Pledge Unconstitutional

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by user 956
Then you should talk to gunnysgt and hear about how the "ACLU" is the "Anti-Christian-Liberal-Union".  I speak the truth. If you're not smart enough to understand, then that's God's will.  

So if people don't agree with you, that makes them stupid? Riiight.

You WERE kidding about the WTC thing, right?

 

[eldermike]

Hey, there is an interesting article on crosswalk.com today. This may be old news, I am normally a few days from catching up.

Seems (based upon this article) this Michael A. Newdow, the one that brought the suit, was not telling the truth. His daughter doesn't live with Him, she and Mom are Christian, and well............perjury comes to mind.


Is it perjury? Or is it about time someone made up a story to challenge this "under God" thing?

Now we have a real problem.....this could set a dangerous precedent. Just think of all the ways I could make up in my head as to how I have been offended. The good-ol United States of the offended. One nation under "it could have happened that way"......I mean what if that really happened?....Think how I would be damaged for life, if only what I am thinking actually occurs?

Blessings

 

[Morat]

  According to the Yahoo's most recent mention, Newdow's has joint custody of his daughter, and is raising her to be non-religious.

   Her mother might be raising her to be Christian, although the article doesn't state this.

   Nor, in all honesty, does it matter. His daughter gave him standing, as it was exposing her to government-sanctioned religious instruction.

   As she's a minor, it doesn't matter a whit what she believed. As her father, he has the right to oversee her religious instruction (or specific lack thereof).

   She could have been perfectly happy, even supported, the use of the phrase "Under God" in the pledge, and he still would have had standing to bring suit for religious indoctrination.

 

[Brimshack]

Any other sources on that Eldermike? You'll have to pardon me if I don't just accept the word of this particular site. It wouldn't be the first time that someone tried to settle a complex issue by strategic character assassination. I tried accessing the site twice and my computer crashed both times (must be heathen-proof), so I won't be reading that article. I will be interested to see if a credible source pops up with it, but I won't be accepting this.

And for the umpteenth time; offensiveness was not the issue. I try not to ask people to read outside sources, but given the nature of this issue, it REALLY wouldn't hurt is people would read the case in question.

In any event, if Newdow's claims were false, then the trial lawyer on the other side should have cought it. Sorry, but that's the way the system works, facts are determined in the trial stage, not in the appellate courts. When it gets to an appellate court, they aren't addresing facts of the case at all at that point, so there is absolutely no way in which the issue of perjury would become part of the precedent. All the constitutional issues stand just as they would otherwise.

 

[seebs]

I'm personally offended that they make any effort to get minors to make any pledges at all. If you aren't old enough to drink, vote, drive, and die for your country in a war, you aren't old enough to be making pledges.

 

[Brimshack]

Mathew are you any relation to User956? Just where do you wish to ship us non-Christians off to?

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Brimshack
Mathew are you any relation to User956? Just where do you wish to ship us non-Christians off to?

I don't know, but he posted the same exact thing (word for word) in another thread.

And he's supposed to be from India, according to the flag next to his name.

Is that *troll* I smell? Hmmm....

 

[eldermike]

Brimshack,

That is the only source I have seen. If it's true the question comes up; why not, why isn't this an issue?

If mom takes daughter to church on Sunday and dad argues against the pledge on Monday, something more is at work here.

Blessings

 

[Brimshack]

Hi Eldermike,

It's an issue, yes, and the issue is perjury, just as you said it was. My specific point is that such matters fall to the lower courts, and it would be wrong to assume that if he slipped this past the other trial-team this somehow becomes a dangerous pro-perjury precedent. My larger concern here is that I'm not willing to let the constitutional issue slide because of the personal issue. I have my concerns about the integrity of such accusations, and I don't trust the site in question. If it is true, then I'd like to punch the guy for bringin disgrace to those of us on his side of the issue, but I'm not going to stand by and say, oh, I'm sorry, I guess this isn't unconstitutional after all. The consitutional reasoning of the court on this matter was sound, and I think that the Christian response has been rather evasive. This story seems like just one more way of arguing the issue without even addressing the constitutional question.

I see no contradiction whatseover, btw, between taking the child to church on Sunday, and arguing against the pledge the child will say on Monday.

 

[Morat]

ElderMike: Perhaps you missed my post. This might answer your question of:

"If mom takes daughter to church on Sunday and dad argues against the pledge on Monday, something more is at work here"

According to the Yahoo's most recent mention, Newdow's has joint custody of his daughter, and is raising her to be non-religious.

Her mother might be raising her to be Christian, although the article doesn't state this.

Nor, in all honesty, does it matter. His daughter gave him standing, as it was exposing her to government-sanctioned religious instruction.

As she's a minor, it doesn't matter a whit what she believed. As her father, he has the right to oversee her religious instruction (or specific lack thereof).

She could have been perfectly happy, even supported, the use of the phrase "Under God" in the pledge, and he still would have had standing to bring suit for religious indoctrination.

 

[eldermike]

Brimshack,

That is cool with me. I just thought it was an intresting development. I have no problem with the debate going forward. I personally believe that "under God" is not a relegious statement. Under Jesus would be for me, but the word God in the pledge context simply states a beleif in someting other than natural. That to me is not a relegion. However, if it is offensive to others then let the debate continue until the burden placed upon the law is fully met. I am not that attached to "under God", I always thought it should be "by the grace of God".

Blessings

 

[Brimshack]

Alright, fair enough.

On the debate itself, I think the generality of God doesn't really address the issue of whether or not it is a religious pronouncement.

- It is still a ritual injunction, invoking God to legitimize the pledge itself. This has the character of a sort of ecomenical ritual (I believe I'm using that word correctly).

- Even if it doesn't specify the God, this still leaves out polytheists and atheists, and perhaps pantheists, or Goddes worshippers. The point being that the beliefs in question are substantively narrowed enough to exlude some Americans.

- The word "God" can be narrowed still further at will (witness the number of people making a point to say that Allah and God are not the same.

The issue isn't offensiveness. It is the use of government power to endorse a belief. I am not offended by the words in the slightest, but I do not want to be implicated in their use, which is what use of government authority to promote their invocation does.

 

[eldermike]

Morat,

I also said, I have no problem with this going forward. It just seems that a better case could be found than one with 50% (or more) of the family in disagrement with it. I can see why they are divorced, as most of the nation can also see.

Blessings

 

[Morat]

*shrug* Us atheists still get divorced at a much lower percentage than you theists.

To paraphrase your cheap shot: "I can see why that is, as can most of the nation".


Still, if you can't argue the legal reasoning, why not attack the person? It's dirty pool, but perhaps it's all you have....

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by eldermike
I can see why they are divorced, as most of the nation can also see.

I can't. Why are they divorced, eldermike?

 

[eldermike]

Thanks for the correction, you are correct, I should not attack the person.

Blessings

 

[eldermike]

Another article from Crosswalk.com about the church that the little gril attends. I am now wondering why this isn't an issue in major media outlets? If the link dosn't work, it's on the front page at crosswalk.com.

http://news.crosswalk.com/partner/0,,74088,00.html

Blessings

 

[Morat]

  Why should it be? As I stated several times, it doesn't matter what the girl's view is. She's a minor. A parent certainly has standing (and, in fact ,the first part of the decision was all about standing. Didn't you read it?) to contest any state sponsership of a given religion, regardless of how the child feels about it.

   Indeed, if you read the filing, you'll find that at no point did Newdow claim his daughter was "forced" to recite the pledge, or that reciting the pledge itself harmed her (as in, she didn't want to), but was very specific in stating that the injury itself was being exposed to a state-sponsered endorsement of belief.

   She's a minor. Parents have total control and responsibility over a minor's religious exposure. Newdow claimed being exposed to state endorsement of religion was the problem. As her parent, he had standing to do so.

   The only question regards the current custody status. Since he's challenging it (custody), that alone may give him standing to bring the lawsuit. I'm unfamiliar with how custody works in this sort of situation, but feel if custody would have sunk his case for standing, then the lawyers for the school district should be disbarred for incompetance, as it was never so much as mentioned.

 

 

[eldermike]

The right or wrong of it related to law is not my issue, if it's a good case then it's a good case. I wish your logic would make it to the media outlets that are spinning the cleared business deals of the current administration. Information just dosn't work that way. The truth is the truth and sometimes we know it and sometimes we don't. It remains true all the same.

Blessings

 

[Caedmon]

eldermike, could you post a link to another article that substantiates the Crosswalk article, preferably a secular source?

Thanks