Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:09:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
698 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> http://fyi.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/09/10/bible.club.ap/index.html
>
> Is this the same 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that recently ruled
> unconstitutional the phrase "under God" in the Congressionally-endorsed
> Pledge of Allegiance? Are Senators Byrd and Lott and Daschle and all the
> rest going to bitch about how stupid the judges are for ruling in this case?
> Are they going to call for the judges' removal? Are O'Reilly and Gallagher
> and Reagan and Limbaugh going to bellyache about the judiciary's efforts to
> legislate?
> The current ruling, I'm sure, is well-justified by precedent, and no doubt
> the judges' decision was based on objective reading of the law in general
> and The Constitution in particular. Oh, wait a minute--that's the same way
> that they made their ruling on The Pledge, and they were condemned for it!
>
> Dave!
Apples and Oranges...
In this one, a bonafide extra-curricular school group deserves the same
status as any other extracurricular school group. It'd be like saying--'Hey
you in the Chess club--we think you're geeky so you don't get any
money/time/sponsorship from the board, but we'll give the money to our
football teams 'cause we think they're cool!'
Excluding a group *just* because of a faith statement is as absurd as
excluding a group because of overall 'geekiness'.
Mind you, I don't know how I'd come down on the issue if, say, 'White Pride'
wanted to have an organization of students funded by the school
board--whether they could sue for monies under the Constitution.
But taking out 'Under God' from the Pledge...
Nothing to do with equal rights, or anything like a school social club not
getting money 'cause they believe in God.
As far as the Pledge goes...
I don't think the phrase is unconstitutional--I don't think those words
violate 'separation of church and state'--it's a pledge, a spoken pledge--if
we want to be that picky, then by all means let's get to the point where we
can't say the word 'Church' (and any derivitive thereof) and the word
'State' in the same sentence 'cause they have to be separate.
Churches cannot be on the same street as a governement building! Heck,
who's kidding who, they can't be in the same area code for if they are,
they're not separate!!!
Let's also talk about how much money, effort and time was wasted on the
'Under God' fiasco...
And just looking at it now, it's the separation of *church* and *state*, not
*God* and *state*... so there you are--no issue!
Well, I'm stepping off my soap box now...
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) If "apples" = "why does the State in one case have the right to endorse or restrict religion" and "oranges" = "why does the State not have the right to endorse or restrict religion," then I am indeed comparing apples and oranges. What's your (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (URL) this the same 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that recently ruled unconstitutional the phrase "under God" in the Congressionally-endorsed Pledge of Allegiance? Are Senators Byrd and Lott and Daschle and all the rest going to bitch about how (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
