Berenger Sauniere

Hey, they can have their version of the apocalypse, and I can have mine.
My threat was directed towards the theology of Christianity, not human beings. That's what separates me from them.

Bill Snedden

From that Australian newspaper:

Of course it does no such thing. This type of inaccurate and irresponsible reporting is just the sort of thing that causes the mob to get so heated up about an issue that, in reality, might not concern the majority quite so much if they really understood it.

The majority of headlines regarding this ruling have focused on the "banning" of the pledge. The reporting has been mostly about people's emotions, with very little space given to the actual law and legal reasoning behind the decision. Not a single TV or news report that I have seen has had a single person discussing the legal and constitutional reasons why "under god" should remain in the pledge. Not one.

I wonder why?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Skeptictank

Forget the Onion!

Satirewire.com <a href="http://www.satirewire.com/news/june02/pledge.shtml" target="_blank">got their first!</a>

I love it!

Reverend Mykeru

Well, Bill, if there is anything that this issue has shown, is that the commercial news media can no longer be trusted to give a fair, balance and intelligent take on issues. However, they can be relied on to over-simplify, dumb-down and pour gasoline on the fire.

Case in point: Our buddies over at Fox. The insist in describing the issue as "banning the pledge" rather than the reality, which is a judicial ruling on a sly insertion into the pledge which attempts to make a religious view ride the coattails of a patriotic affirmation.

This morning Fox continued their outraged fury-whipping, toned down somewhat by Judge Goodwin's "flip-flop" on his own ruling and disingenuous puzzlement over why he would do that.

Gee, could it be the death threats leveled against him and his own realization that the President and legislature are not even capable of thinking through this intelligently?

This morning's talking heads included Rev. Richard Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Gary Bauer, who I simply cannot look at without thinking, for some reason "extensive bondage pornography collection". Lynn was perfectly reasonable, explaining that the "under God" part of the pledge was a later insertion into a patriotic pledge that attempted to turn it into an affirmation of monotheism and that everyone, both secular and religious, benefit from maintaining distinct speres of influence between churches and government.

Bauer, of course, was having none of that. He is the poster boy for not only fundamentalist deceit, but also someone who lacks the intellectual integrity to keep his own personal religious views out of legislation. Bauer seemed content to adopt the usual fundy strategy of simply lying through his ass, claiming that this was a Christian nation, that the founders were believers, that if you actually put teeth in the establishment clause you would have to "sand blast" God off the monuments in DC.

Which is a scary point of view to think that because some of the founders were theists in their personal beliefs, that therefore the Establishment Clause can have no meaning and theocracy is the law of the land, despite what the Constitution says, because many of these same people were also slave owners.

Of course, Bauer's strategy of simply making up history as he goes along is effective due to the now well establshed fact that the great majority of the American public are ignorant fuckwits who simply don't know enough to see through some lying ass con man when he is attempting to sell them The Brooklyn Bridge, if for no other reason that they really want to own the Brooklyn Bridge.

And through all this, the only person who even made reference to the actual argumentation of Goodwin's decision was Lynn. Bauer focused on lies and stupid slippery slope arguments.

It's sad that people in this country know so little about our own history, and have such thinly disguised contempt for both the Bill of Rights and the minority view it protects. It's been said that people get the sort of government they deserve, and the more I think about it, the less appalled I am by the thought of American slipping from Constiutional Democracy, because most people in this country do not want, nor deserve to, live in a democracy.

britinusa

Just another take on this. Not one I necessarily agree with, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.
Defending democracy and defending the constitution are quite often mutually exclusive. Lets face it, the vast majority of Americans are outraged by the SF ruling, but the "under god" bit is clearly unconstitutional. So which is more important? Democracy today, or a document written over 200 years ago?
Is the U.S. constitution & Bill of Rights flawless? Were the Founding Fathers so wonderful? My own opinion: if the majority want "under god" inserted into the pledge, they should CHANGE the constitution FIRST, not VIOLATE it.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: britinusa ]</p>

hezekiah jones

lolololol

Reverend Mykeru

britinusa

Why? One would think that Lucifer could either 1. Afford a really good attorney or 2. Act as his own attorney. It was good enough for Ted Bundy.


Part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect people from "the tyranny of the majority" and affirm individual rights, so that is not contentious at all.

Other things the "vast majority" of Americans believe in:

God
Angels (even having your own personal angel)
ESP
Kennedy Conspiracy Theories


Or, to phrase it differently "a document written over 200 years ago or a document (The Bible) written ten times that long ago?"

The Constitution is more important. With the Consitution you can maintain democracy, but without it, being that a significant percentage of Americans are ignorant, non-thinking, shallow, Bible hugging crypto-fascists, it is not clear that democracy here could survive without it.

Remember: Tyranny of the majority is bad. Sort of like what happens if you make argumentum ad populum a rule of law.

No, not flawless. But then again, my car is not "flawless" in the sense of being able to violate the law of Conservation of Energy, but it gets me where I need to go.

If your criteria for having something is "flawlessness", please cite something "flawless" for comparison.


Yes. They were. Slackers could not have come up with something like the US Constitution.

Agreed. The bastards should have the courage of their convictions to try to repeal the Establishment Clause and be done with it. Of course, that is not how they work. They prefer "stealth" methods, like running candidates for school boards who don't reveal their affiliation until they are sitting on the board.

Shadowy Man

If they want to keep "under God" in the Pledge, they should change the last part to "with Liberty and Justice for Some."

hezekiah jones

Welcome, fellow Wisconsinite, and touché.

Shadowy Man

Just read this at <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/ny-lipled172764876jun27.story?coll=ny%2Dnews%2Dprint" target="_blank">Newsday.com</a>



Have these people even read the Constitution?
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />