Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional [Archive] - Page 2

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 05:27

They do if it directly contradicts a different part of the Constitution. They have to resolve that conflict.

Is it just me or didn't you have a civics lesson or did you happen to miss out on when they talked about the Constitution. Excuse me while I go off and die laughing.

A constitutional Amendment can't be declared unconstitutional. Why? BECAUSE AN AMENDMENT IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION!

Such a proposed Amendment would violate the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

Wrongo sister. Go back to government class. You need it.

By your argument, then...we should still be under Prohibition...since the Eighteenth Amendment outlawed booze. It was overturned by the 21st Amendment. BUT...both are now parts of the Constitution!!

An amendment can only be repealed by another amendment. Therefor, we are legal to drink alcohol. That is the only way you can overturn an amendment to the constitution. Not by the courts. Go back to school.

Now, just suppose, that chocolate bars were Unconstitutional. Now, along comes an Amendment requiring the consumption of chocolate bars. The SCOTUS would have to then resolve the Constitutional conflict.

Wrong. If an amendment is passed that says that you are required to consume chocolate bars, then you have too as stated by the Constitution of the United States. No court is necessary.

Next flaw?

And such is the case if the proposed Under God Amendment ever got passed. It would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment...and the SCOTUS would have to resolve the Constituional conflict. That is the very definition of the job of SCOTUS...to resolve Constitutional conflicts...or don't you know much about our government?

Incorrect as usual. I'm getting tired of saying it so I'll just say it one more time and hopefully it'll sink in

1) A constitutional amendment is part of the constitution. Once it is part of the constitution it is constitutional. No court can overturn a constitutional amendment. That would require 2/3rds of the House and senate and 38 states to approve it.

2) It wouldn't violate the establishment clause because once a constitutional amendment is passed, it automatically becomes constitutional.

Are you understanding this yet?

The Grand States

15-09-2005, 05:27

How long ago was this? Attempting to force a student to say the pledge of allegiance is a career ending mistake now. The court case was in 1943.

This was less than ten years ago.

Economic Associates

15-09-2005, 05:27

It's too bad that you weren't informed. Your lack of knowledge in the area was regrettable.
I'm sure all the kids lack of knowledge was regretable. I was never told that I was given the option to not recite the pledge until I learned from hearing a conversation about a kid from another country who lived here now was not saying it. Needless to say they weren't too kind to the kid over that.

But they do. If their parents had any sense, they would research ahead of time what they can do, and they would inform their children that they do.
Yes because we all know that informing your kids about the choice you have in saying the pledge is one of the more important parts of being a parent. In fact I think its above telling kids drugs are bad, showing them how to interact with others, and many other important lessons kids should learn from their parents. :rolleyes:

Galloism

15-09-2005, 05:28

This was less than ten years ago.

You do know, if you had known better, you could have gotten every single member of the administration fired for that? You could have eaten their careers with a spoon.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 05:29

Thanks for demonstrating the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam) with that post Corneliu.

How about, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? By explicitly or implicitly compelling people to recite "under God," Congress and/or the states effectively prohibit the free exercise of religion on the part of people who don't believe in God.

But you have a problem.

IT ISN"T A PRAYER!

So how does it violate the 1st amendment? guess what? it doesn't.

Thanks for playing though

Lyric

15-09-2005, 05:29

Show me in the Constitution where it is illegal to say under god in the Pledge of Alligence

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

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

You are, of course, aware that Congress DID make just such a law...and with the intent of establishing the Judeo-christian religion, to "distinguish us from godless communists." This law was made and passed in 1954. Thus, congress overstepped it's authority when it passed that law. It was Unconstitutional. Because the clearly stated INTENT of the law was to establish a religion. Because the entire point of adding the wqords was "to distinguish us from Godless Communists." But don't take my word for it. Look up the floor debates on the bill when it was intro'd on the floor of Congress in 1954...you can find them in The Congrssional Record, for the year 1954.

The intent was very clear. They intended to establish religion. That is is DIRECT VIOLATION of the Establishment Clause. Why is it so hard for you fundies to accept this basic fact? Are you SO attached to the phrase that you will hear no argument against it? That still does not invalidate my facts.

The INTENT to establish is well-documented. Congress passed the law in spite of the violation of the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit made a very unpopular...but Constitutionally correct...decision in the Newdow case. And in these most recent cases as well.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 05:29

Thanks for demonstrating the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam) with that post Corneliu.

How about, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? By explicitly or implicitly compelling people to recite "under God," Congress and/or the states effectively prohibit the free exercise of religion on the part of people who don't believe in God.

Actually Sarz, you've got it backwards - the courts consider this type of action as the state "establishment" of a religion in that the state is endorsing one religious view over others. It is not considered as interfering with someone's right to worship as they please, rather it is considered as forcing someone to worship the "state approved" god.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 05:30

I'm sure all the kids lack of knowledge was regretable. I was never told that I was given the option to not recite the pledge until I learned from hearing a conversation about a kid from another country who lived here now was not saying it. Needless to say they weren't too kind to the kid over that.

Again, regrettable, and actionable.

Yes because we all know that informing your kids about the choice you have in saying the pledge is one of the more important parts of being a parent. In fact I think its above telling kids drugs is bad, showing them how to interact with others, and many other important lessons kids should learn from their parents. :rolleyes:

Laying it on a bit thick are we? Sarcasm aside, if it is actually important to the student and/or parent, each of them should be willing to do about 10 seconds worth of research and determine that you are not required to do so.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 05:31

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I love this line of arguement considering that the words under god isn't even a prayer. Now what?

Goodlifes

15-09-2005, 05:32

1 Cor 8:9 Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
1 Cor 8:11 And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.Thus sinning against your brethern and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.

While this was written about meat given to idols, what is the message? It sounds to me like a Christian should never force someone to do something against his conscience. To force someone or even to do something in front of someone who's conscience is against it is a sin against God. Can anybody who believes the Bible is 100% correct find a passage that says a Christian should force his beliefs on someone else, just because he has the power to do so??

The Grand States

15-09-2005, 05:32

You do know, if you had known better, you could have gotten every single member of the administration fired for that? You could have eaten their careers with a spoon.

We had this intent, though district level attempts failed. We did not exactly have the money for a good lawyer, and my family was in a state of basic turmoil. I believe I will wait for all my family to be nearly through with public schooling to make their life less difficult, and then I might make some attempts. But my school and staff have made a number of other fallacies that I attempted to correct, but was almost always shot down.

Economic Associates

15-09-2005, 05:32

I love this line of arguement considering that the words under god isn't even a prayer. Now what?

The arguement isnt about it being a prayer. Its tanamount to the government endorsing a religion which is establishing a state religion which is against the establishment clause.

Lyric

15-09-2005, 05:32

More to the point, are you so insecure in your belief of no God that saying "under God" will shake your beliefs? Are you so insecure that, even though you are not required to say it yourself, you will be swayed into believing in God because other people are saying it around you? Is this your contention?

We have ample basis for being legally able to not repeat the pledge of allegiance, or to repeat parts of it. This precident has already been set years ago.
Actually, if you even fucking bothered to read my posts, you would know already that I am a Unitarian CHRISTIAN. so I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your blather. You are making assumptions about me that are not true.
I just happen to be secure enough in my own faith that I do not require outside validation of my faith.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 05:32

I love this line of arguement considering that the words under god isn't even a prayer. Now what?

It doesn't have to be a prayer - if the government is endorsing a religious viewpoint and promoting that viewpoint then the establishment clause is implicated.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 05:33

Can anybody who believes the Bible is 100% correct find a passage that says a Christian should force his beliefs on someone else, just because he has the power to do so??

Now that was fascinating. That was truly a different angle.

It's still irrelevant. The children are not forced to do anything.

Lyric

15-09-2005, 05:33

Federal Constitution > State Constitution.

Federal Constitution = Federal Constitution

Is this so hard to understand?

Ignore cannon. You just live to piss people off, don't you?

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 05:34

The arguement isnt about it being a prayer. Its tanamount to the government endorsing a religion which is establishing a state religion which is against the establishment clause.

Its not endorsing it either!

next?

Lyric

15-09-2005, 05:35

No they are not. They are not forced. You are not required to repeat the pledge if you don't want to, nor are you required to repeat it in its entirety.

West Virginia BoE vs Barnette (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624)

Then tell that to the State of Texas...which requires all of it's public schoolchildren to recite the Pledge every day. The law was passed in 2004.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 05:35

Ignore cannon. You just live to piss people off, don't you?

You just love to ignore the truth don't you?

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 05:35

Then tell that to the State of Texas...which requires all of it's public schoolchildren to recite the Pledge every day. The law was passed in 2004.

And not just Texas but PA has the same law that was passed a couple of years ago.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 05:35

Actually, if you even fucking bothered to read my posts, you would know already that I am a Unitarian CHRISTIAN. so I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your blather. You are making assumptions about me that are not true.
I just happen to be secure enough in my own faith that I do not require outside validation of my faith.

Well I only started about 2 pages ago, my apologies. The point remains, however. The children are not forced to say under God, so there's no conflict. Now, it is quite possibly against the first amendment. Notice that word: possibly.

Constitutional arguments in court still do not apply to constitutional amendments though. Since it is an amendment, it IS part of the constitution. Therefore, it is constitutional.

Kakkalo

15-09-2005, 05:37

Then tell that to the State of Texas...which requires all of it's public schoolchildren to recite the Pledge every day. The law was passed in 2004.
yeah, i very distinctly recall being reprimanded once upon a time forever ago in second grade for not reciting the pledge one day.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 05:37

Then tell that to the State of Texas...which requires all of it's public schoolchildren to recite the Pledge every day. The law was passed in 2004.

This law is unconstitutional, and I am certain it will be challenged soon.

Do you have the exact text of this law, perchance? I'm curious of the exact wording.

Goodlifes

15-09-2005, 05:38

Now that was fascinating. That was truly a different angle.

It's still irrelevant. The children are not forced to do anything.
You didn't read the passage----It is a sin even if YOU do it before someone who's conscience forbids it. Because YOU might encourage him to go against his conscience. ---By doing that YOU sin against God.

The Grand States

15-09-2005, 05:38

Well I only started about 2 pages ago, my apologies. The point remains, however. The children are not forced to say under God, so there's no conflict. Now, it is quite possibly against the first amendment. Notice that word: possibly.

Have you been reading the other posts??? Many people in many states are required to recite this pledge daily!

Economic Associates

15-09-2005, 05:38

Its not endorsing it either!

next?

Then what the hell does one nation under god mean?

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 05:39

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 05:40

Its not endorsing it either!

next?

Yes, it is arguably an endorsement of a religious viewpoint - how about Wiccans, Pagans, Buddhists, etc. who do not believe in God - having the government mandate the phrase "under God" be in the pledge is requiring those people to acknowledge the existence of a relgious doctrine they do not subscribe to.

Lyric

15-09-2005, 05:41

SCOTUS would not have to get involved unless the Amendment was poorly worded. If it said something like "The terms of the First Amendment to this Constitution notwithstanding, the phrase "under God" shall be a part of the official pledge of allegance to the flag and country of the United States."

Bingo - constitutional ammendment with "under God" in the pledge and nothing for the SCOTUS to decide as the amendment itself took care of the conflict by saying it "overrode" the establishment clause in this one regard.

then what force does the Establishment Clause have at all...and what guarantees does it provide for us...if it can be so easily overridden?

For that matter, what force does ANY part of the constitution have? What guarantee do you actually have of YOUR rights? What guarantee do I have of MINE??

Someday, you may find YOURSELF in the minority...and then you will feel different when the majority tries to run roughshod over your rights!!

Oh, it's okay for the majority to run roughshod over other people's rights, as long as YOU are part of the majority, eh??

Rigamole

15-09-2005, 05:41

Americans as a whole, both sides, need to DEAL WITH IT.
Oh no, let's get bogged down in a ludicrously small, fundamental issue doomed to become embroiled in semantics and one that hinges on which definition of individual words that you cite. Ladeefrigginda. It's ridiculous.
"Oh no! My child is required to affirm loyalty to his/her country in a pledge that contains 'under God!' My fundamental rights as an American! Wesa gonna die, Annie?"
"Oh noes! Somebody wants to take two words out of a dully recited string of words that no one really takes the meaning of seriously. In fact, they might be happy with just taking one word out, leaving the 'under' in there. Humanity will be doomed to Godlessness and debasement!"

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 05:41

Then what the hell does one nation under god mean?

That is a very good question. Is it under the Islamic God? the Jewish God? The Christain God? The diest God?

mmmmm I could be here all night listing them but I need my sleep.

I'll respond tomorrow to Lyric's post. It deserves a response from me.

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 05:42

Then tell that to the State of Texas...which requires all of it's public schoolchildren to recite the Pledge every day. The law was passed in 2004.
Lyric--I can absolutely guarantee you that there are children in Texas who don't say the pledge, no matter what the Texas legislature has done. They're Jehovah's Witnesses--I used to be one until about ten years ago, and I still have relatives in Texas who are and who have school-age children. They're protected by the Supreme Court decision that Gallosim referenced--Jehovah's Witnesses were the defendants in that case as well. You cannot be forced to recite it--period, end of story. Not even Scalia will try to overturn that one.

Lyric

15-09-2005, 05:42

How long ago was this? Attempting to force a student to say the pledge of allegiance is a career ending mistake now. The court case about this was in 1943.

And the Texas law requiring the recital was passed in 2004.

Greenlander

15-09-2005, 05:42

Yes, it is arguably an endorsement of a religious viewpoint - how about Wiccans, Pagans, Buddhists, etc. who do not believe in God - having the government mandate the phrase "under God" be in the pledge is requiring those people to acknowledge the existence of a relgious doctrine they do not subscribe to.

Prove it. Prove That Wiccans, Pagans and Buddhist object to saying "Under God," in the Pledge.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 05:43

Have you been reading the other posts??? Many people in many states are required to recite this pledge daily!

I read it. If they had the guts to stand up and say, "No, I won't do it.", the administration would back down. I know they would, because a decently sized section of the population conscientiously objects to repeating the pledge of allegiance, and there's been no cases (yet) on these particular laws. We know they have the guts to do it, as they've taken many cases to the extreme court. I believe the current count is 48. Again, anyone have the exact texts of the laws in TX and PA?

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 05:45

Well all. It is late here and I have class in nine hours so I'm off to bed.

Remember to debate nicely and without cussing and name calling.

As a parting shot,

The Supreme Court will more than likely keep the Pledge of alligence as it is because there really isn't any grounds to overturn it.

Ta taYou're half right--they'll find a way to keep it, just as they've kept "In God We Trust" on the money, but it'll be a mangled, twisted decision. They'll do it because atheists and people who really get worked up about it are a tiny, tiny minority and they can easily be ignored, and if SCOTUS taught us anything in 2000, they taught us that they can come up with whatever answer they want to, logic and jurisprudence be damned. This one won't even be close.

Economic Associates

15-09-2005, 05:45

That is a very good question. Is it under the Islamic God? the Jewish God? The Christain God? The diest God?

mmmmm I could be here all night listing them but I need my sleep.

I'll respond tomorrow to Lyric's post. It deserves a response from me.

So what if its a diety neutral term. It still refers to a god which some people don't believe in. What about them? Do we say well there are only a few of them so tough shit?

Lyric

15-09-2005, 05:45

I love this line of arguement considering that the words under god isn't even a prayer. Now what?

It still establishes...and WAS INTENDED to establish a religion...because the INTENT was "to distinguish us from Godless Communists."

How fucking hard is it to understand that the INTENT here was to establish a religion...the very thing that the Establishment Clause forbids Congress to do??

Screw this whole thread. I'm getting too pissed off with fucking right-wingers who refuse any and all legitimate arguments.

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 05:46

Greenlander

15-09-2005, 05:46

And the Texas law requiring the recital was passed in 2004.

You know your whole argument falls apart when you say it don't you? That the very fact that you say YOU had to say it while you were growing up and that YOU were indoctrinated by these horrible methods and "brainwashing" etc., and yet, you are not brainwashed? It shows that the pledge does not brainwash and people DO grow up to have their own opinions, just as you did.

So now, where are the damages of your claim?

Galloism

15-09-2005, 05:47

It still establishes...and WAS INTENDED to establish a religion...because the INTENT was "to distinguish us from Godless Communists."

How fucking hard is it to understand that the INTENT here was to establish a religion...the very thing that the Establishment Clause forbids Congress to do??

Screw this whole thread. I'm getting too pissed off with fucking right-wingers who refuse any and all legitimate arguments.

Bah. I said the law could possibly be unconstitutional. What more do you want? The point is that, in the event of a constitutional amendment, that amendment is from then on constitutional, and cannot be challenged. It is part of the constitution.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 05:47

Something else to add--this may not even get to SCOTUS. It will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals first, and if this case draws a different panel than the Newdow case did, which is likely, the 9th may well reverse itself.

*note* my last post!

It will still get to the Supreme Court unless the Court refuses to hear it because Newdow will appeal it to the US Supreme Court and you and I both know it.

Rigamole

15-09-2005, 05:48

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9641922&postcount=283

Greenlander

15-09-2005, 05:49

Something else to add--this may not even get to SCOTUS. It will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals first, and if this case draws a different panel than the Newdow case did, which is likely, the 9th may well reverse itself.

Is that right? I missed it then, did Bush really get the chance to replace one or two of those ninnies? :p Happy Day!

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 05:50

then what force does the Establishment Clause have at all...and what guarantees does it provide for us...if it can be so easily overridden?

For that matter, what force does ANY part of the constitution have? What guarantee do you actually have of YOUR rights? What guarantee do I have of MINE??

Someday, you may find YOURSELF in the minority...and then you will feel different when the majority tries to run roughshod over your rights!!

Oh, it's okay for the majority to run roughshod over other people's rights, as long as YOU are part of the majority, eh??

Unless and until the Constitution is ammended to "take away" a right the right still exists. It is no easy thing to ammend the Constitution either. To say it can be "so easily overriden" is to ignore how difficult a constitutional ammendment is to pass - we've only done it 20 some odd times in 200+ years. The Equal Rights Amendment - seemingly a no-brainer, couldn't even make it through. The opposition an ammendment such as I set out as an example would encounter would be enormous.

Secondly, you don't know jack shit about me or my views or whether I'm a member of a minority or a majority or whether my rights have been run over by someone, you're making an assumption that has no basis in anything. Quite frankly, I don't care if the phrase is in the pledge or not. It doesn't offend me being there and doesn't affect my religious viewpoints one way or another. If it is taken out, I won't miss it either since I don't have to have it there to affirm my beliefs. I merely pointed out that the Constitution could be ammended to keep the words "Under God" in the pledge and SCOTUS would not have to get involved if the amendment were worded correctly. I did not say it should be amended in that fashion and I certainly don't see such an amendment as a "slam dunk" should it be formally proposed, quite the opposite, I think such an amendment would very likely fail to win passage.

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 05:52

*note* my last post!

It will still get to the Supreme Court unless the Court refuses to hear it because Newdow will appeal it to the US Supreme Court and you and I both know it.
That's the key phrase. If the 9th Circuit reverses itself, then SCOTUS won't touch it because there will be no need.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 05:54

Prove it. Prove That Wiccans, Pagans and Buddhist object to saying "Under God," in the Pledge.

Do you people read!? I didn't say they objected to it (though I personally know a wiccan that does). What I said was that that phrase arguably amounts to an endorsement of religion by the government and that the religion so endorsed contained a world view that was not subscribed to by Wiccans, Pagans, Buddhists, etc.

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 05:56

Is that right? I missed it then, did Bush really get the chance to replace one or two of those ninnies? :p Happy Day!
Don't get so excited. There's something like 30 judges on that court, and a number of them are conservative, although not a majority. Appeals are heard by 3 judge panels, and as I recall, the Newdow case was a 2-1 decision even then. The odds are that none of those three will hear this case, and even if 3 liberal judges get it, there's still no guarantee that they won't reverse themselves. You guys are all acting like there some idealistic notion of fairness at play here--there isn't. Even the liberal judges know this is political poison for the Democrats and they're going to be loathe to touch it. There's no political upside to it, not right now anyway.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 06:02

Prediction When it happens, remember you read it here first - the case will get to SCOTUS which will rule that since it is already well established precedent that a child cannot be forced to recite the pledge, that having these words in the pledge doesn't offend the Establishment Clause - i.e. There is no establishment of religion by the government due to the fact the government cannot make you say the pledge. It is only when the Government coerces you or requires you to endorse or acknowledge a particular religious viewpoint that the Establishment Clause is violated. Since they can't force you to say the pledge, you are not being required to acknowledge the religious viewpoint that may be present therein and hence no religion is being "established."

Galloism

15-09-2005, 06:05

Nahh the arguments are repeating again :rolleyes:

They always do that.

*digs through his photobucket account*

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/python.gif

Stormshield

15-09-2005, 06:06

Greenlander

15-09-2005, 06:06

Lyric

15-09-2005, 06:10

This law is unconstitutional, and I am certain it will be challenged soon.

Do you have the exact text of this law, perchance? I'm curious of the exact wording.

You mean I actually GOT THRU TO YOU??

I finally got your attention??
Great. Lemme find the text...scuse me a sec...

This was the closest I could come and i'm going nuts searching the Texas Legislature's site...but this is close enough as to what finally passed... Note the text of this is from a bill proposed in the 2001 Legislative Session...bolds mine.
Text below...but here's the actual link, too
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=XXBYMFLOCNRF&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=125360&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=1&CQ_SAVE=HB00088INT&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES

[Go To First Hit]

By King of Parker H.B. No. 88
77R415 BDH-D
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
1-1 AN ACT
1-2 relating to recitation of the pledge[0] of allegiance[0] by public school
1-3 students.
1-4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
1-5 SECTION 1. Subchapter Z, Chapter 25, Education Code, is
1-6 amended by adding Section 25.902 to read as follows:
1-7 Sec. 25.902. RECITATION OF PLEDGE[0] OF ALLEGIANCE[0]. (a) A
1-8 school district [b]shall require students to recite the pledge[0] of
1-9 allegiance[0] to the United States flag at the beginning of each
1-10 school day.
1-11 (b) On written request from a student's parent or guardian,
1-12 a school district shall excuse the student from reciting the pledge[0]
1-13 of allegiance[0].
1-14 SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately and applies
1-15 beginning with the 2001-2002 school year.

[Go To Last Hit][Go To Top of Document]

Lyric

15-09-2005, 06:13

Then what the hell does one nation under god mean?
Exactly!
Hey, all you who are so staunchly defending the "Under God" part...if it REALLY doesn't mean anything...then just WHY are you all so hell-bent on defending it, and keeping it there...I mean...if it really doesn't mean anything??

You guys are so fucking intellectually dishonest it's un-fucking-believable. Screw this thread, I've had enough. You can't argue with people who refuse anything that doesn't already conform to their beliefs. All you can do is beat your head against a brick wall and get pissed off at the stubbornness. i've had enough.

Stormshield

15-09-2005, 06:15

Exactly!
Hey, all you who are so staunchly defending the "Under God" part...if it REALLY doesn't mean anything...then just WHY are you all so hell-bent on defending it, and keeping it there...I mean...if it really doesn't mean anything??

You guys are so fucking intellectually dishonest it's un-fucking-believable. Screw this thread, I've had enough. You can't argue with people who refuse anything that doesn't already conform to their beliefs. All you can do is beat your head against a brick wall and get pissed off at the stubbornness. i've had enough.
And I assure you that your name-calling has gotten through to each and every one of us and that we have all decided to change our minds because of it.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 06:16

Exactly!
Hey, all you who are so staunchly defending the "Under God" part...if it REALLY doesn't mean anything...then just WHY are you all so hell-bent on defending it, and keeping it there...I mean...if it really doesn't mean anything??

You guys are so fucking intellectually dishonest it's un-fucking-believable. Screw this thread, I've had enough. You can't argue with people who refuse anything that doesn't already conform to their beliefs. All you can do is beat your head against a brick wall and get pissed off at the stubbornness. i've had enough.

Having beat my head against your wall, I understand completely.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 06:16

You mean I actually GOT THRU TO YOU??

I meant the Texas law requiring students to recite the pledge of alliance is definitely unconstitutional. The other law might be.

Ok, it's a law. It's unconstitutional, but it's a law in Texas. Obviously the legislature wasn't doing its homework. In any case, this law is obviously not being enforced, or there would be Jehovah's Witnesses in court fighting it already.

What I really thought was assenine about your argument was that, in the event of a constitutional amendment, that SCOTUS could overturn it, which they can't. Why can't they? Because, as a part of the constitution, it's constitutional by default.

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 06:19

The Judge cited "Ninth Circuit Court," has held that the school policy mandating the pledge is unconstitutional." And then he babbled about how the SCOTUS dismissed the ruling for technical reasons. However, the justices who expressed a position on the core issue held the reference to be constitutional.

Before dying-Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: "On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words 'under God,' does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ... The phrase 'under God' in the pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the nation's leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religion's role in our nation's history abound."

In years past the, other circuit courts have addressed essentially the same issue Karlton did here, but they have all reasonably reached a different conclusion ... Stating that invocations of God do not constitute an establishment of religion. In that case, Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 of Wheeling Township, the Seventh Circuit cited decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, including opinions by Justice William Brennan, in upholding the Constitutionality of the Pledge.
You're missing the point--the judge is in the Ninth Circuit, the Newdow case was decided by SCOTUS on a technicality--they said he didn't have standing and thus didn't touch the merits of his case. Rehnquist's position is irrelevant to the merits of this case. Based on the case law before him, the judge had to rule the way he did.

Has it ever occurred to anyone bitching about this that the judge in this case might have been doing this just to get some clarification? It's not unheard of. During the big same-sex marriage eruption in San Francisco last year, a New Mexico clerk of court started handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples even though she opposed the practice. Why? She wanted a ruling opposing same-sex marriages and knew they needed a case to get it. Now I don't know that this judge was doing this on purpose, but it is a possibility.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 06:19

What I really thought was assenine about your argument was that, in the event of a constitutional amendment, that SCOTUS could overturn it, which they can't. Why can't they? Because, as a part of the constitution, it's constitutional by default.
I tried to explain this to him as well, he can't grasp that concept though.

Lyric

15-09-2005, 06:20

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 06:21

Lyric, you know I love you, but your own post has done you in. 1-11 (b) On written request from a student's parent or guardian,
1-12 a school district shall excuse the student from reciting the pledge[0]
1-13 of allegiance[0].
As long as that exception is in there, the law is constitutional. There just has to be an out clause for objectors.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 06:21

And that is when you introduce the texts of laws of various states that DO require it's recital. Ball's back in your court. how do you respond?

I would say that a law that requires recital is unconstitutional as SCOTUS has already ruled that such a law is unconstitutional.

EDIT: As has just been pointed out, the Texas law has an "out" for those who don't wish to recite it.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 06:22

Lyric, you know I love you, but your own post has done you in.
As long as that exception is in there, the law is constitutional. There just has to be an out clause for objectors.

Ah. I guess it is. I should have read that more carefully. My apologies. Also, my apologies about the statement of the Texas Legislature not doing its homework. They obviously have.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 06:22

I have a picture that really sums up how I feel about him right now, but the mods would probably get angry if I used it.

I'll make it a link instead of a picture. If you are offended easily, don't look.

Linky~ (http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/gaygaygaygay3ca5hi.gif)

Yeah, that would get you in trouble - even the link to it might.

Goodlifes

15-09-2005, 06:23

As I walked through pages of this thread, I keep running into people saying how Jesus instructed people not to pray in public without taking into consiteration the context of that and simular teachings. You see, back then, people who wanted to get on the good side of the local 'goverment' (ala the Pharisees and the Sagisees) you would make a show of your faith, praying loudly in public and doing a little song and dance as you poured money into the Temple. Jesus is asking us not to be against praying in public, but to be against having a false, loud faith for the sake of popularity or other ungodly motivations.

As to the issue at hand, I think it is best for the kids to make the decision. If they want to show their faith and loyalty, let them. If they want to show loyalty but now faith, let them. If they really don't give a damn, let them not give a damn.
So Who are the Pharisees and Sadisees in the US today? What religious people are working to gain political power through religion? What religious people stand up and say public prayers so others can see them? What religious people are demanding that since they have the power they should control the beliefs of the entire nation? Just look at the posts on this thread and tell me. Who are the Pharesees and Sadisees in the American culture today?

Second point--The SAME arguement has been made about prayer in school..They don't HAVE to do it. The Courts have rightly ruled that peer pressure would be too much for children.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 06:23

Yeah, that would get you in trouble - even the link to it might.

Even with a warning?

Lyric

15-09-2005, 06:23

I tried to explain this to him as well, he can't grasp that concept though.

HER...thank you very much!

Jesus, do you guys NEVER pay attention to jack shit??

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 06:25

Even with a warning?

I don't know for sure, I'm not a Mod and can't say. Though giving the warning would seem to work in your favor.

Lyric

15-09-2005, 06:25

Ah. I guess it is. I should have read that more carefully. My apologies. Also, my apologies about the statement of the Texas Legislature not doing its homework. They obviously have.

Yeah? And an Athiest kid is likely to GET such a note from Christian parents??

Galloism

15-09-2005, 06:26

Yeah? And an Athiest kid is likely to GET such a note from Christian parents??

In that case, it is his parents forcing him, and not the state. Burden of responsibility deftly shifted, drive through.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 06:26

HER...thank you very much!

Jesus, do you guys NEVER pay attention to jack shit??

Sorry, I missed the part where you explained you were female, I apologize. no offense was intended by referring to you with a masculine pronoun.

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 06:27

Yeah? And an Athiest kid is likely to GET such a note from Christian parents??
Prolly not--but might an atheist kid forge his daddy's signature in order to get out of doing it?

Galloism

15-09-2005, 06:43

Prolly not--but might an atheist kid forge his daddy's signature in order to get out of doing it?

I'm sure none of us here would know anything about forging our parents' signatures for school. We don't even know anyone who did that. :D

Selgin

15-09-2005, 06:45

I don't know what everyone's so twisted about here. The judge in the case had no choice--he was bound by precedent from a higher court. The 9th Circuit's ruling still stands because the SCOTUS ruling on the Newdow case didn't touch the merits of Newdow's suit--they simply told him he didn't have standing to bring the suit.

Those people who want to see the atheists slapped down ought to be applauding right now--if this case gets pushed up to the SCOTUS, which it will eventually, SCOTUS will probably toss the 9th Circuit's ruling, not because it's in error, but because it's a political powderkeg and they know it.
But, the 9th Circuit's original ruling was overturned because of standing, meaning that the 9th should never have ruled on the issue to begin with.

Ergo, the federal judge made a ruling based on a 9th circuit ruling that should never have been made.

The judge should have come up with some other reasoning than being bound by the 9th Circuit ruling, or should have dismissed the case and let the 9th Circuit take it up on appeal - where, presumably, they would rule the same as they did before, the difference being that this suit's plaintiffs would have standing, so SCOTUS will be forced to address this head-on.

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 06:56

But, the 9th Circuit's original ruling was overturned because of standing, meaning that the 9th should never have ruled on the issue to begin with.

Ergo, the federal judge made a ruling based on a 9th circuit ruling that should never have been made.

The judge should have come up with some other reasoning than being bound by the 9th Circuit ruling, or should have dismissed the case and let the 9th Circuit take it up on appeal - where, presumably, they would rule the same as they did before, the difference being that this suit's plaintiffs would have standing, so SCOTUS will be forced to address this head-on.It's not quite the same thing, as I understand. By not ruling on the merits of the decision, SCOTUS left the crux of the decision in place. They deferred it, in other words.

Look, I doubt that anyone here would be happier than me if "under God" were taken out of the pledge--well, maybe Lyric--but it's not going to happen. Assuming it gets to SCOTUS and that the 9th doesn't reverse itself, which I really think will happen, does anyone really think that the court who came up with the notion that in order to protect the right to vote we have to stop counting votes will can't come up with a way to justify "under God" in the pledge? Come on.

Free Soviets

15-09-2005, 07:41

I love this line of arguement considering that the words under god isn't even a prayer. Now what?

what the hell are you on about? the establishment clause isn't limited to prayers.

Zexaland

15-09-2005, 08:49

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1293149/posts

Oh, yes, Free Republic. THERE'S an unbiased and totally in-touch-with-reality source... :rolleyes:

SARAKIRASPENOWLAND

15-09-2005, 11:59

According to him it's a violation of trademark and copyright laws. He was considering a lawsuit until very recently. Only problem is He can't find any decent lawyers in Heaven...

Thankyou, your response is both appreciated & humorous, & well worth reposting; so here you are!

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 13:27

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 13:28

HER...thank you very much!

Jesus, do you guys NEVER pay attention to jack shit??

Lyric,

Calm down. I don't want to see you get a warning or a ban because of your outbursts.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 13:32

what the hell are you on about? the establishment clause isn't limited to prayers.

It also isn't establishing religion either so you cna't uise the establishment clause.

The 7th and th 4th circuit appeals both stated that it wasn't an establishment of religion.

As far as I know, its only the 9th that has and the 9th is the most liberal court in the land as well as the most overturned court in the land.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 13:39

It also isn't establishing religion either so you cna't uise the establishment clause.
Why not, the 9th Circuit does

The 7th and th 4th circuit appeals both stated that it wasn't an establishment of religion.
They did? When, what cases - links or official citations please (not doubting you, I'd just like to see the cases myself).

As far as I know, its only the 9th that has and the 9th is the most liberal court in the land as well as the most overturned court in the land.
Assuming this is true, it establishes what in relationship to the issue at hand?

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 13:45

They did? When, what cases - links or official citations please (not doubting you, I'd just like to see the cases myself).

4th Circuit Court (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=year&court=4th&YEAR2=2005&MONTH=8)

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 13:55

4th Circuit Court (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=year&court=4th&YEAR2=2005&MONTH=8)
What's the name of the case? I'm not wading through all those links to find out what you're talking about.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 14:06

What's the name of the case? I'm not wading through all those links to find out what you're talking about.

It is the Myers v. Loudon County Public Schools case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/031364p.pdf)

I just read it and the court did say that the use of the words "under god" in the pledge did not amount to a violation of the establishment clause and affirmed the dismissal of a law suit that claimed it was.

Andaluciae

15-09-2005, 14:06

does anyone else find this picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg) disturbing?
It's just the Bellamy salute, the one the guy who wrote the pledge wanted to have used with it. It was developed in 1892, so it predates it's more infamous cousin by half a century. It just looks awkward in retrospect. If Bellamy knew the Nazis would use a similar salute fifty years later, I'm certain he'd have changed it.

Ph33rdom

15-09-2005, 14:51

It is the Myers v. Loudon County Public Schools case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/031364p.pdf)

I just read it and the court did say that the use of the words "under god" in the pledge did not amount to a violation of the establishment clause and affirmed the dismissal of a law suit that claimed it was.

I agree with that ruling. That the Establishment Clause does not demand that in every and all aspects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Instead, the Establishment Clause must be viewed with the additional understanding that we have been, and continue to be, a religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being, and always has. The fact that the Founding Fathers (whether Christian or Deist or other) believed devotedly (or at least publicly and with intent) that there is a God and that the unalienable rights of man were founded and entrenched in them being granted to us by the Higher Power. It is clearly evidenced in everything from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself.

The Establishment Clause "does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises . . . as to have meaningful and practical impact." Id. at 308 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Thus, the Court has "declined to construe the Religion Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as illuminated by history." Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 671 (1970).

:)

Myrmidonisia

15-09-2005, 14:52

Let's just settle this with legislative action. Drop "under God" from the pledge, and consign Mr Niedow to the obscurity he deserves. I think it's pretty clear this was Ike's contribution to the Cold War and was adopted in that anti-communist fever. Much like the Stars and Bars on the Georgia State flag, it was a protest or a message and was delivered at the proper time. Let's just drop it.

Jah Bootie

15-09-2005, 15:19

And that is when you introduce the texts of laws of various states that DO require it's recital. Ball's back in your court. how do you respond?
Not that I would be taking this position in the first place, but...

I would point out that the laws of states other than California are irrelevant in this case.

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 15:23

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 15:59

Muravyets

15-09-2005, 16:03

How are you disenfranchised if the words "under god" are in the pledge? How does that strip you of your citizenship? The answer is that clearly it doesn't - you'll still get to vote and enjoy all the privileges of being a citizen. The problem is it "offends" you and unfortunately, you seem to believe you have some God given right to go through life without being offended. Confidence in the majority? Why not, we do live in a semi-democratic nation where the majority is, in general, supposed to rule.
That's not what I meant. I was challenging Corneliu's statement that "the people of the United States" would push for a constitutional amendment on this issue. I don't like the "under god" phrase, but I don't feel at all threatened by it. But I am offended by the assumption that there is no dissenting opinion, or that the dissenting opinion doesn't matter because it's the minority, so it can just be ignored as if it doesn't exist. Sorry, but that's a kind of "might makes right, nyah-nyah" interpretation of majority rule that I don't buy into. If I feel threatened by anything at all, it's a majority that's not willing to let the minority have their way on anything, even something so trivial as this.

Muravyets

15-09-2005, 16:10

Well, actually, if you amend the constitution to allow something, then it's no longer unconstitutional.
What about Prohibition? That was an amendment, later deemed unconstitutional and repealed by another amendment.

Sorry if someone else already brought that up; I haven't fully caught up with the overnight posts, yet.

Muravyets

15-09-2005, 16:13

So, their jobs, and titles...as Senators and Congressmen...are more important than what their actual job duties are...among them, to uphold the fucking Constitution?
Well, of course, Lyric. Haven't you figured *that* out yet? ;) ;)

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 16:15

That's not what I meant. I was challenging Corneliu's statement that "the people of the United States" would push for a constitutional amendment on this issue. I don't like the "under god" phrase, but I don't feel at all threatened by it. But I am offended by the assumption that there is no dissenting opinion, or that the dissenting opinion doesn't matter because it's the minority, so it can just be ignored as if it doesn't exist. Sorry, but that's a kind of "might makes right, nyah-nyah" interpretation of majority rule that I don't buy into. If I feel threatened by anything at all, it's a majority that's not willing to let the minority have their way on anything, even something so trivial as this.

I don't know if you know this but I am also an American as are over 250 million people. So what I said was correct. The People themselves will go into an uproar as they did in 2004 when the 9th Circuit did this the last time.

Now it looks like we have a similiar situation again and when the 9th rules against the pledge, the Congress will reject what the 9th Circuit has said and the case will go to the US Supreme Court where the pledge will be upheld.

The 4th and 7th have both stated that it does not violated the establishment clause. When this gets to the Supreme Court (and it will) the court will state that it doesn't violate the establishment clause and over rule the 9th has it has done the majority of the time.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 16:22

That's not what I meant. I was challenging Corneliu's statement that "the people of the United States" would push for a constitutional amendment on this issue. I don't like the "under god" phrase, but I don't feel at all threatened by it. But I am offended by the assumption that there is no dissenting opinion, or that the dissenting opinion doesn't matter because it's the minority, so it can just be ignored as if it doesn't exist. Sorry, but that's a kind of "might makes right, nyah-nyah" interpretation of majority rule that I don't buy into. If I feel threatened by anything at all, it's a majority that's not willing to let the minority have their way on anything, even something so trivial as this.

Oh, ok, mea culpa - I misunderstood your point. Obviously there is a dissenting opinion and just because the minority is a minority, doesn't mean they are to be completely ignored. However, because they are a minority does mean that sometimes they must give way to the majority - The issue is balance and the avoidance of a tyrannical majority.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 16:25

Thanks for posting the link. I tried but it still took me to a list of all of their august cases.

Do a "quote post" and cut and paste the exact link into your browser, it should take you to a .pdf copy of the court's opinion. When I click the link in my post it takes me straight to the opinion. something is not right on your end if that is not working for you (do you have acrobat reader installed for example).

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 16:29

Do a "quote post" and cut and paste the exact link into your browser, it should take you to a .pdf copy of the court's opinion. When I click the link in my post it takes me straight to the opinion. something is not right on your end if that is not working for you (do you have acrobat reader installed for example).

Yea I do have it on my computer. For some reason, it just didn't work. Alwell, it really isn't important :)

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 16:31

What about Prohibition? That was an amendment, later deemed unconstitutional and repealed by another amendment.

Sorry if someone else already brought that up; I haven't fully caught up with the overnight posts, yet.

It has been brought up, but you are incorrect in what you say. Prohibition was NOT deemed unconstitutional and then an ammendment passed. Rather, it was disfavored and an amendment was passed that repealed the prior ammendment. In other words, prohibition was not "unconstitutional" until the amendment repealling it was passed.

PEOPLE - AN AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL - THINK ABOUT IT - HOW CAN A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Muravyets

15-09-2005, 16:32

You can say that again :D

And how many of them are actually americans? Anyway, the Congress went into an uproar the last time this was brought forth and when it DOES get to the US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will state that it isn't unconstitutional. I'll place bets on that.

What about those of us who want to keep it? Do you propose to disenfranchise us of our right to say under god? Have us stripped of our citizenship (wondering where that came from fyi)

I'm of the firm belief that most people would want under god to stay in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Thank you, and if you continue to say that you believe that *most* of the people think this or that, or identify yourself as speaking for the majority, I'll have no further issue with you on this score. All I ask is not to be treated as if I don't exist or am somehow not an American or a citizen (that's what those remarks about disenfranchisement, etc., were about).

By all means, then, keep the pledge as you like it. When asked for a personal preference about the pledge, I would choose to have "under god" taken out purely as a matter of form, but as a practical matter, it makes no difference to me because I wouldn't recite the pledge no matter what it said. My allegiance has to be earned; I never promise it in advance like that.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 16:35

Thank you, and if you continue to say that you believe that *most* of the people think this or that, or identify yourself as speaking for the majority, I'll have no further issue with you on this score. All I ask is not to be treated as if I don't exist or am somehow not an American or a citizen (that's what those remarks about disenfranchisement, etc., were about).

You do exist. I never stated otherwise. Your just as an american as I am. :)

By all means, then, keep the pledge as you like it. When asked for a personal preference about the pledge, I would choose to have "under god" taken out purely as a matter of form, but as a practical matter, it makes no difference to me because I wouldn't recite the pledge no matter what it said. My allegiance has to be earned; I never promise it in advance like that.

I can respect you for your opinions. You have stated it politely (if a little sarcastically :D) and in a respectful manner. You have earned my respect :)

Muravyets

15-09-2005, 16:35

It has been brought up, but you are incorrect in what you say. Prohibition was NOT deemed unconstitutional and then an ammendment passed. Rather, it was disfavored and an amendment was passed that repealed the prior ammendment. In other words, prohibition was not "unconstitutional" until the amendment repealling it was passed.

PEOPLE - AN AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL - THINK ABOUT IT - HOW CAN A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Okay, point granted, but it shows that amendments are not permanent. Getting an amendment may up the stakes, but it doesn't end the game.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 16:37

Okay, point granted, but it shows that amendments are not permanent. Getting an amendment may up the stakes, but it doesn't end the game.

Actually, getting an amendment does end the game.

Good Lifes

15-09-2005, 16:38

Does anyone else find it ironic that some of those who defend "under God" tend to be the ones using cuss words?

I wish some of those who defend "under God" and feel that the Bible should be our guide would show me where Jesus or Paul would defend the combination of church and State. And while their a it, show me where Jesus or Paul would ask a person to do something against their personal beliefs, even if it were something that would be OK for a Christian to do. Earlier I posted quotes fom 1Cor that said a Christian should never force someone to do something against their conscience. No one responded. Come on--If you are a real Christian, you would make this decision based on Bible teachings. I challenge you. WWJD????

Muravyets

15-09-2005, 16:40

You do exist. I never stated otherwise. Your just as an american as I am. :)

I can respect you for your opinions. You have stated it politely (if a little sarcastically :D) and in a respectful manner. You have earned my respect :)
I am a snotty little kitty, ain't I? My mom scolds me about it constantly, but I'm too much of a snob to pay any attention. ;) :D

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 16:43

I wouldn't recite the pledge no matter what it said. My allegiance has to be earned; I never promise it in advance like that.

Just a hypothetical, but what if the U.S. Government said that citizenship had to be earned and would not be given in advance "like that?"

Muravyets

15-09-2005, 16:46

Actually, getting an amendment does end the game.
Ah, ah, ah, Corneliu - not so fast. Amendment passed making the nation dry; all hell breaks loose with crime; oops, new amendment passed making liquor legal again. It may take many, many, many years to undo an amendment, but what has been done, can be done. That's a basic life rule.

So is: what goes around, comes around. :D

Vittos Ordination

15-09-2005, 16:48

Free Soviets

15-09-2005, 16:48

It also isn't establishing religion either so you cna't uise the establishment clause.

The 7th and th 4th circuit appeals both stated that it wasn't an establishment of religion.

As far as I know, its only the 9th that has and the 9th is the most liberal court in the land as well as the most overturned court in the land.

in the opinion you referenced from the 4th, they agree with reasoning that is trivially false. they say it isn't establishment because it passes the lemon test. but we know for an absolute fact that the intent behind the addition of the words 'under god' is a completely religious one; which means that there is no legitimate secular purpose to the pledge having the words 'under god' in it. and because of that intent, we know that the primary effect they were trying to get across through that addition was to advance a religious cause (in contrast to the godless commies), especially through making school children recite it daily. and it'd be an awfully convoluted argument that claims this isn't excessive entanglement with religion.

i think they knew that this argument was ridiculously weak, which is why they go on to another bad argument - namely, 'look at all these other trivially unconstitutional things that we allow in the name of tradition'. as if merely having done something for a long time granted it constitutional protection. we didn't get around to officially finding creationism and laws requiring it to be taught to be unconstitutional violations of the establishment clause for a centruy or so. doesn't change the facts.

they also throw in some 'but the founders established a whole host of religious things, and they are the ones who wrote the clause in question, so we must defer to their judgement' for good measure. of course, the founders were also capable of claiming that all men were created equal while owning slaves. or that we should have constitutionally protected speech and a free press but almost immediately passed laws that made criticising the government a punishable offense. in other words, fuck the founders, they don't know shit.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 16:52

And yet the 4th Circuit Court ruled UNDER THE LAW and the CONSTITUTION that it doesn't establish religion.

That is the key thing here. We are talking about establishing religion. Since, under the 4th Circuit Court ruling (trying to find the 7th Circuit court), it doesn't establish religion. This will go to the US Supreme Court because of the conflict of rulings and based on reading the previous case, it is my opinion (and my opinion only as well as some law experts I've been hearing as well as Al Gore's lawyer) that the Supreme Court will reverse the 9th Circuit Court ruling (since we all know how they are going to rule) and keep the pledge as it is.

The Pledge doesn't violate the establishment clause.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 16:59

And while their a it, show me where Jesus or Paul would ask a person to do something against their personal beliefs, even if it were something that would be OK for a Christian to do. . . . I challenge you. WWJD????

Accepted: Acts 10:9-19, 28-29

English: New American Standard Bible
Acts of the Apostles 10:

9. On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.
10. But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
11. and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12. and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13. A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
14. But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
15. Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
16. This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
17. Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;
18. and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there.
19. While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you.
**************
28. And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.
29. "That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me."

There you go - God told Peter to do something that was against Peter's personal beliefs - told him that his personal beliefs were wrong and contrary to what Jesus would do.

Vittos Ordination

15-09-2005, 17:00

The Pledge doesn't violate the establishment clause.

Link me to where you said why or explain again.

Myrmidonisia

15-09-2005, 17:00

Alas, pragmatism is ignored in favor of irrational passion. :)
It would short-circuit a lot of the preceeding discusssion.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 17:02

Link me to where you said why or explain again.

The 4th Circuit court of Appeals which has already been linked too in this thread.

I'm still trying to find the 7th Circuit ruling on this but I don't know what the case name is.

Muravyets

15-09-2005, 17:04

Just a hypothetical, but what if the U.S. Government said that citizenship had to be earned and would not be given in advance "like that?"
I'm not sure that wouldn't be a fair demand.

Roman citizenship had to be earned. Nowadays, if you're born in a country, you're automatically granted the legal status of "citizen," although immigrants have to earn it by learning about the country and proving that they are not criminals. But in Rome and ancient Greece, both models from which modern democracy was adapted, there was no such thing as a "natural born citizen."

I would have to do research on this -- or if there's a historian out there who happens to know and could save me the trouble, I'd appreciate it -- but I believe the Romans had a concept of free people who had basic rights to live and carry on business -- what we might think of as natural rights, or "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" -- and there there was the concept of being a Roman citizen, which was rather like being admitted to a private club which granted legal privileges and eligibility to run for office. But I don't think you needed to be a citizen to live and work in Rome, or to have protection under Roman law. After all, most of the Europeans who lived under the Roman Empire were not citizens, but they were not slaves to the Empire.

If a country granted protection under their laws to all human beings regardless of status, then I wouldn't mind if they reserved citizenship to those who "earned" it according to their standards.

If, on the other hand, they only granted protection under the law to citizens and it was open season on everyone else, that I would not be okay with.

Free Soviets

15-09-2005, 17:08

And yet the 4th Circuit Court ruled UNDER THE LAW and the CONSTITUTION that it doesn't establish religion.

and the 9th says otherwise and with more sound reasoning.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 17:12

and the 9th says otherwise and with more sound reasoning.

Why because you agree with the ruling?

I agree with the 4th so I say that they ruled with more reasoning.

Anyone with a brain can look at this ruling by the 4th and see just how detailed it was. They ruled based on the merits and found that it doesn't violate the establishment clause of the United States Constitution.

Frisbeeteria

15-09-2005, 17:39

...the mods would probably get angry if I used it.

I'll make it a link instead of a picture. If you are offended easily, don't look.
Posting a link that flames someone is the same as posting the actual flame. Warnings are irrelevant. Do NOT do so again.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Free Soviets

15-09-2005, 17:43

Anyone with a brain can look at this ruling by the 4th and see just how detailed it was. They ruled based on the merits and found that it doesn't violate the establishment clause of the United States Constitution.

detailed and wrong. care to address my arguments several posts up? or if you aren't up for it, how about you just explain to me precisely what the legitimate secular purpose of making school children say the phrase 'under god' every day is?

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 17:44

Posting a link that flames someone is the same as posting the actual flame. Warnings are irrelevant. Do NOT do so again.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Guess that answers that question. Thanks Fris.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 17:47

detailed and wrong.

Why is it wrong? Because it disagreed with you? Read the opinion of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is quite detailed. They looked at everything and found that it doesn't violate the establishment clause of the United States Constitution.

care to address my arguments several posts up? or if you aren't up for it, how about you just explain to me precisely what the legitimate secular purpose of making school children say the phrase 'under god' every day is?

I don't care what the secular or religious aspect is. The fact remains though that we have 2 courts that said that it wasn't a violation of the establishment clause vs. one court that does. I don't know about the other courts.

I'm going with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals here as well as Justices O'Conner, Renquist (May he rest in peace), and Thomas have also stated. That it isn't a violation of the establishment clause of the US Constitution. O'Conner at this rate will probably hear the case since she has already stated that she will remain till her replacement is confirmed.

Free Soviets

15-09-2005, 18:13

I don't care what the secular or religious aspect is.

the 4th did. they (agreeing with the district court) claimed it passed the lemon test. this is a lie. at the very least it requires mental gymnastics of olympic quality to even attempt to hold such a position.

well, actually, the second concurring opinion actually says it probably would be unconstitutional except that some of the supremes over the years have said in dicta that it isn't and falls back on that as authoritative. not a good argument, but at least its an honest attempt and passes the buck rather than makes up random bullshit to attempt to justify an incorrect decision.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 18:15

OK, I found the 7th Circuit case
The case is: Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 of Wheeling Township, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 11/20/1992) (http://1stam.umn.edu/archive/fedctapp/sherman.htm)

Galloism

15-09-2005, 18:18

Santa Barbara

15-09-2005, 18:20

Like the guy in the article said, change the pledge to say "one nation that does not recognize the existence of God," and then watch how quickly it is ruled that that violates the First Amendment.

Ain't no one gonna disagree with that, cuz it's quite true.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 18:35

the 4th did. they (agreeing with the district court) claimed it passed the lemon test. this is a lie. at the very least it requires mental gymnastics of olympic quality to even attempt to hold such a position.

Apparently, it isn't a lie. If the 4th Circuit said it then I guess its not a lie. This will make an interesting case study either way. Frankly, I'm not all that worried about the Pledge. The Supreme Court will uphold the pledge.

well, actually, the second concurring opinion actually says it probably would be unconstitutional except that some of the supremes over the years have said in dicta that it isn't and falls back on that as authoritative. not a good argument, but at least its an honest attempt and passes the buck rather than makes up random bullshit to attempt to justify an incorrect decision.

Fact remains though that most of them have gone on record as stating that it didn't violate the establishment clause.

Now that we have established that it doesn't violate the establishment clause, the Pledge will stay in its current form. This I predict.

The Nazz

15-09-2005, 18:37

Actually, getting an amendment does end the game.
No it doesn't, since Amendments can be overturned by other amendments--see Amendments 18 and 21, repeated ad nauseam in this thread.

The Black Forrest

15-09-2005, 18:37

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/owned.gif

Does anybody know if they make that? I would love to have one! It would annoy some "faithful" workers! :D

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 18:38

Galloism

15-09-2005, 18:38

Does anybody know if they make that? I would love to have one! It would annoy some "faithful" workers! :D

A friend of mine made it. We should market it.

Free Soviets

15-09-2005, 18:50

Apparently, it isn't a lie. If the 4th Circuit said it then I guess its not a lie.

that is the stupidest reasoning i've ever heard.

the lemon test says, in essence, that any government action concerning religion needs to conform to these three ideas:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion

so what the fuck is the secular purpose to the pledge containing the phrase 'under god'? keep in mind that we have the words of congress and the president on their religious purpose for adding the phrase. and what the fuck were they trying to do if not have a primary effect of advancing religion? did they have some secret goal in mind that they were hiding behind their public statements about advancing religion?

'under god' fails at every prong of lemon. saying that not only does it not fail on every prong, but actually passes lemon entirely just points to the speaker being either incompetent or insane.

the only safe way to rule that it isn't unconstitutional is to pass the buck off to supreme court dicta and drink your legalistic shame away.

Vittos Ordination

15-09-2005, 18:50

The 4th Circuit court of Appeals which has already been linked too in this thread.

I'm still trying to find the 7th Circuit ruling on this but I don't know what the case name is.

Then explain why you disagree with my assessment of the 4th's ruling.

Economic Associates

15-09-2005, 18:54

Apparently, it isn't a lie. If the 4th Circuit said it then I guess its not a lie. This will make an interesting case study either way. Frankly, I'm not all that worried about the Pledge. The Supreme Court will uphold the pledge.
Corneliu the courts are not perfect. They make mistakes just like presidents or congress do. At one point we had the supreme court say that african americans were property and at another we had them say that seperate but equal was alright to use. To hold an instituion's decision as infalible is a dangerous thing.

Fact remains though that most of them have gone on record as stating that it didn't violate the establishment clause.

Now that we have established that it doesn't violate the establishment clause, the Pledge will stay in its current form. This I predict.
You have conflicting opinions and rulings on this topic and you basically say this issue is settled? I understand that there has been decisions on this before but that in no way makes what was said as final.

Khaotik

15-09-2005, 19:01

I do think banning the Pledge of Allegiance is going too far, but the "under God" bit should definitely be taken out, because it basically means "the Christian God that we worship, and anyone who doesn't is wrong and a heathen and beneath us." That's basically the connotation.

However, based on my own experiences in elementary school, I don't think any of these kids really know or care what it means. You'd think that would make the whole thing a non-issue, but quite the opposite. Kids ought to know the history of this country instead of just the dogma.

Good Lifes

15-09-2005, 19:14

Accepted: Acts 10:9-19, 28-29

English: New American Standard Bible
Acts of the Apostles 10:

9. On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.
10. But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
11. and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12. and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13. A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
14. But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
15. Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
16. This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
17. Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;
18. and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there.
19. While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you.
**************
28. And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.
29. "That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me."

There you go - God told Peter to do something that was against Peter's personal beliefs - told him that his personal beliefs were wrong and contrary to what Jesus would do.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/owned.gif

So you're saying that because God gave a new lesson to an Apostle that conflicted with his understanding of the OT rulings, that the teaching of the bible tells Christians to force themselves on others and do things that harm the conscience of those around them? Christians are to be arrogant and demanding of those that believe other things? How does this jive with "Love your Neighbor as Yourself" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? There is a difference between Jesus and God explaining things to the Apostles and telling followers how they are to react to those around them. Jesus, during his time as a human, in showing his followers how to react to other was always a man of compassion for the weak both physically, and in belief.

La Habana Cuba

15-09-2005, 19:19

Will Judge Roberts, soon to be Chief Supreme Court Justice I presume, help reverse the rulling, should the case come before them?

And lets not forget, President Bush still has another Supreme Court Judge to nominite, which the democrats will fight hard on many presume.

What impact will the confirmation of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice, and the nomination and confirmation of another Supreme Court Judge by President Bush have on this rulling, should the case come before the US Supreme Court?

New Baodonia

15-09-2005, 19:20

I don't see who would be hurt by simply removing "under God."

Invidentias

15-09-2005, 19:31

I don't see who would be hurt by simply removing "under God."

I dont see who is hurt by keeping it, especially since there is no obligation to recite it, and students may leave the room if they so feel it nessesary

Bompei

15-09-2005, 19:31

No, it's an affirmation of your loyalty to your country, personally I think it's gonna go to the Supreme Court and get fixed back to the way it should be, with the under God in it.

And if you have an issue with "under God", why not God bless America, or any similar phrase?

There's a difference between having to say "under God" and "God bless America". "God bless America" is a phrase that isn't necessarily taught to absolutely everybody in public and private school districts, nor is it as supported by the government as the pledge is. As far as I'm concerned, "Under God" DOESN'T belong in the pledge. The pledge wasn't originally written as such and the only reason we put it in there is to seperate ourselves from Russia (because of course we're all five years old here). It's a violation of church and state. Technically so is "God bless America" but I think the reason not everyone has made a huge deal out of that is the fact that you don't have to stand up and say it every morning at school.

Whittier--

15-09-2005, 19:33

Invidentias

15-09-2005, 19:38

There's a difference between having to say "under God" and "God bless America". "God bless America" is a phrase that isn't necessarily taught to absolutely everybody in public and private school districts, nor is it as supported by the government as the pledge is. As far as I'm concerned, "Under God" DOESN'T belong in the pledge. The pledge wasn't originally written as such and the only reason we put it in there is to seperate ourselves from Russia (because of course we're all five years old here). It's a violation of church and state. Technically so is "God bless America" but I think the reason not everyone has made a huge deal out of that is the fact that you don't have to stand up and say it every morning at school.

It is a matter of tradition and does not technically violate separation of church and state as the Federal supreme court has ruled. Neither does "May God save this court" or "in God we Trust" or the fact that in court you must swear on a bible answering to the question "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god"....

To violate church and state, the state would have to pass a law establishing a national relgion, or supporting the estatblishment of such a religion... this obivously is not, as "God" as a term is generic and identifies with no one specific religion

East Canuck

15-09-2005, 19:38

What is at stake is that athiests are trying to ban free speech for everyone but them selves. They want to ban people from mentioning "god" in public places.

That is a load of rubbish. It does not ban you right of free speach in any way, shape or form.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the pledge that you cannot be forced to say it. It also said that you can't ban people from saying it either.
No they haven't. They specifically made sure to toss out the cases they saw on technicality to make sure they DON'T have to rule on the constitutionnality of the pledge.

The Supremes will mostly likely overrule the judge. Even if Rheinquest was still cheif justice and O'Connor weren't retiring. The fact that Bush is placing two new justices only makes it more likely that the 9th will be overturned.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid you are right on this paragraph.

East Canuck

15-09-2005, 19:41

To violate church and state, the state would have to pass a law establishing a national relgion, or supporting the estatblishment of such a religion... this obivously is not, as "God" as a term is generic and identifies with no one specific religion
Yes it does. God with a capital G specifically refer to the Christian god. god with a lowercase g refer to any god.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 19:41

No they haven't. They specifically made sure to toss out the cases they saw on technicality to make sure they DON'T have to rule on the constitutionnality of the pledge.

Actually, if you look about 5 pages back, the Supreme Court has already decided that people cannot be forced to recite the pledge. This decision was in 1943.

Whittier--

15-09-2005, 19:41

That is a load of rubbish. It does not ban you right of free speach in any way, shape or form.

No they haven't. They specifically made sure to toss out the cases they saw on technicality to make sure they DON'T have to rule on the constitutionnality of the pledge.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you are right on this paragraph.
In the 1930's there was a case which the Supremes used to overturn their earlier decision. The first decision said that states could compel people to say the pledge. Then a couple of years later the Supremes reversed themselves in the 2nd pledge case and said the states could not compel people to say the pledge.

Whittier--

15-09-2005, 19:42

Actually, if you look about 5 pages back, the Supreme Court has already decided that people cannot be forced to recite the pledge. This decision was in 1943.
so I'm off a couple of years.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 19:43

so I'm off a couple of years.

Yeah, don't sweat it. I can't keep all the cases straight either. It's just I looked it up about 5 pages back. I was really referring to him saying that it has never been ruled on.

Anarchic Conceptions

15-09-2005, 19:45

Good. One more member of the hate-America, hate-God coalition exposes himself.

"Oh, shit, ther are indoctrinating my child into a love of the country that gave them and me everything." :rolleyes:

I suppose one could say the same thing about people in Soviet Russia saying a pledge of alligience.

East Canuck

15-09-2005, 19:47

In the 1930's there was a case which the Supremes used to overturn their earlier decision. The first decision said that states could compel people to say the pledge. Then a couple of years later the Supremes reversed themselves in the 2nd pledge case and said the states could not compel people to say the pledge.
And that ruling is whether you can force someone to recite the pledge and not whether it is constitutionnal or not.

Besides, the "under God" part was added later.

Whittier--

15-09-2005, 19:55

Yeah, don't sweat it. I can't keep all the cases straight either. It's just I looked it up about 5 pages back. I was really referring to him saying that it has never been ruled on.
same here

Whittier--

15-09-2005, 19:57

And that ruling is whether you can force someone to recite the pledge and not whether it is constitutionnal or not.

Besides, the "under God" part was added later.

Dude. Get it through your skull, it is unconstitutional to ban people from saying it. It violates their free speech rights.

What you have a right to do is to not say it. You do not have the right prevent anyone else from saying it.

East Canuck

15-09-2005, 20:01

Dude. Get it through your skull, it is unconstitutional to ban people from saying it. It violates their free speech rights.

What you have a right to do is to not say it. You do not have the right prevent anyone else from saying it.
Dude, I was refering to your statement that the SCOTUS has ruled that the pledge was constitutionnal. They never did.

And one other "get it through your skull" statement and you're off to the ignore list. I was civil with you. Try to have the same curtesy.

Santa Barbara

15-09-2005, 20:04

Dude. Get it through your skull, it is unconstitutional to ban people from saying it. It violates their free speech rights.

What you have a right to do is to not say it. You do not have the right prevent anyone else from saying it.

It's a ceremony performed by public schools which are publically funded government institutions. If NOT allowing them to force God on their students is a limitation of free speech, what about how most teachers will kick you out of the classroom for saying "Fuck my ass munching twat knockers! Hitler had the right idea!"? Isnt that a violation of free speech too? Or did you go to school in that mythical place where anything and everything can be said by anyone at anytime?

Galloism

15-09-2005, 20:10

It's a ceremony performed by public schools which are publically funded government institutions. If NOT allowing them to force God on their students is a limitation of free speech, what about how most teachers will kick you out of the classroom for saying "Fuck my ass munching twat knockers! Hitler had the right idea!"? Isnt that a violation of free speech too? Or did you go to school in that mythical place where anything and everything can be said by anyone at anytime?

There's that word again: "forced." Haven't we proven that it is not forced already? It's been the topic of discussion for at least 10 pages. The court ruled that children cannot be forced to repeat the pledge in whole or in part, for any reason. Therefore, let me put it this way:

They are not forced!

And profanity is against school rules, hence why you would be on your way to the principal for saying "Fuck my ass munching twat knockers! Hitler had the right idea!" There are decorum rules, under which not repeating the pledge is NOT covered.

East Canuck

15-09-2005, 20:15

There's that word again: "forced." Haven't we proven that it is not forced already? It's been the topic of discussion for at least 10 pages. The court ruled that children cannot be forced to repeat the pledge in whole or in part, for any reason. Therefore, let me put it this way:

They are not forced!

And profanity is against school rules, hence why you would be on your way to the principal for saying "Fuck my ass munching twat knockers! Hitler had the right idea!" There are decorum rules, under which not repeating the pledge is NOT covered.
And that is besides the point.

The point: the pledge says "under God". That establishes a religion over another. It is therefore unconstitutionnal for the government to use the pledge. Whether you are forced to say it or not, the pledge is still unconstitutionnal.

Besides, have you ever heard of peer pressure? Saying that nobody is forced to say the pledge is simply not true.

Whittier--

15-09-2005, 20:17

Galloism

15-09-2005, 20:18

Whittier--

15-09-2005, 20:19

Vulgaronia

15-09-2005, 20:28

I really have no clue why everyone gets in such a stink over this.

They're making it so kids don't have to be indoctrinated every day. Boo-hoo. So friggin' what? You wanna do that crap? Do it on your own time.

Usually the people who are most vocal about keeping the bastardized pledge in schools are the same ones who are always screaming about "they took GAAAAWD out of schools and now everything is TEH BAD". It's sick.

Oh, and one other thing: the pledge itself HAS NOT BEEN RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I don't know why everyone immediately leaps to that conclusion.

The Cat-Tribe

15-09-2005, 20:35

I dont see who is hurt by keeping it, especially since there is no obligation to recite it, and students may leave the room if they so feel it nessesary

1. "It borders on sophistry to suggest that the 'reasonable' atheist would not feel less than a 'full membe[r] of the political community' every time his fellow Americans recited, as part of their expression of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he believed to be false." Allegheny County v. Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 673 (1989) (Kennedy, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and White & Scalia, JJ.)

2. You avoided the question. What is wrong with the original Pledge? Who is harmed by returning to the Pledge prior to the artificial addition of "under God"?

The Cat-Tribe

15-09-2005, 20:38

There's that word again: "forced." Haven't we proven that it is not forced already? It's been the topic of discussion for at least 10 pages. The court ruled that children cannot be forced to repeat the pledge in whole or in part, for any reason. Therefore, let me put it this way:

They are not forced!

And profanity is against school rules, hence why you would be on your way to the principal for saying "Fuck my ass munching twat knockers! Hitler had the right idea!" There are decorum rules, under which not repeating the pledge is NOT covered.

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

Was the statute adding "under God" to the Pledge a violation of the First Amendment?

Yes. It does not have or serve a secular purpose, etc.

Deliberately shouting a red herring doesn't help you any.

The Cat-Tribe

15-09-2005, 20:43

What is at stake is that athiests are trying to ban free speech for everyone but them selves. They want to ban people from mentioning "god" in public places.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the pledge that you cannot be forced to say it. It also said that you can't ban people from saying it either.

The Supremes will mostly likely overrule the judge. Even if Rheinquest was still cheif justice and O'Connor weren't retiring. The fact that Bush is placing two new justices only makes it more likely that the 9th will be overturned.

Ridiculous.

You are free to say prayers or "under God" or whatever religious expressions you like -- in public.

What is in question is a federal law saying that the official pledge of allegiance to our nation includes an endorsement of religion. That law respects an establishment of religion.

And I love all these predictions and might makes right arguments. SCOTUS could have held the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge was constitutional, but went out of its way not to decide the issue. You have no way of predicting how the court will rule.

But even if you did, this would be one of the few times that you took SCOTUS decision to be the actual last word on an issue. You feel free to disagree with actual decisions all the time. But for some reason it is silly for others of us to disagree with purely hypothetical projections on your part. :rolleyes: .

Good Lifes

15-09-2005, 20:44

Invidentias

15-09-2005, 20:46

1. "It borders on sophistry to suggest that the 'reasonable' atheist would not feel less than a 'full membe[r] of the political community' every time his fellow Americans recited, as part of their expression of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he believed to be false." Allegheny County v. Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 673 (1989) (Kennedy, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and White & Scalia, JJ.)

2. You avoided the question. What is wrong with the original Pledge? Who is harmed by returning to the Pledge prior to the artificial addition of "under God"?

the orginal question was not what was wrong with the orginal pledge.. but who was hurt by removing under god.... I can claim as a cathlic I feel like a second class citizen with my belifs as I see all essence of religion which plays a historical role from the time of the founding fathers and is an ingrained element of our culture unjustly striped simply to be political correct. Today even Christmas is not even sacride as it becomes a "Holiday tree" rather a "Christmas tree"... the reference to god is purely cultural, historical, and over the past 50 years has become traditional. There is no case for its removal as the same element of god is referenced throughout our countries insituitions from the supreme court to congress.... to every dollar you hold.

How is "God" in the pledge different from "my GOD save this court" in the opening of every supreme court session ???

Vittos Ordination

15-09-2005, 20:49

They are not forced!

So you wouldn't say that a 10 year old would not feel coerced to say the words when the overwhelming majority of his classmates and his teacher are standing in unison, reciting the pledge.

Hell, peer pressure will cause a kid to start smoking, but it won't cause a kid to say the pledge of allegiance?

Invidentias

15-09-2005, 20:54

The arguement that no one is forced to say "under God", is exactly the same arguement that was used for prayer in schools. It was argued that the students could stand quietly or leave the room. The SC eventually ruled that such an arguement would be ok for an adult, but a child does not have the strength to overcome the peer pressure, teasing, etc. That was the ruling that took prayer out of schools. Will this go to the SC? It will be appealed there but the court can just say, "We don't want to hear it." They do not have to give a reason for their actions. Almost all appeals are handled this way. Only a small percent are actually heard. If this is heard, with two GW appointments, it will be interesting. According to Roberts in the current hearings, precedent is extremely important. In his mind it takes more evidence to overturn that to uphold.

Yet I havn't seen evidence of a case where a child was compelled to recite it through simply peer pressure. The case which offset this discussion was from a father who fabricated the conditions and circumstances, claiming his daughter through peer pressure was compelled and subisquently her right infringed upon. In actuallyaity this was not the case, and that decision overturned from what I understand. He was merely on his own political crusade.

If arab/muslim or hindu kids can withstand taunts because of their cultural differences through use of turbans, head scarfs, or the little red dots on their foreheads and still make it through the day, i fail to see how similar tuanting infrindges on their rights. And even without Bush appointees it is and would be very likely the court would have upheld the pledge as is.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 20:55

Deleted. By the way, Mau, I suggest getting your own photobucket account. It's an excellent resource, and that way you don't have to leech my bandwidth. :)

Sorry - leech deleted :)

Invidentias

15-09-2005, 20:57

So you wouldn't say that a 10 year old would not feel coerced to say the words when the overwhelming majority of his classmates and his teacher are standing in unison, reciting the pledge.

Hell, peer pressure will cause a kid to start smoking, but it won't cause a kid to say the pledge of allegiance?

The reality is, the law gives them leway so that they are not forced to recite these laws. If they themselves feel compelled, it is their own weakness. Children overcome peer pressure everday of the week, and i have never witnessed a circumstance where a child was taunted or repremanded for not reciting the pledge... Most kids dont even say it out of pure lazyness.

Invidentias

15-09-2005, 21:05

And that is besides the point.

The point: the pledge says "under God". That establishes a religion over another. It is therefore unconstitutionnal for the government to use the pledge. Whether you are forced to say it or not, the pledge is still unconstitutionnal.

Besides, have you ever heard of peer pressure? Saying that nobody is forced to say the pledge is simply not true.

This claim that the pledge is still unconstitutional is unfounded by the facts at hand.

The justices [including Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas] said the pledge does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.

"To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance," Rehnquist wrote

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/

If this position is pressed, this case will eventually reach the supreme court, and as the prior Justices themselves felt it not a violation, a court with two new Bush appointees will only be more likely to support this position. The reality is, the Pledge is constitutional.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 21:09

So you wouldn't say that a 10 year old would not feel coerced to say the words when the overwhelming majority of his classmates and his teacher are standing in unison, reciting the pledge.

Hell, peer pressure will cause a kid to start smoking, but it won't cause a kid to say the pledge of allegiance?

10 year olds do it every day in school. You do know that Jehovah's Witnesses do not recite the pledge of allegiance in school. Again, go back about 5 pages and there was this very discussion. The difference is, the JWs were cool with "ok, as long as we're not forced to say it" rather than to scream "we don't like it and we don't want anybody saying it around us!"

To claim that a 10 year old can't stand to be different is an insult to all 10 year olds.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 21:10

So you're saying that because God gave a new lesson to an Apostle that conflicted with his understanding of the OT rulings, that the teaching of the bible tells Christians to force themselves on others and do things that harm the conscience of those around them? Christians are to be arrogant and demanding of those that believe other things? How does this jive with "Love your Neighbor as Yourself" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? There is a difference between Jesus and God explaining things to the Apostles and telling followers how they are to react to those around them. Jesus, during his time as a human, in showing his followers how to react to other was always a man of compassion for the weak both physically, and in belief.

Don't put words in my mouth that aren't there - I"m not "saying" anything, all I'm doing is responding to your "challenge" to:
show me where Jesus or Paul would ask a person to do something against their personal beliefs, even if it were something that would be OK for a Christian to do. . . . I challenge you. . . . I have clearly shown you such an incident - Peter was clearly asked to something that was against his personal beliefs and what he was asked to do was something that would be OK for a Christian to do. Perhaps you should consider admitting you lost this round and re-phrase your challenge.

The Black Forrest

15-09-2005, 21:10

Peer pressure is not the same as government mandate. Private people are free to do what they want.
Just because someone tells you to do something, does not mean you are being forced to do it. You still have the choice and option to not do it.
Doing something and then saying you only did because everyone else was doing it, is the world's biggest BS.

That works with adults, that usually works with teens. However, primary school students is a different matter.

They do things because they think they have to.....

Invidentias

15-09-2005, 21:14

That works with adults, that usually works with teens. However, primary school students is a different matter.

They do things because they think they have to.....

And it is sufficent for their parents to tell them.. they dont have to, or even not, as whitter stated, Jehova witnesses do it all the time. How are they different then the athiest at hand ?

By the Supreme court justices own admission, this is not a violation.

The Cat-Tribe

15-09-2005, 21:24

And it is sufficent for their parents to tell them.. they dont have to, or even not, as whitter stated, Jehova witnesses do it all the time. How are they different then the athiest at hand ?

By the Supreme court justices own admission, this is not a violation.

SCOTUS has not ruled on the issue of "under God" in the Pledge.

SCOTUS has held that no one may be coerced to say the Pledge (before the "under God" was added).

SCOTUS has also held that classroom led prayers and other activities are inherently coercive.

If you wish to rely on SCOTUS, you have a weak foundation to stand on.

The Cat-Tribe

15-09-2005, 21:27

This claim that the pledge is still unconstitutional is unfounded by the facts at hand.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/

If this position is pressed, this case will eventually reach the supreme court, and as the prior Justices themselves felt it not a violation, a court with two new Bush appointees will only be more likely to support this position. The reality is, the Pledge is constitutional.

Um, 3 of 8 said that it might be constitutional. 2 of those 3 are no longer on the Court.

By what twisted math does 1 of 9 equal a majority?

Vittos Ordination

15-09-2005, 21:36

The reality is, the law gives them leway so that they are not forced to recite these laws. If they themselves feel compelled, it is their own weakness. Children overcome peer pressure everday of the week, and i have never witnessed a circumstance where a child was taunted or repremanded for not reciting the pledge... Most kids dont even say it out of pure lazyness.

Yeah, kids are really good at overcoming peer pressure. Send your kids to school everyday in goodwill clothes and see if they come home complaining.

The most glaring part of your post, is that you would rather expose a child's weakness than compromise on your desire for the nation to be officially Christian.

Good Lifes

15-09-2005, 21:38

Don't put words in my mouth that aren't there - I"m not "saying" anything, all I'm doing is responding to your "challenge" to:
I have clearly shown you such an incident - Peter was clearly asked to something that was against his personal beliefs and what he was asked to do was something that would be OK for a Christian to do. Perhaps you should consider admitting you lost this round and re-phrase your challenge.
OK, I'll restate my challenge. Show me where Jesus or Paul recommended, ordered, taught, advised, or in any other way wanted Christians to force others to go against their conscience.

Does that sound better?.

Vittos Ordination

15-09-2005, 21:40

10 year olds do it every day in school. You do know that Jehovah's Witnesses do not recite the pledge of allegiance in school. Again, go back about 5 pages and there was this very discussion. The difference is, the JWs were cool with "ok, as long as we're not forced to say it" rather than to scream "we don't like it and we don't want anybody saying it around us!"

Why force young children to make very difficult ethical decisions that they are ill-equipped to make, when we can simply remove the words without harming anyone.

To claim that a 10 year old can't stand to be different is an insult to all 10 year olds.

Don't act like you are standing up for 10 year olds, you are blatantly ignoring both their rights to free education and their right to religious freedom in order to feed your want for this nation to politically recognize God.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 21:51

Don't act like you are standing up for 10 year olds, you are blatantly ignoring both their rights to free education and their right to religious freedom in order to feed your want for this nation to politically recognize God.

Actually, I don't give a damn one way or the other. I just take issue with that term "forced" being repeatedly used as if the students will get SAC if they refuse. Peer pressure does not equal force. It is pressure, but one thing students (and adults) have to learn is that sometimes you have to stand up to the pressure. It's not even pressure initiated by the government, but by society.

People keep using that term like the administration will punish the students if they do not comply.

Lyric

15-09-2005, 21:53

I dont see who is hurt by keeping it, especially since there is no obligation to recite it, and students may leave the room if they so feel it nessesary

Yeah...just you TRY "standing out" that much from your classmates at that age. See what kind of harassment you get!

Muravyets

15-09-2005, 21:56

[QUOTE=Invidentias]<snip>
If arab/muslim or hindu kids can withstand taunts because of their cultural differences through use of turbans, head scarfs, or the little red dots on their foreheads and still make it through the day, i fail to see how similar tuanting infrindges on their rights. <snip>QUOTE]

So, your idea is, if these religious-minority kids can spend whole days being the miserable targets of schoolyard bullies, why shouldn't all religious-minority kids?

Yeah, that's an appealing social vision. As a parent, I'd have no problem at all sending my little princess into such an environment. Get her used to the racial slurs and sexual harrassment she can expect when she gets a job.

(little red dots...<sigh>)

Lyric

15-09-2005, 22:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
So, their jobs, and titles...as Senators and Congressmen...are more important than what their actual job duties are...among them, to uphold the fucking Constitution?

Well, of course, Lyric. Haven't you figured *that* out yet? ;) ;)

Well, if that is the case, then they need to be voted out, en-masse...and replaced with people who have the spine to do the fucking job they were entrusted to do...to uphold the fucking Constitution!

Because if any part of the Constitution is as easy to override as Corny suggested...then how secure are ANY of our rights? ANY of them? what meaning and value has the constitution, if we can treat parts of it that are disliked and unpopular by a majority as if it were nothing more than toilet paper?

How about if the Second amendment becomes REALLY unpopular someday, and someone finds a way to get around that? Or maybe some other right or freedom that YOU hold dear?

No, if the Senators and Congressmen lack the backbone to do the job we entrusted them to do...which is, esentially, to uphold and protect the constitution...then they need to be rewarded by being given that which they most fear...a permanent vacation!

Lyric

15-09-2005, 22:04

Not that I would be taking this position in the first place, but...

I would point out that the laws of states other than California are irrelevant in this case.

Not at the Supreme Court level they aren't. and even courts from other states...they use laws and precedents from other states as guidance.

Lyric

15-09-2005, 22:05

Vittos Ordination

15-09-2005, 22:12

Actually, I don't give a damn one way or the other. I just take issue with that term "forced" being repeatedly used as if the students will get SAC if they refuse. Peer pressure does not equal force. It is pressure, but one thing students (and adults) have to learn is that sometimes you have to stand up to the pressure. It's not even pressure initiated by the government, but by society.

People keep using that term like the administration will punish the students if they do not comply.

Government can make no measure that coerces people towards religion in anyway and to any degree. Having teacher led group recitations of a pledge that has someone pledge allegiance to "one nation under God" is coersion through "pressure". If any kids compromise their religious beliefs due to this pressure, it is a travesty.

Lyric

15-09-2005, 22:15

Prolly not--but might an atheist kid forge his daddy's signature in order to get out of doing it?
I dunno. I would've. Fortunately, there was no law when I went to school. Yet we were still compelled to recite every day, in spite of there not being a law. And a kid I know got in-school suspension for three days, for refusing to say the Under God part. I never said the Under God part, but I always made sure I moved my lips, so as not to be obvious. Of course, my lips did not move to "Under God" but my lips were moving, anyway.
My reasons back then were different than they are now. I still refuse to say "under God" in the Pledge, but my reasons are different.

Back then, I was an athiest. Now, I'm a Unitarian christian...but I do not feel that God would want coerced homage paid to Him...nor do I feel God is on our nation's side...any more than He is on any other nation's side. I believe God would be offended.

Also, with the Pledge now...because I am so bitter towards our current Bush government...I mock the Pledge...I substitute words, and I do not place my hand over my heart...I hook my middle fingers through my belt loops now. I don't make an ostentatious display of it...but those close to me know the scorn with which I hold our current government.

And I also now use the George Carlin version when signing "America, The Beautiful."

Oh, beautiful
For smoggy skies
Insecticided grain
For strip-mined mountains
Majesty
Above the asphalt plain
America, America
Man sheds his waste on thee
And hides the pines
With billboard signs
From sea to oily sea!!!

Until I get a government that represents ME...instead of working for everything I'm against...and against everything I'm FOR...I will continue to hold our government in scorn, and I shall do nothing to honor them or pledge any sort of allegiance to them. Period. They haven't earned it from me.

Bela Telax

15-09-2005, 22:16

Originally Posted by: Lyric :
... if the Senators and Congressmen lack the backbone to do the job we entrusted them to do...which is, esentially, to uphold and protect the constitution

See here is where you get it wrong. The Senators and Congressmen's job is understand that the consitution of the USA is a living document that must conform to the beliefs of the people, while at the same time not infringe on the minority. They are to make laws that can, work in cooperation with the consitution, or other set precedence that has been accepted by the people of the USA.

It is the court's job to "protect and interepete" the consitution. Congress has nothing to do with this. In fact if congress wanted to, and it did not violate set precedence, without good reason supported by the voters, Congress could choose to scrap the consitution and start over through an amendment.

Also, the 9th circut court of appeals yesterday stated that the pledge was unconsitutional due to the words "Under God."

Additionally, those words shouldn't be their anyway, nor should a first world country need to have its free citizens go through the process of "Pledging Elgence" to them. How full of it does a nation really have to be to require this?

Lyric

15-09-2005, 22:20

Actually, getting an amendment does end the game.
Yep. Just like Prohibition did.

Economic Associates

15-09-2005, 22:21

Until I get a government that represents ME...instead of working for everything I'm against...and against everything I'm FOR...I will continue to hold our government in scorn, and I shall do nothing to honor them or pledge any sort of allegiance to them. Period. They haven't earned it from me.

Because we all know that only Lyric's point of view is the one that should be represented by congress. For the love of god realize that there are different points of view other then yours. Some may be hostile towards you while others may be indifferent or share the same views you have. You have to realize that even though you feel like you are being singled out here, and you may be, that until you can understand others points of view you wont be able to change them. Ranting and complaining about it while saying you won't respect the government will not change a damn thing.

Lyric

15-09-2005, 22:22

Just a hypothetical, but what if the U.S. Government said that citizenship had to be earned and would not be given in advance "like that?"
Then it would be time, as our forefathers told us...to rise up and overthrow that government. To not do so would be to dishonor all for which they fought and died.
Part of our freedoms include the right to dislike our government...to not pledge allegiance or fealty to it...and to dissent against it when we feel it is overstepping it's boundaries and encroaching upon our rights.

Our rights, argue the fundies...come from the Creator and cannot be taken away. They do not come from the government.

The forefathers felt the same way. In fact, the forefathers very clearly stated their belief that the government governed the people only so long as the people consented.

Galloism

15-09-2005, 22:23

Yep. Just like Prohibition did.

It ended the game until the 21st amendment was passed. Until then, no court could legally attempt to challenge a law barring liqour, as it was, by definition constitutional. You don't seem to understand that the courts have no power to change the constitution or declare parts of it to be wrong.

You keep referring to, in the event of an amendment, the courts declaring the amendment unconstitutional, which they can't.

Jah Bootie

15-09-2005, 22:31

Not at the Supreme Court level they aren't. and even courts from other states...they use laws and precedents from other states as guidance.
No, the point is that what is at issue is this case is the law of California. Of course, this will be combined with the other two cases, but only the laws of the states that are involved in the litigation will be at issue. I haven't read these laws, but if they don't require students to recite the entire pledge, then the fact that other states do so is irrelevant to the court's decision. If someone wants to change the law in Texas, they will have to find a defendant with standing in Texas and bring a case like that.

Now, if one of those states does have laws that require children to recite the pledge, then the court can rule on that issue.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 22:34

Lyric

15-09-2005, 22:35

I don't see who would be hurt by simply removing "under God."

I do. The ones who would be hurt by it are the fundies who want every opportunity to brianwash and force their version of God on everyone else...and who shout "persecution!" everry time they are not allowed to do so.

Lyric

15-09-2005, 22:38

It is a matter of tradition and does not technically violate separation of church and state as the Federal supreme court has ruled. Neither does "May God save this court" or "in God we Trust" or the fact that in court you must swear on a bible answering to the question "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god"....

To violate church and state, the state would have to pass a law establishing a national relgion, or supporting the estatblishment of such a religion... this obivously is not, as "God" as a term is generic and identifies with no one specific religion

No, you don't have to swear on a Bible. You are allowed to affirm...and not swear...and sans Bible.
I refuse, to this day, to swear on a Bible, because my faith tells me to avoid idolatry.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 23:04

I do. The ones who would be hurt by it are the fundies who want every opportunity to brianwash and force their version of God on everyone else...and who shout "persecution!" everry time they are not allowed to do so.

since God is a very generic term, how does the phrase "under God" force a particular version of God on anyone - let alone the fundamentalist Christian "version?"

BTW - in addition to calling Fundamentalist Christians, "fundies" do you call hispanics, "spics" or Italians, "Dagos" or Jews, "Heebs" or Arabs, "rag heads" etc. or do you reserve derrogatory terms for use on Chirstian Fundamentalists only?

Free Soviets

15-09-2005, 23:07

SCOTUS has not ruled on the issue of "under God" in the Pledge.

SCOTUS has held that no one may be coerced to say the Pledge (before the "under God" was added).

SCOTUS has also held that classroom led prayers and other activities are inherently coercive.

seriously. if they go for consistency with previous rulings, 'under god' will be tossed. if they go for a straight up application of the lemon test, 'under god' will be tossed, etc.

i am honestly interested to see how scalia will argue that we should constitutionally be required to physically beat people who don't shout 'under god' loud enough during mandatory pledge time.

Goodlifes

15-09-2005, 23:07

Does it bother anyone else that the ones using most of the foul language are the one's arguing FOR "under God". They will know you are a Christian by your actions and words.

The Cat-Tribe

15-09-2005, 23:08

Because we all know that only Lyric's point of view is the one that should be represented by congress. For the love of god realize that there are different points of view other then yours. Some may be hostile towards you while others may be indifferent or share the same views you have. You have to realize that even though you feel like you are being singled out here, and you may be, that until you can understand others points of view you wont be able to change them. Ranting and complaining about it while saying you won't respect the government will not change a damn thing.

Lyric has a much right to a government that represents Lyric's view as you do.

And Lyric has a much right to complain when Lyric disagrees with the government as you do.

All we do on here is talk. Did you think we were trying to "change a damn thing" merely by talking on these forums? Oh, I forgot about the "working on a cure for cancer" thread. :p

The Cat-Tribe

15-09-2005, 23:09

Government can make no measure that coerces people towards religion in anyway and to any degree. Having teacher lead, group recitations of a pledge that has someone pledge allegiance to "one nation under God" is coersion through "pressure". If any kids compromise their religious beliefs due to this pressure, it is a travesty.

Well said.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 23:11

All we do on here is talk. Did you think we were trying to "change a damn thing" merely by talking on these forums? Oh, I forgot about the "working on a cure for cancer" thread. :p

Isn't there an "End World Poverty" thread as well? :rolleyes:

The Cat-Tribe

15-09-2005, 23:13

since God is a very generic term, how does the phrase "under God" force a particular version of God on anyone - let alone the fundamentalist Christian "version?"

BTW - in addition to calling Fundamentalist Christians, "fundies" do you call hispanics, "spics" or Italians, "Dagos" or Jews, "Heebs" or Arabs, "rag heads" etc. or do you reserve derrogatory terms for use on Chirstian Fundamentalists only?

Do you seriously deny that the phrase "nation under God" has religious connotations?

Do you seriously deny that it endorses the religious views of some, but not others?

Do you seriously deny that "under God" is a phrase respecting religion?

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 23:18

Do you seriously deny that the phrase "nation under God" has religious connotations?
nope

Do you seriously deny that it endorses the religious views of some, but not others?
nope

Do you seriously deny that "under God" is a phrase respecting religion?
nope

I just asked how that phrase forced acknowledgement of the "version" of God that is advanced by Christian fundamentalists, that's all. It could also apply to the Jewish version of God, the Deist version, the Muslim version, etc. My point was it is a generic term that does not advance any particular monotheistic religion over any other. I don't disagree with the proposition that it is a phrase that acknowledges some religious viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

The Cat-Tribe

15-09-2005, 23:23

nope

nope

nope

I just asked how that phrase forced acknowledgement of the "version" of God that is advanced by Christian fundamentalists, that's all. It could also apply to the Jewish version of God, the Deist version, the Muslim version, etc. My point was it is a generic term that does not advance any particular monotheistic religion over any other. I don't disagree with the proposition that it is a phrase that acknowledges some religious viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Okey, dokey.

Do you believe that a law must "advance any particular monotheistic religion over any other" to violate the Establishment Clause?

FYI, From Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html), 472 U.S. 38 (1985):

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

Would you really argue against that sentiment?

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html), 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488#495), 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs"); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=330&page=15#15), 330 US 1, 18 (1947) (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers").

You might also read some of the conscientious objector cases. It is has been clearly held that "religion" does not require belief in a God or gods. That firmly held athiestic beliefs qualify as a religion.

Mauiwowee

15-09-2005, 23:38

Okey, dokey.

Do you believe that a law must "advance any particular monotheistic religion over any other" to violate the Establishment Clause?

Nope, more later, I"m late for class.

Corneliu

16-09-2005, 00:21

I do. The ones who would be hurt by it are the fundies who want every opportunity to brianwash and force their version of God on everyone else...and who shout "persecution!" everry time they are not allowed to do so.

Actually no! We may not like it but we would abide by it! Most of us true Christians anyway!

Also, as a Christian, if they do rule in favor of the Pledge (which they will) it is your responsibility to accept it.

Corneliu

16-09-2005, 00:23

seriously. if they go for consistency with previous rulings, 'under god' will be tossed. if they go for a straight up application of the lemon test, 'under god' will be tossed, etc.

Sorry but there isn't any precedent in regards to Under God in the Pledge of Alligence. In fact, they will probably uphold the fact that it doesn't violate the establishment clause.

i am honestly interested to see how scalia will argue that we should constitutionally be required to physically beat people who don't shout 'under god' loud enough during mandatory pledge time.

:rolleyes: No one is forced to say the pledge of alligence.

CSW

16-09-2005, 00:49

Sorry but there isn't any precedent in regards to Under God in the Pledge of Alligence. In fact, they will probably uphold the fact that it doesn't violate the establishment clause.

The lemon test would still most likely be applied in this case, and it would end up failing on the grounds that it has no real secular purpose.

As a matter of fact, I doubt you even know to what sort of cases the lemon test applies. Learn something about first amendment caselaw before claiming "no precedent in regards to Under God".

Vittos Ordination

16-09-2005, 01:36

Well said.

Thank you.

New Granada

16-09-2005, 01:56

The "under god" addition to the pledge is, in my opinon, just as unconstitutional as an addition saying "there is no god."

It is unnacceptable to have a school subject children to a daily affirmation or denial of religion.

New Granada

16-09-2005, 01:57

And my usual quip-

When they added "under god" to the pledge, they put it between "one nation" and "indivisible." ;)

Dobbsworld

16-09-2005, 02:16

My point was it is a generic term that does not advance any particular monotheistic religion over any other.That's assuming you're neither a polytheist or an atheist. Any advancement of monotheism of any sort is offensive to say the least, particularly where ritual school activities are concerned.

Sel Appa

16-09-2005, 02:22

I don't know if any schools sing "God save the King/Queen..." anymore, but the US and North Korea are probably the only countries that require you to pledge allegiance to the nation. And in NK, it's probably to Kim Jong Il if at all.

This girl in my History class couldn't understand that people can be atheist: "Who doesn't believe in God?" If only I were in honors. :(
I say we just dump it all.

Economic Associates

16-09-2005, 02:26

Lyric has a much right to a government that represents Lyric's view as you do.

And Lyric has a much right to complain when Lyric disagrees with the government as you do.

All we do on here is talk. Did you think we were trying to "change a damn thing" merely by talking on these forums? Oh, I forgot about the "working on a cure for cancer" thread. :p

I agree 100% with you. We all deserve our views to be represented by the government. However when your on an online forum and your spouting statements like Lyric has you don't make many friends. Not only that but the way she puts it makes it seem like only her view is right and everyone else's is wrong and doesnt matter. She does make many valid points and hell I'm for giving gays the right to marry and making sure everyone has equal rights but when Lyric argues for it in the way she does it makes me just want to go you know what lets ban it. The amount of emotion Lyric puts in her posts is not necessary and from other posts she has made its sure as hell not healthy. All I'm asking is for her to tone it down.

HRH Sedulcni

16-09-2005, 02:36

Lyric has a much right to a government that represents Lyric's view as you do.

Not if Lyric lives in a nation that is a representative democracy, then Lyrics is entitled to the goverment which represents the majority, and doesn't allow for a tyranny of the minority.

Muravyets

16-09-2005, 02:37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
So, their jobs, and titles...as Senators and Congressmen...are more important than what their actual job duties are...among them, to uphold the fucking Constitution?

Well, if that is the case, then they need to be voted out, en-masse...and replaced with people who have the spine to do the fucking job they were entrusted to do...to uphold the fucking Constitution!

Because if any part of the Constitution is as easy to override as Corny suggested...then how secure are ANY of our rights? ANY of them? what meaning and value has the constitution, if we can treat parts of it that are disliked and unpopular by a majority as if it were nothing more than toilet paper?

How about if the Second amendment becomes REALLY unpopular someday, and someone finds a way to get around that? Or maybe some other right or freedom that YOU hold dear?

No, if the Senators and Congressmen lack the backbone to do the job we entrusted them to do...which is, esentially, to uphold and protect the constitution...then they need to be rewarded by being given that which they most fear...a permanent vacation!
Lyric, you are completely right. The first and last line of defense, in fact, the only thing that matters when it comes to the laws and rights in the US is We, the People. And We cannot allow others to define us. I personally believe the country has always been ideologically split as it is now. Sometimes, the right has been on top, sometimes the left. But nowadays, it feels as if the sides are not content to trade command anymore. The side that is on top now seems to be trying to silence and cripple, if not actually shatter the opposition completely. I've never been so afraid for the country. My mom remembers the Red Scare, but even she says she never felt things were as hostile as they are now. It is vital that those with dissenting opinions not give in and shut up and wait for next time, the way we might have years ago. Now we really are fighting over what the Constitution is worth.

Anyway, that's my view. Sounds a bit radical, but I think it's appropriate to the situation.

Economic Associates

16-09-2005, 02:40

Not if Lyric lives in a nation that is a representative democracy, then Lyrics is entitled to the goverment which represents the majority, and doesn't allow for a tyranny of the minority.

Also another good point. You get who the majority votes for to represent you. If your group does not get it you still have the supreme court as a check against the tyranny of the majority. So if Lyric wants her point of view represented she's got a hell of a lot of campaigning to do or else she's stuck with good old SCOTUS

Muravyets

16-09-2005, 02:44

It ended the game until the 21st amendment was passed.
i.e., the game hadn't ended. The amendment was never popular, was proved to be a mistake, and was undone by another amendment. Since it was the exact same issue -- liquor vs. temperance -- I submit it was the same game.

Patience is a virtue in politics, too.

Muravyets

16-09-2005, 02:45

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country - J.F.K.
Sorry, but here's a liberal who says JFK was full of crap. Not only do I ask what my country can do for me, I ask what it has done for me lately.

Muravyets

16-09-2005, 02:51

And my usual quip-

When they added "under god" to the pledge, they put it between "one nation" and "indivisible." ;)
Quick!! Get Freud on the phone!! Wake up Jung!! They SLIPPED!!!

So, are you telling me the whole Civil War was a waste of time???? :p

Free Soviets

16-09-2005, 02:52

In fact, they will probably uphold the fact that it doesn't violate the establishment clause.

so you keep saying. would you care to try your hand at actually arguing in favor of your position?

Muravyets

16-09-2005, 02:53

The Nazz

16-09-2005, 03:12

How come nobody worries about a tyranny of the *majority*?
I worry about it. Fuck--I'm living it.

Free Soviets

16-09-2005, 03:29

How come nobody worries about a tyranny of the *majority*?

because most instances that are claimed to be majoritarian tyranny are the same old tyranny from tiny elites that just happen to also be popular. but without that elite, the majority would have a hard time exercising tyrannical control even if they wanted to.

Lyric

16-09-2005, 03:43

And what have you done to earn anything they government has made available for you?

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country - J.F.K.

Gladly. When my country...and my government becomes DESERVING of my assistance, they will have it. As of now they are deserving only of my scorn and hatred.
I love my country, and always will. But I despise our government.

Lyric

16-09-2005, 03:45

since God is a very generic term, how does the phrase "under God" force a particular version of God on anyone - let alone the fundamentalist Christian "version?"

BTW - in addition to calling Fundamentalist Christians, "fundies" do you call hispanics, "spics" or Italians, "Dagos" or Jews, "Heebs" or Arabs, "rag heads" etc. or do you reserve derrogatory terms for use on Chirstian Fundamentalists only?

It is not dirogatory to call a horse a horse. If you find my reference to fundie whackjobs to be insulting, then quit being a fundie whackjob! Fundie whackjobs are people who let Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, Wildmon, Dobson, and Sekulow do their thinking for them.

Lyric

16-09-2005, 03:50

Lyric has a much right to a government that represents Lyric's view as you do.

That's right! EVERYONE has a right to a government that represents Lyric's view!! ;)

In fact, if government DID represent my point of view, there'd be a whole lot more people who were happier than they are now! Because mine would be a kinder, gentler, more caring, loving, tolerant, and open society.

You wanna say "under God?" Bully for you! Say it. Don't force me to. Don't force anyone else to. The fundies are the ones trying to take away everyone else's rights here...including MY right to NOT say it. i'm not trying to take away anyone's rights. sorry, fundies, you do not have a right to force your moral view on anyone, or everyone...else.

Vittos Ordination

16-09-2005, 03:52

Not if Lyric lives in a nation that is a representative democracy, then Lyrics is entitled to the goverment which represents the majority, and doesn't allow for a tyranny of the minority.

How is it ok to allow Christianity to be endorsed by the pledge, yet any measure to make sure that NO religion is endorsed by the pledge is a tyranny of the minority. As far as I can see the minority is not recieving any sort of special treatment of it.

But it is nice to know you support tyranny.

Lyric

16-09-2005, 03:54

Actually no! We may not like it but we would abide by it! Most of us true Christians anyway!

Also, as a Christian, if they do rule in favor of the Pledge (which they will) it is your responsibility to accept it.

No, it will be my responsibility to keep up the fight. And in the meantime, I still damn well maintain the right not to say it, and I will not.

I'll worship God in my own way, and I'll not be coerced or forced into it. The God I worship does not want forced or coerced worship or homage. He wants willing homage only. And, on that principle, I refuse to say the "under God" part, as I view this as forced or coerced homage. It is against my personal conscience to say it, and so I won't.

Ph33rdom

16-09-2005, 03:57

No, it will be my responsibility to keep up the fight. And in the meantime, I still damn well maintain the right not to say it, and I will not.

I'll worship God in my own way, and I'll not be coerced or forced into it. The God I worship does not want forced or coerced worship or homage. He wants willing homage only. And, on that principle, I refuse to say the "under God" part, as I view this as forced or coerced homage. It is against my personal conscience to say it, and so I won't.

You honor your country equal to your God?

Lyric

16-09-2005, 03:57

I agree 100% with you. We all deserve our views to be represented by the government. However when your on an online forum and your spouting statements like Lyric has you don't make many friends. Not only that but the way she puts it makes it seem like only her view is right and everyone else's is wrong and doesnt matter. She does make many valid points and hell I'm for giving gays the right to marry and making sure everyone has equal rights but when Lyric argues for it in the way she does it makes me just want to go you know what lets ban it. The amount of emotion Lyric puts in her posts is not necessary and from other posts she has made its sure as hell not healthy. All I'm asking is for her to tone it down.

I'll tone it down when the world stops being so damned unfair...how's that?

Lyric

16-09-2005, 03:58

Not if Lyric lives in a nation that is a representative democracy, then Lyrics is entitled to the goverment which represents the majority, and doesn't allow for a tyranny of the minority.

My country is also supposed to stand for the minority that we do not have our rights and fredoms trampled on and run roughshod over by a tyrannical majority.

I feel my government is sorely deficient in sticking up for the minority these days.

Muravyets

16-09-2005, 03:59

because most instances that are claimed to be majoritarian tyranny are the same old tyranny from tiny elites that just happen to also be popular. but without that elite, the majority would have a hard time exercising tyrannical control even if they wanted to.
Cold comfort for the German Jews...

Santa Barbara

16-09-2005, 04:00

Your attempt to equate the pledge with profanity fails all tests.

So you deny the analogy on the basis that it offends you and completely ignore the point.

Concession accepted.

Lyric

16-09-2005, 04:03

Lyric, you are completely right. The first and last line of defense, in fact, the only thing that matters when it comes to the laws and rights in the US is We, the People. And We cannot allow others to define us. I personally believe the country has always been ideologically split as it is now. Sometimes, the right has been on top, sometimes the left. But nowadays, it feels as if the sides are not content to trade command anymore. The side that is on top now seems to be trying to silence and cripple, if not actually shatter the opposition completely. I've never been so afraid for the country. My mom remembers the Red Scare, but even she says she never felt things were as hostile as they are now. It is vital that those with dissenting opinions not give in and shut up and wait for next time, the way we might have years ago. Now we really are fighting over what the Constitution is worth.

Anyway, that's my view. Sounds a bit radical, but I think it's appropriate to the situation.

and that is precisely why I am as militant as I am now...and why my arguments are so strident! Because I refuse to be cowed into silence. I refuse to lay down and die for the other side.

And your mom is right. I can't speak for everyone else, but I know that I, as never before, hold a black, bitter hatred in my heart for the other side of the ideological aisle. Because they are killing everything I once loved about this country. They are playing for keeps forever, and fuck me and anyone who thinks like me, they won't even give us so much as a symbolic inch! Well, I damn well ain't giving up without one hell of a fight!

Damned if I am going to lay back and let the forces of fascism destroy the country I love.

Lyric

16-09-2005, 04:04

Sorry, but here's a liberal who says JFK was full of crap. Not only do I ask what my country can do for me, I ask what it has done for me lately.
Well said!!

As far as I am concened...the only thing I owe this government are the taxes it says I have to pay. and in exchange for that, I expect my views to be respected, considered, and represented. No, I don't expect to always get my way...but I expect to get it at least once in a while!

The current government shows no desire to compromise, on any level whatsoever. In effect, I am being taxed without being respresented...or my rights even respected.

I agree...what HAS my country...and what HAS my government doen for me, lately?!? I pay my taxes, that is all this country has any right to demand from me. Now it is time for them to make good on the promises they made to me, and every other citizen of this country...and until they do, they get no respect, allegiance, or assistance from me.

Ph33rdom

16-09-2005, 04:10

Well said!!
You just got done with a post/speech about saving America, and then you agree with a post that says, essentially, "It's ALL about ME, MINE and MY WAY"

Whatever :rolleyes:

No wonder they are militant fighting for their rights against you, they have to be. You advocate a tyranny of your own, one that is out for judgment and vengeance against them and those with a different view of what America should be than you have. You would damn them all simply because they don't agree with your political viewpoints, and yet, you accuse them of trying to change it to their liking, just like you are.

Lyric

16-09-2005, 04:10

You honor your country equal to your God?

Absolutely NOT!!!

I honor my God WAY above this country. My God is deserving of worship. Right now, my country is deserving of no respect, love, or allegiance from me. In fact, as it stands now, if the White House were on fire, I wouldn't PISS on it to put the flames out!

Lyric

16-09-2005, 04:12

You just got done with a post/speech about saving America, and then you agree with a post that says, essentially, "It's ALL about ME, MINE and MY WAY"

Whatever :rolleyes:

No wonder they are militant fighting for their rights against you, they have to be. You advocate a tyranny of your own, one that is out for judgment and vengeance against them and those with a different view of what America should be than you have. You would damn them all simply because they don't agree with your political viewpoints, and yet, you accuse them of trying to change it to their liking, just like you are.

Thanks for reminding me why I was once tempted to fire the ignore cannon at you...and reminding me to actually DO it this time.

Ph33rdom

16-09-2005, 04:14

Absolutely NOT!!!

I honor my God WAY above this country. My God is deserving of worship. Right now, my country is deserving of no respect, love, or allegiance from me. In fact, as it stands now, if the White House were on fire, I wouldn't PISS on it to put the flames out!

Then you don't say the Pledge of allegiance at all, but if you did, wouldn't it be a pledge under your pledge to God? Of course it would, in fact, you would demand it were so if it was not already there, your right to say a pledge of loyalty to the country of your choice is fine and dandy, but held second to your loyalty to God, thus, you should not be offended by pledging your loyalty "under God." Your anger has made you unfocused.

Lyric

16-09-2005, 04:27

Then you don't say the Pledge of allegiance at all, but if you did, wouldn't it be a pledge under your pledge to God? Of course it would, in fact, you would demand it were so if it was not already there, your right to say a pledge of loyalty to the country of your choice is fine and dandy, but held second to your loyalty to God, thus, you should not be offended by pledging your loyalty "under God." Your anger has made you unfocused.

Absolutely not. I refuse to mix the two. My loyalty (or current lack thereof) to my country...is completely and entirely seperate from my loyalty to my God. And will always remain so.

And my loyalty to my God will always be more important...than any loyalty to my country.

You are twisting my words purposefully, or failing to comprehend them correctly.

For the moment, I'll give you the benefit of doubt, and assume that you are misunderstanding my words.

in either case...the way our country is right now...and the many things going on in the name of my country...that I consider unGodly...I refuse to say "Under God" in the Pledge, because I think God would be offended to be associated with all the unGodly things our country is currently doing.

Ph33rdom

16-09-2005, 04:35

in either case...the way our country is right now...and the many things going on in the name of my country...that I consider unGodly...I refuse to say "Under God" in the Pledge, because I think God would be offended to be associated with all the unGodly things our country is currently doing.

So now you are saying that America is simply 'unworthy' of acknowledging God? That's not what you were saying before.

One Nation Under God.... If the nation is not Under God, or if it is equal to God or if God has not place in it, then a believer in God should not pledge loyalty to it for fear of having two masters.

A believer in God MUST believe in God above the Government and their nation Under God, and they would be forced to say so during their pledge or not say the pledge at all.

Corneliu

16-09-2005, 04:37

The lemon test would still most likely be applied in this case, and it would end up failing on the grounds that it has no real secular purpose.

As a matter of fact, I doubt you even know to what sort of cases the lemon test applies. Learn something about first amendment caselaw before claiming "no precedent in regards to Under God".

*sighs*

Two justices (more than likely 3) have already stated that it doesn't violate the establishment clause. I am positive that two others also will uphold the pledge of alligence.

Muravyets

16-09-2005, 04:37

You just got done with a post/speech about saving America, and then you agree with a post that says, essentially, "It's ALL about ME, MINE and MY WAY"
Is that what you think my post was about? You're mistaken.

Let me explain where I'm coming from: "Nation," and "country" as its synonym, are artificial constructs. They do not exist if their given government does not exist. So to be a nationalist, a patriot, is to be loyal to a government, not a place or a people. Governments are as easily changed as pants. Italy, for instance -- a perfectly civilized place with paved roads and excellent coffee -- had 56 governments in the 50 years following WW2. Work that one out on a calendar.

Governments are nothing but uppity bureaucracies, and they can kiss my ass and call me ma'am while they do it. I'm an American. That's the country where the government serves the people, not the other way around.

I know what JFK meant when he said those words, but every time I hear them, they grate on my nerves. Especially when they are brought up in a context that implies that I may be somehow lacking in loyalty to a nation because I argue against its policies.

When I think about what my country has done for me lately -- from the Patriot Act to FEMA -- no, I don't especially feel like cooperating with it.

Corneliu

16-09-2005, 04:42

so you keep saying. would you care to try your hand at actually arguing in favor of your position?

I already have. You choose to ignore it because it doesn't match your views. I've stated what the 4th Circuit has said on the issue and the 7th Circuit court said the samething.

What they said was "'under god' is not an establishment of religion and therefor it does not violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution"

Corneliu

16-09-2005, 04:46

No, it will be my responsibility to keep up the fight. And in the meantime, I still damn well maintain the right not to say it, and I will not.

Fine then don't say Under God. No one is forcing you too. BTW: What the Supreme Court goes. You'll have no choice in the matter. If they rule that it isn't a violation of the establishment clause, you better have a damn good reason for them to overturn that precedent since it is very damn near difficult to overturn one.

I'll worship God in my own way, and I'll not be coerced or forced into it.

Bully for you. You actually said something that I agree with.

The God I worship does not want forced or coerced worship or homage.

Neither does my God and you know what? No one is forcing you.

He wants willing homage only. And, on that principle, I refuse to say the "under God" part, as I view this as forced or coerced homage. It is against my personal conscience to say it, and so I won't.

Bully for you. Do what you will. I frankly don't care but if they do uphold it, I expect you to accept it because there really will be no other legal recourse for anyone to take.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional - Page 2