posted on June 27, 2002 11:23:11 PM new
Aurora- It is out of context- 'If you want to lose your freedom, first kill all the lawyers'.
The lower court judges didn't buckle on this pledge decision. What they are doing is two things. First, they are forcing the Supreme Court to either be consistent with the separation doctrine or bow to political pressure, and second, they are forcing the Supreme Court to make such a ruling regarding a patriotic pledge during a "time of war".
I think the Supreme Court may surprise us with a ruling on the pledge issue. It may be that some of the right wing jurists may feel a twinge of intellectual honesty as well as knowing that history will see them as politically manipulated dolts and instead uphold the lower court's ruling. After handing Bush the election, the Rhenquist court's historical legacy is already a comedy of embarassing political decisions.
posted on June 27, 2002 11:41:42 PM new
It's incredibly interesting to me that many of you think this falls under right wing whacko stuff. I've heard as many left wingers think that the ruling was not a sound a one, even Daschle didn't like it, for crying out loud. Republicans do not have belief in God or in a godly nation sewn up.
clarksville, it was my understanding that the Judge was appointed by Carter. I guess I have to go look that up.
Yes, I think there is alot of political pressure, surprisingly much of that pressure is coming from the left.
posted on June 28, 2002 12:22:57 AM new
pclady you are so right. There are democrats and people on the left who are on the bandwagon, too. I think those who disagree with the majority (majority not necessarily being the rr or the GOP) are afraid of speaking up cause it will hurt their political plans.
As a commentator (a law professor?) on Fox yesterday, who was having a discussion with Jerry Falwell, said that it takes courage to speak up for the seperation of church and state vs calling the judge "stupid" or "dumb" and the two judges "dumb and dumber."
The left and the right ambigious individuals are on the band wagon.
posted on June 28, 2002 03:26:04 AM new
The concurring justice was appointed by Carter, as if it matters.
The decision has been stayed by the originating jurist until the full court has opportunity to review the case. No doubt under pressure he has stayed himself pending return of the other six justices of the 9th circuit.
That's probably the end of it as I think all of the others were appointed by Bill Clinton. Take heart, right wing holy rollers! LOL!
posted on June 28, 2002 05:57:52 AM new
I need 15,000.00 out of New Jersey or god Who appeared to me 900 feet tall said that there would be hell to pay !
posted on June 28, 2002 09:22:20 AM new
The "left" is "supporting" this pledge issue due to political pressure because we are at "war".
If it were not for 9-11, there would be political debate on this issue.
The left and right rarely disagree on patriotic issues during armed conflicts, regardless of Constitutional prohibitions.
A year ago the Senate would not have voted 99-0 in favor of the "under god" addition, just as they voted 98-0 during the Red Scare and HUAC during the 1950s.
In fact, if the right were smart, they would get every issue against individual rights they could of Constitutional significance and colored under some form of patriotism into the courts. The left would be smart to get 2nd Amendment issues regarding gun control into the courts during this terrorist "war". The "terrorist" threat is the perfect foil to the NRAs 2nd Amendment positions.
Civil rights and individual freedoms "guaranteed" by the Constitution always die during times of war.
But take heart, after the "danger" has subsided, the Court generally reverses or finds a way to marginalize these rulings.
The Supreme Court Ruling on the pledge of allegiance and the flap surrounding the whole thing — not to mention the pledge itself — is a demonstration of several key things I find disturbing about the current state of the American system.
First of all, the issue is nothing more than a political football. I don't think for one second that any of the players involved give a rat's ass about the real issue — from the Supreme Court justices who voted the pledge unconstitutional to the 99 Senators who then immediately voted to denounce the ruling, to the rightwing Congressmen who first voted to adopt the pledge as a "national institution" at the height of the McCarthy era. All are using the issue to jockey for position in a self-aggrandizing way. The Supreme Court conservatives figured they would throw the liberals a major bone by ruling against the pledge — a decoy to defuse the flap that SHOULD have and WOULD otherwise have occurred by their ruling in the same 24-hour period IN FAVOR OF school vouchers.
The Senators all up in arms against the court's ruling are only up in arms because this is an election year and they all imagine that anything to do with patriotism or God in ANY form are probably major triggers with the public. They all act like it is some tradition of Congress going back to George Washington's day, when in fact Congress never officially adopted the pledge as part of their routine until 1988, when George Bush Sr. initiated the daily recitation as a political maneuver to "one up" Michael Dukakis (who had vetoed a law in his home state of Massachusetts that would have required school kids to recite the pledge each day). So I felt more nauseous than moved when I heard that after the SC ruling, several dozen of our phony patriots in Congress spilled out onto the Capitol steps like some sort of toxic red-white-and-blue substance to sing "God Bless America."
Meanwhile, the media loves the ruling because they can pump it up into another "Gary Condit-type story" to divert the public's attention away from more critical issues — like the start of construction on the Bush oil empire's Caspian pipeline...like the G8 globalization summit....like World Com.....like the questions being asked about 9/11...etc., ad nauseum.
I have a big problem with the pledge, but it isn't because of the reference to God. It is because the pledge's history is dubious at best — badly stained at worst. Most of us grew up thinking the pledge had been around about as long as the Declaration of Independence....one of those things that just always had been there, like firecrackers on the Fourth of July. Most of us assume the thing had been penned by Thomas Jefferson, or at least by Nathan "Give me liberty or give me death" Hale. But the fact of the matter is, the pledge was written in 1892 by a socialist Baptist minister from Boston named Francis Bellamy. The little piece was written for a children's magazine, "The Youth's Companion," and did NOT include any reference to God. In it's rough draft form, the pledge included the words, "with liberty, justice, and equality for all." Bellamy left out "equality" because at that time, the National Education Association (which apparently supported the Youth's Companion) was anti-equal rights — a VERY sad commentary. In any case, Bellamy said he wrote the pledge as a tribute to the ideals and principles of America — not as a "nationalistic pledge" in the sense that it became later. Here's the original, intended (pre-publication/editing) form:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty, justice, and equality for all."
The first push to make the pledge compulsory was initiated in the 1920s by the KKK, who were not only anti-black, but also anti-immigrant and anti-socialist (ironic, as Bellamy was pro-socialism). Adding their "editing skills" to the pledge along with the bigoted NEA, the KKK and other jingoist groups altered the pledge even further, replacing the words "my flag" with "the flag of the United States of America." Why? Because they didn't want just ANYBODY pledging allegiance to the flag — no "furriners, swarthy people, or people who subscribed to the "wrong" politics. The final editing blow came in the 1950s when rightwing members of the Catholic organization Knights of Columbus pressured Congress into adding "under God" to show those "commie pinkos" that we Americans weren't "godless" like them. It was in the 1950s, as the McCarthy witch hunts were in full swing, that school kids were forced to rise from their desks at the start of every day, face the flag and mouth the pledge of allegiance — whether they understood what they were saying or not. (And, believe me, there were plenty of us who wondered why we were pledging allegiance "to the Republican Richard Stans," which was "invisible."
So, in short, yep — I do have a major problem with the pledge. Not only do I resent being forced to take a "one size fits all pledge" I have a serious problem with a pledge that avoided mentioning equality because of pressure from bigoted educators, that now includes the "formal title" of the nation thanks to pressure from the KKK, that had God added in response to pressure from rightwing Catholics, that had God removed thanks to political maneuvering by a corrupt Supreme Court, and may soon have God re-inserted thanks to maneuvering by politically self-interested Senators.
What's next? National guidelines for corporate responsibility written by the team at Anderson Accounting?
posted on June 28, 2002 07:34:00 PM new
auroranorth - The reason I have not mentioned any previous use of the "God with Us" Phrase by Germans before The Nazi era is because my only awareness of it was from a belt buckle my Father -in-law brought home from WWII.
If I had expanded on that I would have been speculating because that was the limit of my knowledge. I welcome knowing more but lacking that info was not due to any bad motive.
posted on June 28, 2002 08:56:45 PM new
Whenever I read an AW thread having anything to do with Christianity, I always see the same thing: non-Christians making statements that suggest that all Christians think, act and believe alike. If someone was beat up by a neurotic teacher abusing children, then they seem to think all Christians believe in beating Christianity into people. Was it really her claimed Christianity that caused her to abuse those she had some authority over? Hey, there are people with personality disorders everywhere. I wonder how many non-Christians really believe one person's behavior is going to be duplicated by everyone else that claims to be a Christian. There are Americans who are biggots; does that mean all Americans must be biggots too? Some men beat women and children; so is every man that way? What kind of thinking is that? Is this treatment just for Christians or are there other groups that get blasted too?
Come on, is there no equality for the Christians here? If you don't believe in God, must you group all the Christians into one sect, and throw ugly words at them every chance you get, without even knowing what type of person they are as a whole? Isn't that the same ugly discrimination you claim to disrespect?
posted on June 29, 2002 08:49:16 AM new
I know as a Christian, the peeps here are always accusing me of thinking the same as Jerry Falwell, thumping the Bible at the bully pulpit and beating up "neurotic teachers abusing children". They make me enter through the backdoor, eat off the floor and I get below minimum wage! I just received the right to vote last year!
Is this treatment just for Christians or are there other groups that get blasted too?
You should here when they run down little old ladies who expect Boy Scouts to help them cross the street.
Oh wait, be here the next time when they run down the Jerry's Kids Marathon.
posted on June 29, 2002 11:38:21 AM new
"Is this treatment just for Christians or are there other groups that get blasted too? "
Well the terrorists that let the mullas tell them what to think qualify.
The Christians who threaten physical harm for the guy who brought the pledge suit shoud fit in OK.
I guess anybody that lets someone tell them what to think without any question merits our contempt.
Quite a few of them label themselves Christians.
There is some hope though in that some of these sheep have drawn the line at letting
their masters bugger their little boys and didn't just say - Whatever the father says is OK - don't question it.
posted on June 29, 2002 12:51:53 PM new
The current pledge IS unconstitutional and deserving of correction or abandon, not that it ever bothered me personally, one way or another (except being made to stand and say it in school.)
But there are two ironies in this. First, the Feds approve school vouchers the same week; so much for seperation of church and state! Secondly, the TIMING is impeccable, for reasons that should be obvious.
posted on June 29, 2002 03:48:10 PM new
What a cynical observation to think timing would influence the deep meditations of the court upon principal. You don't see Justice peeking out from under her blindfold to check her watch.
posted on June 29, 2002 04:14:56 PM new
>>You don't see Justice peeking out from under her blindfold to check her watch.<<
Well, there's justice and there's justice, but that's an aside. Otherwise, in agreement.
But still, come on! Did we really need to hammer Muslim extremists over the head with what a "godless" bunch of heathens Americans are? I never meant that this was intentional, but I do appreciate the irony of the ball the Mid-East mercenaries/propagandists must be having with this.
Hm. Now onto whether I should use my new-found taxpayer's money to send my kid for a better education at a Catholic school?
posted on June 29, 2002 05:37:51 PM new
I guess you should talk to some people with kids in there now. Do the non-Catholic kids have to take catachism classes too?
I would think in NY you should have quite a few choices if ya got the bucks.
posted on July 1, 2002 01:12:06 PM new
You know, this crap is never going to end. So I'm going to go ahead and endorse a State-run Religion in America. Since the Fundamentalist Protestants have used the most resources of their time and effort (and our taxpayer dollars in trying court cases), I'm going to pick the Fundies to Rule America through our Government.
Why?
Because if we don't do it, they will always be there trying to subvert our government and to take Power on Earth for themselves. They will always be harassing us in our courts, our slogans, TV ads, and so forth until we somehow decide to give in and let them do all that Good for God and us that they keep claiming that they'll be able to do! No longer will they have to hide in the shadows, powerless, unless to subvert innocent minds into their ways of Thought Control.
As Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have endorsed, we'll immediately get down to the business of converting this nation to the Nation of God. Using the Taliban as an example, we'll go a step further and create Death Camps for those that the Round Ups by the Office of Homeland Security. After all, if you aren't for God, you can't be for this country!
Yes, let's allow several hundred years of this Horror On Earth to happen so that the memory will stay fresh with the minds of future generations of Americans who will teach their young to stay away from theistic-types of governments.
I think that Bush beat you to it, though he still very poorly attempts to disguise what he would like to see happen. His ability to control and use the religious rightwing was pivotal in his gaining enough votes to place him in the position to be able to manipulate the election. Since then he has exerted himself, as have the most influential members of his administration, to interweave religion into all aspects of government. He is creating not so much a theocracy as an evangelical political movement.
omitted word, added for clarity
[ edited by antiquary on Jul 1, 2002 04:42 PM ]
posted on July 1, 2002 03:18:33 PM new
I gotta say, Bush is showing too much of his beliefs in what he says lately. He's showing too much of that belief in Christ.
I know most Presidents and canidates for President always ended their speeches with 'God Bless America' I think Bush went too far when asked what he thought about the courts doing away with under God in the Pledge, he said 'its ridiculus'.
I think he said more about Christianity also, and it just ain't right.
I know, they would show most Presidents going to Church every Sunday, I remember seeing Clinton going. But Bush is putting his faith out there way too much.
I say do away with this praying to the Flag thing. I grew up with it, my kids did, but its not right. We are too much of a diverse people, and I do not want to push my beliefs unto anyone else.
posted on July 1, 2002 04:12:27 PM new
Will God kindly *PLEASE* perform The Rapture and remove all of these rediculous so-called "Christians" to His Throne where He can keep an Eye on them? The rest of us want to live in peace and NOT BE HASSLED!
posted on July 1, 2002 04:47:55 PM new
There is already a lot of public discontent with the courts. Perhaps these politicians when they speak so harshly of the court using words like stupid - should consider how they are tearing down respect for a branch of their own government.
Even from the President a little respect for the judges might help him the next time he needs the Supreme court to prostitute themselves and expects everyone to keep a straight face.
posted on July 1, 2002 04:58:50 PM new
saabsister - Great thread.
Bunnicula - If you're reading this thread WELCOME BACK.
My feelings are that the 'one nation under God' should be left in the pledge. The Supreme Court has decided that no one can be required/forced to say it. So...you don't like it...don't say it. You don't wanted your kids to say it...fine. When enough children/adults aren't saying the pledge it would automatically be stopped.
I was surprised by all the upset in the House and Senate after this ruling was made. The pledge means different things to different people. To some it's a religious thing. To others it continues a long held tradition that our country as held.
I liked, once again, James Taranto's take in his WSJ article.
"The Year of Whose Lord?
Incidentally, if the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, the Constitution must be unconstitutional too. Just above the names of the Constitution's signers appear the following words:
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, which defines the "pocket veto," also stipulates:
If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. Sundays excepted? That would never happen in a nation under Zeus."end quote
posted on July 1, 2002 07:37:49 PM new
Since we are Not a nation under God nor does this nation Trust in God we might as well do away with any references to God.We also should not expect God to bless this nation,there is no reason he should and we should also welcome all the curses that are coming our way.We are a nation under government that will soon destroy itself.History always repeats itself.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
