|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 07/15/2002 : 19:26:37 [Permalink]
|
Megan,
Not only is it still constitutional to say the Pledge in school, but I believe the court that rendered the decision also chickened out and put off(in non legal terms) the removing of the 2 words in question until a higher court can review it. I guess you could call that some sort of crisis of conviction. A word synonymous with "cat" springs to mind 
If the judgement stands the pledge will still be very legal but it will not be led in schools with the words "under god" and that's it.
I hope that after there is a final decision your civics teacher is brave enough to offer an opinion. Some of the Constitution is vague on some matters like this with the exception of certain criteria, despite popular opinion, such as there being no religious test for public officials. That one is rather well defined.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2002 : 19:57:41 [Permalink]
|
Megan,
In addition to @tomic's comments, I would like to add that your erstwhile Governor would likely take a second look at a letter from a young citizen who is so intelligent, well-spoken, and passionate about her beliefs as you are. Don't ever listen to anyone who says your words and actions won't make a difference. As I near 30, I only wish I had the piece of mind that you have now when I was your age.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume
Edited by - phdreamer on 07/15/2002 19:58:03 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2002 : 21:53:03 [Permalink]
|
I am going to add my encouragement here, Megan. Write to your Governor! While you're at it, write to your congressmen as well (you can probably just send the same letter to each), and provide the relevant passages from the US Constitution and from your state constitution.
-me. |
|
|
|
Megan
Skeptic Friend
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2002 : 10:42:17 [Permalink]
|
Thank you for your compliments!! I appreciate them. Maybe I just should follow through it, it's another experience I can add to my list of interesting ones I do know that I'll be talking to M. Loy about this, she's really smart when it comes to this stuff And I know I still have some research to do(OH YAY!!) Hey, as long as I learn something from it, then it's still good!
~Megan~
Questions: never leave home without them. |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2002 : 11:25:57 [Permalink]
|
Hi Megan,
The whole "pledge" issue is one Humungous civics lesson waiting to happen. SO go for it, girl.
I hope one of the lessons you pick up is that "Law isn't just about the law". It is the whole cultural and historic schtick that surrounds it. How do you juggle the letter of the law with the spirit of the law?
You're not just studying history, you're living it! 
(:raig |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2002 : 12:09:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You know, I was going to write our Govenor about the Pledge of Alliegince discussing "God". That and the part where all of our currency has "In God We Trust" on it. I talked to Lisa about this(you may remember Lisa) but then I was discouraged to do it when I talked to my mother and stepmother(dad would not of cared and stepdad cant tell the difference between what he says and sh*t). They both told me that:
1. The guy probably wouldnt even read the letter,
2. It would be a waste of my time and a distraction of my studdies(Ok but from my point of view, this is actually helping my studies, am I not correct? While thinking about doing this, I talked to two of my teachers, Mrs. Loy[9th grade civics and world geography teacher] and Mr. Brownrigg[8th grade social studdies teacher] Mr. B(as I like to call him ) basically told me that I would have to research the subject more to know if I really had a point. M. Loy gave me some sites to visit and told me that I have a good head start using the Constitution to back me up. She also told me that she didnt know if it was against our constitutional rights to have this put on our currency and pledge...interesting coming from a Civics teacher. Therefore, I have learned a great deal about the Constitution and our rights.)
and 3. They pretty much told me all of the reasons why we have all of that stuff everywhere and why they think that it is on our currency and the pledge.
God* I just hate it when people do that, discourage you from what you think is right. I never did follow through with it sad to say. But I am glad to hear that it is now unconstitutional to say the pledge in school(correct me if I'm wrong about this). But I will say, saying the pledge was no biggy for me, being an athiest and all. All I did was not say the god stuff. I dont see why other athiests around the country could not of done the same? Yes I know that I hold two totally different points of view. But that's just me I guess.
~Megan~
Questions: never leave home without them.
You are wrong concerning the ability to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The school can ask you to recite the pre-1954 Pledge. (The 1954 Act which was thrown out added the words "under God".) In addition, those students who wish to can recite the Pledge including the words "under God" but may not be led in that version of the Pledge by a school official.
The 1956 Act which made "In God We Trust" the national motto is an easier target. It likewise has no secular purpose. But it did three things.
1) Changed the National Motto to "In God We Trust" from the more secular "E Pluribus Unum" (From many, one)
2) Demanded that the National Motto be printed on all paper money and coinage.
3) Added the phrase "so help me God" to the oaths of office for federal judges.
The major problem that atheists and theists have with this Act is that it violates the Constitution. The "seperation of church and state" denialists usually spout some silly rhetoric claiming that the idea of "seperation of church and state" being the norm only dates back to the 40's. This is erroneous.
"absolute equality before the law, of all religious opinions and sects . . . .The government is neutral, and, while protecting all, it prefers none, and it disparages none." -- Judge Alphonso Taft, Superior Court of Cincinnati, February, 1870.
"The great bulk of human affairs and human interests is left by any free government to individual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently one of these interests, lying outside the true and legitimate province of government." -- Board of Education of Cincinnati v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 211, 253 (1872)
People and specifically legislators have completely stopped thinking rationally when it comes to the patriotic slogans that have been part of the Pledge since 1954. It has become more pronounced since 9/11. Right now, the mob is ruling.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Edited by - VALIANT DANCER on 07/16/2002 12:12:26 |
|
|
|
Satan
New Member
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2002 : 17:02:09 [Permalink]
|
 Valiant Dancer, you stated that the 1954 Act, which adds the words "under God" to the Pledge, was "thrown out." Are you simply referring to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision? If so, it was hardly "thrown out." If not, then to what are you referring?
Also, does anyone know what sort of action, if any, has been taken or is pending regarding the Pledge decision?
Thanks!
God |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2002 : 17:38:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Also, does anyone know what sort of action, if any, has been taken or is pending regarding the Pledge decision?
See my remark above about lack of conviction and a word synonymous with "cat". Everyone is just too afraid to touch this one. Just imagine if judges had been the way they have been recently throughout American history. We'd be even more screwed up than we are!
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2002 : 18:17:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Valiant Dancer, you stated that the 1954 Act, which adds the words "under God" to the Pledge, was "thrown out." Are you simply referring to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision? If so, it was hardly "thrown out." If not, then to what are you referring?
I think Valiant means the 9th Circuit ruling affects only the constitutionality of the 1954 Congressional Act. If the ruling is upheld, the 1954 act is "thrown out" and the pledge soldiers on, sans "under God."
quote:
Also, does anyone know what sort of action, if any, has been taken or is pending regarding the Pledge decision?
One of the two concurring justices has set aside his ruling until the case can be reheard en banc. "Under God" continues to be said, as before, but I don't know enough about 9th Circuit statutes to understand what kind of time-table they're working under.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2002 : 07:38:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Valiant Dancer, you stated that the 1954 Act, which adds the words "under God" to the Pledge, was "thrown out." Are you simply referring to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision? If so, it was hardly "thrown out." If not, then to what are you referring?
Also, does anyone know what sort of action, if any, has been taken or is pending regarding the Pledge decision?
Thanks!
God
The term "thrown out" refers to the original ruling saying that the 1954 Act which added the words "under God" to the Pledge is Unconstitutional. That ruling has been delayed in its implementation by one justice who wants the ruling to go before an en banc sitting of the Ninth District.
The case has not been scheduled as of this date per the 9th District court website.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Edited by - VALIANT DANCER on 07/17/2002 07:39:20 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
