US considers 'under God' pledge - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-24-2004, 12:55 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 12:50 AM
US considers 'under God' pledge

there are many things i like about america and if these words are removed, that would add up the list of things i like about america.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3564101.stm

as said by someone down in the article "religion has no place in the pledge". i am not sure if many interferencers would agree with that


Acrobatman

"
The US Supreme Court is to consider whether the words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance when it is recited in public schools. Atheist Michael Newdow, a California doctor with a law degree, will argue religion has no place in the pledge.

Millions of schoolchildren recite the pledge each morning before classes.

The case has sparked controversy across the country, with observers saying it will be a crucial battle over church-state separation.

Under the current wording teachers and students say they "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."

New addition

The words "under God" were added to the original 1892 pledge in 1954 as part of an effort to distinguish the US way of life from the Soviet Union's atheistic communism.

The court will examine whether the classroom oath crosses America's division of church and state, and thereby amounts to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

Like singing the National Anthem or memorising the Gettysburg Address, reciting the pledge is a patriotic, not a religious exercise

Solicitor General Theodore Olson
Dr Newdow filed the lawsuit because he was unhappy that his nine-year-old daughter had to recite the pledge at her school at Elk Grove in northern California.

He sued her school and won, setting up the landmark appeal before a court that has repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.

Dr Newdow will argue the case himself and expressed disappointment that his daughter will not be able to attend.

"Of course I wanted to bring her," he said. "You don't believe it would be an opportunity to see your father argue before the Supreme Court of the United States in an historic case that will last forever?"

Majority opposed

Opposing lawyer, Solicitor General Theodore Olson, says that reciting the pledge - even in its current form - is simply an act of patriotism.

"Like singing the National Anthem or memorising the Gettysburg Address, reciting the pledge is a patriotic, not a religious exercise," he said in written comments submitted before the case began.

A new poll carried out by the Associated Press on the issue indicates that nine out of 10 Americans are in favour of the reference to God remaining in the pledge, the news agency reported.

Protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Tuesday to demonstrate against the hearing.

Even Dr Newdow's ex-wife, with whom he shares custody of his daughter, opposes its removal.

However, Dr Newdow does have the backing of school officials in Elk Grove:

"If something is wrong, it should be corrected. No matter how many people support it,'' school superintendent Dave Gordon said.

"The argument that 'under God' in the pledge is pushing religion on children is wrong on the law. It's also wrong from a commonsense perspective," he said.


"
__________________

AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 01:48 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:50 AM
Which religion does "under God" refer to? Is "God" defined in the pledge?

I consider the pledge in its current form to be an American tradition and I would hope that no minority would be able to use the court system to change it because of their personal ideas about what something does or does not mean.

Our court system has more important things to be handling and I hope this does not take much time.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 01:59 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 07:50 PM
Yeah, this is kinda BS. If you don't wanna say it, don't say it.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 02:02 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:50 PM
The previous pledge without "under God" was an American tradition. Those two words were added nearly 60 years after the pledge was written; the original author being a socialist.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 02:08 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,593
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Quote:
there are many things i like about america and if these words are removed, that would add up the list of things i like about america.


sorry, but it won't happen


this case may be tossed because the father does not have primary custody of the girl and therefore is not "harmed"



This is not worth drawing a line in the sand.



More important is The Administration wanting to give taxpayers monies to churches.

The program is being called "faith based charity'

Hamas does a pretty good job mixing charity with religion/politics.

Churches desriminate. And it is within the law.
deep is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 02:09 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:50 PM
It is amazing how one non-custodial father and a few judges can change all of society....
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 02:11 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,593
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
It is amazing how one non-custodial father and a few judges can change all of society....
i don't think he should


i also do not think the easily offended should weild the power they do with the FCC.
deep is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 02:21 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Hamas does a pretty good job mixing charity with religion/politics.

Churches desriminate. And it is within the law.
I love the churches = Hamas connection. Nothing like a FYM grenade....
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 02:30 PM   #9
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
It is amazing how one non-custodial father and a few judges can change all of society....
It happens all too often these days...
BVS is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 02:35 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:50 PM
I just read this from a news report on the Supreme Court hearing:

Quote:
Newdow argued that having his daughter listen to the pledge causes harm to him and the case therefore could be decided.
Is this the type of "harm" which creates a cause of action?
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 02:51 PM   #11
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 06:50 PM
This is the same type of logic used in the past when parents tried to get teaching of evolution banned because it "harmed" them. It's ridiculous, we're moving closer and closer to a day where parents are going to want a custom made cirriculum for each and every student. No wonder our education system seems to be slipping. Growing up I heard a lot of things that I didn't follow or don't belive in. Not every single thing your child hears or is taught is going to become their belief or a part of their life. Parents need to start doing their jobs and they won't have to fear everything that child is exposed to.

I was exposed to drugs, atheist, sex, "the wrong" music, foul language and everything else you can think of and turned out great...well maybe not great but I never did drugs, jailed, lost my morals or anything like that.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 03:00 PM   #12
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 08:50 PM
The pledge isn't a "government" thing, really, is it? Like, there's no law saying students have to say it and students can't be made to say it?

I personally don't understand why the Pledge is said at all. It's a nice thing, I guess, but would society crumble if it wasn't said? Couldn't they sing "My Country 'Tis of Thee" or something instead?
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 03:02 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
It is amazing how one non-custodial father and a few judges can change all of society....
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 03:03 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,593
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I love the churches = Hamas connection. Nothing like a FYM grenade....

Call it a grenade if you like.

I believed everybody would agree that funding Religious groups like Hamas is not good.

I never said they are equal.

Some people may believe hitting children is ok.

I do not

and in a discussion about that I might cite that most child abusers advocated that hitting children is ok.

child hitting may not = child abuse

people who would never hit children are not likely to become child abusers.



Does it make you uncomfortable to admit that there are many "Religious groups" in the U. S. that discriminate?
deep is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 03:05 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,593
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Quote:
we're moving closer and closer to a day where parents are going to want a custom made cirriculum for each and every student
that is called "home schooling".
deep is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 03:09 PM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


that is called "home schooling".
These parents complaing want home schooling without the real work...
BVS is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 03:10 PM   #17
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 08:50 PM
Everyone should click on the link meegannie posted. I can't believe this is even a possibility. Such a bill would reduce the Supreme Court to a mere figurehead.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 03:19 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,593
Local Time: 04:50 PM
i don't think it will become law.


as i read what is available


it would take a 2/3s vote in each house.

to over ride the supremes


Quote:
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, A GRAVE AND GROWING PROBLEM -- (House of Representatives - March 04, 2004)


[Page: H845] GPO's PDF
---
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak about judicial activism, a grave and growing problem in our current national discourse that is threatening our democratic principles, eroding the consent of the governed, and radically altering the social fabric of our American society.

It should be of little surprise that the impetus of this debate, and the modest solutions I intend to set forth, stem from the November ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriages and the subsequent rulings on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act that have followed.

I am a strong supporter of numerous legislative measures currently being considered by this Congress, aiming to define marriage as an exclusive union between one man and one woman. However, I believe a more comprehensive solution is necessary to address the broader, troubling trend toward judicial activism, a development with definitive implications beyond just the issue of marriage.

America's judicial branch has become increasingly overreaching and disconnected from the values of everyday Americans, many of whom I represent in the Second District of Kentucky. The recent actions taken by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere are demonstrative of a single branch of government taking upon itself the singular ability to legislate. I believe these actions usurp the will of the governed, circumvent representative government by allowing tribunals of a select few, not elected or otherwise politically responsible, to conclusively rule on issues that are radically reshaping the societal traditions of our great Nation.

Clearly, this issue is one about power, not in the raw political sense but in terms of the allocation of government authority between each branch of government, specifically between Congress and the Judiciary, in a federal system that relies on checks and balances to protect our liberty. This is a debate that has been taking place since our founding.

At no point is the tension between Congress and the courts greater than in the realm of constitutional interpretation. The Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review. Instead, the right of judicial review is a practice with origins from the bench

[Page: H846] GPO's PDF
itself, established in 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled, ``It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Branch to say what the law is.''
The Marbury v. Madison case decision provides an extraordinary recognition of judicial power in a constitutional form of government. The exercise of such broad authority, expanded over time through political tradition, clearly has a growing adverse effect on the relationship between coequal arms of our national government. As judicial power expands, congressional power contracts. This is especially true when the power to interpret the Constitution rests in the hands of activist judges anxious to find the latest ``right'' hiding between the lines of our founding document.

Our Founding Fathers created three separate branches of government, each with equal checks and balances on the other. Our founders also ensured that each branch, including Congress, play a role in constitutional interpretation, requiring officials in each branch to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

The framers did not give authority to one branch over the other. Certainly each branch has its separate functions, but debating, defending, and upholding the tenets of the Constitution involve the decision and duties of each branch. As a Congress, we must change our thinking and reaffirm our authority to interpret constitutional issues in concert with, and independent from, the courts.

The framers of the Constitution were advocates of serious debate who believed that the deliberation of the political process should always be open to the people. If the courts continue their dramatic move toward self-proclaimed interpretive power, I believe Congress, as the people's branch of representative government, should take steps to ensure equal balance and authority to check the final results.



[Time: 13:30]
I am introducing legislation today to address these serious, pressing issues in a direct and forceful manner. The bill that I have authored, if enacted, will allow Congress, by a two-thirds majority of each House, to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court. This additional check may only be enforced on rulings concerning the constitutionality of an act of Congress following the enactment of this bill.

In his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln warned, ``The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.''

It is my hope that the people and the courts will see my position and recognize the serious problems arising from this growing imbalance of constitutional authority. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to redress judicial activism, protect the equal dignity of this governing body, and preserve the majority will of the governed by supporting this legislation.
deep is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 04:02 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by meegannie


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&
What nonsense. Congress frequently reverses Supreme Court decisions. The only decisions they cannot touch are ones based on Constitutional law. And even then, they can reverse Supreme Court decisions by amending the Constitution.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-24-2004, 06:15 PM   #20
Acrobat
 
Soul Always's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 312
Local Time: 05:50 PM
I say "under God" should remain. I have my reasons. If we take God out of everything soon God can't be counted on when we really need him.
__________________

__________________
Don't look in the obvious place
The soul needs beauty for a soulmate
Soul Always is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×