Darwin's Finch

I'm writing my letter to the Sacramento Bee. I need to know exactly what Congress did in 1954. Was it a statute? Some kind of resolution? Please help out. I don't want this letter to get published and then be lambasted by some fundie law student because I didn't do my homework!

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Darwin's Finch ]</p>

The Dionysian

"My friend said he heard Sean Hannity spouting off about how Jesus wrote the Constitution."

Hahahahahahahaha! If that's true I think Hannity can be deemed clinically insane.

Mageth

Darwin's Finch, read the ruling. A link to it was posted earlier in the thread.

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

hezekiah jones

No. I was watching C-SPAN for a bit and I'm disgusted at the Senators that spoke: Byrd, Reid, Sessions, and Lott. Obviously they have little or no respect for minority religious views. Also it's incredible that these Senators would rush to condemn a decision that they probably have not even read. Sessions was practically incoherent, babbling about the free exercise clause. This decision has nothing to do with the free exercise clause.

That most of these clowns are attorneys is even more disturbing. I would expect something of a more clearheaded objection to the reasoning in the decision from United States Senators, rather than the likes of Robert Byrd blubbering about reading from his Bible in public, and daring the courts to put him in jail for doing so. It's embarrassing.

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

kookiejar

I just dashed off a letter to the Omaha World Herald telling everyone that Micheal Newdow is a patriot and a hero and should be saluted by every American who loves the Constitution this 4th of July.

Can't wait to see the angry responses THAT gets...hee hee hee

Bill Snedden

I just finished reading the opinion in toto and I'm quite impressed with the close line of argument the majority followed in reaching their decision. The logic is impeccable and their legal reasoning absolutely solid.

I am, however, appalled at what apparently passes for logic and reasoning in the dissent by Justice Fernandez. He lays out the basis of his partial objection in the first paragraph of his opinion:

Why, oh why, do accomodationists still insist on dragging out this tired old fallacy every time this argument comes up? Of course, no one is attempting to "drive religious expression out of public thought." We are attempting to secure our constitutional right to be free of government proselytization!

Justice Fernandez is absolutely correct in holding that the Establishment clause is not intended and should not be used to drive religion out of the public square. As individuals, our elected officials are absolutely free to express their religious viewpoints, to pray before every meeting and vote, to make prayer breakfasts a regular part of their agendas, to speak openly and candidly about their faith, etc, etc. It is only the State that is prohibited from doing so. Why is it so difficult for this clear and simple distinction to pass through the skulls of otherwise highly educated people?

Adding the "under God" nonsense to the Pledge in 1954 was a violation of the establishment clause not because it sought to add mention of "god" to "public thought", but precisely because it forces citizens to relinquish their constitutional right to freedom of religion everytime they recite it. It has nothing to do with "religion in the public square" and everything to do with official State endorsement of religion.

And the usual response from accomodationists about people having the freedom not to say the pledge is patently offensive. As a U.S. citizen, I want to affirm my allegiance; I demand my right to do so. It is unconscionable that the majority should have the right to force me to relinquish my constitutional rights in order to pledge allegiance to the very constitution that guarantees them. Indeed, for that very reason, I can't see why anyone in their right mind would disagree with this ruling.

The remainder of Justice Fernandez's dissent is equally specious. He repeats the same old de minimis argument used to justify the continuation of the Congressional Chaplaincy. Unfortunately, this argument amounts to, "well, it might be technically wrong, but no one's being really hurt." Well, Justice Fernandez, last time I looked, two wrongs still don't make a right. I'm glad this Justice wasn't on the bench for the Miranda case.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

ELECTROGOD

Actually "In God We Trust" IS some off-the-wall, Christian, Right Wing, political slogan that was added to the money along with "one nation under god" in the pledge that many people including children are required to recite back in the early 1950's by the anti-communist right wingers (research MacCarthyism). Most people seem oblivious to that today and think, mistakenly, that it has always been our nation's "motto". By putting "In God We Trust" in public schools and government buildings that service all people, including many Americans who do not believe in an unproven god, some are trying to declare that their (or any) god is what rules the nation. That is what the Taliban did except that they have been a little more successful and getting the people to accept it. If the government is going to back religion then it need to be able to prove the infalibility of the religion it chooses, otherwise it doesn't know what the heck it is pumping money and power into. There are fakers, cults, small religions, large religions, mostly forgotten religions, gods and spirits of all sorts that no one can prove or agree with. Obivously the only conclusion is that the government can only officially back one religion or back them all...every last strange belief...or...none at all and let people handle their own beliefs.

About the founding of this country as it pertains to Christianity:

Both Washington and John Adams, both Federalists, proclaimed religious days of fasting and prayer. These proclamations were highly controversial at the time, and received much press. Jefferson broke with this tradition, after his election, much to the dismay of adherents of the Congregationalist Church, and lauded by the Baptists who were being persecuted in some states.
NEITHER Washington nor Adams were Christians. Adams was a Deist, and it is believed Washington was as well, but he was generally tight lipped about religion. He never took the sacraments, was never heard to utter a prayer himself, and refused to expel a Universalist Chaplin from the army for not believing in hell.
In fact, the following founders were admittedly either Deists, agnositics or atheists: Thomas Paine, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. (Read 2000 years of Disbelief, by James Haught, for some excellent quotes).
The Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously by the senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797 states "...The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
What is often lost when discussing what the founders believed is the fact that the construction of the Constitution was anything but harmonious. The Federalists, many of whom were monarchists, were generally satisfied with the checks and balances of the document. The Republicans, who advocated a single assembly government, but weren't going to get it, felt that more protections were needed and insisted upon a "Bill of Rights." The Federalists gave in because it was clear that ratification was impossible without these amendments.
As with all human endeavors, the final product was an act of compromise. But that compromise, regardless of any individual founder's beliefs, very clearly separates Church and State. Admittedly, the language of the First Amendment leaves it open as to how separate they should be. Yet, the framers who insisted on the Bill of Rights, and succeeded in gaining its passage, were unambiguous about their desire to build an impenetrable wall between religion and government.

atheist_in_foxhole

I'm watching C-Span and it looks like the U.S. Senate resolution is going to be *unanimous* in its support of the pledge.

Mageth

Im worried. The case was against her being forced to say the pledge. If appealed, would the higher court have to directly deal with the constitutionality of the pledge itself because of the previous ruling, or can they skip it, totally destroy the ruling and just say it was unconstitutional to make her recite it in the first place? Heres hoping the higher courts aren't too conservative.

No, the case was not about her being forced to say the pledge. The SC ruled that unconstitutional in 1943. And the ruling does not address the constitutinality of the pledge, but of the 1954 amendment that added "under God" to the pledge.

d'naturalist

And why can't a black man just not join the country club? Or why can't a woman just not get equal pay for equal work? Because it's discrimination. Christians do not deserve special rights.

Now it looks like the Congress is voting to codemn the 9th courts decision? Why in HELL (if you'll pardon the pun) are we fighting the imposition of a single religion by the Taliban in Afghanistan if we're going to do the same thing in this country?

Time to call the fundies on their position. America can be a christian country or a free country... it can't be both.