|
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
 Posted - 10/14/2003 : 10:04:11
|
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear a case involving whether schoolchildren can be allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance voluntarily, putting a family's custody dispute at the forefront of a constitutional legal battle.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/14/scotus.pledge.of.allegiance/index.html
|
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 10/14/2003 : 12:08:12 [Permalink]
|
My favorite line from these stories comes from Yahoo. quote:
The words "under God" were added to the pledge as part of a 1954 law adopted by Congress in an effort to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20031014/ts_nm/court_pledge_dc
It seems that Christians have real American values and Atheists are Communists. 
Oh, that liberal press...At it again!
I am glad that Scalia had the sense to stay away from this one, though.
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
 |
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2003 : 14:36:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
My favorite line from these stories comes from Yahoo. quote:
The words "under God" were added to the pledge as part of a 1954 law adopted by Congress in an effort to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20031014/ts_nm/court_pledge_dc
It seems that Christians have real American values and Atheists are Communists.
Oh, that liberal press...At it again!
I am glad that Scalia had the sense to stay away from this one, though.
Notice too, what the hell right does Congress have in the first place to pass a law to distinguish the religious from the non-religious? Sounds like communism to me.
The irony. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2003 : 10:19:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randy
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear a case involving whether schoolchildren can be allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance voluntarily, putting a family's custody dispute at the forefront of a constitutional legal battle.
Thanks for the link Randy. I got an e-mail on this from American Atheists, but they didn't link to a news site for it.
I'll be sitting on pins and needles until a decision is handed down. I just hope it isn't a 4-4 split! But I suppose if that happened, the 9th Circuit decision would stand, wouldn't it? |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2003 : 10:53:49 [Permalink]
|
You know, I don't think 'under God' should be included in the pledge. But.
I also think the importance of those two words is overrated by both sides. Saying "under God" doesn't make somebody suddenly Christian. And it isn't a hardship, really, for someone to say the pledge and omit 'under God' if they don't believe they're, well, under God.
This doesn't feel like the right time for our country to be hashing this out. The country is divided and fractious enough now. Plus, the left needs all the help it can get to defeat Bush in '04. Focusing attention on this will hurt the left more than help it, I fear, because Americans are, by majority, Christian--and sometimes unconcerned about the separation of church and state.  |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2003 : 13:08:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I also think the importance of those two words is overrated by both sides. Saying "under God" doesn't make somebody suddenly Christian. And it isn't a hardship, really, for someone to say the pledge and omit 'under God' if they don't believe they're, well, under God.
Renae, I understand the sentiment, and to a point, I agree with you. It all seems a bit trifling and petty.
However, as a child, I moved from all white, upper middle class New England into the small town, working class deep south in the mid-sixties. Quickly, I discovered the high level of racism and religious intolerance at only eight years old. I refused to pray in school, (wrong Christian prayers), and freely associated with children of different skin tones. I was rediculed continuously. The words used were Yankee, Nigger Lover, Jew, (and I'm not, or never have been Jewish), Atheist, Commie and Fag. This persecution was not merely verbal. Let me add that this abuse wasn't just from the other children, either.
Needless to say, I learned how to fight, and to fight well at a young age.
The ammended Pledge is exactly the same type of indoctrination that has been going on in our school systems for generations. We teach our children that God exists, and is the ultimate power over our nation.
We have a five year old that has never been to a Christian church, and is not taught Christianity at home. Yet, she believes in the Christian god. She is only a kindergartener! This is a direct result of indoctrination in our society and our public Schools.
Plus, I do not think that pushing an issue aside will do anyone any good. Most Christian may voice support for keeping the amended Pledge as it is, but few actually care enough to make this a single issue platform. The only ones that this really matters to is the Fundies, and they will never swing to the party of the Abortionists, anyway. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2003 : 13:26:10 [Permalink]
|
| Why don't we have a motto that says, "In Tobacco We Trust," or "In Heroin We Trust" if we're going to have a motto based on what everyone does? If theism isn't an illness, then it's the next thing to it. Not only is it unconstitutional, it's just plain dumb. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2003 : 14:13:03 [Permalink]
|
"In god We Trust", to me goes in the same slot as "In the Tooth Fairy We Trust", or "In Santa Claus We Trust", or "In the Little Voices in my Head We Trust", or "In Horoscopes We Trust", or "In Oprah We Trust", on and on.
Same goes with the pledge thingy, "One Nation Under god" -- or "Under Oprah".
|
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2003 : 15:07:31 [Permalink]
|
| How about starting a "One Nation Under Jack Daniels" campaign? Or should it be Thunderbird? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2003 : 15:26:43 [Permalink]
|
I hear you, Tim. It's one facet, albeit a small one, of a God-inclusive culture.
I just don't think it's the hill to die on, as they say in the military.
Ah, well.
"God have mercy on the man/who doubts what he's sure of."
--Bruce Springsteen, Brilliant Disguise
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2003 : 18:32:19 [Permalink]
|
Oh, I seldom need to say the "Pledge of Allegiance. The "under God" was not in it when I learned it. When I first heard the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance, I had to do everything I could to keep from breaking out in laughter, thinking about the people who sneaked around in Congress and forced "under God" upon the rest of us.
Now, whenever (which is seldom) I come upon a situation where I am expected to recite the pledge, I have several options:
1. I can say the pledge the way I learned it (without the "under God" part) and find myself out of sync with the rest of the reciters of the Pledge.
2. I can cough when the "under God" comes up in the Pledge.
3. I can laugh whenever the "under God" comes up in the Pledge.
4. I can remain silent throughout the recitation of the Pledge.
Whatever... I cannot make up my mind about this, but I have a preference for the laugh (which was what I had to stifle the first time I heard the "under God" portion of the Pledge. I then thought of those folks in Congress sneaking around to recreate the Pledge and to find a way to go against the Constitution of the United States in the Bill of Rights, First Amendment. Perhaps we should have the Taliban here in this country so that people could really have an idea of what they are attempting whenever they force their religions upon everybody else. There are a lot of religions and the First Amendment attempted to deal with this problem. But they wanted to trash the Constitution of the United States instead.
I seldom think about this. Anybody saying the pledge can remain silent when it comes time to say the "under God" portion. I have no problem with that. Perhaps the person standing next to you listening to the pause in your recitation might want to turn you in. Whatever. However, it does not bother me very much, one way or the other.
ljbrs |
"Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Giordano Bruno
(Burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition in 1600) |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2003 : 18:43:39 [Permalink]
|
UNDERDOG, remember that Saturday morning cartoon?
"....One Nation, Underdog, with liberty and justice for all".
That's the ticket. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2003 : 00:05:09 [Permalink]
|
I just saw Newdow debating Sean Hannity on Faux News and apart from the usual shouting down he copped whilst trying to put forward his point of view it was entertaining viewing.
He might have a bit of trouble though representing himself, the conservatives will go all out to keep the pledge you would think.
Edited to add:
In Australia, to the best of my knowledge, we don't have anything that refers to God in our National Anthem, pledge or courts. From over here it all seems quite strange that there is so much made over what should be a relatively minor issue. |
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
| Edited by - gezzam on 10/16/2003 00:09:14 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2003 : 06:35:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzam
I just saw Newdow debating Sean Hannity on Faux News and apart from the usual shouting down he copped whilst trying to put forward his point of view it was entertaining viewing.
He might have a bit of trouble though representing himself, the conservatives will go all out to keep the pledge you would think.
Edited to add:
In Australia, to the best of my knowledge, we don't have anything that refers to God in our National Anthem, pledge or courts. From over here it all seems quite strange that there is so much made over what should be a relatively minor issue.
There is a deeper problem here. The US has a Constitution which states that Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prevent the free exercise thereof. (US Constitution, Amendment 1) The stated goal of this Act of 1954 was to seperate the religious US from the "Atheistic Communist".
Here are some quotes which indicate the intent behind it.
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty" -- President Dwight Eisenhower while signing this legislation (100 Congressional Record 8618)
"At this moment of our history the principals underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual." -- H.R. Rep. No. 83-1693 at 1-2 (1954)
Clearly, this legislation had as it's only functional goal to respect the establishment of religion. As such, it directly violates the Constitution of the Unithed States. A document which serves as the supreme law of this land. (US Constitution, Article VI) That it has stood so long indicates the power religion is exercising.
The issue isn't the existance of the phrase. The issue is the blatant violation of the law which led to the insertion of the phrase in the first place.
Another point of contention is the 1956 Act which changed the National Motto of the United States from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" and commanded it's printing on public money as well as adding the phrase "so help me God" to the oaths of office for federal judges. (Clear violations of the US Constitution Amendment 1 and Article VI which also forbids a religious test for office.)
I fear that SCOTUS will punk out on this one as Newdow has no claim of custody of this child. He has weak if any standing for this case as an injured party. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
nukular
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2003 : 07:25:33 [Permalink]
|
While such a case was inevitable, the timing of the hearing of this case is just too convenient for the Religious Right. I think that the strategists have manipulated it so it is a win-win situation, regardless of the outcome. What I means is that a Supreme Court ruling upholding the Pledge will only work to convince legislature of the legality of some of the more "iffy" religious/political laws out there; but if the Supreme Court strikes down the Pledge it will create a backlash against the Court and provide a major sound bite for the Republicans in the upcoming Presidential/Congressional elections.
While I would like to think that taking this to the Supreme Court would provide the ideal forum to have a rational discussion of Establishment clause, I don't really expect it too happen. And in this political (and anti-intellectual) climate, I fully expect, regardless of the ruling, that more poorly constructed quasi-religious legislation will be passed because of the Courts decision. As an additional thought, this may well provide an ideal setting for the Right to force a few Bork-like justices onto the Court.  |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
