Buffman

Toto

I wouldn't be surprised if this young man attempted to claim that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was just nothing but a harmless written error of no intended malice.

However, isn't it interesting that the Pat Robertson founded Regent University placed a full page ad in the April 9. 2001 (pg.29) "U.S.News & World Report" which was headed by the David Barton manufactured misquote of James Madison. Why would a University, with its own law school, continue to nationally publish a previously discredited Barton quote? For what purpose? To what end? Perhaps to give the propagandist author an added academic air of professional authority? (Robertson continues to be one of Barton's strongest supporters and advocates.)

These are the same manner of questions that this young fellow seems to avoid answering or even comprehending. Why was "under God" suddenly found to be so critical that it required inclusion within the PoA after not having been there during all those world crisis years prior. Were Americans any less patriotic during the 1st, 2nd or Korean Wars? I don't think so! Were Americans any less patriotic when our national motto was "E Pluribus Unum" rather than "IGWT?" I don't think so! Was our currency made more spendable by affixing a supernatural God to it? I don't think so! It is all part of the long term pattern of a minority, radical Christian, brainwashing(conditioning) program.

A specific Christian advocacy was not part of our federal republic's founding....though it was certainly a part of many earlier settler's religious belief systems...at a time when man could only have had a supernatural origin. That fact has long inflamed the emotions of the radical religionists. That is why they have struggled so hard to change our accurate knowledge of the past. That is why people like Barton had to rewrite our history in his own stilted and fabricated fashion. The accurate facts simply did not, and do not, support the claims being made by this young law student or any other radical supernaturalist. Thus they create their own evidence about American history from their 'holy- cloth'.

However, since certain Christian apologists have finally recognized that they can no longer use their flawed Holy Bible to control the minds of the masses, and that since the American government was founded and runs on secular law, they have attempted to gain control of those laws and the those who craft or interpret them. Over the last 20-30 years their political and propaganda successes have been beyond their wildest expectations.

I know that you, and others in these forims, understand what has been going on as the radical Christian right, using the likes of the David Bartons and the Library of Congress's Dr. Hutson, attempt to brainwash the American public/electorate into believing that this nation's government was founded on the Judeo-Christian Bible because America was/is a "Christian Nation."
Unfortunately the majority of current day Americans haven't the foggiest idea about what is or isn't accurate American history. Not even members of our legislative or judicial systems know accurate American history. They prove that almost every day with their public statements and formal decisions...and this legal student confirms why they don't. (I think he even inferred that History was his undergraduate major.)

This fellow has been brainwashed to have faith beliefs without critical research and questioning. He hides behind laws without understanding how or why they came to exist. It appears that no one has helped to teach him how to apply the critical thinking processes in any meaningful and objective depth. He thinks we are personally challenging him when we merely question the foundations of his statements. That is why trained reason is the mortal enemy of blind faith...and vested interests.

He also seems to fail to appreciate that he is just an echo that we have heard many times before from extremely well qualified sources that have also been found limited... by their blind faith beliefs... on issues of major importance to all of humanity. For me, the "know-it-all" arrogance of this law student's posts is rather depressing. I can only conclude that he read few, if any, of the URLs I so laboriously provided. Instead, he elected to criticize their use rather than their content. I am neither qualified to, nor interested in. discussing Constitutional law with a mere law student. I leave that to those members far more qualified to and interested in doing so than I. I am interested in seeking the accurate, original, sources that contribute to today's beliefs...and all the errors I have uncovered.

Stephen Maturin

Hiya Leviathan,

I. EFFECT OF DENIAL OF CERT. IN SHERMAN:

I don't know. I guess my point is that no one knows, which is exactly why orders denying cert. aren't considered comments on the merits of the underlying case or cited as authority.

Hey, I'm all for disagreeing agreeably. I just think there's nothing we can take away from the Supreme Court's decision not to hear Sherman. One speculative explanation looks just as good as another to me.

Oh, I quite agree. I fully expect the Court to grant cert. in Newdow and to reverse. The only real question is whether the reversal will be based on standing grounds or EC grounds.

II. NINTH CIRCUIT'S APPLICATION OF LEE V. WEISMAN:

No problem, man. Take whatever time ya need.

Not at all. The Lee quote states pretty clearly that offensiveness, standing alone, will not support an EC claim. As for Newdow, the Ninth Circuit premised its holding not upon mere "offensiveness" but upon coercion of the sort found by the Lee Court. From Newdow II:

I don't see how. Again, simple "offensiveness" won't cut it under Lee. No coercion, no EC violation under that test. Seems to me that the Ninth Circuit followed Lee rather faithfully and conscientiously.

Yes, Newdow's public statements bear that out quite well. However, I don't believe the fact that Newdow is a "man on a mission" or whatever has any bearing on whether the Ninth Circuit's ruling is bad law, the subject of this thread.

Thanks. Well, weary or not, the Court has yet to answer the question authoritatively. Maybe the justices are regretting their decision not to grant cert. in Sherman right about now.

I respectfully disagree. The students in Lee had the options of standing and reciting the prayer, standing and remaining silent, or sitting down and remaining silent. The students at issue in Newdow had the same options re: the Pledge. Indeed, the students in Lee had an additional option, namely not showing up for the graduation ceremony at all. The kids in Newdow couldn't do that since attendance during school hours is mandatory under state law. Also, the kids in Newdow were much younger and more impressionable than the high school graduates in Lee. Thus, if anything, the circumstances at issue in Newdow are even more coercive.

I tend to agree. It's too bad that the trial court dismissed Newdow's case via 12(b)(6) motion. Coercion test issues can be rather fact-specific. Were I the trial judge, I would've denied the motion to dismiss, let the parties conduct some serious discovery, then waited to see what the summary judgment motions had to say. There isn't much of a record to work with here.

Well, that's about all the time I have tonight. To be continued tomorrow.

Leviathan

I just love being called a "young fellow" or "brainwashed" by the members of this forum that believe themselves to be in a "superior reality," where they want to argue credibility of sources, instead of credibility of arguments. One of my most treasured professors from undergraduate remarked that it is pathetic that so many people in academia have a knee-jerk reaction when they read an argument, and the first thing they do is read the author, instead of the argument.

To be quite honest with you, "Buffman," if you stated you were 18, I wouldn't be surprised. You certainly don't carry yourself out as an academic, someone of "aged years" that has learned so many life lessons. Instead, you only come to the forum to poke fun at other posters, are unable to argue the point, and so your posts become boring to read.

The credibility of this forum, if its members make statements such as these frequently, must be very low. You are so "set in your ways," anyone that disagrees with you must be an "echo," only believing in "blind faith."

Be more respectful, thats the advice of this "youngster" to you. Now, if you please, allow us "legal, know-it-alls" to discuss the issue, and you revel in your personal remarks.

To someone's post who matters a damn:
Stephen


I. EFFECT OF DENIAL OF CERT. IN SHERMAN:

I agree: no one knows, but that doesn't mean we can't make inferences. Law reviews make those inferences all the time.

I agree as well: it is the space of reasons. There are arguments for both sides, and so one can choose either reason over the other, so long as they have a warrant. Both interpretations are reasonable, thus, one cannot judge the other. Its amazing to me that some people can come to that conclusion, while others just love to assert the other side is just an act of "blind faith," or whatever else.

I believe the standing argument could be an "easy out," but I wonder if the Court will take the opportunity to clear up one of their most murky areas of law: the EC. I've read many law reviews about discussing just what the Courts should do. If I could recommend some reading, if you want it, there's a law review discussing the revision of the Lemon Test out right now, I can't remember the school, but I'm sure you could find it on lexis/westlaw.


II. NINTH CIRCUIT'S APPLICATION OF LEE V. WEISMAN:

My analysis of the Lee quotation is that the Court was stating a warning that it believed its holding there should not be expanded to threaten other areas of religious acts in public. The "offensiveness" claim of Lee I find as present in Newdow. Whether a person (petitioner) is claiming they feel "pressured" to choose between saying the Pledge (and not), is that not an implicit statement from the plaintiff they find such a requirement of pressure offensive, and therefore are petitioning the honorable Court for a remedy? And yes, I understand my inquiry runs counter to the fact that I stated "I concur" with your analysis of Lee: I've finally figured it out.

Or do I just need to break down and go read Lee, and conclude all these law reviews are "biased."

I made the argument, only in reference to show that Newdow's petition, and thus the arguments he will cite before the S. Ct., will be calling for the complete obliteration of religion from public life. I believe he will argue Newdow makes such a finding, and he only sees schools as the first stepping stone. Thus, the S. Ct. would be better served to quote the precedent stating that the wall of seperation is high, but not absolute, and that religion as not intended to be *completely* taken out of the public sphere by the EC. I believe Newdow's argument will be to the contrary of this precedent.

Perhaps! But given that all the dictum goes the other way (statements from current justicies finding the Pledge Constitutional, O'Connor, Kennedy, and the right-wingers), I'd say they're probably not worried about Sherman, but instead how to kill Newdow.

Prayer is distinct from the Pledge, has this not been the dictum of the S. Ct., through Engel all the way down to Abington? Otherwise, if you can show me that prayer is not distinct from the Pledge, and they are one in the same, I can concur, and agree that under Lee, unless the S. Ct. finds a way to gut or overturn it, Newdow was correctly decided.

I agree: I'd like to see some psychological studies of children, something comparable to the studies undertaken in Brown v. Board, to show whether students feel pressured or not. My personal, limited experience says to the contrary. My best friend all the way up to high school was a Jehovah Witness, and he nor my cousin ever said the Pledge. They weren't ostracized, nor would I conclude that they would tell you they felt "pressured" for believing different. But hey, that's only one subjective, biased proposition. Lets see some scientific study.

Stephen Maturin

II. NINTH CIRCUIT'S APPLICATION OF LEE V. WEISMAN (cont'd):

Yes, I do. More specifically, I consider reciting the current version of the Pledge an exercise that's part patriotic, part religious.

I believe that the statement in footnote 5 of Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree is incorrect as a simple matter of fact in that it fails to take into account the legislative history of the 1954 act that added "under God" to the Pledge. Justice Brennan's most recent statement on the matter reads as follows:

Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 716 (1984) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted).

I have no respect at all for the ceremonial deism argument. It seems to me one of the most disingenuous of all legal fictions. The idea that "under God" in the Pledge has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content" is belied completely by the vehement reactions to Newdow I. Those reactions serve as conclusive proof that the words in question retain massive religious content and provide further support for the assertion that reciting the Pledge is in part a religious act.

In any event, Justices Brennan and O'Connor wrote those dicta long before the Lee test came into being. In this case the Court will have to deal with Lee and the Ninth Circuit's application thereof. Well, okay, the justices don't really have to do that, but they certainly should. Relying on aged dicta and ignoring the existing Establishment Clause tests would be a rather dishonest way of deciding Newdow, IMO.

I don't know, nor do I think the inquiry is relevant. The issue isn't whether a majority or substantial minority of people view "under God" as religious, but instead whether the inclusion of those words in the Pledge does in fact make reciting the Pledge a religious act (at least in part). More on that below.

Oh no, not at all. Apologies for the confusion. I was describing what any person acknowledges when s/he recites the 1954 version of the Pledge.

Little do I know of the framers'/founders' motivations and religious beliefs. Buffman is our resident expert on that topic, and what little I know comes pretty much exclusively from reading this forum. That makes for interesting discussion and all, but in the end isn't all that meaningful for me because I'm one of those tree-hugging hippie liberal "living Constitution" types.

That was true before 1954. After that date, however, the speaker is pledging allegiance to a country under the sovereignty of the God of the Bible. That necessarily implies acknowledging (A) the existence of that God, (B) his dominion over the nation and, by extension, (C) his dominion over you. Yes sir, that still looks extraordinarily religious to me.

As I see it, a federal judge who defers to majority will on issues of constitutional law is shirking his duty. Making brutally difficult calls is part of the job, and anyone who's unable or unwilling to do that needs to find another line of work. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, concurring in the denial of en banc rehearing in Newdow II, said it far more completely and eloquently than I ever could:

:notworthy

Out of curiousity, how do you believe Lee should be "constrained"? Do you think it should be limited exclusively to its facts, i.e., to school-sponsored prayer at high school graduation ceremonies?

As for reciting the current version of the Pledge being a religious act, we'll just have to agree to diagree on that one.

First, if you're suggesting that Newdow qualifies as an expansion of the coercion test, I disagree. What the Ninth Circuit did was a straighforward application of an existing constitutional test. Courts do that all the time, and I think the Ninth Circuit did a good job of it in Newdow.

As for the rest, sure, anyone with a typewriter and the filing fee can challenge a government practice in court. C'est la vie, man. That's how the civil justice system works. Believe me when I tell ya that filing suit is no guarantee of success. If the only argument Newdow or some other plaintiff has is that a certain practice is offensive, then he won't get far. As we've already seen, Lee forecloses that argument and Newdow does nothing to support it.

In the end, plaintiffs will continue to file church-state separation lawsuits regardless of Newdow's ultimate outcome, and courts will continue resolving those lawsuits on a case-by-case basis, just as it's always been. If a particular case or argument genuinely qualifies as frivolous (an oft-used but little understood term), the machinery to deal with the offender is already in place.

I remain convinced that reading or reciting the Declaration of Independence doesn't qualify as a "religious act" under Lee for the reasons set forth in Judge Goodwin's opinion. The same is true of "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." That doesn't have the force and effect of law, nor is anyone obligated or coerced to recite it. I'm sure that some are offended by hearing it, but as we've seen, offense alone won't support an EC challenge. If Newdow wants to challenge such practices in court, let him. He'll lose.

Again, offensiveness isn't the standard. Newdow II is limited to teacher-led Pledge recitation in public schools and is based upon "the age and impressionability of schoolchildren, and their understanding that they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school, their teacher and their fellow students." The Ninth Circuit's holding has no binding effect outside that context. For example, there wouldn't be any problem under Newdow II with the mayor of a town leading people in a voluntary Pledge recitation at the town's official Independence Day celebration.

III. SHERMAN LIMITING THE SCOPE OF LEE:

Thanks for the explanation. I was hunting for a statement like "Lee is [or should be] limited to its facts." It's comforting to know that I didn't just flat-out miss such a statement!

It's interesting, and more than a little disturbing, that the Seventh Circuit expressly refused to apply either Lemon or Lee in analyzing the EC issue. Maybe the Supreme Court will opt for a similar approach when it decides Newdow, but I hope not.

Buffman

Leviathan

I just love being called a "young fellow" or "brainwashed" by the members of this forum that believe themselves to be in a "superior reality," where they want to argue credibility of sources, instead of credibility of arguments. One of my most treasured professors from undergraduate remarked that it is pathetic that so many people in academia have a knee-jerk reaction when they read an argument, and the first thing they do is read the author, instead of the argument.

Ref: "Young fellow" --- 1. Relative to my age, you ARE a 'young fellow.' 2. According to the U.S.Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 2, Item 2; or Art. 1, Sec. 3, Item 3; or Art. 2, Sec 1, Item 4...you aren't old enough to hold elected federal office. Why do you suppose the framers, and all those who have followed, established an age qualification for those elected offices...whether it bugs you or not?

Ref: "Brainwashing" --- A portion of my professional career was involved with the study and application of this rather inaccurately named process. That training and knowledge has assisted me to identify many of those who are, unknowingly, under the psychological conditioning process commonly called "Brainwashing." Quite simply, if you knew you were brainwashed you might desire to take steps not to be. It does seem that the majority of humans prefer being brainwashed rather than having to deal with the stark realities of life and death. (If you wish to debate something interesting, for which there few reliable facts, then debate whether or not a belief in the supernatural is a positive survival technique that is genetically passed to each subsequent generation...or perhaps merely a viral/conditioned "meme".)

Ref: "Superior reality"...Reality is simply reality. It is neither superior nor inferior. However, "accurate" reality is superior to "inaccurate" reality. Only in that sense is reality superior or inferior. However, before a meaningful discussion could be garnered from those phrases, it would be necessary to establish mutual agreement on the definitions of "objective" and "subjective" and the methodology used to arrive at the definitions. I use the Scientific Method. What do you use?

Ref: "Credibility (Sources vs Argument) --- IMHO, to argue without resort to verified original sources is to argue from ignorance, or because one has become overly enamored with the sound of their own voice. Aren't arguments promulgated on opposing statements/positions/opinions? Today, how much of an argument would you get if you claimed that the Earth orbited the sun? Now go back to the times before Copernicus and Galileo. You could have easily lost your life for having made such a claim. What is the reason that it would have not been safe to make that claim then, but safe to make it today? Verified evidence! Facts! IMHO again, if you wish to have any chance of prevailing in an argument, hit your opponent with the most verified evidence at your disposal/command. Only where original sources and verified facts do not exist do word symbols become a mental exercise "argument" based on differing "opinions"...an all too often, emotional conditioning. I prefer calm, factually accurate, discussions.

Ref: "Treasured professor" --- Appeal to/from Authority. (Your professor of what discipline and what institution of learning?) Once again I offer Robert Heinlein's comments from "Time Enough for Love" as my "treasured" philosophy of life.

What are the facts? Again and again and again---what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history"---what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

Ref: "Knee jerk academics" --- How is this not a kettle-pot comparison? However, I suspect I understand why you have included this remark in your post. You know very well that you have none of the credentials, experience, training or formal education to be an expert in every area/discipline. Therefore you wish to control the discussions on your own terms and not be forced into examining the accurate foundations of the laws or premises you make. Thus, you desire that everyone in this forum deal only with the merits of your arguments, not the "facts" that led to your "opinions" about how and why these laws may, or may not, have been crafted or be interpreted in the future.

Given the wealth of intellectual diversity and practical experience you will find throughout all these forums, it makes perfectly good sense for you to attempt to limit your exposure to any meaningful, and perhaps insightful, questioning by others. Unfortunately, based on my time in these forums, that "ain't" the way it works around here. If you wish folks to talk to you like you are an intelligent "young" man seeking the input from others concerning your own views, then you might consider paying closer attention to the questions that others ask of you...like this one. "Do you have much formal education in the natural sciences?" (That may seem to be off subject, but I assure you that it is not...depending on your answer.)--- Here is what some of those "knee jerk" academicians have to say about how to obtain objective facts. (It all leads back to those humans, including judges, who believe that everyone is under a, or their, supernatural God.)

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html

Leviathan

If the posters at the forum treat opposing opinions like you do, I'd say you have a funny definition of "insightful." Try not to lecture me on what my endeavors here should be for, or "intellectual diversity," your preposterous personal assumptions have now reached to the air of implying I'm lacking in "intellectual diversity." Oh, and you stating anything is "IMHO," is rather ironic, given your tone of your preceeding posts has been anything but humble.

B.A. History, Poly Sci., minor in Phil., 2002; I guess that rules me out huh.

I find it rather humourous you're wishing to lecture me on discussing the very topic that centered around the greater part of my undergraduate education: Early American history. Additionally, you're inquiring, I would only suppose, b/c you wish to allude to the fact that evidently I do not use the scientific method in my analysis. Whoopdee doo. :banghead:

I will answer the field, Philosophy, and specifically Existentialism professor. I will not answer the institution, for fear that the next round of personal assumptions will be regarding my college of choice.

Do you have any other personal inquiries of me? I can fax you my SAT scores if you need them.

Should I now ask if you have a background in psychology, and inquire into whether you've done a complete psychoanalysis of my personality? At 61, I'm actually wondering what you are trying to accomplish, by making such outrageous statements.

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

Stephen

Continued Part III:

The utterance "under God" changes a schoolroom, into a chapel, for the two seconds it takes to utter the phrase?

I understand your "partial" analysis, but we'll see just how you examine my lower scrutiny argument, for finding "other compelling reasons" for the Pledge.

I understand the part of the history you're referring to, but since it was a war of democracy v. communism, adding the words "under God" appeared to be a political act, to unify the nation, once more, (or to serve as a reminder), that this nation was built upon Christian principles of the founding fathers.

Thus... a political act.

Concerning Brennan's citations, I believe the citations exhibit how even the most extreme of seperationists, Brennan, noted the history of this nation, and what it stands for. I believe one could make an argument that based upon Brennan's writings, a 'defer to the political body' scrutiny argument could very well be made by the Court. You later condemn this view, and we'll analyze the condemnation below.

On the surface, this is a very good argument, concerning the outcry against Newdow shows there is no diminished value in the utterance. That assumes, though, that religious fervor in this nation was only present after the 1954 Pledge, does it not? If it does, that's definately erroneous.

Additionally, wouldn't you agree that your above argument is also assuming that the "violent reaction" against Newdow was because the individuals saw it as a *religious* symbol? Is it not just as plausible that people could be reviled by the fact that the Ninth Circuit took the same words out of the Pledge that are found in the Gettysburg Address or the Decl. of Independance? I will honestly state, that was my *first* reaction: that it was robbing the nation of history. I used to be much more of a seperationist, until I actually read the S. Ct.'s opinions on ceremonial deism, and furthermore on how the "wall" metaphor by Jeffereson is an incorrect depiction of EC jurisprudence.

I guess when it boils down to it, "ceremonial deism" might be another area we have to agree to disagree, but if you wish to further expand on your reasons to why you find it such a "legal fiction," I'm more than willing to listen.

"Aged" dicta? There is much more dicta floating around than just from one or two cases. When was Abington decided?

Additionally, I will agree that the Court should examine the Lee test concerning Newdow. I still believe its distinguishable, on the grounds that one is a prayer at a public graduation, where thousands of people would be, and one is a Pledge (political/religious act, to be distinguished from a prayer which is soley a religious act) during school hours.

On the contrary, I believe that's a *very* important distinction. First, I will recognize your argument that Constitutional law is not decided by the majority opinion: thats not my purpose in inquiring that.

But the S. Ct., through the years, on some given topics, have noted the "evolving will" of the public. One such issue was the Atkins v. Virgina case last year, the DP case in which the court noted "evolving standards of decency" across the world. Thus, the Court *does* look to the social will on some topics, and I'd say that a vast majority of students (since we're talking about the psy. coercion of a student) do not find the Pledge to be a religious act. I honestly do not find it as such, and I've gone to church ever since I can remember.

Hey, no problem with that: I'm one too, though I do believe we need to examine the framer's intent. Hey, substantive due process in the 14th Amendment, Roe and all is A OK with me!

So let me explore this a little more: you do not find it at all significant that a vast majority of the men at the Con. Convention, and most of the founding fathers were Christian? Not in the least? Second Great Awakening? Friendship between Franklin and Whitefield? C'mon!

Is it possible it could be true post 1954? I believe simply uttering the words "under God" is not *forcing you* to Pledge allegiance to anything: it's simply requesting that you recognize the history of this nation, and recognize the *fact* that this nation was founded by Christians who thought it prudent enough to place the words in their Decl. of Independance.

I understand your argument completely (I think), but my proposition seems to simply be, that's one interpretation. Is mine just as valid?

Good argument, this is always my favorite area of Constitutional jurisprudence. I understand the principle and the force of your argument, and I am inclined to agree, but there is a danger in such thinking, and that danger is that we must remember that although the Court is a very important political body in our form of government...

it is anti-majoritarian, anti-democratic. Now, yes, there are advantages to that, but there are also disadvantages. The Courts' enforcement of its decisions are only as plausible as the Court is seen legitimate.

That rambling is there to make this point: the power of judicial review is *not* always embraced by the Court. Sometimes the power of judicial review is to determine who gets to decide. In the words of my professor, judicial review concernns: Who decides who decides.

The first "who decides" is the Court: the power of judicial review via Marbury. The second one is the more important, for this argument, and there are two choices:

The Court decides the Court decides or
The Court decides Congress (majority) decides.

My argument is under this case, this should be a time that "common sense" and practical application of the law should govern, versus a more doctrinal, metaphorical approach to the law. The reason for this "deference" is given the political volatility to this situation, (similar to that of other famous cases, such as Korematsu, Commerce Clause cases overturning Schecter).

In sum, my argument is sometimes the Constitutional mandate of judges is to defer to the legislative findings on some areas. Its been done for years, and this is just a case, IMO, where it should be done. A Platonic Guardian Court can no more tell us the "true" essence to the Pledge of Allegiance in this nation, than can Saint Peter Himself.

I believe the Court, in its "caution" holding I have cited, suggested that inferior courts should not go sifting around in Lee for addressing EC concerns that were not present in Lee. This is one time the Court was clear: our dictum should be read *very* carefully.

My argument is the Court's position in Lee, of psychological coercion, is fact sensitive. I have mentioned this above, but I can summarize here: graduation prayer, versus 30 kids in a school room Pledge. The word for the day is distinguishable.

I bet you don't see this one coming: I disagree! Psychological coercion was a test dealing with prayer: Pledges are distinguishable. Its all discussed above. That isn't a "straightforward" analysis: it was applying a one-time test to another fact pattern that was distinctly different. Saying a prayer is *certainly* a religious act: you yourself admit the Pledge to be a multi-purpose act, if even religious at all (which is my argument).

I understand your "that's life" argument, and respect your experience in filing petitions, but if we allow psychological coercion to the Pledge, then does that not invite others to *claim* they were threatened by the DoI, or something else, and thus we'll have the Ninth Circuit in ten years tearing down Jefferson's statement?

Yes, that's hyperbole, but I think you get my point.

I don't know the legal definition of frivilous, I'm totally ignorant on that, but challenging the DoI just seems downright dumb to me.

I understand that's your argument, and its reasonable, but I've read too many people reacting violently to the "threat of the expansive holding of Newdow," for me to overlook that threat.

Additionally, are the S. Ct. justices, at least one of them, *requried* to say "God Save the United STates and this Honorable Court?" Additionally, could not a plaintiff argue that the recitation of that phrase, in their presence, is an act of religion in a public place?

Lemon has been criticized by many courts, and if you'll note, Sherman cites Lee for the proposition that the law in this area is far from settled. It also cites that the justices saying they were signing on to the Lemon test, later questioned its authority in some opinions. I'd say they justified their skepticism of it.

Additionally, Newdow also found that they were not bound to follow any of the tests, and they could analyze the issue from any means they wanted. Thus, its not a binding test, thus there's not "precedent shopping," which is what I understand your problem to be.

Toto

The phrase "under God" is not in the Declaration of Independence. (It is not in the written version of the Gettysburg Address, but newspaper reports indicated that Lincoln added the words to his speech.)

For most of the history of this nation, the national motto did not mention God, nor did most of the national currency.

I would say that the nation was founded by a group of men who were mostly Christian of one sort or another, who though it "prudent" to write a Constitution that did not mention God. They were also "prudent" enough not to base the nation on Christian principles (the divine right of kings, etc., found in the Bible), but instead looked to classical Greece and Rome, and the principles of the Enlightenment.

Back to Stephen Maturin for the rest of your post.

Buffman

Leviathan

(I often wish that I were 61 again. Try 68 if you wish to be accurate.)

B.A. History, Poly Sci., minor in Phil., 2002; I guess that rules me out huh.

Must you continue to be so defensive? A simple yes or no to my question would have sufficed...as would a yes or no have sufficed for many of my other questions.

So exactly how do you determine objective reality? I am interested to see if I can determine how you are using it in these Church-State discussions. I can already determine that you have chosen to treat my posts "subjectively."

I have no desire to know your SAT scores. However, I do desire to know the qualifications of those you cite as authorities on the issues under discussion. Therefore, I am becoming increasingly curious about the level of your reading comprehension. There appears to be a goodly amount of negative "Projection" going on. If my interpretations of your words are in error, you have every opportunity to "factually" point out why they are. Otherwise, I will continue to believe that my statements are as sound as any you have offered.

PS:

I find it rather humourous you're wishing to lecture me on discussing the very topic that centered around the greater part of my undergraduate education: Early American history.

I have already cited several errors within your claims concerning Early American history. Perhaps you missed a few undergraduate lectures on those issues. The instant you cite David Barton as an authority, I know you did.

Leviathan

I'm going to do this post in the spirit of Buffman:

It doesn't matter.


Must you continue to be so defensive? A simple yes or no to my question would have sufficed...as would a yes or no have sufficed for many of my other questions.

A yes or no wouldn't suffice for you, b/c you would have nothing to latch onto, and continue your inane remarks. And telling you my degree is not being defensive: for Christ's sake, if you cannot say anything that is constructive, just do not reply.


So exactly how do you determine objective reality? I am interested to see if I can determine how you are using it in these Church-State discussions. I can already determine that you have chosen to treat my posts "subjectively."

Read my profile, and many of your "simple yes or no" questions will be answered. There is no objective reality. You, unlike myself, have not come to grips with this ideal, and have chosen to see your reality as superior as others, (such as mine). I find that to be intellectually aristocratic, but moreover in plain language, just plain stupid.


You're going to think whatever you want.

PS:

I'll be happy to inform my professors that they taught me incorrect information. And who says so? The local guy on an internet website.

You can see them as "errors." Its quite apparent, given your ideology and inability to see other viewpoints, that they're going to be "errors" to you.

And try not to make presumptions about my missing classes - its just another boring, trite statement of yours that only reveals further you don't like debates: you like prodding people on.

By the time I'm 68, I certainly hope I have something better to do with my time.

Buffman

I'll be happy to inform my professors that they taught me incorrect information. And who says so? The local guy on an internet website.

No! The original documents written by the original authors. If your professors did not cite those documents and those authors, then YES, they may well have taught you incorrecr/inaccurate information. Why does that seem to be such a difficult thing for you to grasp. Are you inferring that everything you heard from one of "your" professors is without error? (You are beginning to sound more and more like someone who thinks that the Judeo-Christian Bible is without error because some other human said so.)

Do professors of the same discipline ever disagree with each other? Of course they do... but not over the verified factual evidence. They normally find their disagreements are due to their interpretations of that factual evidence. (We are still trying to find the accurate cause of the end of the Age of the Dinosaurs. New evidence is being uncovered on an almost daily basis. Unfortunately, much of that evidence remains to be verified.)

I go to great lengths to verify the evidence presented by individuals who are attempting to persuade others about the validity of their interpretations. If both sides of a discussion/debate start with a mutual acceptance of the known and verified evidence, then they can argue their interpretations till the cows come home with no harm done. ..or comment from me if the subject is not within my realm of interests. However, when one side uses faulty/forged/inaccurate evidence to establish their case, they do everyone a terrible disservice. Do you agree?

If you had taken the time to read the URLs I provided, you might have gained some additional accurate (verified) knowledge. Instead you have elected to disparage the messenger, not the message(s) he made available to you for your independent study and comment. Therefore, is it any wonder that I would question the level of maturity displayed by your responses?

As I pointed out, and you elected to ignore, the Constitution establishes specific chronological ages as an indication of appropriate maturity. Personally, I do not accept age as the best measure of maturity. I believe that accurate knowledge and practical experience can lead an individual to accept full responsibility for their deeds or misdeeds (words and actions) at ages much earlier than those codified in the Constitution. However, the older one becomes, the more likely they are to recognize just how little they really know, or how much in error they really were, when they were younger. I once believed in Santa Claus with every fiber of my body because adults told me he was real. There have been a good many things that adults, including some professors, told me were real that I have subsequently discovered were not. Is there even the slightest possibility that some of the things you have been taught, and currently believe with every fiber in your body, are in error?

When you say that accuracy doesn't matter, I have to wonder how you ever came to such an unethical view and exactly what kind of an attorney you will make. (I guess there might be openings at ENRON...or with the current political adminustration. The latter seems to thrive on blind faith rather than verified evidence.)

(I doubt that a Jesus would appreciate your resort to using his title in vain. Please try to control your emotional outbursts in these public forums. Thanks.)