Court Decision on the Pledge of Allegiance

[shark]

This looks like another never-ending thread.

First,the guy will take the limelight because he was the one who initiated the suit...that's just how it is.As far as a case,we'll have to wait and see.This particular circuit court is known for its leftist/liberal leanings.

I definitely agree that the system is screwed up.Judges should be appointed for their knowledge of the law and abilities to have it
applied,not their political ideals.Sadly,this is quickly going by the wayside.

As for the girl being forced to say "under god",whoever made that comment about her options should wake up a little.I seriously doubt that a classroom full of kids saying the pledge is going to notice if she didn't say every word.If one does,and the kid is admonished,then there is a problem.Besides this,the girl SAID HERSELF
that she didn't feel pressured or threatened,and this suit does not include such a claim.It questions the constitutionality on those two words.Also consider that the same guy is now suing over words on our currency.Does anyone remember Madeline Murray O'Hair?

As for your friend,he should cut the card in half,mail it back to the issuer,and include a registered letter stating what you have just posted here.Such security fears are serious,even though there is a fair chance that the person he talked to was just another telemarketer.

Lastly,as far as this guy's bravery,it takes bravery to play russian roulette,too.I definitely question his motives and timing,especially since "In God we trust" has been on our currency for many years.To me,he's just one more of the ungrateful,self-important,whiny little punks we have so many of infecting our society.

 

[Shem the Penman]

Just to point out: the judge who handed down the decision is a Republican, and was put on the bench by noted liberal Richard Nixon.

And meanwhile, the Occupant has declared that he'll only appoint judges who agree that "our rights come from God" -- even though the Constitution forbids religious tests for holding public office. Do you oppose that as well?

In final analysis, though, this whole "issue" reminds me very much of the flag-burning "issue" back in Bush the First's administration -- simply a chance for windbag politicians and pundits to score points by posing as defenders of a cause few people actually oppose. What next, motherhood or apple pie? Or to paraphrase Tom Tomorrow : don't we have more important things in this country to worry about than whether schoolchildren should be made to pay tribute to a being who may or may not exist?

 

[Strelnikov]

The 9th Circuit is well-known as a rogue court, a pack of West Coast lefties who enforce only the parts of the Constitution that they like - and also things that aren't in the Constitution, they just make them up. But fortunately, they're not completely insulated from the popular will. The judge is already feeling the heat. He has stayed his ruling. It will be reversed, either by the Supreme Court or by the (openly) political branches of the government.

In the long run, it won't make any difference if the ruling stands. People will continue to include "under God" in the Pledge if they so choose, regardless of what any judge says.

There's precedent. Several years back, I attended our older girl's High School graduation, which was held in the school's football stadium. Some whining dickhead had filed a lawsuit of this sort against any sort of prayer or blessing at graduation. A judge had ruled in his favor, so a school official was standing by the sound system controls, ready to pull the plug if anyone mentioned God. But the valedictorian recited the Lord's Prayer anyway, and the audience joined in. The official was told by several people that if he pulled the plug, he would get a flying lesson off the top of the bleachers, so he refrained from doing so. Call it popular democracy in action.

Why is it that everyone's culture and sensitivities are worthy of respect except mine? Some of us are damn sick of this sort of PC crap. In the example I gave, we fought back. I wish more people would do the same.

Strelnikov

 

[shark]

As a reminder,judges are subject to approval by the legislative branch,which was Democratic at the time.I doubt they would have approved a judge who was too far right.

As for Bush's declaration,such a stand is wrong,but he'll do it as far as he can,subject to approval.He's doing nothing different than Clinton did,only the opposite,and I don't really care for either.A judge must first be able to interpret,and have knowledge of,the constitution and the law.

Looking at Shem's third paragraph,he's probably right.Politicians will milk this one for all it's worth.

 

[MadKalnod]

From what I am given to understand, Bush's preference for justices who agree that "our rights come from God" is not a religious test. It is a reference to the line from the Declaration of Independence that all people are endowed with certain inalienable rights by their creator. All human beings are entitled to the full set of rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech/religion/press/etc. simply by being born. These rights are not determined by governments or kings who parcel them out according to whim and decide which ones their citizens can or cannot have at any particular moment. You have them all just for being human, and our Constitution is designed to prevent them from being taken away by any Earthly agency, no matter how duly elected or appointed. It's that simple. Bush's intent is to weed out activist Judges who operate under the impression that rights are invented and imposed by the State, as these Judges have a tendency to believe their role is to create new social policy rather than enforce what already exists.

I've been thinking about this case, and waiting until I had more info before posting an opinion. I think I have to come down in opposition to the Court's ruling.

I'm not an Atheist, rather I like to think of myself as a Relaxed Agnostic: I don't know the answers to the Eternal Mysteries, but I'm not upset enough about that to look very hard. (They are Eternal Mysteries after all) I am not bothered by the words "Under God" in the Pledge, or by the words "In God We Trust" on currency, or by manger scenes in public buildings at Christmas. I am not offended if the Christian Youth Group wishes to hold a prayer meeting in the High School Library after hours as long as the Gaming Club can hold its Star Fleet Battles tournament there the next week. I understand that Faith is a big part of many people's lives, and I do not begrudge them the right to pursue it. I am aware, however, that there is a sizable contingent of people who treat their Faith as an unassailable Fact, and are actively working towards turning America into a Fundamentalist Theocracy just as oppressive as the Taliban was. I've no quarrell with the vast majority who look to their faith to provide moral direction and spiritual reassurance, but there are those who feel that the Right to Freedom of Religion only applies to their particular Christian franchise exclusively and can't wait to burn some heretics. They are be no means the majority, but they are loud enough and persistent enough that they get listened to and appeased on issues, and that makes them dangerous enough that they must be opposed at every opportunity.

That said, I do not feel that "Under God" is an example of the Government favoring one religion over another and thusly a Theocratic incursion to be fought. If it said "Under Jesus" or "Under the Blessed Virgin Mary" I could understand Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist students being made to feel as if they didn't count, but this is vague enough a reference that I should think people would be mature enough to see their personal name for the Almighty in that three-letter spot. (Like an unmasked Vorlon in Babylon 5, every race sees the face of their own deity reflected back... except the Centauri, but they're probably just being deliberately contrary.) But as it is, getting litigious about it or the phrase on our currency or public mangers is just Crying Wolf. To borrow an analogy from National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg I can see how it might bring us a teensy-weensy bit closer to a less free society. But the distance between us and the Taliban or the Spanish Inquisition is hundreds of miles and we are arguing over inches. The Militant Atheists see the tips of a thousand icebergs in what are only ice cubes floating on the waves.

As for the Militant Atheists, has it occurred to anyone that Atheism is a religion? Most religions have a belief system in which the universe is run by the intelligent design of a god or gods; and Atheism has a belief system in which the universe is run by impersonal random chance. Neither can be conclusively proved or disproved, so the Non-existence of God is just as much an article of faith as ressurection or reincarnation. In that case, any moves to ban the mention of other religions would be unconstitutional, since it would establish preferential treatment for the Religion of Atheism.

As for the specific parties in this case, everything I've seen indicates that the plaintiff is an egotistical jerk who just wants to be on TV. His daughter would be making talk show appearances of her own to deny any affiliation with him in a few years if anyone remembered him by that point. I have also seen statistics indicating that over the last three years, the 9th Circuit Court has had no less than 75%, and fully 100% last year, of its decisions overturned by the SCOTUS. This causes me to trust their Judicial Wisdom only a slightly shorter distance than I could fit thm into my mouth and spit them.

Finally, am I the only one young enough (31 this September) to remember that schoolchildren pay next to no attention to the meaning behind the words they say, having long since ground them into lifeless gray powder through daily automatic repetition? Frell, some of them still think they're pledging to the Republic "for Richard Stanz," who is "Invisible," with liberty and justice for all.

 

[Daumantas]

I don't care what ANY of you say...even though they're called "Archie Comics," my favorite character is still Jughead.

 

[BigJim]

From what I am given to understand, Bush's preference for justices who agree that "our rights come from God" is not a religious test. It is a reference to the line from the Declaration of Independence that all people are endowed with certain inalienable rights by their creator. All human beings are entitled to the full set of rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech/religion/press/etc. simply by being born. These rights are not determined by governments or kings who parcel them out according to whim and decide which ones their citizens can or cannot have at any particular moment. You have them all just for being human, and our Constitution is designed to prevent them from being taken away by any Earthly agency, no matter how duly elected or appointed. It's that simple. Bush's intent is to weed out activist Judges who operate under the impression that rights are invented and imposed by the State, as these Judges have a tendency to believe their role is to create new social policy rather than enforce what already exists.

I've been thinking about this case, and waiting until I had more info before posting an opinion. I think I have to come down in opposition to the Court's ruling.

I'm not an Atheist, rather I like to think of myself as a Relaxed Agnostic: I don't know the answers to the Eternal Mysteries, but I'm not upset enough about that to look very hard. (They are Eternal Mysteries after all) I am not bothered by the words "Under God" in the Pledge, or by the words "In God We Trust" on currency, or by manger scenes in public buildings at Christmas. I am not offended if the Christian Youth Group wishes to hold a prayer meeting in the High School Library after hours as long as the Gaming Club can hold its Star Fleet Battles tournament there the next week. I understand that Faith is a big part of many people's lives, and I do not begrudge them the right to pursue it. I am aware, however, that there is a sizable contingent of people who treat their Faith as an unassailable Fact, and are actively working towards turning America into a Fundamentalist Theocracy just as oppressive as the Taliban was. I've no quarrell with the vast majority who look to their faith to provide moral direction and spiritual reassurance, but there are those who feel that the Right to Freedom of Religion only applies to their particular Christian franchise exclusively and can't wait to burn some heretics. They are be no means the majority, but they are loud enough and persistent enough that they get listened to and appeased on issues, and that makes them dangerous enough that they must be opposed at every opportunity.

That said, I do not feel that "Under God" is an example of the Government favoring one religion over another and thusly a Theocratic incursion to be fought. If it said "Under Jesus" or "Under the Blessed Virgin Mary" I could understand Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist students being made to feel as if they didn't count, but this is vague enough a reference that I should think people would be mature enough to see their personal name for the Almighty in that three-letter spot. (Like an unmasked Vorlon in Babylon 5, every race sees the face of their own deity reflected back... except the Centauri, but they're probably just being deliberately contrary.) But as it is, getting litigious about it or the phrase on our currency or public mangers is just Crying Wolf. To borrow an analogy from National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg I can see how it might bring us a teensy-weensy bit closer to a less free society. But the distance between us and the Taliban or the Spanish Inquisition is hundreds of miles and we are arguing over inches. The Militant Atheists see the tips of a thousand icebergs in what are only ice cubes floating on the waves.

As for the Militant Atheists, has it occurred to anyone that Atheism is a religion? Most religions have a belief system in which the universe is run by the intelligent design of a god or gods; and Atheism has a belief system in which the universe is run by impersonal random chance. Neither can be conclusively proved or disproved, so the Non-existence of God is just as much an article of faith as ressurection or reincarnation. In that case, any moves to ban the mention of other religions would be unconstitutional, since it would establish preferential treatment for the Religion of Atheism.

As for the specific parties in this case, everything I've seen indicates that the plaintiff is an egotistical jerk who just wants to be on TV. His daughter would be making talk show appearances of her own to deny any affiliation with him in a few years if anyone remembered him by that point. I have also seen statistics indicating that over the last three years, the 9th Circuit Court has had no less than 75%, and fully 100% last year, of its decisions overturned by the SCOTUS. This causes me to trust their Judicial Wisdom only a slightly shorter distance than I could fit thm into my mouth and spit them.

Finally, am I the only one young enough (31 this September) to remember that schoolchildren pay next to no attention to the meaning behind the words they say, having long since ground them into lifeless gray powder through daily automatic repetition? Frell, some of them still think they're pledging to the Republic "for Richard Stanz," who is "Invisible," with liberty and justice for all.

For the second time, Amen! MK, you put that a hell of a lot more succinctly and precisely than I ever could. Good job.

 

[soleshine]

I'm not convinced that having teachers lead classrooms full of children in a pledge that acknowledges the existence of a supreme being ISN'T favoring one religion over another. In Atheism, there is no "god", sure there's faith, but that's not the same thing.

As far as I have understood it, the issue isn't about just saying the pledge, or even saying it in a classroom. I see it as being about TEACHING that there is a supreme being in our public schools. No one is asking teachers to lead a pledge that says "...one nation (and by the way, there is no god), indivisable..". Why do we HAVE to address the issue of religion in this way at all? I think that should occur in our homes. Shouldn't teachers have an attitude of indifference when comes to teaching stuff like this? I know that Darwinism is even presented as "just a theory" now-a-days.

I think this guy just wants a little support for HIS way of thinking. All of us who believe in a god are validated in many ways, but what's validating to us, just makes him feel less valued. Times are changing, though, and I think that enough people can understand where he's coming from now that his argument has gotten this far. That can be scary to a lot of people. I know several people personally who are scared by it, but like I originally said in this thread, I think a strong faith usually leads one to be more tollerant of others.

 

[shark]

The lawsuit is over the constitutionality of "under God".
It doesn't allege religious instruction.There is a difference.

As for teachers leading the pledge,it is part of the classroom ptotocol.I sincerely doubt that young kids can lead the activity by themselves.

I am certain that he wants people to think his way,or he would not bother suing.As far as his feeling validated,he can take that up with a shrink.