NationStates Jolt Archive

yeah, you really need to watch out for that.

You did realize, I hope, the sarcasm there?

Um, no it isn't. It is unconstitution in parts of this country. As I have pointed out, the Supreme Court is not the only arbiter of constitutionality, it is merely the final one.

Its still being done in the 9th Circuit. They stayed their decision for the moment.

It is still legal everywhere in reality as the 9th Circuit stayed their decision meaning it still can be recited IN FULL and not be inviolation of said ruling. Of course, the court will have egg on its face if and when the Supreme Court rules the phrase Under God constitutional.

I'll wait for the Supreme Court. They have the Final Word. Until then, it is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules that it is.
Way to totally ignore the legal fact that the Supreme Court is not the only level that can make constitutional rulings.

Yeah, I guess us folks who believe that the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State are going against the proper interpretation of the first amendment as the Supreme Court has articulated it.

:confused:

from reading other wall topics i see that you are a lawyer. Please define what you mean, as well as what is taught by the law school that you attended, inrespect to the phrase " a wall of separation", and how is this percieved to ideally operate?

You did realize, I hope, the sarcasm there?
oh sorry, i thought it was an admission that you misinterpreted the law. well, don't do it again anyways. yes i did realize

Yeah Nees, stop using big words he doesn't understand, and arguments that are over his head, he can't respond to them.

Erm, I mean, be more polite

Considering earlier in the thread we repeatedly called eachother asshats, I doubt his saying that is anything but a dodge.

Contrary to popular belief, the constitution, not any other offcial legal document actually states that. That doctrine is found in Thomas jefferson's personal letters. If you read them, he does not want the govern ment to be dominated by a state church, similar to the cathloic church in europe in the middle ages; but neither does he want the Government to make any law reguarding the practice of religion

The constitution protects the right that Congress shall not make any law respecting the establishment (meaning the institution or institutions of, noun) of religion, which is happening consistantly more and more. also, God can mean just abouit anything to any one. To my Muslim friends, they take it as allah. to my atheist friends, they take it as human reason, or conscience, or ethics. to my buddist friends, God is a right mind set and harmony. to my Jewish friends, God is the Old Testament deity. To my Christian friends, It is the trinity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spiri. to my Hindu friends, God is Brahman, and is partially allo of us. it really is open to interpretation.

In short many people interpret the "God" in the pledge as what ever higher authority or power that you live under, whether that be reason, Jesus, Brahman, or conscience.

Ergo, I think that the phrase Under God should be left in the pledge.

:cool:

I call bullshit. I'm an atheist, and I don't call reason God. Indeed, I consider God to be to very opposite of reason.

Also, anybody who asks "Why is it a big deal if you don't believe anyway" clearly doesn't value intellectual honesty. I happen to, so I don't want the legal definition of a pledge to include any diety. Because in doing so, they legally define the existence of a diety as being true, and say that any belief system or religion that has no God (or gods, if that were to be conceded as included, but the wording clearly excludes polytheism to any rational person) is wrong. That is, they officially support some religions over others, which the SCOTUS has already ruled to be unconstitutional.

On an unrelated note, you notice that almost all the people(and I'm not talking NSG terms, but general terms) who argue for keeping it are theists(more especially, Christians), while a mix of theists AND atheists argue for removing it. I think that shows that the desire to keep it is NOT legal, but instead based on a desire to have their faith recognized by the state. Not that this is an arugment for removing it per se, but I do find it interesting.

Yeah, I guess us folks who believe that the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State are going against the proper interpretation of the first amendment as the Supreme Court has articulated it.

I call bullshit. I'm an atheist, and I don't call reason God. Indeed, I consider God to be to very opposite of reason.

Also, anybody who asks "Why is it a big deal if you don't believe anyway" clearly doesn't value intellectual honesty. I happen to, so I don't want the legal definition of a pledge to include any diety. Because in doing so, they legally define the existence of a diety as being true, and say that any belief system or religion that has no God (or gods, if that were to be conceded as included, but the wording clearly excludes polytheism to any rational person) is wrong. That is, they officially support some religions over others, which the SCOTUS has already ruled to be unconstitutional.

On an unrelated note, you notice that almost all the people(and I'm not talking NSG terms, but general terms) who argue for keeping it are theists(more especially, Christians), while a mix of theists AND atheists argue for removing it. I think that shows that the desire to keep it is NOT legal, but instead based on a desire to have their faith recognized by the state. Not that this is an arugment for removing it per se, but I do find it interesting.


I concede the point of the pledge favoring monotheistic persuasions and religions which are more morally/right living based over polytheistic stances. this is true.
However, do you claim that you speak for the majority of Atheists When you call Bull shit? can you really say that That position is a nonposition? for I seem to recall Socrates, though not an atheist having something to say about reason in either Crito, or Phaedo. How can you deny reason as a force to be reckoned with.
In responce to 101's post, reason by itself is pointless, and is not a force, but when coupled with action, is a force to be reckoned with

srry, quoted the wrong 101 post. its a few up there on pg 34

I concede the point of the pledge favoring monotheistic persuasions and religions which are more morally/right living based over polytheistic stances. this is true.
However, do you claim that you speak for the majority of Atheists When you call Bull shit? can you really say that That position is a nonposition? for I seem to recall Socrates, though not an atheist having something to say about reason in either Crito, or Phaedo. How can you deny reason as a force to be reckoned with.
In responce to 101's post, reason by itself is pointless, and is not a force, but when coupled with action, is a force to be reckoned with

That doesn't, by any means, make it God, the one that stood in nothingness and said "let there be light", or the one who created the universe in seven days.

How the hell can reason be that. It doesn't make sense.

God is a character in the bible. To some, he's more than that, but that's all he literally is, spiritual belief not withstanding.

Its still being done in the 9th Circuit. They stayed their decision for the moment.

It is still legal everywhere in reality as the 9th Circuit stayed their decision meaning it still can be recited IN FULL and not be inviolation of said ruling. Of course, the court will have egg on its face if and when the Supreme Court rules the phrase Under God constitutional.

It stayed its decision...pending appeal.

The appeal is going to the 9th circuit court of appeals, who already ruled on this issue. They're going to give a one line opinion that reads "We already decided this issue in 2002, stare decisis, go home"

oh sorry, i thought it was an admission that you misinterpreted the law. well, don't do it again anyways. yes i did realize

Well screw you hippy! Good, I was hoping at least SOMEONE would realize I was, in fact, quoting the Supreme Court

It stayed its decision...pending appeal.

The appeal is going to the 9th circuit court of appeals, who already ruled on this issue. They're going to give a one line opinion that reads "We already decided this issue in 2002, stare decisis, go home"

And it'll go to the Supreme Court and thus we come full circle.

And it'll go to the Supreme Court and thus we come full circle.

It may, or it may not. If it does they may uphold it, or reject it. The supreme court doesn't have to take a THING that they don't want to. Whether it goes to them or not is entirely up to them.

It may, or it may not. If it does they may uphold it, or reject it. The supreme court doesn't have to take a THING that they don't want to. Whether it goes to them or not is entirely up to them.

Indeed that they do not have too but with this, they will take it because of the conflicting rulings from the 3rd and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Besides that, they took the last case before they dismissed it on a technicality.

So has Corny admitted to lying about SCOTUS yet?

Indeed that they do not have too but with this, they will take it because of the conflicting rulings from the 3rd and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Possibly, possibly not. They've rejected other matters when there was a split in the circuits.

Besides that, they took the last case before they dismissed it on a technicality.

They may have taken it for the sole purpose OF dismissing it on a technicality. Again, one can never make assumptions.

At the end of the day, the most recent ruling on this matter is that it is unconstitutional.

Should it be illegal? No.

Should it be there? No.The OP asked if it should be taken out of the pledge in his poll question. To which I said yes. Then he asked if it should be illegal to say it in the pledge- to which I say no. The government should neither endorse nor criminalize religious expression.
And I am an atheist.

I concede the point of the pledge favoring monotheistic persuasions and religions which are more morally/right living based over polytheistic stances. this is true.

Deep breaths, deep breaths, don't bitchslap the troll . . .



Fuck that. Where did I put Trollslayer?


<returns with flaming sword>

Morally right living? How the hell is it more "morally right living" to tell someone they're going to hell for who they love?

Heheh opinionated? What are you saying that we should not hold opionions, or that we don't hold opionions?

I agree it is pointless, but as I said in a previous post. If you belive in God then surly you will have no trouble with such a pldege, if you do not then what is the problem in pldeging to something you know does not exist?

If I say I pledge allegence to the bogeyman, what does that actulay mean? What actual effect does it have on my life. Ohh that's right none! Unless you have evidance to the contrary?

I couldn't read this entire thread so I'm sorry if this response had already been made...

There is plenty of evidence that positive affirmations can help people with low self-esteem (and negative habits) if you do even a tiny bit of research.

That should be enough to show you that repeating something over and over does make a difference on someones way of thinking. Ask any psychologist.

Therefore it isn't much of a stretch to say that repeating the pledge of allegiance everyday has some effect on a person.

It seems silly to me that you would think saying a phrase daily would not affect someone in any way.

Now, does saying the pledge have a negative effect on someone? It might or it might not depending on the person. Would you call someone getting angry that they were being forced to say the pledge a negative effect? I would.

Now you might be saying that noone is forced to say the pledge of allegiance. When I was growing up that was certainly not true in my particular school and if you read this thread you will see that it was the same for many others.

Oftentimes, even if you aren't forced by the school to say it you are given quite a hard time by classmates as well as teachers. I hated having to say the pledge although it would have been more tolerable if ''under god' wasn't in there because I was an atheist at the time.

I say 'under god' should be removed for those of us who do not wish for the state to force theistic statement repetitions on those who do not believe in a god or gods. If people still want to say it after it is taken out then fine. Whats the problem with that idea?

Should it be illegal? No.

Should it be there? No.

Wasn't there originally, has no place there now.

Deep breaths, deep breaths, don't bitchslap the troll . . .



Fuck that. Where did I put Trollslayer?


<returns with flaming sword>

Morally right living? How the hell is it more "morally right living" to tell someone they're going to hell for who they love?

Reminded me of a joke from History of the World Part 1.

Goes something like:

Comicus: The Christians are so poor...
Crowd: How poor?
Comicus: So poor they only have one God.
Crowd: *laughter*

So if we're a little short on morals (a total falsehood), you guys are short on gods.

And if my memory serves me right, the Third Circuit Court has also ruled that the phrase Under God was also constitutional.

On top of that

In the same 1962 case, the Court admitted that the "God save this honorable court" invocation uttered at the beginning of each Court session was a "prayer." However, the Court also ruled that "A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads."

So really, it is up to interpretation whether or not the phrase Under God is an establishment of religion or not. If ya listen to the Supreme Court, it isn't.

Shame on you for relying on Wikipedia for matters of Constitutional Law.

If you had bothered to check, you would discover that Wikipedia is misquoting a concurrence as if it were the majority decision in Engel v. Vitale (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=370&page=421#440), 370 U.S. 421 (1962). Justice Douglas was not speaking for the Court. See 370 U.S. at 441-42.

The Supreme Court has not definitively spoken on the issue. But that doesn't mean the issue can't be discussed and decided among rational people. The statute adding the phrase "under God" to the pledge should be held unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has not definitively spoken on the issue. But that doesn't mean the issue can't be discussed and decided among rational people. The statute adding the phrase "under God" to the pledge should be held unconstitutional.

And this, Corny, is an educated opinion.

I know, I know...it hurts that you don't even have that.

Shame on you for relying on Wikipedia for matters of Constitutional Law.

If you had bothered to check, you would discover that Wikipedia is misquoting a concurrence as if it were the majority decision in Engel v. Vitale (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=370&page=421#440), 370 U.S. 421 (1962). Justice Douglas was not speaking for the Court. See 370 U.S. at 441-42.

YOu are right that he was not Cat-Tribe. I never claimed he was speaking for the court. You implied that in your statement but I never stated he was.

Reminded me of a joke from History of the World Part 1.

Goes something like:

Comicus: The Christians are so poor...
Crowd: How poor?
Comicus: So poor they only have one God.
Crowd: *laughter*

So if we're a little short on morals (a total falsehood), you guys are short on gods.
Did the God of Premature Ejactulation come yet?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say that the government cannot use the word or name 'god', they just can't say "You, the people, will convert to Mormanism or die painful deaths."

Read it again.

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

"Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is rather broader than "shall not establish a religion"

To quote the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf):

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation “under God” is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans
believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase “one nation under God” in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. “[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.” Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60.

Contrary to popular belief, the constitution, not any other offcial legal document actually states that. That doctrine is found in Thomas jefferson's personal letters. If you read them, he does not want the govern ment to be dominated by a state church, similar to the cathloic church in europe in the middle ages; but neither does he want the Government to make any law reguarding the practice of religion

The constitution protects the right that Congress shall not make any law respecting the establishment (meaning the institution or institutions of, noun) of religion, which is happening consistantly more and more. also, God can mean just abouit anything to any one. To my Muslim friends, they take it as allah. to my atheist friends, they take it as human reason, or conscience, or ethics. to my buddist friends, God is a right mind set and harmony. to my Jewish friends, God is the Old Testament deity. To my Christian friends, It is the trinity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spiri. to my Hindu friends, God is Brahman, and is partially allo of us. it really is open to interpretation.

In short many people interpret the "God" in the pledge as what ever higher authority or power that you live under, whether that be reason, Jesus, Brahman, or conscience.

Ergo, I think that the phrase Under God should be left in the pledge.

:cool:

There must be something in TOS that requires someone to post these silly statements in every thread related to SCOTUS or religion or government or ....

The phrase is "wall of separation of Church and State" and it has been used by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment since at least 1879. The particular phrase came from a letter by Jefferson. In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

The phrase "separation of Church and State" was used by many Founders -- particularly James Madison -- to describe their view of the First Amendment and the proper roles of religion and government. I can quote Madison ad nauseam on this point if need be.

The concept of a wall of separation of Church and State is firmly emeshed in the language of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause, in the original intent of the Founders, and in 200 or so years of Supreme Court caselaw up to the recent Ten Commandment decisions.

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947) (emphasis added):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

I don't really have a problem with it. Its not like it specifies a certain god. And its two little words in the alligence, not exactly a big deal.

YOu are right that he was not Cat-Tribe. I never claimed he was speaking for the court. You implied that in your statement but I never stated he was.

Liar.

Corny's post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12486112&postcount=482) (emphasis added):


because it's still unconstitution even if they're not compelled, and when the government does something against the constitution they are doing something illegal.

I don't know about you, but my government doing something illegal tends to be a big deal for me.

The matter of the Pledge's constitutionality simmered for decades below the public eye. In 1992, the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the first challenge to the constitutionality of the words "under God," ruling in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 that the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge did not violate the Establishment Clause.

And if my memory serves me right, the Third Circuit Court has also ruled that the phrase Under God was also constitutional.

On top of that

In the same 1962 case, the Court admitted that the "God save this honorable court" invocation uttered at the beginning of each Court session was a "prayer." However, the Court also ruled that "A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads."

So really, it is up to interpretation whether or not the phrase Under God is an establishment of religion or not. If ya listen to the Supreme Court, it isn't.

You said "the Court" had "admitted" and had "ruled" and you proported to quote "the Court." You then say "the Supreme Court" is to what you are listening.

As I pointed out, it was Justice Douglas, writing alone, that "admitted," "ruled," and provided the quote. It was not "the Court."

If people want to say "under God," they should be allowed to, but no one should be forced to.

There must be something in TOS that requires someone to post these silly statements in every thread related to SCOTUS or religion or government or ....

The phrase is "wall of separation of Church and State" and it has been used by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment since at least 1879. The particular phrase came from a letter by Jefferson. In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

The phrase "separation of Church and State" was used by many Founders -- particularly James Madison -- to describe their view of the First Amendment and the proper roles of religion and government. I can quote Madison ad nauseam on this point if need be.

The concept of a wall of separation of Church and State is firmly emeshed in the language of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause, in the original intent of the Founders, and in 200 or so years of Supreme Court caselaw up to the recent Ten Commandment decisions.

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947) (emphasis added):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'


i want to thank you for using proper data to back up your point. that is actually quite helpful, though your condescension and caustic derision of a point of view is mildly unprofessional.

Did the God of Premature Ejactulation come yet?

He was early.

I don't really have a problem with it. Its not like it specifies a certain god. And its two little words in the alligence, not exactly a big deal.

For once, i'm in agreement with Soviestan.

If people want to say "under God," they should be allowed to, but no one should be forced to.

No one is actually forced to say it Congo-Kinshasa.

If you want to say it, say it. If not, don't. *shrug*

Egggg-xactly!

Egggg-xactly!

Then why should it be in there ... if it is optional

Then why should it be in there ... if it is optional

Why shouldn't it be there?

Why shouldn't it be there?

Because it was originally conceived without it?

YOu are right that he was not Cat-Tribe. I never claimed he was speaking for the court. You implied that in your statement but I never stated he was.

Oh you most certainly did.

"the Court admitted that"
"the Court also ruled"
"If ya listen to the Supreme Court, it isn't."

A concurrence is not the words of the court. Only the opinion is. What one writes in a concurrence is not the words of the court, is not binding, and hs no precidential value. It's merely a justice saying his peace. It is not, in any fashion, the words of the court.

So the court did not admit, did not rule, and did not say, what you said it did. As much as you try and claim "I never said that was the majority", yes you did. ONLY the majority opinion can speek for the court, ONLY the majority opinion is held as law. As much as you might try to weasle out of it, you most certainly not only implied but SPECIFICALLY STATED that this was a court ruling.

The idea that you're going to try and pull a "well...I knew that" now, at this juncture after you have clearly shown you tried to pass this off as a court ruling, is laughable

This is perhaps the most painful owning I've ever seen someone administer to himself

Because it was originally conceived without it?

So? Extend that argument to the Constitution and only property owners would be voting.

So? Extend that argument to the Constitution and only property owners would be voting.

Who extends something intended to comment on a popular saying to one of the governing documents of a country?

Either way I find the concept of the pledge stupid in of itself personally I would rather class time was not wasted in any form on it anyways in any form

So? Extend that argument to the Constitution and only property owners would be voting.

Hell of a difference between adding in two words to a completely voluntary statement of allegiance and amending the basis for law and government in the United States. But don't let a little thing like a false equivalency get in the way of making a crap argument.

Hell of a difference between adding in two words to a completely voluntary statement of allegiance and amending the basis for law and government in the United States. But don't let a little thing like a false equivalency get in the way of making a crap argument.

LMAO! Dude, you take this shit WAY too seriously! :D

Who extends something intended to comment on a popular saying to one of the governing documents of a country?

Either way I find the concept of the pledge stupid in of itself personally I would rather class time was not wasted in any form on it anyways in any form

It was simply an analogy, oh Petulant One. Don't get your bowels in an uproar. :p

It was simply an analogy, oh Petulant One. Don't get your bowels in an uproar. :p

see, for an analogy to actually BE an analogy, the two things must be substantially similar enough in the ways that you compare them.

Otherwise it's just you talking.

i want to thank you for using proper data to back up your point. that is actually quite helpful, though your condescension and caustic derision of a point of view is mildly unprofessional.

It's warranted when complete amateurs think they somehow, perhaps by magic, have the ability to discuss constitutional issues from a legal standpoint. Do you also moonlight as an unlicensed dentist?

Why shouldn't it be there?

Because it's unconstitutional?

Someone hasn't been reading the thread.

It's warranted when complete amateurs think they somehow, perhaps by magic, have the ability to discuss constitutional issues from a legal standpoint. Do you also moonlight as an unlicensed dentist and believe you deserve respect?

See, here's where I agree with Neesika. You would never think that you could perform surgery as well as a doctor. You would never think you could fix a computer as well as a technician. You would never think you could fly a plane as well as a pilot.

To do so would be to believe that you are just as capable as the people who have endured years of training to become specialists in their field.

To believe you are capable of out experting the experts shows a fundamental disrespect to them. A fundamental disrespect in the implication that you can do someone's job without any of their training.

To argue the best course of medical treatment to a doctor is to disrespect that doctor by the implication that despite his training, you know more about medicine.

To argue the best way to land a 747 to a pilot is to disrespect that pilot by the implication that despite her training, you know more about flying a plane.

And trying to argue law with a lawyer is to disrepect that lawyer by the implication that despite that lawyer's training, you know more about law.

In short, you disrespect Cat Tribe, and you disrespect me.

You disrespect us because despite our training, despite a doctorate degree in the subject, despite years of professional experience, you think you know the law better than we do.

So why should I treat you with respect back?

You know, if "christians?" would actually follow the spirit of the teachings of the Bible, this would not be an issue. The spirit of the teachings tells us that even if something is OK for a Christian but is offensive to those around that Christian, then the true Christian would abstain from that action. So the solution is to remove "Under God" and "In God We Trust" not because it's wrong but because a true Christian would never do something that would offend the beliefs of those around them. 1Cor 8:8-13

You know, if "christians?" would actually follow the spirit of the teachings of the Bible, this would not be an issue. The spirit of the teachings tells us that even if something is OK for a Christian but is offensive to those around that Christian, then the true Christian would abstain from that action. So the solution is to remove "Under God" and "In God We Trust" not because it's wrong but because a true Christian would never do something that would offend the beliefs of those around them. 1Cor 8:8-13

And we would be spending untold amount of money to change all the money that has In God We Trust.

And we would be spending untold amount of money to change all the money that has In God We Trust.

ah, so money is more important to a christian than biblical verse.

Thanks for the confirmation on that.

See, here's where I agree with Neesika. You would never think that you could perform surgery as well as a doctor. You would never think you could fix a computer as well as a technician. You would never think you could fly a plane as well as a pilot.

To do so would be to believe that you are just as capable as the people who have endured years of training to become specialists in their field.

To believe you are capable of out experting the experts shows a fundamental disrespect to them. A fundamental disrespect in the implication that you can do someone's job without any of their training.

To argue the best course of medical treatment to a doctor is to disrespect that doctor by the implication that despite his training, you know more about medicine.

To argue the best way to land a 747 to a pilot is to disrespect that pilot by the implication that despite her training, you know more about flying a plane.

And trying to argue law with a lawyer is to disrepect that lawyer by the implication that despite that lawyer's training, you know more about law.

In short, you disrespect Cat Tribe, and you disrespect me.

You disrespect us because despite our training, despite a doctorate degree in the subject, despite years of professional experience, you think you know the law better than we do.

So why should I treat you with respect back?
I don't know if I agree with this.

Now, please keep in mind that I CONSTANTLY find myself arguing my area of expertise with people who haven't even bothered to read intro texts. Believe me, I totally understand how fucking insulting it is to have some random yahoo who hasn't bothered to do their homework trying to tell you that they know better than you, even though you've worked your ass off for years in the field.

But the thing is, I don't think a layperson should view experts as infallible. I think you SHOULD argue the best course of medical treatment with your doctor, if you really believe there's something wrong with what the doc is telling you. I think you SHOULD argue with a contractor if you think they're fucking up what they're doing, even if you've never held a hammer in your life. I think you SHOULD question authority, and I think you SHOULD hold experts to the same standards as anybody else; that is, you should expect them to give you more than just their say-so on a topic.

I think this holds particularly true on the 'net, where we don't actually know who is really an expert or not.

ah, so money is more important to a christian than biblical verse.

Thanks for the confirmation on that.

Nice implication there. I did not say that Arthais. I just said that we would be spending untold amount of Taxpayer money to change it.

I don't know if I agree with this.

Now, please keep in mind that I CONSTANTLY find myself arguing my area of expertise with people who haven't even bothered to read intro texts. Believe me, I totally understand how fucking insulting it is to have some random yahoo who hasn't bothered to do their homework trying to tell you that they know better than you, even though you've worked your ass off for years in the field.

But the thing is, I don't think a layperson should view experts as infallible. I think you SHOULD argue the best course of medical treatment with your doctor, if you really believe there's something wrong with what the doc is telling you. I think you SHOULD argue with a contractor if you think they're fucking up what they're doing, even if you've never held a hammer in your life. I think you SHOULD question authority, and I think you SHOULD hold experts to the same standards as anybody else; that is, you should expect them to give you more than just their say-so on a topic.

I think this holds particularly true on the 'net, where we don't actually know who is really an expert or not.


Sure, but there is a difference between questioning, and believing yourself to know better. Its the point of how long you let that questioning go. Perhaps my wording could be better.

Sure, you can ASK me, I'll give you my expert opinion. You can always ASK. You can always challenge me to justify my positions, all that is fine.

In fact, I even agree with you. SURE, we shouldn't take experts at their word, sure we should ask them to back up, sure we should ask them to justify. Any professional would not only have no problems with this, but they'd expect it and be ready for it.

So fine, question me, go ahead, ask me to justify it, I assure you I know how. But don't bloody TELL ME what it is. Question me, fine, but don't look at me and tell me what the law says, it's insulting.

It becomes doubly so when it's not even a matter of interpretation of opinion. People can have opinions. People without a law background may miss various sublties and nuances, but you can form an opinion. But half the time it's not opinion, it just plain error. Flat out MISTAKE about how the law works in an area.

No mistaken opinion, no differing interpretation. Just flat out wrong.

There is a difference between arguing with the background to be able to do so (and no, you don't have to be an expert in the field), and just talking out of your ass.

But a lot of the assumptions people on this forum make about the law are mistakes you simply could not make if they had even the barest background...a freaking high school introduction to the law, in fact.

What is incredibly annoying is the 'well if I'm wrong, prove me right' attitude. To which I have to answer:

No. I don't have hours upon hours to teach you what you need to know in order to show you why your're wrong. And because I refuse to take that time in no way means you actually have it right. Sorry.

But don't bloody TELL ME what it is. Question me, fine, but don't look at me and tell me what the law says, it's insulting.
Sums it up nicely.

see, for an analogy to actually BE an analogy, the two things must be substantially similar enough in the ways that you compare them.

Otherwise it's just you talking.

Oh, thank you so much for enlightening me about the particulars of analogy! I will be forever in your debt! :D

Because it's unconstitutional?

Someone hasn't been reading the thread.

Annnnd ... your proof? :)

Annnnd ... your proof? :)

Separation of Church and state :rolleyes:

Annnnd ... your proof? :)

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

Separation of Church and state :rolleyes:

Oh? So why is it still in the Pledge, and why is "In God we trust" still on our coinage?

Addendum: Oh yeah ... and what "church" are we backing?

Sure, but there is a difference between questioning, and believing yourself to know better. Its the point of how long you let that questioning go. Perhaps my wording could be better.

Sure, you can ASK me, I'll give you my expert opinion. You can always ASK. You can always challenge me to justify my positions, all that is fine.

But don't bloody TELL ME what it is. Question me, fine, but don't look at me and tell me what the law says, it's insulting.
I feel like I must be reading you wrong, because this sounds unreasonable to me. It sounds like you are saying that, at the end of the day, a layperson cannot disagree with you about what the law says.

I've encountered experts who are flat-out wrong. They'd be wrong if another expert pointed it out, and they'd be wrong if a layperson pointed it out. I don't think it is fair to tell laypeople that they must refrain from arguing with an expert.

I think a lot of the discussions on NS are about matters of interpretation. Qualified experts differ in their opinions on most of these topics. Laypeople also have differing interpretations of the law. If their interpretation is flawed in a concrete way, you will be able to provide the concrete citations to show why they are wrong. But if they simply interpret the law differently than you, in places where there is no concrete and explicit reason to choose one interpretation over another, then why should they have to bow to your interpretation?

Let me be really clear: I think that in the majority of places you have provided specific, concrete reasons why the law simply does not say what people are claiming it says. That is totally sound and I'm completely on board with you there. But I think there are areas of the law that are still being debated even by our highest courts. I don't think your opinion on those areas should automatically be given a "win" over the opinions of laypeople. (Personally, I give it more weight, simply because I figure that a trained lawyer has a bigger picture of the law and the full context to work within, but that's just how I roll.)

Oh? So why is it still in the Pledge, and why is "In God we trust" still on our coinage?

Because 1) Congress put it there and 2) The Supreme Court has yet to rule on it.

Addendum: Oh yeah ... and what "church" are we backing?

None.

I feel like I must be reading you wrong, because this sounds unreasonable to me. It sounds like you are saying that, at the end of the day, a layperson cannot disagree with you about what the law says.

I've encountered experts who are flat-out wrong. They'd be wrong if another expert pointed it out, and they'd be wrong if a layperson pointed it out. I don't think it is fair to tell laypeople that they must refrain from arguing with an expert. I think a lot of the discussions on NS are about matters of interpretation. Qualified experts differ in their opinions on most of these topics. Laypeople also have differing interpretations of the law. If their interpretation is flawed in a concrete way, you will be able to provide the concrete citations to show why they are wrong. But if they simply interpret the law differently than you, in places where there is no concrete and explicit reason to choose one interpretation over another, then why should they have to bow to your interpretation?

Let me be really clear: I think that in the majority of places you have provided specific, concrete reasons why the law simply does not say what people are claiming it says. That is totally sound and I'm completely on board with you there. But I think there are areas of the law that are still being debated even by our highest courts. I don't think your opinion on those areas should automatically be given a "win" over the opinions of laypeople. (Personally, I give it more weight, simply because I figure that a trained lawyer has a bigger picture of the law and the full context to work within, but that's just how I roll.)


I admit my ignorance in a lot of areas. I am QUITE sure you know a HELL of a lot more about biology than I do.

Theoretically you could make a mistake in biology, one I could catch, and I can correct you. It's doubtful that I would, but sure, it can happen.

Likewise, if you can prove me wrong about a statement I make about law, more power to you. IF you can. I rarely make mistakes in this area because, well...it's my job.

The difference being is, if I were to square away against you on a biological matter, I am going to make DAMN sure I know EXACTLY what i am talking about, because I fully expect you are completely capable of schooling me up and down on the subject.

I may catch your error, I may correct you, but I'm not going to presume that because you, as an expert, occasionally may make a mistake that in any way makes us equals on the subject.

Likewise, agreed, law is about interpretation, and yes, interpretations may vary, but even HERE we have a problem. Let's say you observe data from an experiment, and you are called to evaluate that data, and interpret it. Likewise I, a complete amateur, look at the very same data, the very same evidence, and interpret it.

Would you consider my interpretation as valid as yours? Would you consider me, an amateur, capable of looking at experimental data and interpreting that data in a fashion consistant with biological science when I have perhaps only the barest passing familiarity in the subject?

Yeah, I can TRY to, and I can form an interpretation of it. And maybe if I'm lucky my interpretation might actually be somewhat valid. But you, as a scientist, a trained individual, do you think I could, as a complete amateur in the field, be able to look at scientific data and interpret it in any truly meaningful way? And if I am wrong, if my interpretation is WILDLY off base, would you even bother to sit me down and explain why, or would you just shake your head at my arrogance thinking I could form an interpretation about data in a field i know nothing about?

Same problem. Sure people can interpret the law. But how in hell are you GOING to interpret a law when you lack the fundamental educational tools to properly do so? One with no true familiarity in the law, the legal system, how it works, the methodology, the language, the meaning, the theory, can that person truly expect to form a reasonable interpretation, any more than I can expect to form a reasonable interpretation about the data of an experiment in a field I know nothing about?

THAT is the arrogance I mean, THAT is the insult. If you, a trained scientist, and I, a total layman, interpret the same data differently, are our interpretations equally valid? Both have the same chance of being right? Both deserving of the same wieght.

Do you believe that I could form an interpretation of data in YOUR field even REMOTELY as accurate as you can? Is my interpretation worth anything? Is it most of the time even worth considering?

NOw sure, I COULD be wrong, and they COULD be right, but again, ask yourself this, do you think you and I, looking at the same data from an experiment, could typically reach equally valid interpretations?

If not, why should a layman's interpretation on the law be considered equally as valid as a lawyer's?

And if so, if an amateur can look at the same data and interpret that data and have that interpretation viewed as valid as your own, with your years of experience, why even bother to get the degree?

Would you ever even seriously entertain my interpretation of your data? Would you not find me incredibly arrogant to presume I could interpret it as well as you can? Would you not place the burden on me to demonstrate its validity?

But sure, if i look at that data, and come up with an interpretation, and can SHOW YOU how I reached it, how it's grounded, and can back myself up, then sure, you should concede the point as valid. I may be an amateur, but I COULD do it. The presumption would be against me, but it's possible.

Now, how often would that REALLY happen that I, as a complete amateur, could actually form a reasonable interpretation?

Which is fundamentally the point, IF someone can look at an area of the law and come up with an interpretation that, while differing from mine, is grounded in the law, demonstrates an understanding of the complexities and the nuances of the law, is properly researched, properly contextualized, and lays out a clear legal framework for that interpretation, FINE. OK, you CAN disagree with me. You ARE allowed to have interpretations on the law that vary from my own.

But IF you are going to try, do your research. Make SURE you have done your homework, make sure you understand the nuances and complexities of the arguments, make sure your research is valid, make sure you have build a solid legal framework. You know, do the things they teach you how to do in law school.

Sure, you MIGHT be able to do it, it'll be hard as hell and you would have had to do so much independant research to be considered practically a lawyer yourself, just as to interpret your experiement I probably would have had to do so much research that I am for most purposes a biologist.

But it's POSSIBLE.

You know how damned RARE that is? You know just how damned rare it is that someone gives me their interpretation of the law that's properly supported, properly thought out, properly built on legal framework?

90% of the time I get a wiki link discussing a damned concurance. Most of the time I'm getting argument from people who not even don't even know the right arguments, they can't even use the right bloody terminology. Would you even consider it a valid opinion if instead of adequatly identifying every part of the experiment, I refer to some cell or bacteria as "that thingy there"?

If you can give me a real solid legal argument, without a law background, I'll respect the hell out of you.

But if you give me some half assed uninformed dung heap without a shred of legal sophistication and try to pass that off as an equally valid differing opinion, you are insulting me by the implication that your utter crap for legal analysis is comparable to my own.

Just as I would be insulting you if I tried to claim my completely amateurish interpretation of an experiment, containing errors that you wouln't have made for 10 years as differing, but equally valid, as your own.

Sure, give me a REAL legal argument. You will have my respect. But I almost NEVER get it, I get unsophisticated, uninspired legal drivel, and what's worse I get it from people who think they're giving me legal gold.

And we would be spending untold amount of money to change all the money that has In God We Trust.

How, exactly, does it COST money to not put In God We Trust on any new money minted?

Annnnd ... your proof? :)

Because if you had read the thread you wouldn't have said something so insanely stupid. We're tired of shooting that argument down repeatedly.

How, exactly, does it COST money to not put In God We Trust on any new money minted?

Its called the ink plates that would have to be made. And when you have several mints that turn out dollar bills of the 1, 5, 20, 50, 100 denominations...that adds up. Couple that with the coins of the penny, Nickle, dime, Quarter, and the Dollar coins and we just moved it up some more.

Its called the ink plates that would have to be made. And when you have several mints that turn out dollar bills of the 1, 5, 20, 50, 100 denominations...that adds up. Couple that with the coins of the penny, Nickle, dime, Quarter, and the Dollar coins and we just moved it up some more.

It wouldn't cost any more than it already does to replace those plates as they get worn out, or than they do when we change the currency in other ways, which we've been doing pretty regularly as of late.

Its called the ink plates that would have to be made. And when you have several mints that turn out dollar bills of the 1, 5, 20, 50, 100 denominations...that adds up. Couple that with the coins of the penny, Nickle, dime, Quarter, and the Dollar coins and we just moved it up some more.

You mean the plates that....get replaced periodically anyway?

You mean the plates that....get replaced periodically anyway?

Be that as it may, it'll cost more money to change the plates and molds to take out "In God We Trust"

Be that as it may, it'll cost more money to change the plates and molds to take out "In God We Trust"

It cost a whole HELL of a lot more than that to intigrate the school systems following Brown. What's your point?

It cost a whole HELL of a lot more than that to intigrate the school systems following Brown. What's your point?

And what's your point about this? Desegregation needed to be done. This does not. What's your point?

And what's your point about this? Desegregation needed to be done. This does not. What's your point?

My point is that many whites argued that desegregation did not need to be done, now many Christians are arguing that we don't need to get the endorsement of their religion off our money. Same thing.

My point is that many whites argued that desegregation did not need to be done, now many Christians are arguing that we don't need to get the endorsement of their religion off our money. Same thing.

Ever stop to consider that was their culture as well? Look at the history of the deep south Arthais. They always have been segregationist not to mention racist.

Ever stop to consider that was their culture as well? Look at the history of the deep south Arthais. They always have been segregationist not to mention racist.

Your point? The same applies here.

Your point? The same applies here.

What? The Cultural explaination? Indeed it does apply here as well. However, the difference here is, Under God is not harming anyone whereas Segregation did.

And what's your point about this? Desegregation needed to be done. This does not. What's your point?

It needed to be done because it was unconstitutional. So too if "under god" was ruled unconstitutional would it have to be done.

What? The Cultural explaination? Indeed it does apply here as well. However, the difference here is, Under God is not harming anyone whereas Segregation did.

The bigots who argued against desegregation didn't think segregation harmed anyone either.

Under God is not harming anyone

That's what the racists said about segregation.

That's what the racists said about segregation.

And anyone who looked into it knows that it was doing more harm than good. However, this debate is not about segregation or desegregation. It is about the pledge.

I cannot be bothered reading through the pages of what is likely to be crap, so I'll just say this - if you don't want to say "Under God", don't. If other people saying "Under God" offends you, you should really take a look at yourself to see where you went wrong in your life. So I voted "Who gives a shit?", because frankly, to have such a huge topic about something that each individual can tailor to his, her or its standards is stupid.

because frankly, to have such a huge topic about something that each individual can tailor to his, her or its standards is stupid.

Funny, I didn't know I could tailor federal law at my whim.

Hot damn! I coulda used this information before!

I cannot be bothered reading through the pages of what is likely to be crap, so I'll just say this - if you don't want to say "Under God", don't. If other people saying "Under God" offends you, you should really take a look at yourself to see where you went wrong in your life. So I voted "Who gives a shit?", because frankly, to have such a huge topic about something that each individual can tailor to his, her or its standards is stupid.

Read the Cat-Tribes comments

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=522044&page=36

And anyone who looked into it knows that it was doing more harm than good.

Really? Then why did 100 years of precident support it?

However, this debate is not about segregation or desegregation. It is about the pledge.

Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy)

Read the Cat-Tribes comments

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=522044&page=36

feh, I've been here since page one, dude makes 2 posts and steals the show *grumbles*

Well as someone who had to pledge that every bloody day at school I'd be happy to get rid of it.

Its brainwashing bollocks. Artificial construct of patriotism with a dose of nationalism and religion.

OK first I'd like to thannk everyone for voting and posting about my poll and 2nd for that quote, ah no offense, but you live in the UK so you really don't count because its the US pledge but ah thanks for your enthusiasm

3rd ahhh its not blind patriatism its just a simple thing saying you love america

It was not even written in the original. It was added in the 1950s by Congress.

Exactly its been changed like 10 times too but i mean why cant people just skip that part in stead of tredding on everyone elses good time. Athiests just pleze leave it ALONE> God Bless America!!!!!!

feh, I've been here since page one, dude makes 2 posts and steals the show *grumbles*

My guess is karma, what with you being a lawyer and all ;)

It needed to be done because it was unconstitutional. So too if "under god" was ruled unconstitutional would it have to be done.

OK ahh there HAVE been supreme court cases like um lemme think OK ahh 1 lady in California sued California public schools like in the 90's or something and got the pledge of alligence taken out of the pledge. i dunno if they reversed the decision or what but this poll is basically about that but even more , is 'under God' unconstitutional???.

I mean seperation of church and state so hummm I mean think about it.

However when they made the TV and Radio no cursing on tv and radio and no nudity on tv desicion I find it completely unconstitutional but some people might not

220 odd years of precident would disagree with you.




It acknowledges the validity of a specific religious belief, likewise invalidating the validity of any religion that does NOT have this belief.



Nonsense. Any federal court may deal with a constitutional matter. Constitutional issues are questions of federal law, federal questions are well within the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts.

A federal court can very well decide that the pledge violates the constitution, and as such it would be illegal in that circuit.

The supreme court may choose to uphold that decision, making it national law, reverse that decision, or take no action, which would lleave it valid in that circuit.

And, in fact, the 9th circuit decided exactly in the mannor in which I described it. So a federal court has already reached that decision in that regard.

REmember those 10 commandments outside the Alabama state court. AHHH so the Supreme court decide thta NOT the state court because you can't make decisions involving yourself and state is above local (county/city)
so The Supreme Court makes ALL decisions involving the Constitutiality of things. Free speech is one Church and Sate is another. Heres a simple numonic: The SUpreme Court decides case dealing with the constition (actually not a numonic). Anyway if you have something like the Shaun Bell shooting the Queens County Court decides it. BUt if he was shot for lets say ohh saying something racist to one of the cops it involves free speech thus it involves the supreme court , so the county court would decide the murder or manslaughter or whatever charges but the supreme court could bring in the constitution factor. But it would probably have to go through NY state court first

Of course it should be taken out. Consider the fact that America is a nation comprised of many different cultures, some of them Christian, others not. It is only fair that we respect all of these drastically different cultural groups by eliminating the phrase "under god' from the pledge of allegiance.

feh, I've been here since page one, dude makes 2 posts and steals the show *grumbles*

Awww...the Cat-Tribe has gathered up a bit of a cult following over the years...I'm sure you'll get one too. I'll be the first to worship you, okay?

My guess is karma, what with you being a lawyer and all ;)
Um, Cat's a lawyer too. Or did you just think he had that kind of legal knowledge because he reads a lot?

Um, Cat's a lawyer too. Or did you just think he had that kind of legal knowledge because he reads a lot?

The only people on here who I knew were lawyers at the time of that post were Arthais and you (if I'm not mistaken.) I wasn't aware Cat's a lawyer as well, but I can see how that makes sense, now.

I'm just a law student (before Arthais smashes me into submission with that fact).

I'm just a law student (before Arthais smashes me into submission with that fact).

S'all good. A couple of my friends (in fact, a few too many in my opinion) are going into Law after undergrad. It scares me, but they have retained their souls thus far, so I suppose there's hope. :D

S'all good. A couple of my friends (in fact, a few too many in my opinion) are going into Law after undergrad. It scares me, but they have retained their souls thus far, so I suppose there's hope. :D

It's false hope.

REmember those 10 commandments outside the Alabama state court. AHHH so the Supreme court decide thta NOT the state court because you can't make decisions involving yourself and state is above local (county/city)
so The Supreme Court makes ALL decisions involving the Constitutiality of things. Free speech is one Church and Sate is another. Heres a simple numonic: The SUpreme Court decides case dealing with the constition (actually not a numonic). Anyway if you have something like the Shaun Bell shooting the Queens County Court decides it. BUt if he was shot for lets say ohh saying something racist to one of the cops it involves free speech thus it involves the supreme court , so the county court would decide the murder or manslaughter or whatever charges but the supreme court could bring in the constitution factor. But it would probably have to go through NY state court first

ummmm.

I can't begin to pick out the errors in this post without a pick axe and a miners helmet.

And we would be spending untold amount of money to change all the money that has In God We Trust.

All we do is remove the words from new money. Bills are being changed regularly anyway. Over a few years, problem solved. I understand that on the new dollar coins it's being moved to the edge, so people can grind it off.

All we do is remove the words from new money. Bills are being changed regularly anyway. Over a few years, problem solved. I understand that on the new dollar coins it's being moved to the edge, so people can grind it off.

Which is basicly a crime.

Which is basicly a crime.

No it's not. There are people that cut all types of things into coins. Look for coin necklaces on ebay.

Which is basicly a crime.

wrong again corny.

Defacing currency without permission is indeed a crime. My God, one must get permission before defacing a penny.

wrong, AGAIN. Unless, of course, you can find me a law that backs it up.

I'll wait right here.

Go on, find me the law.

wrong again corny.

Defacing currency without permission is indeed a crime. My God, one must get permission before defacing a penny.

Defacing currency without permission is indeed a crime. My God, one must get permission before defacing a penny.


Then what about those machines that you can find at amusement parks that squash a penny and put a design on it?

Are those actually against the law?

ummmm.

I can't begin to pick out the errors in this post without a pick axe and a miners helmet.

Damnit, don't. feed. the. fucking. troll.

Then what about those machines that you can find at amusement parks that squash a penny and put a design on it?

Are those actually against the law?

of course not, you're paying them to stamp a design on your own penny.

Then what about those machines that you can find at amusement parks that squash a penny and put a design on it?

Are those actually against the law?

That I'm not up on.

That I'm not up on.

so lemme get this straight. You make a claim. You provide NO evidence to back up that claim. You are confronted with a very strong counter to your claim, and your response is "I don't know".

One would think that if you didn't know, you wouldn't have spoken.

-snip-

No no, don't help him. He'll never learn that way.

Defacing currency without permission is indeed a crime. My God, one must get permission before defacing a penny.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcoin.html
"The critical word here is "fraudulently." And the critical feature is someone trying to make money off the coins at the expense of the government."

So, you'd get into trouble if you sold God-less pennies for two cents. But you would also be my hero.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcoin.html
"The critical word here is "fraudulently." And the critical feature is someone trying to make money off the coins at the expense of the government."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000331----000-.html

Beat me to it and I was about to post it too.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 17 > § 331 Prev | Next

§ 331. Mutilation, diminution, and falsification of coins


How Current is This?

Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or
Whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled, or lightened—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

I was about to post said correction.

of course not, you're paying them to stamp a design on your own penny.

Maybe it went like:

company - Hey govt., can we make a machine that destroys money?

govt. - Sure, since you asked you may.

I was about to post said correction.

So in other words...you were wrong, yes?

Maybe it went like:

company - Hey govt., can we make a machine that destroys money?

govt. - Sure, since you asked you may.

or....they don't have to since what they're selling (a squashed penny) and what they claim to be selling (a squashed penny) are exactly the same, and thus there is no fraudulant act, and thus it's perfectly legal.

or....they don't have to since what they're selling (a squashed penny) and what they claim to be selling (a squashed penny) are exactly the same, and thus there is no fraudulant act, and thus it's perfectly legal.

But am I in trouble for stamping "Legalize it" on a bunch of paper monies and using it in transactions? :D

So in other words...you were wrong, yes?

To a point I made yes.

But am I in trouble for stamping "Legalize it" on a bunch of paper monies and using it in transactions? :D

Not unless you want to claim that the government put it there

Not unless you want to claim that the government put it there

shwew

I bought a van a long time ago with a stack of twenties all stamped :p

To a point I made yes.

It just got cold in here. I think Hell just froze over.

You can't try to fool the receiver as to what it is. You can't wash the ink off a dollar bill, use the paper to print a $20 and try to pass it off as a $20. There is an artist that draws his own money. Tells people he drew it and sells it at face value. People collect it as art. If I want to file off "In God We Trust" and don't try to pass the coin for more than it's worth, I'm OK. Or I can write on money. There's a web site "Where's George" You can put in a serial number and then write on the bill to go to the web site and tell you where they got the bill. You can then follow the bill as it travels around the country or world.

so lemme get this straight. You make a claim. You provide NO evidence to back up that claim. You are confronted with a very strong counter to your claim, and your response is "I don't know".

One would think that if you didn't know, you wouldn't have spoken.
But it'd be rather boring around here if no one spoke out of complete, utter, and embarrassing ignorance.

But it'd be rather boring around here if no one spoke out of complete, utter, and embarrassing ignorance.

It would also be rather quiet around here. But I don't mind people speaking out of ignorance (including myself at times), as it gives them the opportunity to learn a little more about the world.

But it'd be rather boring around here if no one spoke out of complete, utter, and embarrassing ignorance.

Ayup.

It just got cold in here. I think Hell just froze over.

Amen to that!