Progessive Caucus Convention

[Emsworth]

I will compromise by offering an altered plank that reads:

The Pledge of Allegiance

The Progressive Caucus feels that any citizen being required to invoke the existence of a God in order to pledge allegiance to the nation discriminates against those who do not believe in God. We therefore support making the uttering of the words 'Under God' optional in the Pledge.

I feel constrained to object. If "under God" is included in the official version of the pledge, even if the words are optional, the state is implying the existence of a single, unified deity. It is placing its imprimatur on monotheism. This proposal does not involve a polytheistic equivalent; nor does it make provision for atheists. Under the plan, it is optional to say "under God," but one cannot say "under gods" or "under no God."

Clearly, the government's proper stance is one of absolute neutrality. Failing to mention God is not hostility to religion, and secularism is not support for atheism.

[Emsworth]

And my proposal does make provision for atheists, in that it makes the saying of the words 'Under God' optional.

The treatment of theists and atheists is not, as I said before, equal under this plan. A theist has the option of saying "under God." An atheist does not have the option of saying "under no God."

Also, as I noted earlier, separating religion and the government is not tantamount to discriminating against religious individuals. Neutrality should be the government's stance: not support, not hostility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is unjustified to conclude that I am an atheist simply because I argue for the separation of Church and State.

[Emsworth]

And my proposal does make provision for atheists, in that it makes the saying of the words 'Under God' optional.

The treatment of theists and atheists is not, as I said before, equal under this plan. A theist has the option of saying "under God." An atheist does not have the option of saying "under no God."

You have to understand that we live in a nation that is the most devoutly religious in the developed world.  The majority have at least the right to ask that God be acknowledged in public life, and to have that desire honored since we live by democratic norms whereby the majority (or least the plurality, where the case may be) rules.

Every person is perfectly free to acknowledge God, gods, etc., if he or she so pleases. But there is no need for the government to acknowledge any divine being.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a non sequitur. Removing "under God" from the pledge does not equal removing religion from public life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the majority has the right to acknowledge God, but not the right to have a government that officially acknowledges God. There is a distinction between "public life" and the government - religion can and should be involved in the former, but should remain separate from the latter.

[Emsworth]

You have stated numerous times in this thread that government should be absolutely neutral with regard to religious references -does this not also mean that you support removing religion from public life in order to ensure that government be as neutral as humanly possible?

I have never said that religion must be removed from "public life." If people want to be religious in public, then they have every right to do so. I am not in favor of the French form of separation, in which public displays of religious inclination are forbidden.

On the contrary, I have said that the government must not meddle in religious matters. It must not express a preference, either in favor or against religion. I have never suggested that the government must be hostile to religion.

[Emsworth]

I too will have to resign on the grounds of a deep hatred for the death penalty.

I believe that the Progressive Party's platform states: "The Progressive Caucus opposes the practice of the death penalty in all cases."

[Emsworth]

Mr. Chairman,

The Independent Liberal Party has chosen the following members to represent it on the Board of the Progressive Caucus:

Peter Bell
Emsworth