All I saw on Hardball was Barnicle and the opposing lady running their yaps pretty much nonstop.
Just as James Carville got finished doing 30 minutes ago during Coulter's appearance on "Crossfire".
He'd ask a question, she go to answer it, he'd insert a little smart-ass comment or otherwise try to tweak/subtly insult her, etc. and because she wasn't there live in the studio and was appearing via satellite from L.A., there was probably a bit of a delay on her end because he "interviewing style" caused her to have to stop and check to see if he was through asking a question and could she proceed.
This happened throughout the interview, because CARVILLE and the way HE conducted himself.
Funny that she had no problems when Tucker Carlson asked her a question. And, contrary to what you're probably thinking, he wasn't sucking up either. He asked her some probing questions and called her on a few things. But he'd ask his question, then shut his mouth and let her answer, without tacking on a bunch of snide comments at the very end.
Unlike James Carville.
I honestly didn't think I could find a more annoying, ill-mannered and smart-ass host of a show than Paul Begala. I think today, I just did.
I don't know how Mary Matalin comes home to that guy every night.
How could you SAY that! Just kidding. That's the kind of quotes we get around here sometimes, though.
Anyhow:
Appealing to the "majority rule" thing won't work here -- it's flawed logically. EVEN IF the majority of folks in this nation espoused Christian values (and they might SURVEY like that, but they don't ACT like that), there's no reason to subject everyone in the country to the will of the majority. That won't work.
We can, however, appeal to tradition and patriotism. The founding principles of this country were based on The Book -- whether it was the KJV or the Torah or the Koran. The idea of "under God" is entirely relevant throughout the history of the US. But we can't enforce our beliefs on others, because that would be culturally insensitive.
The real problem with this issue is that people want to fight stuff like this (the guy that brought the court case). The fact that he WANTS to fight it is the trouble. Perhaps the extensive public scrutiny of the 9th Circus Court will help prevent this kind of crap in the future. Perhaps. Maybe some judge will say "no, we don't need to review this at this time -- there are far more important issues before this court for the next decade or so." This is where judicial discretion comes in, and that IS Constitutional. That role stresses the importance of the appointment process.
If you're pissed about this, or the lack of confirmation hearings for new judges, please write your Congressional delegation and tell them about it. Senators can be reached from
<strong>All I saw on Hardball was Barnicle and the opposing lady running their yaps pretty much nonstop.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, she had EVERY opportunity to speak without interuption. She simply wouldn't because she had nothing to say! I mean Barnicle initially confronted her with a key part of her book and she herself spoke against the statement. What is she promoting again? Oh yeah, her book? Sorry Ann, this isn't the self-congratulatory FOX News Channel Book Review Club. She was supposed to defend it and when confronted she shied away.
SOMEONE FIND A TRANSCRIPT OF LAST NIGHT'S SHOW. I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK,
Yeah, that lady and Barnicle were worse than Ann Coulter, especially as a double-team. How many times did we hear "Oh come on, Ann." I was just waiting for them to pat her on the head, but alas, it was a remote interview.
Or when Ann asked if they would have a left-wing author on the show with a commentary from a right-wing persona. it was funny when he admitted that would never happen. Of course she posed that question in an effort to ignore a question he posed himself. It was as if they weren't even talking to her.
The other lady alone was worse than both Ann Coulter and Mike Barnicle combined.
Off topic:
Is it me or is Ann Coulter's voice getting lower and lower pitched? Come to think of it...she does seem to have a bit of an adam's apple.
Thank you, Eugene. I KNEW I couldn't have been the only person who saw the interview the way it was. It was an obnoxious two-person tag team on Coulter. Smarmy, smirking, fake-smiling, sing-songy voices, etc. So annoying.
If you're going to be an obnoxious, ill-mannered cretin, then DO IT. Don't cloak it in big idiotic fake smiles and patronizing, lilting speech. I HATE that, from anyone. But especially that idiot from The Nation.
She WAS awful to listen to.
She's been putting up with this crap on every show lately.
And she was TOTALLY right when she asked if Al Franken or (forgot the other person...a well-known, left-leaning writer/celebrity) came on with a book ragging on the conservative right, would "Hardball" employ an Ann Coulter or someone of her leanings to be there for "balance".
That was actually a good question, because I'm quite certain they wouldn't. As a matter of fact, it DID strike me as odd that Coulter was appearing to hawk her book, and she ends up having to go toe-to-toe with this loudmouth chick from The Nation, and could barely plug her book because she was fending off these two other people.
I'd bet my left kidney that if "Hardball" brought Al Franken, Michael Moore or anyone like that on to hawk their latest book, there wouldn't be anyone else in the segment except the author and the host.
Coulter was right on when she asked that. You could tell she was just getting exasperated.
Maybe some judge will say "no, we don't need to review this at this time -- there are far more important issues before this court for the next decade or so." This is where judicial discretion comes in, and that IS Constitutional. That role stresses the importance of the appointment process.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, you don't know thing one about what you are writing about. The jurisdiction of the federal courts of appeals is NON DISCRETIONARY. I have already posted this above. this goes for the court of appeals as well as the district courts. So, when he lost in federal district court, he had an appeal, AS OF RIGHT, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. So, the judges that were assigned to the panel could not duck the case as you suggest even if they had wanted to. They decided the case on the merits as it came to them.
The only federal court that hears discretionary appeals is the Supreme Court which operates almost solely on Writs of Certiorari (unless the case is within its original jurisdiction, which is exceedingly rare).
I'm guessing you've never read a case written by the 9th Cir, but only news reports about them. The 9th Cir is the largest ct of appeal covering lots of states and having some 27 judges. Not only that but it has the highest volume of cases of any circuit in the land. There's bound to be a few outliers in there, but this case is not one of them. BTW, 2 of the most often mentioned future SCT judges (of the conservative variety) are currently on the 9th Circuit. Justice Kennedy is an alum of the 9th Circuit. "Circus" indeed.
BTW, I'm all for writing your Congress persons, but since this is a constitutional issue, it won't do a bit of good. Congress can't pass a law to overturn a constitutional ruling. The amendment process is the only way. Of course, the ruling is non-binding (I should say, binding only in the 9th Cir, but its not even binding in the 9th cir now: the case has been stayed pending decision on motions) until the Sup. Ct. passes on the question.
Um, excuse me, but Ann's question happens all the time on FOX News Channel. Just recently, the author of Goodbye, Good Men was allowed to plug his book without defense or criticism on BIll O'Reilly's show. And as far the "Oh come on Ann" quote: SHE EVADED EVERY QUESTION WHEN ASKED, made false statements, and acted like a baby when simply asked to defend a statement from the book. I mean she wrote the damn thing. All she had to do was recite her evidence for the statement.
BUT I think the larger problem was that she HAD NO EVIDENCE. I mean she called liberals anti-patriotic and Barnicle simply asked whether or not she thought Sen. John Kerry was anti-patriotic. The show is called HARDBALL for god's sake. The questions are SUPPOSED to be straight-forward. Jesus. You don;t come on and expect to Pscate your way to book plugging.
<strong>You don;t come on and expect to Pscate your way to book plugging.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it better to go with the Hobson's choice or not? I don't know. All three of them looked bad, but in the end it was 2 on 1. It could have been 1 on 1. Everybody knows FOX News is right-wing, but sheesh that lady was yacking about CNN and CNBC and MSNBC being right-wing too.
At least relative to the American public this is not true. Relative to Europe? I dunno, right-wing hardliners seem to be getting pretty popular all of a sudden there too.
[quote]The act mandates the official text of the pledge. It is not an unofficial saying with no concrete way to say it.<hr></blockquote>
The official text of the pledge...OK. What happens if every public school in the nation recites a different version (the pre-Ike version even)? Are they suddenly going to lose funding? Students punished? Teachers fired? Where's the consequence for not reciting / using the official version?
[quote]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<hr></blockquote>
And what would happen if, when the would-be citizen, in a room with 30 other people reciting in unison, just casually left out the words "under God" - would their citizenship be renounced?
Military I don't know about, but I think you're correct about the citizens-to-be part in terms of them having to recite it. I think the military types have to take a different oath all together....
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
Since when did the separation of Church and State become more about semantics than about what the State actually demands or promotes of its citizenry? So we have a collection of words that establishes an orthodoxy (or at least the perception of one)...where has the government (federal, state or city) mandated its use? Better still, where has the government said "you cannot use any other version of this text?"
Regardless of whether Congress helped Ike to reword the thing, there is absolutely no real consequence (that anyone has shown me) for NOT using is, or using a different version without the words "under God." That being the case, I don't see how anyone can claim this is a form of government-mandated religion. Clearly the governments have left it up to the citizens as to whether or not they should use it and which version.
No consequences for NOT using the words "Under God" = no state-mandated religion in this context.
I'm going to stop railing on the guy who brought this suit because it's pretty mucha no-brainer that he could've handled this in a more pragmatic way / he was looking for his 15 minutes worth and got it...but my points above stand. Especially the last one IMO.
[quote]The official text of the pledge...OK. What happens if every public school in the nation recites a different version (the pre-Ike version even)? Are they suddenly going to lose funding? Students punished? Teachers fired? Where's the consequence for not reciting / using the official version?<hr></blockquote>
I don't know what would happen and I don't see why it matters.
[quote]And what would happen if, when the would-be citizen, in a room with 30 other people reciting in unison, just casually left out the words "under God" - would their citizenship be renounced?<hr></blockquote>
I don't know.
I don't even know if they are required to say it, I'm fairly sure they are.
Again, I don't see how it matters.
FORCED RECITATION IS NOT THE ISSUE.
[quote]Since when did the separation of Church and State become more about semantics than about what the State actually demands or promotes of its citizenry?<hr></blockquote>
Because those things are all the same thing.
The state says:
To pledge allegiance to your nation you say the following words:
I pledge allegiance, to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands
one nation, under god
indivisible
with liberty and justice for all
It doesn't matter if they threaten to shoot you if you don't say "under God" or if they just don't do anything if you don't say "under God". It doesn't matter. It's of no consequence. FORCED RECITATION IS NOT THE ISSUE.
What the State (here represented by white Christian men) wants to promote is all well and good until their mandates (and Congress' mandate, since Congress passed through an act the official text of the PoA) conflict with the constitution.
This conflicts with the constitution. So sorry, but it does.
[quote]So we have a collection of words that establishes an orthodoxy (or at least the perception of one)...where has the government (federal, state or city) mandated its use? Better still, where has the government said "you cannot use any other version of this text?"<hr></blockquote>
Say it with me...
Forced recitation is not the issue.
[quote]Regardless of whether Congress helped Ike to reword the thing, there is absolutely no real consequence (that anyone has shown me) for NOT using is, or using a different version without the words "under God."<hr></blockquote>
Congress passed an act (a motion of law) in 1954. That act is subject to court review for constitutionality.
The issue is the wording of the official text when read against the establishment clause.
What is the issue not?
That's right, forced recitation.
[quote]That being the case, I don't see how anyone can claim this is a form of government-mandated religion.<hr></blockquote>
Because the government included subjugation to the Christian God in the official law mandating the official text of the Pledge of Allegiance.
[quote]Clearly the governments have left it up to the citizens as to whether or not they should use it and which version.<hr></blockquote>
No, they haven't.
If that were the case there would be no official version. There is an official version and the lack of shootings as a result of non-compliance means absolutely nothing in their establishment.
[quote]No consequences for NOT using the words "Under God" = no state-mandated religion in this context.<hr></blockquote>
For the umpteenth time... this is not about forced recitation.
So what you're saying is...this is probably not about forced recitation?
I heard you the first few times - really - but no one has given me anything to indicate anyone's constitutional rights have been abridged, abused or otherwise neglected. For example, forced recitation - that would be an abridgement of someone's constitutional rights.
Let's spin this another way: how did Ike's making the "under God" version of the PoA "official" take away an atheist's right to not believe in God? How does it hinder an agnostic from questioning whether or not there is a God? Was anyone - of any religious persuasion - less able to: worship or not worship, preach or not preach, debate or not debate (in public or otherwise) before this ruling came down?
Show me the good this ruling did. Show me how it enhanced someone's liberty or did away with someone's oppression. In the end I assume this is all about liberty and being able to live one's life as they see fit - right? Show me how this ruling improved anyone's ability to do just that.
ONCE AGAIN, nothing really has changed except that the majority now has less right to express their patriotism / allegiance (whatever you'd like to call it) in public schools than they did before. Bravo! Nothing has been added, but something certainly has been taken away.
By the way, I should state for the record that I am less interested in kids reciting the PoA than I am in them actually being good citizens. I'll take the kid who sleeps through the PoA but volunteers some of his time to charitable causes, actually learns (rather than memorizes) what's in his Civics book, etc - every time - over the kid who recites the PoA without fail but sleeps through Civics class and spends his time in front of a PS2 console at home....
...in fact if a school previously decided to spend PoA / home-room time on political debate instead, I'd be all for it. But I'm not all for some jagoff ruining a pledge that [meant something] to lot of people - just because he knew the political climate of the day would yield the result he wanted (no more pledge). Next they're going to tell us that all versions of the PoA are "unconstitutional" because it "demands" that we "pledge" ourselves to the government (by extension of course), which is indicative of a tyrannical state...so it should clearly be banned in all its forms from all public institutions.
[quote]I heard you the first few times - really - but no one has given me anything to indicate anyone's constitutional rights have been abridged, abused or otherwise neglected.<hr></blockquote>
No one citizen's constitutional rights HAVE to be abriged...mmk?
Let's look at the amendment again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
If you and I form a club and one of the rules is:
"No member of the club can masturbate on odd Tuesdays" and you do masturbate on an odd Tuesday you haven't abridged my rights at all, but you've broken the rules; in this case, the constitution. (this analogy doesn't work for the PoA argument, just for the concept of a law being unconstitutional in and of itself)
[quote]how did Ike's making the "under God" version of the PoA "official" take away an atheist's right to not believe in God?<hr></blockquote>
See above.
[quote]How does it hinder an agnostic from questioning whether or not there is a God?<hr></blockquote>
See above.
[quote]Was anyone - of any religious persuasion - less able to: worship or not worship, preach or not preach, debate or not debate (in public or otherwise) before this ruling came down?<hr></blockquote>
No, but that's not the issue.
[quote]Show me the good this ruling did. Show me how it enhanced someone's liberty or did away with someone's oppression. In the end I assume this is all about liberty and being able to live one's life as they see fit - right? Show me how this ruling improved anyone's ability to do just that.<hr></blockquote>
There were no such requirements for the ruling.
A good thing that came of it:
An unconstitutional act of Congress was struck down.
[quote]ONCE AGAIN, nothing really has changed except that the majority now has less right to express their patriotism / allegiance (whatever you'd like to call it) in public schools than they did before. Bravo! Nothing has been added, but something certainly has been taken away.<hr></blockquote>
How?
The Pledge of Allegiance can still be said all day long, you can say "under God" if you want, even. Teach your kids and grandkids for generation that the Godless commie athiests took "under God" out of the official version and have them say "under God" when they say the PoA.
No one's rights were infringed upon with this ruling. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]But I'm not all for some jagoff ruining a pledge that [meant something] to lot of people - just because he knew the political climate of the day would yield the result he wanted (no more pledge).<hr></blockquote>
I think adding "under God" in 1954 ruined the PoA. It was aimed solely at national pride but they had to add their pro-Christian stuff in there to validate their own ideas. Gotta reinforce the white man's faith in himself.
[quote]Next they're going to tell us that all versions of the PoA are "unconstitutional" because it "demands" that we "pledge" ourselves to the government (by extension of course), which is indicative of a tyrannical state...so it should clearly be banned in all its forms from all public institutions.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, the PoA is a direct pledge to the flag (symbol of the nation). I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the government saying "be subject to me" because we are subject to the gov't.
[quote]I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the government saying "be subject to me" because we are subject to the gov't.<hr></blockquote>
"And to the Republic, for which it stands...."
I'm tellin' ya, this clause is next on the lobotomy-left hit-list. I mean, we can't very well have the government imply that we must blindly support it because Ike's officially sanctioned PoA says so! It's tyranny I say!
Can I get a little context and an "amen" my brothas and sistas? That's all I'm askin'; we all know this isn't about the man keeping us down. Is it so hard to understand that Ike wasn't trying to cram religion down anyone's throat, but merely reflecting a belief held by the vast majority of Americans at that time? Modern-day anachronism anyone?
Did I further mention it drives me nuts when people take something that is fundamentally good or which has constructive meaning, and shits all over it as if it were nothing but gutter-speak? "I'm offended by it, therefore it's bad." THAT is where this "constitutional crusader" in Cally is coming from...ask Scates - he'll tell ya. He has to live who those hammerheads, by God!
Dr. Pepper anyone? [Garth Brooks is heard singing]Be you, do what you do....[/end cheesy jingle]
Comments
Just as James Carville got finished doing 30 minutes ago during Coulter's appearance on "Crossfire".
He'd ask a question, she go to answer it, he'd insert a little smart-ass comment or otherwise try to tweak/subtly insult her, etc. and because she wasn't there live in the studio and was appearing via satellite from L.A., there was probably a bit of a delay on her end because he "interviewing style" caused her to have to stop and check to see if he was through asking a question and could she proceed.
This happened throughout the interview, because CARVILLE and the way HE conducted himself.
Funny that she had no problems when Tucker Carlson asked her a question. And, contrary to what you're probably thinking, he wasn't sucking up either. He asked her some probing questions and called her on a few things. But he'd ask his question, then shut his mouth and let her answer, without tacking on a bunch of snide comments at the very end.
Unlike James Carville.
I honestly didn't think I could find a more annoying, ill-mannered and smart-ass host of a show than Paul Begala. I think today, I just did.
I don't know how Mary Matalin comes home to that guy every night.
If so, that would really help.
<strong>
"you know, slavery wasn't THAT bad...".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How could you SAY that! Just kidding. That's the kind of quotes we get around here sometimes, though.
Anyhow:
Appealing to the "majority rule" thing won't work here -- it's flawed logically. EVEN IF the majority of folks in this nation espoused Christian values (and they might SURVEY like that, but they don't ACT like that), there's no reason to subject everyone in the country to the will of the majority. That won't work.
We can, however, appeal to tradition and patriotism. The founding principles of this country were based on The Book -- whether it was the KJV or the Torah or the Koran. The idea of "under God" is entirely relevant throughout the history of the US. But we can't enforce our beliefs on others, because that would be culturally insensitive.
The real problem with this issue is that people want to fight stuff like this (the guy that brought the court case). The fact that he WANTS to fight it is the trouble. Perhaps the extensive public scrutiny of the 9th Circus Court will help prevent this kind of crap in the future. Perhaps. Maybe some judge will say "no, we don't need to review this at this time -- there are far more important issues before this court for the next decade or so." This is where judicial discretion comes in, and that IS Constitutional. That role stresses the importance of the appointment process.
If you're pissed about this, or the lack of confirmation hearings for new judges, please write your Congressional delegation and tell them about it. Senators can be reached from
<a href="http://www.senate.gov"; target="_blank">http://www.senate.gov</a>;
Feel free to write to the Hon. Senate Majority Leader, too, since he represents YOUR interests by virtue of his position.
CongressCritters can be reached via
<a href="http://www.congress.gov"; target="_blank">http://www.congress.gov</a>;
Whether you despise the ruling or you're all for it, please write to Congress and TELL THEM SO.
<strong>All I saw on Hardball was Barnicle and the opposing lady running their yaps pretty much nonstop.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, she had EVERY opportunity to speak without interuption. She simply wouldn't because she had nothing to say! I mean Barnicle initially confronted her with a key part of her book and she herself spoke against the statement. What is she promoting again? Oh yeah, her book? Sorry Ann, this isn't the self-congratulatory FOX News Channel Book Review Club. She was supposed to defend it and when confronted she shied away.
SOMEONE FIND A TRANSCRIPT OF LAST NIGHT'S SHOW. I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK,
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
Would a written transcript accurately convey the number of interruptions and talking over that goes on?
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
Or when Ann asked if they would have a left-wing author on the show with a commentary from a right-wing persona. it was funny when he admitted that would never happen. Of course she posed that question in an effort to ignore a question he posed himself. It was as if they weren't even talking to her.
The other lady alone was worse than both Ann Coulter and Mike Barnicle combined.
Off topic:
Is it me or is Ann Coulter's voice getting lower and lower pitched? Come to think of it...she does seem to have a bit of an adam's apple.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
If you're going to be an obnoxious, ill-mannered cretin, then DO IT. Don't cloak it in big idiotic fake smiles and patronizing, lilting speech. I HATE that, from anyone. But especially that idiot from The Nation.
She WAS awful to listen to.
She's been putting up with this crap on every show lately.
And she was TOTALLY right when she asked if Al Franken or (forgot the other person...a well-known, left-leaning writer/celebrity) came on with a book ragging on the conservative right, would "Hardball" employ an Ann Coulter or someone of her leanings to be there for "balance".
That was actually a good question, because I'm quite certain they wouldn't. As a matter of fact, it DID strike me as odd that Coulter was appearing to hawk her book, and she ends up having to go toe-to-toe with this loudmouth chick from The Nation, and could barely plug her book because she was fending off these two other people.
I'd bet my left kidney that if "Hardball" brought Al Franken, Michael Moore or anyone like that on to hawk their latest book, there wouldn't be anyone else in the segment except the author and the host.
Coulter was right on when she asked that. You could tell she was just getting exasperated.
And who wouldn't? I know I would...
<strong>
Maybe some judge will say "no, we don't need to review this at this time -- there are far more important issues before this court for the next decade or so." This is where judicial discretion comes in, and that IS Constitutional. That role stresses the importance of the appointment process.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, you don't know thing one about what you are writing about. The jurisdiction of the federal courts of appeals is NON DISCRETIONARY. I have already posted this above. this goes for the court of appeals as well as the district courts. So, when he lost in federal district court, he had an appeal, AS OF RIGHT, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. So, the judges that were assigned to the panel could not duck the case as you suggest even if they had wanted to. They decided the case on the merits as it came to them.
The only federal court that hears discretionary appeals is the Supreme Court which operates almost solely on Writs of Certiorari (unless the case is within its original jurisdiction, which is exceedingly rare).
I'm guessing you've never read a case written by the 9th Cir, but only news reports about them. The 9th Cir is the largest ct of appeal covering lots of states and having some 27 judges. Not only that but it has the highest volume of cases of any circuit in the land. There's bound to be a few outliers in there, but this case is not one of them. BTW, 2 of the most often mentioned future SCT judges (of the conservative variety) are currently on the 9th Circuit. Justice Kennedy is an alum of the 9th Circuit. "Circus" indeed.
BTW, I'm all for writing your Congress persons, but since this is a constitutional issue, it won't do a bit of good. Congress can't pass a law to overturn a constitutional ruling. The amendment process is the only way. Of course, the ruling is non-binding (I should say, binding only in the 9th Cir, but its not even binding in the 9th cir now: the case has been stayed pending decision on motions) until the Sup. Ct. passes on the question.
Thoth
BUT I think the larger problem was that she HAD NO EVIDENCE. I mean she called liberals anti-patriotic and Barnicle simply asked whether or not she thought Sen. John Kerry was anti-patriotic. The show is called HARDBALL for god's sake. The questions are SUPPOSED to be straight-forward. Jesus. You don;t come on and expect to Pscate your way to book plugging.
<strong>You don;t come on and expect to Pscate your way to book plugging.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it better to go with the Hobson's choice or not? I don't know. All three of them looked bad, but in the end it was 2 on 1. It could have been 1 on 1. Everybody knows FOX News is right-wing, but sheesh that lady was yacking about CNN and CNBC and MSNBC being right-wing too.
At least relative to the American public this is not true. Relative to Europe? I dunno, right-wing hardliners seem to be getting pretty popular all of a sudden there too.
With the way they are reporting this PoA case none of them look liberal (*hint* because none of them are).
FOX News!? Right-wing!? NO! They're fair and objective! They report, I decide, damnit!
The media isn't liberal, folks.
[quote]The act mandates the official text of the pledge. It is not an unofficial saying with no concrete way to say it.<hr></blockquote>
The official text of the pledge...OK. What happens if every public school in the nation recites a different version (the pre-Ike version even)? Are they suddenly going to lose funding? Students punished? Teachers fired? Where's the consequence for not reciting / using the official version?
[quote]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<hr></blockquote>
And what would happen if, when the would-be citizen, in a room with 30 other people reciting in unison, just casually left out the words "under God" - would their citizenship be renounced?
Military I don't know about, but I think you're correct about the citizens-to-be part in terms of them having to recite it. I think the military types have to take a different oath all together....
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
Since when did the separation of Church and State become more about semantics than about what the State actually demands or promotes of its citizenry? So we have a collection of words that establishes an orthodoxy (or at least the perception of one)...where has the government (federal, state or city) mandated its use? Better still, where has the government said "you cannot use any other version of this text?"
Regardless of whether Congress helped Ike to reword the thing, there is absolutely no real consequence (that anyone has shown me) for NOT using is, or using a different version without the words "under God." That being the case, I don't see how anyone can claim this is a form of government-mandated religion. Clearly the governments have left it up to the citizens as to whether or not they should use it and which version.
No consequences for NOT using the words "Under God" = no state-mandated religion in this context.
I'm going to stop railing on the guy who brought this suit because it's pretty mucha no-brainer that he could've handled this in a more pragmatic way / he was looking for his 15 minutes worth and got it...but my points above stand. Especially the last one IMO.
I don't know what would happen and I don't see why it matters.
[quote]And what would happen if, when the would-be citizen, in a room with 30 other people reciting in unison, just casually left out the words "under God" - would their citizenship be renounced?<hr></blockquote>
I don't know.
I don't even know if they are required to say it, I'm fairly sure they are.
Again, I don't see how it matters.
FORCED RECITATION IS NOT THE ISSUE.
[quote]Since when did the separation of Church and State become more about semantics than about what the State actually demands or promotes of its citizenry?<hr></blockquote>
Because those things are all the same thing.
The state says:
To pledge allegiance to your nation you say the following words:
I pledge allegiance, to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands
one nation, under god
indivisible
with liberty and justice for all
It doesn't matter if they threaten to shoot you if you don't say "under God" or if they just don't do anything if you don't say "under God". It doesn't matter. It's of no consequence. FORCED RECITATION IS NOT THE ISSUE.
What the State (here represented by white Christian men) wants to promote is all well and good until their mandates (and Congress' mandate, since Congress passed through an act the official text of the PoA) conflict with the constitution.
This conflicts with the constitution. So sorry, but it does.
[quote]So we have a collection of words that establishes an orthodoxy (or at least the perception of one)...where has the government (federal, state or city) mandated its use? Better still, where has the government said "you cannot use any other version of this text?"<hr></blockquote>
Say it with me...
Forced recitation is not the issue.
[quote]Regardless of whether Congress helped Ike to reword the thing, there is absolutely no real consequence (that anyone has shown me) for NOT using is, or using a different version without the words "under God."<hr></blockquote>
Congress passed an act (a motion of law) in 1954. That act is subject to court review for constitutionality.
The issue is the wording of the official text when read against the establishment clause.
What is the issue not?
That's right, forced recitation.
[quote]That being the case, I don't see how anyone can claim this is a form of government-mandated religion.<hr></blockquote>
Because the government included subjugation to the Christian God in the official law mandating the official text of the Pledge of Allegiance.
[quote]Clearly the governments have left it up to the citizens as to whether or not they should use it and which version.<hr></blockquote>
No, they haven't.
If that were the case there would be no official version. There is an official version and the lack of shootings as a result of non-compliance means absolutely nothing in their establishment.
[quote]No consequences for NOT using the words "Under God" = no state-mandated religion in this context.<hr></blockquote>
For the umpteenth time... this is not about forced recitation.
I heard you the first few times - really - but no one has given me anything to indicate anyone's constitutional rights have been abridged, abused or otherwise neglected. For example, forced recitation - that would be an abridgement of someone's constitutional rights.
Let's spin this another way: how did Ike's making the "under God" version of the PoA "official" take away an atheist's right to not believe in God? How does it hinder an agnostic from questioning whether or not there is a God? Was anyone - of any religious persuasion - less able to: worship or not worship, preach or not preach, debate or not debate (in public or otherwise) before this ruling came down?
Show me the good this ruling did. Show me how it enhanced someone's liberty or did away with someone's oppression. In the end I assume this is all about liberty and being able to live one's life as they see fit - right? Show me how this ruling improved anyone's ability to do just that.
ONCE AGAIN, nothing really has changed except that the majority now has less right to express their patriotism / allegiance (whatever you'd like to call it) in public schools than they did before. Bravo! Nothing has been added, but something certainly has been taken away.
By the way, I should state for the record that I am less interested in kids reciting the PoA than I am in them actually being good citizens. I'll take the kid who sleeps through the PoA but volunteers some of his time to charitable causes, actually learns (rather than memorizes) what's in his Civics book, etc - every time - over the kid who recites the PoA without fail but sleeps through Civics class and spends his time in front of a PS2 console at home....
...in fact if a school previously decided to spend PoA / home-room time on political debate instead, I'd be all for it. But I'm not all for some jagoff ruining a pledge that [meant something] to lot of people - just because he knew the political climate of the day would yield the result he wanted (no more pledge). Next they're going to tell us that all versions of the PoA are "unconstitutional" because it "demands" that we "pledge" ourselves to the government (by extension of course), which is indicative of a tyrannical state...so it should clearly be banned in all its forms from all public institutions.
[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
<strong>
Yeah. Its called 1781 drafting style. Most of the Nouns in the Constitution are capitalized.
Thoth</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure what beer's point is but it wouldn't have anything to do with this. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
*repeatedly*
All right, smartass!
[quote]I heard you the first few times - really - but no one has given me anything to indicate anyone's constitutional rights have been abridged, abused or otherwise neglected.<hr></blockquote>
No one citizen's constitutional rights HAVE to be abriged...mmk?
Let's look at the amendment again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
If you and I form a club and one of the rules is:
"No member of the club can masturbate on odd Tuesdays" and you do masturbate on an odd Tuesday you haven't abridged my rights at all, but you've broken the rules; in this case, the constitution. (this analogy doesn't work for the PoA argument, just for the concept of a law being unconstitutional in and of itself)
[quote]how did Ike's making the "under God" version of the PoA "official" take away an atheist's right to not believe in God?<hr></blockquote>
See above.
[quote]How does it hinder an agnostic from questioning whether or not there is a God?<hr></blockquote>
See above.
[quote]Was anyone - of any religious persuasion - less able to: worship or not worship, preach or not preach, debate or not debate (in public or otherwise) before this ruling came down?<hr></blockquote>
No, but that's not the issue.
[quote]Show me the good this ruling did. Show me how it enhanced someone's liberty or did away with someone's oppression. In the end I assume this is all about liberty and being able to live one's life as they see fit - right? Show me how this ruling improved anyone's ability to do just that.<hr></blockquote>
There were no such requirements for the ruling.
A good thing that came of it:
An unconstitutional act of Congress was struck down.
[quote]ONCE AGAIN, nothing really has changed except that the majority now has less right to express their patriotism / allegiance (whatever you'd like to call it) in public schools than they did before. Bravo! Nothing has been added, but something certainly has been taken away.<hr></blockquote>
How?
The Pledge of Allegiance can still be said all day long, you can say "under God" if you want, even. Teach your kids and grandkids for generation that the Godless commie athiests took "under God" out of the official version and have them say "under God" when they say the PoA.
No one's rights were infringed upon with this ruling. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]But I'm not all for some jagoff ruining a pledge that [meant something] to lot of people - just because he knew the political climate of the day would yield the result he wanted (no more pledge).<hr></blockquote>
I think adding "under God" in 1954 ruined the PoA. It was aimed solely at national pride but they had to add their pro-Christian stuff in there to validate their own ideas. Gotta reinforce the white man's faith in himself.
[quote]Next they're going to tell us that all versions of the PoA are "unconstitutional" because it "demands" that we "pledge" ourselves to the government (by extension of course), which is indicative of a tyrannical state...so it should clearly be banned in all its forms from all public institutions.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, the PoA is a direct pledge to the flag (symbol of the nation). I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the government saying "be subject to me" because we are subject to the gov't.
"And to the Republic, for which it stands...."
I'm tellin' ya, this clause is next on the lobotomy-left hit-list.
Can I get a little context and an "amen" my brothas and sistas? That's all I'm askin'; we all know this isn't about the man keeping us down. Is it so hard to understand that Ike wasn't trying to cram religion down anyone's throat, but merely reflecting a belief held by the vast majority of Americans at that time? Modern-day anachronism anyone?
Did I further mention it drives me nuts when people take something that is fundamentally good or which has constructive meaning, and shits all over it as if it were nothing but gutter-speak? "I'm offended by it, therefore it's bad." THAT is where this "constitutional crusader" in Cally is coming from...ask Scates - he'll tell ya. He has to live who those hammerheads, by God!
Dr. Pepper anyone? [Garth Brooks is heard singing]Be you, do what you do....[/end cheesy jingle]
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />