Why the Pledge shouldn't be said in our schools or anywhere public
Keith Gormezano
missing is how would you feel if the pledge contained the words "under the
Goddess", "under no God", or "under the Prophet" instead?
In the first scenario, you wouldn't like having someone else's earth-based
religion shoved down your throat. In the second case, you would resent
having atheism which is a religion in a way being forced upon you. In the
third example, 95% of us (in the U.S.) would be in the minority. Just as
atheists and believers of other non-monotheistic religions are currently.
For these reasons, the words "under God or G-d" or anything else has no
place in the Pledge
as much as many of us want them. Perhaps another issue is why have the
Pledge in the first place? Why do school districts shove it down student's
throats? What does it have to do with learning? Hmm, and I thought we had an
alleged "education President." I guess I was wrong.
Either we are a secular nation with no one party line of religion and a
strict separation of religious institutions and the state or we aren't (like
many nations in the Arab/Muslim world where my dad's family came from or
Europe where my mother's family came from). You can't have your baklava,
bulemos, matzah ball soup, or kugel and eat them.
Keith Gormezano, a commie, pinko, short-haired, Seattle liberal who serves
on a Selective Service (Draft) Board and who wants to put a bumper sticker
on his Peugeot (an evil French) car that says "United We Stand" with the
words "Against the War in Iraq" underneath it.
http://www.scn.org/~bb822
bb...@scn.org (remove no spam from reply field if replying to me)
Copyright 2003. Keith Gormezano. All Rights Reserved. Contact me for
permission to repost elsewhere.
rimaldi
>
> Keith Gormezano, a commie, pinko, short-haired, Seattle liberal who serves
> on a Selective Service (Draft) Board and who wants to put a bumper sticker
> on his Peugeot (an evil French) car that says "United We Stand" with the
> words "Against the War in Iraq" underneath it.
Are you the same liar and fraud who pretended to be a successful
publisher? "Beacon Presse" or some such lying nonsense?
Shaun
Answer the salient point. Do the words Under God, inserted into the
pledge in 1954, constitute Establishment of Religion or not?
Shaun
--------------------------
When George W. Bush said, "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom...."
Who knew he meant it as a campaign promise?
rimaldi
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 00:51:01 -0800, "rimaldi" <rim...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 04:31:00 +0000, Keith Gormezano wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Keith Gormezano, a commie, pinko, short-haired, Seattle liberal who serves
>>> on a Selective Service (Draft) Board and who wants to put a bumper sticker
>>> on his Peugeot (an evil French) car that says "United We Stand" with the
>>> words "Against the War in Iraq" underneath it.
>>
>>Are you the same liar and fraud who pretended to be a successful
>>publisher? "Beacon Presse" or some such lying nonsense?
>
>
> Answer the salient point. Do the words Under God, inserted into the
> pledge in 1954, constitute Establishment of Religion or not?
As meant in the first amendment to the US Constitution?
Martin W. Smith
Since rimaldi refuses to answer, I'll state the case for why the words
do constitute establishment of religion.
The set of religions in question includes, but is not limited to,
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Atheism. Two of these
religions, Buddhism and Atheism, include the belief that there is no
god. Therefore, including the words "under God" in the e plebb neesta
do establish religion to the extent that they imply that one or more of
the religions in the set of religions that include the belief that there
is a God can be correct, while at the same time implying that Buddhism
and Atheism cannot be correct. Therefore, the words "under God" in the
Pledge contribute to the establishment of religion, which is prohibited
by the Constitution.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: m...@computas.com
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
rimaldi
> rimaldi wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:20:10 +0000, Shaun wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 00:51:01 -0800, "rimaldi" <rim...@msu.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 04:31:00 +0000, Keith Gormezano wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Keith Gormezano, a commie, pinko, short-haired, Seattle liberal who serves
>> >>> on a Selective Service (Draft) Board and who wants to put a bumper sticker
>> >>> on his Peugeot (an evil French) car that says "United We Stand" with the
>> >>> words "Against the War in Iraq" underneath it.
>> >>
>> >>Are you the same liar and fraud who pretended to be a successful
>> >>publisher? "Beacon Presse" or some such lying nonsense?
>> >
>> >
>> > Answer the salient point. Do the words Under God, inserted into the
>> > pledge in 1954, constitute Establishment of Religion or not?
>>
>> As meant in the first amendment to the US Constitution?
>
> Since rimaldi refuses to answer,
I've most certainly not refused to answer. I have asked that Shaun
clarify. When he does, and he can do so with a simple yes, though not a
simple no, I will answer.
Martin W. Smith
It doesn't matter unless the words were not added by law. If he isn't
refering to the first ammendment, then the answer is a simple yes,
because of the argument I gave. If he is refering to the first
ammendment, then the answer is yes if either the words were added by law
or if the pledge must be recited by law.
Why can't there be a simple no. There can be a simple no, and then my
argument needs no further qualification.
Martin W. Smith
>
> rimaldi wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 12:59:57 +0100, Martin W. Smith wrote:
> >
> > > rimaldi wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:20:10 +0000, Shaun wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 00:51:01 -0800, "rimaldi" <rim...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 04:31:00 +0000, Keith Gormezano wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Keith Gormezano, a commie, pinko, short-haired, Seattle liberal who serves
> > >> >>> on a Selective Service (Draft) Board and who wants to put a bumper sticker
> > >> >>> on his Peugeot (an evil French) car that says "United We Stand" with the
> > >> >>> words "Against the War in Iraq" underneath it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Are you the same liar and fraud who pretended to be a successful
> > >> >>publisher? "Beacon Presse" or some such lying nonsense?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Answer the salient point. Do the words Under God, inserted into the
> > >> > pledge in 1954, constitute Establishment of Religion or not?
> > >>
> > >> As meant in the first amendment to the US Constitution?
> > >
> > > Since rimaldi refuses to answer,
> >
> > I've most certainly not refused to answer. I have asked that Shaun
> > clarify. When he does, and he can do so with a simple yes, though not a
> > simple no, I will answer.
>
> It doesn't matter unless the words were not added by law.
In fact, it appears the words were indeed added by law, which means my
argument applies.
rimaldi
Simmer down, Martin. Allow Shaun the right to answer for himself what he
means. As for a simple "no" being insufficient, if he says "no", then I
would have to ask him in what sense he was using the phrase. That ought be
obvious, even to you.
Martin W. Smith
And it ought to be obvious to you that it doesn't matter, not least
because the words were added by law. Congress made a law. That means
you can assume Shaun means establishment of religion in the first
ammendement sense, because the conditions for Shaun asking the question
are in force. Congress made a law. So now I'm askinbg you: Do the
words Under God, inserted into the pledge in 1954, constitute
Establishment of Religion or not? And I mean that with respect to the
first ammendment *and* with respect to the argument I have already
presented.
rimaldi
You may assume what you like about what Shaun meant. I prefer asking him.
As for your question, I'm afraid you will have to break it apart if you
want an answer to it.
Martin W. Smith
Run away! Run away! What a baby.
rimaldi
Not at all. I'm quite willing to answwer the question as originally put.
But the addition of your "argument", and your wishing for an answer with
respect to both is not likely to proceed productively. Return to the
original question, and I'll deal with it. If there is time later, to
discuss your "argument" perhaps we can do that.
Martin W. Smith
What? Stop weasling. I never left the original question. I have
already answered the original question. My argument there stands. That
is what the "addition" of my argument means. The question has not
changed. Given that we *are* talking about establishment of religion as
outlawed by the first amendment, and given that Congress acted to add
the words "under God," my argument is correct. Choke on it, rimaldi. I
don't care whether you send one of your half-wit rebuttals. I've made
my case. I suppose Shaun will make his.
rimaldi
I'm not weaseling. I'm insisting that the question be put forth
straightly, rather than with the changes of being "with respect to the
argument I have already presented" Why are you afraid to do that? Is it
because your mind is afraid of clarity?
The straight stating of the original question, as I understand it, would
be:
Do the words Under God, inserted into the pledge in 1954, constitute
Establishment of Religion, as meant in the first amendment to the US
Constitution?
Is that the question as you understand it? Answer yes or no, and I can
then answer the question.
Martin W. Smith
Stop weasling, rimaldi. I have answered the question. If your answer
to the question is no, your argument must refute mine.
rimaldi
Is the question the one I have stated above? Answer yes or no. Don't be
afraid.
Martin W. Smith
You can't answer. Not my problem. I've made my case, and it still
stands. Here it is again:
I'll state the case for why the words do constitute establishment of
religion. The set of religions in question includes, but is not limited
to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Atheism. Two of these
religions, Buddhism and Atheism, include the belief that there is no
god. Therefore, including the words "under God" in the Pledge do
establish religion to the extent that they imply that one or more of the
religions in the set of religions that include the belief that there is
a God can be correct, while at the same time implying that Buddhism and
Atheism cannot be correct. Therefore, the words "under God" in the
Pledge, which were added by Congress, do contribute to the establishment
of religion, which is prohibited by the first ammendment of the
Constitution.
I don't want to hear your answer anyway, rimaldi.
rimaldi
I knew you were afraid of hearing the answer. That's why you refused to
even admit what the question was.
Martin W. Smith
> I knew you were afraid of hearing the answer. That's why you refused to
> even admit what the question was.
Martin's answer to the question:
I'll state the case for why the words do constitute establishment of
religion. The set of religions in question includes, but is not limited
to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Atheism. Two of these
religions, Buddhism and Atheism, include the belief that there is no
god. Therefore, including the words "under God" in the Pledge do
establish religion to the extent that they imply that one or more of the
religions in the set of religions that include the belief that there is
a God can be correct, while at the same time implying that Buddhism and
Atheism cannot be correct. Therefore, the words "under God" in the
Pledge, which were added by Congress, do contribute to the establishment
of religion, which is prohibited by the first ammendment of the
Constitution.
----------
rimaldi's answer to the question:
<eom>
----------
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
"My name is rimaldi-mandius, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
-- apologies to Percy Bysshe
rimaldi
>
> rimaldi's answer to the question:
I'm quite willing to answer the question as soon as we come to an
agreement on precisely what the question is. But you are afraid of that
clarity. Meditate on that fear within you, and when I return, if you can
get up the nerve to come to an agreement on what is being asked, you will
get an answer.
Martin W. Smith
Not to worry, rimaldi. You're out of the loop. This *is* the answer:
I'll state the case for why the words do constitute establishment of
religion. The set of religions in question includes, but is not limited
to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Atheism. Two of these
religions, Buddhism and Atheism, include the belief that there is no
god. Therefore, including the words "under God" in the Pledge does
establish religion, to the extent that the words imply that one or more
of the religions requiring belief in God can be correct, while at the
same time implying that Buddhism and Atheism cannot be correct.
Therefore, the words "under God" in the Pledge, which were added by
Congress, do contribute to the establishment
of religion, which is prohibited by the first ammendment of the
Constitution.
martin
Snake
>;[:On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 00:51:01 -0800, "rimaldi" <rim...@msu.edu> wrote:
>;[:
>;[:>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 04:31:00 +0000, Keith Gormezano wrote:
>;[:>
>;[:>
>;[:>>
>;[:>> Keith Gormezano, a commie, pinko, short-haired, Seattle liberal who serves
>;[:>> on a Selective Service (Draft) Board and who wants to put a bumper sticker
>;[:>> on his Peugeot (an evil French) car that says "United We Stand" with the
>;[:>> words "Against the War in Iraq" underneath it.
>;[:>
>;[:>Are you the same liar and fraud who pretended to be a successful
>;[:>publisher? "Beacon Presse" or some such lying nonsense?
>;[:
>;[:
>;[:Answer the salient point. Do the words Under God, inserted into the
>;[:pledge in 1954, constitute Establishment of Religion or not?
NO.
>;[:
>;[:Shaun
>;[:--------------------------
>;[:
>;[:When George W. Bush said, "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom...."
>;[:
>;[:Who knew he meant it as a campaign promise?
Washington State
Initiative 676 Gun Control
7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i676.htm
http://www.mcsm.org/676.html
http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/676.htm
Snake
Shaun
wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:20:10 GMT, Shaun <sha...@sea.die.spammer.die.net.com> wrote:
>
>>;[:On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 00:51:01 -0800, "rimaldi" <rim...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>;[:
>>;[:>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 04:31:00 +0000, Keith Gormezano wrote:
>>;[:>
>>;[:>
>>;[:>>
>>;[:>> Keith Gormezano, a commie, pinko, short-haired, Seattle liberal who serves
>>;[:>> on a Selective Service (Draft) Board and who wants to put a bumper sticker
>>;[:>> on his Peugeot (an evil French) car that says "United We Stand" with the
>>;[:>> words "Against the War in Iraq" underneath it.
>>;[:>
>>;[:>Are you the same liar and fraud who pretended to be a successful
>>;[:>publisher? "Beacon Presse" or some such lying nonsense?
>>;[:
>>;[:
>>;[:Answer the salient point. Do the words Under God, inserted into the
>>;[:pledge in 1954, constitute Establishment of Religion or not?
>
> NO.
Really? Care to try to explain why not?
Shea F. Kenny
/\
\__/
Clave
news:leh56v4s6b6aqka0e...@4ax.com...
>
> Eggzakly... We need a galatic based religion, not earthed.
Shea, have you heard the message of Cthulhu?
Jim
Shea F. Kenny
is being worshipped. Congress, did not define God. Nor how God must
be acknowledged. Thus, God could be defined as whatever a person
believed God was..... However, also made clear that acknowledgement of
that God, was to the greater good of the country........
/\
\__/
Shaun
Noting an official belief in "God" isn't establishment?
I'm not sure how one can possibly argue that.
Care to try?
Hint: The fact that various folks define "god" differently doesn't
cut it.
Clave
news:k2n56vc2t3mh33vjt...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 03:09:44 GMT, Shea F. Kenny
> <pent...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Wrong. In order to establish religion, one must establish what
> >is being worshipped. Congress, did not define God. Nor how God must
> >be acknowledged. Thus, God could be defined as whatever a person
> >believed God was..... However, also made clear that acknowledgement of
> >that God, was to the greater good of the country........
>
> Noting an official belief in "God" isn't establishment?
>
> I'm not sure how one can possibly argue that.
>
> Care to try?
Now you've done it...
Walter Scott
Dealing with this controversy from the perspective of law: there are
two pressing issues. One is whether the ability to "opt out" of
reciting the Pledge of Allegiance provides sufficient protection from
violative activity as to the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. The second issue is whether the Pledge of
allegiance sets a scenario where the pledge calls for acceptance,
among those who recite it, of a subservient condition -- of "one
nation" being "under" or inferior to God. But keep in mind that the
"anywhere public" qualifier in the above subject header would add a
new wrinkle under law. In fact, it would quite likely engender a
violation of one's right to exercise their freedom of expression under
the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment where there would be blanket
prohibition of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance "anywhere public."
The test here is and should be for government establishment of
religion. Unless government somehow sponsors or mandates recitation of
the Pledge of Allegiance "anywhere public," there is no violative
activity where government does not so sponsor or so mandate, at least
not in terms of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In regard to the notion that one may opt out of reciting the Pledge
of Allegiance: Opting out was not sufficient protection against the
potential for subtle or not-so-subtle coercion as it might pertain to
the Lord's Prayer. Why would there be less potential surrounding
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance? Why would there not be an
even greater stigma attached to those who opt out of reciting the
Pledge of Allegiance than there was for those who might have decided
to opt out of reciting the Lord's Prayer decades ago? Why should the
logic and proscription of the U.S. Supreme Court as to the Lord's
Prayer not also apply to the Pledge of Allegiance as it currently
exists?
ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
[......]
....... [the court] has consistently held that
the [Establishment] clause withdrew all
legislative power respecting religious belief or
the expression thereof. The test may be stated as
follows: what are the purpose and the primary
effect of the enactment? If either is the
advancement or inhibition of religion then the
enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power
as circumscribed by the Constitution.
Does the legislative history for inclusion by Congress of "under God"
in the Pledge of allegiance reflect the 9th Circuit's assessment that
"under God" was intended to underline the dichotomy between the
Godless communist societies of the Soviet Bloc versus the
God-inspired American citizenry? If yes, then why is such not an
instance where Congress enacted advancement of religion and therefore
exceeded the "scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the
Constitution?"
ZORACH v. CLAUSON, 343 U.S. 306 (1952)
[......]
The First Amendment within the scope of its
coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is
absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not
say that in every and all respects there shall be
a separation of Church and State. Rather, it
studiously defines the manner, the specific ways,
in which there shall be no concert or union or
dependency one on the other.
Does the pertinent act of Congress create a "union" or "concert" of
God and nation? Does the pertinent act of Congress setup a
"dependency one on the other" of "one nation `under God'" and
therefore a nation subservient to or dependent on God? If not, why
not?
References:
NTReader v0.37w(P)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Shea F. Kenny
(Walter Scott) wrote:
>Does the pertinent act of Congress create a "union" or "concert" of
>God and nation? Does the pertinent act of Congress setup a
>"dependency one on the other" of "one nation `under God'" and
>therefore a nation subservient to or dependent on God? If not, why
>not?
Because that's what they decided. The concept that the term
"God" is a self determined concept, long lived in uh-merica, decides
the issue, all by it's self...
All it means is a society ruled by eternal principles that
work to greater good of that society......
And there's no constitutional prohibition against that....
/\
\__/
Shea F. Kenny
regards to human behavior, and a god.
It is not the merely acknowledgement that such things
exist.....
/\
\__/
Martin W. Smith
>
> Wrong. In order to establish religion, one must establish what
> is being worshipped.
Worship isn't a requirement of religion. Buddhism and Atheism don't
worship anything.
> Congress, did not define God.
They didn't have to. Everybody knows what God means, especially when it
is capitalized.
> Nor how God must
> be acknowledged. Thus, God could be defined as whatever a person
> believed God was..... However, also made clear that acknowledgement of
> that God, was to the greater good of the country........
Why would it be good at all? If money is the the god, it certainly
isn't the greatest good of all. Or if baseball is the god...
Stupid argument, Shea. Really dumb.
JV
There is another way to look at this that will end up saying even more.
Its in the 6th article
Article VI. Clause 3:
>The Senators and Representatives
>before mentioned, and the Members of
>the several State Legislatures, and all
>executive and judicial Officers, both of
>the United States and of the several States,
>shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
>support this Constitution; but no religious
>Test shall ever be required as a Qualification
>to any Office or public Trust under the
>United States.
If it is illegal to require a religious test of office holders, then it
is implied that laws and oaths created by these office holders should
also not have any religious tests. The pledge violates this by making a
religious declaration and implies a religious test for patriotism when
recited.
And notice "no religious test..UNDER THE US" We arent under God and the
constitution forbids us to declare that we are under God because that is
a religious declaration, which, in an oath is a religious test. Oaths
arent taken lightly except by the morons that wantn us to pledge to
things we dont believe. How stupid.
The first clause establishes that the Constitution is the supreme law of
the land. Under that Supreme law there shall not be any religious
tests. So we are under the religious neutral Constitution, not one of
the thousands of different gawdz.
Besides, the Gods of the religious forbid any other beliefs and
prescribe death for the wrong religion in the OT and eternal damnation
in the NT. That is quite contrary to our constitution.
We are under no Gods
THE MYTHS OF THE 1960s;
http://community-2.webtv.net/headbands/TheMythofthe1960s/
2 PEAS IN A POD: NAZIS & FUNDAMENTALISTS: THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT
HOMOSEXUALITY
http://community-2.webtv.net/headbands/NazisFundamentalism/
__________
THE MYTH-BUSTER PAGE; REFUTING COMMON BELIEFS
http://community-2.webtv.net/headbands/JVsMythBusterPage/
÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷
The Great Constitution of the United States of America
Article. VI. Clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United States.
÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷
AND WE LOVE ALTA, UTAH!!
Martin W. Smith
> 鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢
>
> The Great Constitution of the United States of America
>
> Article. VI. Clause 3:
>
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
> the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
> both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
> Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
> shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
> under the United States.
> 鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢鼢
>
> AND WE LOVE ALTA, UTAH!!
>
> http://community-2.webtv.net/headbands/gif/
--
Walter Scott
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/pledge.of.allegiance.reut/index.html
Pledge ban set for March 10 in nine states
Monday, March 3, 2003 Posted: 10:02 AM EST (1502 GMT)
SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- A ruling by a U.S.
appeals court could force millions of students to stop
reciting the Pledge of Allegiance within days if the
controversial decision is not overturned by a higher court,
legal experts said Saturday.
If the 9th Circuit's ruling is not stayed or reversed by March 10,
schools may have no choice but to ban the practice of conducting the
Pledge during official school activities.
In article <pgq56vgpbei6bdbe7...@4ax.com>, on Mon, 03
NTReader v0.37w(P)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Snake
>;[:On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 01:26:57 GMT, snak...@netscape.net (Snake)
>;[:wrote:
>;[:
>;[:>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:20:10 GMT, Shaun <sha...@sea.die.spammer.die.net.com> wrote:
>;[:>
>;[:>>;[:On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 00:51:01 -0800, "rimaldi" <rim...@msu.edu> wrote:
>;[:>>;[:
>;[:>>;[:>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 04:31:00 +0000, Keith Gormezano wrote:
>;[:>>;[:>
>;[:>>;[:>
>;[:>>;[:>>
>;[:>>;[:>> Keith Gormezano, a commie, pinko, short-haired, Seattle liberal who serves
>;[:>>;[:>> on a Selective Service (Draft) Board and who wants to put a bumper sticker
>;[:>>;[:>> on his Peugeot (an evil French) car that says "United We Stand" with the
>;[:>>;[:>> words "Against the War in Iraq" underneath it.
>;[:>>;[:>
>;[:>>;[:>Are you the same liar and fraud who pretended to be a successful
>;[:>>;[:>publisher? "Beacon Presse" or some such lying nonsense?
>;[:>>;[:
>;[:>>;[:
>;[:>>;[:Answer the salient point. Do the words Under God, inserted into the
>;[:>>;[:pledge in 1954, constitute Establishment of Religion or not?
>;[:>
>;[:> NO.
>;[:
>;[:Really? Care to try to explain why not?
Look up in this thread
>;[:
>;[:Shaun
>;[:--------------------------
>;[:
>;[:When George W. Bush said, "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom...."
>;[:
>;[:Who knew he meant it as a campaign promise?
Washington State
Larry Smith
"Martin W. Smith" <m...@computas.com> wrote in message
news:3E635FFD...@computas.com...
This is all soooo funny, and soooooo gratifying that the 9th Circuit has put
the issue at rest. Where is the screeching gun nut and theofascist Soyack?
Dana
news:p7676vg7fc3n6v89e...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:41:50 +0000 (UTC), 74276_...@COMPUSERVE.COM
> (Walter Scott) wrote:
>
> >
> >If the 9th Circuit's ruling is not stayed or reversed by March 10,
> >schools may have no choice but to ban the practice of conducting the
> >Pledge during official school activities.
Wrong. The decision is still under appeal.
And many school boards have already stated that the pledge will stay as it
is.
As the pledge does not force a religious belief, hence the separation
between church and state is still there.
Walter Scott
Go read the cited CNN news item so as to realize your perception,
Dana, is incorrect. DOJ asked the 9th Circuit to "reconsider" the
Newdow ruling. The 9th decided only Friday NOT to reconsider. There is
NO appeal pending at this time, although I expect DOJ will file and
that the 9th may well order a stay. But that's not here and now..
School boards and their decisions, made months ago before the 9th
Circuit had decided whether to reconsider the Newdow ruling,
do not trump a decision of the 9th Circuit. Washington state is
one of the several states in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction.
In article <v676n4k...@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:
No U.N., No War!
Carol Lee Smith
> > (Walter Scott) wrote:
> > >If the 9th Circuit's ruling is not stayed or reversed by March 10,
> > >schools may have no choice but to ban the practice of conducting the
> > >Pledge during official school activities.
> Wrong. The decision is still under appeal.
In what court?
> And many school boards have already stated that the pledge will stay as it
> is.
> As the pledge does not force a religious belief, hence the separation
> between church and state is still there.
Are you saying that "under god" doesn't promote monotheism?
Does "god" have anything to do with "religion" ?
Should governmental entities promote religion?
<<Any legal challenges will now go before the Supreme Court. Though
Ashcroft didn't say an appeal was certain, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals said it would not accept any other petitions in the case. >>
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2011537/detail.html
Shaun
wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 02:00:33 GMT, Shaun <sha...@sea.die.spammer.die.net.com> wrote:
>
>>;[:On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 01:26:57 GMT, snak...@netscape.net (Snake)
>>;[:wrote:
>>;[:
>>;[:>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:20:10 GMT, Shaun <sha...@sea.die.spammer.die.net.com> wrote:
>>;[:>
>>;[:>>;[:On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 00:51:01 -0800, "rimaldi" <rim...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>;[:>>;[:
>>;[:>>;[:>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 04:31:00 +0000, Keith Gormezano wrote:
>>;[:>>;[:>
>>;[:>>;[:>
>>;[:>>;[:>>
>>;[:>>;[:>> Keith Gormezano, a commie, pinko, short-haired, Seattle liberal who serves
>>;[:>>;[:>> on a Selective Service (Draft) Board and who wants to put a bumper sticker
>>;[:>>;[:>> on his Peugeot (an evil French) car that says "United We Stand" with the
>>;[:>>;[:>> words "Against the War in Iraq" underneath it.
>>;[:>>;[:>
>>;[:>>;[:>Are you the same liar and fraud who pretended to be a successful
>>;[:>>;[:>publisher? "Beacon Presse" or some such lying nonsense?
>>;[:>>;[:
>>;[:>>;[:
>>;[:>>;[:Answer the salient point. Do the words Under God, inserted into the
>>;[:>>;[:pledge in 1954, constitute Establishment of Religion or not?
>>;[:>
>>;[:> NO.
>>;[:
>>;[:Really? Care to try to explain why not?
>
> Look up in this thread
Guess not.
Walter Scott
To augment: The 9th Circuit could stay the effect of its ruling but
more than likely will not. Any stay would most likely come from the
U.S. Supreme Court at the request of DOJ and in contemplation of
hearing an appeal. Such stay may not be ordered before March 10th.
In article <b407jn$t4e$2...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com> , on Mon, 3 Mar
2003 18:40:57 +0000 (UTC), 74276_...@COMPUSERVE.COM (Walter Scott)
wrote:
> Go read the cited CNN news item so as to realize your perception,
> Dana, is incorrect. DOJ asked the 9th Circuit to "reconsider" the
> Newdow ruling. The 9th decided only Friday NOT to reconsider. There is
> NO appeal pending at this time, although I expect DOJ will file and
> that the 9th may well order a stay. But that's not here and now..
> School boards and their decisions, made months ago before the 9th
> Circuit had decided whether to reconsider the Newdow ruling,
> do not trump a decision of the 9th Circuit. Washington state is
> one of the several states in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction.
>
> In article <v676n4k...@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:
> 26:47 -0900, "Dana" <your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH -DAH> wrote:
>
> > <vpol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:p7676vg7fc3n6v89e...@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:41:50 +0000 (UTC), 74276_...@COMPUSERVE.COM
> > > (Walter Scott) wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If the 9th Circuit's ruling is not stayed or reversed by March 10,
> > > > schools may have no choice but to ban the practice of conducting the
> > > > Pledge during official school activities.
> >
> > Wrong. The decision is still under appeal.
> > And many school boards have already stated that the pledge will stay as it
> > is.
> > As the pledge does not force a religious belief, hence the separation
> > between church and state is still there.
NTReader v0.37w(P)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Shea F. Kenny
<m...@computas.com> wrote:
>Stupid argument, Shea. Really dumb.
And I've made it even dumber......
No matter what one's SENSIBLE argument is in defining God, it
all boils down to one fundamental definition. "An eternal body of
guiding moral principles........"
So. When one says "Under God", one is simply saying "Under an
eternal body of guiding moral principles".
Or, "One nation, under an eternal body of guiding moral
principles". Or, God. And the difference in wording isn't worth
sputtering about because God can be defined to suit any belief......
And God planned it that way.... It's a consequence of infinite
wisdom......
/\
\__/
Carol Lee Smith
> >Stupid argument, Shea. Really dumb.
> And I've made it even dumber......
You won't get any argument about that.
> No matter what one's SENSIBLE argument is in defining God, it
> all boils down to one fundamental definition. "An eternal body of
> guiding moral principles........"
Based upon what?
> So. When one says "Under God", one is simply saying "Under an
> eternal body of guiding moral principles".
Where is that written?
> Or, "One nation, under an eternal body of guiding moral
> principles". Or, God. And the difference in wording isn't worth
> sputtering about because God can be defined to suit any belief......
How convenient.
> And God planned it that way.... It's a consequence of infinite
> wisdom......
Sounds like infinite obfuscation to me.
Dana
news:b407jn$t4e$2...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>
>
>
> Go read the cited CNN news item so as to realize your perception,
> Dana, is incorrect. DOJ asked the 9th Circuit to "reconsider" the
> Newdow ruling. The 9th decided only Friday NOT to reconsider. There is
> NO appeal pending at this time, although I expect DOJ will file and
> that the 9th may well order a stay. But that's not here and now..
> School boards and their decisions, made months ago before the 9th
> Circuit had decided whether to reconsider the Newdow ruling,
> do not trump a decision of the 9th Circuit. Washington state is
> one of the several states in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction.
But since it will be appealed, there will be no effect from this. As it
stands there is also the question if the original case had any merit, as
Newdow does not have custody of the child, nor is the child harmed by what
Newdow has said she was being harmed by.
Last year it was bought out that Newdow's motive was for him and not his
daughter. Who happens to be a christian, and is being raised in a christian
environment by her mother. And it was also bought out last year that Newdow
did not inform the mother or child that he was bringing a case to court over
his daughter.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79923,00.html
It was not immediately clear when the ban might take effect for the millions
of public school students in those states: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Appellate rulings
take several weeks to take effect, to give each side an opportunity to
appeal.
Dana
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103030...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Dana wrote:
>
> > > (Walter Scott) wrote:
>
> > > >If the 9th Circuit's ruling is not stayed or reversed by March 10,
> > > >schools may have no choice but to ban the practice of conducting the
> > > >Pledge during official school activities.
>
> > Wrong. The decision is still under appeal.
>
> In what court?
Here I have been corrected. It is not under appeal yet, but more than likely
it will be appealed.
>
> > And many school boards have already stated that the pledge will stay as
it
> > is.
> > As the pledge does not force a religious belief, hence the separation
> > between church and state is still there.
>
> Are you saying that "under god" doesn't promote monotheism?
It is neutral as used in the pledge. It can promote whatever you as an
individual thinks it promotes. But it is by no means an endorsement of
religion or any religion by the federal or state governments.
That phrase in the pledge is no more religious than the first paragraphs of
the Declaration Of Independence.
>
> Does "god" have anything to do with "religion" ?
It may or may not. Depends on how and in what context the word is being
used.
The word "god" by itself does not imply religion.
When a person says god damn it. What exactly is this person saying. And many
atheists themselves use this phrase.
>
> Should governmental entities promote religion?
Of course not. Yet your side has failed to prove that the government is
promoting any religion. A lot of schools do promote secular humanism, when
will you be complaining about that.
>
Dana
news:buh76vccq2e03ncdq...@4ax.com...
Well said.
I do not know why people cannot grasp this simple point.
Our founders had the same belief, but in the Declaration of Independence
they use the word Creator instead of God.
>
>
> /\
> \__/
Dana
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103030...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
> > >Stupid argument, Shea. Really dumb.
>
> > And I've made it even dumber......
>
> You won't get any argument about that.
>
> > No matter what one's SENSIBLE argument is in defining God, it
> > all boils down to one fundamental definition. "An eternal body of
> > guiding moral principles........"
>
> Based upon what?
Society.
>
> > So. When one says "Under God", one is simply saying "Under an
> > eternal body of guiding moral principles".
>
> Where is that written?
Common sense.
Where is it written that you should not touch a very hot stove, or place
your tounge on a frozen metal object.
>
> > Or, "One nation, under an eternal body of guiding moral
> > principles". Or, God. And the difference in wording isn't worth
> > sputtering about because God can be defined to suit any belief......
>
> How convenient.
>
> > And God planned it that way.... It's a consequence of infinite
> > wisdom......
>
> Sounds like infinite obfuscation to me.
Sounds like you are in denial.
Or that you want to force your beliefs on everyone else.
>
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > Wrong. The decision is still under appeal.
> > In what court?
> Here I have been corrected. It is not under appeal yet, but more than likely
> it will be appealed.
> > > And many school boards have already stated that the pledge will stay as
> it is.
> > > As the pledge does not force a religious belief, hence the separation
> > > between church and state is still there.
> > Are you saying that "under god" doesn't promote monotheism?
> It is neutral as used in the pledge.
If the pledge said something along these lines: "one godless nation,
indivisible ... " would that be neutral?
I don't think so. Between that extreme--one godless nation--and one
nation under god, lies neutrality. To suggest that "under god" is neutral
regarding religion is quite interesting.
> It can promote whatever you as an
> individual thinks it promotes.
The Ninth Circuit decision has to do with school children--public school
children. Do y ou think your argument makes sense in light of that?
> But it is by no means an endorsement of
> religion or any religion by the federal or state governments.
It most certainly is an endorsement of monotheism, unless you are arguing
that this particular god mentioned in the pledge has nothing to do with
religion.
> That phrase in the pledge is no more religious than the first paragraphs of
> the Declaration Of Independence.
Do the first paragraphs of the DoI say "under god" ?
> > Does "god" have anything to do with "religion" ?
> It may or may not. Depends on how and in what context the word is being
> used.
This decision has to do with children. Your argument is not one which has
much relevance in this situation.
> The word "god" by itself does not imply religion.
> When a person says god damn it. What exactly is this person saying. And many
> atheists themselves use this phrase.
Are you equating "under god" in the pledge with "goddamnit" ?
That is certainly an argument the Ninth Circuit Court did not consider.
> > Should governmental entities promote religion?
> Of course not. Yet your side has failed to prove that the government is
> promoting any religion. A lot of schools do promote secular humanism, when
> will you be complaining about that.
The Ninth Circuit Court certainly addressed the fact that "under god" was
unconstitutional.
You have yet to prove that any secular school promotes secular humanism.
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > No matter what one's SENSIBLE argument is in defining God, it
> > > all boils down to one fundamental definition. "An eternal body of
> > > guiding moral principles........"
> > Based upon what?
> Society.
Exactly.
A pluralistic society.
With absolutely no agreement on what is "moral."
> > > So. When one says "Under God", one is simply saying "Under an
> > > eternal body of guiding moral principles".
> > Where is that written?
> Common sense.
Common Sense? By Thomas Paine?
> Where is it written that you should not touch a very hot stove, or place
> your tounge on a frozen metal object.
> > > Or, "One nation, under an eternal body of guiding moral
> > > principles". Or, God. And the difference in wording isn't worth
> > > sputtering about because God can be defined to suit any belief......
> > How convenient.
> > > And God planned it that way.... It's a consequence of infinite
> > > wisdom......
> > Sounds like infinite obfuscation to me.
> Sounds like you are in denial.
> Or that you want to force your beliefs on everyone else.
And just what belief(s) do you think I am trying to force on everyone?
Governmental neutrality in matters of religion?
Why do you think that reverting to the pledge as originally written is
forcing my beliefs on anyone?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I believe in the United States of America as a government of the peopl,>
by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the
consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of
many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established
upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for
which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
"I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support
its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it
against all enemies."
This creed was the winner of a contest sponsored by Congress in 1917. It
was written by William Tyler Page and read into the Congressional Record
by the House of Reps. on April 3, 1918.
"We the People"
http://www.fact-think.com
Walter Scott
Vpolitico points out that DOJ cannot appeal the decision in the
Michael Newdow case because DOJ is not an original party to the Newdow
case. But Vpolitico misses or does not address several important facts
and issues. First, DOJ has both the right and obligation to defend any
federal statute and may not be locked out of that task simply because
it was not an original party.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/pledge.of.allegiance.reut/index.html
The court's decision rejected the pleas and immediately drew
criticism from U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. "The
Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the
rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the
American flag," Ashcroft said. "We will defend the ability of
Americans to declare their patriotism through the
time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge."
Secondly, the DOJ has "backdoor" access to this case. More on this
second fact below. Third, while the normal process in trying a case
limits litigation to the parties immediately involved, the Newdow case
is complicated by the fact that case may have been decided on improper
ground and without all interested parties. Newdow filed a complaint as
a parent seeking remedy for himself as to his daughter who recited the
Pledge of Allegiance each schoolday that she was in attendance at
school. Newdow's complaint, although not stating that his daughter had
been forced to recite the Pledge or that Newdow had standing as a
parent to have some influence on his child's upbringing, was
considered by the 3-judge panel who decided the case under the
assumption that parentage was an issue and based their ruling in part
on Newdow's parental rights which, if he were a custodial parent or a
parent with sufficient standing to have at least some control over the
raising of his daughter, would mitigate in Newdow's favor. Yet,
Michael Newdow is a NON-custodial parent.
The mother, Sandra Banning, who has full custody, was never informed
of Newdow's complaint and its progress on through to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals. Only after the 9th Circuit's ruling last June did
Banning become aware of the case when she sought reconsideration en
banc and the opportunity to intervene as an interested party. In the
end, and as the custodial parent that Michael Newdow is not, she may
have greater or exclusive rights of parentage as they apply to whether
there may be some grievance to address over her daughter's recitation
of the Pledge of Allegiance. THAT, and whether the 9th Circuit's
ruling can stand muster on the merits of issues that do not depend on
Newdow's parental rights, will be for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide
or remand back to either the 9th Circuit or to the original court
where this matter was first tried. And anyone who believes the
Supremes will ignore this case so believes in error.
Last August, the DOJ filed a request with the 9th Circuit to
reconsider the ruling of its 3-judge panel in the Newdow case. Nothing
explicit was reported or admitted. But it was all too clear that
Banning's intervention, if allowed, would receive aid from DOJ.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/10/pledge.of.allegiance/
She said Banning is "thrilled" about a Justice Department
appeal of the ruling, filed Friday, which requests a
rehearing of the case by the entire 11-judge panel.
At this time, it's equally clear that, even though there has been no
explicit announcement from Banning or DOJ, there likely will be no
daylight between the two in terms of how Banning's appeal will be
delivered. And, as you note, Vpolitico, there is always the Amicus
route.
In article <p3j76voalorcmfg1d...@4ax.com> on Mon, 03 Mar
2003 21:43:47 GMT, vpol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:40:57 +0000 (UTC), 74276_...@COMPUSERVE.COM
> (Walter Scott) wrote:
>
> > Go read the cited CNN news item so as to realize your perception,
> > Dana, is incorrect. DOJ asked the 9th Circuit to "reconsider" the
> > Newdow ruling. The 9th decided only Friday NOT to reconsider. There is
> > NO appeal pending at this time, although I expect DOJ will file and
> > that the 9th may well order a stay.
>
> The DOJ cannot appeal, they were not a party. If a party appeals they
> can join in as a "friend of the court".
Dana
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Dana wrote:
>
> > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > > Wrong. The decision is still under appeal.
>
> > > In what court?
>
> > Here I have been corrected. It is not under appeal yet, but more than
likely
> > it will be appealed.
>
> > > > And many school boards have already stated that the pledge will stay
as
> > it is.
>
> > > > As the pledge does not force a religious belief, hence the
separation
> > > > between church and state is still there.
>
> > > Are you saying that "under god" doesn't promote monotheism?
>
> > It is neutral as used in the pledge.
>
> If the pledge said something along these lines: "one godless nation,
> indivisible ... " would that be neutral?
Nope.
>
> I don't think so. Between that extreme--one godless nation--and one
> nation under god, lies neutrality. To suggest that "under god" is neutral
> regarding religion is quite interesting.
As it does not specify any religion, nor is it intended to, it is considered
religious neutral. No different than the use of Creator in our Declaration
of Independence.
>
> > It can promote whatever you as an
> > individual thinks it promotes.
>
> The Ninth Circuit decision has to do with school children--public school
> children. Do y ou think your argument makes sense in light of that?
The 9th circuit court decision, as many of their decisions makes no sense.
But to answer your question, yes my argument makes sense in regards to the
school children. Especially when you realize that the child in question of
the 9th circuit court case is indeed herself a Christian, and has claimed
she is not harmed by saying the pledge in school. And that neither her or
her mother, who is the legal and sole guardian of the child did not know
that Newdow had filed the case in court.
There is now a legal question in regards to the standing on which the case
began.
>
> > But it is by no means an endorsement of
> > religion or any religion by the federal or state governments.
>
> It most certainly is an endorsement of monotheism,
Not.
>unless you are arguing
> that this particular god mentioned in the pledge has nothing to do with
> religion.
Just as the use of "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, God as used
in the pledge is religious neutral.
>
> > That phrase in the pledge is no more religious than the first paragraphs
of
> > the Declaration Of Independence.
>
> Do the first paragraphs of the DoI say "under god" ?
They claim a Creator, which is the same as using the word god.
>
> > > Does "god" have anything to do with "religion" ?
>
> > It may or may not. Depends on how and in what context the word is being
> > used.
>
> This decision has to do with children.
So. The child in question is a Christian, and she is not harmed by the
pledge.
So just what legal standing is Newdow trying to argue from. His whole case
since it is based on his daughter, has no merit. For starters he is not her
legal custodian, she herself is a Christian, and she is not harmed by the
pledge. So his whole case is bunk.
>
> > The word "god" by itself does not imply religion.
>
> > When a person says god damn it. What exactly is this person saying. And
many
> > atheists themselves use this phrase.
>
> Are you equating "under god" in the pledge with "goddamnit" ?
The word "god", is used in both contexts. So what is it implying. Well that
would all depend on the person.
The more I read your posts, the more it seems you are just bigoted against
Christians.
>
> That is certainly an argument the Ninth Circuit Court did not consider.
>
> > > Should governmental entities promote religion?
>
> > Of course not. Yet your side has failed to prove that the government is
> > promoting any religion. A lot of schools do promote secular humanism,
when
> > will you be complaining about that.
>
> The Ninth Circuit Court certainly addressed the fact that "under god" was
> unconstitutional.
And they are not the last word. As they have been overturned many times in
the past, they will again on this.
>
> You have yet to prove that any secular school promotes secular humanism.
Every day, in almost every public school. Read up on Dewey. He was the
driving force for humanism in public education in the 20th century. Dewey's
influence on public education was enormous. He was the leader of the
"progressive education movement" in America, and his theories became their
bible."4 Dewey hated Christianity. He was an avowed atheist and a board
member of the American Humanist Association when it created Humanist
Manifesto I.
Jeff Strickland
> Answer the salient point. Do the words Under God, inserted into the
> pledge in 1954, constitute Establishment of Religion or not?
No, they do not.
Dana
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Dana wrote:
>
> > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > > No matter what one's SENSIBLE argument is in defining God, it
> > > > all boils down to one fundamental definition. "An eternal body of
> > > > guiding moral principles........"
>
> > > Based upon what?
>
> > Society.
>
> Exactly.
>
> A pluralistic society.
>
> With absolutely no agreement on what is "moral."
Except for those in prison, most of us agree with what is moral.
I think we are all in agreement to say that murder, stealing, raping, child
abuse are wrong.
Where it gets a bit vague is for actions like infindelity, at what age
should be the legal age for sexual relations, etc. But still most agree on
all the basic premises, that if you are married it is wrong to cheat on your
spouse, that there needs to be an age of when a person is legally
responsible for their actions, or when they are legally thought of as being
of the age to engage in sexual activity.
The reason why I bring this up, is the left leaning group NAMBLA wants to
lower the age of consent.
But all in all, society is pretty much in agreement of what is right and
wrong. And in a place like America where you have so many different
religious beliefs, that is really an amazing fact.
>
> > > > So. When one says "Under God", one is simply saying "Under an
> > > > eternal body of guiding moral principles".
>
> > > Where is that written?
>
> > Common sense.
>
> Common Sense? By Thomas Paine?
HA HA. But that is a good read.
>
> > Where is it written that you should not touch a very hot stove, or place
> > your tounge on a frozen metal object.
>
> > > > Or, "One nation, under an eternal body of guiding moral
> > > > principles". Or, God. And the difference in wording isn't worth
> > > > sputtering about because God can be defined to suit any belief......
>
> > > How convenient.
>
> > > > And God planned it that way.... It's a consequence of infinite
> > > > wisdom......
>
> > > Sounds like infinite obfuscation to me.
>
> > Sounds like you are in denial.
> > Or that you want to force your beliefs on everyone else.
>
> And just what belief(s) do you think I am trying to force on everyone?
It is obvious that you are a secular humanist.
>
> Governmental neutrality in matters of religion?
We already have that.
>
> Why do you think that reverting to the pledge as originally written is
> forcing my beliefs on anyone?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "I believe in the United States of America as a government of the peopl,>
> by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the
> consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of
> many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established
> upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for
> which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
>
> "I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support
> its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it
> against all enemies."
>
> This creed was the winner of a contest sponsored by Congress in 1917. It
> was written by William Tyler Page and read into the Congressional Record
> by the House of Reps. on April 3, 1918.
And it is very well written. To bad America is no longer like that. And that
around about the time of the New Deal, America ceased being a republic, and
instead became more like a direct democracy, with most of the powers
concentrated at teh federal level.
But there are people like you and I who hopefully we change course again,
and revert back to the original course our founders envisioned. While you
and I may never agreee on all issues, it seems we have the same goals in
mind in regards to the federal government.
Jeff Strickland
> The set of religions in question includes, but is not limited to,
> Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Atheism. Two of these
> religions, Buddhism and Atheism, include the belief that there is no
> god. Therefore, including the words "under God" in the e plebb neesta
> do establish religion to the extent that they imply that one or more of
> the religions in the set of religions that include the belief that there
> is a God can be correct, while at the same time implying that Buddhism
> and Atheism cannot be correct. Therefore, the words "under God" in the
> Pledge contribute to the establishment of religion, which is prohibited
> by the Constitution.
>
Doesn't an establishment of religion set one religion above the others?
The Founding Fathers NEVER intended for government to deny that religion
exists, not that government deny that a majority of its population practices
religion in one form or another. They, the Founding Fathers (more precisely,
the states), were very concerned that government (the federal government)
would ever define which religion we should follow. They were also concerned
that government troops would round up the citizens and herd them off to
religious services. We have a freedom of religion to practice any religion
we want, and we enjoy the free exercise thereof so that we can attend church
serivces, or not. (It was the states that demanded the Bill of Rights to
protect the citizens from an omnipowerful federal government.)
The Pledge does nothing to establish religion, nor does it infringe our
right to freely exercise our religion, whatever that religion may be. Even
if that religion is to recognize or practice no religion.
Walter Scott
I don't believe it is accurate, Dana, to state that "since it will be
appealed, there will be no effect from this." There is the March 10th
deadline to get an appeal filed along with a request for a stay order.
That takes time -- maybe, and I stress **MAYBE**, more time than
Banning and DOJ will have to throw something together. Of course, they
may have already built their case in the months intervening between
late June of last year and now. If they have, and if they file quickly,
I expect the Supremes to issue a stay order. We're in agreement as to
the rest of your comments and citations.
In article <v67k2id...@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:
14:45 -0900, "Dana" <your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH -DAH> wrote:
> "Walter Scott" <74276_...@COMPUSERVE.COM> wrote in message
> news:b407jn$t4e$2...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > Go read the cited CNN news item so as to realize your perception,
> > Dana, is incorrect. DOJ asked the 9th Circuit to "reconsider" the
> > Newdow ruling. The 9th decided only Friday NOT to reconsider. There is
> > NO appeal pending at this time, although I expect DOJ will file and
> > that the 9th may well order a stay. But that's not here and now..
> > School boards and their decisions, made months ago before the 9th
> > Circuit had decided whether to reconsider the Newdow ruling,
> > do not trump a decision of the 9th Circuit. Washington state is
> > one of the several states in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction.
>
> But since it will be appealed, there will be no effect from this. As it
> stands there is also the question if the original case had any merit, as
> Newdow does not have custody of the child, nor is the child harmed by what
> Newdow has said she was being harmed by.
> Last year it was bought out that Newdow's motive was for him and not his
> daughter. Who happens to be a christian, and is being raised in a christian
> environment by her mother. And it was also bought out last year that Newdow
> did not inform the mother or child that he was bringing a case to court over
> his daughter.
No U.N., No War!
Walter Scott
Correction: Newdow stated, in his original complaint, that he was a
parent with standing and a custodial parent -- the latter being a
blatant lie insomuch as a February 6, 2002 order had assigned all
custodial rights to Sandra Banning. On September 25th of last year,
Newdow was enjoined from claiming representation for his daughter
after which he amended his original complaint to reflect that his
standing is that of a non-custodial parent with inherent rights
attached theerto.
In article <b40ruf$sn0$2...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>, on Tue, 4 Mar 2003
00:28:02 +0000 (UTC), 74276_...@COMPUSERVE.COM (Walter Scott)
wrote:
> Newdow's complaint, although not stating that his daughter had
> been forced to recite the Pledge or that Newdow had standing as a
> parent to have some influence on his child's upbringing, was
> considered by the 3-judge panel who decided the case under the
> assumption that parentage was an issue and based their ruling in part
> on Newdow's parental rights which, if he were a custodial parent or a
> parent with sufficient standing to have at least some control over the
> raising of his daughter, would mitigate in Newdow's favor. Yet,
> Michael Newdow is a NON-custodial parent.
NTReader v0.37w(P)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Walter Scott
Your assessment simply is not correct, Dana. The 1st Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any law respecting
or establishing any religion. Congress, in 1954, clearly amended the
Pledge of Allegiance to create a distinction between the "Godless"
societies of the Soviet Bloc and the "God-inspired" American society
of that time. There's just no way to argue the amendment of the Pledge
was not for a religious purpose or initiated with religion mind.
In article <v67st18...@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:
45:25 -0900, "Dana" <your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH -DAH> wrote:
> > I don't think so. Between that extreme--one godless nation--and one
> > nation under god, lies neutrality. To suggest that "under god" is neutral
> > regarding religion is quite interesting.
>
> As it does not specify any religion, nor is it intended to, it is considered
> religious neutral. No different than the use of Creator in our Declaration
> of Independence.
No U.N., No War!
Shaun
<pent...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 10:03:28 +0100, "Martin W. Smith"
><m...@computas.com> wrote:
>>Stupid argument, Shea. Really dumb.
>
> And I've made it even dumber......
Seems pretty likely....
>
> No matter what one's SENSIBLE argument is in defining God, it
>all boils down to one fundamental definition. "An eternal body of
>guiding moral principles........"
>
> So. When one says "Under God", one is simply saying "Under an
>eternal body of guiding moral principles".
>
> Or, "One nation, under an eternal body of guiding moral
>principles". Or, God. And the difference in wording isn't worth
>sputtering about because God can be defined to suit any belief......
>
> And God planned it that way.... It's a consequence of infinite
>wisdom......
Yep, you definitely made it dumber....
Shaun
<your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH-DAH> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Sounds like you are in denial.
>Or that you want to force your beliefs on everyone else.
So, using the phrase "Under God" - which was inserted in 1954 BTW -
isn't forcing a belief in "God" on those who don't believe, but
reverting to a nonreligious version of the Pledge *is* forcing a
belief?
Let me guess, you're also one of the War is Peace types....
Shaun
<your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH-DAH> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Governmental neutrality in matters of religion?
>
>We already have that.
Really? Forcing someone to recite "Under God" is neutrality in
religion?
Shaun
<snip>
Shaun
Don't know much history, eh? Sad...
Shaun
Shaun
wrote:
Being forced to recite "Under God" recognizes the practice of no
religion?
Shaun
wrote:
>>
>> Answer the salient point. Do the words Under God, inserted into the
>> pledge in 1954, constitute Establishment of Religion or not?
>
>No, they do not.
Care to try to explain why not?
Shaun
Martin W. Smith
>
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 10:03:28 +0100, "Martin W. Smith"
> <m...@computas.com> wrote:
> >Stupid argument, Shea. Really dumb.
>
> And I've made it even dumber......
>
> No matter what one's SENSIBLE argument is in defining God, it
> all boils down to one fundamental definition. "An eternal body of
> guiding moral principles........"
>
> So. When one says "Under God", one is simply saying "Under an
> eternal body of guiding moral principles".
God does not refer to an "eternal body of guiding moral principles."
God refers to (in esp. Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief) the being
which made the universe, the Earth and its people and is believed to
have an effect on all things. That is from the Cambridge International
dictionary. Another meaning from that same dictionary is: a spirit or
being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often
worshipped for doing so, or a representation of the being. Neither of
those definitions mentions morality. God does.
You're right. You made your argument dumber.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: m...@computas.com
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
Martin W. Smith
Yes, well said. You and he both invalidated his argument with your
closing remarks.
Martin W. Smith
>
> >
> > The set of religions in question includes, but is not limited to,
> > Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Atheism. Two of these
> > religions, Buddhism and Atheism, include the belief that there is no
> > god. Therefore, including the words "under God" in the e plebb neesta
> > do establish religion to the extent that they imply that one or more of
> > the religions in the set of religions that include the belief that there
> > is a God can be correct, while at the same time implying that Buddhism
> > and Atheism cannot be correct. Therefore, the words "under God" in the
> > Pledge contribute to the establishment of religion, which is prohibited
> > by the Constitution.
> >
>
> Doesn't an establishment of religion set one religion above the others?
It could, but only if you define religion to be a finished, unalterable
set of beliefs. Fundamentalists all define their religions that way,
but no one else does. So establishment of religion means forcing people
down one branch of the tree or another, in this case, it means forcing
everybody down the branch of the tree where all religions have a God.
Some religions don't have a God, so passing a law mandating the words
"under God" be added to the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional.
It violates the first ammendment, because it validates the religions
that contain a belief in God and invalidates the religions that do not.
Shea F. Kenny
wrote:
>Based upon what?
Do you even know what your question is based upon? I doubt it.
So, it's pretty difficult to discuss philosophy with someone that
ignorant. I'll give you a hint though... It's based upon some moral
assumption that you're hiding. Uhm.. Well, not revealing.......
>
>> So. When one says "Under God", one is simply saying "Under an
>> eternal body of guiding moral principles".
>
>Where is that written?
Because that's what most people believe God is.......
>
>> Or, "One nation, under an eternal body of guiding moral
>> principles". Or, God. And the difference in wording isn't worth
>> sputtering about because God can be defined to suit any belief......
>
>How convenient.
So, you're un-willing to pledge allegiance to one nation,
under an eternal body of guiding moral principles?
>
>> And God planned it that way.... It's a consequence of infinite
>> wisdom......
>
>Sounds like infinite obfuscation to me.
It would to someone easily foncused.....;-)
/\
\__/
Shea F. Kenny
<m...@computas.com> wrote:
>God does not refer to an "eternal body of guiding moral principles."
>God refers to (in esp. Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief) the being
>which made the universe, the Earth and its people and is believed to
>have an effect on all things. That is from the Cambridge International
>dictionary. Another meaning from that same dictionary is: a spirit or
>being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often
>worshipped for doing so, or a representation of the being. Neither of
>those definitions mentions morality. God does.
>
>You're right. You made your argument dumber.
Interesting how liberals will always scurry to the traditional
when things get un-comfortable for them.
Sir. Religious people have always looked to "God", for moral
guidance. To them, it IS an eternal body of moral principles and
guidance. So, God truly can be whatever you want it to be. As long as
you seek some sort of wisdom from it, it's God. At least to you...
So, no one is pushing any sort of religion on anyone. And I
doubt anyone but a decided few could argue there's no such thing as
eternal moral principles.
And unless you want to look very, very stupid and very, very
easily, don't argue that last point......
/\
\__/
Martin W. Smith
> Sir. Religious people have always looked to "God", for moral
> guidance.
I don't know. But it is irrelevant. We're not talking about morals.
We're talking about God.
> To them, it IS an eternal body of moral principles and
> guidance.
No, in each of the God-oriented religions listed, Christianity, Islam,
and Judaism, God is the supreme being that is omniscient, omnipotent,
and the creator of the universe. Your position is dead. You can
construct an opposing argument, but this one is dead.
Carol Lee Smith
> Vpolitico points out that DOJ cannot appeal the decision
(Donald Wildmon commentary below)
Calif. District to Take Pledge Fight to Top Court
Mon March 3, 2003 06:12 PM ET
By Michael Kahn
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The California school district at the
center of a legal battle over the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance
said on Monday it will seek a stay of an appeals court decision
striking the words "Under God" from the pledge until the issue can be
decided by the Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday affirmed an earlier
ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, setting
the stage for a Supreme Court showdown over whether the words "Under
God" breach the wall separating church and state.
Under the 9th circuit ruling, starting March 10 it will be illegal
for schoolchildren in nine Western states to recite the pledge
because of the phrase.
California's Elk Grove Unified School District, where the legal
battle over the pledge began, will ask for a stay of the decision
while it fights the case in the U.S. Supreme Court, Superintendent
Dave Gordon said on Monday.
He added if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refuses to grant the
stay, the district will comply with the ruling and not have children
recite the pledge. Instead, the district will substitute patriotic
songs, poems and other exercises.
"We are asking the 9th circuit to continue the stay ... pending our
request for the Supreme Court to hear the case," Gordon said, adding
attorneys would ask for a decision by Thursday.
The Justice Department had joined the Bush administration, the U.S.
Congress, State of California and others in asking the 9th circuit to
reconsider its June 26, 2002 ruling.
A three-member panel had ruled 2-1 in a lawsuit brought by a
California atheist who sued on behalf of his daughter that the phrase
violated the separation of church and state because it appeared to
endorse religion.
Michael Newdow, an atheist, conceded that his eight-year-old daughter
was not required to recite the pledge at her elementary school in Elk
Grove, California, but said she was nevertheless hurt by having
to "watch and listen."
That decision sparked a wide anger. The liberal court was accused of
taking a hammer to one of the pillars of U.S. civic society and
bowing to political correctness run amok. President Bush called the
decision "ridiculous," while the U.S. Senate voted 99-0 for a
resolution expressing support for the pledge.
After the court on Friday stood by its June ruling, U.S. Attorney
General John Ashcroft said the Justice Department would "spare no
effort" to defend the pledge -- presumably by an appeal to the
nation's highest court.
---------------
And this is what Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman of the American Family
Association has to say about it:
Tuesday, March 4, 2003
Court Ruling Bans 9.6 Million School Children From Saying The Pledge of
Allegiance
Dear One Million Dads member,
The February 28 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco means it is now illegal for 9.6 million school children to
recite the Pledge of
Allegiance! The judge who is responsible for the ruling says he will not
listen to the outcry of the public. ...
Already, it is illegal for 9.6 million school children in the states of
Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington
to recite the pledge. Act today before it becomes illegal for every school
child in America! Our inaction could mean that no student anywhere would
be able to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. ...
Carol Lee Smith
> > > > Are you saying that "under god" doesn't promote monotheism?
> > > It is neutral as used in the pledge.
> > If the pledge said something along these lines: "one godless nation,
> > indivisible ... " would that be neutral?
> Nope.
> > I don't think so. Between that extreme--one godless nation--and one
> > nation under god, lies neutrality. To suggest that "under god" is neutral
> > regarding religion is quite interesting.
> As it does not specify any religion, nor is it intended to, it is considered
> religious neutral. No different than the use of Creator in our Declaration
> of Independence.
The DoI was written before the Constitution. No document written after
the Constitution should contain "creator" verbiage.
"Under god" is not religiously neutral. It promotes monotheism.
> > > It can promote whatever you as an
> > > individual thinks it promotes.
> > The Ninth Circuit decision has to do with school children--public school
> > children. Do y ou think your argument makes sense in light of that?
> The 9th circuit court decision, as many of their decisions makes no sense.
> But to answer your question, yes my argument makes sense in regards to the
> school children. Especially when you realize that the child in question of
> the 9th circuit court case is indeed herself a Christian, and has claimed
> she is not harmed by saying the pledge in school. And that neither her or
> her mother, who is the legal and sole guardian of the child did not know
> that Newdow had filed the case in court.
> There is now a legal question in regards to the standing on which the case
> began.
The ruling did not take into consideration the religion of the mother, the
religion of the child or the religion of the father who brought the case.
I thought the question of Newdow's standing to bring the suit had been
settled.
> > > But it is by no means an endorsement of
> > > religion or any religion by the federal or state governments.
> > It most certainly is an endorsement of monotheism,
> Not.
How so?
By your reasoning, the god in "under god" is not a monotheistic god?
> >unless you are arguing
> > that this particular god mentioned in the pledge has nothing to do with
> > religion.
> Just as the use of "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, God as used
> in the pledge is religious neutral.
There was no neutrality standard before the Constitution.
> > > That phrase in the pledge is no more religious than the first paragraphs
> of the Declaration Of Independence.
> > Do the first paragraphs of the DoI say "under god" ?
> They claim a Creator, which is the same as using the word god.
See above.
> > > > Does "god" have anything to do with "religion" ?
> > > It may or may not. Depends on how and in what context the word is being
> > > used.
> > This decision has to do with children.
> So. The child in question is a Christian, and she is not harmed by the
> pledge.
See above.
> So just what legal standing is Newdow trying to argue from. His whole case
> since it is based on his daughter, has no merit. For starters he is not her
> legal custodian, she herself is a Christian, and she is not harmed by the
> pledge. So his whole case is bunk.
I think perhaps a reading of the decision is in order.
> > > The word "god" by itself does not imply religion.
> > > When a person says god damn it. What exactly is this person saying. And
> > > many atheists themselves use this phrase.
> > Are you equating "under god" in the pledge with "goddamnit" ?
> The word "god", is used in both contexts. So what is it implying. Well that
> would all depend on the person.
> The more I read your posts, the more it seems you are just bigoted against
> Christians.
Give an example of bigotry against Christians in my posts.
> > That is certainly an argument the Ninth Circuit Court did not consider.
> > > > Should governmental entities promote religion?
> > > Of course not. Yet your side has failed to prove that the government is
> > > promoting any religion. A lot of schools do promote secular humanism,
> > > when will you be complaining about that.
> > The Ninth Circuit Court certainly addressed the fact that "under god" was
> > unconstitutional.
> And they are not the last word. As they have been overturned many times in
> the past, they will again on this.
That may be so. It will be interesting to see how they rule in a manner
opposite to how they have ruled in the past--the Supremes, I mean.
> > You have yet to prove that any secular school promotes secular humanism.
> Every day, in almost every public school. Read up on Dewey. He was the
> driving force for humanism in public education in the 20th century. Dewey's
> influence on public education was enormous. He was the leader of the
> "progressive education movement" in America, and his theories became their
> bible."4 Dewey hated Christianity. He was an avowed atheist and a board
> member of the American Humanist Association when it created Humanist
> Manifesto I.
The Humanist Manifesto was written in 1933.
The AHA was not formed until 1941.
About 16 of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto I were Unitarian
Ministers, including Lester Mondale, the brother of the ex-VP, the only
surviving signer.
You have given no examples of humanism in public education.
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Dana wrote:
> > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > > > No matter what one's SENSIBLE argument is in defining God, it
> > > > > all boils down to one fundamental definition. "An eternal body of
> > > > > guiding moral principles........"
> > > > Based upon what?
> > > Society.
> > Exactly.
> > A pluralistic society.
> > With absolutely no agreement on what is "moral."
> Except for those in prison, most of us agree with what is moral.
Do you really believe that morality can be legislated?
> I think we are all in agreement to say that murder, stealing, raping, child
> abuse are wrong.
Want Biblical endorsements of the above?
> Where it gets a bit vague is for actions like infindelity, at what age
> should be the legal age for sexual relations, etc. But still most agree on
> all the basic premises, that if you are married it is wrong to cheat on your
> spouse, that there needs to be an age of when a person is legally
> responsible for their actions, or when they are legally thought of as being
> of the age to engage in sexual activity.
> The reason why I bring this up, is the left leaning group NAMBLA wants to
> lower the age of consent.
> But all in all, society is pretty much in agreement of what is right and
> wrong. And in a place like America where you have so many different
> religious beliefs, that is really an amazing fact.
And once again, it is up to individuals to subscribe to what they believe
is moral. It cannot be legislated.
> > > > > So. When one says "Under God", one is simply saying "Under an
> > > > > eternal body of guiding moral principles".
> > > > Where is that written?
> > > Common sense.
> > Common Sense? By Thomas Paine?
> HA HA. But that is a good read.
We have agreement on one point.
> > > Where is it written that you should not touch a very hot stove, or place
> > > your tounge on a frozen metal object.
> > > > Sounds like infinite obfuscation to me.
> > > Sounds like you are in denial.
> > > Or that you want to force your beliefs on everyone else.
> > And just what belief(s) do you think I am trying to force on everyone?
> It is obvious that you are a secular humanist.
Is that an answer to my question?
> > Governmental neutrality in matters of religion?
> We already have that.
So long as we have official endorsement of monotheism on our currency and
in what should be a neutral patriotic pledge, we do not have neutrality.
What was wrong with the Pledge before it was changed?
Was the money not as useful before monotheistic endorsement?
How would it harm you to have neutrality in these areas?
How would having respect for polytheists and nontheists hurt you?
> > Why do you think that reverting to the pledge as originally written is
> > forcing my beliefs on anyone?
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > "I believe in the United States of America as a government of the peopl,>
> > by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the
> > consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of
> > many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established
> > upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for
> > which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
> > "I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support
> > its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it
> > against all enemies."
> > This creed was the winner of a contest sponsored by Congress in 1917. It
> > was written by William Tyler Page and read into the Congressional Record
> > by the House of Reps. on April 3, 1918.
> And it is very well written. To bad America is no longer like that. And that
> around about the time of the New Deal, America ceased being a republic, and
> instead became more like a direct democracy, with most of the powers
> concentrated at teh federal level.
So? Why should that warrant divisive pledges and slogans?
> But there are people like you and I who hopefully we change course again,
> and revert back to the original course our founders envisioned. While you
> and I may never agreee on all issues, it seems we have the same goals in
> mind in regards to the federal government.
A very honorable goal is "one nation indivisible."
Governmental endorsement of religiosity prevents that.
Carol Lee Smith
> oops. Wiping the egg off my face. Newdow sued Congress, and Bush in
> addition to the school district. (Rather odd thing to do frankly.) So
> they are parties.
> http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus120402ord.pdf
Carol Lee Smith
> Doesn't an establishment of religion set one religion above the others?
There have been decisions which clearly oblige the government to remain
neutral in matters of religion. This not only applies to favoring one
sect over another, one denomination over another, etc. It also applies to
favoring religion over non-religion.
> The Founding Fathers NEVER intended for government to deny that religion
> exists, not that government deny that a majority of its population practices
> religion in one form or another.
No one is expecting the government to deny that religion exists.
The government is expected not to promote religion over non-religion.
> They, the Founding Fathers (more precisely,
> the states), were very concerned that government (the federal government)
> would ever define which religion we should follow.
MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses were intended only to prevent
the establishment of a national church.
FACT: If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church, they had
plenty of opportunities to state exactly that in the First Amendment. In
fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil
rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall
any national religion be established...." This draft was rejected.
Following extensive debate, the language found in the First Amendment
today was settled on.
The historical record indicates that the framers wanted the First
Amendment to ban not only establishment of a single church but also
"multiple establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds
many religions on an equal basis.
A good overview of the development of the language of the First Amendment
is found in scholar John M. Swomley's 1987 book Religious Liberty and the
Secular State. Swomley shows that during the House of Representatives'
debate on the language of the religion clauses, members specifically
rejected a version reading, "Congress shall make no law establishing any
particular denomination in preference to another...." The founders wanted
to bar all religious establishments; they left no room for
"non-preferentialism," the view touted by today's accommodationists that
government can aid religion as long as it assists all religions equally.
(The Senate likewise rejected three versions of the First Amendment that
would have permitted non-preferential support for religion
http://www.au.org/myths.htm
> They were also concerned
> that government troops would round up the citizens and herd them off to
> religious services. We have a freedom of religion to practice any religion
> we want,
or practice none.
> and we enjoy the free exercise thereof so that we can attend church
> serivces, or not. (It was the states that demanded the Bill of Rights to
> protect the citizens from an omnipowerful federal government.)
> The Pledge does nothing to establish religion, nor does it infringe our
> right to freely exercise our religion, whatever that religion may be. Even
> if that religion is to recognize or practice no religion.
What is it about endorsing monotheism that you don't understand?
What would the ramifications be, Wwere the government to endorse
polytheism or atheism?
That would be the only way you could ever be able to look at this issue in
another way.
Carol Lee Smith
> So, you're un-willing to pledge allegiance to one nation,
> under an eternal body of guiding moral principles?
So, you're unwilling to pledge allegiance to "one nation indivisible" ??
jal...@cox.net
>:|>
>:|> Answer the salient point. Do the words Under God, inserted into the
>:|> pledge in 1954, constitute Establishment of Religion or not?
>:|
>:|No, they do not.
Establishment of religion is not the test, does it violate the
Establishment Clause?
Hint: yes
You can be in violation of the Establishment Clause while never
establishing a religion.
Carol Lee Smith
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:46:00 -0600, Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu>
> wrote:
Well, I didn't "write" it. I quoted it. It was written by Donald Wildman
of AFA.
> >Already, it is illegal for 9.6 million school children in the states of
> >Alaska,
> >Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington
> >to
> >recite the pledge.
> What nonsense, aye?
No kidding.
> Its not illegal for them to say it. It is unconstitutional for schools
> to insist they say it.
Wildmon is not interested in accuracy. His interest is in misinforming
the faithful so that they will take political action while under the
influence of such misinformation.
Walter Scott
With some surprise as to the source of the stay order, I post the
following:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2326322
Court Delays Ban on Flag Pledge
Tue March 4, 2003 06:43 PM ET
By Michael Kahn
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Children across the U.S. West can
continue to recite the Pledge of Alliance after an appeals
court on Tuesday issued a stay on its order banning the
salute to the American flag scheduled to start next week.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a 90-day stay to the
California school district at the center of the legal battle
over whether the phrase "One Nation Under God" violated the
constitution's separation of church and state.
The stay allows the Elk Grove Unified School District to
appeal to the Supreme Court to overthrow the 9th Circuit's
decision that found the pledge unconstitutional and barred it
from being said in schools -- a ruling that sparked a
national furor. It is in effect until the high court
completes its review of the case.
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.103030...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>,
on Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:17:43 -0600, Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Walter Scott wrote:
>
> > Vpolitico points out that DOJ cannot appeal the decision
>
> (Donald Wildmon commentary below)
>
> Calif. District to Take Pledge Fight to Top Court
> Mon March 3, 2003 06:12 PM ET
> By Michael Kahn
>
> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The California school district at the
> center of a legal battle over the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance
> said on Monday it will seek a stay of an appeals court decision
> striking the words "Under God" from the pledge until the issue can be
> decided by the Supreme Court.
>
> The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday affirmed an earlier
> ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, setting
> the stage for a Supreme Court showdown over whether the words "Under
> God" breach the wall separating church and state.
NTReader v0.37w(P)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Shea F. Kenny
wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Shea F. Kenny wrote:
If you can't answer questions, by bother coming in and
pretending to want a discussion?????
/\
\__/
Shea F. Kenny
<m...@computas.com> wrote:
>No, in each of the God-oriented religions listed, Christianity, Islam,
>and Judaism, God is the supreme being that is omniscient, omnipotent,
>and the creator of the universe. Your position is dead. You can
>construct an opposing argument, but this one is dead.
No it's not martin. The country was founded upon the principle
of each individual, finding their own God. Ie, defining that God as
they sought fit. It's not that my argument is dead. It's that you're
is-indefensible and you can't see the discussion going your way....;-)
/\
\__/
Shea F. Kenny
wrote:
>The historical record indicates that the framers wanted the First
>Amendment to ban not only establishment of a single church but also
>"multiple establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds
>many religions on an equal basis.
There isn't any difference in terms of establishing religion.
Only financial accounting......
/\
\__/
Shea F. Kenny
there's anyone who'd like to recite the pledge of allegiance that day,
in protest over the ruling. Or, parents could send a note with their
children, asking they be allowed to recite the pledge of allegiance
before class, out of protest.
So, how far's the 9th going to go in protecting the rights of
atheists? And what about the non-atheists? Are they only allowed to
use the term God in their homes and churches? That's not free speech.
That's regulated speech.
/\
\__/
Snake
>;[:On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:57:30 -0900, "Dana"
>;[:<your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH-DAH> wrote:
>;[:<snip>
>;[:>>
>;[:>> Governmental neutrality in matters of religion?
>;[:>
>;[:>We already have that.
>;[:
>;[:Really? Forcing someone to recite "Under God" is neutrality in
>;[:religion?
When was the first time you were FORCED to recite the pledge?
>;[:
>;[:Shaun
>;[:
>;[:<snip>
>;[:--------------------------
>;[:
>;[:When George W. Bush said, "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom...."
>;[:
>;[:Who knew he meant it as a campaign promise?
Washington State
Initiative 676 Gun Control
7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i676.htm
http://www.mcsm.org/676.html
http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/676.htm
Snake
Snake
>;[:On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:32:01 -0900, "Dana"
>;[:<your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH-DAH> wrote:
>;[:
>;[:<snip>
>;[:>
>;[:>Sounds like you are in denial.
>;[:>Or that you want to force your beliefs on everyone else.
>;[:
>;[:So, using the phrase "Under God" - which was inserted in 1954 BTW -
>;[:isn't forcing a belief in "God" on those who don't believe, but
>;[:reverting to a nonreligious version of the Pledge *is* forcing a
>;[:belief?
Who is forcing you to say "under God", let alone saying the pledge?
>;[:
>;[:Let me guess, you're also one of the War is Peace types....
>;[:
>;[:Shaun
>;[:--------------------------
>;[:
>;[:When George W. Bush said, "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom...."
>;[:
>;[:Who knew he meant it as a campaign promise?
Washington State
Clave
news:3e65906...@netnews.attbi.com...
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 07:07:45 GMT, Shaun <sha...@sea.die.spammer.die.net.com>
wrote:
>
> >;[:On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:57:30 -0900, "Dana"
> >;[:<your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH-DAH> wrote:
> >;[:<snip>
> >;[:>>
> >;[:>> Governmental neutrality in matters of religion?
> >;[:>
> >;[:>We already have that.
> >;[:
> >;[:Really? Forcing someone to recite "Under God" is neutrality in
> >;[:religion?
>
> When was the first time you were FORCED to recite the pledge?
That's what the case was about, duh.
Jim
Snake
>;[:On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:29:31 -0900, "Dana"
>;[:<your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH-DAH> wrote:
>;[:
>;[:>"Shea F. Kenny" <pent...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>;[:>news:buh76vccq2e03ncdq...@4ax.com...
>;[:>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 10:03:28 +0100, "Martin W. Smith"
>;[:>> <m...@computas.com> wrote:
>;[:>> >Stupid argument, Shea. Really dumb.
>;[:>>
>;[:>> And I've made it even dumber......
>;[:>>
>;[:>> No matter what one's SENSIBLE argument is in defining God, it
>;[:>> all boils down to one fundamental definition. "An eternal body of
>;[:>> guiding moral principles........"
>;[:>>
>;[:>> So. When one says "Under God", one is simply saying "Under an
>;[:>> eternal body of guiding moral principles".
>;[:>>
>;[:>> Or, "One nation, under an eternal body of guiding moral
>;[:>> principles". Or, God. And the difference in wording isn't worth
>;[:>> sputtering about because God can be defined to suit any belief......
>;[:>>
>;[:>> And God planned it that way.... It's a consequence of infinite
>;[:>> wisdom......
>;[:>
>;[:>Well said.
>;[:>I do not know why people cannot grasp this simple point.
>;[:>Our founders had the same belief, but in the Declaration of Independence
>;[:>they use the word Creator instead of God.
>;[:
>;[:Don't know much history, eh? Sad...
"We hold these Turths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are empowered by there Creater with
certain unalienable Rights,..."
Who is it that does not know histroy? The above is found in the3 first sentance of the second paragraph of The
Declaration of Independance. Yes you are a very sad person.
>;[:
>;[:Shaun
>;[:--------------------------
>;[:
>;[:When George W. Bush said, "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom...."
>;[:
>;[:Who knew he meant it as a campaign promise?
Washington State
Shaun
wrote:
<snip>
>>;[:>Well said.
>>;[:>I do not know why people cannot grasp this simple point.
>>;[:>Our founders had the same belief, but in the Declaration of Independence
>>;[:>they use the word Creator instead of God.
>>;[:
>>;[:Don't know much history, eh? Sad...
>
> "We hold these Turths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are empowered by there Creater with
>certain unalienable Rights,..."
>
> Who is it that does not know histroy? The above is found in the3 first sentance of the second paragraph of The
>Declaration of Independance. Yes you are a very sad person.
Still gonna have to say that it's you who doesn't know history.....
Jefferson's version of the DOI:
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are
created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive
rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of
life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness
In any event, the US is not governed by the DOI, but by the US
Constitution. Perhaps you should read it some time?
You might also refelect on the fact that Christmas was not a Federal
holiday during Jefferson's administrations.
For extra bonus points, you might read "A Bill for Establishing
Religious Freedom in Virginia" Also penned by Jefferson
Section II.
We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be
compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burthened in his body or goods, or shall otherwise suffer, on account
of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of
religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or
affect their civil liberties.
Forcing school kids to pay homage to a deity is inappropriate and
Unconstitutional no matter how many people might mistakenly believe it
to be a good idea.
I have no problem with the Pledge in it's non-religious, pre-1954,
incarnation.
Shaun
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 07:06:39 GMT, Shaun <sha...@sea.die.spammer.die.net.com> wrote:
>
>>;[:On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:32:01 -0900, "Dana"
>>;[:<your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH-DAH> wrote:
>>;[:
>>;[:<snip>
>>;[:>
>>;[:>Sounds like you are in denial.
>>;[:>Or that you want to force your beliefs on everyone else.
>>;[:
>>;[:So, using the phrase "Under God" - which was inserted in 1954 BTW -
>>;[:isn't forcing a belief in "God" on those who don't believe, but
>>;[:reverting to a nonreligious version of the Pledge *is* forcing a
>>;[:belief?
>
> Who is forcing you to say "under God", let alone saying the pledge?
Try visiting a school classroom at 8am some morning.
Shaun
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 07:07:45 GMT, Shaun <sha...@sea.die.spammer.die.net.com> wrote:
>
>>;[:On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:57:30 -0900, "Dana"
>>;[:<your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH-DAH> wrote:
>>;[:<snip>
>>;[:>>
>>;[:>> Governmental neutrality in matters of religion?
>>;[:>
>>;[:>We already have that.
>>;[:
>>;[:Really? Forcing someone to recite "Under God" is neutrality in
>>;[:religion?
>
> When was the first time you were FORCED to recite the pledge?
Probably about the same time that I shed all pretense of religious
mythology - would have been 7th or 8th grade - many years ago.
Shaun
Shaun
<ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
>"Shaun" <sha...@sea.die.spammer.die.net.com> wrote in message
>news:k2n56vc2t3mh33vjt...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 03:09:44 GMT, Shea F. Kenny
>> <pent...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Wrong. In order to establish religion, one must establish what
>> >is being worshipped. Congress, did not define God. Nor how God must
>> >be acknowledged. Thus, God could be defined as whatever a person
>> >believed God was..... However, also made clear that acknowledgement of
>> >that God, was to the greater good of the country........
>>
>> Noting an official belief in "God" isn't establishment?
>>
>> I'm not sure how one can possibly argue that.
>>
>> Care to try?
>
>
>Now you've done it...
Nah, shea's pretending he has me killfiled.....who knows, maybe he
finally figured out how to really do it?
Snake
>;[:On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:46:00 -0600, Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu>
>;[:wrote:
>;[:
>;[:>Already, it is illegal for 9.6 million school children in the states of
>;[:>Alaska,
>;[:>
>;[:>Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington
>;[:>to
>;[:>recite the pledge.
>;[:
>;[:
>;[:What nonsense, aye?
>;[:
>;[:Its not illegal for them to say it. It is unconstitutional for schools
>;[:to insist they say it.
This has alyways been the case.
>;[:
>;[:_______
>;[:"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
>;[:we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
>;[:unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
>;[:public."
>;[:-President Teddy Roosevelt
Snake
>;[:
>;[:
>;[:
>;[:Your assessment simply is not correct, Dana. The 1st Amendment to the
>;[:U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any law respecting
>;[:or establishing any religion. Congress, in 1954, clearly amended the
Try again. That is not what the 1Amendment says. It is not "respecting or establishing any religion" it says "respecting
an establishment of religion". The two are not the same
>;[:Pledge of Allegiance to create a distinction between the "Godless"
>;[:societies of the Soviet Bloc and the "God-inspired" American society
>;[:of that time. There's just no way to argue the amendment of the Pledge
>;[:was not for a religious purpose or initiated with religion mind.
>;[:
>;[:In article <v67st18...@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:
>;[:45:25 -0900, "Dana" <your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH -DAH> wrote:
>;[:
>;[:> > I don't think so. Between that extreme--one godless nation--and one
>;[:> > nation under god, lies neutrality. To suggest that "under god" is neutral
>;[:> > regarding religion is quite interesting.
>;[:>
>;[:> As it does not specify any religion, nor is it intended to, it is considered
>;[:> religious neutral. No different than the use of Creator in our Declaration
>;[:> of Independence.
>;[:
>;[:No U.N., No War!
>;[:
>;[:NTReader v0.37w(P)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
>;[:
Dana
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:55:50 GMT, snak...@netscape.net (Snake)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 07:06:39 GMT, Shaun
<sha...@sea.die.spammer.die.net.com> wrote:
> >
> >>;[:On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:32:01 -0900, "Dana"
> >>;[:<your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH-DAH> wrote:
> >>;[:
> >>;[:<snip>
> >>;[:>
> >>;[:>Sounds like you are in denial.
> >>;[:>Or that you want to force your beliefs on everyone else.
> >>;[:
> >>;[:So, using the phrase "Under God" - which was inserted in 1954 BTW -
> >>;[:isn't forcing a belief in "God" on those who don't believe, but
> >>;[:reverting to a nonreligious version of the Pledge *is* forcing a
> >>;[:belief?
> >
> > Who is forcing you to say "under God", let alone saying the pledge?
>
> Try visiting a school classroom at 8am some morning.
And no one is being forced to say the pledge. The USSC has already ruled on
this issue. Students are not required to say the pledge. And there is no one
forcing them to say the pledge.
--
France is implementing a new national flag - white cross on a white
background
Martin W. Smith
If the Constitution actually declared that, Shea, and if all government
mandated uses of the word God were spelled "god" instead of "God," and
if, in the case in question, Congress had added the words "under a god"
instead of "under God" to the Pledge, and if the law had stated that the
Pledge was correct when recited with or *without* the words "under a
god", *then* your argument would be reasonable. But because none of the
above is the case, your argument is unreasonable.
Dana
news:ul5b6vgk9mds1dq2n...@4ax.com...
> >>;[:>I do not know why people cannot grasp this simple point.
> >>;[:>Our founders had the same belief, but in the Declaration of
Independence
> >>;[:>they use the word Creator instead of God.
> >>;[:
> >>;[:Don't know much history, eh? Sad...
> >
> > "We hold these Turths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are empowered by there Creater with
> >certain unalienable Rights,..."
> >
> > Who is it that does not know histroy? The above is found in the3 first
sentance of the second paragraph of The
> >Declaration of Independance. Yes you are a very sad person.
>
>
> The Treaty of Tripoli (wherein the Founding
> Fathers state EXPLICITLY that the US is not a Christian country)
How very wrong you are.
>
> ARTICLE 11.
> As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
> founded on the Christian Religion,
The government, not the country.
And in this aspect it is 100% correct. Our gvt is not a religious
government, nor would we want it to be.
-as it has in itself no character of
> enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as
Or any religion for that matter, the whole purpose of the 1st Amendment.
Dana
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 06:03:15 GMT, snak...@netscape.net (Snake)
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >>;[:>Well said.
> >>;[:>I do not know why people cannot grasp this simple point.
> >>;[:>Our founders had the same belief, but in the Declaration of
Independence
> >>;[:>they use the word Creator instead of God.
> >>;[:
> >>;[:Don't know much history, eh? Sad...
> >
> > "We hold these Turths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are empowered by there Creater with
> >certain unalienable Rights,..."
> >
> > Who is it that does not know histroy? The above is found in the3 first
sentance of the second paragraph of The
> >Declaration of Independance. Yes you are a very sad person.
>
> Still gonna have to say that it's you who doesn't know history.....
What a joker.
Dana
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:53:34 GMT, snak...@netscape.net (Snake)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 07:07:45 GMT, Shaun
<sha...@sea.die.spammer.die.net.com> wrote:
> >
> >>;[:On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:57:30 -0900, "Dana"
> >>;[:<your...@exampleDO-DO-DO.comDAH-DAH-DAH> wrote:
> >>;[:<snip>
> >>;[:>>
> >>;[:>> Governmental neutrality in matters of religion?
> >>;[:>
> >>;[:>We already have that.
> >>;[:
> >>;[:Really? Forcing someone to recite "Under God" is neutrality in
> >>;[:religion?
> >
> > When was the first time you were FORCED to recite the pledge?
>
> Probably about the same time that I shed all pretense of religious
> mythology - would have been 7th or 8th grade - many years ago.
Well so long as that was prior to the 1943 USSC decision in, West Virgina
state board of education v. Barnette.
As that decision is the one that held that you cannot be forced to say the
pledge.
>
Dana
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:23:18 GMT, vpol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >;[:On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:46:00 -0600, Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu>
> >;[:wrote:
> >;[:
> >;[:>Already, it is illegal for 9.6 million school children in the states
of
> >;[:>Alaska,
> >;[:>
> >;[:>Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington
> >;[:>to
> >;[:>recite the pledge.
> >;[:
> >;[:
> >;[:What nonsense, aye?
> >;[:
> >;[:Its not illegal for them to say it. It is unconstitutional for schools
> >;[:to insist they say it.
>
> This has alyways been the case.
At least since 1943. When the USSC ruled in West Virgina state board of
education v. Barnette, that you can not force people to recite the pledge.