|
|
| Post Number: 41
|
TheTaxMan 
Controversial Thug
Group: Members
Posts: 874
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 29 2002,07:00 |
|
   |
CK doesn't understand that the meaning of 'no one.' Two people on this site alone care.
*peer*
--------------
Four billion years of evolution and this is all we have to show for it?
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 42
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2002,07:19 |
|
 |
Yes, never mind that the courts can find information on the Law passed in 1954, and never mind that every single major news source in the country can find it, if CK can't find it, then it isn't an important matter.
CK, the purpose of that line wasn't to acknowledge that "most people believe in religion". It was to make it offical that there is a religion. So we don't have a specific state religion (yet. the right wings are just itching to change that), but by having this be in the offical pledge, it does establish that there is at least a monotheistic god. And the only reason all those Congress people are screaming bloody murder is pure politics (like everything that comes out of them). You know the republicans are going to try to turn this into some evil plot by the democrats to destroy the moral fiber of this country. So, the democrats are playing smart politics and are doing a premtive move and siding with the republicans. That way, they don't look like uncaring, immoral people (which wouldn't help get them re-elected). That's all. Oh, there might be a few who truly belive what they are saying, but on the whole it is just stupid politics.
So, the final question I have to you CK is this: if no one really cares about that one line, then why not remove it? Would it hurt anyone to remove it? Would our country stop working and fall apart because little Johny and Susy don't say "under God" when they say the pledge? Nope. And by removing it, the pledge would no longer violate the First Amendment. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Here is a one of the many links that I have found on the Pledge. I'm putting this one in because there is also a nice breakdown of what each part of the pledge means.
The Pledge Of Alliance
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 43
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2002,08:29 |
|
|
Do you even read what I post? I said that lots of stories reference the law passed in 1954 but I can't find any details about it anywhere, other then that it happened.
When I said no one cares, I meant no one cares that it "violates the first amendment" (which it doesn't), not that no one cares that the line is in there.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 44
|
Bozeman
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2002,14:03 |
|
|
*backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal*
"Shit they're still on my case! I'd better make a vague accusation that they're not reading my posts!"
*backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal*
[/CK]
--------------
It's the pop-o-matic bubble, motherfucker!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 45
|
Mhoraigh
stow-away
Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: Apr. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2002,14:43 |
|
|
Thanks Bozeman...you just made me laugh enough to brighten a rather dull day at work :)
--------------
dyingdays.com - Jennifer
"Captain Loob he taught me all about the ocean
he taught me how to sail the briny sea
And though I've tried to live clean
To me what's a good life mean
I'm a pirate, that's all I'll ever be."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 46
|
ic0n0
I have become Death, Destroyer of Worlds
Group: Members
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sep. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2002,14:55 |
|
|
| Quote | The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.
Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association.
Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson
Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congretationalist establishment in that state.
On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Gentlemen:
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Thomas Jefferson
|
| Quote | Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black best expressed the purpose and function of the Establishment Clause when he said that it rests "on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion." Some Americans reject this dictum, promoting the idea that the government should endorse the religious values of certain members of the community to the exclusion of others. In fact, such violations of the separation of church and state take place with disturbing frequency in American government, at local, state and Federal levels. Recent incidents include the following:
An Alabama judge regularly opens his court sessions with a Christian prayer. Further, he has refused to remove a plaque containing the Ten Commandments from his courtroom wall. Alabama Governor Fob James has threatened to call in the Alabama National Guard to prevent the plaque's removal.
Local municipalities have erected nativity scenes, crosses, menorahs and other religious symbols to the exclusion of those of other faiths.
The Board of Aldermen of a Connecticut city has opened its sessions with a prayer that beseeches citizens to "elect Christian men and women to office so that those who serve will be accountable . . . to the teachings of Jesus Christ . . . ."
A variety of religious groups are demanding that their faith-based social service programs receive public funding although these programs engage in aggressive proselytizing and religious indoctrination.
On the "National Day of Prayer," local authorities acting in their official capacities have led citizens in sectarian |
The first phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause. It has been interpreted by the courts as requiring a separation between church and state. That is, the government (and by extension public schools) may not:
promote one religion or faith group over any other
promote a religiously based life over a secularly based life
promote a secularly based life over a religiously based life.
Three tests have been developed to decide the constitutionality of laws that have a religious component:
The Lemon test: This was defined in a Supreme Court ruling in 1971. 10 To be constitutional, a law must: have a secular purpose, and
be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and
not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.
The Endorsement Test: Justice O'Connor created this criteria: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.
The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accomodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion.
Cleary the “under god” part of the pledge is unconstitutional, is it promotes monotheism over polytheism, atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Jainism, tribal religion, secularism etc. Adding that line has a coercive affect on non-believing children in a school environment, who are then intimidated by peers and the state though the pledge and teachers to believe in god, which is a particular religious belief not all religions share or people share, the pledge Cleary choices monotheism over others it is playing favorites, and is clearly not constitutional.
--------------
"I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." (Isaac Asimov)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 47
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2002,17:28 |
|
|
| Quote | | Wow CK, you really don't get it, do you. First off, did you even read my post about |
*backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal*
Oh shit! Hypocrits everywhere! I'm surrounded! AHHHHH!
*backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal* *backpedal*
| Quote | | the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: |
according to this, public schools, social security, and the post office should be considered unconstitutional.
| Quote | | The first phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause. It has been interpreted by the courts as requiring a separation between church and state. |
This is what I ask all of you--how do you get from the united states not having an official religion, which is what the establishment clause is about, to complete speration of church and state? "seperation of church and state" is not in the constitution anywhere, you have just interpreted it that way.
| Quote | | The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accomodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion. |
the pledge does not coerce students to participate in religion. even you are not arguing that. perhaps the "under god" part promotes judeo-christian views, but it in no way coerces you to participate in those religions.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 48
|
Bozeman
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2002,23:50 |
|
|
CK, from whom did you quote that first quote? I can't seem to find it anywhere, but this is a big thread so I could have missed it.
The interpretation of the establishment clause wasn't OUR interpretation, it's the SUPREME COURT interpretation.
In the above post, you admit that the pledge, as-is, promotes judeo-christian views. I agree. According to Ic0n0's post, this fails the "lemon test" and is therefore unconstitutional. Participation aside, it's an endosement, or promotion.
And can't you think of your OWN witty retorts?
--------------
It's the pop-o-matic bubble, motherfucker!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 49
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 30 2002,07:10 |
|
|
| Quote | The interpretation of the establishment clause wasn't OUR interpretation, it's the SUPREME COURT interpretation.
In the above post, you admit that the pledge, as-is, promotes judeo-christian views. I agree. According to Ic0n0's post, this fails the "lemon test" and is therefore unconstitutional. |
You mean the 9th circuit court's interpretation? Show me where the supreme court has actually made a judgement saying that the first amendment directly means the seperation of church and state. Also, explain to me how the lemon test became the official way of ruling on these matters. I'd really like to know (this is not sarcasm).
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 50
|
TheTaxMan
Controversial Thug
Group: Members
Posts: 874
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 30 2002,08:45 |
|
|
Step back a moment and work through the reasons it should be included.
--------------
Four billion years of evolution and this is all we have to show for it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
