The Pledge stays as it is...

[GW_in_04]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040614_760.html


Thankfully there are still a few good judges left in this country.

 

[charis]

it was dismissed on a technicality.

which means some other joker is bound to bring it up again ...

 

[renegade pariah]

.......that is wonderful news! Now if only more people believed in this ideal...and if more people were really reverent.

 

[Primordial Soup]

If they were good judges they would have ruled on it instead of bowing/fearing the majority of the country.

The S.C. will have to eventually rule on it instead of cowardly passing it based on standing, and there can only be one ruling which is against the current version and in favor of the original, which is why I think they passed the buck.

And I say the only ruling is that is because no matter how much you want it to be otherwise it is favoring a religion which is unconstitutional. And those who hide their true intent behind ceremonial deism just have to look at those who opposed the restoration of the pledge to see that it is indeed a religous issue and not an historical / deism one.

 

[renegade pariah]

For me invoking God as the highest authority, puts the state and nationalism in a more proper perspective. And since so many crimes have been committed by nations and through blind allegiance to the state it is good to have a moral stipulation involved in making a vow.

 

[opus_dei]

well, 8-0 is fairly convincing one way or another. good that scalia recused himself too. i agree that it will come up again but i'd be happier from a case law perspective if the debate came from a case of solid and uncontested legal standing.

the court again proved its wisdom by declining on a shaky case....

 

[Primordial Soup]

Renegade,

That speaks for you but not the millions of those who either do not believe or have differing beliefs. I do not need a god to put any oaths I may give into a more proper perspective, neither do I need a god to make a vow I give have a moral stipulation. I can do these things on my own honor and morals.

 

[Larry]

If they were good judges they would have ruled on it instead of bowing/fearing the majority of the country.

Exactly what part of 'We the People', and a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people' don't you understand?

 

[Risen Tree]

it was dismissed on a technicality.

which means some other joker is bound to bring it up again ...

The "technicality" is arguably a disturbing note from our highest court.

The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor.

 

[Arwen Undomiel]

If they were good judges they would have ruled on it instead of bowing/fearing the majority of the country.

Hmmm. Doesn't this mean that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few? Sorry, I'm quoting Mr. Spock but that's what comes to mind.

 

[opus_dei]

If they were good judges they would have ruled on it instead of bowing/fearing the majority of the country.

The S.C. will have to eventually rule on it instead of cowardly passing it based on standing, and there can only be one ruling which is against the current version and in favor of the original, which is why I think they passed the buck.

And I say the only ruling is that is because no matter how much you want it to be otherwise it is favoring a religion which is unconstitutional. And those who hide their true intent behind ceremonial deism just have to look at those who opposed the restoration of the pledge to see that it is indeed a religous issue and not an historical / deism one.

so we're supposed to throw out all custody law simply because you would have like them to rule on the issue? great idea: settle a controversial issue by completely trashing (and ignoring) some very important settled US custody law.

you know, not every case the SCOUTS rules on comes out the way that i'd like. however, i certainly wouldn't call it "ducking" simply because they used a line of legal reasoning that you found irrelevant.

 

[kua2u]

The 'under God' question will come back up in some form at some other time.

And it's a good topic to get people really really angry over, lots of print, arguments, and yelling.

I'd rather work in a soup kitchen.

 

[crazyfingers]

it was dismissed on a technicality.

which means some other joker is bound to bring it up again ...

Frankly speaking, to demand that the government not indoctinate children to the myth that a god exists is not something that a joker would expect.

 

[crazyfingers]

Exactly what part of 'We the People', and a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people' don't you understand?

What part of the fact that we have a contstitution with a bill of rights do you not understand? The US is a constitutional representaive republic where rights protect the minority from oppression by the majority.

 

[Philosoft]

Exactly what part of 'We the People', and a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people' don't you understand?

Except justices are appointed precisely to avoid any populist politics that might arise. When we elect judges, we get chaos. Case in point: Roy Moore ran for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and won, essentially on the platform "I'll hang the Ten Commandments in my courtroom."

 

[Philosoft]

Thankfully there are still a few good judges left in this country.

Did you read Thomas' opinion? I'm still wondering which hallucinogenic drug he employs when he writes those mind-bogglers.

 

[kdet]

Frankly speaking, to demand that the government not indoctinate children to the myth that a god exists is not something that a joker would expect.

How sad that you feel this way.

 

[crazyfingers]

How sad that you feel this way.

I feel the same way when I see people who think that they have the right to impose religious beliefs onto children. It would be a far better world when people finally free themselves of their mythologies and embrace reason.

 

[opus_dei]

What part of the fact that we have a contstitution with a bill of rights do you not understand? The US is a constitutional representaive republic where rights protect the minority from oppression by the majority.

this is true, however, it does not mean that every issue that the 'miniority,' in whatever the case, will always have their view / position come out on top simply because of the "oppression of the majority." moreover, it's not up to the majority or the miniority to interpret what the constitution holds, rather that it up to the SCOTUS.

sorry, but the us const. and the BoR are not a blanket authority to always promote the minority view on a given subject. part of minority protection is actively participating in the "representative" part of the republic.

 

[crazyfingers]

sorry, but the us const. and the BoR are not a blanket authority to always promote the minority view on a given subject. part of minority protection is actively participating in the "representative" part of the republic.

Here you have misinterpreted the issue. Removing "under God" from the pledge would NOT be prompting the minority view. It would be to not promote the majority view. If the pledge was altered to say, "one nation under NO GOD" that would be promotion of the minority view.

The current pledge states that a god exists. Removing "under god" would simply be restoring the pledge to one that does not address the question as to whether one exists or not.

And, the fact is that the constition prohibits the government from promoting one religious view over another. The only way to do that in this case is to mot address the god issue - leave it out.