Freethought & Rationalism Archive

braces_for_impact · 06-27-2002, 05:31 AM

There go our civil liberties down the drain. I just watched fox news where they had to broadcast the congressional chaplain's prayer. Where the chaplain indeed confirmed that "we all put our trust and are accountable to YOU" and "as we state our patrionism we state our trust and accountability in YOU." I feel not just sorry for non-believers, but those of other faiths as well.

muon · 06-27-2002, 05:32 AM

I must admit I'm taken aback at how vociferous the usually liberal media has been over this issue. CNN referred to this case as "pledge persecution", and has paraded a number of "legal experts" saying that the ruling violated common sense.

I have a question, though ... For those of you who were around in the 1960's, how does the public and media reaction compare to what came in the wake of O'Hare's school prayer victory?

Barney Gumble · 06-27-2002, 05:46 AM

It was a very busy day yesterday, so I just found out about this last night and hit the boards. Fascinating that this actually occurred, and depressing 5 seconds later when you discover the majority�s reaction.

Has anyone tried to contact Michael Newdow and inform him of the existence of the secular web? I�d love to see him participate in these threads. I haven�t seen the interviews with him, but bear in mind that he�s the direct target of much of the hate and bile being spewed forth, it�s quite a different situation when you�re on the frontlines being pushed and pulled by every news media organization and thrust into the gaping maw of a ravenous public who feel you�re bent on a bath to turn the U.S. into a godless communist nation. I wouldn�t expect him to be perfectly composed and eloquent for every possible interview, there are bound to be instances where he doesn�t come across as impeccable as we�d all imagine ourselves to be.

Thank Jeebus for the secular web though. I�m not in the states, but the reaction I�ve witnessed is sorely depressing. Infidels.org is an oasis in a desert of ignorance.

hezekiah jones · 06-27-2002, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin:
Hezekiah,

You can find detailed info on 9th Circuit en banc procedures <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/documents.nsf/92f189376da994a0882567dd00617f3f/674c8c01d0f4ee63882566d3007e6a70?OpenDocument" target="_blank">here</a>.

Thank you kindly.

Quote:

In brief, all active judges vote on whether to grant an en banc rehearing. If a majority votes to allow reconsideration, then the case gets decided by an 11-judge panel consisting of the Chief Judge (Mary Schroeder) and ten active judges drawn by lot. Apparently, judges with senior status don't participate in any of this.

That will be another GOP talking point. Some wag already mentioned that if Daschle and Leahy hadn't been so "obstructionist" with the Shrub's federal court nominees, Goodwin, who is a Senior Circuit Judge, wouldn't even have had the opportunity to participate in the present case. I don't know if there is any merit to this observation or not, not that that matters to the parade of conservative pundits.

Quote:

So, what happens next? If the 9th Cir. reverses itself, I suspect that the Supreme Court won't take the case at all.

And O'Connor can breathe yet another sigh of relief at her next cocktail party.

Quote:

Once it takes the case, ... [t]he Court would have to eviscerate a ton of precedent to [overrule it], and its ruling wouldn't even pass the straight face test.

That's how I see it too.

Quote:

When it comes to counting heads for a vote on the merits, it's anyone's guess. The only votes to affirm that I'm reasonably confident about are Stevens and Ginsburg.

You have to wonder about Stevens too. Remember that dissent he wrote in the Texas flag burning case. This Pledge deal may rekindle those flames of patriotism.

Quote:

If the others go along with what they themselves have written in past cases, then the 9th Cir. ruling gets affirmed. However, this is a mighty squirrely bunch of people we're talking about. For example, I can easily see O'Connor and Kennedy voting to reverse based on some twisted, bizarre (and, of course, unexpressed) notion of restoring public confidence in the Court.

Yeah there's so much precedent available at this stage of the game any judge anywhere can pretty much justify anything. And given the overwhelming opposition to this ruling (I am still disgusted with the sanctimonious grandstanding in the Senate yesterday) the Supremes would look like superheroes to the god people by invalidating it.

Quote:

Time will tell. In the meantime, though, the folks at RNC headquarters can kick back and watch the $$$ roll in.

You got that right.

Quote:

Edited to add: Just read a blurb from an AP article in which Laurence Tribe is quoted as saying that a reversal is almost certain.

That's not good. I'll look for that and find out why. I'm sure Tribe's analysis is a trifle deeper than the unmitigated horseshit we were hearing yesterday.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>

Enlighten Me · 06-27-2002, 05:48 AM

Opponents of the decision say that people don't "have to" say the words "under God," yet a few weeks ago on a Fox News program (Britt Hume?) much was made of a congresswoman who ommitted those words during a recitation. The program seem eager to "expose" her. She, on the other hand, seemed eager to attribute her ommission to a "distraction." Anyone whose career relies on public perception MUST appear to oppose the court's decision.

My local newspaper and the Los Angeles Times both have editorials that oppose it, and the LA Times is usually described as "liberal." But can you imagine the loss of revenues from cancelled subscriptions if a newspaper endorsed the decision?

Godless Dave · 06-27-2002, 05:50 AM

Here's my letter to Senator Paul Wellstone:

Quote:

Dear Senator Wellstone,

I have been a supporter of yours since 1990 when I heard you speak at a rally at Macalester College. Since your election to the Senate you have been a refreshing voice for the disadvantaged and a defender of human rights, human dignity, and the American way. You have not hesitated to stand on principle even when it meant opposing your colleagues in the Senate. I was therefore greatly disappointed when I learned that you had voted for yesterday’s Senate resolution condemning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that the addition of “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. I had thought that as a member of a religious minority yourself you would understand how important it is to keep the government from forcing religious beliefs on citizens. Congress could just as easily insert “under Jesus Christ” into the pledge. How would you feel about that?

I am sorry you do not think non-religious Americans like myself are important enough to deserve the same protection under the law that other Americans enjoy. And I am disgusted that you do not seem to understand the Constitution of our great country, which as a Senator you are sworn to uphold. Important as it is to keep that snake Coleman out of the Senate, I don’t know if I can bring myself to vote for you this November, since you have made it clear that my civil rights do not matter to you.

hezekiah jones · 06-27-2002, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by braces_for_impact:
I find it disturbing that one would rather shake confidence in the court system than let go of their superstitions.

Yes, it's pretty crass. The 2002 Congressional campaign has just begun in earnest.

Quote:

I would be interested in seeing some "junk" cases of other courts for comparison. Anyone know where to look?

Not sure what you mean by "junk cases" but <a href="http://www.findlaw.com/10fedgov/judicial/appeals_courts.html" target="_blank">findlaw</a> is the place to start.

Bill Snedden · 06-27-2002, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prometevsberg:
<strong>Dr. Andrew Newdows homepage
<http://www.restorethepledge.com/></strong>

I tried to send him a note of encouragement, but apparently his server's not responding...

Writer@Large · 06-27-2002, 06:08 AM

Godless Dave,

I love your second paragraph, and I borrowed shamelessly from it just now for a letter I was composing. Some well-put thoughts.

--W@L

britinusa · 06-27-2002, 06:36 AM

For me, yesterday's euphoria has given way to deep despair this morning.
The sheer ferocity of the reaction to the SF ruling took me by surprise. I've only been in this country for 3 years and I guess I have a lot to learn.
We are a million light years away from winning the battle against ignorance and superstition. Atheists really are hated in this country. Did you all notice how the talking heads on Fox News, CNN etc. spit out the word "atheist", as if they're saying "rapist"?
I heard E.D Donahey this morning on Fox & Friends. She wondered how Michael Newdow could fill his daughter's head with atheist views. "She's only seven!" E.D. wailed. Compared to xian parents, he started late. Most kids in this country are indoctrinated into the xian cult from the day they're born.
I have to say, however, that I don't like this Newdow guy. All this stuff about "atheists taking over the world" makes me cringe. If I were a suspicious-minded person, I'd say he was a fundie hired by Jerry Falwell to sabotage our efforts.
Newdow hasn't done his daughter any favours. I feel very sorry for her. She's in for a rough ride.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-27-2002, 05:31 AM	#321
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	There go our civil liberties down the drain. I just watched fox news where they had to broadcast the congressional chaplain's prayer. Where the chaplain indeed confirmed that "we all put our trust and are accountable to YOU" and "as we state our patrionism we state our trust and accountability in YOU." I feel not just sorry for non-believers, but those of other faiths as well.

06-27-2002, 05:32 AM	#322
muon Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,767	I must admit I'm taken aback at how vociferous the usually liberal media has been over this issue. CNN referred to this case as "pledge persecution", and has paraded a number of "legal experts" saying that the ruling violated common sense. I have a question, though ... For those of you who were around in the 1960's, how does the public and media reaction compare to what came in the wake of O'Hare's school prayer victory?

06-27-2002, 05:46 AM	#323
Barney Gumble Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,382	It was a very busy day yesterday, so I just found out about this last night and hit the boards. Fascinating that this actually occurred, and depressing 5 seconds later when you discover the majority�s reaction. Has anyone tried to contact Michael Newdow and inform him of the existence of the secular web? I�d love to see him participate in these threads. I haven�t seen the interviews with him, but bear in mind that he�s the direct target of much of the hate and bile being spewed forth, it�s quite a different situation when you�re on the frontlines being pushed and pulled by every news media organization and thrust into the gaping maw of a ravenous public who feel you�re bent on a bath to turn the U.S. into a godless communist nation. I wouldn�t expect him to be perfectly composed and eloquent for every possible interview, there are bound to be instances where he doesn�t come across as impeccable as we�d all imagine ourselves to be. Thank Jeebus for the secular web though. I�m not in the states, but the reaction I�ve witnessed is sorely depressing. Infidels.org is an oasis in a desert of ignorance.

06-27-2002, 05:48 AM	#325
Enlighten Me Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Southern Ca. Posts: 1,109	Opponents of the decision say that people don't "have to" say the words "under God," yet a few weeks ago on a Fox News program (Britt Hume?) much was made of a congresswoman who ommitted those words during a recitation. The program seem eager to "expose" her. She, on the other hand, seemed eager to attribute her ommission to a "distraction." Anyone whose career relies on public perception MUST appear to oppose the court's decision. My local newspaper and the Los Angeles Times both have editorials that oppose it, and the LA Times is usually described as "liberal." But can you imagine the loss of revenues from cancelled subscriptions if a newspaper endorsed the decision?

06-27-2002, 06:08 AM	#329
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	Godless Dave, I love your second paragraph, and I borrowed shamelessly from it just now for a letter I was composing. Some well-put thoughts. --W@L

06-27-2002, 06:36 AM	#330
britinusa Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: State College, PA Posts: 283	For me, yesterday's euphoria has given way to deep despair this morning. The sheer ferocity of the reaction to the SF ruling took me by surprise. I've only been in this country for 3 years and I guess I have a lot to learn. We are a million light years away from winning the battle against ignorance and superstition. Atheists really are hated in this country. Did you all notice how the talking heads on Fox News, CNN etc. spit out the word "atheist", as if they're saying "rapist"? I heard E.D Donahey this morning on Fox & Friends. She wondered how Michael Newdow could fill his daughter's head with atheist views. "She's only seven!" E.D. wailed. Compared to xian parents, he started late. Most kids in this country are indoctrinated into the xian cult from the day they're born. I have to say, however, that I don't like this Newdow guy. All this stuff about "atheists taking over the world" makes me cringe. If I were a suspicious-minded person, I'd say he was a fundie hired by Jerry Falwell to sabotage our efforts. Newdow hasn't done his daughter any favours. I feel very sorry for her. She's in for a rough ride.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.