The Pledge of Allegiance stands!

[councilman24 37]

And it may be found unconstitutional. From the article

"Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him."

Hmmmmm, he only had three.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[lawrocket 3]

He wrote separately on it. It's called "Dicta" and is persuasive but not controlling.

Then again, judicial review in teh "Marbury v. Madison" opinion was dicta, too.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mardigrasbob 0]

When the Court is in session, the 10 a.m. entrance of the Justices into the Courtroom
is announced by the Marshal. Those present, at the sound of the gavel, arise and remain
standing until the robed Justices are seated following the traditional chant: “The Honor-able,
the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme
Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the
Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!”

-------------

[PhillyKev 0]

Reuters must be monitoring this thread.

Headline changed again to:

Supreme Court Fails to Decide Merits of Pledge Case

[Kennedy 0]

Yet more proof that the judges of the Ninth Circus are an activist court and will remain the most overturned court in the system.

Bill, are they requiring everyone to suddenly declare one religion?
Are they requiring everyone to recite the pledge?

So what are they "establishing?" That ten to twenty percent are not the majority but still have rights? Sounds about right to me.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

God save the United States and this Honorable Court!”

I wonder if the father's attorneys thought, "We're screwed" when they hear that statement...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

God save the United States and this Honorable Court!

Just as timely, appropriate, and reflective of today's society as...

Quote

Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!

[Nightingale 0]

the court stated that a person does not have the right to bring a lawsuit on the behalf of a child who is not in their custody.

their ruling had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the case. It had to do with the plaintiff's standing in regards to his legal relationship with his daughter.

Had the mother brought the suit, the ruling would have been different. What it would have been, I have no idea.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

There are religious on both the left and right. "God" is not necessarily a partisan issue. I think the ruling conveys the opinion of the vast majority of Americans.

Where is it written that those who believe in god have dominion over the wording of a pledge that demonstrates allegiance to our country? Why does it come down to believers-in-god getting their way, if our country does not have an established religion nor an establishment of religion. This is not a country for religious people and the non-religious people be damned. It's supposed to be a country for everyone. Allowing "god" in the pledge (particularly since it was not there originally!) is an offense to those who want to pledge allegiance to the U.S. but who don't feel god has to have something to do with it, and who do not make god a part of their lives.

You may cheer it, but it's a petty victory, and overall it is not even a good thing.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>"God" is not necessarily a partisan issue.

Agreed; but it is certainly not a governmental issue. That separation is called out in our constitution.

This is that famous, oft-repeated lie.

Here is what the Constitution says about the so-called "separation of church and state":

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Would you please explain for us how you read that to mean "separation of" when clearly all it means is that the government may not establish a religion that would be considered the official government religion.

I know it may seem as though I'm playing both sides of the fence, here, since I'm obviously anti-belief-in-god-and-religion, but that being true I still don't like when "my side" (the side of religion out of government) LIES and distorts the Constitution in order to try to bolster or validate its view. There is no Constitutionally-mandated "separation of church and state": there is simply a prohibition of an offiicial state religion a la the Church of England.

Quote

>I think the ruling conveys the opinion of the vast majority of Americans.

So was preventing women from voting, back in the day. Doesn't make it right, just makes it popular.

This part, I agree with. People try to justify all kinds of things just by their popularity with poll-respondents. Doesn't make it right.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

(particularly since it was not there originally!)

What if it were?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[billvon 2,998]

>Would you please explain for us how you read that to mean "separation
> of" when clearly all it means is that the government may not establish a
>religion that would be considered the official government religion.

It means that congress may not pass any laws that respect (i.e. laws that refer to or relate to) any religion. That means they must effectively avoid religious legislation. The government of the US is therefore constrained from prohibiting, promoting, legislating, or even officially condoning any one religion over another, or any religion at all.

>There is no Constitutionally-mandated "separation of church and state":
>there is simply a prohibition of an offiicial state religion a la the Church of
>England.

The prohibition in the first amendment did not say "Congress shall not establish a state religion," it said that congress shall not pass any laws that refer to any religion, or that prohibit people from worshiping any religion they see fit to worship. You may not define that as separation, that's fine. But it's pretty clear that there must be no congressional involvement of any kind in religion.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

A First Amendment

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.

It is amazing how much people read into a single sentence

Everybody forgets number 9 number 9

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

-Bob-

---------------

[billvon 2,998]

>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's exactly right; and that means that people have the right to do whatever they want to with respect to religion. You could stand up at a baseball game and say "Under God, under God, under God, under God" as long as you wanted to (or at least until people started throwing things at you.)

[mardigrasbob 0]

And furthermore. How is GOD a religion?
Is mother nature or father time. I believe HE is an entity. The way you worship HIM may be a religion.
GOD knows?!

God can variously be defined as:

the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.
The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or emu, "to invoke or to sacrifice to") is either "the one invoked" or "the one sacrificed to." From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; thes in thessasthai "to implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek theos, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan deities. The common name most widely used in Semitic occurs as 'el in Hebrew, 'ilu in Babylonian, 'ilah in Arabic, etc.; and though scholars are not agreed on the point, the root-meaning most probably is "the strong or mighty one."

[pajarito 0]

Quote

And furthermore. How is GOD a religion?
Is mother nature or father time. I believe HE is an entity. The way you worship HIM may be a religion.
GOD knows?!

Exactly! The acknowledgment of God is not "establishing a religion." The VAST majority believe in the most basic concept of a God or gods regardless of their specific religion.

[mardigrasbob 0]

One more thing:
For a human to deny the existance of GOD makes about as much sense as a fish denying water or a skydiver denying the existance of air. So there!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Everybody forgets number 9 number 9

Yep. Even Constitutional scholars. Mentioning the 9th Amendment to a Constitutional scholar is like asking me for my jump history - there's just not much there.

There are two separate lines of jurisprudence relating to theis: (1) the establishment clause; and (2) the "excessive entanglement" doctrine.

Establishment is pretty simple. But the simple fact is ther cannot be "excessive entanglement." As you can see, this leaves plenty of room for fudging.

My view of excessive entanglement (this coming from an borderline atheist) is pretty close to establishment.

I dunno - I guess I don't have enough time on my hands to worry about whether my kid will say, "Under God" and make a big stink about it.

I think there is plenty of misinformation and flat-out hyperbole on either side. I also think that eliminating any mention whatsoever of a deity anywhere in public life is equivalent to prevention of free exercise. In other words, atheism is a religion, too, and should have to lose out sometimes. THink about it - it's been getting some big wins...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Religion is man seeking after GOD.
For someone to say that there is no God one must be omnipotent; because there is knowledge outside of ones self.
A little word of warning:
Psalm 2-
10
And now, kings, give heed; take warning, rulers on earth.
11
Serve the LORD with fear; with trembling bow down in homage, Lest God be angry and you perish from the way in a sudden blaze of anger. Happy are all who take refuge in God!
-Bob-

[billvon 2,998]

>For someone to say that there is no God one must be omnipotent . . .

And to say that one does know god makes him even more omnipotent. By that definition, only agnostics do not presume superhuman knowledge.

[Kris 0]

Quote

One more thing:
For a human to deny the existance of GOD makes about as much sense as a fish denying water or a skydiver denying the existance of air. So there!

Don't forget the other popular ones such as Vishnu, Kali, Allah, the incarnate Buddhist deity, and the others that peoples of this country worship.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[billvon 2,998]

>How is GOD a religion?

It's not. But believing in one male anthropomorphic god is indicative of one class of religion.

>I believe HE is an entity.

That's fine. Others believe he is several entities, or a non-entity who nonetheless exists. Others believe that there is no concept that equates to god. All are just as valid under our laws.

[pajarito 0]

Not forgotten...
"Under God" doesn't infringe on any of those either.

[mdrrus 0]

If you read Jefferson's letter carefully it does not advocate separation of church and state at all. The reference is to not have a state religion, in other words to provide for all of us, freedom of religion.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

>For someone to say that there is no God one must be omnipotent . . .

And to say that one does know god makes him even more omnipotent. By that definition, only agnostics do not presume superhuman knowledge.

I was not claiming to have complete understanding but a knowledge of God. But if you are truely seeking truth you could always ask Pontius Pilate ( John 18:37,38 )
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion.


-------------