ksagnostic

Very, very well said. This would not, repeat NOT(!), good news if this decision were to be upheld by the Supremes. So far we have avoided diluting the First Amendment through additional amendments, but if this was to be upheld, we would have a new amendment, and in record time.

In spite of the fact (in my admittedly non-lawyer opinion)that the Congress was blatantly violating the constitution when they added "under God" to the pledge (the First Amendment says "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..."), at this time, unquestioning patriotism is really in style, and running against such passion can result in damage that to civil liberties that normally would not occur. I have been watching CNN, and EVERYONE, the guests, the commentators, are describing this decision as unpatriotic. There has already been an unfortunate hesitancy with confronting the Christian Right on some of their claims in the mainline media (the so-called liberal bias is bullshit, and it is particularly bullshit now). They have been able to play the "anti-Christian" card without being called on it. Political news in this country is more along the lines of handicapping races, rather than discussing issues, with the only consistent exception being RIGHT WING COMMENTATORS (with their occasional liberal foils on shows like Crossfire). In this environment, it is going to be very very hard to make our points. It requires the news media to take the time to examine the nuances of an issue, and for the most part, I don't see that happening.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Bluenose

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hezekiah jones:
[QB]

There are two ways this decision could be overturned, one, by the Ninth Circuit itself en banc. Here is a webpage that gives the Ninth Circuit's apparent political persuasions:

<a href="http://www.appellate-counsellor.com/profiles.htm#Circuit_Judges" target="_blank">Ninth Circuit Judges</a>

I don't know how the en banc panel is selected from this list of Circuit Judges and Senior Circuit Judges. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. "

When a petition for rehearing en banc is filed, all the Circuit judges vote on granting the petition. If granted, all of them hear or review the panel action and then vote again. They can rewrite the panel decision, or just affirm or reverse. En banc is rarely granted by the Ninth because of the size of the load each judge has to deal with. But they can do it all on paper without additional argument or pleadings if they want to close ranks to strengthen the panel ruling.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Bluenose ]</p>

Samhain

Liberty first, gentlemen and ladies, regardless of backlash. How long will it take for the American people to remember that atheists are not the only people who are affected by "under 'God'" and "In 'God' We Trust"? This matter extends much further than our atheistic front doors, there are plenty of others rights we are protecting, as we all know that it is not just a non-specific deity reference, but a reference to the JC god.

chiron64

I see that the media is bringing out the finest legal scholars to discuss this: Charley Daniels, Red Skelton's 1969 recording of his interpretation of the pledge and now Greta Van Sustern is asking Kiss vampire Gene Simmons for his opinion. Journalism at its finest

Grumpy

If it gets to the Supreme Court, all they have to do is overturn it, then parenthetically add that it is not to be used as precedent, a la Bush vs. Gore.

The prevailing opinion is pretty tidy (though I missed the Zeus/Vishnu bits). However, the dissent provides plenty of cover for subsequent appeals. I don't buy the argument that the Establishment Clause protects only against rampant theocracy, but I can see how that argument would appeal to judges, and to the public (if they cared about such things).

ksagnostic

OH, FOR PITY'S SAKE...!

My previous employer has a Charlie Daniels golf tournament and concert every year. Charlie insisted on having a very evangelical service every Sunday morning, and early on we as employees were required to help out at this event. Several of us employed by this agency were agnostics or atheists, and found other places to help out during the church service. Eventually, enough people complained that the church service became completely optional. Charlie means well, but he really does equate patriotism with fundamental Christian beliefs. I noticed him earlier this week on Fox with that jackass Bill O'Reilly, so what the hell was thing about PBS?

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Anunnaki

No kidding! It`s been a bizarre parade of washed up performers (Falwell included) that couldn`t tell their asses from their elbows in a dark room. I wonder what ALF will have to say about this tomorrow.

Remember ALF? He was missing in action for a while,but now he`s back as a morning guest every day this week on FOX. They`ve been asking ALF his opinion on current events so I`m sure they will ask him about the pledge tomorrow.

This must be what FOX means when they say "fair and balanced".

Writer@Large

Every news agency should aspire to get the "Planet Melmac" angle ...

--W@L

ashibaka

Well, duh. Thomas Paine was too busy starting a revolution in France to write the Constitution.

In all actuality, the entire thing was Paine's idea. Common Sense is the book that got Americans thinking, and the fact that he didn't actually write the Constitution does not detract from his contributions to it.

Chuck

I just finished my letter to the editor of the Greensboro News & Record in NC. I have to admit that I'll be suprised if more than one or two letters in support of the ruling is published. That voice will probably be lost in the general uproar.

Once again, I encourage everyone to write in, and be heard. Fleeting glory is still glory.

See you in November,

Chuck