Recommended Posts
you yourself just said that the word "God" is strongly associated with Christianity.
So did Truman, when he authorized that the pledge be altered.
Asking children to say this pledge in schools (and not informing them that they have the right to abstain!) is government "respecting" one religion over another, which is unconstitutional.
It really has nothing to do with what any of us, christian, deitst, athiest, agnostic, hindu, buddhist, or whatever, believe personally. The government must abide by the letter of the law. The spirit thereof, is largely irrelevant, because we have no way of truly knowing what our founding fathers were thinking, because we can't pick up a phone and ask. Therefore, we must take what they have written literally. If you're unhappy with it, I would encourage you to attempt to amend the constitution in accordance with your wishes.
So did Truman, when he authorized that the pledge be altered.
Asking children to say this pledge in schools (and not informing them that they have the right to abstain!) is government "respecting" one religion over another, which is unconstitutional.
It really has nothing to do with what any of us, christian, deitst, athiest, agnostic, hindu, buddhist, or whatever, believe personally. The government must abide by the letter of the law. The spirit thereof, is largely irrelevant, because we have no way of truly knowing what our founding fathers were thinking, because we can't pick up a phone and ask. Therefore, we must take what they have written literally. If you're unhappy with it, I would encourage you to attempt to amend the constitution in accordance with your wishes.
wmw999 2,148
QuoteIt's not your Constitutional right in this country not to be offended or annoyed
That goes for all of us, Christians too, no matter how aggressively Christian they are.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
QuoteAsking children to say this pledge in schools (and not informing them that they have the right to abstain!) is government "respecting" one religion over another, which is unconstitutional.
Wrong
The Supreme Court has already ruled in prior cases that anyone has the right abstain but there is no requirement to inform them of this. And it is still constitutional until ruled otherwise.
Just because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional doesn't make it constitutional. It means that the verdict is still out, because the original suit lacked grounds. The court has made no decision at all over whether it is constitiutional or not. At this point, it's an unknown.
My personal take on it is that it is unconstitutional. I'm sure the justices will make their own ideas known when the next challenger steps forward.
My personal take on it is that it is unconstitutional. I'm sure the justices will make their own ideas known when the next challenger steps forward.
QuoteIf you are a very orthodox Jew, you don't say the name of God out loud.
If you are a Muslim, it's far more common to call him Allah; God is a western name. It's not the same unless you can call God Allah.
If you are a Bahai' it's just not the same.
If you are Shinto which one?
Regardless, the word "God," particularly when capitalized, is pretty thoroughly tied up with Christianity, and to a lesser degree with Judaism. I don't think it's nearly as neutral as people who want "under God" to remain.
Would it be the same for you to pray to Allah? After all, it's just acknowledging a supreme being.
Wendy W.
It's not your Constitutional right in this country not to be offended or annoyed. If God isn't said out loud in Judaism, don't say it out loud. If you're Hindu, . . .
You seem to have switched tracks, and are now admitting that the pledge does indeed cater DIRECTLY to CHRISTIANS, and everyone else has to lump it.
Quoteit can apply to whichever God you worship at the time.
Then why not have the pledge say, ". . . one nation, under A god. . ."?
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteJust because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional doesn't make it constitutional. It means that the verdict is still out, because the original suit lacked grounds. The court has made no decision at all over whether it is constitiutional or not. At this point, it's an unknown.
Wrong Again
The case that was brought before the Supreme Court and has been ruled upon. Your statement that “the verdict is still out” is incorrect as there was a “verdict” in the case and it has been discharged. And yes, until it is ruled unconstitutional it is constitutional otherwise the schools would not be able to recite it which they can.
they didn't rule on the matter of the pledge.
they ruled that the plaintiff shouldn't have been able to bring the case in the first place.
Just because schools were segregated in the early half of the century didn't make segregation constitutional. It just meant that nobody who had the grounds to challenge it did so, until Brown v. Board of Education. The supreme court's ruling did not MAKE segregation unconstitutional. The constitution wasn't changed by the court's ruling. Segregation was unconstitutional all along. It was just permitted to happen because nobody was able to stand up and say that it was wrong.
they ruled that the plaintiff shouldn't have been able to bring the case in the first place.
Just because schools were segregated in the early half of the century didn't make segregation constitutional. It just meant that nobody who had the grounds to challenge it did so, until Brown v. Board of Education. The supreme court's ruling did not MAKE segregation unconstitutional. The constitution wasn't changed by the court's ruling. Segregation was unconstitutional all along. It was just permitted to happen because nobody was able to stand up and say that it was wrong.
Quotethey didn't rule on the matter of the pledge.
they ruled that the plaintiff shouldn't have been able to bring the case in the first place.
Forget it! He just doesn't fuckin' understand, and it seems he never will.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
I know, I know... its one of those horse/water things, isn't it?
Quotethey ruled that the plaintiff shouldn't have been able to bring the case in the first place.
Exactly, which is what I said, they ruled on the case that was brought before them.
QuoteThe Supreme Court's ruling did not MAKE segregation unconstitutional.
Yes it did. And as a result of the courts ruling segregation was no longer allowed
QuoteThe constitution wasn't changed by the court's ruling.
It wouldn’t be, as the court does not have the authority to change the constitution, as it is the basis for which the laws are applied.
QuoteSegregation was unconstitutional all along. It was just permitted to happen because nobody was able to stand up and say that it was wrong.
Not true, as a law is not unconstitutional until it is ruled as such.
The fact remains that children can still recite the pledge in school as written until a court that has jurisdiction rules otherwise.
I understand that the Supreme Court has not ruled the pledge unconstitutional and that kids can still say the pledge in school. Now what part of that don't you understand?
pajarito 0
QuoteNot true, as a law is not unconstitutional until it is ruled as such.
Exactly...
It may have been wrong all along in the opinions of some, including mine, but it doesn't become unconstitutional until made so.
An aspiring attorney should realize that. I wonder who's the horse that needs to be led to water and shown how to drink?
pajarito 0
QuoteLoosely, that's true. I have no problem with politicians or leaders acknowledging god or thanking god. I have a problem when they say that they are making decisions based on conversations with god. And I have a problem when they pass laws that have no basis accept to protect their religious sensitivities.
All true Christians pray and ask for guidance in all aspects of life. GWB just has the courage to admit it publically. I admire and respect that. Also, they're allowed to attempt to get laws passed that fit their agenda just like anybody else who gets elected into public office.
pajarito 0
QuoteQuoteIt's not your Constitutional right in this country not to be offended or annoyed
That goes for all of us, Christians too, no matter how aggressively Christian they are.
Wendy W.
I agree. I make no exceptions.
QuoteQuoteNot true, as a law is not unconstitutional until it is ruled as such.
Exactly...
It may have been wrong all along in the opinions of some, including mine, but it doesn't become unconstitutional until made so.
An aspiring attorney should realize that. I wonder who's the horse that needs to be led to water and shown how to drink?
So if I the government goes around shooting people for stating their opinions, as long as there has been no specific law stating that they are wrong to do that, it's not un-constitutional?
QuoteAlso, they're allowed to attempt to get laws passed that fit their agenda just like anybody else who gets elected into public office.
I never disputed that. I just said I have a problem with it.
QuoteAll true Christians pray and ask for guidance in all aspects of life. GWB just has the courage to admit it publically.
And I have a problem with the POTUS publicly admitting that the voices in his head told him to invade another country and kill people. What's the difference between that and the Son of Sam listening to his dog tell him to kill people?
QuoteSo if I the government goes around shooting people for stating their opinions, as long as there has been no specific law stating that they are wrong to do that, it's not un-constitutional?
Awe, the old what if game. What if cows could fly....but since there are laws I guess we will never know.
QuoteAwe, the old what if game. What if cows could fly....but since there are laws I guess we will never know.
No, actually we do know. There have been many laws that have been deemed unconstitutional by the supremes. What you're implying is that they weren't unconstitutional until they ruled that way. The law didn't change, the constitution didn't change. So how could they not have been unconstitutional at one point, and suddenly are? It's ludicrous.
QuoteSo how could they not have been unconstitutional at one point, and suddenly are?
Because they were brought before a court of jurisdiction and ruled unconstitutional, that how. And yes a law did change if was ruled unconstitutional.
QuoteQuotethey ruled that the plaintiff shouldn't have been able to bring the case in the first place.
Exactly, which is what I said, they ruled on the case that was brought before them.
This is maddening.
They did not rule on the merits of the case as regards whether the constitution should be read to prohibit mention of "god" in the pledge of allegiance!
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteQuoteNot true, as a law is not unconstitutional until it is ruled as such.
Exactly...
It may have been wrong all along in the opinions of some, including mine, but it doesn't become unconstitutional until made so.
An aspiring attorney should realize that. I wonder who's the horse that needs to be led to water and shown how to drink?
You don't draw a distinction between having been ruled unconstitutional, and having had the obvious makings of BEING "not in accordance with the rules of government set forth in the Constitution," even though the Supreme Court has not made a ruling of "unconstitutional"?
You seem to draw no distinction between the constitutionality of a typical law, versus one, for example, that says that newspapers may not publish until their content is approved by government censors; as long as neither has been called unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, you would call both "constitutional"?
See, I draw that distinction: I say that if a law clearly is afoul of a basic interpretation of the Constitution (yes, some principles of this are more clear than others) I say it is unconstitutional on its face.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteThey did not rule on the merits of the case as regards whether the constitution should be read to prohibit mention of "god" in the pledge of allegiance!
That is true. They ruled on the merits of the case involving his lack of standing which allowed them to reject the case as a whole and avoid the issue of the pledge. This allowed the pledge to remain constitutional. Please understand that I wish that they would had been able to just give a ruling on the merits of the pledge issue. It is not like this is not going to come before them again. And while my personal opinion is that they were spineless, it was legal.
Loosely, that's true. I have no problem with politicians or leaders acknowledging god or thanking god. I have a problem when they say that they are making decisions based on conversations with god. And I have a problem when they pass laws that have no basis accept to protect their religious sensitivities.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites