Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ashibaka · 06-26-2002, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
It's almost never sung (in fact, I've never heard it sung), but that is actually the fourth verse to the SSB.

Yup; I had to Google it to figure it out ^_^;. I doubt even 1% of atheists have a problem with an unsung verse of a work of art.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: ashibaka ]

Bill · 06-26-2002, 05:20 PM

From <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/scotus_cases2.html" target="_blank">my US Supreme Court case summaries</a> comes <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1" target="_blank">Everson v. Board of Education</a>, 330 U.S. 1 (Feb. 10, 1947), which is summarized as follows:

Justice Black (apparently with Chief Justice Vinson and Justices Reed, Douglas, and Murphy) held that a state law which, among other things, allowed parents to be reimbursed for the cost of bus fare to transport their children to and from school, did not violate the Establishment Clause by failing to eliminate reimbursements where the child attended a religious school. "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here." The standard for First Amendment jurisprudence with respect to religion, as set forth by this case, is often quoted by subsequent cases:

Quote:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'"

[Quoted from <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488" target="_blank">Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488</a> (June 19, 1961), which also noted: "While there were strong dissents in the Everson case, they did not challenge the Court's interpretation of the First Amendment's coverage as being too broad, but thought the Court was applying that interpretation too narrowly to the facts of that case."]

Note these key words from the US Supreme Court, words that you can find repeated over and over again in subsequent church/state cases:

Quote:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, AID ALL RELIGIONS [emphasis added], or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

Under these legal standards, the only incomprehensible idea is why it has taken so long for the "under God" law to be overturned.

== Bill

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]

Samhain · 06-26-2002, 05:21 PM

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hannity just got his arse handed to him on Faux news, he sat there babbling for a good 10seconds while trying to respond to Andrew Newdow's points. Oh that was great, it makes up for all the times I've seen Colmes sit there with a dumb look on his face.

Anunnaki · 06-26-2002, 05:22 PM

Newdow isn`t the most talkative guy,but he did manage to give Hannity a brief history lesson before the segment was over.

BTW,
I wish Newdow would stop making comments about how it`s gonna be "when atheists take over this country".
This was the second time I`ve heard him say something about this today and I think it`s gonna cause the theists and nuts on the right to attack and fight even harder.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]

Methos · 06-26-2002, 05:32 PM

Someone already mentioned Bill O'Reilly's take on all of this. I'm usually one of Bill's biggest supporters when he gets attacked by the left, but he's dead wrong on this. I couldn't believe it when he said that the job of the government wasn't to protect the beliefs of minorities. I was waiting for him to just say that the rights of theists are more important than that of atheists, but he didn't explicity say it. I expected more of Bill, but I should have known that his Catholic views would override his common sense.

Then Hannity was a totally ignorant jackass (not that I should have expecting anything else). Telling Newdow that he doesn't know his origins of the country was just ridiculous. And it sickens me that Holmes and Gingrich are endorsing the Republican crusade to use this as a campaign issue by saying that Democrats are blocking judges who wouldn't make rulings like this (and I'm saying this as a moderate Republican). I did laugh when Newdow said that when our government is atheistic, he'll be protecting Hannity's right to believe what he chooses

.

Eric

Bill · 06-26-2002, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
They will most likely resort to the same de minimis argument that was used to justify continuing the Congressional Chaplaincy and opening Congress and sessions of the SCOTUS with a prayer.

It's a flawed argument, though, and seeing them necessarily resort to it in order to preserve special rights for believers will only serve to highlight the moral bankruptcy of those who would suppress constitutionally guaranteed rights in order to serve special interests.

Bill:

The flaw in your logic is that part of the justification for this 9th circuit decision was the requirement that children recite the Pledge in school. The US Supreme Court has allowed the sorts of things you mention in settings where "sophisticated adults" have the freedom to come and go as they please (members of Congress are not required to attend the prayers that open their sessions, etc.), but the US Supreme Court has never countenanced either forcing people to have religion rammed down their throat (in a "forced attendance" situation), exposing school children to religious indoctronation in public schools, or forcing public school children to profess some belief that they may not hold.

This last point has its origins in <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=319&invol=624" target="_blank">West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette</a>, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178 (June 14, 1943), where the court overturned a requirement that children of members of the Jehovah's Witnesses must be forced to recite the Pledge (which, at that time, did not contain the "under God" phrase). As I say in <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/scotus_cases2.html" target="_blank">my summaries</a>:

Quote:

The key holding is: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

The Congress prescribed that a belief that our nation was "under God" was part of our patriotic duty to this country, and that belief was to be expressed every time patriotic events occur. What could be a more egregious violation of the above language?

== Bill

Bluenose · 06-26-2002, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TPaine:
"This case was NOT about us adults.
The good doctor was worried about his little girl (8yo IIRC) and the government pressure to conform, etc."

But the court has already ruled that one does not have to say the pledge. Where is this pressure?

Get real, teachers and the peer pressure to reinforce anything the teacher does everyday, like the pledge.
These are small children we're talking about.

Samhain · 06-26-2002, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunnaki:
BTW,
I wish Newdow would stop making comments about how it`s gonna be "when atheists take over this country".
This was the second time I`ve heard him say something about this today and I think it`s gonna cause the theists and nuts on the right to attack and fight even harder.

Yea, I heard that on Hannity & Colmes from him for the first time. I hope that he realizes what that is going to do for his reputation and credibility and will hopefully cease that. He makes it sound like it's going to be some kind of military action.

06-26-2002, 05:35 PM

I never thought I would see this in my lifetime. Even if it does get struck down, it's a start, and a time to remind the religious freaks that we are out here. My typing fingers are ready to go! Let's just hope that if we do make enough noise (which I know we will), the media does not decide to ignore us.

Go Infidels!

Bluenose · 06-26-2002, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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

Right on, preach it brother.

06-26-2002, 05:22 PM	#244
Anunnaki Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: I`ve left and gone away Posts: 699	Newdow isn`t the most talkative guy,but he did manage to give Hannity a brief history lesson before the segment was over. BTW, I wish Newdow would stop making comments about how it`s gonna be "when atheists take over this country". This was the second time I`ve heard him say something about this today and I think it`s gonna cause the theists and nuts on the right to attack and fight even harder. [ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

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

06-26-2002, 05:21 PM	#243
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hannity just got his arse handed to him on Faux news, he sat there babbling for a good 10seconds while trying to respond to Andrew Newdow's points. Oh that was great, it makes up for all the times I've seen Colmes sit there with a dumb look on his face.

06-26-2002, 05:32 PM	#245
Methos Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 45	Someone already mentioned Bill O'Reilly's take on all of this. I'm usually one of Bill's biggest supporters when he gets attacked by the left, but he's dead wrong on this. I couldn't believe it when he said that the job of the government wasn't to protect the beliefs of minorities. I was waiting for him to just say that the rights of theists are more important than that of atheists, but he didn't explicity say it. I expected more of Bill, but I should have known that his Catholic views would override his common sense. Then Hannity was a totally ignorant jackass (not that I should have expecting anything else). Telling Newdow that he doesn't know his origins of the country was just ridiculous. And it sickens me that Holmes and Gingrich are endorsing the Republican crusade to use this as a campaign issue by saying that Democrats are blocking judges who wouldn't make rulings like this (and I'm saying this as a moderate Republican). I did laugh when Newdow said that when our government is atheistic, he'll be protecting Hannity's right to believe what he chooses . Eric

06-26-2002, 05:35 PM	#249
BlueGreenAlga Guest Posts: n/a	I never thought I would see this in my lifetime. Even if it does get struck down, it's a start, and a time to remind the religious freaks that we are out here. My typing fingers are ready to go! Let's just hope that if we do make enough noise (which I know we will), the media does not decide to ignore us. Go Infidels!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.