 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
In his minority opinion, Rehnquist wrote, "To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance." |
Newdow wasn't arguing against a "patriotic ceremony" and it isn't "willingly" participated in, he was arguing against state-created coercion to compel his kid to affirm a belief in someone's "god". The same thing happened in ancient Rome when authorities told Christians they can practice their religion but must bow to the Roman gods. The only difference was Christians were often executed then whereas today children may be ostracised by classmates and punished indirectly by "patriotic" or religious teachers. And the fact Rehnquist can't see the inherent coercion involved is either the result of ideological blinders, political convenience, or he's dumb as a stump.
Yes Mr Newdow, we're going to take your money and use it to indoctrinate your kid into our religion and coerce her to affirm a belief in our god.  Sheesh! How is this different from inquisitors "asking" people to worship Jesus? The severity of potential punishment... But both still employ coercion...
For those who think he or other parents in his position can just send their kids to a different school, fine, stop taxing these people to pay for public schools. Don't force people who don't believe in your god to pay for the promotion of your religious beliefs to their children.
quote:
The state has no place affirming the existence of a diety. |
Why not? That would mean the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional.  The establishment clause was not meant to eliminate religion from the state, just protect non-believers from having to affirm or support those beliefs. There is a difference between politician Joe telling me God exists and Joe telling me to repeat after him or risk getting in trouble with the state.
quote:
What actual, concrete injury does the father suffer from this? That is after all the central question in standing issues. I see none. What, he doesn't get to raise his kids in the manner he sees fit? Does that mean evolution cannot be taught in classrooms anymore because some idiot will say that stops him from raising his kids in his manner? |
If the school "asks" his kid to affirm a belief in evolution as opposed to creation, yes. Parents have a natural right to raise their kids with the parent's spiritual or religious (or the lack thereof) views. The converse of Newdow's situation is the school "asking" a Christian's child to say "there is no god". Removing that right makes the parent suffer and every Christian parent in the country would understand that if this was a communist state where people couldn't see to the religious upbringing of their kids.
Besides, schools aren't even mentioned in the Constitution so it takes quite an imagination to conclude Congress can have schools "ask" children to recite a pledge. Also, in 1943 it was one of the Christian sects that objected to the then compulsory pledge and the SCOTUS ruled in their favor. So what's the difference? It's "voluntary" now? Hardly!
quote:
I believe the girl has said that she never cared about the matter. |
This is about parental rights.
quote:
I have the distinct impression that he is using her as a soapbox. |
Perhaps, but he's no different than the people who got "under God" into the pledge... Why do people want the pledge? Is it because they aren't providing for their own kid's religious upbringing at home and need the state to do it for them at school? Of course not, it's because they want your kids raised with their religious views and they'd rather hide behind the state to accomplish this than risk their own necks. These people are telling the rest of us we are bad parents and need them and their state to raise our kids properly.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
What actual, concrete injury does any parent suffer from this? Maybe a say in the society in which their progeny are reared, just for shits and giggles. |
That's nice, but that isn't standing.
Btw, most of the stories don't tell you this (a NY Times one does), but the final decision was 8-0 against Newdow. 5 Justices said he had no standing and 3 (Rehnquest, O'Conner, and Thomas) said that the pledge wasn't unconstitutional. Scalia recused himself from the case. So it wasn't like this was a really close vote, Newdow was done either way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/p...5pledge.html?hp
quote:
Justice Stevens said that "the interests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict." He said that while Dr. Newdow was free to "instruct his daughter in his religious views," California law did not give him "a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion." |
Now if a kid was suing and backed by his parent's money (for attorney costs) then you could get standing.
quote:
stop taxing these people to pay for public schools |
Fine with me.
quote:
in 1943 it was one of the Christian sects that objected to the then compulsory pledge and the SCOTUS ruled in their favor. So what's the difference? It's "voluntary" now? Hardly! |
So you can't simply refuse to say the pledge? I'm sorry, but that's false, because I know there were people who did refuse in my schools. They didn't feel coerced by having to listen to others recite it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
I did not know we have the right to be free from being offended. |
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So if it supports your beliefs, it doesn't matter whether or not it is a violation of the Constitution?
The state has no place affirming the existence of a diety. |
Yes, it does matter whether it is in the Constitution. Indirectly, that is the question here: Is a trivial affirmation of a general public belief in a Deity truly prohited by the text of the 1st Amendment? Is drawing the line where the atheists want just as much an affirmation of their religion?
And yes IIRC, an appellate court ruled that atheism is a de facto religion, hence Justice Stevens' comment that Dr. Newdow was free to "instruct his daughter in his religious views." It is not the only religion that doesn't believe in a personal God (eg, Buddhism). It is the only religion with adherents so insecure that they can't hack hearing other people say "under God" in the Pledge. Sounds like a person problem, not a policy issue. GET OVER IT.
quote:
As for telling people to just go to another school, unless you live in a big city, that requires moving or other unreasonable expenses. People should not have to be forced to withdraw from public activities in order to have their rights not violated by the state. |
As for expenses if social pressures at one school made not reciting the Pledge unpleasant for the child (not demonstrated in this case), dissent is a right that has consequences. If you can't hack the consequences it isn't up to the state or society to fund something more convenient to you, or to shelter your pansy arse from criticism. If some tangible crime of harassment is involved press charges.
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
What actual, concrete injury does any parent suffer from this? Maybe a say in the society in which their progeny are reared, just for shits and giggles. |
If your notion of religion is incapable of persuading a majority of your peers, you've had your say now put up and shut up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
John T - quote:
Perhaps the child doesn't feel like being a pawn in her dad's fight against his ideological boogy-man? |
He is a parent and has a right to see to his daughter's religious or non-religious upbringing just as Christian parents who objected to the state coercing their kids to affirm a belief in no god or satan have the right. The reason his daughter was dragged into this, and Newdow never named her, the media or his opponents named her, was because the state is wishy washy on parental rights when custody is shared. Do you, John, have a right to raise your child as a Christian if that is your religion? Does the state have the "right" to "invite" your child into a state school paid for with your money and "ask" her to affirm a belief in Satan?
quote:
Given that he didn't even see fit to stay around to watch her grow up, this man is just a whiny bastard who uses his kids, as he pleases, for his own ends, with their wishes not counting in the slightest. If he actually gave a **** about her well-being, he wouldn't have left her. |
He has custody 10 days out of each month, the mother got the bulk of the time when their common law marriage was nullified. So accusing him of running out on his daughter is false...
Imran - quote:
So you can't simply refuse to say the pledge? I'm sorry, but that's false, because I know there were people who did refuse in my schools. They didn't feel coerced by having to listen to others recite it. |
People can resist coercion, that doesn't mean the coercion doesn't exist. Some people will refuse to hand over their money to a mugger, that doesn't mean the mugger is not trying to coerce money from them. And how do you know if they felt coerced? All it takes for coercion to exist is an expectation of retaliation if the "voluntary" pledge is not recited. C'mon Imran, conservatives often complain about the coercive atmosphere on college campuses created by liberal students and teachers who may retaliate against conservative students for expressing their views and you expect us to believe there is no coercion to recite the pledge?
Hell, tonight O'Reilly insinuated atheists are cockroaches when he said there will be more of them coming out of the woodwork to challenge the pledge. That's how many "Christians" react to atheists, with disdain. Children can see this... The pledge was enacted as a political ploy against the godless commies...the hated godless commies... A child who refuses to recite the pledge is "associating" with these hated people...
Mr Fun - quote:
And Che -- allowing someone the choice of whether or not to say the pledge -- even with the words "under God" does not violation the Constitution since the person is left with a free choice. |
Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
How can you freely exercise your religion when the state "asks" you to stand up in front of your classmates and affirm their religious belief? That's why religious tests were prohibited in the Constitution, so that people would not be asked to compromise their religious beliefs in order to hold office. Second, schools aren't even mentioned in the Constitution so how on earth did Congress obtain a constitutional power to direct what children say in school?
Third, NO LAW means just that! So, what does it mean to "establish" religion? Well, asking children to stand up and publicly affirm a belief in someone else's god does "establish" religion.
The pledge violates the Constitution in 3 ways...
Compare this to other issues:
Judge Moore's 10 Commandments monument down in Alabama and "In God We Trust" on money.
Both these do not violate the Constitution because no law was passed by Moore and no one was required or "asked" to observe much less affirm a belief in the 10 Commandments. Now, if Moore "asked" people with cases pending before him in court if they were Christians, that would be coercive. And no one is "asked" to affirm the words on coins... The difference between these 2 issues and the pledge is the latter does put children in the position of making a public affirmation of someone else's religious belief.
"I pledge allegiance to your god". How? By pledging allegiance to the flag which represents "one nation, under God".
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-06-2004 08:43
|