Kilmer17 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 4th Circuit is not binding on courts outside that circuit. 9th Circuit is binding on courts in California. I understand that, I was answering the question of why I thought the Judge was looney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Interesting topic, I remember saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" in school. But, I don't remember anybody being forced into saying it. How did they force you into saying the "Pledge of Allegiance". Take away your lunch ticket or your recess? Here’s a controversy thought for you. I played organized sports for 14 years and just before all the games somebody wanted to gather around and say the “ Lords Prayer”. Everyone would gather around and at the least bow their heads. Even if it wasn’t in their religious beliefs. This is what you would call supporting your fellow man even if it is something you would not do. What a concept. I did the same, but would you gather together with your muslims teammates if they asked for a separate chat session with allah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Everyone would gather around and at the least bow their heads. Even if it wasn’t in their religious beliefs. This is what you would call supporting your fellow man even if it is something you would not do. What a concept. No, this is what you call going along with the crowd so you don't get ostracized for being different. What a concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuposse87 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I stopped saing the pledge 3-4 years ago. Nobody including all my AP teachers seem to do it anymore. Its not like its a big deal, at least not in Fairfax county. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I understand that, I was answering the question of why I thought the Judge was looney. Fair enough. Mike Newdow is a tool, by the way. I agree with you that his obsession with this is crazy and he is only hurting the liberal/athiest causes he supports. If you can believe it, I knew him in Law School too. It was Ann Coulter on one side and Mike Newdow on the other. No wonder my views are so messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Doesn't matter even if under God was taken out, you won't force to pledge my allegiance to anyone or any thing. So in that case, there is a solid argument in Church v. State and also just freedom in general. LVskinsfan, when I was in HS my football team said the prayer too, and to be respectful I just bowed my head and stayed quiet with them, but that was my choice, and CHOICE is key when it comes to a free society. As a side note why would anyone want under God there anyway, what does it accomplish? Does adding God just magically make everything a little more patriotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Regarding the separaton of church and state, it is twofold: 1. The Founding Fathers didn't want the state interferring with religion and forcing citizens how to worship. 2. In that related note, the Founding Fathers didn't want the state to create an official state religion (ala the Anglican church), which would probably create a problem with #1. In essence, keep religion out of the state helps to protect religious freedom. That is in regards to Congress; that does not mean that a state can perhaps have a ruling regarding prayer before a official meeting or some such, I believe. We are operating with two levels of government: federal vs state. Keep in mind that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, if so desired. Some folks do not seem to understand that everyone does not want to pray or worship in the same manner as themselves. This especially goes for oppressive fundamentalists, which is the exact reason why the state and religion should not merge. That does not mean a Godless situation or vacuum is created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLadyRaven Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 . This is what you would call supporting your fellow man even if it is something you would not do. What a concept. I wonder if anybody argued this during the Nuremburg trials along with "following orders".We should be careful of the everyone is doing it and so should you mentality. Just following something you dont believe in is joining in the mob and lying to yourself. If you dont to because its not in your heart of hearts then dont do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Regarding the separaton of church and state, it is twofold:1. The Founding Fathers didn't want the state interferring with religion and forcing citizens how to worship. 2. In that related note, the Founding Fathers didn't want the state to create an official state religion (ala the Anglican church), which would probably create a problem with #1. In essence, keep religion out of the state helps to protect religious freedom. That is in regards to Congress; that does not mean that a state can perhaps have a ruling regarding prayer before a official meeting or some such, I believe. We are operating with two levels of government: federal vs state. Keep in mind that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, if so desired. Some folks do not seem to understand that everyone does not want to pray or worship in the same manner as themselves. This especially goes for oppressive fundamentalists, which is the exact reason why the state and religion should not merge. That does not mean a Godless situation or vacuum is created. Good post and this has been my argument against religion in schools and government. Not everyone thinks the same way, not everyone is christian. If you open the door for one, you get all of them. I believe everyone has a right to be what ever religion they wish, but I have the right to my own as well. I don't want other interpretations of religion encroaching upon me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I wonder if anybody argued this during the Nuremburg trials along with "following orders".We should be careful of the everyone is doing it and so should you mentality. Just following something you dont believe in is joining in the mob and lying to yourself. If you dont to because its not in your heart of hearts then dont do it. You can't. I can imagine what would happen if I refused to stand with my hand over my heart at one of the school board meetings. Sure, no one would fire me on the spot or anything like that, but it would be a bid deal, people would discriminate, they would remember that I was the guy that "Just wouldn't go along with everyone else" ever though there are probably dozens of people that also feel the same way as I do. It's not worth the problem and consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 God doesnt mean Christian only. I would agree if the Pledge said "Under Christ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 God doesnt mean Christian only.I would agree if the Pledge said "Under Christ". I totally agree and pointed this out earlier, but it does indicated religion. "God" certainly doesn't represent evolution... :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVskinsfan Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 In history it shows that human nature forces us to go to war approximately every 10 years. Either on a battle field or just a topic like this one. :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVskinsfan Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I wonder if anybody argued this during the Nuremburg trials along with "following orders".We should be careful of the everyone is doing it and so should you mentality. Just following something you dont believe in is joining in the mob and lying to yourself. If you dont to because its not in your heart of hearts then dont do it. Wow, What a cross reference in philosophy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 i don't know if this has already been stated, but for the record, "under god" was not originally part of the pledge, it was added in to give a religious tone to the pledge. its not like they just say "under god" because that's they way it always was, but because that's the way the religious activists wanted it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Who's "God" does "God" refer, it certainly doesn't say "one nation under the Christian God"... That's exactly why it doesn't establish a religion. This ruling won't last long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I stopped saing the pledge 3-4 years ago. Nobody including all my AP teachers seem to do it anymore. Its not like its a big deal, at least not in Fairfax county. not necissarily. its not required, but not every teacher knows that. in my freshman year, i saw a kid (foreign) get yelled at by the teacher to go back where he came from, and sent him to the office. of course this teacher later learned that he was perfectly allowed to not stand... ironic thing is, is that the kid already did the pledge earlier that class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 not necissarily. its not required, but not every teacher knows that. in my freshman year, i saw a kid (foreign) get yelled at by the teacher to go back where he came from, and sent him to the office. of course this teacher later learned that he was perfectly allowed to not stand... ironic thing is, is that the kid already did the pledge earlier that class. hah same thing happened to me, but not at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVskinsfan Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Very interesting views Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Fair enough.Mike Newdow is a tool, by the way. I agree with you that his obsession with this is crazy and he is only hurting the liberal/athiest causes he supports. If you can believe it, I knew him in Law School too. It was Ann Coulter on one side and Mike Newdow on the other. No wonder my views are so messed up. Toss in Janice Brown at work and you had a utter trifecta there Predicto! I agree that Newdow is a total tool. I think he has the better pure technical legal/constitutional argument, but I think it is such an utterly stupid issue that it is counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Does anyone have a link to the text of the opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 The Constitution says Congress shall not establish a Religion nor prohibit the exercise thereof. The school is not Congress. There is no legal basis to oppose the Pledge of Allegiance. Freedom of speech should allow the saying of the pledge in school. The basis for opposing it (as modified) is that it's a a pledge that was written by the federal government, and then modified by the federal government, for the specific, stated purpose of forcing religious indoctrination on schoolchildren. The plaintiff is going to claim that this phrase was added for the purpose of encouraging religion. And as evidence, he's going to introduce the printed record of all the Congressmen who stood on the floor of the Capital and said that it was being passed for the purpose of promoting religion. In short, the "framers" of this law actually stated, on the record, that the law was unconstitutional. (And also, FWIW, any action that's forbidden to the federal government by the Constitution, is also forbidden to any subordinate jurisdiction.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 That's exactly why it doesn't establish a religion.This ruling won't last long. Just because it isn't specific doesn't mean it isn't religious... what else does "god" mean? Seriously? You really and honestly believe that having the word god in there doesn't make it a religious statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 maybe its just an attack on athiests and polytheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Mike Newdow is a tool, by the way. I agree with you that his obsession with this is crazy and he is only hurting the liberal/athiest causes he supports. I agree with you. The guy is absolutely 100% legally correct. And he's guaranteed to cause a backlask that will hurt his cause, and anyone who stands with him, for years. Neal Boortz has been saying the same thing about the "gay marriage" thing: His advice to the gays is (my paraphrase) "Yes, legally and morally, you folks are right. Equal treatment means you should be able to marry. But you're just starting to get to the point where, if somebody kills a gay, he won't get aquitted. And if you push this, then the moderate people who've been on your side, helping you get what equality you've managed to achieve, will be driven away, and you'll be a despised minority again." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.