Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional...

[starlifter]

Wow, there are lots of new posts every time I finish one, or leave for a while and come back!! What a spiritied group of people we have!!

by Graeme:

you show that starlifter greadius

hehe.... Greadius does have a few particular points of discussion that could easily warrant a nice thread, particularly in the World History Forum. Probably not enough people "drill down" this deep in this thread to enable more points of view on some of his issues, like interpretation of the 6th Article of the Constitution. To be fair, even the US Supreme Court has not decided lots of specific interpretations of the Constitution. In many cases, it just lets a Federal court's ruling stand for a few years, or even decades, before acting (if ever).


by PH76:

The problem Graeme is that he doesn't have time to think if he wants to keep his posts long. The winky means it is a joke right star and not to be taken seriously?

There's a fair amount of my personal perception of the context of Graedius' post and original motives, but the factual content is from sources like the US Archives. I posted copies of the Declaration of Independence & Constitution so all readers can have an unfiltered easy reference of the actual words.

All my replies to Graedius are, naturally, based on the context of his original seriousness, and the self-evident nature of some of his contradictions of fact.

But be that as it may, he might really feel disposed to raise most of those issues as a US historical thread .

by PH 76:

starlifter, the only one I see in the debate between you and Greadius that is "trolling for a response" would be you. He made one little flame to your barrage of them and you have the audacity to blame him for "trying to distract from the discussion at hand". Your little insults do more damage to this discussion that any errors Greadius might have made in his posts. I would suggest that you reread what Greadius has posted but I doubt that you would.

My replies were and are in response, and not leading. The fish does not do the trolling. My replies are in the context of his posts, and my context is stated more than once.

Yes, raising and repeating questions like:

"Here is the start of your history lesson. The Decleration of Independance was not signed in Congress on July 4th."

...which was in reply to a general post of mine that was the exact wording at the top of the US Declaration of Independece. That is not only baiting (by swiching topics suddenly, and stating someting argumentative), but it contradicts his own assertions about his self-stated knowledge of the issue he decided to distract. That is, we were talking about the Pledge and "under God", and now someone who explicitly states he reads "obscene" amounts of history and has the founding documents at arm's reach then chooses a phrase from the top of the Declaration of Independence and goes off in a totally new direction!

Most of his first post continued in an ill-informed light, and the purpose is plain... so hence I continued to question his own assertions about his knowledge of the issues he was raising (FYI, those are the numbered points in his re: to my re.


by PH76: "Your little insults do more damage to this discussion that any errors Greadius might have made in his posts." That depends on how you take them. They are not insults, but do indeed question the context of his assertions about his self-stated knowledge, and are raised as the points are covered.

by PH76: "I would suggest that you reread what Greadius has posted but I doubt that you would."

Your own little jab? Naturally, I read the posts, and more than once, to try and figure out where he was really coming from. In fact, I continually suggested (in my re: to his re: ) that he should raise those issues in the WH Forum, and let more than just me make an input to these new issues he keeps repeating.

Since you brought it up when you "suggested" I reread his post, I "suggest" you reread the first part of my first one (above the picture of the Declaration of Independence).

BTW, I seems there is becoming a division here, pretty much along the perceived sides of the Pledge & "under God" issue that is the subject of the post. In light of the very Judge that caused this nationally covered attention backtracking today, there is likely to be a letdown for those that supported yesterday's ruling.

And since people are starting to take things personally, I am going to refrain from the post-reply cycle in this thread.. I'm not at all inflammed or mad or whatever, but it seems that some are getting a little sensitive. The main point of this thread is temporarily moot anyway, as the ruling is suspended and has no weight....




God bless our Nation, in this year of Our Lord!

 

[plomeros]

Starlifter, I like your funny notes at the end of your inputs...

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by starlifter
You are evidently already educated enough to realize your own statements are often wrong, or deliberately off the point, and in reply, even off some points that you bring up....

Are you reading my mind?

Originally posted by starlifter
What are you trying to argue by saying "The Declaration of Independence is not law" ? This is not the topic of the thread! Feel free to start a new thread with that, and I'll post to it.

I'm shocked. The first time the Declaration of Independence is mentioned on this thread is on page 5, in boldface type, by YOU, asserting that it is proof of your belief that we are one nation under god.
Go back and look, YOU brought it up, I rebuff it, and now you deride me for going off topic

Originally posted by starlifter
But then you say "the supreme law of the land (meaning greater than the Declaration) ", which in itself contradicts your first sentence the Declaration of Independence is not law...

Actually, the point was that without Constitutional approval the Declaration is a piece of paper. The Decleration has no Constitutional approval, therefore is not a legal document, and therefore is a (very important) piece of paper.

Originally posted by starlifter
In short, you seem incapable of following a sustained thought, or are deliberately making yourself look silly.

Should I start a new count or just keep going where I left off?
#1...

Originally posted by starlifter
Jeeze, what on earth do you mean by "The Decleration of Independence was never seen in this system."

I meant to type "The Declaration of Independence has never seen its way THROUGH this system."
I missed a word. Hopefully that won't dominate your response.

Originally posted by starlifter
Actually, it does not matter, because you are so far afield right now, that I'm not going to continue replying unless you want to start a new thread and stay focused.

I was wrong. #2.

Originally posted by starlifter
Try hard to understand... what does "Or as a separate nation from Britain" mean in the context of following the fact that America became a nation with it's Declaration of Independence?

There is a difference between nations and governments. The United States is an exception in the modern era with the fact that we've had a continous government for over two centuries. Specific with the pledge is an allegiance designed by a government, a modern government, that has no legal connection to the statement made within the Decleration that makes a specific reference to god, making that reference irrelevant in attempting to prove that modern government can insert religious references into compulsory public functions.
#3 for the 'try hard to understand'

Originally posted by starlifter
Why do you keep throwing stuff out and inviting to be shown wrong?

Because your inability to show I'm wrong while claiming you can undermines your arguement.

Originally posted by starlifter
I suspect you already know some of this stuff... but you are again, getting off from the topic and focus.

Excuse me for straying off topic; I'll stop the insertion of lengthy documents pertaining to the creation of the U.S. and obscure, anonymous founding fathers quotes.

Originally posted by starlifter
Feel free to start a topic on the Government's decision making process in 1954.

Seeing as that decision making was just reversed last week it seems more appropriate here.

Originally posted by starlifter
You are somehow denying the houses of Congress can enact laws?

They have specific limitations, in the Bill of Rights and in the Constitution, on what laws they can and cannot enact, and what they have jurisdiction over. Very specific. Amatterfact, just a few years ago a Federal law banning guns near schools was overturned because the court ruled it was out of the Federal governments jurisdiction to make laws on such matters.
So, I'm trying to find the Constitutional justification Congress had in passing a law adding 'under god' to the pledge. I've read the document; I can't find it. Hardly necessary, or proper.

Originally posted by starlifter
In the Real World, few people would attempt to make the assertions you do! The laughter at the outrageousness of some of your absurd implications would make it pretty hard to reply, however!!

#4. I am taken quite seriously in the real world.
And obviously I've had a lot of experience slicing through condescending treatment. You'll pull seniority or experience next.

Originally posted by starlifter
LOL, well I actually suspect you have and are just trolling.

#5?

Originally posted by starlifter
Once again, for the umpteenth time... why are you going so far afield? The answer is because you either can't or won't stay on topic.

Double-checking the history of this thread, it was yourself that began entering a multitude of 'evidence' that of your ascertion that we are Constitutionally or legally under god and the law was justified. In challenging those allegations I've followed the path you have trailblazed. However, I disagree that it is off-topic. It is very relevant to the law enacted in 1954 and the courts decision.

Originally posted by starlifter
I'll let the Constitution speak for itself!

How kind of you.

Originally posted by starlifter
If I were to make you read it again, you'd just be "offended", since it is quite clear you are either baiting or simply no comprehend the English!

#6

Originally posted by starlifter
We are trying to keep on target of at least the discussion of the Pledge... and you're digressing into an explicitly written part of the Constitution dealing with requirements to hold office.

I don't believe it is, because it was your insistence on the first page of this thread that the government is subservient to your God that raised the issue of the Constitution in the first place. I attempted to find out exactly what the Constitution did say about religion. Both references seem quite clearly an attempt at limiting its influence in public life. Since the Court is dealing with Constitutional issues, and the Constitution is fairly silent on the matter, I thought both clear references would help point out the fact that the Constitution is not friendly to faith being a necessary part of public life.

Originally posted by starlifter
In case you have difficulty reading several consecutive sentences in context, let me help you.

#7

Originally posted by starlifter
1. Shall be bound by oath or affirmation.
2. Religious tests will never be required as a qualification to hold office or public trust under the United States
No mention is made about the specific makeup of the oaths or affirmations.

That is exactly what is mentioned: it specifically PROHIBITS religious TESTS. Now, ask yourself what a religious test is made up of. We don't have God-o-meters where you can put your finger down and have your faith tested. The only apparent difference to an outsider between a deeply religious man and an athiests are their proclamations of what they believe; there is no objective test of faith. Therefor, and test of faith would have to INVOLVE a proclamation thereof, or an oath or affirmation in context.
Holders of national office make a pledge to the Constitution, not the Constitution under god, and not an oath to god, and the Constitution.

Originally posted by starlifter
Are you still having trouble with this, LOL?

#8.

Originally posted by starlifter
The Pledge is a law passed by the Congress and signed into law by the Executive.

And the Constitutional justification for such law was...?
In dealing with the four fundamental freedoms, the government has to prove that the law is vital in the government carrying out its function. THAT will be an issue if this goes to the Supreme Court. The government needs to prove that this law is necessary to carry out its Constitutional duties.
So, which responsibilty does 'under god' fall into?

Originally posted by starlifter
You've been the one opening the door with recitations of your "obscene" reading habits, US Founding documents at arm's reach, etc.

Once again, if you scrolled back to read your previous statements you'd note that both of those were specific replies to statements you made questioning if I did, in fact, know what I was talking about, and if I had read any of the documents in question. Otherwise, I wouldn't have brought it up.

Originally posted by starlifter
Many of your original "points" were grossly in error given the esteemed light in which you presented your "knowledge".

Then why, instead of rebuffing them, do you pander down to me with condescending monologues on going off topic, leaving out a word, and general ignorance, when you could instead be tearing my 'points' to tiny little shreds with your vast array of knowledge?

Originally posted by starlifter
And since people are starting to take things personally, I am going to refrain from the post-reply cycle in this thread.. I'm not at all inflammed or mad or whatever, but it seems that some are getting a little sensitive.

Peppered us with enough wisdom, have ye?
Thank you, come again.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by knowltok2
It actually highlights why I like discussion boards like this. Most people on here at the very least have to read and confront someone else's logic that disagrees with their own. Starlifter is a perfect example. We disagree, but at the very least both of us have had to read and consider the other side of the arguement. I can only speak for myself, but it helps me to clarify my opinions and consider them instead of just going with a gut reaction. People 'on the street' don't generally have this opportunity because topics such as this are taboo. It is too dangerous to discuss this around the water-cooler.

to all participating in this debate and thinking through their position in light of another's opposition.

I take back the bolded part and realize I should have stuck to the italicized part.

IMO Greadius has been discussing this matter in a calm and rational manner without the use of insults. Starlifter, you have not. Your continual insults do not constitute effectual debate, and do not add to this discussion. I believe you are capable of better.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by starlifter

When this is heard by the entire 9th District Court, I doubt they will find 5 judicial activists.... but I do not know the biographies. It is a huge step from 2 to 5, at the DC level . The 9th DC will probably just reverse themselves (as their job, precedent, law, and Supreme Court Decisions require them to do). If they don't, they better have a much better arguement for their 2-1 decision than they have made public so far. And other DC's and the SC itself know it....

BTW, as always, as long as the case is "alive", there is the theoretical chance it could eventually come before the US Supreme Court, and the SC could hypothetically overturn the law. The US SC has the constitutional authority to overturn any law which it determines is contradictory to the Constitution. This is a basic check and balance defined in the Constitution and its Amendments. But the existing precedents and defining body of work of the US SC to date reveals this whole lawsuit to be frivilous. All it is really accomplishing is an unnecessary logjam, and the 3 judge subpanel of the 9th district should have done their job and upheld the Federal District Judge who originally followed the law and precedent and threw the case out.

Courts must not always follow precedent; a recent example of this is the ruling that just was released that said that ******** people cannot be given the death penalty. This decision overrided a 1989 decision that said that it was up to the states to decide whether or not to execute the ********. Throughout it's history, the Supreme Court often made decisions that overruled it's previous decisions. As far as this particular case, I don't think there is any Supreme Court precedent explicitly saying that the words "Under God" in the Pledge are Constitutionally permissible.

On a sidenote, I would just like to point out that while "activist" judges are generally regarded as all being left-wing activists, there are many right-wing activists as well. They can be of any extreme on the political spectrum.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

I'd like to get in on the pool. Put in my five dollars, I say that StarLifter uses the phrase 'under God' 10 times in his next post in this thread.

 

[Franklyn]

Speaking of precedent ...

Please read the darn decision, folks. The 9th circuit judge who made the ruling cited plenty of US Sup. Ct. precedent in making its decision. The ruling is based largely on a 1971 decision (since modified by other rulings) in which the US Sup. Ct. ruled that public aid to private schools is unconstitutional.
The court used these precedents to answer two questions:
1. Does the govt. conduct have a secular purpose?
2. Does it advance or inhibit religion? i.e., is the challenged government action sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling denominations as an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious choices?

Here are the 9th circuit court's answers:
1. The pledge as a whole does serve a secular purpose. But the 1954 insertion of the phrase "under god" does not. Indeed, it exists to advance religion.
2. Yes, especially given the age and impressionabilty of the child involved and the classroom setting.

Remember, the courts won't argue public opinion. Instead, the judges will look at whether or not the judge in this case applied the correct precedents in an appropriate way.

My $0.02.

 

[Graeme the mad]

I do not have enough knowledge of the legal system of the USA to argue this point anymore (though the thing about no religious tests seems clear cut to me though I imagtine it is not) However I will reafirm my believe that making children say about a country under god is makinfg them believe unprovable things - indoctrination WHATEVER THE FOUNDING FATHERS, CONGRESS ETC thought about it - they were only human.

Starlifter you have certainly gone down a whole load in my estimation - while you have often had views different from mine I have always thought that in any debate with you I would be the one making insults and speaking from a position of little knowledge while you would have good points and not need to resort to personal insults. I find instead you do what I, in my worst and most dogmatic moments tend to do - but you just take longer to do it.

(incidentally my opinion of greadius has increased soemwhat - I only think he is a stupid yank now rather than a very stupid yank )

 

[MuddyOne]

My thoughts on the matter.

1) Why have children too young to understand what they are regurgitating say the Pledge of Alligence? Children of immigrants aren't allowed to say it to become citizens until the reach the age of majority. They have dual citizenship until that time.

2) Many have stated that it isn't required to say the pledge. I don't know the specifics, but is the request wording along the lines of "Class, please stand and . . . "? If the request is worded along those lines I don't expect a child to understand that it is different than the demand to "Class, please remove your books from your desk." that comes just before taking a test.

3) I'm not a big admire of America's intolerent persecution, often unfounded, of people during the red scare. Word's added to the pledge to mark the atheists during that time period aren't held in high esteem by me because of this.

 

[Sh3kel]

 

[Arioch]

All hail Emperor Greadius!
Actually don't do that it's unconstitutional...

I support everything Greadius has said so far. Starlifter, you can do better than this. As a non-American I would hope that I can be fairly objective on this issue as it does not affect me in any way, I'd just like to see a rational debate as at the moment the removal of the 'under god' phrase appears to have the most basis in evidence and fact.
One could say that I hold it to be self-evident that Greadius is correct with this issue.

 

[damunzy]

starlifter has made a statement in a different thread that he is no longer reading this one.

 

[Graeme the mad]

'starlifter has made a statement in a different thread that he is no longer reading this one.'

basically he has given up and greadius has won - which thread is this by the way?

My estimation of Starlifter has now gone through the floor - I always thought Greadius was the biased right wing US loving yank (no offense) now that is what I think of Starlifter
Well done GReadius he has no more arguments and will not admit he was wrong

 

[Sh3kel]

Why do people automatically assume backing down means surrendering or throwing in the towel? It's hard to keep up a deabte when most if not all are against you, the onslaught is impossible. To top it off when someone retreats after being mobbed he is declared loser....

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by Sh3kel
Why do people automatically assume backing down means surrendering or throwing in the towel? It's hard to keep up a deabte when most if not all are against you, the onslaught is impossible. To top it off when someone retreats after being mobbed he is declared loser....

I didn't assume that Greadius was the winner because starlifter backed down...out of the ****storm he created. I believe that Greadius is the winner because he defended his points without resorting to the insults that starlifter's posts were rife with.

A bit of mail that came from http://www.cnsnews.com/letterstotheeditor/letters.asp :

“In watching the situation stemming from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision unfold, I am embarrassed for us all and deeply ashamed at the vitriolic and, at times, childish reactions from citizens and ‘leaders’ alike.

One need not think terribly hard to understand that our citizens who do not share this belief still wish to express their devotion to our country and the freedom and liberty it was built upon.

Why continue this means of additional division among Americans? We should be united under the principles that we hold dear, not embroiled in a pitched battle over keeping a homage to the God of some Americans at the expense of the rest.

I implore all Americans to ponder this question objectively and realize that many Americans love their country, yet do not worship the same god. My hope is that we can see beyond the ends of our noses and respect the rights of all Americans and respect the pledge in its original and historic form, without references to anyone's god.”

Michele F.
Wilton Manors, FL

 

[damunzy]

Flip side of the coin: Not completely about the Pledge but dealing with religion in schools.

(CNSNews.com) - Add this to the list of religious-themed court rulings handed down this week: A federal appeals court says Columbine High School officials were right to bar Christian messages painted on tiles for the newly-refurbished school. Some families of students shot in April 1999 mentioned God or Jesus on the tiles they painted in memory of their children. The ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said, "By allowing a tile stating 'God is Love,' the (school) district would be obligated to post tiles stating 'God is Hate.'" Another banned tile read, "Jesus Wept." The appeals court said, "We believe that the (school) district's restriction on religious symbols was reasonably related to its legitimate goal of preventing disruptive religious debate on the school's walls." Thursday's ruling overturns a lower court decision, which said the school - in barring the religious-themed tiles - violated the families' right to free speech.

In this situation I don't believe the school would have been supporting a certain religion by letting the parents put up messages dealing with religious tones in memorial of the loss of their children. Now if the parents wanted to post just "God is Love" on a tile I might agree with the school. If they wrote a message like "God loves you Bobby" I would have to support the parents. Anyone know anymore on this?

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by starlifter
But you might remember to drag along some supporting evidence, too (oh darn, not evidence! ), since America has from day one been founded a nation, under God.... and continues to this day to be a nation under God. ...Some people may not like it, oppose it, or whatever, but it is true. We are not a nation of Athiests, and were not founded on Atheistic or hindu or Taoist or whatever priciples. It the the Christian founding of America, under the Judao-Christian God, that has made America great . Other nations have come and gone when founded on different principles. Other nations fade into obscurity with time as they degenerate into non-Judao Christian values. ...One day, if America should slide into non-Christian beliefs and principles, then America will decline. We have seen a microchasm of what that is like by observing an amoral President Clinton severaly damaging the power and prestige of the US Presidency. ...Be all that as it may, the incontroverible fact remains that our nation is one, and under God to this day. Hopefully the day will never arrive when America is not a nation under God. People of all creeds and religions should be thankful that it is one nation, under God. That is part of what guarantees the continuation of the nation (under God) that ensures their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!

from CNN.com:
[A] poll found that 45 percent of Americans hold the view that the United States is a secular nation in which religious belief, or lack of it, isn't a defining characteristic. Twenty-nine percent believe the United States is a Christian nation, and another 16 percent believe the United States is a Biblical nation, defined by the Judeo-Christian tradition.

29% + 16% = 45% so that means:
45% believe this is a nation 'under God' and 45% don't. Doesn't sound like a nation 'under God' to me...

 

[The Troquelet]

I don't trust those kinds of statistics at all. The different news sources give such different poll results... compare that CNN poll with say a recent poll by Fox News which "found" that 79% of Americans disagreed with the ruling.... seems like they're all just making up numbers to me...

 

[TedG]

Polls are inherently inaccurate and shouldn't be taken too seriously, although sometimes they can give you a good idea of how the majority of people feel about an issue.

And the difference between those who believe in God and those who disagree with the ruling is because some people who believe in a different God (or Gods), maybe even some atheists (?), don't care about it that much and don't make such a big deal about the words "under God" being in the pledge.

 

[damunzy]

well, CNN got numbers like that also about the ruling...so yes, statistics are weird.