The Dionysian

"and the fact that he didn't actually write the Constitution does not detract from his contributions to it."
I know as I went on to say
"Of course they're very important people in regards to the history of this country and I admire them both but they can't really be called "founders"

You'll have to excuse me. I'm a technical kind of guy and as long as we're getting technical Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be considered a founder in the strict sense either but he did contribute to the constitution by writing to James Madison to encourage a bill of rights to be implemented.

gilly54

Our Senator Dianne Feinstein just said on CNN that she thought the court ruling was "an embarrassment".

<a href="http://feinstein.senate.gov/contact.html" target="_blank">http://feinstein.senate.gov/contact.html</a>

I told her that rather than being an embarrassment, I was PROUD to live in a state whose judges uphold the law. I told her that now is a good time for the House and Senate to purge all religious items, such as the "In God we Trust" from our money, our taxes going to pay for a Senate Chaplain, and swearing on the Bible to uphold the Constitution. Jeez, they should swear on the Constitution to uphold the Constitution!
Any other Californian atheists care to join me?


Gilly

David Bowden

I haven't read all 12 pages of this thread, but I'm very curious: has anyone got a "we support this important decision"-type petition going around to send to lawmakers? If so, where do I sign?

Is anybody currently organizing / strategizing against the pro-"under God" spinmeisters? If so, what can I do to help?

Is AA, AU, the ACLU or II or anyone prepared(-ing) to act as a clearinghouse on this issue?

I don't want this to burn out with "under God" smelling like apple pie and its opponents looking like rabid anti-everything freaks. As far as I'm concerned, this issue's about all Americans being fairly represented in every state activity, and "under God" is an unnecessary obstacle to that end for several million American citizens, and the simple matter of correcting earlier legislative errors does not do anyone a bit of harm.
&lt;/soapboxing&gt;

So again, are there any notions as to how we might present a unified, intelligent case against "under God" to colleagues, friends, fellow citizens, our legislators, the media? Grassroots or big time, I want to be a part of this.

-Wanderer (who was stunned, frankly, to read the headline on CNN.com today)

hezekiah jones

Thanks Bluenose.

I did a quick tally of the Ninth Circuit, not that this is dispositive of anything in particular, but:

Circuit Judges appointed by:

Democrats (17/24):
Clinton 14
Carter 3 (incl. C.J. Schroeder)

Republicans (7/24):
GHW Bush 4
Reagan 3

Senior Circuit Judges appointed by:

Democrats (10/21):
Carter 9
Kennedy 1

Republicans (11/21)
Reagan 6
Nixon 5

Total Ninth Circuit appointed by:
Democrats: 26/45
Republicans: 18/45

It looks like the Reagan Revolution left the Ninth Circuit relatively unscathed. (And one of the Nixon appointees wrote this opinion.)

The numbers are with the heathens!

[Forgot a Judge]

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

99Percent

This is a response to sandlewood's post buried already pretty deep a few pages back:

This is a fight between two branches of government, the Judicial and the Legislative. The role of the courts is to protect individual rights. What is the forcing of the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance but the oppresion of the majority over individuals?

Of course Congress wants to overrule the Court of Appeals, they are representing the majority.

I hope they fail.

Secular Elation

Face it. When the decision is appealed to the SCOTUS, it's dead.

All the legal experts are saying it, and the tremendous reaction by the politicians comfirm it.

Autonemesis

Fine with me. Bring on the Second Crusade. Fuck it. Fuck it all.

Nikolai

So so so great to hear that on national television. Curently I am writing to all major networks asking them, even thogh it wont do anything, to remove the obvious bias (labels which mislead to believe that the WHOLE pledge was baned and not representing about 35% of viewership acodingly. I am also planing on writing a letter to all the members of congress countering the major points of the oposition and backing up the decision. During the rant today in the congress a senator said, "should hte decloration of independence be changed because it talks about he Creator". What is the legal term of laws only aplying to things which happend after they pass, not before?
I second the opinion that some organisation, ACLU II and others, should organise some kind of a petiontion with suport from theists as well as atheists.
Does anyone have the latest data on the persentages of each religion in the united states?

Vorkosigan

If I were the Republicans, I might ask SCOTUS to uphold this ruling. In the ensuing uproar, the Constitution is almost certain to be amended. More and more I'm thinking that this is a disaster for religious tolerance in the US....however, if in the ensuing months voices of reason can be heard, we have a fighting chance to carry the day in Congress and in the Courts.

Let the letters begin!

Vorkosigan

Bane

Excellent point.

You have to remember though that most people when they think atheist Stalin pops ito their head. Reason goes out the window once that happens. If an agnostic or a deist had done this maybe the reaction wouldn't have been as bad?