Some good news.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-14-court-pledge_x.htm?csp=24

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 14, 2004

Answers

Response to RULIGN ON THE PLEDGE

BUMP

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 14, 2004.

The judges made the right decision based on a technicality. They should have put Neudaur (sp?) on trail for causing such a rucus in the first place.

-- Garret Ford (Parallax281457689@Yahoo.com), June 18, 2004.

It was a lame decision, because now it means that someone else can waste the courts' time and money arguing what should have been decided this time.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 18, 2004.

That's right, and it will not be long before someone else challenges the courts with the same issue. Hopefully the courts will have sense enough and guts enough to uphold the Constitution as it was written - not favoring one religious approach to God over others, while not denying that we are indeed one nation under God, whether a handful of atheists like it or not! There are also groups of Americans who don't believe in "liberty and justice for all", like the KKK. Maybe we should remove that phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance too, lest it offend KKK members.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 18, 2004.

Liberty and justice for all is a basic principle of democracy (do as we say, not as we do...)

"Under God" is not. It's a religious statement and it should not hold sway over one's alleigance to the nation.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 22, 2004.

insomuch as the main courts decision, yes, it was dismissed on a technicality, and there MAY be the possibility of another atheist taking on the pledge in the future.

HOWEVER, there was so much negative press, and its not even appealing to tackle that one (nor important) so i dont think that very many atheists are going to jump at the opportunity right away.

AND what is more beneficial to the cause of keeping some semblence of a moral nation under God, is the consenting opinion by one of the other justices who wrote quite well how "under God" does NOT present any constitutional violation... and that can be used VERY clearly if this ever goes to trial again.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 23, 2004.

"Under God" is NOT a religiosu statement, AB. God is not religion. God is not merely a religiosu concept. God is not unique to any one religion.

Since God is not isolated to any oen religion, one cannot say thta the pledge favours oen religion over another.

Indeed, one can beelive in God, and NOT be religious. If one has no rleigion but nonetheless beelives in God, then his discussion fo God cannot be seen as an attribte of his religious faith.

Since God is not a religiosu concept, but an individual being, and the only real debate is over God's actual existance or not, the matter is a fact that the phrase " Under God" is NOT a religious phrase at all.

Likewise, even if it WHERE their is NOTHIGN in the constitution that forbids religioous expression, no mater hwta the Liberals, the ACLU, or the Atheist groups tell you, the treality is that the constitutional first amendment was designed to PROTECT religion,m not seeprate it form govrnance. Govenrment cannot faovur oen religion over the other, btu the prhae "Under God" is NOT a religious phrase, and God is NOT unique to any oen religion.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 23, 2004.

But it is still a government endorsement of the notion of God. The First Ammendment does seperate religion from government, both to protect religion from the government and to protect the government from religion. It works both ways. Mixing religion and government is never a good idea.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.

For starters the Notion fo God isnt relaly religious. God is an independant intety, and being is NOT religiosu in and of itsself.

Gis is not a religious concept, but an active, independant intity, theefore, talk fo God is NOT automaticlaly a discussion of a religiosu concept.

You ignroed thatg.

Also, about the first amendment, your wrong. Unless you think the firts amendment is ALSO deisgned to protect the GOVENRMENT form free speach and assembley.

Modern Liberals love to say it means the Govebrment can't endorse religion, but this is idiocy. Does it mean the Govnermnet can't endorce free speach? Does it mean the Givnemrent can't endorse free press? does it mean the Governemn can;t endorse free assembley?

Did the Goveernment need to be protected from FGree Speach, Pres, or assembely?

It must have, since they are lal int he same sentence that the Givenrment protexcts itsself from religion.

Read th first amendment fre formt he Modenr Liberal definition of " We cant have chrisainity, er, I eman, "rfeligion" in public."

Read the raw text freely.

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.

GThe Goveerment needed to be protected form treligion, and in the amendment, it is, as well as protected form free speach, freedom of the press, and fre assembely. if you claim the firts amendment was d esigned ot protect the Givermen form rleigion, then by logical exension, since its all one sentnece, the Govemr,entn must also need protection form free speach, assembely,and the press.

All one sentnece. Not seperate ones, all the same sentence. get this trough your ever lovign head.

The first amendment was NOT designed to protect the Government form religion, it was desined to allow religiosu freedom, which peopel liek you want to take away by fobidingreligious expression, even as a part of national heratGE, to support your warped notions.

Likewise, you are wrong when you say mixing rleigiona dn Govnemrnet is always bad, its not. YOU may think this base don popular myhts, however MOST cultures throyghlut Hisogty have mixed religio and politics wihtout much issue.

And to close where I began, God is not a religious concept or a mere notion. Saying " One ntion, under God" is NOT religous in and of itsself.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 23, 2004.

I would rather not have the government endorse free speech or free assembly. The fact that it's in the Consitution is good enough for me. If the government were to say "here, you can say whatever you want, and we'll even provide a nice little space for you to do it in..." it would set a dangerous precedent. It would turn our inalienable right to free speech into a government-granted privaledge. And once it becomes a privaledge, it becomes something that they can take away. I would rather the establishment be at odds with my right to speak my conscience than sponsor it. Freedom of speech isn't something the federal government should have to sponsor. Neither is religion. No true religion should need a government endorsement. If your does, then maybe there's a bigger problem at hand.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 24, 2004.

No true religion should need a government endorsement

i couldnt agree more whole heartedly... however, the converse is also true, that not true religion should have a government subverting it from the culture.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 24, 2004.

I would rather not have the government endorse free speech or free assembly.

{The Governemnt already does... Not only is the fact that we HAVE IT IN THE CONSTITUTION an automatic Governmental endorsement, it is also true that the Government sponcers talks, lecturs, debates, and conferences all the time.

The Governemnt does not limit fre speach to its own platforms, however, the Governemn already uses and endorces free speahc and free assembely. The fact that we can do both without te Govenment is nice as well, but the Givernemt has the euqel right to it.

Heck, PBS and NPR are Governemn sponcered...}-Zarove

The fact that it's in the Consitution is good enough for me.

{In casd you didn;t notice, the Constitution is a governemtn contract of laws...}-Zarove

If the government were to say "here, you can say whatever you want, and we'll even provide a nice little space for you to do it in..." it would set a dangerous precedent.

{Again, they do this, just tune into NPR. Just wzatch anyhting on PBS. Just go to an open senate debate.}-Zarove

It would turn our inalienable right to free speech into a government- granted privaledge.

{Uhm, no, it woudlnt. Not only is it alreayd granted by the Governemtn in the first place, but simpley allowing the Governemtn to excersise these rights, and allowign the Governemtn to provide public platofrms for pseach, does not limit my own ability to equelly create a meetign place for others to assemble, nor does it stip me form takign the proverbial soap box tot he streetcorner and lecture away.

Goovernemt sponcered free speach conferences do not frbid my own free speahc conference that ius self financed. ( Not that their is such a hting called a free speah conference, but you gt the idea...)}- Zarove

And once it becomes a privaledge, it becomes something that they can take away.

{Actually, you just dcommited sa slippery slope fallacy.Just because the Givernment grants a platofrm for communication ( Such as PBS) does nto eman it woudl forbid others form starying their own companies for television, such as Fox.

The Governemn can sponcer an event without limiting my fredom to hold a similar event.}-Zarove

I would rather the establishment be at odds with my right to speak my conscience than sponsor it.

{Then don't attend a Governemn sponcered conference. However, the Givernmen has the right to sponcer conferences if it likes, just as you have the same right. Just because the Governemtn can do this,a n often does o this, dosnt limit your rights at all.}-Zarove

Freedom of speech isn't something the federal government should have to sponsor.

{They don't, but they do HAVE free spezch and do SPONCER EVENTS such as conferences where the right is excersised.}-Zarove

Neither is religion. No true religion should need a government endorsement.

{Sorta forgot soemthign, didnt you? God isnt a notion, nor a religion in and fo himself... God is an independant being, free form religion.

Likewise, you overlook the fact that discussing religion is not nessisarily zn ipen endorsement of said religion.}-Zarove

If your does, then maybe there's a bigger problem at hand.

{Aain, I argue three points.

1: God is not a religious concept but a being, ecognised by many rleigions, and independant of rleigions. many nonreligiosu peopel beleiv ein God's existance.Thus acknowledgeemt ogf God is not the same as endorsign a religion.

2: since God is worhsipped in most rleigions, even if thy conflict on the nature of God, the phrase " Under God" is not an endorsement of one rleigion over the other. Likewise, you can always personally omit the phrase, or else not say the pledge at all, of you relaly dotn want to.

3: The Governemnt really has no seperato fo chruch and sttae so much as it has no right to enforce or impose upon religion any restrictions. This was not to protect the Governemnt, btu to protect outr liberties.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 24, 2004.