NightJumper 0 #1 June 14, 2004 The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath while stepping the broader question of separation of church and state. See more here:http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge.case.ap/index.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #2 June 14, 2004 That's good news! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #3 June 14, 2004 Yeah, great news...Always good to see an anachronistic byproduct of McCarthyism/the Red Scare endure due to the efforts of the "Religious Right" (Which is neither)...[/sarcasm] Clicky! Edit for punctuation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #4 June 14, 2004 There are religious on both the left and right. "God" is not necessarily a partisan issue. I think the ruling conveys the opinion of the vast majority of Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #5 June 14, 2004 >"God" is not necessarily a partisan issue. Agreed; but it is certainly not a governmental issue. That separation is called out in our constitution. >I think the ruling conveys the opinion of the vast majority of Americans. So was preventing women from voting, back in the day. Doesn't make it right, just makes it popular. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NightJumper 0 #6 June 14, 2004 QuoteI think the ruling conveys the opinion of the vast majority of Americans. Yeap: 100% of the senate, 99% of the House and 90% of the public! I would say that is a pretty strong message. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 June 14, 2004 QuoteThe Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath while stepping the broader question of separation of church and state. Why don't you put what the court really decided? The court decided that the Federal Courts had no business deciding the issue under the facts it was given. The court did not decide that the "under God" part stands or does not stand. The court decided that the atheist had no standing in the federal court on this issue - it was either the mother (who had custody) or the daughter who had standing - not the father. In sum, without standing, the federal courts gave an "advisory opinion," which is inappropriate for the federal courts, who must only take on "justiciable" cases. That's all. There was nothing binding with regards to the "under God" statement. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #8 June 14, 2004 Quote Agreed; but it is certainly not a governmental issue. That separation is called out in our constitution. The separation to which you are referring is not called out in our Constitution. It is called out in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. 'Separation of Church and State' does not appear in our Constitution anywhere. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #9 June 14, 2004 Quote The separation to which you are referring is not called out in our Constitution. ... 'Separation of Church and State' does not appear in our Constitution anywhere. Good intentioned-religious folk had a sentiment like that when they advocated a larger role in government in another country. The Country was Afghanistan. The "Well-intentioned Religious folk" became the Taliban. We all know what those "well-intentioned" people did to their country (and other countries) Not in my country, damn it. Religion in Government is a slippery slope to Theocracy, a slope I'm not willing to stand on.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NightJumper 0 #10 June 14, 2004 QuoteWhy don't you put what the court really decided? I did, I even referenced the link to the rest of the article. And yes it is still constitutional and binding until the court rules otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #11 June 14, 2004 Your comparison is proof in itself that Nietzsche was correct with regards to convictions and truth. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #12 June 14, 2004 QuoteYour comparison is proof in itself that Nietzsche was correct with regards to convictions and truth. A bit obscure a reference for a Monday morning... ??? And Karl Marx was right when he said: Quote Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 June 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhy don't you put what the court really decided? I did, I even referenced the link to the rest of the article. And yes it is still constitutional and binding until the court rules otherwise. Actually, the SUpreme's decided that, for all intents and purposes, the issue has not been decided. They are no closer to a decision on the Constitutionality of saying "under God" than they were 5 years ago. An interesting thing, nonetheless. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #14 June 14, 2004 >The separation to which you are referring is not called out in our Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Often described as the separation of church and state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #15 June 14, 2004 > ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath . . . Actually, it didn't rule that way. It ruled that a man could not challenge the pledge in such a manner for someone else (his daughter.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #16 June 14, 2004 However, at least for now, the Pledge of Allegiance stands as it is and survived an attack. That's a win in my opinion even if they decided not to decide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #17 June 14, 2004 Why not "the Pledge of Allegiance, as ammended on multilple occasions, stands"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #18 June 14, 2004 The Court may not have decided the constitutionality of the the pledge w/ "under God", but it did overturn the 9th Circuit's decision... meaning that someone else will have to sue to make it an issue again. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NightJumper 0 #19 June 14, 2004 Quote> ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath . . . Actually, it didn't rule that way. It ruled that a man could not challenge the pledge in such a manner for someone else (his daughter.) Actually it did. If you are going to challenge something take it in its entirety and not pull out parts. If you read the entire link (CNN) that I posted, the complete article is correct and what you are trying to challenge is the first paragraph summation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gjhdiver 0 #20 June 14, 2004 QuoteThe Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath while stepping the broader question of separation of church and state. See more here:http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge.case.ap/index.html Huzzah. We all still free to be superstuitious ! Yippeee !! Praise Bog ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #21 June 14, 2004 Incorrectly. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #22 June 14, 2004 >>Actually, it didn't rule that way. It ruled that a man could not challenge >> the pledge in such a manner for someone else (his daughter.) >Actually it did. If you are going to challenge something take it in its > entirety and not pull out parts. If you read the entire link (CNN) that I >posted, the complete article is correct and what you are trying to challenge >is the first paragraph summation. Feisty this morning, eh? From the very same article: "The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her. Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NightJumper 0 #23 June 14, 2004 QuoteFeisty this morning, eh? Stay safe, Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #24 June 14, 2004 I think this headline is the most apt: Supreme Court Decides Pledge Case on Technicality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #25 June 14, 2004 QuoteI think this headline is the most apt: Supreme Court Decides Pledge Case on Technicality It should have read: "Supreme Court Declines to Decide on Merits of Pledge Case due to Lack of Standing by Plaintiff" The case was not decided. It's as if the case never existed - legally, not politically. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
