SCOTUS tells Newdow to piss off

[Berzerker]

Dinodoc -

Out of curiosity, is there anything lower than a parent who forces his opinions on the rest of us wielding his child as a weapon?

That seems to fit Newdow as well.

Let's examine the actions and reactions to see if that holds any water:

1) "Christians" take parent's money to pay for what they want, which includes public schools, thereby making it more difficult for parent to pay for a private school where kids don't pledge allegiance to the state's "god".

1a) Parent can't afford both the taxes for public schools and private tuition so they are coerced (an imposition) into sending their kid to the public school.

2) Once the child is in the public school, "Christians" coerce (another imposition) the child into pledging allegiance to their "god".

2a) The parent objects since they want to raise their kid with their values.

That's 2 impositions by Christians, 0 by the parent. And you think it's an imposition for a parent to object when other people coerce their child into pledging allegiance to a god the parent doesn't accept? Then you'd call Christian parents "low" if the state was coercing their kids into pledging allegiance to Satan, right?

Has anyone ever actually asked the kid what she wants?

Should we ask children if they want to go to school and let their desire rule? Should the state step in and prevent Christians from taking their kids to church too?

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.

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? Pledge allegiance to a flag? Idolatry. Pledge allegiance to what the flag represents - one nation, under God? An oath. Hell, if Jesus told his followers to pray in private, how can you construe his teachings to support coerced public affirmations? What did Jesus say? Let your yes be yes and your no be no. He warned against both public prayer and oath taking which he called hypocrisy. But that's all irrelevant except to point out how it was Christians who first challenged the pledge even before "under God" was put in.

The generic use of God may include whatever definition of God you may believe in.

Including no God or multiple gods? Hardly... 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.

If a hypothetical person believes God is a physical being who lives on the planet Kolob, then that is the God pictured in the mind when speaking those words. Whatever definition of God was held by those who inserted the words has no effect on this hypothetical believer.

It's "God", not "god"... Capitalised, a specific deity...not generic... How would Christians feel about the generic "devil" replacing this "generic" god? Where does the word come from? It comes from the Judeo-Christian notion that God's name should not be mentioned specifically, hence the word "God". Other religions name their deities...

It is the parents' instruction on God that inhabits the mind of the child, and to the child's mind the pledge is affirming the parents' instruction.

Not for those who don't accept the Christian God...

If that instruction is to disbelieve in God (Mr. Fun's description of "strong" atheism, which is in effect a religion), the fight is about that fringe belief.

Christianity was a fringe belief in Rome, and Romans "asked" Christians to pay homage to their deities. Thomas Jefferson addressed this very issue when discussing religious freedom, paraphrasing him: to compel a man to support the dissemination of (religious) ideas he abhors is tyranny. Hell, you guys not only want to compel him to disseminate your religious beliefs, you want to use the money to coerce his kids into pledging allegiance to your religious beliefs. And some of you (Dinodoc) think anyone who disagrees is "imposing" upon Christians!

No, the government isn't sanctioning one or the other. It is sanctioning general public belief in God, which is another matter entirely.

There is NO general public belief in God, as you said, people who believe in God define "him" differently. And people who don't believe obviously don't share this "general public belief". You guys are really stretching credulity if you expect us to believe "God" can mean anything, it's the state that is asking for allegiance, therefore it's the state that defines "God" and that's why the intent of those who put the words into the pledge matters... If the state asked you to take an oath of silence regarding state secrets, would you give away those secrets because you define "silence" differently from the state?

No, a Hindu has no problem affirming a belief in God. They just define God as represented by Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu plus 330 million other manifestations.

Not when this 1 "God" is defined by the Bible and the state to the exclusion of any hindu definition.

The modern pagan (a title they wear with pride) defines God as manifested through multitudes of gods/goddesses of hindu, nordic, celtic, or other traditions.

And when they're told pagans are an abomination to "God"? And "modern pagans" don't all agree with that definition.

That's because SCOTUS is caught up in the general judicial activism that began decades ago. Unfortunately, in the short term, the only way to battle activism is to be activist. And since nine can't agree on which way to go there is chaos. If SCOTUS had done its job all along by striking down judicial activism as encroachment on the legislative and executive domains then we'd at least have the chaos confined to those branches where chaos belongs.

If judicial activism - whatever that means - is a bad thing, how can you justify using it to achieve your goals?
Judicial activism as I understand it is the courts
re-writing the Constitution because it's a "living document", i.e., they can "interpret" it to meet the changing times, i.e., opinion polls for example, instead of requiring adherence to the amendment process. So, where in the Constitution is there a federal power to be involved one iota with public schools, much less "asking" children to pledge allegiance to the state's God?

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.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Straybow
The truth is that 99.44% of science can be taught, learned, performed, and advanced without a single mention or thought of evolution, creation, or whatever. Such entities are social in nature, rather than scientific; but we are social creatures.

Which is sort of my point, I guess.

St. Leo: But a human's DNA is very close to a chimp's, is it not? Like a one percent difference? If DNA is a code for phenotype, there are bound to be coded similarities between similar creatures whether they are related or not. 'Course, there's also the "junk DNA," or whatever it's currently called, that isn't expressed or used but just gets passed along the bloodline like an ugly heirloom. Similar babble would pretty much prove blood relation. It would just leave the questions of how the line changed and why we should care...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

Because there are a hell of a lot of Christians in the country, and it's far easier to just live with the pledge than spend time and energy convincing everyone else. It doesn't hurt you in any meaningful way, so just let it be. Again, I refer you to the second post in this thread.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
1a) Parent can't afford both the taxes for public schools and private tuition so they are coerced (an imposition) into sending their kid to the public school.

And yet parent actually has enough money to persue a legal case all the way to the SCOTUS before being slapped down. Sorry doesn't hold and we aren't even talking about the custodial parent.

Should we ask children if they want to go to school and let their desire rule?

It just seems to me that if a parent (most especially a non-custodial one) gets a hair up his or her arse to go around suing people on behalf of thier child then the wishes of the child should at least be of interest. Please avoid errecting your own strawmen.

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.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3078435#post3078435

[Lawrence of Arabia]

ahh, bezerker is such a refreshing wind of logic

And yet parent actually has enough money to persue a legal case all the way to the SCOTUS before being slapped down. Sorry doesn't hold and we aren't even talking about the custodial parent.

he is representing himself

It just seems to me that if a parent (most especially a non-custodial one) gets a hair up his or her arse to go around suing people on behalf of thier child then the wishes of the child should at least be of interest. Please avoid errecting your own strawme

ok, this doesnt in any way contradict what bezerker said - why even bother responding?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
he is representing himself

And? That means filing nusiance suits free?

ok, this doesnt in any way contradict what bezerker said - why even bother responding?

He should knock over the strawmen I set up rather than setting up his own. It spoils my fun.

[Berzerker]

Kucinich -

Because there are a hell of a lot of Christians in the country, and it's far easier to just live with the pledge than spend time and energy convincing everyone else. It doesn't hurt you in any meaningful way, so just let it be. Again, I refer you to the second post in this thread.

That is not an answer to my question, it's a "majority rule" argument - an argument the Constitution was specifically designed to negate. There were many slaveowners at one time and many more who supported slavery, would you argue slaves should have just lived with it instead of opponents of slavery trying to convince people it was wrong? If the shoe was on other foot, i.e., schools were coercing the children of Christians to pledge allegiance to no god or to Satan, those parents would be justified in opposing the policy.

Dinodoc -

And yet parent actually has enough money to persue a legal case all the way to the SCOTUS before being slapped down. Sorry doesn't hold and we aren't even talking about the custodial parent.

We're talking not only about Newdow but every other parent in a similar position. And as LoA pointed out, Newdow represented himself so I don't know how much money it took. He's NO different than Christian parents who would sue the state if the pledge coerced their children into pledging allegiance to no god or Satan...

It just seems to me that if a parent (most especially a non-custodial one) gets a hair up his or her arse to go around suing people on behalf of thier child then the wishes of the child should at least be of interest. Please avoid errecting your own strawmen.

I didn't use any strawman (identify it if you think otherwise), you did when claiming the wishes of the child should over rule the wishes of the parent. We don't accept that argument on a host of issues so why use it on this one?

Can you quote from the thread you've cited? Show me where in the Constitution Congress was given the power to be involved with public schools at all and where you found the power to coerce children in those schools to pledge allegiance to the state's god. Hell, this is the first step before we even get to whether or not the pledge violates the 1st Amendment... Instead of debating this issue you want to indict the parent just as John T did, i.e., shoot the messenger...

LoA -

ahh, bezerker is such a refreshing wind of logic

I try

[Berzerker]

And? That means filing nusiance suits free?

So when you disagree with the suit it's a nuisance but not when you agree with the suit? If schools were coercing the children of Christians to pledge allegiance to Satan or no god and those parents file suit, would you call it a nuisance suit? I'm sure he had to buy a plane ticket but I don't see why it would have cost him much beyond that. Obviously he cares very much about a principle involved, he deserves kudos for not only being right but taking action.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker


So when you disagree with the suit it's a nuisance but not when you agree with the suit?

Well it was quite obvious he didn't have standing from the begining. Hence my calling it a nusiance suit.

[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?

A nuisance suit is a suit brought by someone to either profit from their own stupidity, i.e., Joe sues hammer manufacturer for not warning him that dropping hammer on Joe's toe can cause damage or a suit brought by a wrong-doer who is seeking to delay a settlement or to cause a victim to run out of funds and withdraw the suit. A nuisance suit is about achieving injustice, not justice...A suit with a plaintiff who lacks "standing" is just that, a suit with a plaintiff who lacks standing.

[DinoDoc]

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

So did it become a nuisance only after prior courts allowed his suit to reach the SCOTUS?

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.

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

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Because there are a hell of a lot of Christians in the country, and it's far easier to just live with the pledge than spend time and energy convincing everyone else. It doesn't hurt you in any meaningful way, so just let it be. Again, I refer you to the second post in this thread.

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

'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)

Nor does it therefore mean that those adhering to any particular sect of Christianity or any other religion have superior rights to any other belief or to atheists.

'All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.'

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4,
1801

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

" I am for freedom of religion, & against all manoeuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803

" Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808).

This wording, 'wall of separation' was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879); Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948)

'Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations.

The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles.

The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.'

-- James Madison, being outvoted in the bill to establish the office of Congressional Chaplain, from the "Detached Memoranda," Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detached Memoranda." William and Mary Quarterly (1946): 554-62.

Silent encroachments and accumulations....

And just in case you missed it the first time:

'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 .

Perhaps you might admit that Adams, Jefferson and Madison had a better idea of what religious freedom and freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state meant and implied, than have Scalia, Rehnquist or George Bush Jr.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
That is not an answer to my question, it's a "majority rule" argument - an argument the Constitution was specifically designed to negate. There were many slaveowners at one time and many more who supported slavery, would you argue slaves should have just lived with it instead of opponents of slavery trying to convince people it was wrong? If the shoe was on other foot, i.e., schools were coercing the children of Christians to pledge allegiance to no god or to Satan, those parents would be justified in opposing the policy.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Elok]

Ah well, enough of the evolution threadjack, I guess.

Okay, Berz, so what exactly is the harm done? 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. I support sentencing him to punitive surgery to have the bug extracted from his butt. Annoying, whiny git.

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.

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

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.

The only example of religious bigotry I remember from my school days is a bunch of people laughing at a Baptist. And even then it wasn't for the kid's beliefs themselves, but for the stereotype of the Southern Baptist whoopin' it up hollering Aaaaay-men eighty times in a row on Sundays. 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. Even then kids at my High School were hesitant to openly pick on little miss true believer, they just privately thought she was a weirdo. Didn't even gossip much about her.