The Pledge stays as it is...

[Rae]

recitation of the Pledge is neither required

Evidence, please.

nor can it be deemed a prayer

1. Yes, it can.

2. It is a government proclamation that this is a nation under God. The government has no business, under our First Amendment law, declaring the U.S. a nation under God or a nation under no God. It is to remain neutral. So yes, it should be struck. Simple as that.

there really is no church-state entanglement

Yes. There really is. There would be if it said under Jesus, under Buddha, under Allah, or under no God.

 

[crystalpc]

Interesting you should mention Michigan. A while back, I did hear about a big dispute in some Michigan districts over paying NEA dues, where some teachers took exception for religious reasons and wanted the funds redirected (or something). For reasons I won't go into, I can't say I blame them.

We did receive some federal funding in N.Y., but I can't recall if it was matched, like yours. It's been a long while.

Michigan is not a right to work state, here if your shop, or school is unionized you have to join. We were not told that we could have diverted our dues to a charity..that is what you heard a few weeks ago, the NEA saying that they always told us we could, when all they told us was that we had to pay, or we could not work. My district was a well financed district, one of the best in the state when I worked there. Franklin and Stevenson High schools were graded A schools for the university here. It has been a while, I left when the MS became advanced in 1988. We were always concerned about losing federal funding..our principals made life miserable for any conservative thinking individual.

 

[Philosoft]

However, interpretation of the Constitution is the limit of the judges. This is where some step over the line. For example, the ruling that the 2000 ballot re-count should cease was, in my opinion, over the line. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would. However, I completely fail to see what this has to do with the issue in Newdow. I don't criticise SCOTUS because I believe they were usurping power, I criticise them because I think they made an incorrect ruling.

Now there's a leap!

I make one post - ONE - in jest, about political activism in the courts, and you assume that all I want to do is complain about 'activist' judges. Forget about everything else. Forget about all my other remarks, and just assume that.

Forgive my apparently erroneous assumptions. It's just that I'm used to seeing complaints about judges "making law" followed by complaints about "judicial activism."

Tell me, Philosoft. In your world, what color is the sky?

Right now? Black.

 

[Philosoft]

Move to China...there wasn't that easy?

Of course it's easy to say. It takes the place of an actual argument and insults your opponent at the same time. That's why reasonable people don't say such things.

 

[crystalpc]

Of course it's easy to say. It takes the place of an actual argument and insults your opponent at the same time. That's why reasonable people don't say such things.

I am very reasonable..I won't force them to move..

 

[Larry]

Yes, I would. However, I completely fail to see what this has to do with the issue in Newdow. I don't criticise SCOTUS because I believe they were usurping power, I criticise them because I think they made an incorrect ruling.
Forgive my apparently erroneous assumptions. It's just that I'm used to seeing complaints about judges "making law" followed by complaints about "judicial activism."
Right now? Black.

So we are down to getting hung up on the semantics of "incorrect rulings" and "usurping power". And all this, you think, is far removed from "making law"? How convenient for you.


Chin up, friend. I hope the sky brightens up in your world. Be of good cheer. Don't let these things get to you.

 

[Larry]

Every morning when the teacher tells the lids to say, "one nation under god". That's when.



It's a very simple case why it should not be there. Simply put, the government shouldn't be teaching kids that a monotheist god exists. The government should have nothing to say on the subject.

If you think the wording of the Pledge equates to government "teaching" that there is a monotheistic God, then you had better remove any and all quotes, statements, preambles and any other historical documents of national archives that use the word God, Almighty, Creator, and a whole slew of divine references, by a whole bunch of American founders, presidents, statesmen, et al. You got your work cut out for you....better get busy.

 

[USincognito]

If they truly wanted no part of God and gov't many of the laws and letters written by them would have no mentioning of God. But they do. And so do many of the buildings they built..

Yeah, if that God was Athena.

 

[Philosoft]

So we are down to getting hung up on the semantics of "incorrect rulings" and "usurping power". And all this, you think, is far removed from "making law"? How convenient for you.

I don't even know what's being discussed anymore.

If you're upset with things SCOTUS does, can you please tell me how it relates to this case?

Chin up, friend. I hope the sky brightens up in your world. Be of good cheer. Don't let these things get to you.

I feel fine. The sky is black because it's dark outside.

 

[Larry]

I don't even know what's being discussed anymore.

If you're upset with things SCOTUS does, can you please tell me how it relates to this case?
I feel fine. The sky is black because it's dark outside.

Why are you insistant that I am upset over any of this? This is twice you have made such remarks.

Don't answer that. It doesn't matter to me why you are comfortable in thinking that any of this upsets me. Knock yourself out!


I'm going to bed.....not upset over any of this.


Good night.

 

[opus_dei]

er, interesting arguments on both sides. however, no one has seen fit to deal with settled case law which is the only authority on which to base what does and does not violate the establishment clause.

perhaps you all would like to ignore it, i guess and personal opinion is rather irrelevant in this matter....the real question is: if you're pro "god" in the pledge, what would your argument be to keep it in (mind you: u.s. of a. was founded by christians would be laughed out of the courts) and if you are anti-"god" in the pledge, what is your argument. mind you, "by stating 'god' in the pledge you're breaching church / state" is also not a valid argument because as it stands (through state, appellate and SCOTUS) the permissibility of 'god' in the pledge is currently considered consitutional. you know the current rulings that will be referenced, you know the "lemon" test or the acceptable uses carved out by SCOTUS rulings....what really is the argument?

and, from my reading of the ruling, b/c newdow was judged to have no standing not only was the case thrown back to the district level, all judgments are thus vacated due to the fact that it was ruled that he never had standing in the first place.

as for nasreddin, i'm tired too and going to bed. lol.

cheers.
o.d.

[edit] absent a court ruling (that's held up if challenged) any law currently on the books is de facto constitutional until ruled otherwise.

 

[seebs]

The existence of rulings claiming something constitutional doesn't necessarily mean it is. Anti-miscegenation laws were considered constitutional... But they weren't really.

Anyway, I continue to be horrified that Christians are actively promoting the practice of making millions of innocent kids take God's name in vain. It's so far from right I can't imagine how this is happening.

It's bad enough that we strongly encourage kids to swear oaths they aren't old enough to genuinely mean. That just sets up the expectation that oaths are just mouth noises.

But... Putting God in it is just blasphemous.

 

[opus_dei]

The existence of rulings claiming something constitutional doesn't necessarily mean it is. Anti-miscegenation laws were considered constitutional... But they weren't really.

er, until it's ruled unconstitutional it is, by definition, constitutional. whether it's "right" or not is a philosophical debate. the pledge as it stands now is entirely, 100% USDA-Prime constitutional.

anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court in 1967. the case was loving vs. virginia and the court stated in the opening paragraph that the issues brought before the court hadn't even been considered prior to the case.

again, whether it was right or not is not the issue rather that miscegenation WAS constitutional (there was not a federal court ruling binding on the entire US either on the topic). marriage was, and is, still a state issue subject to federal judicial oversight and compliance with current settled US law.

 

[reverend B]

Hardly. Although this may have been a procedural ruling on its face, the 8-0 decision speaks volumes, given its pronouncement on Flag Day and unanimity of the bench. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.

the 8-0 vote tells me if you throw a life preserver to eight drowning people...... three of the justices agreed. leaves six i believe.

In reviewing the decision, it does appear the merits of the case were discussed quite extensively. I quote some excerpts from the ruling and concurring opinions, which should give us some insight as to the direction in which the high court is leaning:

the same three justices are sighted. good thing you aren't selective.

"There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress." (Chief Justice Rehnquist)

what is funny to me about this is the problem lies with "the manner prescribed by congress", not newdow's objection to it. his objection to it is not the point. it is the constitutionality of it that is at issue. how old is rhenquist now?

"I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution." (Justice O'Connor)

well, sandra day, what would those be? what are the lines that define the "discrete category of cases? this is impossibly weak. there is no courage here at all.

"Michael Newdow's challenge to petitioner school district's policy is a well-intentioned one, but his distaste for the reference to "one Nation under God," however sincere, cannot be the yardstick of our Establishment Clause inquiry." (Justice O'Connor)

it isn't. the yardstick is that a significant minority of people would reasonably be presumed to feel the same way.

"To be sure, such an affirmation is not a prayer. . . .Through the Pledge policy, the State has not created or maintained any religious establishment, and neither has it granted government authority to an existing religion. The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal coercion associated with an established religion. Further, no other free-exercise rights are at issue. It follows that religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution." (Clarence Thomas)

perhaps thomas would have enjoyed being the only black student in an all white high school in 1964 in virginia. perhaps he would have a better appreciation of how an "alternative religion" kid feels when he chooses not to participate in the pledge. there are schools where the student wouldn't make it home.
if the justices were really making a decision based on custody rights and right to speak for the child, what do these opinions have to do with the case? foolish really, because they are simply letting the next person who brings the same suit what their strategies will be to stop it. if you don't think they look pathetic and desperate this time, stay tuned. the next effort will be that much better prepared, which means these three will have to come up with decisions even more ludicrous than these.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624

it seems to me that three doesn't quite make a quorum. any other commentary you want to quote?

 

[opus_dei]

paula-

1) the constitutionality of the issue is indeed about the "manner perscribed by congress." moreover, the courts have held, time and time again that there are instances where is is permissible to mention God. should we, per chance, also stop teaching students about the declaration of independence?

2) justice o'connor outlined in which instances are permissible in her concurrence with the lynch case i mentioned earlier. for futher times where it's permitted read a few pages back or read brennan's concurrence in Schempp, 374 U.S. at 303-04. (which is also quoted a few pages back)the supreme court does not act on a "reasonable presumption" of ANYTHING. that argument alone is logical fallacy and makes for horrid case law. moreover, the statistics used would most likely never see the light of day at trial.

3) instead of making ad hominem attacks on the justices please take a second to read a) settled case law on the topic and b) the entire newdow opinion.

 

[opus_dei]

Evidence, please.

1. Yes, it can.

2. It is a government proclamation that this is a nation under God. The government has no business, under our First Amendment law, declaring the U.S. a nation under God or a nation under no God. It is to remain neutral. So yes, it should be struck. Simple as that.

as for 1) see west virginia state board of education v. barnette (1943) where it was ruled wholly unconstitutional to force someone to recite the pledge. there have been many cases since then that have reaffirmed this ruling.

as for 2), well you're not correct.

i feel like i'm, er, hollering at the wind here. while we all have personal opinions on the matter (and a wide range at that!) they're all entirely irrelevant. well, not necessarily irrelevant rather "hollow" arguments as they do not address the merits of the particular case. the current laws on the books as ruled by the us supreme court on occasions almost too numerous to count.

 

[Philosoft]

perhaps you all would like to ignore it, i guess and personal opinion is rather irrelevant in this matter....the real question is: if you're pro "god" in the pledge, what would your argument be to keep it in (mind you: u.s. of a. was founded by christians would be laughed out of the courts) and if you are anti-"god" in the pledge, what is your argument. mind you, "by stating 'god' in the pledge you're breaching church / state" is also not a valid argument because as it stands (through state, appellate and SCOTUS) the permissibility of 'god' in the pledge is currently considered consitutional. you know the current rulings that will be referenced, you know the "lemon" test or the acceptable uses carved out by SCOTUS rulings....what really is the argument?

Well, I don't happen to agree with ceremonial deism as a sound legal doctrine in the first place. I think the attempts to convice us that the word "God" has lost its religious meaning in certain specific contexts (curiously, always specified after-the-fact) are hopelessly transparent. They amount to cop-out defenses like, 'It's been there for a long time so it must not be religious anymore' and O'Connor's laughable 'A reasonable person would agree that it has little religious meaning' (said "reasonable person" no doubt being a theist).

In any case, the idea that a "religious meaning" argument applies here is ridiculous and utterly belied by the near-furor from the Christian majority that erupted in support of "under God."

Then we're told that "under God" has the secular purpose of being a historical reminder. It occurs to me, however, that the history of religion in this country is probably slightly too complex to be summarized by two words. Perhaps I just don't quite understand this one.

and, from my reading of the ruling, b/c newdow was judged to have no standing not only was the case thrown back to the district level, all judgments are thus vacated due to the fact that it was ruled that he never had standing in the first place.

I think this is correct.

 

[Rae]

2), well you're not correct.

Your personal opinion, with which I obviously disagree and will continue to disagree with.

People can be forced to do things under threat of violence. Happens all the time in school, regardless of Constitutionality ... which is what I was referring to. Or did you miss my experience that kids and parents are willing to force others to say the Pledge or be beaten up?

 

[Rae]

gg

 

[Rae]

Not to mention, can teachers refuse to lead the Pledge? Can schools refuse to have the Pledge said in them? I haven't heard that either can. I have heard, in connection with the Newdow case, that teachers HAVE to lead it and that schools REQUIRE it to be led ... that sounds to me like SOMEONE's being forced to recite it...