Pledge of Allegiance Case Takes Center Stage at SCOTUS

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Kucinich
I'd actually say that the idiocy is in caring enough to bring it before the court in the first place.

Seriously, some people have WAY too much time on their hands.

The case is being pursued by a true geek. It is the geek way to do away with a routine task of a few seconds by investing quite a bit more time.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What religion does the phrase, one nation under God endorse?

Judaism 1.0, Judaism 2.0, and Judaism 3.0.

[Kuciwalker]

It endorses any religion that believes there is a God - but it is unconstitutional, because it is an endorsement of religion.

However, it's not particularly harmful - if it'll change your mind or anything, you've got serious problems anyway.

[Aeson]

It was a rhetorical question you were answering Kucinich.

On the issue of "stupid" old laws though, a kid in my highschool was jailed for having consentual sex with a girl his own age. It's illegal (or was) to have pre-marital sex in that part of Idaho. (Parents went along with it because they were Mormon, but even if they hadn't been it would have been enforced)

[Kuciwalker]

That's unconstitutional, AFAIK, and actually harmful.

This, however, is just not worth the effort.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What religion does the phrase, one nation under God endorse?

Judaism 1.0, Judaism 2.0, and Judaism 3.0.

Which one is the one with stupid pigtails?

[Berzerker]

The Pledge "doesn't sound anything like a prayer," said Chief Justice William Rehnquist. "You can disagree with the phrase 'under God' but that doesn't make it a prayer."

It's an affirmation of a religious belief.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said there "so many references to God" in public affairs, noting "In God We Trust" was on U-S currency and coins. She added the Supreme Court opens all its public sessions with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

"In God We Trust" on coins is not an affirmation of a religious belief, i.e., coins don't ask me to stand up in front of others and pledge allegiance to a nation under someone's god.

Besides, noted Justice David Souter, even if the words "under God" represented religion "in actual practice, it's an affirmation in the mindset of a civic exercise."

Well now, a "civic exercise" that asks us to affirm someone else's religious belief is why this case was brought. If children were being asked to stand and affirm one nation, under Satan (or fill in the blank) there would be a huge outcry. But it doesn't matter since it's the majority's religious belief.

"God is so generic in this context as to be a neutral" expression of belief, continued Justice Stephen Breyer.

It isn't "generic" for atheists, it's an affirmation of someone else's religious belief. Turn it around, what if children were being asked to pledge allegiance to one nation, under no god because god does not exist? That too would violate their religious freedom and the establishment clause.

"The child doesn't have to say the words," said Justice O'Connor. "You have the right not to participate."

Child would be singled out, father says

Newdow, who is not a practicing attorney, made an impressive, impassioned argument, declaring his daughter would be singled out by not saying the Pledge, and would be coerced to participate. "Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child" to conform, Newdow said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."

O'Connor needed this pointed out to her? It's painfully obvious! The pledge is coercive... It's akin to Judge Roy Moore asking people before his court if they are Christians before deciding their fate...

Clearly the court will rule against Newdow, not because he's wrong and they're right, but because these people are going to do what is politically expedient and ignore constitutional principles.

Imran -

He doesn't have it. A teen may, but not a father who isn't in school.

Parents aren't legal guardians? If there is a problem, it's that the kid's mother is the legal guardian, but frankly, that shouldn't prevent the court from ruling since he merely represents people who don't want the state indoctrinating their children into someone else's religion viewpoint.

[Aeson]

And this guy thinks the phrase in the pledge is unconstitutional and harmful.

Sorta the SCOTUS' job to decide which of you are right. As such I don't think the case is actually a waste of time.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Aeson
And this guy thinks the phrase in the pledge is unconstitutional and harmful.

Sorta the SCOTUS' job to decide which of you are right. As such I don't think the case is actually a waste of time.

It's their job, but it doesn't mean they are right... whatever they decide.

Scalia's a scumbag... Rhenquist is a nutball... Clarence Thomas can't keep his dick in his pants... I'm not sure about the rest.

[Aeson]

As the Why is America so prosperous when . . . ? thread makes clear, doing your job in America equates to doing it right.

[Berzerker]

Mentally invigorating post there, Sava.

[Sava]

I try.

[Ben Kenobi]

St. Leo

Judaism 1.0, Judaism 2.0, and Judaism 3.0.

I was unaware that there existed such a religion as Judaism 2.0

Skywalker:

It endorses any religion that believes there is a God - but it is unconstitutional, because it is an endorsement of religion.

Your statement contradicts itself. Endorsing all religions is a far cry from establishing one.

[Sava]

I was unaware that there existed such a religion as Judaism 2.0

that would be Christianity... Judaism 3.0 is Islam.

Endorsing all religions is a far cry from establishing one.

he said "ENDORSEMENT OF RELIGION" not of one religion. learn to read.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's an affirmation of a religious belief.

Well, then. Which specific religion endorses this belief?

"In God We Trust" on coins is not an affirmation of a religious belief, i.e., coins don't ask me to stand up in front of others and pledge allegiance to a nation under someone's god.

Curious. One would think that earning your livelihood In God We Trust, would be a far greater affirmation of religious belief.

Well now, a "civic exercise" that asks us to affirm someone else's religious belief is why this case was brought. If children were being asked to stand and affirm one nation, under Satan (or fill in the blank) there would be a huge outcry. But it doesn't matter since it's the majority's religious belief.

That would be a specific endorsement of Satan, over other gods.

It isn't "generic" for atheists, it's an affirmation of someone else's religious belief. Turn it around, what if children were being asked to pledge allegiance to one nation, under no god because god does not exist? That too would violate their religious freedom and the establishment clause.

Hey, if a Mennonite wants to become a citizen from the US, he has to swear an oath of allegience to the state. Same with Jews, conflicting their oath with Israel.

By this logic, any oath could be struck down as violating freedom of religion and the establishment clause.

Instead, we have the rather more careful standard that prevents the oath from endorsing any one particular religion over another.

Newdow, who is not a practicing attorney, made an impressive, impassioned argument, declaring his daughter would be singled out by not saying the Pledge, and would be coerced to participate. "Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child" to conform, Newdow said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."

Again, which religion are the selling. The establishment clause does not mean religion ought to be expunged from the public realm, but rather, that you do not have an establish church of America, as the Church of England would be in Britain.

It's akin to Judge Roy Moore asking people before his court if they are Christians before deciding their fate...

Is the child asked if she is an atheist? No. False analogy.

I pity the child caught up in the battle between her father and the government. She is being used as a pawn.

Clearly the court will rule against Newdow, not because he's wrong and they're right, but because these people are going to do what is politically expedient and ignore constitutional principles.

Right. The constitution is rather clear on this matter.