Newdow anti God pledge case heard

[gunsmith]

Newdow anti God pledge case to be heard

rotting stinking so called justices decided to hear this case and flush the 2nd Amendment
http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/2674013/detail.html
SUPREME COURT -- A Sacramento atheist who wants the words "under God" stripped from the Pledge of Allegiance will argue the case himself.
The case started at an Elk Grove school where Michael Newdow's young daughter attends class. Newdow sued the school district, and an appeals court agreed with his claim that his daughter's constitutional right to religious liberty was violated by hearing the pledge recited in a public school.


On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Michael Newdow the right to argue before the high court next year.


Newdow is a doctor and lawyer, but he is not a member of the Supreme Court Bar. He's been writing and filing his own legal arguments so far, but hasn't had his law license for the required three years to argue before the Supreme Court. The high court made the exception on Monday.

 

[mrapathy2000]

whats this have to do second ammendment?

 

[gunsmith]

Hmmm,maybe your right

I was thinking it shows how cowardly the justices are,but now thinking it's real slick.
they hear this case,it gets all the news coverage and the media gets to report their gloating anti God stuff while continuing to ignore other God given rights like KABA

 

[tyme]

This case is going to be interesting. The Senate may have condemned the 9th Circuit decision 99-0, but there's no getting around the fact that "under God" was not in the Pledge until 1954.

 

[clubsoda22]

What tyme said.

Anyway, it's not so much anti god as absent of god, which is how it should be.

 

[Coronach]

whats this have to do second ammendment?

There is a civil liberty angle, here.

But, lets focus on that aspect, and not the pure religion (or, non-religion) angle of it. Threads that end up discussing religion will get locked down, due to their propensity to emit more heat than light.


Mike

 

[jimpeel]

whats this have to do second ammendment?

Not a thing; but this is the L&P forum, not the General Discussion forum where the rules restrict the discussion to firearms related subjects. If you want all guns all of the time, that's the place.

That said, Newdow is an glory hound looking for a place in the history books. Hopefully, he will get his a$$ kicked up between his shoulder blades by the USSC. He is likely to get the case thrown out because he had no standing to file for another person, his daughter, who wasn't even offended in the least little bit by the pledge. He also does not have permanent custody of his daughter, his wife does. So he lacks standing as her legal guardian as well.

As one guy just put it on Scarborough, under Newdow's interpretation it would be an unconstitutional support by government to a religious institution if the city fire department were to put out a fire in a Synagogue.

 

[rock jock]

Well, look at it this way, our kids will one day soon be pledging their allegiance to the UN, so the "under God" part will be be moot at that point anyway.

 

[Matt1911]

I'm torn on issues like these....While i have a firm belife in god,i thought we had a "seperation of church and state",or maybe i just don't understand that part.
I have to ask,who's god?Mine?Jesse jacksons?David Dukes?

 

[tyme]

How about we ignore "under God" completely. Should students be compelled (consequences are minor but there usually are some, particularly in earlier grades) to recite any pledge several times a week, as opposed to simply memorizing it and reciting it a few times for curricular purposes?

Where is the line, if we all were to agree that recitation of the Pledge containing "under God" should not be required in public schools? Is reciting Yeats's "Second Coming" okay? Lincoln's Gettysburg Address? Poe's "The Raven?" What if a teacher requires students to recite one of those once a week for an entire school year?

If such things are okay, at least as part of a class curriculum, how could the Pledge -- with "under God" -- be made to be acceptable in a public school curriculum? Would it be adequate to move the pledge from before-class to during class and have just one student recite it at a time? What is fundamentally different about the Pledge that makes references to God taboo? Is it that the Pledge is official? I don't think I realized that it had government backing until I was in highschool; it was just something everyone knew by heart and recited on occasion.

 

[GigaBuist]

Mat1911,

Don't take this personally, but where does "seperation of Church and State" appear in our written law? As far as I know this is something that the USSC created out of the 1st ammendment which states that Congress shall make no recognizing one religion over another and no law prohibiting religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

From that they gleaned total seperation of Church and State at all levels I guess.

I interpret as meaning that Congress cannot declare us a Baptist country, or Islamic country, or anything of that nature. They cannot divert federal funds to support their favorite religon. They cannot require, NOR PROHIBIT, it's citizens from practicing their religion.

Now, if a local community wishes their school to have students recite the Pledge at the beginning of the day, fine. The federal government cannot prohibit a non-federal branch of government from doing anything with regards to religion. If Alabama wants to outlaw every religion except Baptist, fine. Their state constitution probably prohibits it but the federal government has NO say in it either way. That's my interpretation.

I find the Pledge to be distrubing as a Christian anyway what with it starting "I pledge allegience to the Flag". If you want to pledge allegience to something it better not be an inatimate object. I'll pledge allegience to my COUNTRY but not a CLOTH and what it stands for. Even though I feel the pledge violates my religion I wouldn't expect Congress or the USSC to strike down the use of the word "flag" from the pledge. It's not their job.

 

[rageman]

jimpeel had this to say:
As one guy just put it on Scarborough, under Newdow's interpretation it would be an unconstitutional support by government to a religious institution if the city fire department were to put out a fire in a Synagogue.

Not as I understand it. I think that the problem is that the pledge is recognizing a specific god (implicitly, the christian one), but not Allah or Shiva or Bokonan or Cthulu. As I see it, if the state recognizes or offers services to one religion, it must do the same for all other religions, crackpot or not. Look at the uproar with Fred Phelp's plan to put a statue honoring Matthew Sheppard's death (in his words, "Matthew Sheppard's Entry Into Hell") up in the city park in said town in wyoming. (link) Because the city has a statue in the park relating to something about christianity, the council has no right to refuse Mr. Phelp's plan, because he runs a religious organization, and thus the city must allow all viewpoints to be presented fairly.

GigaBuist had this to say:
Now, if a local community wishes their school to have students recite the Pledge at the beginning of the day, fine. The federal government cannot prohibit a non-federal branch of government from doing anything with regards to religion. If Alabama wants to outlaw every religion except Baptist, fine. Their state constitution probably prohibits it but the federal government has NO say in it either way. That's my interpretation.

This is true. However, the problem is that Congress added the phrase "under God" to the pledge. Specific endorsement of religion right there.

My view of this whole thing is that while it is a frivolous suit, the phrase should not be in the pledge.

 

[Marko Kloos]

The federal government cannot prohibit a non-federal branch of government from doing anything with regards to religion. If Alabama wants to outlaw every religion except Baptist, fine. Their state constitution probably prohibits it but the federal government has NO say in it either way. That's my interpretation.

The USSC disagrees with you. Their 1925 decision in Gitlow vs. New York established that the Bill of Rights applies to the States as well, invoking the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is a good thing. Think about it: if your interpretation was correct, there would be absolutely no constraint on the States regarding limitation or downright elimination of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Any state could pass laws curbing the right to free speech, aloowing trials and arrests without due process, prohibiting the practice of Christianity or Islam...all with mere majority approval, something that the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect against. The Bill of Rights, which is supposed to recognize and safeguard certain rights from government encroachment, would be rendered utterly meaningless, since the States wouldn't have to abide by it.

Is that what you really want...to make your most cherished civil rights suddenly subject to majority approval?

 

[Glock Glockler]

The USSC disagrees with you.

You too, see Dred Scott.

Their 1925 decision in Gitlow vs. New York established that the Bill of Rights applies to the States as well, invoking the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment.

I would very much appreciate if you could tell me about the legal and just manner in which the 14th Amendment was ratified, after all, if it was illegally passed that would take away from the legitimacy you apply to it. Not a shred of force or fraud involved in passing that amendment there was. The Republicans that took control after the war were Saints among men.

This is a good thing. Think about it: if your interpretation was correct, there would be absolutely no constraint on the States regarding limitation or downright elimination of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Isn't that why the states have their own restrictions? Does your state govt allow all those nasty things? If so, maybe it's time you changed your govt. I agree that were sooo much better having the Feds shove their crap down everyone's throat via majority. The thing about havinga limited Federal govt is that one can move to a different state if their own state gets stupid, where do we move to now that we have the feds shoving their garbage down everyone's throat?

The Bill of Rights, which is supposed to recognize and safeguard certain rights from government encroachment, would be rendered utterly meaningless, since the States wouldn't have to abide by it.

It was supposed to safeguard those rights from encroachment from the central govt. Out of curiosity, have you ever read the Anti-Federalist papers, or did you only glance at the federalist papers? That seems like listening to one side of an arguement before a jury makes up it's mind.

 

[Marko Kloos]

It was supposed to safeguard those rights from encroachment from the central govt.

A Bill of Rights that can be contradicted willy-nilly by the States in the name of "local control" is utterly worthless. How can you argue that the BoR protects certain inalienable rights from government encroachment by the central government only?

So if the State of Tennessee passed a law that abolishes due process or freedom of religion, it is no longer an inalienable right?

Ratification and other 14th Amendment issues aside, that position is utterly illogical. By that reasoning, only citizens under direct federal jurisdiction (inhabitants of Washington, D.C.?) would have any inalienable rights at all. Then you can't seriously argue for gun rights, because your gun rights would be precisely what your local government determines them to be.

The Bill fo Rights was supposed to remove certain rights from majority rule. Your reasoning puts them right back under the dictate of the majority in the name of "local control."

I care not one bit about States' rights, if it means I get to trade five hundred ignorant despots in Washington for five hundred ignorant despots in Nashville.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Marko,

You did a magnifcent job of failing to address my points, let's try again.

A Bill of Rights that can be contradicted willy-nilly by the States in the name of "local control" is utterly worthless.

1 - Was their worry at the time of ratification that the Constitution placed too much power in the hands of the Feds? Yes or No

2 - The language in the BoR repeatedly mentions prohibitions on Congress, as in Congress shall make no law, Yes or No?

3 - Would it be logical for those who worried about an overly powerful Central Govt to place power in the hands of that central govt what happens on a local level? Yes or No?

4 - How can a State contradict the BoR when the BoR (Your SC case aside) makes no mention of any prohibitions on State power?

Please stop engaging in historical revisionism and tell me what the law actually says, not what you'd like it to say. If you disagree with the BoR or how the govt is structured, fine, but dont tell me the BoR means something it does not.

Flat out, the 1st Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law", you cannot claim a direct interpretation on the 2nd amendment and ignore the language of the 1st.

How can you argue that the BoR protects certain inalienable rights from government encroachment by the central government only?

The purpose of the BoR was never to protect inalienable rights in general, only to protect tham from that central govt. For protecting inalienable rights from your state and local govt, you should make a BoR in their constitutions or in your gun safe if that fails.

So if the State of Tennessee passed a law that abolishes due process or freedom of religion, it is no longer an inalienable right?

I never said it wasnt, but that is an issue that you should be addressing. Whose responsibility is it to protect your rights, is it mine? Can you demand that I fly down to K-town and walk you to work because your neighbor is beating you up and stealing your lunch money? If its your rights that are being infringed upon, I reckon you should take action to prevent it or correct it.

Ratification and other 14th Amendment issues aside...]

You were the one who brought up the 14th amendment, if you dont like that fact that it was "passed" without the slightest shred of respect for Constitutional procedure or decency then maybe you shouldnt bring it up as a means to bolster your arguement. Would you obey or respect a law that was fraudulently passed?

Then you can't seriously argue for gun rights, because your gun rights would be precisely what your local government determines them to be.

Incorrect, my gun rights are what I and my fellow gun owners say they are. If the local govt tries to get stupid, they're going to know it very soon. Incidentally, what has your federal govt determined your gun rights to be?

The Bill fo Rights was supposed to remove certain rights from majority rule. Your reasoning puts them right back under the dictate of the majority in the name of "local control."

1 - You are factually incorrect. Please go and read the Anti-Federalist papers about the struggles and disagreements over the constitution, it is obvious that you have skipped over that part of history. The worry was about a Federal/national Leviathan.

2 - Incorrect, I'm all about rights being protected even from local govt or the local mob, that's why I advocate a BoR or local and state govts.

I care not one bit about States' rights, if it means I get to trade five hundred ignorant despots in Washington for five hundred ignorant despots in Nashville.

Here's where you really mess up.

1 - The initial arguement was about what the law was intended to do, you show that you're thinking about what you want the law to do. Just read the law objectively and tell me what the language says, not what you would like it to mean.

2 - That's very foolish. Do you know where your Senator lives? I know where my selectmen live. Do you think that has any effect on how stupid they get? I tell you this, if I was going to despotically rule an area I'd want to be as far away from it as possible, ideally in a protected enclousure so that the people would not have a means to lynch me. Now think about how things are curretly set up, then tell me how the our rights are being protected by the Feds, or do I need remind you or various gun control laws, the Patriot act, and several other bedtime stories?

 

[w4rma]

I am a Baptist Christian and I like the pledge of allegence, but I think it would be better to use the pre-1950's pledge. I do not think that it is ethical or moral to ask (and especially, force) another U.S. citizen, no matter what their age, to say something they don't actually believe in. Most of us in America are monotheistic, but some aren't. I'd like them to feel a part of America, also. I'd like them to understand and agree with what they are saying when they recite the pledge.

 

[tyme]

Hmm, do I actually agree with a Dean supporter on an issue?

I actually agree with Glock Glocker. The States more or less all have in their Constitutions lists of rights that are substantially similar to the Federal BoR. The Founders never imagined that a State might try to usurp power, anyway, because States were smaller back then and had fewer idiots, and fewer idiot voters, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage. The BoR was solely intended as a restriction on the Federal government.

However, that all changed with Dred Scott, the Civil War, and the Reconstruction amendments. No longer could the States be trusted, partially because some of them had attained size equivalent to the 1789 U.S. population, and more people implies more idiots and more opportunities for demagogues. The legislative history and intent of the 14th was clearly to apply the entire BoR, or all except a few of the procedural rights, to the States. You can whine about the 14th not being ratified properly because the South was forced into ratifying it, but if you want we can start another Civil War for the ratification of a new 14th amendment.

Now that the 1964 CRA and case law have outrun the 14th amendment, and now that some cities have the population of 1789 U.S. of America, maybe we need another amendment clearing up local issues, and a second one clearing up issues of personal discrimination. If Congress had some strong basis other than the Interstate Commerce Clause for passing anti-discrimination legislation, to the extent it would be authorized by the theoretical new amendment, I think the liberals on the SCOTUS would be less enthusiastic about justifying everything with the ICC. We might even get back to a rational system of government where the Feds have limits.

 

[bountyhunter]

Old News

A Sacramento atheist who wants the words "under God" stripped from the Pledge of Allegiance will argue the case himself.

I went to school grades 5 through college in Sacramento and can tell you:

The phrase "Under God" was NOT being said way back in 1965, at least it was not being required. We said the pledge every day, and some kids said the "under God" and some said the pledge the way it was originally written (without it). You could always tell because when the class got to that part, your heard the "buzz-zurp" kind of sound and then we all got back on beat by the time we said "with liberty and justice for all".

This is such a load of BS.

 

[bountyhunter]

I am a Baptist Christian and I like the pledge of allegence, but I think it would be better to use the pre-1950's pledge. I do not think that it is ethical or moral to ask (and especially, force) another U.S. citizen, no matter what their age, to say something they don't actually believe in. Most of us in America are monotheistic, but some aren't. I'd like them to feel a part of America, also. I'd like them to understand and agree with what they are saying when they recite the pledge.

What? A tolerant Christian? I thought I was the last of that dying breed. We are definitely outnumbered.

 

[twoblink]

The sight of Madonna affends me, I consider Feinstein to be she devil, and having me memorize her as the Senator from the PRK infringes on my religious rights.. This is all rediculous, and just someone's method of trying to grab some limelight.

He should give me all his CASH as it says "In God we Trust" on it...

It will never end.

America was founded on Christian principles and so "God" is sprinkled everywhere in America. It's like this, I'm a Christian, and when I go eat at my Jewish friend's house, and they want to say a little prayer, or my buddist friend's house, or my Muslim friend's house.. guess what? I don't participate but I don't interrupt.

How's that for the simple, no-tax-payer burdened answer?

if you aren't happy with it, don't participate!!

She is "offended"? Have her sleep next to a bum who hasn't showered for 3 months and let her understand what "offended" means. Her life is too good, she needs to see some people who aren't privilaged and see how stupid this whole thing is.

Work at a soup kitchen for a month, then see if she still wants to complain..

Now about that Steyr AUG...

 

[tyme]

Twoblink, this is not about your Jewish friend(s), Madonna, or Feinstein. This is about public schools requiring recitation of a pledge that includes "Under God." I'd be just as upset if schools showed the Britney-Madonna kiss every few days, or if they required pledging allegiance to Feinstein.

I'm not thrilled that the government adopted a Pledge of Allegiance to a piece of fabric in the first place, but that issue is not part of the current case.

Maybe there are more important issues, maybe there aren't. You're free to concentrate on issues you consider more important, and Newdow is free to pursue issues he feels are important.

 

[gunsmith]

"Seperation of Church/State"

Comes from a SOLITARY letter of Thomas Jefferson!
It(the first amendment) simply means we shall not install a church of the U.S.A!
I wish the S.C.O.T.U.S would implement the hundred dozen of Thomas Jefferson letters in regards to RKBA!

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN; MY CREED
/I believe in one GOD creator of the universe.
3/9/1790
page 337 & 338 autobiography and other writings (signet classic)

The historical record is clear.
the Founding Fathers prayed and fasted and appealed to
our Creator all the time even when meeting to
approve of the Constitution.

It seemed to have worked!
we would do well by doing the same!

 

[tyme]

Gunsmith, many religions use the term "God," Deism for instance. Just because people said "God" back then doesn't mean they were necessarily Christian or Jewish. The fact that most founders believed in "God" does nothing other than suggest they believe there is a greater power in the world. It doesn't suggest this country owes fealty to that Power. It doesn't suggest that the Power is the source of citizens' morals. It doesn't suggest much of anything, really.

Prayer and fasting are not the mark of a belief in "God." They are marks of beliefs in certain very specific Gods. The more people try to insinuate comments about artifacts of Christianity into discussions about "God," and talk about such artifacts as a "foundation" for this country, the more suspicious I get. Talking about "God" in some sense as a foundation for the country is marginally acceptable, at least to me. Talking about Christianity as the foundation of this country is not. It was not founded on Christianity. That's what the religion clause of the First Amendment is all about.

Whether Franklin (who had been a Satanist, curiously) believed in God for himself has nothing to do with this country.

Let's review:

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John Adams

"... that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry..." --Thomas Jefferson, "The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom"

"My earlier views at the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." --Abraham Lincoln

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise... During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." --James Madison

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." --Thomas Paine, Age of Reason

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian Doctrine." --George Washington

 

[tyme]

The Supreme Court heard the case March 24, and a transcript of oral argument has been published:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-1624.pdf