Buffman

pug846

(Should I infer that you have a reason behind not spelling my name correctly after you having been a member here since Mar 01? If so, perhaps I should infer things based on your birthday and unknown location. They are just "words" on a screen....until they become "words" on a screen used to manipulate. However, "No Big Deal.")

Lets review. I think certain things like the words Under Godin the pledge are not that big of a deal.

That is your prerogative. However, I take considerable umbrage with my government "establishing" a national pledge to some unidentified supernatural god...or printing money that honors a supernatural god...or that declares I "trust in" some supernatural god. All of these are just words. The Bible and the Constitution are filled with just words. What I have been attempting to share with you is my belief that words are the means by which our minds are conditioned to have our bodies take the actions about which we, or others, do care. Why do you think that the expression "The pen is mightier than the sword" was coined? I fully appreciate that you do not find the words "under God" worthy of so much heated concern. I agree. I wasn't concerned until my government decided that it needed to include those words into the public square as some sort of litmus test of my fealty.

One of our differences of opinion probably stems from the fact that I grew up in the period before those words were deemed necessary by my government. There was no "under God" in the Pledge. There was no "IGWT" on the currency. "E Pluribis Unum" had been the national motto for more than 172 years. Who were the people that decided that we suddenly needed these words backed by our federal government...and why? What was/is their ultimate goal?

I think other things are.

Humans often have different motivations founded on their belief systems. However, from whence do those belief systems arise? WORDS!


Ive provided examples ad nausea.

I certainly do not find fault with your desires and goals...or examples. I do question your understanding of what is at stake because of the inclusion of "certain words" by our, supposedly, secular government.

While I have not fully articulated my standard, through example, I think Ive made clear what I do think is important.I dont feel the need to rehash. Whether the issue affects me does not change my characterization from not a big dealto a big deal.Again, Ive provided a handful of examples of issues I find important and none of them having anything to do with me.

Au contraire! I think you have done a fine job of articulating your position. I merely do not agree with it and have attempted to explain why. You are the one giving undo power and personal meaning to my "words." You are allowing my dissent to become some sort of attack on your "beliefs." That is not the case. You have every right to believe as you do...just as I have every right to question those beliefs to better gain an insight into why you hold them.

There are tons of issues that come up each Supreme Courts term that I dont particularly care about; if youre honest with yourself, Im sure you would admit the same. Yet, that doesnt mean you have a lack of regard for the constitution.It simply means you have priorities and you do not think every issue is that big of a deal.

I agree completely.

Kevbo

B-I-N-G-O :notworthy

enfant terrible

I think Newdow will mess this up big time by insisting to represent himself, which will postpone the chance to strike down the 1954 act by many years. He should get an experienced lawyer instead. The best thing that can happen is that he doesn't get admitted to the Supreme Court Bar; then he'll have to get a real lawyer.

He is eager to argue the merits of the case, and his case is very strong on the merits: the addition of "under God" was so obviously unconstitutional that it should be a no-brainer. And while the three extreme conservatives on the Court will probably take a shameless "The Constitution be damned!" stance, there is very good reason to believe O'Connor and Kennedy (or at least one of them, which is enough) will not follow them. That reason is
the Allegheny decision in which O'Connor concurred, and Kennedy dissented, but in his dissent asserted, correctly, that if the holiday display in that dispute were unconstitutional, then (among other things) the phrase "under God" must be, too. O'Connor could hardly explain the inconsistency if she upheld "UG", while Kennedy is known for his respect of the Court's precedents.

But do the conservative Justices O'Connor and Scalia really want such an outcome? Hardly. So what will they do? They will try to avoid ever getting to the merits! They will try to decide that Newdow has no standing to sue, or find some other legal technicality that will get them off the hook.

This is going to be Newdow's weak point. He simply has no experience and knowledge in such matters. He will also be less helped by amicus briefs than on the merits. His standing has been challenged repeatedly and it certainly doesn't help that the daughter's mother is opposed to the suit. He will come to the SC to fight a grand battle, only to get stuck in the mud before even getting to the front. And he will be facing a much less sympathetic court than in the previous stage.

An additional complication is that it really does hurt that the 9th Circuit has backed away from declaring the statute unconstitutional. And Newdow's petition on that matter seems legally weak. The SC cannot reverse something that hasn't been decided. The 9th Circuit didn't say the act was constitutional; it just reserved judgment on that. In any case, the SC can at best take on that issue de novo, rather than owing deferrence to the lower court's reasoning, which would be the case had last year's opinion survived. (Not that it would likely matter in practice, but it would be harder to justify avoiding the merits.)

It should also be noted that this case was never tried in the District Court; all of this is interlocutory appeal of the District Court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. The SC could avoid (or at least postpone) the issue by simply affirming the 9th Cirduit on this narrow issue and remanding all the way back to the District Court for further proceedings. At least O'Connor could hope the case wouldn't come back to the SC before she retires. And Kennedy could hope that Stevens would retire or die while Bush is president, so that he wouldn't have to be the pivotal Justice either.

If there is any practical implication of these arguments, it is that organizations that file amicus briefs supporting Newdow should make sure to address the technical and procedural issues and not just the merits.

pug846

Buffman said:

They are just words until you show me how they matter or make a difference. But you haven’t shown me atheists face any sort of meaningful discrimination. All you can provide is the words in the pledge, a token number of unenforceable language, and some other, for the most part trivial, examples of “discrimination.” If that’s the discrimination atheists face, then we don’t have it that bad. More to the point, we have it a lot better than a lot of groups. So, in the end, I still just shrug about the pledge decision.

Rusting Car Bumper

That's the rub. Any acts of discrimination will simply be challenged by you as "not meaningful."

DC

Buffman

pug846

They are just words until you show me how they matter or make a difference. But you havent shown me atheists face any sort of meaningful discrimination. All you can provide is the words in the pledge, a token number of unenforceable language, and some other, for the most part trivial, examples of discrimination.If thats the discrimination atheists face, then we dont have it that bad. More to the point, we have it a lot better than a lot of groups. So, in the end, I still just shrug about the pledge decision.

Two thoughts for consideration.

1. Was there any discrimination of disabled individuals prior to those laws, at the URL I provided, being passed?

2. What are the consequences of prejudice?

http://users.ipfw.edu/bordens/social/prejudice.htm

3. What are some specifics:

http://atheismawareness.home.att.net.../debate013.htm

Start reading the verifiable examples "after" the Christian statement below. They are rather "meaningful" discrimination to those personally involved.

"...that there are by far more Christians who are victim to these attacks than there are atheists."

pug846

DCchicken said:

Well, I obviously could do that. (I wouldn’t.) But I’ve provided quite a few examples of what I consider real discrimination. (Not being able to adopt, not being able to marry, wage gap, denial of basic health services, educational opportunities, etc.) I’m sorry, but unenforceable language just doesn’t do it for me. While there probably is a middle ground where we would disagree about what constitutes “meaningful discrimination,” I don’t see anything even really approaching that. I’m more than willing to be proven wrong.