For more years than I am always willing to think about, getting people to go to "....the shelf and got out that dusty copy of the constitution" has been an object of mine. If we did that more and depended on those with a political agenda less to tell us what the Constitution say, there would be far less acrimony in this world.
Let me help with this:http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am an Australian and therefore, depending on your perspective, either totally unqualified to enter into this discussion, or blessed with a certain degree of objectivity. I am also a lawyer, and studied logic at university as part of an Arts degree. To add to a list of questionable qualifications, I am also a Virgo, and therefore reputed to be analytical.
I have read your constitution and your bill of rights, and I have a lot of American biker friends (usually of the republican persuasion :-))who over the years have sought to illuminate for me that aspect of your culture that is so closely aligned with your attachment to freedoms, choices and rights. We, whilst no less free and no more likely than you to become less free, do not have a bill of rights, as such. We do not have a declaration of independence either having not had to physically throw off the the yoke of oppression, the English having become slowly less inclined to travel the distance down here required for a really good oppression to exist. Our founding fathers, such as they are, are not accorded much greater wisdom than any other politician, and that probably says it all. I make these seemingly irrelevant comments simply to - well actually I don't know why I made them, but there they are and they do address a certain attitude I notice sometimes with my American friends that their political structure is superior to every other country.
I am not going to wade in too far but I have become increasingly disillusioned by bdgee's attacks on and abusive behaviour toward Aragorn - who has remained calm and respectful and clearly maintained a reasoned position that I have no problem either following or being largely in agreement with.
I read this whole thread, for which I should be slapped, and I felt the need to post a quick message of support for Aragorn, who I think is being misunderstood and unfairly maligned. Aragorn, mate, I understand what you are saying, and I share your frustration that your point is being missed. I am not sure why some are becoming so angry with you personally, I can detect no malice in you and you seem a genuinely Christian man making a reasonable and logical point.
[ October 27, 2005, 01:55: Message edited by: AusLaw ]
Posts: 3 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
could you elaborate on what part of his point is being missed?
this is an area to kick ideas around...
it does (too)often get to be kicking people too
obviously some people are more "tactful" than others...
this is a very emotional subject for many...
many of US are very concerned about the movement of mixing religion and state/government because religion is truly anti-democratic...just as the corporate world and the military are....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Oh, goodness personified has arrived, registered anew, Ultra-christain, republican, and aflame with resentment.
A simple use of the search facility reveals that Aragorn243 appoeared regitered anew at Allstocks posting anti-4Art arguments one after another and claiming a better knowledge of everything in general but religion in particular in the thread "Christian Coalition leader molested his 3 daughters".
I posted eventually in that thread with this:
"I have known Christains, Jews, Moslems, athiest, agnostics, blacks, whites, browns, fatties, midgets, etc., etc. etc., that were wholesome wonderful and valuable individuals and I have know those from the same groups that were worse than evil and didn't match up to the lowest dregs of society.
In each and every one of those cases, though it often flowed contrary to the wishes and beliefs of the individual in question, there was no contribution to their value that actually was rooted in their circumstance of religion, race, stature, etc., etc., etc."
4Art replied immediately with:
"If Heaven is where people like Aragorn243, NaturalResources, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim Lahaye, James Dobson, G.W. and Trent Lott go, I'll take what's behind the curtain. [Big Grin] LOL"If Heaven is where people like Aragorn243, NaturalResources, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim Lahaye, James Dobson, G.W. and Trent Lott go, I'll take what's behind the curtain. [Big Grin] LOL
and I posted the reply"
Yep, I can see your point.
But then again, I bet each of them would choose what's behind the curtain too, rather than have to dwell amongs the bitterness and inflexable domineering of the others.
LOLYep, I can see your point.
But then again, I bet each of them would choose what's behind the curtain too, rather than have to dwell amongs the bitterness and inflexable domineering of the others.
LOL
[B]Yep, I can see your point.
But then again, I bet each of them would choose what's behind the curtain too, rather than have to dwell amongs the bitterness and inflexable domineering of the others.
LOL
I see humor and levity there, but certainly not anything that deserves to be declared to be "attacks on and abusive behaviour toward Aragorn " as Auslaw claims and in no way is it deserving of Aragorn243 insulting and insinuating"
"bdgee and 4Art,
You guys are so funny. I've only been here for a few days and I've only seen two people that seem filled with bitterness and that is the two of you.
As for inflexible domineering of others, just take a look at the list of who created what thread on this message board. there is a huge long list of bitter posts created by none other than 4Art. Posts whose sole design is to stir up trouble and irritate others. Fits the definition of domineering quite well.
4Art even goes so far as to take his bitterness onto posts he didn't create and attack people there with off topic anti-religious zealotry and when he gets in trouble, trys to make it look like the other changed the subject and disappears. (see Greatest NASCAR Drivers thread)
LOL, LOL, LOL
As of that date. I had never created any thread in Allstocks "Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk" and never attack anyone, though when attacked and accused of things I didn't, I will defend what I say. I very much resent being attacked, lied about, and misquoted by some self proclaimed genious, whoever that may be.
Doing that simple search also reveals that Aragorn243 had never posted before at Alstocks at all except to attack what 4Art had said about religion and never posted thereafter except to attack what4Art said or what I said. I did not appreciatre it then and I do not appreciate this attack either!
Now, here we co again, a brand new poster, out of the blue, claiming better education than others and insisting he is being fair and anyone not agreeing can argue with his education in law and logic. {Why do these guys have to display an academic resume? If you are so very educated and logical, it doesn't need to be sanctioned by some school. Perhaps you are hoping to convey more reason and weight to your bias than it deserves???)
AusLaw, you open with an insult and no doubt, from your claims, you want to enguage in arguing with me on religion. I state again as I have before, I do not participate in religious argument, as that conflicts with my own. I will only speak of any religion on a logical basis. Whatever your religion is, DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF ASSUMING THE RIGHT TO DICTATE TO OR OF MY RELIGION! (hopefully you will not be so foolish as to imagine, as your claims seem to indicate you intend, that you have schooling in logic that outdoes mine, or schooling in anythiong that precludes me and mine.)
You. like Aragorn243, appear from nowhere, offering insult and religion. I do not appreciate your attitude and do not believe you are here for any purpose but to cause trouble. (and I have a suspicion who you are! You logical failings will not become less flawed in a new guise.)
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
You guys are so funny. I've only been here for a few days and I've only seen two people that seem filled with bitterness and that is the two of you.
As for inflexible domineering of others, just take a look at the list of who created what thread on this message board. there is a huge long list of bitter posts created by none other than 4Art. Posts whose sole design is to stir up trouble and irritate others. Fits the definition of domineering quite well.
4Art even goes so far as to take his bitterness onto posts he didn't create and attack people there with off topic anti-religious zealotry and when he gets in trouble, trys to make it look like the other changed the subject and disappears. (see Greatest NASCAR Drivers thread)
I've been here a couple of weeks now and it is STILL accurate.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hahaha, Yep, Glass... and they always assume they have a longer one.....
Aragorn243, you are still rude and still dishonest. Bring up the quote where I asked you to discontinue misquoting me and the several in which I asked you to stop addressing me and what I say at all. You need seriously to get beyond your eagerness to insinuate evil to disagreement and debate and over the notion that you are too educated to be wrong, while anyone not parroting your tripe is uneducated and driven by sin. Without that, you hold no position in which I have interest.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
You just provided a perfect example of my "quote". Thank you.
Domineering: bdgee - "I asked you to stop addressing me and what I say at all"
Bitterness: bdgee - "You need seriously to get beyond your eagerness to insinuate evil to disagreement and debate and over the notion that you are too educated to be wrong, while anyone not parroting your tripe is uneducated and driven by sin."
As for misquoting you, I don't think so, it's very easy to read your posts.
The two points you seem to have felt I misquoted you on are:
You don't want to see anyone elses religion or have it impact on you in any tiny way.
You consider the Bill of Rights to be the biggest error in the Constitution.
Now neither is an exact quote, your post concerning the biggest error in the Constitution wasn't very clear and I did ask for clarification which you never provided. Your post concerning your desire to not have other's religions impact upon you however was pretty clear.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are hopelessly wrong and it isn't my place to make up for your failure to understand. I add this, you have only supplied a few of the misquotes and misrepresentations and you completely mistate them.
You post absolute lies and expect respect.
Now, BEING blunt, LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
hahahaha....yep, funny.....and a bit of something else....hahahahaha
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know where you guys get that Aragorn is rude or dishonest! I've seen you guys, act a whole lot worse! bdgee, I'd like to see your attempt to prove that he is wrong, and you are right! Explain yourself!
-------------------- As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kate: I don't know where you guys get that Aragorn is rude or dishonest! I've seen you guys, act a whole lot worse! bdgee, I'd like to see your attempt to prove that he is wrong, and you are right! Explain yourself!
he was wrong about the pledge of allegiance "under god" phrase being upheld by the US Supreme Court twice... it wasn't upheld even once.... that's just for starters Kate... (since you ask)
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, we have pointed out one after another false statement he has made and instead of accepting it he just claims he has a "right" to believe the false statement.
He is right about that "right", but that doesn't make it correct and doesn't justify his claiming he has not been wrong.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
it's no surprise, Kate will probably defend bush till the end too
what was it Kate said during the last election? oh yeah, here it is....
Kate Member posted October 24, 2004 20:01
Bush'es first priorties, are God, and his morals, Wallace! Sure, he has to deal with the rest, just like we all do, but those issues are first for him, just like they are first for me!
What I was wrong in is that they upheld it twice. You were wrong that they never upheld it.
Since they dismissed a lower court ruling stateing that the Pledge was unconstitutional, they upheld the Pledge.
bdgee,
I haven't seen you prove anyone wrong about anything. That actually requires a bit of work, some good reliable links etc. You have make many "false" statements however.
Court dismisses Pledge case Atheist father cannot sue over use of 'Under God' Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Posted: 5:22 PM EDT (2122 GMT)
The Supreme Court dismisses a challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state.
The 8-0 ruling by the high court reversed a lower-court decision that teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.
The case had been brought by an atheist who did not want his third-grade daughter to have to listen to the phrase "under God" in the oath.
In a written statement, Attorney General John Ashcroft praised the ruling, saying it "ensures that school children in every corner of America can start their day by voluntarily reciting the Pledge of Allegiance."
Five justices -- led by Justice John Paul Stevens -- said Michael Newdow, the father, did not have the legal standing to bring the case. Newdow, who is involved in a custody dispute with the mother of their third-grade daughter, could not speak for the girl, the court ruled.
"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, a prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," wrote Stevens.
In separate, concurring opinions, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas argued the court should have addressed the constitutional issue.
The justices said the pledge does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.
"To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance," Rehnquist wrote.
At Newdow's request, Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself after he had made remarks in a speech critical of the case.
The ruling -- delivered on Flag Day -- means that the full Pledge of Allegiance will continue to be recited in the nation's public schools.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the majority ruling was NOT to make a ruling on the TERM... Five justices -- led by Justice John Paul Stevens -- said Michael Newdow, the father, did not have the legal standing to bring the case. Newdow, who is involved in a custody dispute with the mother of their third-grade daughter, could not speak for the girl, the court ruled.
"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, a prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," wrote Stevens.
that is not a ruling on the const. of the term....
even if they hear it again and rule that people have the right to recite it? they will be ignoring Article VI.Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
i personally am not against having the term under god in the pledge, as most are not, however it still goes against the intent of the writers, and when the so-called ultra-right conservative claim they are trying to "go back" to the founding fathers intent they are just lying...
why should a regular citizen be forced to do something that that is specifically forbidden to the officials of the govt?
AND the pledge IS the law....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
It doesn't matter how they got there, they overturned a lower court ruling that ruled the Pledge was unconstitutional. That is upholding the pledge.
Regular citizens are not forced to recite the pledge. Officials of the government recite the pledge, not sure where you are going here. The pledge is not a religious test as outlined in the Constitution. That line prohibits the use of religion to either qualify or disqualify an individual from serving in the government. It does not stop them from being able to practice their religion or reciting the pledge of allegience.
The pledge is not "the law". It is a pledge which is not required by anyone to recite if they choose not to.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Guess my memory is faulty on this one, but I can't discover anywhere in the Constitution that it provides any "religious test". Yet, Aragorn243 says there is one, "The pledge is not a religious test as outlined in the Constitution."
Any way, now I know that if some one named Joe Blow, living on property he owns in Oklahoma brings suit in Federal Court on the State of Texas to lower his property taxes on his Oklahome property, when the Court tosses out the suit because the state of Texas has no jurisdiction, then Joe Blow won, Joe Blow's taxes are to high, and the taxes will be lowered. A very interesting technicality and certain to be useful to all of us......just file a case that violates jurisdiction and you win!
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
actually the pledge is a legal document... which makes it part of the law... The 2-1 ruling sparked immediate reaction from many corners. President Bush, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and other leading politicians criticized the court's ruling. The Senate voted 99-0 and the House of Representatives voted 416-3 to reaffirm the words "under God" in the Pledge. The American Center for Law and Justice criticized the Ninth Circuit's ruling as flawed while the American Civil Liberties Union praised the decision as "consistent with recent Supreme Court rulings invalidating prayer at school events."
there is no written law requiring one to recite it, but we all know what happens to the "one" that refuses to "fit in"
and you are refusing to read the ruling...
they overturned it on a technicality unrelated to the constitutionality of the issue...
this is why the ultra-conservative movement will eventually fail.... too much prevarication in th ename of morality. a real paradox....
it is a FACT that the ruling did not directly address the issue of referencing God in the Pledge. and you are twisting the truth..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I do know what happens to the "one" that refuses to recite it. Nothing. Chances are these days that that "one" is actually 2/3rd's of the class as most older kids simply refuse to say in on the grounds of being a teenager.
I have read the ruleing, I know it was a technicality but that doesn't change the fact that the ruling overturned a lower courts declaration of unconstitutionality.
The Pledge of Allegience issue is not one of ultra-conservatism. It has overwhealming support in both parties.
I'm not twisting anything, you are the one that refuses to admit that they DID rule on the Pledge whether it dealt specifically with the Pledge itself or not. Their ruling made it "Constitutional" again whether you admit to it or not. Had they not ruled, refused to hear the case, etc, the pledge would be out of our schools right now.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i didn't say the pledge was an issue of ultra-conservatism..i said HONESTY is. (or lack thereof is).....
also? i didn't say the pledge is A law, i said it is the law... it is recorded as such TWICE, and i showed you reference to BOTH votes....
once aqain you agree that your argument is flawed and yet somehow you are correct... the supreme court did not uphold the under god verse, and i am not twisting the truth, i am clarifying it...
they ruled on whether or not a parent in this custody battle has the right to even bring the case.... therefore, they did not even make a decision on the pledge.. this is common in court and it is obviously futile to attempt to "enlighten" you...
maybe you have a future as a conservative talk show host..rush has been looking a little rough around the edges lately...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Pledge is not a law, it has laws regulating its wording and usage, just as our coins and currency. They to have laws regulating them but are not "laws"
I don't recall admitting my arguement is flawed. It is not. The facts are: The Pledge of Allegience did come before the US Supreme Court. It arrived there due to an appeal of a lower court which ruled the Pledge unconstitutional. That ruling was overturned. Now you can argue all you want that was due to a technicallity and I'm willing to agree with you but the fact remains, the lower court was overturned, the Pledge remains constitutional.
May as well have the entire Bill.
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2690
AMENDMENT S 2690 EAH
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
October 8, 2002.
Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2690) entitled `An Act to reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance', do pass with the following AMENDMENT:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: `Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,'.
(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.
(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.
(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'.
(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.
(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.
(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: `It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'.
(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'.
(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law a statute that was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to read: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.';
(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national motto of the United States is `In God We Trust', and that motto is inscribed above the main door of the Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States.
(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), in which compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: `But untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.'.
(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), in which a city government's display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, stated: `There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789 . . . [E]xamples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto `In God We Trust' (36 U.S.C. 186), which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see (31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) (1982 ed.)), and in the language `One Nation under God', as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children--and adults--every year . . . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent--not seasonal--symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.'.
(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court's holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words `under God,' stated `In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.'.
(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words `under God' was constitutional.
(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, (9th Cir. June 26, 2002) that the Pledge of Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.
SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery
`The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.'.
(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Pledge for decades.
SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO.
(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 302 of title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 302. National motto
`In God we trust' is the national motto.'.
(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall make no change in section 302, title 36, United States Code, but shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Motto for decades. Attest:
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, just because someone that works around the President, does something wrong, or might do something wrong, doesn't have anything to do with the President's morals, if he didn't know anything about it in the first place! Like I've said before, we are ALL sinners, and make mistakes! If your child does something wrong, and you knew nothing about it, though you taught him what was right, should people blame YOU, when they choose to do the wrong thing? People do, just like you blame the President for everything others might do wrong around him!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
you two should add each other to your chain mail prayer lists.... next you'll both be telling me how many shades of gray there are on a zebra...
just because it hasn't been struck down, doesn't mean it is constitutional there is abig difference....
you are forgetting thta i am not agaisnt it.just trying to warnyou of the fallacies and traps you are laying for yourselves...
as you go about pushing your religion on other people? you are infringinging on their right to privacy... what goes around comes around....
as you erode more and more privacy you are not doing Gods work IMO..... (even tho some interpret Revelations to mean that we will lose all privacy as we know it)...
it's no different from trying to legislate waht language we will use... cultures infringe upon each other all the time...
[ November 04, 2005, 16:53: Message edited by: glassman ]
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
