28-06-2002 08:03									#331
	Got spare money?

There was an interview of Newdon on the evening news. He candidly admitted that he intends to remove any mention of God from the money and public buildings (such as the US Senate, the Lincoln Memorial, etc.)

	28-06-2002 08:08									#332
	Put an end to popups!

! It's about time!

	28-06-2002 08:09									#333
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove There was an interview of Newdon on the evening news. He candidly admitted that he intends to remove any mention of God from the money and public buildings (such as the US Senate, the Lincoln Memorial, etc.)

Sounds like he needs to get a life.....even a low one.

	28-06-2002 08:37									#334
	Tired of ads?

For Civman2000:

	28-06-2002 08:41									#335
	Tired of ads?

Ahem!

I smell an urban legend.

	28-06-2002 08:45									#336
	Remove this text

Dino, somehow I doubt this meets your request, but here's the source: http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/news/file004.html

	28-06-2002 08:50									#337
	Tired of ads?

I was hoping for something more substantial than the American Atheist. I call BS especially given the fact that they are the only source for the quote.

	28-06-2002 08:59									#338
	Suffering from ads?

Well, given that it was apparently a private exchange not overheard by anyone, we'll never know for sure. I don't think he made it up; the quote seems in character for Bush the Elder.

Regardless, it was sort of a non-sequitir reply to Lincoln's own non-sequitir with the cartoon. (sequitir? sequiter?)


Back to the topic at hand, you say you agree with Imran. Can I take it to mean, then, that while you don't think that it is unconstitutional, you acknowledge the fact that "under God" shouldn't be in Pledge anyway? (Which is Imran's stance.)

	28-06-2002 10:20									#339
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Apparently the judge doesn't have much faith in his decision. I wonder if they ever get tired of being in the minority on an issue and being over turned?

quote: SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A day after he flabbergasted the nation by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a federal appeals court judge put his ruling on hold indefinitely Thursday. Meanwhile, Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) said the government will seek a rehearing.

More below


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...f_allegiance_31

	28-06-2002 19:16									#340
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I ran across an interesting quote today, from Eisenhower on the inclusion of "under God" into the Pledge. I'm just itching to find out what the pro-Pledge folks think of it. Here's what he said:

"...millions of our school children will daily proclaim... the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Hopefully, DinoDoc, the Detroit Free Press qualifies as a "credible paper" in your view: http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dicker28_20020628.htm

I'm still interested in hearing whether you think the phrase belongs in the Pledge, regardless of its constitutionality.

	28-06-2002 19:39									#341
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The phrase "under God" is simply a generic affirmation of the declaration of independence. Our chief founding document and its signing is celebrated every year. The signing of the constitution is not. In the Declaration Of Independence we find that our rights are not granted by the governmen but that everyone is "endowed by their Creator" with certain rights. Take away this precept and you destory the foundation of this republic which is based not upon government granting rights but unaleinable rights that government cannot take away.

If atheists win this battle then they have destroyed the rights and put them into the hands of any fickle government that may arise. This is why both Democrats and Republicans and in fact almost the entire nation is outraged. This is touching the very foundation of freedom as John Locke so thouroughly explained.

	28-06-2002 19:40									#342
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer Hopefully, DinoDoc, the Detroit Free Press qualifies as a "credible paper" in your view:

It rates higher that the American Atheist and Madalyn O'Hare.

quote: I'm still interested in hearing whether you think the phrase belongs in the Pledge, regardless of its constitutionality.

Personally, I don't care if it is in there or not. I just feel that the legislative branch would be the proper place to seek redress. From the start I've been more concerned about the legal aspects of the decision.

Now could you tell me what makes the Star Spangled Banner substantively different from the Pledge, given that you feel that one is permissible and the other isn't?

	28-06-2002 19:45									#343
	Tired of ads?

Lincoln does bring up an interesting point. Would you find a teacher posting a copy of the Declaration Of Independence in his/her classroom to be permissible under the legal theory espoused by this decision? Why/Why not?

	28-06-2002 20:05									#344
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Despite Lincoln's assertion, an astute student of law such as yourself DinoDoc knows that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing whatsoever. His belief that this will "destroy" are rights are, at best, hyperbolic and histrionic.

As for posting it in a classroom, it all depends on the context. In an American History class it would be absolutely ridiculous to not study it; putting it on the wall would be appropriate. (You might be interested to know that I have a copy of it on my wall too.) But in any other situation, it just seems unnecessary and not worth the trouble.

Surely you recognize how different the Pledge is from the Declaration; there really is no comparasion.


Re: the Star-Spangled Banner... as I said, I (like Boris) have never, EVER, heard any stanza but the first sung or spoken aloud. Apparently, some people (Dr. S.) have had a different experience (criminy, it must take 10 minutes to do all four stanzas). Yes, I find fourth stanza objectionable. There are millions of religious people in this country who don't believe in a big "G" God. There are millions more who don't believe in any god, period. What, pray tell, is wrong with removing these specific references to the Abrahamic God, so that our entire nation can be included?

I know you do not figure in their number, DinoDoc, but lots of folks think that those of us who take up this cause are un-American and unpatriotic, simply because we are not Christian. These government-approved references to God feed those prejudices, and thus weaken our country.

	28-06-2002 20:09									#345
	Put an end to popups!

"Take away this precept and you destory the foundation of this republic which is based not upon government granting rights but unaleinable rights that government cannot take away."

You can have inalienable natural rights on an agnostic or atheist basis. I also doubt the effectiveness of the Declaration in limiting your government.

	28-06-2002 20:19									#346
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer Despite Lincoln's assertion, an astute student of law such as yourself DinoDoc knows that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing whatsoever.

I was not refering to his contention regarding rights. He brought up the Declaration of Independence and under Newdow's theory it would seem like it would be illegal to post it in a public classroom. I could just as easily brought up the fact that the SCOTUS (and presumably other US Courts) begins its sessions with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable court!" or that Christmas is a federal holiday.

	28-06-2002 20:23									#347
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"The creator" could refer to abiogenesis/evolution.

More importantly, however, the Declaration is a historical document. It isn't something that modern people are expected to "swear".

The intent of this McCarthyite reform is clear. After the alteration, it became impossible to swear allegiance to the United States of America in the approved fashion without affirming a religious belief. To those who say otherwise: c'mon, who do you think you're kidding?

The intent was to make atheism "un-American". And that is clearly a violation of the intent of the First Amendment. The Senate's reason for not accepting it as such is that they want to get re-elected. It's this sort of democratic "tyranny of the majority" that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

And it has failed.

	28-06-2002 20:28									#348
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless The intent of this McCarthyite reform is clear. After the alteration, it became impossible to swear allegiance to the United States of America in the approved fashion without affirming a religious belief. To those who say otherwise: c'mon, who do you think you're kidding?

McCarthy had nothing to do with it. The organization that pushed it was known for drinking, much like McCarthy, though.

	28-06-2002 20:29									#349
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless The intent was to make atheism "un-American".

Let's be honest with ourselves here, Jack. No one is forced to say the pledge and ostracism of the girl didn't happen according to the father. So, where is the violation acording to previous case law?

	28-06-2002 20:29									#350
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well Dino, it shouldn't surprise you that I don't think the Court should start with that declaration, or that Christimas should be a federal holiday.

I think people should be able to take whatever religious observance they so choose. Most people would take Christmas off. No problem. But it shouldn't be a government mandated thing. Jewish government employees should be able to take Yom Kippur off and work on Christmas. The government shouldn't say, "No one come into work today because this is the birthday of a man around whom revolves the biggest religion in the country."

	28-06-2002 20:31									#351
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Let's be honest with ourselves here, Jack. No one is forced to say the pledge and ostracism of the girl didn't happen according to the father. So, where is the violation acording to previous case law?

This has already been proven to be wrong. Many students ARE forced to say the Pledge. Yes, that is illegal, but it happens all the time, and no one does anything about it.

Maybe this particular girl was not ostracized, but do you doubt that there aren't many such children in the country who ARE ostracized, but don't have the resources to bring this lawsuit?

	28-06-2002 20:39									#352
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer The government shouldn't say, "No one come into work today because this is the birthday of a man around whom revolves the biggest religion in the country."

"Who may or may not have existed, anyway. And it's not really the day he was supposedly born, but rather a pagan Roman festival they adapted for the purpose..."

	28-06-2002 20:52									#353
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer This has already been proven to be wrong.

No it hasn't. It is black letter Constitutional law that people can not be compeled to recite the pledge. IIRC, it was the Jehova's Witnesses that brought the case that stopped the practice.

Now if a student is being forced to recite the pledge, he/she has a valid cause of action for a lawsuit.

I'm half inclined to invoke a de minimus arguement and be done with it.

	28-06-2002 21:09									#354
	Support Apolyton

quote: Back to the topic at hand, you say you agree with Imran. Can I take it to mean, then, that while you don't think that it is unconstitutional, you acknowledge the fact that "under God" shouldn't be in Pledge anyway? (Which is Imran's stance.)

If that really is Imran's stance, even I may agree with him. Despite my arguing of semantics of a constitutional clause with him, I'm not really sure that specific clause (ie Congress shall pass no laws ...) really applies in this case. I was just jumping in because it seemed like no one had cared to correct his blatantly absurd interpretation of that clause.

I don't think including the phrase under God in the pledge is unconstitutional, but I certainly think it shouldn't be there, for precisely the same basic reason as those who are trying to argue it's unconstitutionality. It strongly implies monotheistic religion is what the U.S. stands for.

I don't think the pledge should exist at all either, but that's a completely different argument.

By the way, only the strongest minded children are going to refuse to take the pledge. Children are easily coerced, especially by peer preasure.

I refused to take the pledge for 8 years (1984 - 1992) in two different schools, both of which did the pledge over the P.A. system, in California. Every year I got into a raging argument with the teacher because I refused to take the pledge and they tried to tell me I had to stand up and say the pledge, despite the fact that the law in California (since 1982 I believe) says I didn't have to. I objected to doing it becuase: 1) of the phrase under God; and 2) because I was a British citizen not a U.S. Citizen.

For at least a month after the beginning of the school year every year, I was heckled by other children for this, and typically would get into 2-3 fights because of this specific issue.

I persevered anyway, and I wasn't even sure until recently that I actually had a right to refuse to say the pledge. No one ever told me that, and every teacher always implied that I had to do it, and had no choice in the matter.

I did finally start standing for the pledge (but not saying it) for the last four years of this experience after a teacher pointed out that it showed respect for the flag. And standing for the national anthem in public locations too.

So don't try to tell me about "the right not to say the pledge"! I experienced what happens to those who try to refuse, and I don't want anyone else to experience it. And this was in Los Angeles, California, supposedly one of the more "liberal" bastions.

BAN THE PLEDGE!

Edit: Lincoln, great picture, and all I can say to it is thank the lack of a God I won't be going to heaven if it really exists.

	28-06-2002 21:24									#355
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc No it hasn't. It is black letter Constitutional law that people can not be compeled to recite the pledge. IIRC, it was the Jehova's Witnesses that brought the case that stopped the practice. Now if a student is being forced to recite the pledge, he/she has a valid cause of action for a lawsuit.

I think you misinterpreted me... cuz that's exactly what I said. Legally, kids can't be forced to say it, but many are forced anyway. They have no idea that they can't be forced to say it, and even if they did know that, many wouldn't know what to do about it.

quote: I'm half inclined to invoke a de minimus arguement and be done with it.

I'm half inclined to look up what a de minimus arguement is, 'cuz I'm at sea with that one. (I'm med, not law, remember. )

	28-06-2002 21:27									#356
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Oh, and what Fitz said. It echoes back to my experience with the Christian choir.

I'm still waiting for the pro-"under God" response to the Eisenhower quote...

	28-06-2002 21:29									#357
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I'm half inclined to look up what a de minimus arguement is

From the dissent in this case:

quote: "Legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that 'under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress somebody's beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis. The danger that phrase presents to our First Amendment freedoms is picayune at most"

	28-06-2002 21:35									#358
	Suffering from ads?

Whatever happened to standing up for the principle of the thing? I don't think it's the be-all end-all of our religious freedom either, but surely people are allowed to argue that we should at least attempt to live up to our lofty freedoms?

	28-06-2002 21:37									#359
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The danger that it will bring about a theocracy: None

The level of indication of some people's desire to move towards a theocracy: High

The danger that it will supress someone's beliefs: Low

The danger that it will unduely influence a child's beliefs in his formative years due to rote repetition: High

It's the same reason most people who go to church as children tend to have strong faith. They are bombarded by propaganda in their formative years. It's the same reason that I am a weak athiest and have faith in the scientific method. I was bombarded by the concepts (by my parents) during my formative years.

	28-06-2002 23:30									#360
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: It was guarenteed in the age of the Puritans too,

Not true. Laws were passed that decriminalized Catholicism (but still lots of Catholic persecution was going on), but religious freedom wasn't guaranteed. Hell, Jews were still banned from England until after Cromwell took power.

quote: but the Official Church persecuted them just the same. You don't think the government persecuted the Puritans do you?

If England had freedom of religion, persecution would've been a non-issue. Period.

It's quite simple, really. Why fear religious persecution due to a state church if you already Constitutionally guarantee freedom of religion?

If freedom of religion could be usurped, so too could Constitutional protections against a state church.

quote: No it hasn't. Many states have forbidden after-school prayer sessions

Source?

quote: (which would be wrong, because it would be a law against religion, right?).

Yep.