12-07-2002 20:04									#241
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Like I said - there is no point in continuing. For me at least, case closed.

	12-07-2002 20:16									#242
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

More and more it becomes apparent this whole nonsense was just a nut with an axe to grind.

His own words in the article Ned posted show he cares nothing about the girl's desires, only HE knows what's best.

Just another person usuing a child to further an agenda.

	12-07-2002 20:35									#243
	Support Apolyton

His own words in that article consist of just two sentences:

"I have a right to send my child to a public school without the government inculcating any religious beliefs"

"The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me"

The first is hardly controversial.

As for the second: it sounds like he wants to draw attention away from his daughter. He may also be referring to the recent attempt to accuse him of perjury: the false allegation that the case is based on his daughter's alleged atheism, rather than his own.

It's Newdow himself, not his daughter, who is upset by the school forcing or encouraging his daughter to say a pledge which directly slanders HIM.

So he's right: "The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me".

Newdow is a lawyer himself, I think he knows what he's doing.

	12-07-2002 20:37									#244
	Increase Your PM Length

The federal courts can't address anything unless it's a case of controversy," Little said. "You have to have injury."

Well this poor guy was injured. His poor little mind was hurt at the thought that maybe somewhere, somehow someone might be uttering the 'G' word. Poor baby...

	12-07-2002 20:43									#245
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

If your own kid was being taught to recite a pledge in which he/she was part of "one nation without Christians": you wouldn't be offended?

	12-07-2002 20:44									#246
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Lincoln - If you lived in the African Jungle and practiced Animism, would it ever occur to you that there is one all-powerful being until someone introduced the idea to you? I would say no. That is the way with me and agnosticism - I had no idea that I didn' have to believe in God. I learned what agnosticism was and now understand that to be what I believe. I was never really a Christian - I was never given a choice to be anything else.

	12-07-2002 20:51									#247
	Got spare money?

Of course, some Christians are strongly opposed to "under God".

It makes little sense to imply that America is special because it's "under" an omnipresent God of all mankind.

The "us and them" intent is clear: "we are God's people and the others aren't".

Newdow, despite living in America, is one of "the others".

	12-07-2002 20:53									#248
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I have no problem with agnostics. It is a perfectly logical position without further evidence. Anyone who makes the definitive statement that "there is no God" however is either a fanatic or not using logic to come to that conclusion.

	12-07-2002 20:57									#249
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The foundation of America is based upon the reasoning of theists. Get used to the idea or make your own revolution that is based upon atheism. Maybe you can get some ideas from Stalin.

	12-07-2002 20:58									#250
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

"There is no God" is intended to annoy theists. It's our riposte to the equally baseless "You're going to Hell".

	12-07-2002 20:59									#251
	Re: Mother to Intervene Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Courts can only hear cases in which there is an injured party, and if there is no injury there is no grounds for a case, said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor who follows the 9th Circuit.

Wasn't this obvious from the start given the fathers repeated statements that the girl never complained about the pledge? Why wasn't that an issue at trial or was it the reason that the case was thrown back in Newdow's face originally?

	12-07-2002 21:01									#252
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln The foundation of America is based upon the reasoning of theists. Get used to the idea or make your own revolution that is based upon atheism. Maybe you can get some ideas from Stalin.

The foundation of America is based upon the reasoning (by theists, mostly) that religion is a disastrous ingredient in governments, and institutional secularism is the way to go.

	12-07-2002 21:04									#253
	You guys just keep going in circles. Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: If your own kid was being taught to recite a pledge in which he/she was part of "one nation without Christians": you wouldn't be offended?

Offended or not, the bigger question is whether it's up to the courts to decide. The gold standard is the First Amendment in this case, which says Congress "shall make no law" regarding the establishment of religion. Please keep in mind that the pledge was adopted but not mandated, or forced upon schools to use as a daily mantra, by congress in either versions. Schools ultimately have the say in whether it should be recited or used.

	12-07-2002 21:08									#254
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

It's a side issue, yes.

But, as I said earlier, the law in question (as I understand it) is the 1954 law that changed the wording of the pledge, not the new pledge itself.

	12-07-2002 21:10									#255
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

That's why there is no state religion. The key phrase is 'establishment of religion'. The mention of God does not establish a religion, nor is one established by stating the fact that the nation was founded under the precept that the Creator endowed all men with certain rights. What rights does your version of existence guarantee to all men -- the strong survive while they devour the weak?

	12-07-2002 21:18									#256
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I have no problem with mentioning God, Lincoln.

God.

GOD.

GOD.

...Nope, not a twinge.

But a requirement, compulsion, expectation or inducement, on behalf of govenment, for citizens to pledge allegiance to a deity is another matter entirely.

It becomes a state religion at that point. A fuzzily-defined one, but everybody knows which God we're talking about here.

Of course, it's the majority one. The one that everybody "should" worship.

	12-07-2002 21:20									#257
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You again twist the truth. No one is pledging allegiance to any diety.

	12-07-2002 21:27									#258
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Pledging allegiance to "one nation under God".

Doesn't that suggest rather strongly that there's a national deity "up there"?

To make this pledge with honesty and integrity, you are required to believe that much.

	12-07-2002 21:29									#259
	Support Apolyton

Besisdes, the history of the pledge speaks against you, Lincoln.

That WAS the intent of the 1954 amendment. As admitted by those who made it.

	12-07-2002 21:32									#260
	Put an end to popups!

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic
for which it stands (yes it really is a republic) ; one nation (yes it really is one nation) under God (yes it really is under God), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all (well I don’t know about this part).

So the pledge is a pledge to the flag (or the nation). The other statements are just statements of fact. One of those facts is that our founding documents were based upon the reasoning that there is a God (i.e. under God). Why would you want to censor history?

	12-07-2002 21:34									#261
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: But a requirement, compulsion, expectation or inducement, on behalf of govenment, for citizens to pledge allegiance to a deity is another matter entirely.

Please take the time to understand the history and evolution of the Pledge. The only thing even remotely close to the pledge being a "requirement, compulsion, expection or inducement" is the fact that the Pledge was added to the United States Flag Code (tltle 36) in 1942. These are not a set of compulsory laws, but a set of etiquettes and protocols in regards to displaying the flag. The title itself stipulates that these are only a set of patriotic customs, and not enforceable laws.

Dave

	12-07-2002 21:40									#262
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Then it would say "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation believed by many to be under a God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".

That is undisputed FACT, Lincoln (except for your own reservations about the ending).

But you rather gave yourself away with "yes it really is under God". That is not a pledge that an atheist can honestly make.

In the pledge, it doesn't matter what anyone else believes (or believed). A pledge is a statement of what the pledger believes.

	12-07-2002 21:46									#263
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by DetroitDave Please take the time to understand the history and evolution of the Pledge. The only thing even remotely close to the pledge being a "requirement, compulsion, expection or inducement" is the fact that the Pledge was added to the United States Flag Code (tltle 36) in 1942. These are not a set of compulsory laws, but a set of etiquettes and protocols in regards to displaying the flag. The title itself stipulates that these are only a set of patriotic customs, and not enforceable laws. Dave

The "law establishing religion" was the law that changed the pledge (though I agree that a LAW which changes a voluntary pledge is a somewhat odd concept).

The actual recitation of the pledge is theoretically voluntary, but with considerable "expection or inducement" at best.

	12-07-2002 21:46									#264
	Remove this text

Yes it is a nation under God in a philosophical sense. There is no compulsion to believe in God even in those who choose to say the pledge.

	12-07-2002 21:48									#265
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I keep reading the same things over and over.

Several people have pointed out it's not illeagal to say under god in the pledge, but the main crux of the other side continues to be "IT MUST GO BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT!

Sorry, that is not an acceptable proposition.

	12-07-2002 21:50									#266
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

You cannot escape the fact that our nation was based upon the reasoning of theists who incorporated their views in the founding documents. One of their views was that there should be no established church. The phrase 'under God' recognizes that fact as well.

	12-07-2002 21:59									#267
	Remove this text

quote: I keep reading the same things over and over.

Me too. Which is why I'm trying to say that the SCUSA will strike down the 9th's ruling on the basis that the Pledge was never established as a law enforceable by any penalty whatsoever. It is an oath that is buried within the United States Flag Code, which is nothing more than a set of guidelines on etiquette and handling of the US Flag.

This is the standard by which the court will judge.

	12-07-2002 23:57									#268
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Yes it is a nation under God in a philosophical sense. There is no compulsion to believe in God even in those who choose to say the pledge.

No, it is NOT "a nation under God in a philosophical sense".

quote: There is no compulsion to believe in God even in those who choose to say the pledge.

No, if they choose to say the pledge, they can lie through their teeth.

It is a loyalty pledge, Lincoln!

Don't you think those who mangled it in 1954 knew exactly what they were doing, and why?

Do you prefer to believe that Eisenhower was lying about the motive?

quote: You cannot escape the fact that our nation was based upon the reasoning of theists who incorporated their views in the founding documents. One of their views was that there should be no established church. The phrase 'under God' recognizes that fact as well.

Exactly: no established church. Actually, no establishment of religion: that is precisely what the First Amendment says.

"Establishment" has a specific meaning when applied to religions. It means official recognition, an association between the religion and the state. It says nothing about compulsion.

For instance, the UK has an "established" religion: Anglicanism. Some want to disestablish it. Religious conservatives are opposed to that: they are known as "antidisestablishmentarianists".

Establishment was considered dangerous by the Founding Fathers because it might lead to religious persecution, and would inevitably lead to favoritism at the very least. They wished to nip it in the bud.

The First Amendment prohibition is triggered by any attempt to "establish religion". Any attempt to give official recognition or approval to ANY form of religion. Any attempt to say "yes, that set of beliefs is American".

	13-07-2002 00:21									#269
	Suffering from ads?

Let me try to break it down further:

"Congress shall pass no law"

(measure passed by Congress on June 14, 1954: a law)

"respecting"

(regarding, with respect to, in relation to)

"an establishment of religion"

(a state recognition of religion, such as a specific state-endorsed religious oath. Its stated purpose: "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.").

Now, how can this possibly NOT constitute a violation of the First Amendment?

I can see only one potential loophole: that the 1954 change not be deemed a "law". When is an Act of Congress not a law?

	13-07-2002 00:55									#270
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ahem.

quote: Originally posted by Ned Courts can only hear cases in which there is an injured party, and if there is no injury there is no grounds for a case, said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor who follows the 9th Circuit.

Wasn't this obvious from the start given the fathers repeated statements that the girl never complained about the pledge? Why wasn't that an issue at trial or was it the reason that the case was thrown back in Newdow's face originally?