(Old GodsSoldier) wrote:
:|
:|
:|Re: USSC to rule on Pledge
:|
:|Group: alt.politics.usa.constitution Date: Fri, Oct 17, 2003, 2:32pm
:|(CDT+1) From:
:| (Old GodsSoldier) wrote:
:|:|
:|:|
:|:|Re: USSC to rule on Pledge
:|:|
:|:|Group: alt.politics.usa.constitution Date: Fri, Oct 17, 2003, 5:05pm
:|:|(CDT+5) From: (rita)
:|
:|<<<<<<This is being done as a matter of fact, Many members of minority
:|religions and many non believers in this country, Americans all are
:|being given second class status.>>>>>>
:|
:|GS: So, your answer is to make "second class" citizens of Christians?
To level the playing field.
WASP has held a special status in this nation.
Real religious freedom cannot exist when a certain group, in this case
mainline Protestant Christianity, primarily, holds that special status.
*********************************
Wherever one stands with respect to belief in God, it can hardly give
comfort or satisfaction to have the Deity subjected to empty, nonreligious
uses "of a patriotic or ceremonial character." The bland amalgamation of
God and the state, while it may meet the test of the Establishment Clause,
leads at best to a kind of cant that all of us may find embarrassing.
In the same class, though perhaps more debatably, I'd put the
improvement on the Pledge of Allegiance fashioned by Congress in 1954. That
was a year, it will be recalled, when Senator Joseph McCarthy was still
exploring how low we might be sunk in his ersatz but grimly destructive
crusade against "subversives." It was also a year McCarthy's colleagues
found it meet to insert the words "under God" after the reference to this
"one nation" in the pledge. The House Report on the bill that became this
law said that "it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic
concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.
"17 Some very brief remarks on the floor reaffirmed that inserting the
words "under God" would "strengthen the national resistance to
communism."18 The only cerebration manifested on the subject of the bill
had to do with the number and placement of commas in the revised
pledge-i.e., whether it should be simply "one nation under God" or "one
Nation, under God," as the legislative judgment finally determined. The
short debate on this subject was suitably placid. There was no debate at
all on the merits of the revision and no vote against it. Who, after all,
would be caught in the open excluding God?
The uses of God as a "ceremonial and patriotic" implement go
forward steadily in more obtrusive and questionable forms. The insistent
demand to have creches and menorahs in public sites continues to present
tough questions leading to the varieties of intricate and disputed answers
mentioned in Chapter i. The legal issues are tricky enough to promise a
continued supply of test cases. To oversimplify a lot, the hardest cases
-where private groups want to put their creches or menorahs in the public
park or on City Hall plaza-pit the First Amendment free-speech rights of
those groups against the claim of the objectors that this placement of the
symbols indicates government endorsement of the religion symbolized.
Without questioning the difficulty of these cases, it is fair to conjure
with the question why they keep happening. The answer lies, I think, in the
very nature of hostile and competitive patriotism out of which one might
wish that God could have been kept. The creche on the public square--to
"put Christ back into Christmas," as its sponsors say--plants the religious
flag of the angry nativists winning theirs back from the alien, infidel
intruders. (Who do they think they are?) The menorah sponsors are a
kindred but more pathetic story. (If the goyim can do it, so can we.) Both
are joined together as enemies of the mutual forbearance that is at the
heart of religious freedom in a pluralist society.
The gist of the demand is that the muscle of your religion be
displayed in the public space. The subject, as is usual with facile shows
of patriotism, is power. It is put, to be sure, as a matter of free
expression by the creche and menorah advocates, but that is largely fraud
or self-delusion.. There are ample private spaces in every community, amply
visible, for displaying religious icons. The insistence on the public
space, the space that belongs to all of us, is to show those others, the
nonadherents. The distinction is readily, if not always malevolently,
blurred.. . .
Whatever misunderstandings may beset a recent refugee from Soviet
atheism, there is no ground for similar confusion, and probably no similar
confusion, among most people who want their religious symbols standing on
public property. The symbols make a statement-not of religious faith. They
arse not needed for that. They assert simply and starkly, as I've said,
power over the nonbelievers. This was underscored for me in a fleeting
moment of a case that ended 4-4 in the Supreme Court, the equal division
(Justice Powell was ill and absent) resulting in a defeat for the village
of Scarsdale (with me as unsuccessful counsel) when it sought to deny a
place for a creche in a public circle.20 In the course of that proceeding,
one of the sponsors of the creche was asked about his interest in viewing
it while it stood on Scarsdale's Boniface Circle during the Christmas
season. To my surprise as the questioner, it turned out that he never
bothered to go look at the creche at all, let alone to admire or draw
inspiration from it. But on reflection that should not have been so
surprising. The creche was not there for him to see or appreciate for its
intrinsic spiritual value in his religious universe. It was there for
others, who professed other religions or none, so that the clout of his
religious group should be made manifest-above all to any in the sharply
divided village who would have preferred that it not be there: This is the
low road., followed by at least a good number of those who seek for. their
religion and its symbols the imprimatur of government. If it is religious
at all, this stance betokens a weak and self- doubting species of faith.
SOURCE: pp. FAITH AND FREEDOM, religious liberty in America, Marvin E.
Frankel (retired U S Federal District Court judge) Hill and Wang, N Y
(1994) 55-64
**************************************
:|Personally, I have never seen an instance where anyone has been
:|delegated to a "second class" status based on their religious beliefs,
:|or lack of them.
You have led a very sheltered life or you didn't want to see, hear, or
know.
Why do you think Mike Newdow's ex girlfriend, the mother of their daughter
is so up in arms afraid people will think her daughter might be a atheist?
Why do you think that it? Could it be that such a label would carry a very
negative stigma in out society?
Why do you toss out the term atheist right and ledft? You are totally
ignorant of that fact that it is a buzz, a code word that frequently
generates negative emotions in many, right?
The court said:
[5] The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government
endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers "that
they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an
accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members
of the political community" Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (O'Connor, J.,
concurring). Justice Kennedy, in his dissent in Allegheny, agreed:
[B]y statute, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag describes the United
States as `one nation under God.' To be sure, no one is obligated to recite
this phrase, . . . but it borders on sophistry to suggest that the
reasonable atheist would not feel less than a full member of the political
community every time his fellow Americans recited, as part of their
expression of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he believed to be
false.
Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 672 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).7 Consequently, the policy and the Act
fail the endorsement test.
[6] Similarly, the policy and the Act fail the coercion test. Just as in
Lee, the policy and the Act place students in the untenable position of
choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or
protesting. As the Court observed with respect to the graduation prayer in
that case: "What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable
request that the nonbeliever respect their religious
7 For Justice Kennedy, this result was a reason to reject the endorsement
test.
SOURCE: Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 9th Circuit, June 26, 2002, p 9124
other wise known as Newdow I.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
:|While there have been instances of discrimination in
:|our history as a country, these have been legitimately addressed in such
:|cases as the Equal Rights Amendment, or the American Disabilities Act.
:|
Equal rights Amendment? What equal rights Amendment?
If you are talking about the ERA of the 70s it was never ratified.
:|But to delegate a majority of the people to a "second class" status
:|based on the idea that a minority is "offended" by the beliefs of the
:|majority is not what the Framers had in mind.
Sorry doesn't wash.
Christians aren't being regulated to "second class" they are being put on
equal footing with all other religion as well as non religious.
The BORs is about protecting the rights of the minority against the tyranny
of the majority, or didn't you understand that?
:| <<<<<< Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're
:|going to claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty
:|extraordinary, irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's
:|the beef?" Where's the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary
:|claims? If one is not responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof,
:|then the claim is not worth considering
:|
:|[as Gray Shockley said:]
:| (Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.) >>>>>>
:|
:|GS: What is so "extraordinary", or "outlandish", about such a claim? To
:|you it may be since it is obvious where your intent is. To me it is not.
Your creative editing leaves much to be desired, but I suspect you feel it
works for you.
Why did you delete the actual claim you made?
:|
:|Is your "opinion" any more valid?
Facts and valid evidence trumps your opinion.
I seldom offer my opinion. Instead I provide valid historical or legal
evidence, facts, data, etc. I also provide the informed conclusions and
opinions of respected scholars who are experts in their field. I usually
provide several such sources and opinions.
:|<<<<<<Jefferson didn't create church state separation: The principle of
:|church state separation was embodied in the unamended constitution long
:|before Jefferson wrote a word to the Danbury Baptist Assoc.
:|Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
:|http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm >>>>>>>
:|
:|GS: But it is Jefferson that they quote to support their contention in
:|the modern world. The "separation" they spoke of is not the concept that
:|is prevalent today.
Only some do.
The USSC cited a number of sources when it defined the Establishment
Clause. Jefferson was only one of several sources it cited.
Madison is the man that did far more than Jefferson with regards to church
state in America.
:|"Lest anyone argue in 1802 that his "wall" language implied hostility
:|toward religion, two days after composing the Danbury letter Jefferson
:|attended Sunday church services at the Capitol building for the first
:|time as President.
:|
:|He knew his presence there would be widely noticed and reported in the
:|press. For the remaining seven years he served in office, he regularly
:|attended services supplied by a variety of clergy of various
:|denominations in a government building.
:|
:|The symbolism was irrefutable.
:|
:|As President, Jefferson wanted to foster religious freedom, particularly
:|in places like New England, which still had state establishments of
:|religion; but he never desired a "government without religion." That
:|charge, he confided to a friend, was a "lie" spread by his political
:|foes."
This was what I said the following to before and your still haven't
subordinated it
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
