<strong>A. Can anyone point to evidence that suggests the government of the United States requires recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance? [QB]<hr></blockquote>
before school started everyday, when i was a kid, the teacher told us all to stand up, put our hands over our hearts and pledge allegiance. that teacher was working on behalf of the state of new york, in the continental United States of America.
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
[QB]B. Can anyone point to a valid reason why one of the highest courts in the state of California should pander to some half-witted, litigation-happy jagoff who is bothered that his daughter may have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance?</strong><hr></blockquote>
it was the federal appeals court actually, i believe. every1 in the country has the right to sue for anything. but other than that, nice name calling.
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>C. Regarding said moron's sensibilities about his daughter - has anyone actually THREATENED to have his daughter removed from her school if she DOESN'T recite the pledge? Is the answer "Ummm, derrr...no"? Has it occured to anyone that the sensible solution here was to have the guy simply tell his daughter "If you don't feel like reciting this, you don't have to - just stand queitly until your classmates finish. If the teacher gets angry with you, please have her call me at the office." WOULD THAT BE SO HARD / BAD???????</strong><hr></blockquote>
little kids are very impressionable. if a kid does any thing different they stand out, it makes them unnecessarily uncomfortable. They should feel (and be) free while in school (and everywhere for that matter).
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>
Wake up, people.</strong><hr></blockquote>
getting a little tired of ur post myself, gonna take a nap.
on a side note: i have little respect for anyone that believes in a gohd (except for the all-powerful and omnipotent mary jane).
<strong>I think this an opportunity to coin a word - you know that feeling you get when you see a car accident and you just have to look even though you don't want to? There must be a word for that, and if there isn't, there should be.
<strong>Just a bit jarring that things you never saw as bad, evil or harmful to begin with come to be seen that way by a certain segment. And all these things we simply have done or accepted are now up for divisive debate and everyone's choosing corners over something that, 20, 30, 50 or 100 years ago, there didn't seem to be a stink about.
Does that not strike anyone else as weird or a bit unsettling? Honestly, in 10 years or so, will the playing of the national anthem before a baseball game be up for debate, because (gasp!) everyone in the stadium might not be Americans and we wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'm sure they said the same thing about slavery prior to and after the civil war, yet we all got passed that to some degree. it's called change. it happens. hell, sometimes it's even for the best.
You are correct about the redress of grievances thing, I lost the context in my brain in my indignation. Thanks for correcting me.
Don't hit me with your law books, I'm a lowly journalism student.
Moogs:
[quote]Can you elaborate a little further on your point about the issue being the wording of the original document? Who came up with that document? Where has any state or federal governing body mandated its use? I'm fairly certain that hasn't happened.<hr></blockquote>
Once again: Eisenhower approved a congressional act on June 14th, 1954 that added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Pledge was first made official on June 22, 1942 when a congressional act made it part of the United States Flag Code (Title 36).
A congressional act. An act of the federal government. Under jurisdiction of the judicial branch.
[quote]The schools themselves (or their PTA boards or whoever runs the show on a local basis) has put the pledge into their activities. Therefore it's the citizens running the schools (not the government) who has mandated the pledge in those cases. No?<hr></blockquote>
They have made the mandate that the pledge be used, yes, but again, recitation of the pledge ISN'T the issue.
The text of the pledge is the issue.
*kicks dead horse square in nuts*
[quote]As for the guy who said it was "cool" to sue, my point wasn't that he should have no rights but that his choice of words in describing this whole mess are a pretty good indication the guy is basically looking for publicity / attention / money.<hr></blockquote>
Assumptions like that are flawed and pointless. And elitist.
But it's funny to make fun of him.
[quote]Hence, my ultimate point was he's solving his personal problems in a totally inappropriate way / bringing other people into it whether they want any part of it or not.<hr></blockquote>
He sees a problem and he wants to have it fixed. I don't see the problem aside from the fact that you might not think it's a problem.
[quote]I can't stand it when people like this hide behind the constitution to solve their petty problems.<hr></blockquote>
Hide behind the constitution... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That... that's just frightening. That is a frightening attitude... hiding for God's sake, behind the CONSTITUTION!?
[quote]Again, would it have been so horrible for him to just explain to this daughter why she shouldn't have to recite the pledge, have her do that, and just move on with life?<hr></blockquote>
Maybe not, but what does it matter?
[quote]Do we have to screw with everyone else's existence too?<hr></blockquote>
Awwwwwww!!
Someone get a huuuuuuuge box of kleenex, we're screwing up people's existence!
[quote]What about the HUGE majority of parents who WANT their kids to recite the pledge in public schools? They don't matter?<hr></blockquote>
They can recite the pledge in public. To their little hearts' content they can pledge allegiance until they are blue in the face. They can even say "....under MY Christian God and all you atheists can suck my ass, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Does the fact that the majority of people in the U.S. worship the Christian God give the .gov the right to establish that God and imply subjugation to that god in the Pledge of Allegiance to the nation?
[quote]Taken to exteremes virtually ANYTHING we say or do in this country can be deemed by someone to be an abridgement of their rights. Find a good enough lawyer and there's a loophole for everything. THAT's what we're seeing here IMO.<hr></blockquote>
A loophole? The first amendment is a loophole? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
"Anything we say" isn't the issue. I'll tell you what, go to those states affected by the 9th circuit court's decision and say the pledge with "under God" over and over again, see if you get in trouble for it.
Just because someone wrote a loophole for him doesn't mean he's right to jump through it. There's such a thing as abusing the legal system for one's own purposes, as opposed to using it for the benefit of the majority.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A loophole!? That's the Constitution. It outlines what our country is based on and set rules to prevent religion from being forced onto people for a reason. I strongly believe that the freedom of religion is as important (if not more important) thatn freedom of speech. Looking at world history, religious disagreements have led to a rediculous number of wars (and some slaughter without much resistance from the minority).
When you say "benefit of the majority" I'll assume you're referring to Christians, which would be blatantly unconstitutional.
[quote] Originally posted by Running With Scissors:
i'm sure they said the same thing about slavery prior to and after the civil war, yet we all got passed that to some degree. it's called change. it happens. hell, sometimes it's even for the best.<hr></blockquote>
Can one even compare the horrible history of slavery to whether or not the National Anthem is played at a ballgame?
The whole "slavery" thing is the stark and extreme example trotted out by people when they want to illustrate "see, sometimes things must change...".
But I wasn't talking about slavery. And yes, I think slavery was an awful, awful thing and a pretty permanent scar on things.
But that has nothing to do with my questions you quoted. I don't think anyone with half a brain would suggest "you know, slavery wasn't THAT bad...".
I'm sure we'll pretty much all on the same page regarding that topic.
But what if a large segment of citizens from Outer Habarkia (yeah, I made it up), living in Chicago for instance and who were big baseball fans, decide that hearing the National Anthem before a Cubs game either a) offended them as proud Outer Habarkiens or b) made them homesick for the lush pastures and flowing rivers of Outer Habarkia and/or c) simply made them stand out and uncomfortable...in other words, made them feel "left out".
In this day and age, with fire-breathing, no-holds-barred attorneys desperate for publicity, cash, fame, etc., and with people being as generally sue-happy and belly-achy as they have been lately, is it not conceivable that someone, somewhere would actually attempt something like that?
I think I'll see it in my lifetime. Hell, I'm beginning to think I'll see it before my 40th birthday (I'm 33).
Don't mix slavery in with what I'm asking. It's completely off the point.
Legally cognizable INJURY? THAT'S what this is about?
Please explain to me how this guy (or his daughter)was in any way shape or form,"injured." You show me that and I'll show you some modern, ultra-vague legal-speak that allows jerks like this to solve their problems in a court instead of their own home or neighborhood.
Just because someone wrote a loophole for him doesn't mean he's right to jump through it. There's such a thing as abusing the legal system for one's own purposes, as opposed to using it for the benefit of the majority.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, no one wrote a "loophole" as far as a jurisdictional statute is concerned. Its a requirement for Art. III standing. You need to allege an "injury in fact," (note that I DID NOT say "suffered" an injury in fact. That's part of the merits of the case) and although you don't think this case has such an injury, an allegation with supporting facts that a state institution has abridged your first amendment freedoms is a legally cognizable injury in fact. This requirement is very low, although people do get kicked out of court for alleging non-concrete, speculative injuries.
And, this is a perfect opportunity to resolve it in court b/c courts and the constitution are designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority (no, we don't live in a country where the majority always rules. Its a republic, not a "democracy"). The point is, these people (probably) couldn't have dealt with this issue through the school board or wherever (elected officials) because they would have been voted down. And no, popular sentiment does not have any bearing on the constitutionality of something except insofar as it leads to a constitutional amendment.
There really is nothing silly about this case. Perhaps the guy is not the most sympathetic plaintiff, but the issue is real and so is the injury.
But what if a large segment of citizens from Outer Habarkia (yeah, I made it up), living in Chicago for instance and who were big baseball fans, decide that hearing the National Anthem before a Cubs game either a) offended them as proud Outer Habarkiens or b) made them homesick for the lush pastures and flowing rivers of Outer Habarkia and/or c) simply made them stand out and uncomfortable...in other words, made them feel "left out".
I must have missed the slavery reference, but the at any rate the Cubs can have the Pledge all they want being a private organization. Maybe Bud Selig should think about the consequences of getting lots of municipal funding for new stadia...But, again, I digress.
BTW, a propos of noting, Slavery was certainly consitutional until the 13,14,and 15th Amendments.
Thoth
PS: I agree that there are a lot of attorneys out there who shouldn't be attorneys. But, this is not a case of that. Don't blame it on the attorneys, blame it on the legislature who did this in the first place, or the Constitution itself. At bottom, we disagree with the content of the document - but I don't think you'd disagree with a person's right to challenge the legal meaning of it in Court, as that too, is enshrined in it.
Can one even compare the horrible history of slavery to whether or not the National Anthem is played at a ballgame?
The whole "slavery" thing is the stark and extreme example trotted out by people when they want to illustrate "see, sometimes things must change...".
But I wasn't talking about slavery. And yes, I think slavery was an awful, awful thing and a pretty permanent scar on things.
But that has nothing to do with my questions you quoted. I don't think anyone with half a brain would suggest "you know, slavery wasn't THAT bad...".
I'm sure we'll pretty much all on the same page regarding that topic.
But what if a large segment of citizens from Outer Habarkia (yeah, I made it up), living in Chicago for instance and who were big baseball fans, decide that hearing the National Anthem before a Cubs game either a) offended them as proud Outer Habarkiens or b) made them homesick for the lush pastures and flowing rivers of Outer Habarkia and/or c) simply made them stand out and uncomfortable...in other words, made them feel "left out".
In this day and age, with fire-breathing, no-holds-barred attorneys desperate for publicity, cash, fame, etc., and with people being as generally sue-happy and belly-achy as they have been lately, is it not conceivable that someone, somewhere would actually attempt something like that?
I think I'll see it in my lifetime. Hell, I'm beginning to think I'll see it before my 40th birthday (I'm 33).
Don't mix slavery in with what I'm asking. It's completely off the point.
One question- Is it or is it not the case that the original pledge of allegiance would automatically become the current pledge of allegiance if the ruling holds?
I mean, the non-theistic (note, big difference from atheistic) version was the pledge of allegiance before the 1954 law and it is only the 1954 law which has been found unconstitutional.
And although I'm starting to skim through posts because this thread is going like wildfire, I've yet to hear a convincing argument that "under God" isn't religious or that the old pledge is unpatriotic. Nor have I seen how removing it denies anyone their rights or how not having "God" in something makes it pro-atheism by default. I don't think my parking tickets are pro-atheist and they don't mention God once.
[quote]your right, there is no comparson between the two, but it does illustrate a point. just because we did something the past does not make it right .<hr></blockquote>
True. I know.
And Thoth2 is right: the Cubs (or any other sport team) isn't a government thing. But imagine a situation where it could happen, and it probably will.
I used a bad choice of words in "hiding behind the Constitution." What I was trying to say is it drives me nuts when people refuse to solve their own petty problems, and then (lamely) use the constitution out of context, or otherwise claim something is "unconstitutional maaan" in order to get attention / find a lawyer sleezy enough to take the case. My whole point was: what the hell happened to common sense and pragmatism? This isn't about constitutional rights, it's about what people can get away with in a court of law.
As for the loophole talk, what I'm referring to is not the constitution itself but all lame-o legal precedents (or low standards of proof) which have been set in recent years, that allow a guy like this to just waltz in there and say "Hey, I refuse to solve my own problems. I think this here Pledge of Alleegeence is ...what's that word again Bob?...OH, yah...Unconstitutional! Hey, I've been reading up on this!" He actually said that last part. Right before he said his lawsuit was "cool."
ANYway, I was asking something different with regards to the Eisenhower thing (I caught it the first time; we're just crossing signals now)...but where the whole thing falls apart for me is, regardless of any flag doctrines or rituals...so long as no one has said "all public schools WILL abide by this doctrine, and children who do NOT abide but it will be disciplined" - where's the trampling of rights? Basically, recitation ends up BEING the issue because someone at the local level (not the government) has come to the conclusion (probably by board vote) that this is the right thing to do for their particular school.
Now, if someone says "the tax-payers of this community voted that the pledge will be a part of our daily routine. If your kid doesn't comply, he will be disciplined..." THEN we have a problem. Until then, all we have is hurt feewings on the part of a few atheists and otherwise extremely bored people.
And quit harassin' me about the part where I said he screwed with everyone else's life. I bet a large majority of parents at that school were in full support of the pledge and were happy their kids were learning it. Does the concept of doing what is in the best interest of the majority no longer hold any weight in this country?
I think clearly the answer is "no" - it doesn't hold any weight. We're a nation that panders to any minority group that cries a few crocodile tears and threatens a lawsuit. It's pathetic.
[quote]What I was trying to say is it drives me nuts when people refuse to solve their own petty problems, and then (lamely) use the constitution out of context, or otherwise claim something is "unconstitutional maaan" in order to get attention / find a lawyer sleezy enough to take the case. My whole point was: what the hell happened to common sense and pragmatism? This isn't about constitutional rights, it's about what people can get away with in a court of law.<hr></blockquote>
Get away with?
What's the "petty problem" this guy has that you keep talking about?
He sees a 1st amendment/establishment issue in the 1954 act and he's taking it to the courts. That's the way our system is supposed to work.
[quote]As for the loophole talk, what I'm referring to is not the constitution itself but all lame-o legal precedents (or low standards of proof) which have been set in recent years, that allow a guy like this to just waltz in there and say "Hey, I refuse to solve my own problems. I think this here Pledge of Alleegeence is ...what's that word again Bob?...OH, yah...Unconstitutional! Hey, I've been reading up on this!" He actually said that last part. Right before he said his lawsuit was "cool."<hr></blockquote>
What's the problem he's refusing the solve on his own?
I'm sure he's talked to his daughter about this, I mean, he took it to court after all he's not trying to keep it secret.
Sounds like he's been doing more "reading up" than you, and you're the one making fun of him.
[quote]ANYway, I was asking something different with regards to the Eisenhower thing (I caught it the first time; we're just crossing signals now)...but where the whole thing falls apart for me is, regardless of any flag doctrines or rituals...so long as no one has said "all public schools WILL abide by this doctrine, and children who do NOT abide but it will be disciplined" - where's the trampling of rights?<hr></blockquote>
The act mandates the official text of the pledge. It is not an unofficial saying with no concrete way to say it.
[quote]Basically, recitation ends up BEING the issue because someone at the local level (not the government) has come to the conclusion (probably by board vote) that this is the right thing to do for their particular school.<hr></blockquote>
The PoA is used in more than schools. It's used in the military and correct me if I'm wrong, citizens-to-be must pledge before they are made citizens.
The recitation has been challenged and it is not required of students. Now the actual text is being challenged because the actual text can be challenged.
[quote]Now, if someone says "the tax-payers of this community voted that the pledge will be a part of our daily routine. If your kid doesn't comply, he will be disciplined..." THEN we have a problem.<hr></blockquote>
Well yes, that would be a problem. But that's not the only scenario that is problematic.
[quote]Until then, all we have is hurt feewings on the part of a few atheists and otherwise extremely bored people.<hr></blockquote>
Hurt feelings?
I ask, who is the biggest group of whiners here? It's the whining white men screaming about how the godless liberals and athiests are "screwing up their existence".
[quote]And quit harassin' me about the part where I said he screwed with everyone else's life.<hr></blockquote>
No, it's too rich for me to pass up.
[quote]I bet a large majority of parents at that school were in full support of the pledge and were happy their kids were learning it.<hr></blockquote>
Well that's just fucking dandy!
Hoo-fucking-Ray for them.
Majority doesn't necessarily rule in this nation, love it or leave it you godless commie!
[quote]Does the concept of doing what is in the best interest of the majority no longer hold any weight in this country?<hr></blockquote>
Best interests? What?
They can teach their kids all about God and His wonderful majesty.
Best interests... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]I think clearly the answer is "no" - it doesn't hold any weight. We're a nation that panders to any minority group that cries a few crocodile tears and threatens a lawsuit. It's pathetic.<hr></blockquote>
*sniff*
The constitutionality of laws isn't up for public vote.
To anybody claiming the usage of God in these examples is ambiguous, don't kid yourself.
As for the school vouchers thing, I don't think this is the same because these are vouchers toward any private school, not religious schools in particular. You get a voucher to pursue an education where you want, and if you want to exercise your religious freedom, you can.
An Ann Coulter may be okay looking for a rabid right-wing she-monster, but I find here pretty wormlike during interviews, avoiding questions posing inane questions. She was on Hardball Debate last night vs. and even more rabid liberal she-monster...the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.
<strong>She went head-to-head with the host of Hardball last night (wasn't Chris Matthews...was another guy, a substitute maybe? Matthews on vacation?) and a dark-haired lady, an editor for "The Nation", I believe.
Between the lady and the host talking over her and berating her for her opinions/beliefs, poor Ms. Coulter got out about 7 words the entire segment.
She was visible getting pissed. Which just made her that much hotter.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
WRONG! Mike Barnicle gave her every oportunity to speak and when confronted with facts she would not answer. I mean she goes on a show like HARDBALL to promote her book and does not expect to defend its contents? If she couldn't defend it on air it must not be an interesting read. I'm sorry but it was just too funny to see what an ass she made of herself. OH, and her point about the judges being Democratic president appointees.... WRONG again. One was a Carter, the other a Nixon appointee. She simply didn't have anything to say.
he is solving his problem... and he is courageous enough to see the need for change as implied by the Constitution itself as well as to risk the backlash of idiots by doing something about it.
...so, he is addressing his problem except that it isn't just his problemn its all of our problem.... when it is ritualized in a governmentally sanctioned pledge that our nation lies under 'god' .. and is thereby subordinate to the concept of 'god' then it infringing on the right to not have god in my politics, by implying that all politics must pay obescience to god first.
and also creeping the door slightly open for further encroachment into the theistic realms . . .
What makes me sick about this is that now that the ice is broken and the obvious has been pointed out by a courageous individual every politician with a constituency is posing for teh camera with their ever so pious hands on their hearts and god on their mouths.
Render on to Ceasar what is ceasar's.
don't put the mud of cheap politics onto the "pearl" of religion (pearl before swine)..
perhaps if you are religious you should look at it like that.
<strong>Good post Moogs. It's about this guy not liking the system because it's not tailored to meet HIS NEEDS.
In other words "If I don't like what you're saying I'm going to find a way to shut you up!"
Again people GOD does not = Christianity. If it does please show me where this is stated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What GOD does = is MONOTHEISM. Any way you spin it- ONE GOD. Atheists don't believe in any number of GODS, so your argument that GOD is ambiguous is clearly BUNK.
Does the concept of doing what is in the best interest of the majority no longer hold any weight in this country?
I think clearly the answer is "no" - it doesn't hold any weight. We're a nation that panders to any minority group that cries a few crocodile tears and threatens a lawsuit. It's pathetic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Sorry. You seem to conveniently evade the question of whether or not the majority is RIGHT in their decision. Well... ARE THEY? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>To anybody claiming the usage of God in these examples is ambiguous, don't kid yourself.
As for the school vouchers thing, I don't think this is the same because these are vouchers toward any private school, not religious schools in particular. You get a voucher to pursue an education where you want, and if you want to exercise your religious freedom, you can.
An Ann Coulter may be okay looking for a rabid right-wing she-monster, but I find here pretty wormlike during interviews, avoiding questions posing inane questions. She was on Hardball Debate last night vs. and even more rabid liberal she-monster...the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
95% of vouchers are used for religious schooling. Have a nice day.
Comments
<strong>A. Can anyone point to evidence that suggests the government of the United States requires recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance? [QB]<hr></blockquote>
before school started everyday, when i was a kid, the teacher told us all to stand up, put our hands over our hearts and pledge allegiance. that teacher was working on behalf of the state of new york, in the continental United States of America.
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
[QB]B. Can anyone point to a valid reason why one of the highest courts in the state of California should pander to some half-witted, litigation-happy jagoff who is bothered that his daughter may have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance?</strong><hr></blockquote>
it was the federal appeals court actually, i believe. every1 in the country has the right to sue for anything. but other than that, nice name calling.
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>C. Regarding said moron's sensibilities about his daughter - has anyone actually THREATENED to have his daughter removed from her school if she DOESN'T recite the pledge? Is the answer "Ummm, derrr...no"? Has it occured to anyone that the sensible solution here was to have the guy simply tell his daughter "If you don't feel like reciting this, you don't have to - just stand queitly until your classmates finish. If the teacher gets angry with you, please have her call me at the office." WOULD THAT BE SO HARD / BAD???????</strong><hr></blockquote>
little kids are very impressionable. if a kid does any thing different they stand out, it makes them unnecessarily uncomfortable. They should feel (and be) free while in school (and everywhere for that matter).
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>
Wake up, people.</strong><hr></blockquote>
getting a little tired of ur post myself, gonna take a nap.
on a side note: i have little respect for anyone that believes in a gohd (except for the all-powerful and omnipotent mary jane).
<strong>I think this an opportunity to coin a word - you know that feeling you get when you see a car accident and you just have to look even though you don't want to? There must be a word for that, and if there isn't, there should be.
Thoth</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Distragicification"
Everyone agree? No, of course not...
<strong>Just a bit jarring that things you never saw as bad, evil or harmful to begin with come to be seen that way by a certain segment. And all these things we simply have done or accepted are now up for divisive debate and everyone's choosing corners over something that, 20, 30, 50 or 100 years ago, there didn't seem to be a stink about.
Does that not strike anyone else as weird or a bit unsettling? Honestly, in 10 years or so, will the playing of the national anthem before a baseball game be up for debate, because (gasp!) everyone in the stadium might not be Americans and we wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'm sure they said the same thing about slavery prior to and after the civil war, yet we all got passed that to some degree. it's called change. it happens. hell, sometimes it's even for the best.
You are correct about the redress of grievances thing, I lost the context in my brain in my indignation. Thanks for correcting me.
Don't hit me with your law books, I'm a lowly journalism student.
Moogs:
[quote]Can you elaborate a little further on your point about the issue being the wording of the original document? Who came up with that document? Where has any state or federal governing body mandated its use? I'm fairly certain that hasn't happened.<hr></blockquote>
Once again: Eisenhower approved a congressional act on June 14th, 1954 that added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Pledge was first made official on June 22, 1942 when a congressional act made it part of the United States Flag Code (Title 36).
A congressional act. An act of the federal government. Under jurisdiction of the judicial branch.
[quote]The schools themselves (or their PTA boards or whoever runs the show on a local basis) has put the pledge into their activities. Therefore it's the citizens running the schools (not the government) who has mandated the pledge in those cases. No?<hr></blockquote>
They have made the mandate that the pledge be used, yes, but again, recitation of the pledge ISN'T the issue.
The text of the pledge is the issue.
*kicks dead horse square in nuts*
[quote]As for the guy who said it was "cool" to sue, my point wasn't that he should have no rights but that his choice of words in describing this whole mess are a pretty good indication the guy is basically looking for publicity / attention / money.<hr></blockquote>
Assumptions like that are flawed and pointless. And elitist.
But it's funny to make fun of him.
[quote]Hence, my ultimate point was he's solving his personal problems in a totally inappropriate way / bringing other people into it whether they want any part of it or not.<hr></blockquote>
He sees a problem and he wants to have it fixed. I don't see the problem aside from the fact that you might not think it's a problem.
[quote]I can't stand it when people like this hide behind the constitution to solve their petty problems.<hr></blockquote>
Hide behind the constitution... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That... that's just frightening. That is a frightening attitude... hiding for God's sake, behind the CONSTITUTION!?
[quote]Again, would it have been so horrible for him to just explain to this daughter why she shouldn't have to recite the pledge, have her do that, and just move on with life?<hr></blockquote>
Maybe not, but what does it matter?
[quote]Do we have to screw with everyone else's existence too?<hr></blockquote>
Awwwwwww!!
Someone get a huuuuuuuge box of kleenex, we're screwing up people's existence!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]What about the HUGE majority of parents who WANT their kids to recite the pledge in public schools? They don't matter?<hr></blockquote>
They can recite the pledge in public. To their little hearts' content they can pledge allegiance until they are blue in the face. They can even say "....under MY Christian God and all you atheists can suck my ass, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Does the fact that the majority of people in the U.S. worship the Christian God give the .gov the right to establish that God and imply subjugation to that god in the Pledge of Allegiance to the nation?
[quote]Taken to exteremes virtually ANYTHING we say or do in this country can be deemed by someone to be an abridgement of their rights. Find a good enough lawyer and there's a loophole for everything. THAT's what we're seeing here IMO.<hr></blockquote>
A loophole? The first amendment is a loophole? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
"Anything we say" isn't the issue. I'll tell you what, go to those states affected by the 9th circuit court's decision and say the pledge with "under God" over and over again, see if you get in trouble for it.
I don't think you understand what's going on.
<strong>Thoth:
Just because someone wrote a loophole for him doesn't mean he's right to jump through it. There's such a thing as abusing the legal system for one's own purposes, as opposed to using it for the benefit of the majority.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A loophole!? That's the Constitution. It outlines what our country is based on and set rules to prevent religion from being forced onto people for a reason. I strongly believe that the freedom of religion is as important (if not more important) thatn freedom of speech. Looking at world history, religious disagreements have led to a rediculous number of wars (and some slaughter without much resistance from the minority).
When you say "benefit of the majority" I'll assume you're referring to Christians, which would be blatantly unconstitutional.
i'm sure they said the same thing about slavery prior to and after the civil war, yet we all got passed that to some degree. it's called change. it happens. hell, sometimes it's even for the best.<hr></blockquote>
Can one even compare the horrible history of slavery to whether or not the National Anthem is played at a ballgame?
The whole "slavery" thing is the stark and extreme example trotted out by people when they want to illustrate "see, sometimes things must change...".
But I wasn't talking about slavery. And yes, I think slavery was an awful, awful thing and a pretty permanent scar on things.
But that has nothing to do with my questions you quoted. I don't think anyone with half a brain would suggest "you know, slavery wasn't THAT bad...".
I'm sure we'll pretty much all on the same page regarding that topic.
But what if a large segment of citizens from Outer Habarkia (yeah, I made it up), living in Chicago for instance and who were big baseball fans, decide that hearing the National Anthem before a Cubs game either a) offended them as proud Outer Habarkiens or b) made them homesick for the lush pastures and flowing rivers of Outer Habarkia and/or c) simply made them stand out and uncomfortable...in other words, made them feel "left out".
In this day and age, with fire-breathing, no-holds-barred attorneys desperate for publicity, cash, fame, etc., and with people being as generally sue-happy and belly-achy as they have been lately, is it not conceivable that someone, somewhere would actually attempt something like that?
I think I'll see it in my lifetime. Hell, I'm beginning to think I'll see it before my 40th birthday (I'm 33).
Don't mix slavery in with what I'm asking. It's completely off the point.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
<strong>Thoth:
Legally cognizable INJURY? THAT'S what this is about?
Please explain to me how this guy (or his daughter)was in any way shape or form,"injured." You show me that and I'll show you some modern, ultra-vague legal-speak that allows jerks like this to solve their problems in a court instead of their own home or neighborhood.
Just because someone wrote a loophole for him doesn't mean he's right to jump through it. There's such a thing as abusing the legal system for one's own purposes, as opposed to using it for the benefit of the majority.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, no one wrote a "loophole" as far as a jurisdictional statute is concerned. Its a requirement for Art. III standing. You need to allege an "injury in fact," (note that I DID NOT say "suffered" an injury in fact. That's part of the merits of the case) and although you don't think this case has such an injury, an allegation with supporting facts that a state institution has abridged your first amendment freedoms is a legally cognizable injury in fact. This requirement is very low, although people do get kicked out of court for alleging non-concrete, speculative injuries.
And, this is a perfect opportunity to resolve it in court b/c courts and the constitution are designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority (no, we don't live in a country where the majority always rules. Its a republic, not a "democracy"). The point is, these people (probably) couldn't have dealt with this issue through the school board or wherever (elected officials) because they would have been voted down. And no, popular sentiment does not have any bearing on the constitutionality of something except insofar as it leads to a constitutional amendment.
There really is nothing silly about this case. Perhaps the guy is not the most sympathetic plaintiff, but the issue is real and so is the injury.
Thoth
<strong>
But what if a large segment of citizens from Outer Habarkia (yeah, I made it up), living in Chicago for instance and who were big baseball fans, decide that hearing the National Anthem before a Cubs game either a) offended them as proud Outer Habarkiens or b) made them homesick for the lush pastures and flowing rivers of Outer Habarkia and/or c) simply made them stand out and uncomfortable...in other words, made them feel "left out".
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I must have missed the slavery reference, but the at any rate the Cubs can have the Pledge all they want being a private organization. Maybe Bud Selig should think about the consequences of getting lots of municipal funding for new stadia...But, again, I digress.
BTW, a propos of noting, Slavery was certainly consitutional until the 13,14,and 15th Amendments.
Thoth
PS: I agree that there are a lot of attorneys out there who shouldn't be attorneys. But, this is not a case of that. Don't blame it on the attorneys, blame it on the legislature who did this in the first place, or the Constitution itself. At bottom, we disagree with the content of the document - but I don't think you'd disagree with a person's right to challenge the legal meaning of it in Court, as that too, is enshrined in it.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Thoth2 ]</p>
<strong>
Can one even compare the horrible history of slavery to whether or not the National Anthem is played at a ballgame?
The whole "slavery" thing is the stark and extreme example trotted out by people when they want to illustrate "see, sometimes things must change...".
But I wasn't talking about slavery. And yes, I think slavery was an awful, awful thing and a pretty permanent scar on things.
But that has nothing to do with my questions you quoted. I don't think anyone with half a brain would suggest "you know, slavery wasn't THAT bad...".
I'm sure we'll pretty much all on the same page regarding that topic.
But what if a large segment of citizens from Outer Habarkia (yeah, I made it up), living in Chicago for instance and who were big baseball fans, decide that hearing the National Anthem before a Cubs game either a) offended them as proud Outer Habarkiens or b) made them homesick for the lush pastures and flowing rivers of Outer Habarkia and/or c) simply made them stand out and uncomfortable...in other words, made them feel "left out".
In this day and age, with fire-breathing, no-holds-barred attorneys desperate for publicity, cash, fame, etc., and with people being as generally sue-happy and belly-achy as they have been lately, is it not conceivable that someone, somewhere would actually attempt something like that?
I think I'll see it in my lifetime. Hell, I'm beginning to think I'll see it before my 40th birthday (I'm 33).
Don't mix slavery in with what I'm asking. It's completely off the point.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
your right, there is no comparson between the two, but it does illustrate a point. just because we did something the past does not make it right .
I mean, the non-theistic (note, big difference from atheistic) version was the pledge of allegiance before the 1954 law and it is only the 1954 law which has been found unconstitutional.
And although I'm starting to skim through posts because this thread is going like wildfire, I've yet to hear a convincing argument that "under God" isn't religious or that the old pledge is unpatriotic. Nor have I seen how removing it denies anyone their rights or how not having "God" in something makes it pro-atheism by default. I don't think my parking tickets are pro-atheist and they don't mention God once.
True. I know.
And Thoth2 is right: the Cubs (or any other sport team) isn't a government thing. But imagine a situation where it could happen, and it probably will.
Like I said, nothing surprises me anymore.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
Groverat:
I used a bad choice of words in "hiding behind the Constitution." What I was trying to say is it drives me nuts when people refuse to solve their own petty problems, and then (lamely) use the constitution out of context, or otherwise claim something is "unconstitutional maaan" in order to get attention / find a lawyer sleezy enough to take the case. My whole point was: what the hell happened to common sense and pragmatism? This isn't about constitutional rights, it's about what people can get away with in a court of law.
As for the loophole talk, what I'm referring to is not the constitution itself but all lame-o legal precedents (or low standards of proof) which have been set in recent years, that allow a guy like this to just waltz in there and say "Hey, I refuse to solve my own problems. I think this here Pledge of Alleegeence is ...what's that word again Bob?...OH, yah...Unconstitutional! Hey, I've been reading up on this!" He actually said that last part. Right before he said his lawsuit was "cool."
ANYway, I was asking something different with regards to the Eisenhower thing (I caught it the first time; we're just crossing signals now)...but where the whole thing falls apart for me is, regardless of any flag doctrines or rituals...so long as no one has said "all public schools WILL abide by this doctrine, and children who do NOT abide but it will be disciplined" - where's the trampling of rights? Basically, recitation ends up BEING the issue because someone at the local level (not the government) has come to the conclusion (probably by board vote) that this is the right thing to do for their particular school.
Now, if someone says "the tax-payers of this community voted that the pledge will be a part of our daily routine. If your kid doesn't comply, he will be disciplined..." THEN we have a problem. Until then, all we have is hurt feewings on the part of a few atheists and otherwise extremely bored people.
And quit harassin' me about the part where I said he screwed with everyone else's life.
I think clearly the answer is "no" - it doesn't hold any weight. We're a nation that panders to any minority group that cries a few crocodile tears and threatens a lawsuit. It's pathetic.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Get away with?
What's the "petty problem" this guy has that you keep talking about?
He sees a 1st amendment/establishment issue in the 1954 act and he's taking it to the courts. That's the way our system is supposed to work.
[quote]As for the loophole talk, what I'm referring to is not the constitution itself but all lame-o legal precedents (or low standards of proof) which have been set in recent years, that allow a guy like this to just waltz in there and say "Hey, I refuse to solve my own problems. I think this here Pledge of Alleegeence is ...what's that word again Bob?...OH, yah...Unconstitutional! Hey, I've been reading up on this!" He actually said that last part. Right before he said his lawsuit was "cool."<hr></blockquote>
What's the problem he's refusing the solve on his own?
I'm sure he's talked to his daughter about this, I mean, he took it to court after all he's not trying to keep it secret.
Sounds like he's been doing more "reading up" than you, and you're the one making fun of him.
[quote]ANYway, I was asking something different with regards to the Eisenhower thing (I caught it the first time; we're just crossing signals now)...but where the whole thing falls apart for me is, regardless of any flag doctrines or rituals...so long as no one has said "all public schools WILL abide by this doctrine, and children who do NOT abide but it will be disciplined" - where's the trampling of rights?<hr></blockquote>
The act mandates the official text of the pledge. It is not an unofficial saying with no concrete way to say it.
[quote]Basically, recitation ends up BEING the issue because someone at the local level (not the government) has come to the conclusion (probably by board vote) that this is the right thing to do for their particular school.<hr></blockquote>
The PoA is used in more than schools. It's used in the military and correct me if I'm wrong, citizens-to-be must pledge before they are made citizens.
The recitation has been challenged and it is not required of students. Now the actual text is being challenged because the actual text can be challenged.
[quote]Now, if someone says "the tax-payers of this community voted that the pledge will be a part of our daily routine. If your kid doesn't comply, he will be disciplined..." THEN we have a problem.<hr></blockquote>
Well yes, that would be a problem. But that's not the only scenario that is problematic.
[quote]Until then, all we have is hurt feewings on the part of a few atheists and otherwise extremely bored people.<hr></blockquote>
Hurt feelings?
I ask, who is the biggest group of whiners here? It's the whining white men screaming about how the godless liberals and athiests are "screwing up their existence".
[quote]And quit harassin' me about the part where I said he screwed with everyone else's life.<hr></blockquote>
No, it's too rich for me to pass up.
[quote]I bet a large majority of parents at that school were in full support of the pledge and were happy their kids were learning it.<hr></blockquote>
Well that's just fucking dandy!
Hoo-fucking-Ray for them.
Majority doesn't necessarily rule in this nation, love it or leave it you godless commie!
[quote]Does the concept of doing what is in the best interest of the majority no longer hold any weight in this country?<hr></blockquote>
Best interests? What?
They can teach their kids all about God and His wonderful majesty.
Best interests... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]I think clearly the answer is "no" - it doesn't hold any weight. We're a nation that panders to any minority group that cries a few crocodile tears and threatens a lawsuit. It's pathetic.<hr></blockquote>
*sniff*
The constitutionality of laws isn't up for public vote.
As for the school vouchers thing, I don't think this is the same because these are vouchers toward any private school, not religious schools in particular. You get a voucher to pursue an education where you want, and if you want to exercise your religious freedom, you can.
An Ann Coulter may be okay looking for a rabid right-wing she-monster, but I find here pretty wormlike during interviews, avoiding questions posing inane questions. She was on Hardball Debate last night vs. and even more rabid liberal she-monster...the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.
<strong>She went head-to-head with the host of Hardball last night (wasn't Chris Matthews...was another guy, a substitute maybe? Matthews on vacation?) and a dark-haired lady, an editor for "The Nation", I believe.
Between the lady and the host talking over her and berating her for her opinions/beliefs, poor Ms. Coulter got out about 7 words the entire segment.
She was visible getting pissed. Which just made her that much hotter.
WRONG! Mike Barnicle gave her every oportunity to speak and when confronted with facts she would not answer. I mean she goes on a show like HARDBALL to promote her book and does not expect to defend its contents? If she couldn't defend it on air it must not be an interesting read. I'm sorry but it was just too funny to see what an ass she made of herself. OH, and her point about the judges being Democratic president appointees.... WRONG again. One was a Carter, the other a Nixon appointee. She simply didn't have anything to say.
...so, he is addressing his problem except that it isn't just his problemn its all of our problem.... when it is ritualized in a governmentally sanctioned pledge that our nation lies under 'god' .. and is thereby subordinate to the concept of 'god' then it infringing on the right to not have god in my politics, by implying that all politics must pay obescience to god first.
and also creeping the door slightly open for further encroachment into the theistic realms . . .
What makes me sick about this is that now that the ice is broken and the obvious has been pointed out by a courageous individual every politician with a constituency is posing for teh camera with their ever so pious hands on their hearts and god on their mouths.
Render on to Ceasar what is ceasar's.
don't put the mud of cheap politics onto the "pearl" of religion (pearl before swine)..
perhaps if you are religious you should look at it like that.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>Good post Moogs. It's about this guy not liking the system because it's not tailored to meet HIS NEEDS.
In other words "If I don't like what you're saying I'm going to find a way to shut you up!"
Again people GOD does not = Christianity. If it does please show me where this is stated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What GOD does = is MONOTHEISM. Any way you spin it- ONE GOD. Atheists don't believe in any number of GODS, so your argument that GOD is ambiguous is clearly BUNK.
<strong>Besides, I only jumped back into this thread because sjtsu asked where I was.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
sjpsu, that is! aka shawn joyce penn state university. although sjtsu is cool.. sounds like SUJITSU!
<strong>
Does the concept of doing what is in the best interest of the majority no longer hold any weight in this country?
I think clearly the answer is "no" - it doesn't hold any weight. We're a nation that panders to any minority group that cries a few crocodile tears and threatens a lawsuit. It's pathetic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Sorry. You seem to conveniently evade the question of whether or not the majority is RIGHT in their decision. Well... ARE THEY? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>To anybody claiming the usage of God in these examples is ambiguous, don't kid yourself.
As for the school vouchers thing, I don't think this is the same because these are vouchers toward any private school, not religious schools in particular. You get a voucher to pursue an education where you want, and if you want to exercise your religious freedom, you can.
An Ann Coulter may be okay looking for a rabid right-wing she-monster, but I find here pretty wormlike during interviews, avoiding questions posing inane questions. She was on Hardball Debate last night vs. and even more rabid liberal she-monster...the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
95% of vouchers are used for religious schooling. Have a nice day.