| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2006 11:25:22 PM |
| Object: |
ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/news.aspx?story=2968
ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law
A lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Palm Beach County, Florida, school
board claims that a student's first and fourteenth amendment rights were
violated. This infraction occurred when, says Cameron Frazier, his teacher
punished him for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The lawsuit
is "much ado about nothing" according to one constitutional attorney.
On December 8, Frazier decided to sit out the recitation of the Pledge, as
he had since the sixth grade. According to an ACLU press release, a math
teacher at Boynton Beach High School cursed at him and accused him of being
unpatriotic.
Florida law requires that all students stand during the recitation of the
Pledge, whether they recite it themselves or not. Brian Fahling, an attorney
with American Family Association Center for Law and Policy does not believe
that the law is overreaching, as the ACLU does.
"Those [standing during the Pledge] are very reasonable accommodations and
one of the features that schools have historically been accredited in
instilling in their children is one of hopefully some sense of civility and
decorum in respect for others," said Fahling.
The ACLU wants the Florida law to recognize a student's prerogative to
remain seated during the recitation of the Pledge.
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 10:03:21 PM |
|
|
In article <11ttk4dn1lk7vdb@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tta7eaa5s6hf5@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsq00r0qu1i74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the
Constitution
first.
And it is.
Where? Article and section?
You've already been told about the Barnette decision; I guess
you're too stupid to learn.
And are you so incredibly dumb that you think every single
law is consitutional unless that particular law is declared
explicitly unconstitutional in the text of the constitution?
So basically we don't need a written Constitution at all, then.
No, you just have to be something other than a complete idiot
to understand that a constitutional can't possibly explicitly
name only those laws that are unconstitutional.
But you are a complete idiot.
Ah, ad hominems... the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 10:38:34 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11ttk4dn1lk7vdb@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tta7eaa5s6hf5@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsq00r0qu1i74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the
Constitution
first.
And it is.
Where? Article and section?
You've already been told about the Barnette decision; I guess
you're too stupid to learn.
And are you so incredibly dumb that you think every single
law is consitutional unless that particular law is declared
explicitly unconstitutional in the text of the constitution?
So basically we don't need a written Constitution at all, then.
No, you just have to be something other than a complete idiot
to understand that a constitutional can't possibly explicitly
name only those laws that are unconstitutional.
But you are a complete idiot.
Ah, ad hominems... the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
It's not an ad hominem, idiot. I'm not saying you're wrong
BECAUSE you're an idiot; I'm saying you're wrong AND you're
an idiot. It's only ad hominem if I try to claim that your
argument is wrong BECAUSE you're an idiot.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 10:55:49 PM |
|
|
In article <11ttqea2p79cd74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11ttk4dn1lk7vdb@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tta7eaa5s6hf5@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsq00r0qu1i74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just
because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the
Constitution
first.
And it is.
Where? Article and section?
You've already been told about the Barnette decision; I guess
you're too stupid to learn.
And are you so incredibly dumb that you think every single
law is consitutional unless that particular law is declared
explicitly unconstitutional in the text of the constitution?
So basically we don't need a written Constitution at all, then.
No, you just have to be something other than a complete idiot
to understand that a constitutional can't possibly explicitly
name only those laws that are unconstitutional.
But you are a complete idiot.
Ah, ad hominems... the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
It's not an ad hominem, idiot.
You apparently don't even know the definition of "ad hominem" since you
used one while telling me you aren't using them.
I'm not saying you're wrong
BECAUSE you're an idiot; I'm saying you're wrong AND you're
an idiot.
Irrelevant.
It's only ad hominem if I try to claim that your
argument is wrong BECAUSE you're an idiot.
No, it's not. Go look it up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
31 Jan 2006 09:11:35 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11ttqea2p79cd74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11ttk4dn1lk7vdb@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tta7eaa5s6hf5@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsq00r0qu1i74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just
because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the
Constitution
first.
And it is.
Where? Article and section?
You've already been told about the Barnette decision; I guess
you're too stupid to learn.
And are you so incredibly dumb that you think every single
law is consitutional unless that particular law is declared
explicitly unconstitutional in the text of the constitution?
So basically we don't need a written Constitution at all, then.
No, you just have to be something other than a complete idiot
to understand that a constitutional can't possibly explicitly
name only those laws that are unconstitutional.
But you are a complete idiot.
Ah, ad hominems... the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
It's not an ad hominem, idiot.
You apparently don't even know the definition of "ad hominem" since you
used one while telling me you aren't using them.
No, I didn't idiot. YOU don't know the defintion of ad hominem.
An "ad hominem" argument is NOT just an insult, idiot.
An "ad hominem" argument is a fallacy along the lines of
"my opponents argument is wrong because he's an idiot".
I haven't been doing that. I've been pointing out where
your argument is wrong, and THEN calling you an idiot.
That's not an ad hominem, idiot.
I'm not saying you're wrong
BECAUSE you're an idiot; I'm saying you're wrong AND you're
an idiot.
Irrelevant.
Not at all, idiot. Using YOUR pathetic definition, adding an
insult to any argument somehow magically renders the argument
invalid! That's wrong, idiot. Valid arguments that contain
insults are STILL valid arguments.
It's only ad hominem if I try to claim that your
argument is wrong BECAUSE you're an idiot.
No, it's not. Go look it up.
Not at all, idiot.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
31 Jan 2006 11:41:40 AM |
|
|
In article <11tuvh7b5kcl52f@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11ttqea2p79cd74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11ttk4dn1lk7vdb@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tta7eaa5s6hf5@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsq00r0qu1i74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just
because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the
Constitution
first.
And it is.
Where? Article and section?
You've already been told about the Barnette decision; I guess
you're too stupid to learn.
And are you so incredibly dumb that you think every single
law is consitutional unless that particular law is declared
explicitly unconstitutional in the text of the constitution?
So basically we don't need a written Constitution at all, then.
No, you just have to be something other than a complete idiot
to understand that a constitutional can't possibly explicitly
name only those laws that are unconstitutional.
But you are a complete idiot.
Ah, ad hominems... the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
It's not an ad hominem, idiot.
You apparently don't even know the definition of "ad hominem" since you
used one while telling me you aren't using them.
No, I didn't idiot. YOU don't know the defintion of ad hominem.
An "ad hominem" argument is NOT just an insult, idiot.
An "ad hominem" argument is a fallacy along the lines of
"my opponents argument is wrong because he's an idiot".
I haven't been doing that. I've been pointing out where
your argument is wrong, and THEN calling you an idiot.
That's not an ad hominem, idiot.
Yes, it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
31 Jan 2006 06:15:17 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tuvh7b5kcl52f@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11ttqea2p79cd74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11ttk4dn1lk7vdb@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tta7eaa5s6hf5@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsq00r0qu1i74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just
because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the
Constitution
first.
And it is.
Where? Article and section?
You've already been told about the Barnette decision; I guess
you're too stupid to learn.
And are you so incredibly dumb that you think every single
law is consitutional unless that particular law is declared
explicitly unconstitutional in the text of the constitution?
So basically we don't need a written Constitution at all, then.
No, you just have to be something other than a complete idiot
to understand that a constitutional can't possibly explicitly
name only those laws that are unconstitutional.
But you are a complete idiot.
Ah, ad hominems... the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
It's not an ad hominem, idiot.
You apparently don't even know the definition of "ad hominem" since you
used one while telling me you aren't using them.
No, I didn't idiot. YOU don't know the defintion of ad hominem.
An "ad hominem" argument is NOT just an insult, idiot.
An "ad hominem" argument is a fallacy along the lines of
"my opponents argument is wrong because he's an idiot".
I haven't been doing that. I've been pointing out where
your argument is wrong, and THEN calling you an idiot.
That's not an ad hominem, idiot.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't. But you're apparently too dumb to understand
the difference between a valid argument that contains insults
vs. an ad hominem argument.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 12:12:29 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
Reciting the introduction to Romeo & Juliet is hardly the same as
swearing an oath. If it were done in a class in which the Pledge was
being studied, I could understand the comparison.
Compelling an individual to swear an oath they do not agree with is
just as much a freedom of speech issue as preventing them from speaking
against the government. Compelling him to stand, while I don't think
that can be considered a violation of freedom of speech, confuses me.
What purpose is there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 08:28:00 AM |
|
|
In article <1138601549.428362.161440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the
ACLU automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
Reciting the introduction to Romeo & Juliet is hardly the same as
swearing an oath.
That would be relevant if the pledge was a sworn oath.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 08:44:18 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <1138601549.428362.161440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the
ACLU automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
Reciting the introduction to Romeo & Juliet is hardly the same as
swearing an oath.
That would be relevant if the pledge was a sworn oath.
Is not saying "I pledge allegiance..." swearing an oath of loyalty?
That is certainly how I see it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 10:53:21 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
The issue raised here was not whether it was constitutional or not, it
was whether it was un-American
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 03:02:08 PM |
|
|
In article <5q6Df.112188$7p5.91307@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
The issue raised here was not whether it was constitutional or not, it
was whether it was un-American
No, the original issue was the ACLU's lawsuit which apparently alleges
constitutional violations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 03:47:46 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <5q6Df.112188$7p5.91307@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
The issue raised here was not whether it was constitutional or not, it
was whether it was un-American
No, the original issue was the ACLU's lawsuit which apparently alleges
constitutional violations.
Not the bit you quoted. If "Wunderkind" did say it was unconstitutional,
you should have left that in to make your reply relevant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wunderkind" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 06:34:47 PM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <5q6Df.112188$7p5.91307@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American,
the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat
to recite the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just
because one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically
it a violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of
the pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god
reference) no more violates the Constitution than requiring students
to recite the introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms
of the verb "to be".
The issue raised here was not whether it was constitutional or not,
it was whether it was un-American
No, the original issue was the ACLU's lawsuit which apparently alleges
constitutional violations.
Not the bit you quoted. If "Wunderkind" did say it was unconstitutional,
you should have left that in to make your reply relevant
I only asked if the OP thought government imposing a loyalty oath, in
the form of the Pledge of Allegiance, was favorable in his opinion.
WK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 06:18:58 PM |
|
|
Wunderkind wrote:
Ash wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <5q6Df.112188$7p5.91307@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American,
the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat
to recite the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just
because one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically
it a violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of
the pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god
reference) no more violates the Constitution than requiring students
to recite the introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms
of the verb "to be".
The issue raised here was not whether it was constitutional or not,
it was whether it was un-American
No, the original issue was the ACLU's lawsuit which apparently alleges
constitutional violations.
Not the bit you quoted. If "Wunderkind" did say it was unconstitutional,
you should have left that in to make your reply relevant
I only asked if the OP thought government imposing a loyalty oath, in
the form of the Pledge of Allegiance, was favorable in his opinion.
The OP is a moronic troll that keeps droning on about the "Loony
Liberal Left".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 03:49:37 AM |
|
|
Chris Johnson wrote:
Wunderkind wrote:
Ash wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <5q6Df.112188$7p5.91307@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American,
the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat
to recite the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just
because one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically
it a violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of
the pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god
reference) no more violates the Constitution than requiring students
to recite the introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms
of the verb "to be".
The issue raised here was not whether it was constitutional or not,
it was whether it was un-American
No, the original issue was the ACLU's lawsuit which apparently alleges
constitutional violations.
Not the bit you quoted. If "Wunderkind" did say it was unconstitutional,
you should have left that in to make your reply relevant
I only asked if the OP thought government imposing a loyalty oath, in
the form of the Pledge of Allegiance, was favorable in his opinion.
The OP is a moronic troll that keeps droning on about the "Loony
Liberal Left".
Ah, I am posting from a.a, where we are used to such deranged dishonest
trolls, but he was unfamilir to me, I know now better than to give him
the benefit of the doubt
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 06:21:30 PM |
|
|
In article <6KaDf.4384$Nl4.3113@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>,
Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <5q6Df.112188$7p5.91307@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the
ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
The issue raised here was not whether it was constitutional or not, it
was whether it was un-American
No, the original issue was the ACLU's lawsuit which apparently alleges
constitutional violations.
Not the bit you quoted. If "Wunderkind" did say it was unconstitutional,
you should have left that in to make your reply relevant
Ah, *****. Here comes another net-nanny to tell us all how he wants us to
post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 03:48:02 AM |
|
|
You can post how you want as long as you don't mind being wrong. Of
course, people like you have no shame, so you won't admit to making a
fool of yourself, but that is something normal people get used to.
Having said that, crying when someone points out that your reply makes
no sense in the context only serves to make you look even more foolish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 08:29:04 AM |
|
|
In article <1138614482.371351.143120@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ash" <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
You can post how you want as long as you don't mind being wrong.
Nothing I said was incorrect.
Of course, people like you have no shame, so you won't admit to making a
fool of yourself,
You're apparently operating under a different definition of "fool" than
the rest of the English-speaking world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
31 Jan 2006 06:27:27 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <1138614482.371351.143120@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ash" <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
You can post how you want as long as you don't mind being wrong.
Nothing I said was incorrect.
snip
Nowhere in the US constitution does it give the president lifelong
immunity from prosecution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
31 Jan 2006 07:35:10 AM |
|
|
In article <1138710447.374243.114400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Ash" <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <1138614482.371351.143120@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ash" <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
You can post how you want as long as you don't mind being wrong.
Nothing I said was incorrect.
Nowhere in the US constitution does it give the president lifelong
immunity from prosecution.
I never claimed it did, nor that the president does.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 04:10:00 PM |
|
|
In article <btr1702-BD02F8.09402229012006@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
Requiring a kid to recite the pledge was ruled unconstitutional back
in 1943 in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
http://neuro.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0319_0624_ZO.html
I suspect requiring standing would also be prohibited under the same
ruling
We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag
salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their
power, and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the
purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all
official control.
Since it is still the local authorities compelling the student to go
halfway in a salute and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit
protected by the First Amendment. Is the US so weak that it must
compell displays of patriotism?
Continuing to sit quietly or being excused from the classroom at the
discretionof the student must be allowed.
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 06:33:55 PM |
|
|
In article <slrndtqf9o.cak.emma@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
Emma Pease <emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
In article <btr1702-BD02F8.09402229012006@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
Requiring a kid to recite the pledge was ruled unconstitutional back
in 1943 in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
Yes, and the doctrine of "separate but equal" was ruled perfectly legal
in the Plessy case, also. There's a new Court sitting now that's very
different from that of the past. (And with Alito set to take the bench,
it'll change even more.) Don't expect such precedent to be given the
weight it once was.
Just as Brown swept away Plessy, Barnette could easily meet the same
fate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 07:41:20 PM |
|
|
In article <btr1702-79D53B.19335529012006@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <slrndtqf9o.cak.emma@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
Emma Pease <emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
In article <btr1702-BD02F8.09402229012006@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
Requiring a kid to recite the pledge was ruled unconstitutional back
in 1943 in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
Yes, and the doctrine of "separate but equal" was ruled perfectly legal
in the Plessy case, also. There's a new Court sitting now that's very
different from that of the past. (And with Alito set to take the bench,
it'll change even more.) Don't expect such precedent to be given the
weight it once was.
Just as Brown swept away Plessy, Barnette could easily meet the same
fate.
Barnette itself overturned an earlier decision, Minersville School
District v. Gobitis, that did allow mandating pledges. The court saw
the result and realized that there was a first amendment problem.
Admittedly US States legally punishing Jehovah's Witnesses for
refusing to pledge while Germany was also punishing Jehovah's
Witnesses for refusing to pledge (amongst other things) at a time we
were at war with Germany probably affected their decision.
Note that pledges and pledge customs (e.g., frequent recital in
schools) like this are almost unknown in the other democracies (a
one-time oath or affirmation upon taking public office or becoming a
citizen or soldier are a different matter).
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 10:10:10 PM |
|
|
In article <slrndttg20.g4r.emma@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
Emma Pease <emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
In article <btr1702-79D53B.19335529012006@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <slrndtqf9o.cak.emma@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
Emma Pease <emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
In article <btr1702-BD02F8.09402229012006@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
wrote:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
Requiring a kid to recite the pledge was ruled unconstitutional back
in 1943 in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
Yes, and the doctrine of "separate but equal" was ruled perfectly legal
in the Plessy case, also. There's a new Court sitting now that's very
different from that of the past. (And with Alito set to take the bench,
it'll change even more.) Don't expect such precedent to be given the
weight it once was.
Just as Brown swept away Plessy, Barnette could easily meet the same
fate.
Barnette itself overturned an earlier decision, Minersville School
District v. Gobitis, that did allow mandating pledges. The court saw
the result and realized that there was a first amendment problem.
Admittedly US States legally punishing Jehovah's Witnesses for
refusing to pledge while Germany was also punishing Jehovah's
Witnesses for refusing to pledge (amongst other things) at a time we
were at war with Germany probably affected their decision.
Note that pledges and pledge customs (e.g., frequent recital in
schools) like this are almost unknown in the other democracies (a
one-time oath or affirmation upon taking public office or becoming a
citizen or soldier are a different matter).
Not sure why it should be a different matter for merely becoming a
citizen. Why is it a violation of one's 1st Amendment rights to recite a
shortened version of the same promise one is *required* to make when
they become naturalized? If requiring a recitation of the pledge is a
constitutional violation of free speech, then so is requiring the oath
of citizenship.
Don't worry, though. Pretty soon even the oath of citizenship will be
declared unconstitutional and politically incorrect. I can't wait.
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject
or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of
the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear
arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will
perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States
when required by the law; that I will perform work of national
importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I
take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 12:26:45 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:25:22 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/news.aspx?story=2968
ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law
A lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Palm Beach County, Florida, school
board claims that a student's first and fourteenth amendment rights were
violated. This infraction occurred when, says Cameron Frazier, his teacher
punished him for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The lawsuit
is "much ado about nothing" according to one constitutional attorney.
On December 8, Frazier decided to sit out the recitation of the Pledge, as
he had since the sixth grade. According to an ACLU press release, a math
teacher at Boynton Beach High School cursed at him and accused him of being
unpatriotic.
Florida law requires that all students stand during the recitation of the
Pledge, whether they recite it themselves or not. Brian Fahling, an attorney
with American Family Association Center for Law and Policy does not believe
that the law is overreaching, as the ACLU does.
"Those [standing during the Pledge] are very reasonable accommodations and
one of the features that schools have historically been accredited in
instilling in their children is one of hopefully some sense of civility and
decorum in respect for others," said Fahling.
Why not just let the kid sit down? FLIckin' morons...
The ACLU wants the Florida law to recognize a student's prerogative to
remain seated during the recitation of the Pledge.
F'n A, B, C & D MFer's! That's how ya bring it!
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
....and in debt to quibbler in the amount of /pinky to corner of mouth\
"One Million Dollars".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
28 Jan 2006 11:55:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:25:22 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
Oh look the extremely unamerican obnoxious brat J Young wants the
schools to repudiate the very american constitution and tell other
people's children that government thinks there is one god, instead of
the real true american who respects and loves the constitution which
wisely says the government should never say such a thing.
Why do you hate America and this country's school children?
Why did you beg to be shown up as hating America? Do you like having
your hate for you own country constantly pointed out?
Apparently.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 02:43:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:25:22 -0500, J Young wrote:
"Those [standing during the Pledge] are very reasonable accommodations and
one of the features that schools have historically been accredited in
instilling in their children is one of hopefully some sense of civility
and decorum in respect for others," said Fahling.
Since the fundies don't believe that they need to show respect for
atheists by insisting that the phrase "under God" remain in the pledge, I
don't understand why they should be offended by someone not showing
respect for them.
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Donovan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 05:07:28 AM |
|
|
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:w5udnYxr24MuzEHenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
Hindu children should be allowed to say: "Under Gods and Goddesses".
Mark
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/news.aspx?story=2968
ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law
A lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Palm Beach County, Florida, school
board claims that a student's first and fourteenth amendment rights were
violated. This infraction occurred when, says Cameron Frazier, his teacher
punished him for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The
lawsuit
is "much ado about nothing" according to one constitutional attorney.
On December 8, Frazier decided to sit out the recitation of the Pledge, as
he had since the sixth grade. According to an ACLU press release, a math
teacher at Boynton Beach High School cursed at him and accused him of
being
unpatriotic.
Florida law requires that all students stand during the recitation of the
Pledge, whether they recite it themselves or not. Brian Fahling, an
attorney
with American Family Association Center for Law and Policy does not
believe
that the law is overreaching, as the ACLU does.
"Those [standing during the Pledge] are very reasonable accommodations and
one of the features that schools have historically been accredited in
instilling in their children is one of hopefully some sense of civility
and
decorum in respect for others," said Fahling.
The ACLU wants the Florida law to recognize a student's prerogative to
remain seated during the recitation of the Pledge.
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
