| |
Messages 19-16 deleted by topic administrator between 07-22-2006 09:26 AM and 07-23-2006 02:02 AM |
|
David Mercer
03-03-2003
01:47 AM ET (US)
|
At 06:36 PM 3/2/2003, you wrote:
>--QT-------------------------------------------------------------
> Reply by email or visit
> http://www.quicktopic.com/19/H/gjLyUyjKnXCTm/m13
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>Since the 14th amendment, we operate under the legal doctrine of
>'incorporation,' in which many of the rights enumerated in the
>bill of rights are considered to apply equally to any
>governmental action at any level.
>
>For example, no level of government, including the government
>operation of schools, can violate the establishment clause. So
>basically no one, from the president through congress, and down
>to the principal at your local school, has the legal authority
>to take actions that effect the 'establishment' of religion.
>
>Prayer is under that umbrella...
Exactly, "can take no actions that effect the 'establishment' of religion".
If it becomes established somewhere, they can't stop it. They also can't do anything to encourage or disallow it's establishment either.
We are in agreement, if you don't like that flavor, vote in the market. THIS is one of the reasons vouchers are good.
|
|
David Mercer
03-03-2003
01:44 AM ET (US)
|
At 06:01 PM 3/2/2003, you wrote:
>--QT-------------------------------------------------------------
> Reply by email or visit
> http://www.quicktopic.com/19/H/gjLyUyjKnXCTm/m12
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The First Amendment actually reads:
>
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
>
>I have always thought that this should mean that Congress cannot
>make *any* laws, pro or con, about establishment of religion.
>For example, forbidding prayer in schools appears to be in
>violation of this.
>
>Of course, it isn't Congress making laws in this instance, it's
>the courts interpreting them.
>_________________________________________________________________
I agree, if you are going to a "Christian" school, then you are free to shut your mouth (can't be forced to
say the pledge or anything else), or home school or go to another private or (often) public school.
You have choices, and freedom to speak or not.
|
Rich Gibson  03-02-2003
08:36 PM ET (US)
|
Hi Mike,
Since the 14th amendment, we operate under the legal doctrine of 'incorporation,' in which many of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights are considered to apply equally to any governmental action at any level.
For example, no level of government, including the government operation of schools, can violate the establishment clause. So basically no one, from the president through congress, and down to the principal at your local school, has the legal authority to take actions that effect the 'establishment' of religion.
Prayer is under that umbrella...
|
|
MikeRM
03-02-2003
08:01 PM ET (US)
|
The First Amendment actually reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I have always thought that this should mean that Congress cannot make *any* laws, pro or con, about establishment of religion. For example, forbidding prayer in schools appears to be in violation of this.
Of course, it isn't Congress making laws in this instance, it's the courts interpreting them.
|
Rich Gibson 03-01-2003
11:40 PM ET (US)
|
Dave,
It is not a local decision, at all. In 1954 (or so), a big fuss was made, I think by Knights of Columbus, to add 'under god' to the current pledge.
This was done with the _specific intent_ of differentiating the US from the 'godless communists.'
That last sentence bears repeating...'under god' was added to the pledge by the Congress during the midst of the Cold War Red Scare in order to inject god into secular life.
It was a clear violation of the establishment clause.
|
DaveW 03-01-2003
01:06 PM ET (US)
|
Doesn't it seem like about time for Americans to start to worry when the federal government takes it upon itself to appeal this decision? On what Constitional grounds are they involved, and who are they supposed to be representing? There's no federal law that's being overturned here, it's a local decision -- remember the "states' rights" that Bush was so hot to protect? Only in Iraq I guess. Edited 03-01-2003 01:07 PM
|
Pat York 03-01-2003
12:45 PM ET (US)
|
I've been leading the Pledge for a long, long time now. I never liked it, always thought it was a cynical take on the actual facts of U.S. life, but also felt it was worth saying. It's what America is -supposed- to be. I'll be very happy when/if 'under God' is removed.
Fwiw, there are always a few Adventist, Buddhist and such families in our classes whose kids don't say it.
Could be worse. When I was a kid we had a religious service at the front of the room every morning---only it wasn't my religion. I actually got smacked around in a second grade way over it once or twice by classmates. If things go on as Ashcroft would like, it will be my grandkids getting smacked around. (sigh)
|
David Mercer 03-01-2003
03:40 AM ET (US)
|
I refused to say the Pledge in first grade, not out of any specific objection to anything in it, but merely to demonstrate my right to speak or not as I chose, without having to give any justification. Caused my teacher to shit a twinky, and made the principal red as a beet as he grudgingly backed me up :-) The rest of my years in school, I fairly randomly said it or not at my whim, just to keep them on their toes. Also caused my mother to hand over sole responsibility for the rest of my upbringing to my father, as she "couldn't handle me" any more. Oh well, he was a free thinking artist who fed me a diet of Heinlein, Huxley, Orwell and company, which helped a ton in keeping my sanity in the face of much BS from the rest of my family and society (although it didn't help my blood pressure much...ack, the small price of not being a total sheep is often anger). Edited 03-01-2003 03:43 AM
|
|
Erik V. Olson
03-01-2003
12:39 AM ET (US)
|
Yeah. It's the exact correct decision, and it'll get reversed, 5-4, by the Supreme Court.
Sigh. I'd like to think the 9th grew a pair, but they didn't. They know which way the wind is blowing, they saw what happened to the two Justices that made it, and they realzied that they could just wash thier hands by refusing to hear the case assembled, and let the Supremes deal with it.
|
cryptolitho 02-28-2003
11:38 PM ET (US)
|
That's Ashcroft doublespeak for you. The Pledge hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, just the (relatively) recent addition of the words "under god".
I pledge allegiance, to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
For all, regardless of religious affiliation.
|
jerwin 02-28-2003
08:55 PM ET (US)
|
John Ashcroft stated thet the government will "spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag."
Right on, Mr Ashcroft. It's about time you stood up for free speech. Just as long as there isn't some government body expecting us to do so...
Frankly, this is just silly.
|
|
Xeno
02-28-2003
08:00 PM ET (US)
|
Well this has been a long time coming and now, more than ever, it is more poignant. Bush is trying his hand at a holy war, Muslims are crying for infidel blood and everyone is fighting over some tiny little hill in the middle east. Boo hoo.
None of this would be a problem if athiests had a conversion budget so we could proselytize until we are blue in the face... and get government funding for it at the same time.
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
4772
(Unique:
2168
) / Subscribers:
4 | What's this?
