Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:02:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
692 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > http://fyi.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/09/10/bible.club.ap/index.html
> > 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!
> Apples and Oranges...
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 point?
> Excluding a group *just* because of a faith statement is as absurd as
> excluding a group because of overall 'geekiness'.
But the implication of your statement is that it's okay to protect the
freedom of religious expression of some individuals (in this case the club
and its members), but it's okay to exclude the freedom of religious
expression from other individuals (those who don't believe in God and who
don't want a state-endorsed Pledge to invoke that God). If this is not your
meaning, can you please clarify why it is okay to protect one group's
relgious freedom while not protecting another group's?
> 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.
What if that the school required all members of all clubs to begin each
meeting with the declaration "we are under no God." Would that be an
infringement? Of course it would, just as it is an infringement to invoke
God in the Congressionally-endorsed Pledge of Allegiance. Sure, kids can
nominally choose *not* to say "under God," but if the teacher--an agent of
the school and therefore of the State--is reciting the invocation it
inflicts an explicit and powerful "pro-God" message to the children.
> 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
That's not the issue, and the fact that you think it *is* the issue
demonstrates that you, like the media and the Congress--aren't looking at it
clearly. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE is saying that an individual cannot say
"under God" in The Pledge. I'm value the freedom of speech very highly, and
I would certainly defend someone's right to express one's religious beliefs,
but, again, that's not the issue. The issue is that The Congress has no
right to endorse or establish religion in any way, even if that religion is
as nebulously defined as "some kind of monotheism." THAT'S the issue.
**snip of some of the same slippery-slope reasoning you dislike so acutely**
> Let's also talk about how much money, effort and time was wasted on the
> 'Under God' fiasco...
Exactly! If the Congress had done the right thing, it never would have
issued its endorsement of religion in the first place, and think of the
money that would have been saved! The problem occurred because in 1954 the
Congress stepped in where it shouldn't have (believe it or not).
> And just looking at it now, it's the separation of *church* and *state*, not
> *God* and *state*... so there you are--no issue!
If you're referring to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, then
perhaps you should be aware of the relevant text, which reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
Therefore, since "under God" is a clear endorsement of religion, it's
unconstitutional by definition. Further, if we're being honest, the
Congress and Eisenhower in 1954 expressly intended the phrase "under God" to
be a devotional expression to the Christian God.
That's the end of it. This isn't one of those "there are two sides and
they're both right" situations; Congress has no right to establish religion,
and to do so is unconstitutional. If you're so confidendent that "under
God" isn't a statement of religious endorsement, then let's change it to
"under no God," since that would likewise be a non-religious statement.
And in any case you're missing the ultimate point of my post. Obviously I
maintain that the 9th US Circuit Court was correct to rule the phrase "under
God" unconstitutional, just as they are obviously correct to uphold the
freedom of speech in this case. But my point is that, because the previous
ruling conflicted with the religious sentiments of Congress et al, they
couldn't leap onto the condemnation bandwagon fast enough, even though the
ruling was correct and consistent with precedent. In the current case, the
judges also ruled correctly in a manner consistent with precedent, but the
same legislators will not condemn the ruling.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) My point is that it is okay to protect *all* matters of freedom of religious expression up and until people fly planes into buildings... k, that was a little far--my personal philosophy has *always* been that anyone can believe what they want (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
