Pledge of Allegiance Thread: Post Comments and Links to Articles Here

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Oral argument just finished in this landmark case.

There are two separate questions. One regards the issue of Newdow's standing. The other involves the constitutionality of the school district's policy that has teachers lead students in a recitation of the pledge (in other words, the "under God" issue).

With Scalia's recusal, the possibility exists of a 4-4 split. If the Court splits 4-4 on the issue of standing, it could still decide the establishment clause issue on the merits. If the Court splits 4-4 on both parts, the 9th Circuit's decision would be upheld, and thus be binding on all district courts and schools under the 9th Circuit, but since a five-justice majority would not exist, it would not be binding on any courts or schools in other parts of the country.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Atheist Calls Pledge Unconstitutional

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A California atheist told the Supreme Court Wednesday that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional and offensive to people who don't believe there is a God.

Michael Newdow, who challenged the Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of his daughter, said the court has no choice but to keep it out of public schools.

"It's indoctrinating children," he said. "The government is supposed to stay out of religion."

Read the rest HERE (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20040324/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_of_allegiance)

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Scalia should have never recused himself--prior criticism or no criticism.

[ QUOTE ]
A new poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the reference to God. Almost nine in 10 people said the reference to God belongs in the pledge despite constitutional questions about the separation of church and state [?!], according to an Associated Press poll.

. . . Some supporters of the California father, outnumbered about four-to-one, shouted over the speeches of pledge proponents. They carried signs with slogans like "Democracy Not Theocracy."

[/ QUOTE ]

Idiocy. If the expression of the words “under God” are unconstitutional in our schools, then so are discussions of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights--both of which are predicated on God’s existence and his preeminent moral authority.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's indoctrinating children," he said. "The government is supposed to stay out of religion."

[/ QUOTE ]

Education is indoctrination, and government cannot avoid religion in institutions of culture and education. I wonder if our atheist supports educational choice or just reserves First Amendment protections for secular humanists and atheists. Applying Newdow's standard hands the schools over to the godless and violently attacks the theist's sensibilities. Sounds to me like our justices are asking the wrong questions.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Excerpts from the Bloomberg article (link provided below):


Several justices questioned Newdow's contention that the pledge, with its reference to ``one nation, under God,'' is akin to a prayer and thereby violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

``You may disagree that it's 'under God.' You may disagree that it's `liberty and justice for all,''' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said, referring to another part of the pledge. ``That doesn't make it a prayer.''

....

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the phrase was ``sandwiched in the middle of something'' and said Newdow's daughter had the right to refuse to recite the pledge.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor pointed to the invocation that begins every session of the Supreme Court: ``God save the United States and this honorable court.''

:/Read the entire article HERE (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a_zEURhXHuc8&refer=us)

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

What's Newdow going to do if he has to swear to "...tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me..."??????

Will he say, "So help me me?"

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

WASHINGTON - They came from all over — California, Pennsylvania, New York and elsewhere — united in the importance of the case before the Supreme Court, but divided over the words "under God."

As the justices heard the landmark lawsuit over the Pledge of Allegiance on Wednesday, proponents and critics squared off outside the court, engaging in shouting matches, singing patriotic songs, and waving signs.

About 100 supporters began the day near the steps of the court with their hands on their hearts, reciting the pledge and emphasizing the words "under God."

HERE (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=701&e=2&u=/ap/20040324/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_scene)

[Bluemoon_Rising]

[ QUOTE ]
``That's only because no atheist can get elected to public office,'' Newdow responded, drawing laughter and scattered applause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rehnquist left himself wide open for that one.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

[ QUOTE ]
"Teachers should stay out of it, and stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic," he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what precisely will our children read and write about, imbecile?

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluemoon_Rising said:

Rehnquist left himself wide open for that one.



[/ QUOTE ]

That's true, but the applause from those watching the argument was inappropriate. It is a major breach of decorum to do that in the Supreme Court. Rehnquist was justified in threatening to clear out the courtroom if there was more applause..

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Of course.

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

[ QUOTE ]
ThomasIsUnderrated said:
WASHINGTON - They came from all over — California, Pennsylvania, New York and elsewhere — united in the importance of the case before the Supreme Court, but divided over the words "under God."
As the justices heard the landmark lawsuit over the Pledge of Allegiance on Wednesday, proponents and critics squared off outside the court, engaging in shouting matches, singing patriotic songs, and waving signs.

About 100 supporters began the day near the steps of the court with their hands on their hearts, reciting the pledge and emphasizing the words "under God."

HERE (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=701&e=2&u=/ap/20040324/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_scene)

[/ QUOTE ]



http://ladybspad.bravepages.com/pledge.gifhttp://hometown.aol.com/baronsmoms57/images/kidspledge.jpg

[RedWhiteandBlue]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluemoon_Rising said:
Idiocy. If the expression of the words “under God” are unconstitutional in our schools, then so are discussions of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights--both of which are predicated on God’s existence and his preeminent moral authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. There's a difference between affirming a statement and merely discussing it.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

I know I'm jumping the gun here, but before this thread devolves into a name-calling match, I'd like to request that any comments similar to those already made in the infamous "Perhaps We Should.." thread be posted in that thread in Flame Wars.

[RedWhiteandBlue]

And make it even LONGER? Well.............. okay.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Just be polite and use some common sense, RWB, and there shouldn't be a problem.

[Riverboat]

I have an alternative version that may not please the libs:

. . . one nation under siege. . .

[CaliGirl]

[ QUOTE ]
ThomasIsUnderrated said:
I know I'm jumping the gun here, but before this thread devolves into a name-calling match, I'd like to request that any comments similar to those already made in the infamous "Perhaps We Should.." thread be posted in that thread in Flame Wars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again? Another million posts? That is OK with me I guess. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon127.gif

From what I heard about Michael Newdow, he does NOT have custody of his daughter. The daughter and ex-wife does NOT have a problem with saying UNDER GOD. This sickco father is just that!

[RedWhiteandBlue]

My understanding is that Newdow had custody when he first pressed charges. Then he lost it. Then he got it back.

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
RedWhiteandBlue said:
My understanding is that Newdow had custody when he first pressed charges. Then he lost it. Then he got it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

When in doubt, do like Solomon* & offer to slice the child in twain. The parent that undergoes the first visible guttural reaction wins the kid like a prize at the county fair.

*Note: The judge has to have a solid poker face or it won't work.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

This nation was founded under God. Those who are offended by that are free to send their children to a private school of their choice.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I don't follow you.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Hey, Rink, you got any links on this act and the issues involved. This sounds like something I need to know more about.

[Rink]

Post deleted by Rink

[Rink]

Post deleted by Rink

[Venus]

Rink, this thread's about the oral argument in the POA case before the SCOTUS and the question itself.

Back to the subject. Sometimes the Court takes up a case because those reviewing the current standing decision from the lower court have an idea that it should be overturned. The Ninth Circuit has by far the most decisions overturned. I think it's premature to claim the Court took it up because it desires to activrly destroy 'under God' in the POA..

FYI, the Court gets well over 5,000 appeals each year. They can't hear them all.

[Rhino]

[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
I think the Supreme Court will rule for Nedow

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly, but I can't think of a better wakeup call for most of America.

[Rhino]

I fear the apathy too, but if nothing can wake them up, then we've already lost.

Legislation from the bench is much less of a problem from the Supreme Court than it is from many others, but the point is still well taken.

[cosmicway]

Is religion under attack everywhere ?
It was the Pope himself who in the early 90s issued a dictum, saying Europe was being "unchristianised".
There are some extreme attitudes, notably Islam and Northern Ireland.
But it is not the same everywhere.
The anti-religious exponents are communists and former communists, while local antagonisms between sects seem to play some role as well.
America cannot really be described as a place of religious strife, as everyone is free to have his own beliefs and carry out his religious duties.
So there is no justification in my opinion to change "under god" with something else.

[Warlady]

Here are the results of an AOL poll today:

Should 'under God' be included in the pledge?
Yes 85%
No 14%
Not sure 2%
How important is this issue to you?
Very -- the pledge is a key national tradition 84%
Somewhat -- I have an opinion but am not invested in the case 10%
Not very -- it has little relevance in my life 6%
Total Votes: 360,322

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

OK, here are my thoughts based on how oral argument went yesterday:

STANDING

Justice Kennedy seemed to be very concerned about Newdow's' standing, as did a few other justices. However, O'Connor was very harsh on the school district's lawyer who made the claim that Newdow had no standing. As she correctly pointed out, SCOTUS usually defers to the appellate court's interpretation of state law when it comes to standing. Also, if a majority uses O'Connor's view, they wouldn't be setting any sort of broad precedent for the future in the area of standing, since they simply would be using the principle of deference.

MERITS

Assuming the Court gets to the merits, I think a few things are fairly certain.

Rehnquist, Thomas, and O'Connor will vote to reverse the 9th Circuit's decision and uphold the recitation of the pledge. Rehnquist pointed out (I believe more than once) that the pledge is not a prayer. O'Connor commented that there are so many references to the generic "God" in modern life and seemed concerned with the idea of the slippery slope. Like Rehnquist, she pointed out that the pledge is not a prayer or a religious exercise, and thus the Court's holdings in Lee and other similar cases, in her view, don't apply. Although Thomas didn't ask a question, he didn't support the Supreme Court's decisions to end prayer at high school football games, graduation ceremonies, etc., so it is very unlikely he would support expanding the Court's precedent to strike down the recitation of the pledge in public schools.

Not all of the liberals will support Newdow. Breyer simply didn't see the great harm in the pledge of allegiance and its reference to a generic "supreme being". Not only didn't he see the harm, but he too seemed concerned with the idea of the slippery slope. Ginsburg indicated that she doesn't view the setting as coercive, and made a point of saying that the child can simply excuse herself from class. She also brought up the slippery slope in reference to "God Bless America". It's hard to tell if both Ginsburg and Breyer will vote to uphold the pledge, but I'm fairly certain that at least one of them will.

That leaves Kennedy, Stevens, and Souter. Although Kennedy is one of the most liberal justices with respect to establishment cases that center on the idea of coercion, he (like O'Connor and Rehnquist) pointed out that the pledge was not a prayer. Because he focused so many of his questions on the issue of standing, however, it's very difficult to get a clear idea of how he will vote. Stevens and Souter are very far-left on these cases, and most of their questions didn't leave me thinking that they were going to suddenly change their minds. However, one of Souter's questions suggested that he still wasn't sure.

BOTTOM LINE

IF (and that is a big "if") the Court gets to the merits....

I'm confident will vote to reverse: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas

Will probably vote to reverse: Breyer, Ginsburg

Will probably vote to affirm: Stevens, Souter

Wild Card: Kennedy


The Bad News: The Court may duck the issue by finding that Newdow never had standing. That will drag out the issue for another few years, because I'm sure there is an atheist (with actual custody) out there who can't wait to go after the pledge.

The Good News: If the Court gets to the merits, it is very unlikely that Newdow will get the five votes he needs to affirm (and to make national precedent). In the worst case scenario for our side, it splits 4-4, the 9th Circuit's decision is binding only on the western states, and in a year or so another case comes back up to the High Court. Scalia is on the case and the pledge is upheld by a vote of 5-4.

The Great News: I don't think the Court will let a 4-4 split happen. In fact, I'd be somewhat surprised if five justices didn't try to put aside their differences and try to finally untangle the mess that certain "moderate" justices on the Court have created.

A Wonderful Possibility: We could be looking at a 6-2 (or, perhaps, even 7-1) decision to reverse the 9th Circuit

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

In 1963 I stood to say the Pledge of Allegiance while my school mate in the same class quietly sat and bowed her head. I was 12 years old. No one ever said anything to her, except me, and I asked her why she sometimes stood with her arms folded and a bowed head and sometimes she sat with her arms folded and a bowed head during the Pledge.

She smiled and said, "We don't put ourselves under any nation, therefore we pray to Jehovah during the Pledge instead of reciting the words."

That was enough for me. No one bothered her. No one gave her a speech or abused her. And I often sat with her on the bus and we just talked. This was just after the Cuban Missile Crisis, to give you some idea of the political environment

But here is an essay from a former Jehovah's Witness I think is even more interesting:

Dump the Pledge (http://www.newsreview.com/issues/Sacto/2003-11-06/essay.asp)

[Machfour]

The irony is, the suit will back fire on its supporters. Their ultimate goal is to eliminate all mention of God in any public place. Those who support the pledge, as is with "under God," will be energized to emphasize the phrase every time they say the pledge.

Machfour

[KnightMare Inc]

unless somebody is forced to say the pledge then all of this is a waste of time and money.

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

[ QUOTE ]
Machfour said:
The irony is, the suit will back fire on its supporters. Their ultimate goal is to eliminate all mention of God in any public place. Those who support the pledge, as is with "under God," will be energized to emphasize the phrase every time they say the pledge.

Machfour

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Newdow is wasting his money and the courts' time. But then I guess we won't know for sure until June 2004, which seems like an awfully long wait to me.

[jag]

[ QUOTE ]
Machfour said:
...Those who support the pledge, as is with "under God," will be energized to emphasize the phrase every time they say the pledge.

Machfour

[/ QUOTE ]


My son, a hs freshman, and his friends have managed to stick the phrase "under God" in the pledge 9 times during the beginning of the day routine. Their teacher laughes, but tells them they're on their own if anyone has a problem with their antics.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

[ QUOTE ]
Gone_with_the_Wind said:
But then I guess we won't know for sure until June 2004, which seems like an awfully long wait to me.



[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible that the decision could come in May, but June is probably a better guess.

However, that still isn't a long wait. It would be if the decision were unanimous, or if the Court didn't have any other major cases this term. However, major cases are still to be heard next week and in April. These include cases concerning Dick Cheney, Jose Padilla, the Guantanamo detainees, free speech on the Internet, and many other important individuals, groups, and concerns. The Court also just heard a case that could lead to the effective end of the federal sentencing guidelines. It's highly likely that all of these cases will result in split decisions.

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

[ QUOTE ]
ThomasIsUnderrated said:
[ QUOTE ]
Gone_with_the_Wind said:
But then I guess we won't know for sure until June 2004, which seems like an awfully long wait to me.



[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible that the decision could come in May, but June is probably a better guess.

However, that still isn't a long wait. It would be if the decision were unanimous, or if the Court didn't have any other major cases this term. However, major cases are still to be heard next week and in April. These include cases concerning Dick Cheney, Jose Padilla, the Guantanamo detainees, free speech on the Internet, and many other important individuals, groups, and concerns. The Court also just heard a case that could lead to the effective end of the federal sentencing guidelines. It's highly likely that all of these cases will result in split decisions.




[/ QUOTE ]
It's only a long wait to me. I don't have much patience with this sort of thing. Patience is a virtue I have to work on.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Rink, for heaven's sake. I didn't mean for you to post it here. pm it to me. This link's on the PoA. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rotflmbo.gif

[Warlady]

Thanks Blue /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Well, I should have been specific. I just assumed. . . .

[Warlady]

Rink's grievance is perfectly justifiable. It just needs to be in a separate thread in the Political forum.

[Rink]

Sorry just galls me one dork can be heard and an entire region cant.

Just galls me to no end.

The only reason why the Supreme Court is even Looking at this case is because it would set a national precedence, otherwise Nedow wouldnt have been heard for nothin.

I'm afraid the Supreme Court will rule in his favor. As its well known they have taken in foreign laws into consideration when it comes to their judgements.

I wish our Founding Fathers hadnt made these Supreme Court so unelected and unaccountable as they are now.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:

The only reason why the Supreme Court is even Looking at this case is because it would set a national precedence, otherwise Nedow wouldnt have been heard for nothin.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the justices wanted to decide the issue, otherwise they wouldn't have taken the case. However, you must remember that the 9th Circuit ruled against the recitation of the current pledge in public schools. If the Supreme Court had denied certiorari, then the 9th Circuit's decision would have been the law for the states over which it had jurisdiction.

The only other option SCOTUS had was a summary reversal. The Solicitor General suggested that possibility in his petition for a writ of certiorari, but the Court decided it wanted to hold argument in the case, and not just reverse the 9th Circuit. Such reversals without argument are rare, and are generally used only when the law is clear on an issue and the lower court clearly erred. Some of us believed the Court might summarily reverse the 9th Circuit on the standing issue. However, even if there were five votes for a summary reversal, there obviously weren't enough votes to both issue the summary reversal and maintain the Rule of Four that's used when considering a petition for a writ of certiorari. As it is, it appears the Court is going to follow the practice of deferring to the appellate court's determination of standing, which will lead it to consider the merits.

This case gives the Court an opportunity to clean up the mess that exists in establishment cases.

[Rink]

A question, is washington state within the 9nth Circuit court area???

Just wonderin.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
A question, is washington state within the 9nth Circuit court area???

Just wonderin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is. Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands are all under the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction.

[Rink]

odd, some of the laswuits we had in this area concerning the Gorge scenic area act went all the way up to the Supreme Court. (I need to find those somehow).

hmmmm somethin to ponder on and study.

Well I just hope the Supreme Court rules against Nedow but I aint holdin my breath.

If they rule for him its gonna piss off a LOT of people in this country, who knows, maybe that will wake up this country to all this crap finally?? I hope so if anything.

[Rink]

Y'know I tell ya when i was in grade school they had us Pledge allegiance every morning, it didnt hurt or damage me any, why is it this generation is so fragile that they cant stand to say 'Under God' for???

Is it that damaging?

[Warlady]

It's not about that Rink. It's about Satan ramping up his anti-Christian movement.

[Rink]

I just found another article bout Nedow, seems he had a lawsuit out to stop chaplains from offering prayers on capitol hill

Shall I post it here or in its own thread?

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
odd, some of the laswuits we had in this area concerning the Gorge scenic area act went all the way up to the Supreme Court. (I need to find those somehow).



[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are referring to the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area Act. Are you sure the SCOTUS actually heard any such case? I know the Washington Supreme Court heard a case involving the federal commission's authority. It's possible that the 9th Circuit might have heard cases regarding this act as well, and then SCOTUS simply denied cert. Either way, please post any further comments on the gorge in a new thread. It's an interesting topic, but not related closely enough to the topic of this thread to be included here.

[Rink]

well thats why I asked bout whether the 9th applied to my or not silly.

[RedWhiteandBlue]

I don't think people will be so pissed off. I think (and this is just speculation) most people who say "under God" should stay in the pledge say that because they consider removing it frivolous. Anyway, that was my reaction until I really gave it some thought, and you know how strongly I feel about removing it. I know many people who thought the same way until they'd heard the arguments for removing the phrase. I suspect that if the court rules for Newdow, their reasoning will become widely known and most people will accept it.

Of course, if the court rules against him, I'll have to accept that too.

[Rink]

Well if the court rules For Nedow then you're going to see a LOT of people comin out of the woodwork defying the Supreme Court's ruling.

Might be the thing to break the power of the Supreme Court down a few good notches if they do.

and I most certainly hope in any way they rule they eventually get taken down a few notches anyways, they've just gotten too powerful of late and taking in foreign laws as reasons for ruling in America

That in itself just isnt right.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

[ QUOTE ]
RedWhiteandBlue said:
I don't think people will be so pissed off.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but can you say, "Guaranteed Republican Victory in November?" Bush and his supporters would back an Amendment to the Constitution that protects the current pledge. Bush would use the issue to point out the liberal activists on the courts. Congress would easily pass such an Amendment. The States would ratify it. I have no doubt about this. The country overwhelmingly supports the current pledge (almost 9/10 Americans want "under God" kept in the pledge) and unlike other issues (flag burning, gay marriage) there is enough support to get an Amendment passed within a few months after any such ruling by the High Court. In fact, if the Court rules against the pledge, you may not just have to worry about an Amendment keeping the current pledge, but also about amendments protecting other uses of God in public and government life.

However, I'm fairly certain the Court will vote to uphold the recitation of the current pledge in public schools. Although Newdow did a good job (his usual, arrogant self was nowhere to be found), I don't think it will be enough. On the previous page, I included my thoughts on how the oral argument went in the case. The biggest clue was that very few of the questions were of the "How should I write the opinion" type, and none of the justices treated the government's basic premise as being absurd. It's also clear that the sweeping "logic" used in Lee isn't as sweeping in the minds of all of the justices. Add that to the fact that Ginsburg didn't see much coercion taking place, and it appears very unlikely that Newdow will get five clear votes to affirm.

[Maggie_T]

[ QUOTE ]
ThomasIsUnderrated said:
"It's indoctrinating children," he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it is, is it! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon122.gif

But I bet this clown thinks that trying to pervert kids by teaching them homosexuality and promiscuity ... oh, pardon me, I mean safe sex ... that's teaching, according to him and the NEA minions.

Liberals. They ought to be rounded up and banished to Cuba or China or some such place. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon122.gif

[Rink]

But maggie its so much more fun here, they can bring their brand of Communism here and actually get paid for doing it as well!!!

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

[ QUOTE ]
Maggie_T said:

Liberals. They ought to be rounded up and banished to Cuba or China or some such place. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon122.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but then we would never get to play with them. (Anyone have a smiley of a cat playing with a ball of yarn?)

[DesertFox]

RWB, I'd point out that any kind of teaching is indoctrination. Any form of leadership is manipulation. And some kinds of indoctrination are socially useful while others are socially harmful.

Note that believers made this country what it is today. Deists or Christians, it doesn't matter; believers wrote the Constitution, and living under that document rid us (and helped rid the world) of slavery and made America the primary power in the world with no challengers. Meanwhile, in the countries where God is shunned and atheism rules, or the wrong God prevails, poverty and totalitarianism regularly obtain.

Believers found a way to get us all to get along. Nonbelievers have only found ways to kill others. God, as I have maintained steadily, is a useful social Construct even if you don't believe in Him. The reason goes back to human psychology. Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, in his The Road Less Traveled, avers that human beings MUST subordinate their wills to something Higher lest they fall into the self-absorption that results in murderous govts of men who think themselves the ultimate Supermen, the end-all and be-all, that only THEY matter.

Hitler was an atheist. Lenin was an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. Mao was an atheist. Ceaucescu was an atheist. Pol Pot was an atheist. Idi Amin was an atheist. Enver Hoxha was an atheist. Castro is an atheist. Kim il-Sung was an atheist. Kim jong-Il is an atheist. Every last one made himself the Ultimate Arbiter of Everything in his sphere, the only one who mattered, God in a loincloth; and each wrought misery and hell in his country.

I don't see how any rational person can dispute that atheism is not only destructive, but murderously destructive. The nonreligious, purely utilitarian question then becomes: Which God should we subscribe to, even if we don't believe in God, if we want a decent society?

Seems to me the choices here are pretty clear. Men can subordinate their wills to a loving God, as the God of the New Testament; or they can subordinate their wills to a vengeful God, as Allah. You can't tell me that, in strictly utilitarian terms, Allah is a better choice for a society than the Judeo-Christian God that gave birth to human liberty, with the rights of each individual human being at the center of the whole shebang.

Truly it has been said that if God didn't exist, we'd have to invent Him. We NEED God in human affairs for utilitarian reasons that arise from the spiritual needs of the human animal. If we subscribe to the wrong God, we get guys who value the afterlife more than the present life; and that's something you atheists should shy away from with everything in you, since you don't believe in an afterlife. It only makes sense to make the Christian God the one we subordinate our wills to, because those beliefs built a society (America) where one can maximize his potential in THIS life.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Excellent post

[Rink]

[ QUOTE ]
Believers found a way to get us all to get along. Nonbelievers have only found ways to kill others. God, as I have maintained steadily, is a useful social Construct even if you don't believe in Him. The reason goes back to human psychology. Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, in his The Road Less Traveled, avers that human beings MUST subordinate their wills to something Higher lest they fall into the self-absorption that results in murderous govts of men who think themselves the ultimate Supermen, the end-all and be-all, that only THEY matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where have I heard of this book before?
How long has that book been around??

Just wonderin.

[DesertFox]

First published in 1979. A huge best-seller for years and years and years, and it STILL sells.

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
KnightMare Inc said:
unless somebody is forced to say the pledge then all of this is a waste of time and money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you are pretty much right on the money.

Congress never passed a law making reciting the PoA mandatory, only a resolution stating that the states could do as they saw fit.

This shouldn't even be before the SCotUS...it's not a federal issue.

[DesertFox]

For once I can agree with NightMayor.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

[ QUOTE ]
Timberwolf said:
[This shouldn't even be before the SCotUS...it's not a federal issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the reply you'll receive will be that the 14th Amendment made the BoR apply to the states, and therefore it's an issue that the SCOTUS can rule on.

Anyway, this is simply part of a larger strategy by the far-left to remove every mention of "God" from government (and I believe, public) life.

[DesertFox]

Which would have serious negative consequences for America and the world.

If America stumbles and falls, the world is forked.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Very true

[Warlady]

Excellent post Fox. I am confused about one sentence though. What do you mean by this:

Meanwhile, in the countries where God is shunned and atheism rules, or the wrong God prevails, poverty and totalitarianism regularly obtain.
Forgive my ignorance please but I just don't understand what regularly obtain means in this context.

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
First published in 1979. A huge best-seller for years and years and years, and it STILL sells.

[/ QUOTE ]

M. Scott Peck and The Road Less Traveled (http://www.mscottpeck.com/html/scott-peck.html)

[Bluemoon_Rising]

He just means that "poverty and totalitarianism" generally prevail (synonym) in these kinds of nations.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox writes:

Truly it has been said that if God didn't exist, we'd have to invent Him. We NEED God in human affairs for utilitarian reasons that arise from the spiritual needs of the human animal. If we subscribe to the wrong God, we get guys who value the afterlife more than the present life; and that's something you atheists should shy away from with everything in you, since you don't believe in an afterlife. It only makes sense to make the Christian God the one we subordinate our wills to, because those beliefs built a society (America) where one can maximize his potential in THIS life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post! A grand slam!

Regardless of what they may have thought about Christianity‘s mystical claims, this is precisely what the Anglo-American Deists believed as well. The one indispensable ingredient to maintaining the liberty that they and their Christian colleagues hoped to establish was an abiding reverence for Christianity's moral system of thought and its political ramifications. Without that, America is doomed.

It’s bad enough that leftists don’t get it, i.e., that adhering to Christianity’s fundamentals means that we can all get along and be truly free at the same time; they tyrannically insist that the government impose their morality--their religion really--as they use the courts to silence the voluntary religious expressions that challenge their views in the public square, especially in the schools where Judeo-Christianity‘s socio-political values and mores are needed most. They are destroying this nation and driving it toward a civil war.

The fact that leftists refuse to acknowledge the true nature of their agenda, the fact that they are intentionally obtuse about the nature of things, i.e., that someone’s morality or another’s must necessarily prevail in our schools, the fact that they insist that it is constitutional to exclusively impose their morality simply because it is not overtly theological as they simultaneously oppose educational choice: these things demonstrate a murderous intent.

DesertFox writes:

[H]uman beings MUST subordinate their wills to something Higher lest they fall into the self-absorption that results in murderous govts of men who think themselves the ultimate Supermen, the end-all and be-all, that only THEY matter.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Brilliant analysis, Thomas. I concur. I'll even go out on a limb; I think the likeliest outcome is that the 9th will be overturned . . . again, here and now. O’Connor is right, the issue of standing strikes me as being irrelevant, immaterial.

You briefly alluded to the moderates’ muddling of the Church-State issue. I approach the problem from an historical and philosophical perspective, which means I leave the legal technicalities to others. Your opinion please.

As I said, I believe that the Court will overturn the 9th, but it seems to me that it will do so against the logic of prior decisions, or perhaps even further muddle the issue.

We have the Court insisting that certain voluntary religious acts are permissible while others, such as prayers at general school events, are not. In other words, school officials cannot lead or engage in overtly religious activities while students can . . . well, sometimes and sometimes not. The prohibited religious activities seem to be those that are perceived to be associated with traditional ideas about God, though apparently leftists don‘t think this prohibition pertains to Islam. Naturally this allows leftist teachers to freely lead and engage in all sorts of activities that are in fact religious by nature and offensive to most traditional theists (read paganism, secular humanism, multiculturalism, political correctness, collectivism, environmentalism, feminism, etc.). Moreover, while the Court found a decade ago that it was unconstitutional for kids to be transported in public school buses from public schools to parochial schools for any kind of instruction at all, it recently found that tax-supported school vouchers for private schools--secular or religious--are permissible.

The leftist’s concept of the Separation of Church and State simply amounts to a transfer of power to judges to arbitrarily define what does and does not constitute religion at whim, according to some indefinable standard, purely situation, unpredictable. It’s depends on one’s mood, prevailing opinion, the winds, the current flavor of one’s farts.

[Venus]

I think Kennedy reverses. I also definitely think Breyer reverses. I think Ginsburg's the wild card, not Kennedy.

I don't think think they'll duck the issue by copping out on standing. It's too big a case for them to drop the ball. They don't want to be perceived as cowards.

I was encouraged by the argument, as I suspect you were. I think they took it to reverse.

[Warlady]

Rink does it pertain to this topic? If not then the answer is no. Put it in another thread. If the answer is yes then by all means post it here.

[Venus]

Keep in mind that if the opinion is sweeping enough (which it probably won't be), some other "God" issues may be put to rest, or at least more difficult to assail.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

True.

[Rink]

[ QUOTE ]
Warlady said:
Rink does it pertain to this topic? If not then the answer is no. Put it in another thread. If the answer is yes then by all means post it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about?
I asked about that book that is all I did here?
I have not deviated here

[jag]

Rink, I think Warlady is talking about this:

I just found another article bout Nedow, seems he had a lawsuit out to stop chaplains from offering prayers on capitol hill

I think it pertains. At any rate I'ld like to read it... somewhere.

[Rink]

I did post it in another thread.
it is still related to this in a indirect way as they threw that out.

Its in the Political forums.
All i did was make a cursory note of that lawsuit in here, thats all.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

[ QUOTE ]
Venus said:
I think Kennedy reverses. I also definitely think Breyer reverses. I think Ginsburg's the wild card, not Kennedy.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I put Kennedy in the "wild card" slot is that he didn't reveal much about his views on the merits during argument. However, his comment about Lee (which he authored) was very encouraging. I try to be very careful about putting a justice in a certain column when he/she doesn't speak much about a certain issue during argument. For example, in the oral arguments for Lawrence, Kennedy hardly said a word, and he authored one of the most sweeping and activist opinions the Court has seen in years.

However, just by his position in the spectrum, it's probably a safe bet to guess that he'll reverse.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think think they'll duck the issue by copping out on standing. It's too big a case for them to drop the ball. They don't want to be perceived as cowards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only see them ducking if the votes aren't there to reverse.

[ QUOTE ]

I was encouraged by the argument, as I suspect you were. I think they took it to reverse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was encouraged. Newdow did a good job of responding to the questions, but there is no way he can avoid the liberal justices' concerns about the slippery slope (The conservatives and the moderates, I assume, just think he is plain wrong).

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

[ QUOTE ]
Venus said:
Keep in mind that if the opinion is sweeping enough (which it probably won't be), some other "God" issues may be put to rest, or at least more difficult to assail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Breyer, Ginsburg, and O'Connor were very concerned about the slippery slope.

The Court needs to resolve certain remaining constitutional law questions in this opinion. If it doesn't, the 9th Circuit will strike down the singing of "God Bless America" in the public schools, or something else like that, and the justices will be considering the same basic principles two years from now.

Of course, I don't feel bad for the Court having to take up these cases. Let's be very honest here. The Court got itself into this mess, and now it has to get itself out.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluemoon_Rising said:

As I said, I believe that the Court will overturn the 9th, but it seems to me that it will do so against the logic of prior decisions, or perhaps even further muddle the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur.. Although I think the Court will go out of its way to get five justices to agree on one main reason that the pledge doesn't violate the establishment clause, I'm not expecting a miracle.

[ QUOTE ]

We have the Court insisting that certain voluntary religious acts are permissible while others, such as prayers at general school events, are not. In other words, school officials cannot lead or engage in overtly religious activities while students can . . . well, sometimes and sometimes not. The prohibited religious activities seem to be those that are perceived to be associated with traditional ideas about God, though apparently leftists don‘t think this prohibition pertains to Islam. Naturally this allows leftist teachers to freely lead and engage in all sorts of activities that are in fact religious by nature and offensive to most traditional theists (read paganism, secular humanism, multiculturalism, political correctness, collectivism, environmentalism, feminism, etc.). Moreover, while the Court found a decade ago that it was unconstitutional for kids to be transported in public school busses from public schools to parochial schools for any kind of instruction at all, it recently found that tax-supported school vouchers for private schools--secular or religious--are permissible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the Court has been very inconsistent.

[ QUOTE ]

The leftist’s concept of the Separation of Church and State simply amounts to a transfer of power to judges to arbitrarily define what does and does not constitute religion at whim, according to some indefinable standard, purely situation, unpredictable. It’s depends on one’s mood, prevailing opinion, the winds, the current flavor of one’s farts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much agree with all of this. The justices in establishment cases keep creating news tests and standards for new situations. I certainly don't care for this practice, but I expect it to continue for the next few years.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Thomas said: "I pretty much agree with all of this. The justices in establishment cases keep creating news tests and standards for new situations. I certainly don't care for this practice, but I expect it to continue for the next few years."

Yes. And of course this was inevitable when the Warren Court abandoned the historical understanding of the separation in a mindless attempt to stamp out Christianity in the public square. Leftists cannot control a moral people; the latter will not be ruled by anything or anyone but their own consciences and God.

[Warlady]

[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
[ QUOTE ]
Warlady said:
Rink does it pertain to this topic? If not then the answer is no. Put it in another thread. If the answer is yes then by all means post it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about?
I asked about that book that is all I did here?
I have not deviated here

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry Rink. I think that post was from something that got deleted. Please just disregard it. That's why it is so confusing I think.

[Rink]

okies np

[Warlady]

That's the only thing I can figure out. Nothing else makes sense. Sorry for the confusion.

[Rink]

its ok dont fuss it heh

[Warlady]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif