Who was the loner on the vote yesterday?

[Kilmer17]

The Senate voted 99-0 a resolution denouncing the 9th ciruits decision yesterday. Who was the lone non-vote? Im guessing it was Thurmond. Anyone know for sure?

[Henry]

Jesse Helms was absent, but I'm pretty sure I know how he would've voted.

[Kilmer17]

Im actually pretty impressed with the Dems on this one.

I figured at least 1 or 2 of the far left would have voted no or abstained.

Good job Daschle and Gephart

did I just say that?

[PCS]

Yes you did kilmer and there are witnesses. No fair editing.

[Art]

As some of us have said, this is not a political leaning issue. I was also surprised the Democrats fell into line here, but, essentially, that just confirms the fact that even they can occasionally appreciate the difference between right and wrong. Only occasionally though and we must not come to expect too much .

[JackC]

51 spinless democrats. 49 Clueless republicans (yes I added Jesse cause we all know he's clueless)

[Art]

Way to contribute Jack.

Rage against the dying of your intellect. Please. Fight the reflex to be a dip.

[JackC]

Originally posted by Art

Way to contribute Jack.

Rage against the dying of your intellect. Please. Fight the reflex to be a dip.

Because one doesn't agree with you than they must not be as smart as you? Come on. You can do better than that!

[Art]

Jack,

One does not have to agree with me to maintain some level of intelligence. EG, though wayward, remains bright. Romo sits to pee, though flawed in thinking, is sharp. Burgold is an honorable man. No. It doesn't require any agreement with me to maintain intelligence.

Now, you are simply not bright. This is clear and this is fine. Don't try to be more than you are. So, in your case, yes, you are not as smart as I am. But, you are a limited exception to the general thoughtfulness one sees even from a confused and frightened liberal . Though, even with you, it seems you started far more strongly than you are capable of maintaining, so, perhaps even this clearly factual assessment of your intelligence is not completely accurate, despite appearances.

[JackC]

Art,

I'm not surprised you have resorted to this tactic. When the facts are not on your side resort to personal attacks. Good strategy works well for you.

Why must "under God" be in the POA? Why was it not there for the first 50 years of the pledge? What do you lose by not having it there?

I know you will continute to evade the question but I thought I would ask anyway.

[Art]

Jack,

I don't resort to personal attacks when an argument of mine is failing. Rarely have I experienced a failed position because unlike yourself, I tend to actually understand the topic I'm addressing, else I stay quiet.

But, while I continue to directly answer your questions, and you continue to fail to grasp those answers and therefore figure they must be evasive, the truth is, you are apparently too dim to understand clearly written words and it's less that I'm not answering.

So, let's try again.

The issue is not whether "under God" must, or must NOT be contained in the Pledge. As an agnostic, I don't say the "under God" part either when I recite the Pledge. The issue is whether having "under God" there is a violation of the Constitution and this is so clearly not the case even Congress agrees uniformly.

An activist panel -- not even the whole Ninth Circuit -- has decided to legislate for a brief moment in history their morality on others. I know you appreciate the oligarchy -- government of the few -- but, that doesn't endear you as a big thinker here. Two people have essentially legislated into law for nine states what is or isn't. The fundamental flaw of such an enactment should astound you and make you quiver with the same furious, ignorant outrage you are prone to show elsewhere when you don't understand something.

That it doesn't is curious, but not surprising. You are a minority ruler. You don't believe the majority should have a say. You do believe that if one person thinks it's bad, then it must be bad so let's just get rid of it. Fortunately that's not how this country is run. So, while I would not quibble if "under God" were removed from the Pledge, I WILL quibble when a Federal Panel of judges steps forth and legislates something Unconstitutional when it so clearly defies the Constitution to tell anyone that they are not allowed to recite the Pledge.

You see, the Courts have rightly held since the 1940s that you may not be compelled to recite the Pledge, but you've always had the right to if you wanted. This court has now said you can not recite the Pledge whether you want to or not and that by itself violates the Constitutional protection against, as the Bill of Rights clearly states, prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

While I don't share a religious view, I know enough to know that it is a person's right to express that. I feel the sorriest for you that you do not share the belief that people have a right to express themselves as is clearly protected.

[JackC]

Why was "under god" added more than 50 years after the pledge was inacted?

BTW: Agree or not the court had the jurisdiction to rule the law unconstitutional on the grounds that a school lead POA containing "under god" violated the rights of the non-believers.

Personally I don't care one way or the other if its in our out

I do think the outrage by the right wing is laughable given all of the real problems we have in this country.

[Art]

Jack,

There is outrage by both the left and right. And, to be honest, this is more a problem with this nation than most others we are experiencing. The systematic dismantling of our fundamental, founding beliefs, is problematic.

Since the 1940s the Courts have maintained that non-believers are not required to recite the Pledge. Yesterday, a panel of three judges that make up part of a Circuit Court ruled that in nine states, it is required that believers not be allowed to say the Pledge.

"God" is not a forbidden word in this country. Our country declared independence using the rights God provides as a reason. Religious freedom was always a central belief in our nation. Not believing is fine. I don't believe either. But, taking the rights of those that do away is simply a violation of all of our rights. And, in under two months, this will be completely rejected. The whole of the Ninth Circuit will hear this and reverse the panel because they don't want this decision to hit the Supreme Court less they get throttled for legal activism as the Florida Supreme Court did.

[JackC]

Art,

Why was "under god" added more than 50 years after the pledge was inacted?

Anyone can say the POA anytime they wish on there own time. It it's that importatant to them maybe the kids and their parents can say it every morning before they go to school, right after they pray.

[Art]

Jack,

I imagine "Under God" was added to reflect this country's founding belief in religion and the free expression of it and as a slap against Communism. But, what you're asking remains pointless.

It was added. It has been recited. It's not required of those who have no belief to speak. It never has been. It is symbolizes the freedom we enjoy in this country to so believe, if that's your thing. And, stating it is Unconstitutional is a violation of the free expression clause. Pure and simple.

Few things can be more clear. What you would suggest, though, seems to be that people who would dare practice faith do so quietly and behind doors so as not to offend the sensibilities of those who don't? Hey, didn't Jews pretend to be something else to avoid persecution by people like you at one point too? As a nation we allow people to practice their religion freely. We mingle government and God daily and in all that we do and believe, whether you believe in God or not, the belief in the freedom to believe is what sets us apart.

You seem happy we no longer enjoy that expression. Sad. Happily this won't last very long.

[JackC]

Art,

Did you just call me a facist?. ROTFLMAO! Now that's ironic as I was getting ready to call you that any minute now. If you think that by not wanting public schools to lead religious practice makes me a facist, well there's not much that I can do for you on this topic either.

I will continue to try to show you the ligtht.

[joe]

I think the addition was the direct result of McCarthy era politics.

Whether or not it is constitutional has not, to my knowledge, ever been ruled on before, but for the record, the Congress of the United States has no say in the matter. The constitutionality of a law is soley the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States. It has been since Marbury v. Madison. (and wasn't President Jefferson pissed at that one).

From an academic point of view, I look forward to seeing how this one plays out.

[Art]

Jack,

When you indicate that people of faith should practice their faith solely in the quiet of their homes it is an oppressive and wholly fascist view of how things operate. You said what you said. My belief that people of faith, even with my belief that they are a bunch of loons, have a right to the free exercise of religion is not a facist tendency.

If I were to council all non-believers to speak only in their homes, you might have a point.

Joe, the Constitutionality of law is, absolutely, the Court's business. Congress does play a role though in that Congress would have to, as it already did, recognize and approve any change in the official Pledge. And as Congress seems mighty upset here, it's likely they'll resolve to tell the Ninth Circuit to suck it, and probably even make a specific law, though they never have before, that requires the Pledge in all American school systems allowing each child the decision of whether to participate.

This is the interest for me. If Congress gets mad enough, they'll simply usurp the Court by writing a law that circumvents it and requiring another review by someone else. I don't know that it will get that far as this panel choice will be rapidly overturned either by the whole circuit or by the Supreme Court.

But, it wouldn't surprise me to see Congress react with a fast and furious piece of legislation that essentially tells the Ninth Circuit panel to stuff it, and, of course, that type of action would immediately be torn down because Congress shall make no law, etc., etc., etc. Still, it will be humorous.

[Darth Tater]

Why should anyone be suprised by this unamimous vote?

Nothing is really accomplished by this vote, its just a lot of hot-air. Most people don't like the panel's decision or don't care. When re-election comes, these guys now can say to their consitituents that want the phrase that they are Captain America or whatever those people want to hear while such a statement , carefully worded by an adept speech-writer, doesn't effect those who don't care. Its all about getting re-elected.

[Art]

So, OPM, is listening to the majority of those who've put you in office a bad thing here, or in general? It seems to me that if Judges were elected rather than appointed, much of what we see happen by these activists would be less witnessed. That our representatives want to demonstrate they believe in what their employers, us, believe, doesn't make the resolution anything negative.

I agree it lacks any real teeth, but, it was a gesture to show that they understand the position of those who have put them there and while they don't always see so clearly, when they do, we shouldn't get upset because they have some idea what we actually want .

[joe]

From a strictly hypothetical point of view IF the 9th circuit were to be upheld by the Supreme Court (and there is precedent for the Court to do so) the only way for Congress to make a difference is by Constitutional Amendment, which, of course, takes ratification by the states as well. They cannot overturn the Court simply by passing a law.

One of the reasons that the Supreme Court, could well allow the 9th Circuit decision to stand (assuming it survives an en banc review) is that it is simply harder to get something overturned than not. The very makeup of the Court (supreme that is) would make it difficult simply because of the number of conservatives on the court. They might not like the 9th circuit's decsion, but their own conservative philosophies would prevent them from overturning it. This is something the court's more liberal members would have less trouble with.

Isn't it ironic, don't cha think?

[The Evil Genius]

Congress does play a role though in that Congress would have to, as it already did, recognize and approve any change in the official Pledge

Actually I believe the Flag Code states that any future changes to the Pledge must be with the consent of the Presidentthe official Pledge.

[Art]

Joe,

The Congress could pass a law that says the Pledge is pre-recorded, perhaps the voice is the President, and that tape must be played at all schools before class. To get around the panel's ruling, if it is held up the whole way through the Courts, is to design a law that circumvents teachers required to lead the pledge.

As for the thought on the High Court and how it might rule, I disagree with you on this. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court tend to be literal, rather than figurative readers of the Constitution. Here they are presented with a case that says the Pledge can not be said in schools if school officials lead the pledge and they will continue to agree that students who lack the desire to participate must not be required to, but that the Pledge remains a state's right to legislate to its own employees and as long as the option to remain out of it is included, there's no place for the federal government to rule over the states.

But, it'll be interesting to see. Most folks felt the conservatives on the Court ruled with thier politics rather than their judicial brains in the election cases so, if that were true, it is also posible they would rule here with their hearts rather than their minds I suppose. I just don't see that as likely when they have a very easy way to overturn it on either ground.

[Darth Tater]

Art,

Actually I was just waxing cynical.

However, all the evidence I've seen about elective judges can only lead to the conclusion that is a much more corruptive system. Judges tend, to be bound by the constitutions not by popular opinion in an appointment situation. In an electoral situation, they tend, to do the opposite.

Now, it is true that elected officials have their place. Basically, We have the president to enforce the laws and congress to make the laws while the judicial branch is supposed to make sure that the enforcement of the laws and the laws themselves are within the confines of the constitution. Since the laws were passed by and enforced by elected officials, generally, when such things are found unconsitutional, most people are going to dislike the ruling.

The phrase I don't like is 'one nation, indivisible' but then maybe that's just the deep-south in me talking.:cool:

[Kilmer17]

Isnt it ironic that "Under God" is apparently unacceptable, but teaching Islam in California is not. I am posting this here and then again in it's own thread.

Shoving Islam Down Johnny’s Throat

By Jamie Glazov

FrontPageMagazine.com | March, 7 2002

IMAGINE HAVING A DAUGHTER WHO IS IN GRADE 7 and one day she comes home with a burqa on and tells you that she is ready to become a suicide bomber.

Does this sound far-fetched and paranoid?

That’s what many people thought about the warnings of Conservatives when sex education started being taught in public schools. But now we have our youngsters in school being taught about essential things like “.”

I’d rather not extrapolate.

So did you know that our children are now having Islam shoved down their throats? There is now a middle school curriculum, mandated by the California Department of Education, which uses the textbook Across the Centuries (Houghton Mifflin) to indoctrinate 7th graders with Islam.

Every reference to Islam in Across the Centuries is positive -- and also based on the premise that the religion is the truth. The text doesn’t qualify anything by saying things like “Muslims believe.” Mohammed is the Prophet and that’s that.

Christianity, meanwhile, doesn’t fare so well in Across the Centuries. It’s painted in a totally negative light. The text makes numerous references, for instance, to how Christians have persecuted Jews. But for some reason there are no references to how Muslims have ever persecuted anyone. There is not even a word about how, in our own age, Pakistani Muslim soldiers raped a quarter of a million Bengali women in 1971 after they massacred 3 million unarmed civilians.

The teaching of Across the Centuries is usually coupled with handouts that entail instructions such as "You and your classmates will become Muslims." Every student then assumes a Muslim name, wears Muslim clothes and even memorizes a prayer that includes the line, "Praise be to Allah, Lord of Creation." Students receive assignments to build mosques, pretend they are going on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and to memorize Islam's Five Pillars of Faith.

Where exactly are we going with this?

Before you know it, you’ll be sitting at home and your daughter will come through the front door with a burqa on.

If this happens, how would you even recognize her? And what if you called her by her name and she said, “No, it’s Ibtihaaj and praise be to Allah.”

What if your daughter was on the school soccer team? How would she play with the burqa on? And how would her school pictures work after that?

And what’s up with instructing students to build their own mosques? Where exactly are they going to do this? What if your 7th grader starts building one in your backyard with his/her friends? What will the neighbors think?

And wouldn’t the classes eventually start teaching the kiddies about the importance and glory of suicide bombing? Contemporary Islam, after all, promotes “martyrdom” as the highest duty of Muslims.

Would it be grounds for worry when your son began constructing explosives and practicing strapping them to his chest?

Right now, Across the Centuries teaches that Islam gives women a lot of “rights.” But sooner or later, the teachers will have to show the kids the Qur’an. That’s when the students will stumble into Surah 4:34, which commands a man to beat his wife as soon as she shows any sign of disobedience to his orders.

And what do you say when your child asks you about Islam’s teaching that female beauty is a manifestation of the devil himself (i.e. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi in his text Dhamm al-hawa)? Moreover, according to a hadith in Imam Bukhari’s Al-Sahih, the Prophet Mohammed states that, as he stood at the gate of hell, he observed that, "Most of those who entered there were women." So what do you tell your daughter if she starts fretting that she will go to hell? If you tell her she won’t, will someone from the school come over and cut your tongue out?

All of this is very troubling. So is the silence of the secular Leftists on this matter. For the longest time they have gone into neurotic convulsions about the prospect of students saying the “Our Father” in America’s public schools. But now, all of a sudden, they are not obsessed with the separation of religion and the state when it comes to Islam. Why?

During the days of the counter-culture, Leftists often taunted Conservatives with the threat: “We’ll get you through your children.” It looks like the enemies of America have now found more imaginative ways of doing so.

Who will take a stand at this vital hour?