SCOTUS tells Newdow to piss off

[Straybow]

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.

Three entirely separate issues: money and pledge and God. First, there is no allegiance to God, only to the flag and nation. God is merely acknowledged as being transcendent above either thus any loyalties due Him in the eyes of the pledger are not to be abrogated.

If you don't agree with the money issue, support vouchers. Then the pledge and God are easily remedied for the hypersensitive as well.

[Straybow]

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

Eh? What's that buzzing noise? I think its a nuisance suit.

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.

Oh, a wedge tactic, kinda like claiming the phrase "under God" in the Pledge is unconstitutional to advance the religion-hating agenda?

[Berzerker]

Straybow -

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.

I've read what Jesus said about such public affirmations, he opposed them. Now, explain how his words as interpreted by those Christians who filed suit in 1943 (and I) would lead us to believe Jesus condemned marriage as idolatry or oath taking...

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.

You mean the 1st Amendment merely duplicated an earlier clause found in the main body of the Constitution? Why didn't the Framers duplicate the words used in that clause? No, the 1st Amendment did not duplicate the religious test clause, it went further... The first clause prohibited religious tests for holding office. The second clause found in the 1st Amendment said Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, etc., , not just a law requiring a religious test to hold office...

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.)

Back then the states had more power, the restriction on religious tests applied only to federal office. But the principle is the same.

Therefore, as the pledge of allegiance is not a test of religion, nor a qualification for public office, it is not unconstitutional.

It is a test of religion, only those who believe in and accept as their own the one "God" could recite the pledge without lying. But you aren't answering my question, where in the Constitution did you find a federal power to be involved with schools much less coerce children to pledge allegiance to the state's God? It's an easy question, but one you guys keep avoiding.

Is that not what a pledge is?

No, the pledge is a loyalty oath (as Ramo put it). One can answer yes or no to a question without invoking God or Heaven to make the answer carry more weight (as in "so help me God"). Jesus told his followers to not take oaths since they usually invoked God or Heaven and to not use God in an attempt to convince others of their sincerity, i.e., do not swear in God's name. Jesus looked down on people who used wordy proclamations of their religious commitment to portray themselves as sincere. Many Christians view the pledge as an oath and won't take it because of what Jesus said. You can disagree, but what you cannot do is coerce their children to take your oath.

If not, then a vow of marriage would likewise violate the standard you have erroneously inferred.

Marriage vows were not invented by Jesus and a marriage vow is not the same thing as marriage.

Apparently it is you who needs to brush up on what Jesus said. Try again.

You haven't been quoting him or the Constitution, I have...

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.

Just what do you think a "public" prayer is if not one that is seen? Jesus forbids oaths (Math 5:33). Jesus forbids public prayer, i..e, on streets and synagogues (Math 6:5). Read what he said for yourself, you clearly need a remedial course in Christianity.

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.

How does one who disbelieves in this "God" pledge allegiance to him without violating their conscience?

To invoke Jesus, or YHWH, or Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit, would be another matter.

You know, for you guys to pretend the "God" in the pledge wasn't the "God" of Christianity is ridiculous.

It does, however, tweak those who are overly sensitive about any mention of God, much to the delight of anticommunists of the day.

So all those Christians who've been complaining about religious bigotry directed at them over the past few decades actually started the current flame war. I knew that.

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

Just shows the hypocrisy on your side of this debate. Once the shoe is on the other foot the pledge magically becomes both coercive and unconstitutional...

That's a battle the Christians won.

And so we now have the kindler and gentler Romans in charge coercing other people to pledge allegiance to their God(s) just as the Romans did back then. Ironic huh?

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.

This "full liberty" has a price on it, risk angering classmates and teachers. It's called coercion and you sure wouldn't call it liberty if some big dude walked up and demanded your money. You'd understand the potential consequences of refusing just as the kid understands their refusal to recite the pledge may result in reprisals.

Freedom - the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint on choice or action

Explain how the pledge constitutes religious freedom when it involves coercion... When Christians were "asked" to pay homage to Rome's gods, the penalty for refusing could have been death. Would you call that request coercive? The only difference is the negative consequences for refusing was often much more severe then...

The imposition upon Christians is that the religion-haters want to circumvent public debate, and legislative/executive prerogative, through activist courts.

So Newdow is a religion hater for not wanting you coercing his kid to pledge allegiance to your God? Um...kay... The perpetrators are the victims of hate; my my my, we need hate crime laws now so we can punish Newdow for even objecting.

Distinctions that are irrelevant in this context except to the religion-haters.

Really? Then maybe you can explain why Christians - people who supposedly all share the same God - have been slaughtering each other for ~1600 years over this irrelevant distinction recognised only by 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.

Ask these people to define their belief in God and you won't get anywhere near 19 out of 20 in agreement. If you hadn't cut the quote off and replaced it with "blah blah blah" you would have understood that. Nice strawman though, practice makes perfect.

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

How is it a non sequitur when people who don't believe in this God are told they are an abomination? I think it explains the obvious as to why the pledge is coercive. Oh, you're trying that "God means whatever the person reciting the pledge wants it to mean" nonsense again...
Words have meanings...

Is that why you responded to virtually my entire post except for the question about the person taking a loyalty oath to not give away state secrets getting to define "secret" anyway he wants? I'll repeat it then, if you're employed by the state and take an oath to not reveal state secrets, do you get to re-define the word "secret" to mean "non-secrets"? Of course not! So why do you think a loyalty oath in the form of the pledge of allegiance allows everyone to define the words in that oath however they want? I see you missed my comment about how the word "God" is capitalised too, FYI that means a specific deity.

War is a bad thing, but must be pursued in order to oppose the warfare of another.

And you got that from Jesus too? Quote? I'll match it with "love thine enemies" or "turn the other cheek" or "do unto others"...

Judicial activism in opposition to judicial activism is a necessary evil.

Evil is evil, true? So why are you any better when you employ evil to get what you want?

Asked and answered at least 3 times now.

You have not identified the constitutional powers authorising Congress to be involved with schools or coercing children to pledge allegiance. All you've done is say the pledge doesn't violate the 1st Amendment...

Three entirely separate issues: money and pledge and God. First, there is no allegiance to God, only to the flag and nation.

Children pledge allegiance to the flag and what it represents, i.e., allegiance to what it represents. Children pledge allegiance to the Republic for which it stands and what constitutes the "Republic". Children pledge allegiance to "one nation, under God". Enuff said...

God is merely acknowledged as being transcendent above either thus any loyalties due Him in the eyes of the pledger are not to be abrogated.

God is part of how the pledge's amenders define the word "Republic".

If you don't agree with the money issue, support vouchers. Then the pledge and God are easily remedied for the hypersensitive as well.

Why would that eliminate the use of my money for schools when vouchers would still be taxpayer funded? That would just lead to the liberals using vouchers to start regulating the hell out of private schools that start accepting vouchers under the guise of protecting the tax payers from fraud and incompetence. Vouchers are just another ticket to big government controlling more of our lives...

[Berzerker]

Eh? What's that buzzing noise? I think its a nuisance suit.

No, sounds more like someone

Are you going to answer him?

Oh, a wedge tactic, kinda like claiming the phrase "under God" in the Pledge is unconstitutional to advance the religion-hating agenda?

I supported Judge Roy Moore when a bunch of your allies on the pledge didn't, ironic, huh? So much for "religion haters"...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Just a bit or irony that we rely so heavily on the courts whose basis for evidence is the requirement that you swear to tell the truth the whole truth etc. so help you God.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara God don't belong in the pledge

Why not?

Congress as representatives of the people can decide to put God in the pledge if they want. A majority of Americans do want God in the pledge so Congress must honor those wishes.

The problem with Newdow is that he thinks the minority has a right to force their views on the majority. He does not believe in God so he thinks nobody should.

[Arrian]

Interestingly enough, a friend at work was recently deposed, and when she asked if there was a secular oath she could take, the court reporter was really thrown for a loop, but they created one on the spot and let her take it, instead of the traditional "so help me God" line.

-Arrian

[Elok]

No, you can disagree with me, it's just that the constitution protects human citizens, not whiny little douchebags from planet wazzlebooble like Newdow. Like I said, I agree with you in principle...if it comes to that, I formally disagree with police brutality, but I'd pay to watch the cops whale on Carrot Top. This is such a non-issue. There are more important things to fix in our government, like the way we keep electing has-been thespians to important public offices.

[molly bloom]

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

Given the moral ire and indignation being exhibited by the religionistas at the very idea of removing the words 'under god' from a pledge of allegiance (what a bizarre thing anyway, very Eastern Bloc- we never had to pledge allegiance to the Queen in Great Britain)
I'd say the ones throwing the fits and exhibiting immaturity are the ones who believe their deity of choice and religious faiths triumphs over constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties. Tell me again why it is that the happiness of the believers in the supernatural is more important than the happiness of those who choose not to believe in the supernatural.

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future. From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and every rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. In this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.'

letter of Dwight D. Eisenhower to the Roman Catholic group, the Knights of Columbus, August 1954

You know, I have a feeling this contradicts this earlier statement:

"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

The Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams .

If any of you are seriously suggesting that the phrase 'under god' encompasses all gods and faiths, then you don't understand religion- because of course Christians don't believe in other gods, and a commandment of the Bible is to have no other gods before the Christian god. It is therefore impossible for a believing Christian denomination or person to pledge allegiance 'under god' with the expectation or belief that the word god in that context referred to or included Allah, Marduk, Ashtoreth, Moloch, Ba'al Zevuv or Vishnu.
Or any other non-Christian deity or combinations of deities.

"With a recent resolution, the 108th House of Representatives showed its own limited sense of propriety and disregard for moral limits. It passed a resolution that attacks English, common sense, morality and the Constitution. The resolution rejects the Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" is a religious expression and therefore prohibited in schools.

Religious supporters shouldn’t celebrate the resolution for two reasons. It is not legally binding. In addition, House members decided that the phrase ‘one nation, under God’ is not a religious reference.

I don’t understand how any sincere person could conclude that it is not a religious affirmation when people directly invoke God as the nation’s protector in the pledge of allegiance. Nevertheless, those Representatives supported that conclusion with some convoluted reasoning in their resolution.

They first resolved that, "the phrase ‘one Nation, under God,’ in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag reflects that religious faith was central to the Founding Fathers and thus to the founding of the Nation."

Do you agree that your children recite the words ‘one Nation, under God’ daily only as an impersonal non-religious reference to a historical fact that the founding fathers practiced religion? I doubt that anybody intends that meaning with those words. What would be the purpose of pledging allegiance to a historical fact about other people’s religious practices?

The members of the House of Representatives gave their answer. They said in their resolution that "the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, including the phrase, ‘one Nation, under God,’ is a patriotic act, not an act or statement of religious faith or belief." That’s how the House of Representatives rationalized keeping the current form of the pledge of allegiance in schools.

So there you are religious America. The members of the 108th Congress decreed that your references to God in the pledge of allegiance are secular with no religious significance. According to them, ‘God’ is only a synonym for ‘patriotism’ and not the name of your religious supreme being. Are you not proud of your House Members for their straightforward support for honesty and morality? Don’t be, because their interpretation is false."

http://www.ethicalego.com/false_pledge.htm

George Washington, I suspect might have disagreed with Eisenhower's imposition of religion:

'I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.'

George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789:

Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274, the "Magna-Charta" here referrings to the proposed Constitution of the United States

and:

'For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.'

George Washington, letter to the congregation of Touro Synagogue, Newport, Rhode Island, August, 1790, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 862

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Given the moral ire and indignation being exhibited by the religionistas at the very idea of removing the words 'under god' from a pledge of allegiance (what a bizarre thing anyway, very Eastern Bloc- we never had to pledge allegiance to the Queen in Great Britain)
I'd say the ones throwing the fits and exhibiting immaturity are the ones who believe their deity of choice and religious faiths triumphs over constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties. Tell me again why it is that the happiness of the believers in the supernatural is more important than the happiness of those who choose not to believe in the supernatural.

I was hoping you'd be mature. Look at it this way - there's a LOT of them, and not many of us. Moreover, given our beliefs, we should at least be tempted to look down on those who continue in their misguided faith in some Supreme Being - and that requires that we actually act with superior maturity. Why not just... let alone. It's easier. The pledge isn't really hurting us in any material way. While we certainly have the right to complain, it's somewhat foolish to try and exercise it in this instance, given the size of the effort involved and the lack thereof of the potential reward.

[DinoDoc]

I still haven't seen anything that says that this is anything more than a de minimus wrong if that.

[KrazyHorse]

Perhaps if you spelled it correctly somebody would answer.

[Kuciwalker]

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Perhaps if you spelled it correctly somebody would answer.

I have. That's what makes this comment amusing.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22de+minimus%22