Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-03-2003, 11:39 AM

From the newswire:

Court divided over pledge review

Quote:

In an extraordinary display of internal conflict, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowly voted against allowing an 11-member panel to revisit the June 2002 ruling, which declared the pledge unconstitutional because it includes the phrase �under God.� Ten members of the court signed off on two separate opinions denouncing last year�s decision and calling for a rehearing, but they were outnumbered by judges who determined that there was no need for a fresh look at the ruling.

Court dramatically contracts its Pledge of Allegiance decision

Quote:

. . .As part of its original pledge ruling, a three-judge panel of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared as unconstitutional the 1954 federal legislation adding the words "under god" to the pledge. The court, in announcing it would not rehear the case with 11 judges, removed that statement Friday in its amended opinion.

. . .

Had the court not altered its opinion, it could have paved the way for the "under god" phrase to be removed from the pledge, or might have restricted the pledge with the words "under god" from being recited in other public venues, legal scholars said.

. . .

Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the original decision as well as Friday's amended version, said in formulating the new decision he did not consider the ramifications of the court's original and broad opinion.

"It was not based on the anticipated consequences of the decision. It was based on the conclusion that the decision had gone further than it needed to resolve the problem," Goodwin said in a telephone interview from his Sisters, Ore. home. "So we withdrew that part of the opinion."

. . .

John Crossley, chairman of the University of Southern California's religious studies department, said Friday's amended opinion was a substantial change, reflecting that the court knew the original opinion could lead down a slippery slope beyond the public classroom.

"Any nation can put anything it wants in its mottos or flag salutes. That's why we have 'In God We Trust' on our coins," Crossley said. "Things about religion become unconstitutional when pushed in a public place and supported by taxpayers' money."

How confused is Crossley?

RufusAtticus · 03-03-2003, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
How confused is Crossley?

I don't know. Most of the civil liberites precident has been established over enforcement of laws and not inacting laws. I think Newdow II will make it even harder to challenge at the Supreme Court, if for no other reason than it takes Bushcroft out of the equation.

03-03-2003, 12:51 PM

That asshole Jeff Sessions is bashing atheists and praising gawd on the floor of the U.S. Senate (C-Span 2).

Stephen Maturin · 03-04-2003, 05:03 AM

The Elk Grove United School District formally announced yesterday that it plans to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court. The district will also ask that the current stay be extended. No surprises there. I also wouldn't be surprised to see brief from the Solicitor General's office, even though the federal defendants arguably have no interest in the case.

Shake · 03-04-2003, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumpy
While driving around yesterday, I had another thought about O'Scannlain's dissent.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The panel majority cannot credibly advance the notion that Newdow II is neutral with respect to belief versus non-belief; it affirmatively favors the latter to the former.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When are we going to do something about all those cars driving around without Jesus fish on the bumper? They affirmatively favor non-belief over Christianity. In order to make sure that license plates are neutral with respect to the question, every state should make sure that the ichthys symbol appears. Only in this way can the government ensure that it is not endorsing the religion of non-religion, and avoid the appearance of hostility toward Christianity.

Ahh, let 'em have their Jebus fish. I say this for a couple of reasons:[list=1][*]It'll let me keep my Darwin/Evolve fish[*]If you show them the pagan roots of their fish, they may not want it anymore[/list=1] As per #2 above, I've got a link floating around somewhere that I'll try to dig up (I think it's on my home PC). So long as they're not actually on the license plates, I don't have a real problem with them.

Speaking of the fish, here's a funny little story: one of the civilians that worked in my shop in the USAF one day was making some 'L'-shaped cutouts from a strip of magnetic tape. I asked him what they were for and he said so he could put feet on the Jebus fish!

Alonzo Fyfe · 03-04-2003, 07:20 AM

I still hold that the best argument to promulgate in fighting this -- because it is simple and easily reduced to a sound byte, is this:

"People who say the pledge, are promising to think of atheists the same way that they think of separatists/rebels, tyrants, and criminals. It is simply wrong to have a ritual where students give such a pledge."

Principia · 03-04-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Toto: O'Scannlain does a pretty good job of trying to defend the indefensible, except that he thinks that "Year of our Lord" in the date of the Constitution means that the Constitution mentions God, that the God referred to in the Declaration of Independence is a personal God, that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is some kind of official document. And then there's that footnote to McConnell. [/B]

I have only scanned the rest of this thread, so the following excerpt from the ruling might already have been cited in response to Toto's concern:

Quote:

Our decision is not inconsistent with Engel, which approved of encouraging students to �recit[e] historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or . . . sing[ ] officially espoused anthems which include the composer�s professions of faith in a Supreme Being.� 370 U.S. at 435 n.21. The Pledge differs from the Declaration and the anthem in that its reference to God, in textual and historical context, is not merely a reflection of the author�s profession of faith. It is, by design, an affirmation by the person reciting it. �I pledge� is a performative statement. See J.L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (J.O. Urmsson & Marina Sbisa eds., Harvard Univ. Press 1975) (1962). To pledge allegiance to something is to alter one�s moral relationship to it, and not merely to repeat the words of an historical document or anthem.

Toto · 03-04-2003, 11:43 AM

From the LA Times (free registration required):

'Under God' Retained as Stay Is Sought

Quote:

Meanwhile, in schools across Southern California, pledges went on as usual. Administrators and teachers said they will abide by the ruling if it stands, but none felt compelled to enforce it ahead of next week's deadline. Most said they hoped the reference to God would survive.

At Cheremoya Avenue Elementary, Yesenia's teacher, Brandy Noble, said the ban would interfere with teachers' routines and take away a valuable way of uniting children of various ethnic backgrounds. Noble, who is not religious, believes the pledge has historic value and does not force the issue of faith or patriotism.

"You want teachers to stand together and fight this," said Cheremoya Avenue Principal Chris Stehr. "What are they going to do? Arrest us?"

The ruling also has been criticized for coming at a time when the country has been altered by terrorism and is facing a potential armed conflict in Iraq.

"Right now, with the country at a crossroads of whether they're going to go to war or not, I think it sends the wrong message," said Orange County Supt. of Schools William M. Habermehl. "I hope the U.S. Supreme Court would not blink an eye at reversing this."

This is why the country is going to the dogs. School teachers who are shaping the minds of the next generation can't seem to understand that a pledge invoking God does not unite us. Or that the Ninth Circuit might be sending the right message to a President who thinks that God is guiding him to war.

03-04-2003, 04:22 PM

Court Grants Stay of Pledge Ruling

CALDONIA · 03-04-2003, 04:36 PM

This may be somewhat off the thread about the need and meaning of the "Under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegience, but I want to ask, WTF is it with the Pledge? It is usually reguired to be recited by schoolchildren, who in many cases have little understanding of it meaning (not to mention intent) and merely spout it by rote. What is being accomplished here? Do we need children to avow allegience to a country (when I was a kid, my "country" was my neighborhood)? Are we fearful that they will enlist in agencies that spy and inform on our military and strategic political secrets if they are not required to sing a slogan in school everyday?

To me, the Pledge is useless and sentimental and the issue of the introduction of "God" only makes it worse.

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

03-03-2003, 12:51 PM	#33
atheist_in_foxhole Guest Posts: n/a	That asshole Jeff Sessions is bashing atheists and praising gawd on the floor of the U.S. Senate (C-Span 2).

03-04-2003, 05:03 AM	#34
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	The Elk Grove United School District formally announced yesterday that it plans to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court. The district will also ask that the current stay be extended. No surprises there. I also wouldn't be surprised to see brief from the Solicitor General's office, even though the federal defendants arguably have no interest in the case.

03-04-2003, 07:20 AM	#36
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	I still hold that the best argument to promulgate in fighting this -- because it is simple and easily reduced to a sound byte, is this: "People who say the pledge, are promising to think of atheists the same way that they think of separatists/rebels, tyrants, and criminals. It is simply wrong to have a ritual where students give such a pledge."

03-04-2003, 04:22 PM	#39
atheist_in_foxhole Guest Posts: n/a	Court Grants Stay of Pledge Ruling

03-04-2003, 04:36 PM	#40
CALDONIA Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunnyvale,CA Posts: 371	This may be somewhat off the thread about the need and meaning of the "Under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegience, but I want to ask, WTF is it with the Pledge? It is usually reguired to be recited by schoolchildren, who in many cases have little understanding of it meaning (not to mention intent) and merely spout it by rote. What is being accomplished here? Do we need children to avow allegience to a country (when I was a kid, my "country" was my neighborhood)? Are we fearful that they will enlist in agencies that spy and inform on our military and strategic political secrets if they are not required to sing a slogan in school everyday? To me, the Pledge is useless and sentimental and the issue of the introduction of "God" only makes it worse.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.