular religion. It is so easy to point to the word "God" and conclude a Judeo/Christian/Islamic religion (about half of the world population believes in this same supreme being). In fact there are references to supreme beings in most established religions.

There are different interpretations regarding just who this "God" is. Many would say it's the Christian god, because the majority of Americans are Christians. But you're right to state that any system of belief which supposes the existence of a god could be represented here. What Jaine seems to be asking, however, is why make reference to religion at all? Doesn't the fact that a religious icon is invoked make this a state endorsement of religion (vs. non-religion).

It would seem that even establishing a part of a religion is enough to violate the Constitution. By this I mean that the state doesn't need to go to the trouble of defining every possible aspect of a religion to violate this tenet; instead, defining any aspect of that religious belief would be enough to contravene it. For example, if the government published a mass and proclaimed it into law, that would be an illegal establishment of religion, even if the mass were non-denominational and inter-faith (and maybe not even Christian at all). I'd argue that by the same token, defining an official slogan that celebrates a god is equally a fundamentally religious act, even if the god in question is not named.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Agreed, but in the big scheme of things, the belief in a higher power does tilt the balance towards justice and right.

That's a hard case to make, because it is so broadly worded. And while we're at it, we have to be especially careful about our definitions of justice and right—after all, religions have a tendency to generate their own particular prescriptions for what is just and right, and these prescriptions tend to entrench themselves in our culture. One might argue that it's not the belief in a higher power that creates just individuals, but rather that widespread belief shapes the very definition of justice in its own image.