Leviathan

Toto, I believe I carefully cited that it was the law review's statements, concerning the "crayon" remark, and given the context of Newdow, and my other evidence alluding to the Ninth Circuit being a "renegade bunch of outlaws," I'd say it was a warranted remark. Hyperbole, yes, but warranted.

And once again, you make an interpretation error: I never said that the cert. argument was a certainty: I had to keep mentioning it b/c you kept misinterpreting my argument.

Pug

Your citations to Sherman, and its precedent, from my study are incorrect. The majority of Federal Court of Appeals circuits cite Sherman. Would you like me to type out *all* those citations for you to go read, or just take my word for it?

The amount of conclusory remarks by some posters here just amazes me. For starters pug, the Pledge statement has been likened to other ceremonial acts of deism upheld in other Court decisions: why do you think they were talking about it in dictum for Christ's sake. Additionally, no one, not even yourself, has attempted to answer my 4 citations that the Court warned against expanding their establishment clause jurisprudence. Now to your supposed distinction:

I fail to see how the utterance "Under God" is no different than the S. Ct. beginning its session with "God save this Honorable Court." It is the same: a ceremonial act recognizing a sovereign body which the Declaration of Independance found as well. The Pledge may be "idealistic" as you describe it, but it is a *political* act, not a religious one. To answer your second question, children should not be *required* to state the Pledge... that is distinguishable from Newdow, where there is no coercion. Coerced prayer in school is rightfully struck down, that's good law and is precedent: the distinguishing factor, one you and the Newdow court choose to ignore, is the child here is not coerced to say it.

They would be "strung up" b/c a vast majority of this nation is historically educated enough to know that religion played a key role in the development of this nation. Your "well reasoned" argument aside, you cannot point to any persuasive authority, absent a huge stretch of the Lee decision for the proposition that this has *any* chance of succeeding. It won't, and as far as the 5 justices on the Court giving their opinion: I'm sure in the mountain of evidence I've already cited, I cited that. Its in one of the law reviews: I'll try to find the source if you're so interested.

The man sits on the bench and examines complex legal issues for a living: I don't believe you, nor I, have any room to say what he's "ignorant" of. Additionally, these questions no more are germane to the issue of telling why Fernandez's dissent is "ignorant," than my telling you about my cat's disease.

Regarding the bolded, cite the decision. The recitation of the Pledge has been found by the S. Ct. to be a ceremonial recognition of the history of this nation (Justice Brennan), coupled with the remarks of O'Connor, Kennedy, and others, I'd say that numerous cases already mentioned have followed Brennan's argument.

Oh, and nice move calling the SUpreme Court "sheltered." I wonder if that's one of those remarks Toto believes doesn't provide a "healthy" debate. We're talking about some of the most distinguished legal minds in this country, and you call them sheltered? lol

The question was being sarcastic. It's clear from your own recognition that the S. Ct. would be "strung up" if they voted the majority way, what the "right" decision is. The Court constantly is pointing to "points of consensus" concerning some legal issues, such as the "evolving standards of decency" in the recent Atkins case regarding the death penalty. And please don't make the automated response that this is the court following opinion polls: the S. Ct. is merely recognizing the social and political fiber of this nation, in recognizing the history of law and the legal culture. They examine that by looking at the *overwhelming majority* of people who find the Pledge to be A OK with the constitution.

I mean, honestly, if we allow Newdow, where does it end? no teaching the Decl. of Independance? The Gettysburg Address? Can I still sing "God Bless the USA?"

Perhaps b/c there was no conflict with Supreme Court establishment clause jurisprudence?

Oh please, have you heard Newdow speak in public? The man is on an ideological mission. He doesn't even have custody of his daughter, his "wife" and little girl both object to what he's doing, and even his allies like the ACLU say he's off his rocker and won't take any help from them. One ACLU member was quoted the other day as saying, "its a lose-lose situation." Yep, I'd say so.

Guess its not that ridiculous, now is it?

And the 6th Circuit, and the other Circuits, if they've followed the Seventh, which I'll have to update, but I'm pretty sure the likelihood is pretty great.

What a baseless accusation. Does this have a point?

I have too many law reviews to cite, to which you couldn't (wouldn't?) read them. I'm just speaking concerning the amount of knowledge I have on the subject. I believe that O'Scallian's dissent in newdow II might also have such an allusion. Newdow has been cited in public as saying he wants religion completely out of the public sphere, so I'd say yep, the S. Ct. is probably going to hear such arguments.

One sentence answers this: The Supreme Court has stated that such actions have not been seen to be establishments of religion in the past. There's no force, no coercion. Do a scientific study, of little kids and let them tell you how "hurt" they are by not saying the Pledge, and then come back in 50 years, and maybe you'll have an argument.

Review my Court legitimacy arguments. Few times in this nation's history has there been such a consensual uproar about a few decisions, that the Court has radically reversed itself, admitting the error of its ways. The best example that comes to mind is Chislohm v. Georgia, with the subsequent passage of the 11th Amendment.

Polls aren't the way to decide law, but they do give allow you to temper the ability of the Court's decisions to be legitimately accepted in the public. And yes, there have been unpopular decisions that have been enforced before, such as Brown, Roe, etc., but I would stipulate that there was at least a base of people in the nation that accepted Brown and Roe. Here, its distinguishable, given that it is so overwhelmingly against the Newdow decision. 99-0, 400-20 (estimation of course), those speak pretty loudly. Hell, when Tom Daschle and G. Bush agree on something, you can call that "consensus."

You just do that, as that seems to run directly contrary to some of my quotations from Jefferson and J. Quincy Adams, concerning Jefferson's belief in religion.

Then kindly review about two posts ago, where I give a laundry list of activities Jefferson did as a President, which under your argument violated the Constitution.

Either,
a. The man who endorsed the First AMendment was a hypocrite, in drafting it

or

b. He didn't see it as a contradiction to ensure religious freedom, and prevent establishment thereof, and to do such actions I provided in the evidence.

Is it your argument that the 1954 passage of the "Under God" law was done so by "religious fundamentalists?" The vote condemning Newdow was 99-0 in the Senate. If we may assume that in the 1950's, a very conservative era, to be sure, but certainly not to the extent that the entire Congress was under that influence, if we assume the passage of that bill was by a substantial means, (I'm assuming, if you would like to show me the vote, I'd be happy to examine that), I believe your argument about "fundamentalists" supporting the "Under God" goes bye bye.

Also, 4 USC 4 was passed in 2002. I'm sure it was by a substantial majority of the Congress as well, given the 99-0 vote, (by inference of course, again I'm not sure on that), so is your argument that a majority of both houses in the present day are "fundamentalist?" I do believe democrats support the Pledge in its current form.

Pug, did you note that in Schempp the court *specifically left the Pledge part "unscathed?" I'll quote it for you again, you might have missed it in these long posts: "Notably while Bible reading and Lord's Prayer were deemed impermissible due to their wholly 'religious character' those portions of the statute regarding the Pledge escaped unscathed. In a concurring opinion, even Justice Brennan warned against any 'attempt to impose rigid limits upon the mention of God... in the classroom' as potentially 'fraught with dangers'. Brennan noted that the ''referance to divinity in the revised pledge... may merely recognize historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded Under God."

Additionally, you will note this evidence speaks to one of the Court's most vehement seperationists, Brennan, and even he recognized the danger of "taking the holding too far." I would stipulate that is exactly what Newdow has done. In contrast to what the Court did in the case just cited, the Court in Newdow did not leave the Pledge "unscathed."

I was only using that evidence to say a vote was coming up in October. But AMVETS does make a persuasive argument that Newdow threatens to do exactly what Justice Brennan, in my previous citation, warned against. Newdow takes establishment clause jurisprudence "too far" and threatens the very freedom for he public to mention God anywhere in the public light. Such a prohibition would be dangerous, and should be avoided. You want an example of taking this jurisprudence too far? Note your next argument:

Is it your argument that having "In God We Trust" on the back of quarters and money is a violation of the establishment clause? lol

No court would ever hold that. Not one. Not even close. And that's why Newdow is such bad law: b/c it allows people to make such absurd arguments. These are the "dangers" Brennan was warning us about.

Just b/c "most people here" feel that way, does not make it good law. I guess you didn't pay attention to those "limiting the holding" arguments I made, concerning the line of cases cited in Newdow. Your argument boils down to religion and government should be completely seperate. No Court has ever made such a finding, and many Courts have stated that while the seperation of church and state should be a "high" wall, it is not insurmountable. You will *never* quote me a Supreme Court justice that says that the wall is absolute.

My, ... how, persuasive. If you didn't know, taking oaths, and statements such as "God Save this Honorable Court" are made in not just here in Georgia, but in Washington D.C., and New York, and Kansas, and Washington state. I guess you need to be more up to date on how the SUpreme Court begins its sessions (those are mentioned in the citations to evidence I have provided above: did you not read those?).

Finally, just answer me one question concerning the DOI. Why did Jefferson say that God bestows rights upon men, if he didn't reflect that Americans believed it?

Calzaer

From the total layman's perspective:

If this issue doesn't count as an "establishment of religion", I don't know what would.

It would seem to me that if this doesn't actually count, NOTHING could count short of congress delcaring some denomination of Christianity as the state church... and at this rate, even that could be passed off as "ceremonial deism".

Would these people be just as adamant about the pledge's constitutionality if it said "Under gods", "Under satan", or "Under no god"? Also, please note that only one branch of religions capitalizes the word "God"... so none of this "it's not a specific god, it's a deistic god, while Satan or No Gods would be specific".

Buffman

Leviathan,

I have been attempting to give your posts serious consideration. Unfortunately you are making it increasingly more difficult to consider you a serious historical scholar. Just examine these two statements in light of the verifiable evidence. Evidence which has been presented in this forum at great length and depth many times before....all of which is available for review in the archives or other writings.

Finally, just answer me one question concerning the DOI. Why did Jefferson say that God bestows rights upon men, if he didn't reflect that Americans believed it?

Please cite the specific Jefferson quote to which you allude. Is that "Creator" nature or nature's God? It isn't a Christian god. It is a nature's God. A nature's God is the Deist's god. Is Deism a religious belief or not? Of course it is, whether Christians think so or not. Deism does not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Jefferson did not believe in the "divinity" of Jesus. Are you claiming that he did? But, IMHO, that isn't the reason that we find four deistic references to the supernatural in the DOI. (nature's God; Creator; Supreme Judge, and Divine Providence) They are there as a means to "trump" King George's claim to the title of "King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg, Elector of Hanover, Defender of the Faith." Note how it changed after the loss of the American colonies. ("By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, Elector of Hanover.) The "Defender of the Faith" phrase had been part of the British monarch's title since 1603...before the so-called "Plimoth Pilgrims" arrived in the so-called New World...which wasn't.

(Refs

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall...claration.html

http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/existence.html

http://www.regiments.org/milhist/biography/hmtitle.htm

http://pilgrims.net/plimothplantation/vtour/)

Unless one understands the religious power bestowed on the British monarch, one can not truly appreciate the significance of the DOI's allusions to a supernatural power greater than that of the British King....to whom, at that moment in time, all colonial subjects must bow. Jefferson, with numerous changes made to his draft by other members of that Congress, gained support for the rebellion from those who did not wish to follow the religious dictates of the British King. That is just one reason why no mention of a Judeo-Christian supernatural god appears in the DOI. I would estimate that 52 of those 56 signers were practicing, if not devout, Christians. The inferences you have made in several of your posts is that this group of 'founding fathers' created a Christian America. They had every opportunity to do so and elected to use the Deist God, not the Judeo-Christian one to represent a religious power greater than that of the King. A Power to which he, too, must pay homage. It was a brilliant, religious, "and non-religious," PR move by a minority of American colonists.

(Ref.)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall...ion_style.html

For starters pug, the Pledge statement has been likened to other ceremonial acts of deism upheld in other Court decisions:

As I have asked you elsewhere, and to which you have yet to provide a direct response, is Deism a religious belief? If it is, then our government has unconstitutionally established a belief in one supernatural religion over the other expressions of individual conscience concerning religious or non-religious beliefs.

(Refs.)

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/deismeng.htm

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/deismfre.htm

http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and...tuality/Deism/

Toto

I can't let this pass by. I do not think this quote is valid, and I challenge you to show that it is.

You have not yet responded to my question regarding David Barton. David Barton is a self described Christian who bears false witness. He has constructed a fake history of the US in an attempt to show that American was founded as a Christian nation.

And, as I suspected, that quote can be traced to David Barton.

From Barton's Wallbuilder's site :

So this quote, which does not sound like Jefferson, can be traced to the private writings of a Rev. Ethan Allen.

Well, I can write anything in my private diary. Does this quote sound like it came from the same man who wrote this verified public quote?

or this:

{more quotes from Jefferson here}

(Jefferson's rather complex views on Christianity can be explored here: The Exaltation of a Reasonable Deity: Thomas Jefferson’s Critique of Christianity.. He did not reject Christianity, but he viewed it as corrupt and tried to reform and simplify it.)

Buffman

Excellent reference source for Jefferson:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/

Buffman

Leviathan

"Indeed the same First Congress which would propose the Bill of Rights for ratification by the states also enacted an ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory, providing that "religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to the good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. Nor were the Northwest land grants for schools justified by these words then limited to nonsectarian schools

This is a historically inaccurate statement and is geared to promote religious propaganda more readily among those who fail to do thorough research on the issues. The quoted statement is taken out of context. (You also left out a key end quotation symbol in your paragraph. Thus your last sentence is vulnerable for further review and critique.)

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nworder.htm

I call your attention to the date, and then to Sec. 14, Arts. 1 & 3 in their entirety. Additionally, Congress did not allocate funding. You will gain a far more accurate insight into reality if you read the Congressionally violated second half of Article 3 and ask yourself why Article 1 is ignored by the author of the quote in favor of just the opening line of Art. 3. The honest seeker of accurate history would be led to the full disclosure of the history of the Ohio Company and its role in introducing self-serving language into that specific Ordinance. (Follow the money...not the claims of religious morality. Pay close attention to the names of the people who had major land holdings in those territories and how and from whom they got them.)

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/oh...ohiocomp.shtml

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/O/OhioC1oA1s.asp


On Friday, July 13, 1787, the U.S. Constitution framing fathers were in session at Philadelphia. The 13th (of 15) Continental Congresses was in session in New York, N.Y. under the Presidency of Arthur St. Clair (Penn.)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr001179))

I would like to recommend that you spend some serious time at this next URL learning some verifiable facts concerning Church-State issues before continuing to post poorly supported, if at all, quotes.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm

pug846

Not that it matters, but if you're going to quote me, at least make sure its me. Close to half of your quotes of me in your last posting aren't me.

Second, for the love of all that is holy, before you continue to tout Sherman and how all of the other circuits are citing it, as I mentioned in my last post, which you seemed to have ignored, look to see what they are citing it for. One, exactly one circuit--the 6th--is citing it for anything relevant to the pledge decision. Most are citing it for standing issues.

I'll have more to write later.

Ab_Normal

I'm not qualified at all to post on this issue, but I can't resist.

I don't see it preventing the teaching of US history at all. The difference between the Pledge and the Declaration or the Gettysburg Address is the Pledge is proscriptive - it states that the speaker gives their allegiance to the United States and to the Judaeo-Christian god. Teaching about the DoI or the Gettysburg Address is not proscriptive, it's descriptive.

First off, why in heck would you *want* to sing "God Bless the USA"? But, matters of taste aside, all Newdow is about is the Pledge of Allegiance, which was established, then altered, by federal law, and it's recitation in the public schools, which are also governmental entities. As I understand it, the crux of the issue is the phrase added in the '50's - "under God". Restore the Pledge to it's original state, and it'll pass Constitutional muster just fine. Private people and groups can still recite it with the addendum of the Judaeo-Christian God if they so desire. I'm not a logic-chopper, but I'm wondering if this is an example of the "slippery slope" fallacy.

edited to add for levity: Though, I wouldn't object to a Constitutional Amendment requiring the singing of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" during the seventh inning stretch. Feh, they did "God Blessersize America" during the All Star Game. We muted the TV and loudly sang "TMOttBG" to make up for it.

Buffman

Leviathan

As an added example of how important it is to do methodical and accurate research to uncover accurate early American history, you might take a few moments to read the entire article I selected at:

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/oh...ohiocomp.shtml

That is an official Ohio Historical Society article. Thus one would tend to look no further into the facts. However, the article contains a very misleading entry concerning the cause of the French and Indian War. Read the following and I believe you will begin to appreciate why every generalized statement must be tracked to the most original source documentation available. in order to gain an insight into the factually accurate causes rather than merely someone's opinion.

http://www.nps.gov/fone/home.htm

http://bgrahamonline.com/207b.html

http://www.thehalfking.com/halfking.htm

http://www.paladincom.com/story_outline.htm

http://web.syr.edu/~laroux/history/history.html

Obviously there are many additional citations I could present concerning this one incident...which proved to be one of the key factors leading to our Revolutionary War and the elevation of George Washington to the status of American icon... primarily by the men of devout religious training and education...for their own vested purposes. Many of the more accurate historical facts have only recently been uncovered and publicly exposed by those historical professionals who have not allowed themselbes to be unduly influenced by beliefs in the supernatural or previous historians of questionable bias. David Barton is not a professional historian. He is of questionable bias.

Leviathan

Barton cites too many authorities for the quotations in question, for me to just roll over and say, "ok, your bias against his bias is valid."

When a debate starts criticizing the person presenting the evidence, and *not the evidence*, it becomes a futile undertaking.

Buffman

Statements like these have no bearing in a debate. This is especially true when I'm citing twice or thrice as many evidentiary sources for my propositions, as others are. I don't care if you take me for a "serious historical scholar," I'm just a law school student with a background in history making an argument on an internet website. You can keep your personal remarks, I don't think your "constructive" examination of my argument is "serious" anyway.

The is no "evidence" to condemn my position. If you cannot see that this is a hotly contested political issue, with the majority of Americans seeing history my way, then just do not reply. It would be better to not converse at all, rather than go down a boring road of "you're just not informed." I have no desire to exchange my qualitifications with you.

The citation is the Declaration of Independance, if you don't know what Jefferson said there, I cannot help your ignorance. ALl the quotations I am speaking to I have offered in this very thread. For one chastizing me for not reading mounds upon mounds of evidence "already discussed" here, your burden is to review only one thread.

Nice opinion. Cite a legal authority for this conclusion. The words "ceremonial deism" come to mind. The Pledge is a *political* act, not a religious one.

A serious historical scholar would not make such a spelling error.

Oh, and btw, link-dropping, without giving the least bit of significance behind every piece of evidence you present, isn't very "scholarly" as well.

It does not matter if it was the Christian God or the Hindu God, Jefferson still recognized God. He went to church in the Capitol building, according to my evidence and according to the diaries of J. Quincy Adams. So, unless you want to join the likes of Toto in calling those pieces of evidence "lies," I'd say what exactly is your point.

Do not accuse me of dodging when I'm answering your, and three or four other posters questions, in one post. Deism is a recognition in a Sovereign God, which according to Jefferson and other founding fathers, was *central* to the beginning of this nation. Are you actually going to have the audacity to argue religion did not have a place in colonial America?

Toto, if you have ever studied Jefferson in detail, he constantly wrote many things that "supposedly" contradicted one another. I have already given you evidence acknowledging that Jefferson seemed to write propositions that, in a debate, would have *both* sides quoting Jefferson. There is no doubt that Jefferson was not a very religious person, yet he had the intellectual fiber to understand that a vast majority of this nation, in making this nation, were Christian.

Thus, all your erroneous assumptions about sources that have much more credibility than you or I do to discuss this subject, are just whispers in the wind.

No it isn't. The First Congress passed the First Amendment, and then very soon afterword made the aforementioned remarks I cited. Article 14, Section 3, that you just cited, shows that the Congress approved of "religion" being "encouraged" througout the territory. Regardless of anyone's motivations in passing such a law, such a law *was* passed, and *was* enforced, the way it was written, and it was not found unconstitutional.

Your analysis and presentation of this document furthers my argument, thank you. Section 1 says that no person shall be discriminated against on the basis of their religion, yet at the same time in Section 3 it states that religion may be encouraged. Other acts of Jefferson, I cited, such as the giving of $300 dollars to assist in the erection of churches for the Kaskaskia tribe, show that the Founding Fathers, as Presidents, supported such endeavors. And no one went crying to John Marshall about it.

I've had enough of this lecturing.
Cases I have found in my research, which address the Pledge issue.

Myers v. Loudoun, 251 F.Supp.2d 1262, (finds Newdow "entirely unpersuasive")

Bown v. Gwinnett County School District, 112 F.3d 1464, 11th Circuit (addressing whether the Pledge is Constititutional, albeit in dictum)

Chandler v. Jones, 180 F.3d 1254, 1262, 11th Circuit

Seperation of Church and State Committee v. City of Eugene, 93 F.3d 617

ACLU, 210 F.3d 703, 6th Circuit

When you get some legal authority to back Newdow, you let me know. Otherwise, do not try to lecture me about what cases say on an issue.

Interesting argument, but no court to my knowledge has made such a finding. The dissent in Newdow I, as well as other Courts, have offered that such an expansive holding of Newdow, and its "psychological coercion" presentation, could threaten numerous invasions into the public sphere.

And if you think the Pledge of Allegiance is a "giving to yourself of God," I must respectfully disagree. I'm not *that* far removed from saying the Pledge in school, and most kids groaned and didn't give a shit about it. As Fernandez stated in his dissent, only 1 out of a 1,000, maybe more, would give a damn.