Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Viti · 07-11-2002, 10:50 AM

Well...only a politician could use so many words and say absolutely nothing

Quote:

Dear Mrs. Wittman:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the phrase "under
God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, on June 26, 2002 a three-judge panel of the
federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that requiring students
to state the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was
unconstitutional. The majority decided that this phrase indicates an
established religion and violates the Constitution's Freedom of
Religion clause of the First Amendment. On June 28, the judge
who wrote the majority opinion stayed his decision, meaning that
the decision will not take effect until the appeals court reviews the
case. As you may know, under current law schools cannot force
students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or take part in school-
led prayer. I believe students should have the option to choose
what they wish to believe and express without interference from
their schools or from the federal government.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts
with me. For more information about my work for Nevada, my
role in the United States Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to
regular e-mail updates on the issues that interest you, please visit
my Web site at <a href="http://reid.senate.gov." target="_blank">http://reid.senate.gov.</a> I look forward to hearing
from you in the near future.

My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID
United States Senator

Stephen Maturin · 07-11-2002, 10:59 AM

Harry sez:

Quote:

I believe students should have the option to choose what they wish to believe and express without interference from their schools or from the federal government.

How exactly does this support Senator Reid's opposition to the ruling? Is he trying to claim that the Ninth Circuit held otherwise? This response is pretty damned bad even by "canned letter" standards.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen Maturin ]

Viti · 07-11-2002, 11:03 AM

Stephen...exactly so why did he oppose the ruling?? What exactly does he mean?

tgamble · 07-11-2002, 11:11 AM

<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28213" target="_blank">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28213</a>

"In the meantime, WorldNetDaily has learned the recent revelation that the daughter of the plaintiff is a churchgoing Christian who voluntarily says 'under God' in the pledge may potentially help the government's case."

Comments?

Stephen Maturin · 07-11-2002, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyShea:
What exactly does he mean?

Your guess is as good as anyone else's, LadyShea. Maybe he's trying to say that the ruling somehow violates students' free exercise rights. Any such claim is patently ridiculous, but that's rarely if ever enough to keep a U.S. Senator quiet.

Then again, maybe he (or more likely his staff) is doing his best to say nothing at all, just like you wrote in your OP.

hezekiah jones · 07-11-2002, 11:23 AM

Quote:

The majority decided that this phrase indicates an established religion and violates the Constitution's Freedom of Religion clause of the First Amendment.

"Established religion" my honky ass. "Freedom of religion clause" - pffft.

I would expect a United States Senator to be a little more familiar with the actual text of the Constitution than that. That sentence is truly pathetic.

And yes Reid was one of the sanctimonious Democratic panderers that took the Senate floor to express his impotent and baseless outrage. Sad, sad, sad.

Krieger · 07-11-2002, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28213" target="_blank">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28213</a>

"In the meantime, WorldNetDaily has learned the recent revelation that the daughter of the plaintiff is a churchgoing Christian who voluntarily says 'under God' in the pledge may potentially help the government's case."

Comments?

Those are just Xian-fundie propaganda-lies. Even if the mother does force the kid to go to church sometimes, that does not mean that she is a Xian.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Krieger ]

Philosoft · 07-11-2002, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyShea:
Stephen...exactly so why did he oppose the ruling?? What exactly does he mean?

What he means is, since he's a Christian it's okay to officially discriminate against atheists because this is a Christian nation and if unpatriotic atheists really want to say the pledge, well they can just not say the parts they don't agree with. Or something.

ycantibu · 07-11-2002, 12:31 PM

It does not matter if the girl is a xian or not. First, many xians do not like to say the pledge because they feel pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth is idolatry. Second, the government should not be in the business of promoting religion, even this little girl's religion. Third, it matters because, xian groups are now trying to get Newdow charged with perjury.

Autonemesis · 07-11-2002, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
"In the meantime, WorldNetDaily has learned the recent revelation that the daughter of the plaintiff is a churchgoing Christian who voluntarily says 'under God' in the pledge may potentially help the government's case."

Comments?

This means Newdow's fears of government-sponsored religious indoctrination are not entirely without basis, contrary to the claims of the anti-Newdow crowd. It weakens the government's case and strengthens Newdow's.

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

07-11-2002, 11:03 AM	#3
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Stephen...exactly so why did he oppose the ruling?? What exactly does he mean?

07-11-2002, 11:11 AM	#4
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28213" target="_blank">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28213</a> "In the meantime, WorldNetDaily has learned the recent revelation that the daughter of the plaintiff is a churchgoing Christian who voluntarily says 'under God' in the pledge may potentially help the government's case." Comments?

07-11-2002, 12:31 PM	#9
ycantibu New Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Sector 9A-1.74a Posts: 4	It does not matter if the girl is a xian or not. First, many xians do not like to say the pledge because they feel pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth is idolatry. Second, the government should not be in the business of promoting religion, even this little girl's religion. Third, it matters because, xian groups are now trying to get Newdow charged with perjury.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.