SCOTUS tells Newdow to piss off

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by molly bloom
There may be many Christians in the United States- it doesn't imply that it was founded as a Christian country.

Who said it was? I'm just pointing out people are going to a hell of a lot of trouble over such a small thing, when it's easiest to just give in on something like this.

So its all right for religionistas to organise and impose their faith(s) on others, but not for non-believers or dissenters to restore the status that existed before said imposition?

What a truly bizarre argument.

I at least accept that people of a religious persuasion are entitled to their beliefs, and entitled to express their beliefs, insofar as they do no harm to, or infringe the rights of, others.

Unfortunately, as has been proved startlingly obvious
from this thread, those with religious ideologies view their rights as superior, and each views their belief as superior- which of course is also apparent from the many religious struggles and bloodlettings of history.

'Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.'

Pat Buchanan, speaking before the Christian Coalition in 1993


Silent encroachments and accumulations.

If you give up one liberty, why not give up many?

[Berzerker]

Dinodoc -

I thought he didn't have standing from the begining so it didn't suddenly become a nusiance suit.

That still wouldn't qualify as a nuisance suit, the lower courts would have dismissed the case if they thought he lacked standing. So if he lacks standing they're to blame for the case reaching the SCOTUS. A nuisance suit is a suit that lacks merit to anyone with common sense, i.e., the guy who hits himself with a hammer and sues the hammer company or a suit brought to harass someone who has done no wrong. Nuisance suits are often brought by people who are themselves being sued by the victim of their nuisance suit... I sue you for assault and you sue me back for the emotional distress of being sued.

No. It was a nusiance suit from the begining and I don't really feel the need to go into my disdain for the 9th Circuit.

Aside from the fact the 9th ruled correctly on the merits of the pledge, that isn't Newdow's fault. And the suit went to California courts before the 9th heard it. If he lacked standing then some court along the way should have said so...

I don't really feel like getting distracted into a semantic debate over what is and isn't a nuisiance suit because it isn't relevent.

You brought it up to indict Newdow.

However a suit that should have obviously been thrown out at the trial court level qualifies for me.

Then blame that court, but I disagree, he should have standing and would if the courts really believed in parental rights, including the rights of parents with partial custody. Furthermore, this suit is deserving on it's merits - the state is violating 2 constitutional principles and that means we all have standing, not just Newdow. I should have standing because my taxes are being used to promote someone else's religion... That meets Jefferson's description of tyranny...

MB -

'Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.'

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (1819)

Again, BINGO! I've heard a number of "conservatives" claim freedom means you can live your life as you choose "within the law". They add that caveat to allow them to claim they believe in freedom while supporting a multitude of laws that violate our freedom. But that definition means people in Cuba and N Korea are "free" and no one would believe that nonsense...

Kucinich -

You missed my point - I wasn't saying it was right or good, but rather that it was so much easier to just let them have their way over such a trivial thing.

You strive for what is easy and Newdow strives for what is right, I'll side with him. Are you a parent? Are you a Christian? How would you feel if the state was coercing your kid to pledge allegiance to no god? Sure, it may be "easier" to put up with such intrusions into our lives, but that's how governments often become tyrannical - it's the old "frog in the boiling water" phenomenon...

[Kuciwalker]

As I said, it's an extremely minor intrusion that keeps the religious folks happy. I'd hope some people could be mature, rather than throwing a fit at every little injustice in the world

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Straybow
The fact that you equate all beliefs in supernatural reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of belief, and of Christianity.

Maybe you can enlighten us wrt the fundamental differences between the Norse mythology and Judeo-Christianity? Please do not use any on this list:

1. Christianity is based on facts (false)
2. Arguments that are fallacies, such as "There are a lot more Christians than Norse myths believers."
3. Personal experience - many people have personal experience of UFO abductions.
4. Early Christians were persecuted - so? Many "witches" were persecuted as well.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
As I said, it's an extremely minor intrusion that keeps the religious folks happy. I'd hope some people could be mature, rather than throwing a fit at every little injustice in the world

The problem here is the Christian right, particularly Creationists (ID'ers belong to this group rightfully) resort to what's called "wedge tactic." They have been trying to force a concession, no matter how minor, somewhere.

[Kuciwalker]

Then give it to them, if it'll get them to shut up.

[Berzerker]

Elok -

Okay, Berz, so what exactly is the harm done?

The negation of a parent's right to raise their child with their religious or non-religious belief system (read the quotes from Jefferson supplied by Bloom). For some religious folk, what the state is doing is comparable to corrupting the soul of their child by inducing idolatry (or worse) through coercion.

I'm actually vaguely inclined to agree with you in principle, but Newdow is obviously such a stuffy, angry little man that I don't really care about his Rights.

He's been a paragon of patience and politeness while many of his opponents are downright rabid. But since you don't care about his rights, why should anyone care about yours?

I support sentencing him to punitive surgery to have the bug extracted from his butt. Annoying, whiny git.

Like I said, downright rabid. You have rights, just don't you dare exercise them if I dislike you. That seems to be your argument...

Dunno how long it's been since you were in school, but almost nobody thinks about the words to the pledge when they recite 'em. We just rattled them off in a monotone in my day, or more often didn't even speak for pure laziness.

That was your personal experience, I've seen film of kids who were quite zealous about reciting the pledge... But if the pledge is so meaningless, why have it?

And I find it hard to imagine a kid who would be encouraged to tease the atheist classmate by two words in the pledge, but otherwise wouldn't dare.

You lack imagination

Fundamentalist children are likely to insult the heathen regardless, and generally good kids aren't going to turn nasty over something like this.

So, what if the teacher was "asking" kids to stand and reveal their heathenness? Your argument is: "children aren't coerced". That requires you to know what every child in the country feels when confronted with a request to recite the pledge. I need only know what 1 child feels and I already know that much, and you've just acknowledged that some kids are nasty to "heathens"...

Come to think of it, my school memories don't include any example of children tormenting their peers for anything genuinely ideological. More often than not the little snots just harassed the short, fat, or ugly ones, or kids who cried, or anybody else who stuck out and didn't have friends to defend him. And immigrants. They had a real fun time insulting the Nigerian kids. They made up songs and everything.

I'll refer you to a question I asked Mr Fun, what if the teacher was "asking" teens to stand and reveal whether or not they are homosexual? Is that a coercive question given the fact many children and perhaps the teacher will use that information to mistreat the child who answers yes? Of course...

Actual beliefs are tough targets for kids because they aren't obvious and they don't create obvious differences unless the kid goes out of his or her way to trumpet them, like by handing out Jack Chick tracts as one girl I knew did.

And in this case, the state is "asking" children to expose those beliefs via a public affirmation of allegiance to the state's god.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Elok
Okay, Berz, so what exactly is the harm done?

The harm is "forcing" atheists or their children to utter the God. Maybe it causes them to combust or something. Personally I'm inclined to think it is a de minimis wrong myself.

[Berzerker]

As I said, it's an extremely minor intrusion that keeps the religious folks happy. I'd hope some people could be mature, rather than throwing a fit at every little injustice in the world

It isn't minor, many Christians went to their deaths in ancient Rome to avoid paying homage to Rome's gods.
It isn't minor for true believers and true non-believers... It's minor for many people who aren't really committed either way, but even though I wasn't committed I still understood the coercion existed when I was asked to recite the pledge...

[Berzerker]

The harm is "forcing" atheists or their children to utter the God. Maybe it causes them to combust or something. Personally I'm inclined to think it is a de minimis wrong myself.

Not utter, pledge allegiance. Many atheists utter god when having sex And it's coercion, not force. The former is a more subtle form of the latter...

[Ramo]

I wish that there were less of an effort to remove "under god" from the pledge, and more of an effort to get rid of this whole business of having school children recite loyalty oaths...

[DinoDoc]

Correcting de minimus wrongs don't engender much mass support among the people. Thier gives a **** isn't that sensetive.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Berzerker
That's the court's criterion, not his or mine. It isn't a nuisance to me for a person to stand up for their rights...
The California courts and the 9th Circuit acknowledged his standing according to Newdow and he must be right since they allowed the suit to go forward to the SCOTUS. So did it become a nuisance only after prior courts allowed his suit to reach the SCOTUS?

If someone brings a suit with the intent of causing harm to other parties it is a nuisance suit. Frequently such suits are filed despite obvious lack of standing, and right-minded courts routinely dismiss them as soon as they reach the bench. Nonetheless the suit takes up the time and resources of the targetted party.

In other words, he's an icehole, and the 9th Circuit is an icehole for not dismissing for lack of standing and wasting everyone's time.

But then would we be having so much fun?

[Berzerker]

If someone brings a suit with the intent of causing harm to other parties it is a nuisance suit.

No, a nuisance suit is one that is patently absurd - a suit that has the effect of tying up court time on a frivolous matter. All lawsuits "harm" the party being sued... But suits that seek to correct wrongs committed by the defendant are just...

Frequently such suits are filed despite obvious lack of standing, and right-minded courts routinely dismiss them as soon as they reach the bench. Nonetheless the suit takes up the time and resources of the targetted party.

And corrupt courts and politicians get to decide who has standing, so standing is a problematic rationale that often has nothing to do with justice.

In other words, he's an icehole, and the 9th Circuit is an icehole for not dismissing for lack of standing and wasting everyone's time.

Concerned about wasted time now? Strange complaint from someone wanting schools all across the country to waste time every day on the pledge... Here's an idea, stop using the state to coerce other people to pledge allegiance to your God. Then they won't have any standing regardless of what politically motivated courts say on the matter.

Let's see, you want the state to forcibly take people's money to coerce their children to pledge allegiance to your God and they're the iceholes for objecting? Man you guys sure got it backwards. Y'all sound like liberals who think they have a moral mandate to use the state to spread other people's wealth around. They too accuse the victims of their "morality" of being iceholes for not endorsing their behavior.

[Straybow]

More fun with Berz

Originally posted by Berzerker
Christians who've actually read what Jesus said about idolatry and oath taking, are violating their faith when they recite the pledge.

Straybow With such a facile interpretation even marriage would be a violation of "what Jesus said about idolatry and oath taking." Nice try, though.

You'll have to explain that to those Christians who object to oath taking and idolatry and sued to stop the compulsory pledge. While you're at it, explain to me why marriage - endorsed by Jesus - constitutes idolatry or oath taking.

No, you're the one contending that those who object are equated with those who "actually read what Jesus said about idolatry and oath taking." Coopting the issue from the ignorant is not an argument to the informed.

Straybow Since the pledge does not affect qualification for public office it is not an establishment of religion.

Exactly! The Framers knew there were people who would or could not take the oath of office because it violated their interpretation of Jesus' teachings as well as people who rejected the Christian notion that Jesus was/is God. How is the pledge any different?

Incorrect and irrelevent. Establishment in the 1st Amendment applies only to the "test of religion" applied to an office holder mentioned in Article (I can't remember) of the Constitution. It had nothing to do with an oath of office or religious beliefs about oaths. (Eg, a person of a differing denomination, and conscientiously objecting to oath taking, could still fully qualify under the test of religion applied by the Episcopal denomination in various states.) Therefore, as the pledge of allegiance is not a test of religion, nor a qualification for public office, it is not unconstitutional.

What did Jesus say? Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Is that not what a pledge is? If not, then a vow of marriage would likewise violate the standard you have erroneously inferred. Apparently it is you who needs to brush up on what Jesus said. Try again.

He warned against both public prayer and oath taking which he called hypocrisy.

No, He did not. He warned against those who pray to be seen, which is entirely distinct from public prayer which Jesus participated in with His disciples, in the various synagogues, and in the Temple. Try again.

You guys want to argue the pledge meant any and all gods? That's ridiculous...there was and is only 1 god meant by the pledge.
[…] Capitalised, a specific deity...not generic... […]Where does the word come from? It comes from the Judeo-Christian notion that God's name should not be mentioned specifically

No, I'm arguing that in application it does not violate the conscience of those who believe differently from those who framed the phrase, and therefore is not a form of discrimination. To invoke Jesus, or YHWH, or Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit, would be another matter. It does, however, tweak those who are overly sensitive about any mention of God, much to the delight of anticommunists of the day.

How would Christians feel about the generic "devil" replacing this "generic" god?

Distraction by hypothetical irrelevency (non sequitur). Try again.

Christianity was a fringe belief in Rome… And some of you (Dinodoc) think anyone who disagrees is "imposing" upon Christians!

That's a battle the Christians won. This is a different battle, and one in which the opponents are given full liberty to excuse themselves from any activity if they feel slighted and thus obviate the need for a fight. The imposition upon Christians is that the religion-haters want to circumvent public debate, and legislative/executive prerogative, through activist courts.

There is NO general public belief in God because [blah blah blah]

Distinctions that are irrelevant in this context except to the religion-haters. "Poll after poll confirms this--19 in 20 Americans say they believe in God," says one article chosen at random, or 90% according to Harris. In Minnesota it's 78%. That's still almost as good as Reagan's numbers! Try again.

Not when this 1 "God" is defined by the Bible… And when they're told pagans are an abomination to "God"?

Non sequitur: not in the Pledge of Allegiance. Whine Again.

If judicial activism - whatever that means - is a bad thing, how can you justify using it to achieve your goals?

War is a bad thing, but must be pursued in order to oppose the warfare of another. Judicial activism in opposition to judicial activism is a necessary evil.

We're debating the constitutionality of the pledge and you guys say it is constitutional but not one of you have even bothered showing why.

Asked and answered at least 3 times now.