Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HRG · 06-27-2002, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SanDiegoAtheist:


Believe me, Sen. Feinstein has already heard from me on this issue.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist...

who will no longer vote for Sen. Feinstein if she continues on this path. Time for me to jump ship to a party that supports the First Amendment otherwise.

The trouble is that jumping ship won't be very effective if both parties of a two-party system agree on a topic.

HRG, realizing the advantages of proportional voting and multiparty systems ....

Dark Jedi · 06-27-2002, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Writer@Large:
Well, bone them all. Now I'm *definetly* going to the Godless Americans March. All this hatred, all this anger, all this ... *bullshit* has got me riled up. That march needs all the numbers it can muster.

I need me some "Bad Religion" songs right about now

.

--W@L

I happen to have "Sorrow" wailing away right now. I'll turn it up for you.

uhcord · 06-27-2002, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Since you seem to have done a great job with your fellow students, do you think that you could do the same thing for our legislators?

The legislators are probably as brainwashed as my teacher.

John Page · 06-27-2002, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scientiae[retired]:
I wonder if we have heard any support or opinions from theists on this board?

Very limited, I started a thread under Existence of God <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000410" target="_blank">link here</a>. Anyone familiar with responses on non-xian boards, for example the liberty of any American to say "under Allah"/

Dark Jedi · 06-27-2002, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluenose:


When the dust settles only the 9 supremes will will be casting the final vote.

Can I use this? It is the perfect ending to my letter to the editor, I am addressing the constitutionality and the bill of rights versus mob rule. This will tie it all up quite nicely.

SanDiegoAtheist · 06-27-2002, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG:


The trouble is that jumping ship won't be very effective if both parties of a two-party system agree on a topic.

HRG, realizing the advantages of proportional voting and multiparty systems ....

Oh believe me...I agree with you.

However, many democrat's margins in the polls are not large enough to survive a large defection from a core (even if very underappreciated) group for the Democrats...the majority of non-religious voters DO tend towards democrats. Voting for a third party, while it certainly won't get that third party elected, might just make some democrats realize how large a % we represent - especially if we tell them beforehand what we're doing.

I realize, sadly, that this could mean losing more ground to the Republicans in the short term, but IMO, it might be worth it to gain recognition as an important voter swing group that is often diametrically opposed to the religious right.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

ohwilleke · 06-27-2002, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kip:
I just want to correct something. I am studying US Government now, and (I may be wrong) it is my understanding that no Amendment could reverse a decision about the Establishment clause. I do not understand all of this talk about Congress banding together and amending the Constitution to reverse this decision. You can amend the 11th Amendment but not the 10th. The Bill of Rights is untouchable. All of the Congressmen huffing and puffing about banding together and reversing the decision are deluding themselves. The only possibilities I can imagine are the circuit Court reversing itself or the Supreme Court reversing the decision. These judges are appointed for life and no group of Congress can stop them. The Senators and Representatives would need to content themselves with simply disobeying the Court, as they did today.

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

You are mistaken. No part of the Constitution is sacrosanct. Any part of it may be amended subject to the amendment process.

ohwilleke · 06-27-2002, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ksagnostic:
 Very, very well said. This would not, repeat NOT(!), good news if this decision were to be upheld by the Supremes. So far we have avoided diluting the First Amendment through additional amendments, but if this was to be upheld, we would have a new amendment, and in record time.

In spite of the fact (in my admittedly non-lawyer opinion)that the Congress was blatantly violating the constitution when they added "under God" to the pledge (the First Amendment says "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..."), at this time, unquestioning patriotism is really in style, and running against such passion can result in damage that to civil liberties that normally would not occur. I have been watching CNN, and EVERYONE, the guests, the commentators, are describing this decision as unpatriotic. There has already been an unfortunate hesitancy with confronting the Christian Right on some of their claims in the mainline media (the so-called liberal bias is bullshit, and it is particularly bullshit now). They have been able to play the "anti-Christian" card without being called on it. Political news in this country is more along the lines of handicapping races, rather than discussing issues, with the only consistent exception being RIGHT WING

I think debate over what an amendment to the constitution would say could easily derail it.

Dark Jedi · 06-27-2002, 10:46 AM

There you are, Ohwillike!

What is your educated opinion on possible reversal?
I trust your opinion in such matters because of your level headed responses and general Constitutional legal knowledge.

Usagi_Tsukino · 06-27-2002, 11:01 AM

From cnn.com: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/pledge.allegiance/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/pledge.allegiance/index.html</a>

---------------------------
In Afghanistan, several United States soldiers fighting the war on terrorism said they were bewildered by the ruling.

"I feel that this is part of our history and no one has a right to change it," said staff Sgt. Katherine Romar, with the Army's 10th Mountain Division at Bagram Air Base. "That is the reason why we're here today, fighting to uphold our freedom."
---------------------------

Uphold our freedom to not have the right to change the pledge...? Okay... And following this "logic", then by definition the words "under god" shouldn't be there in the first place, since no one should have had the right to change it initially when it was added in 1954.

What's sad is that this is one of the more atrticulated answers I've seen in this sort of sound bite. What is really a huge issue here isn't simply the use of "under god" in the pledge, but rather the lack of historical knowledge or understanding of our government in the public at large. It is distressing just how few people even understand the actual issue here and aren't just jerking knees to what seems to them to be an attack on the "moral foundations of our nation."

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

06-27-2002, 10:46 AM	#359
Dark Jedi Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 4,666	There you are, Ohwillike! What is your educated opinion on possible reversal? I trust your opinion in such matters because of your level headed responses and general Constitutional legal knowledge.

06-27-2002, 11:01 AM	#360
Usagi_Tsukino Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: 30th Century Crystal Tokyo Posts: 22	From cnn.com: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/pledge.allegiance/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/pledge.allegiance/index.html</a> --------------------------- In Afghanistan, several United States soldiers fighting the war on terrorism said they were bewildered by the ruling. "I feel that this is part of our history and no one has a right to change it," said staff Sgt. Katherine Romar, with the Army's 10th Mountain Division at Bagram Air Base. "That is the reason why we're here today, fighting to uphold our freedom." --------------------------- Uphold our freedom to not have the right to change the pledge...? Okay... And following this "logic", then by definition the words "under god" shouldn't be there in the first place, since no one should have had the right to change it initially when it was added in 1954. What's sad is that this is one of the more atrticulated answers I've seen in this sort of sound bite. What is really a huge issue here isn't simply the use of "under god" in the pledge, but rather the lack of historical knowledge or understanding of our government in the public at large. It is distressing just how few people even understand the actual issue here and aren't just jerking knees to what seems to them to be an attack on the "moral foundations of our nation."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.