Toto

So many errors of fact and logic (and spelling), and such a belligerent attidude. Let's see what we can do with this mess.

The decision is very recent, and people are not filing suits around the country challenging the Pledge. Do you have an example of a court that has examined Newdow and rejected its line of reasoning?

Kmiec is a highly partisan advocate, entitled to be called a member of the "vast right wing conspiracy". What he says is worth reading, but must be treated as advocacy, not authority.

Interesting credentials, but not overwhelmingly authoritative. I assume that the Nevada Lawyer is a publication of the Nevada State Bar, and not even a peer-reviewed law review type journal.

Otherwise you have an article from the Entertainment Law Review of a second tier law school, and an article by David Barton?

Is that the David Barton who has admitted to using fake quotes about the Founding Fathers? Or someone unfortunate enough to share his name?

If you have read even a smattering of legal cases, you know that courts can cite other cases for a variety of offhand reasons, other than the main holding.

And don't let your law professors know that you actually said that denial of cert is equivalent to approval.

This is opening up another topic completely. I will just say here that there are a lot of questions about what the founding fathers believed. Some were Deists. Some thought that religion was a good thing to keep the masses in line, but full of bunk. Some, like Washington, were careful to avoid public statements that would allow anyone to guess their religion.

I don't have time to track down the quotes, but Madison and Jefferson believed strongly that the government should not force religion down people's throats. Do you see a contradiction between believing in a particular religion yourself and not wanting the government to control it and force other people to believe in it?

That would be dicta, not a lot of powerful dictum. And they are not so powerful.

I would interpret "a relentless and all-pervasive effort to exclude religion from every aspect of public life" to include things like opposing the singing Christmas carols, displaying classical art with religious themes in state run museums and the like.

Forcing children to recite a Pledge that embodies a particular theology is in another category altogether.

This is the de minimis exemption, the ceremonial Deism exemption. It's worth talking about, but it's not a given. You may notice that even your hero, the dissenter in Newdow, shied away from claiming that there is a de minimis exception to First Amendment rights.

My own view is that this is an intellectually empty argument, but one that a court might well want to use as a shield to avoid the public outrage from following constitutional principles to their logical conclusion.



This sort of patronizing remark is ill-suited to a serious discussion.

Or maybe the Supremes were also pulling their leg when they denied cert.

Once again - denial of cert is just that. Not the equivalent to approval or endorsement.

When I read the Sherwin decision, I see a court trying to find a rationale for a result they think they have to reach on political reasons. Talking about the Supreme Court pulling their legs is a little clue that they do not think the issue really worth taking seriously.

<groan> So the Supreme Court has no army, and follows the last election (especially when they engineered it) and you want to elevate this cynical view of the law to the status of doctrine?

Who will save the children from this evil?

The argument that since the founding fathers who wrote the First Amendment also hired a chaplain for the Congress and invoked the Deity in other cases, is one that I have seen pushed by the likes of Pat Robertson as an excuse for a variety of church state violations. I don't think the Supreme Court has bought it yet.

Besides, Newdow concerns a pledge that children must say if they want to join in a patriotic exercise. This is a far cry from "God Save this Honorable Court" which could very well be an empty exercise in ceremonial Deism, or even a "non-sectarian" prayer from a public chaplain that can be ignored or tuned out. It is completely different from the mere reading of an historical document such as the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence invoked the God of Deism in opposition to the Christian God, since the King of England claimed to rule by divine right. It is not part of the law of the land.

The Constitution does not mention god. It only mentions religion to rule out an established church (while guaranteeing free exercise) and to rule out religious tests for public office.

So yes I say that God is not part of the Constitution. So do these authors: The Godless Constitution: the Case Against Religious Correctness by Isaac Kramnick, R. Laurence Moore.

Jefferson's metaphor correctly describes the First Amendment's prohibtion of any law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It has been recognized as such by Supreme Court holdings, not just dicta.

from here.

We went through those findings of tradition, and most of them are distorted. The founders of the colonies often intended to establish theocracies. They enforced laws against blasphemy and put people to death for witchcraft. Luckily, we have gone beyond this.

You can read some prior discussion at Scary actual text of Senate "Under God" Resolution

You've got them in your pocket? Seriously, there are indications that the Supremes will reverse Newdow. Finding a coherent reason may be hard (but, as shown in Bush v. Gore, they don't need one.)

Fernandez has to be careful with the de minimis argument. You notice his last footnote:

The original poster referred to Fernandez' ignorance of religious feelings. This quote does not qualify as "ignorant", but it is pathetic. An invocation of a deity is de minimis, but it isn't. This judge is just throwing up a smokescreen of words to avoid a result that he does not like.

The rest of this is addressed to another poster, and I've used up my quota of time for today, so I'll have to close here.

Leviathan

Update on the status of Newdow:

Absolutely, of course it applies to me too. Thus, what we *should* be having a debate about is the evidence, what the evidence says, and why it says what it says, and what arguments and warrants are most compelling for the two respective sides. I have a stack of articles at my disposal here, and a lexis account, and am more than happy to sift through the entire debate if you wish. I don't have to go back to school for another two weeks, my internship is winding down, and I'm honestly bored.

Newdow is *questionable* law, for only the Ninth Circuit, in direct contravention to the other Federal Court of Appeals decisions, namely the 7th Circuit's Sherman decision. I have provided you numerous arguments, coupled with citations, to prove my argument.

You want another? Ok, The misapplication of Jefferson's "wall of seperation metaphor. The citation is Barton, David, The Image and the Reality: Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 2003. Barton's list of credentials are too long to type.

Barton's argument is essentially that Jefferson's historical actions would fail the Newdow tests; thus, Newdow misinterprets history in a very, very bad way.

You asked, earlier for evidence, nay you issued a "challenge" to show you evidence of Jefferson's actions as President, which directly conflicted with his supposed metaphor. Here you are:

"Yet there are vast numbers of Jefferson quotes and actions which, should they be considered seriously by the Court, would cause at least a serious reassessment of its landmark Establishment Clause rulings and quite probably a dramatic reversal. This is not to imply that Jefferson was a fervent religionist; he was not. Neither does it follow, however, that he was an ardent secularist. Jefferson's religious views and activities are documented at length; his writings on religion are prolific and at times even self-contradictory. In fact, his statements about religion are such that opposing positions can each invoke Jefferson as its authority."

1. Jefferson went to church, every Sunday, while President, in the *Capitol* buiding. He sanctioned government musicians, paid by the state, assisting in those worship services. He also had such services in the Treasury Building, as well as the War Office. John Quincy Adams' journal entries support these propositions.

2. Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, a clear violation of the modern "tests" in Newdow.

3. In a federal Indian treaty, Jefferson provided $300 to assist the tribe in the erection of a church and more money for the support of a Catholic priest. He also signed 3 seperate acts setting aside government land for the sole use of religious groups so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in "promoting Christianity" - another "violation."

4. Jefferson assured a Christian religious school in the newly purchased La. territory that it would receive "patronage of the government."

And just note this nice little quote, from Jefferson, "No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man, and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

There's a ton more: you can read the law review if your further interested. The author goes on to make the hypocrisy argument I have here, and from which you issued your "challenge."

Want more evidence God is a part of the history of this nation?

I'm sorry, you're just straight up mistaken. I offered you a Federal District Court opinion, in Eastern Virginia which found the Newdow decision, "entirely unpersuasive." Myers v. Loudoun County School Board, 251 F.Supp2d 1262. To my knowledge, the U.S. Sup. Ct. denied cert. in that case too, though I'm not entirely certain.

Additionally, I'll grant you its a year old, but I'm shocked that other suits have not cited this, at all, absent Myers. If its this "great, pinnacle" decision which some folks hail it as, wheres the support for it? Oh, I remember: in a few law reviews, and that's about it.

This is hilarious: another erroneous assumption from you. Allow me to correct your error: I am in no way a conservative. Not a chance. Simply arguing that the Ninth Circuit ignored centuries of precedent does not make me comparable to Antonin Scalia, whom I will recognize as one of the leading Constitutional scholars in this country right now, but definately am I nowhere near him. My God, think before you speak.

Well, lets see. The 1st Circuit has two, the 2nd Circuit has two, the 4th Circuit has two, the 5th Circuit has two, the 6th Circuit has two, the 8th Circuit has one, and finally the 9th Circuit has two. Is that good enough for you? I can provide citations if you want to read all those too, to cure your skepticism of Sherman being good law. Additionally, please remember that Sherman was denied cert., I guess the S. Ct. decided to pass on reinventing establishment clause jurisprudence, and thought Sherman was correctly decided.

My God, more personal remarks. If you've studied the Judiciary, you would know there are numerous factors that usually get the S. Ct. to grant a case cert. One of the formost factors, in the mind of legal theorists, is conflict in the law between the federal Circuits. Establishment clause jurisprudence, as my evidence says, has been admittedly all over the map, its a wild issue: thus, the S. Ct. could've granted cert., but didn't.

To reason I could be "dishonest" because of making such a legal conclusion, that's a little much, but I'm coming to expect such errors from you. If you want to see how "honest" I'm being, I could pm you my notes from all my law school classes on the subject, I have them saved on the harddrive.

You needn't be hard on yourself Toto, and griping about a person's spelling errors... Jesus, don't you have anything better to say? And if I have a "belligerent" attitude, exactly what do you describe your and enfant's attitude as being?

Do you actually read what I type? Myers v. Loudoun, 251 F.Supp.2d 1262. Here's example number two: I've just found it...

"Six days before the 9th Circuit's February revision, an Alexandria federal judge upheld Virginia's 2001 requirement that students recite the Pledge of Allegiance each day. U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris dismissed a lawsuit against Loudoun County schools and said reciting the Pledge is "necessary to the survival" of democracy. That verdict was guided by a 1992 ruling by the 7th Circuit upholding the Pledge in a Wheeling Township, Ill., case." - from the Washington Times, July 4, 2003. The article also mentions how *every* state governor is supposedly issuing a brief to the Court to review the decision.

Much like Newdow is particularly biased, as are the few legal scholars putting out support of this wild decision: does that suffice to show the :banghead: - nature of your argument?

Do you actually want to bring evidence for this "skepticism?" Its on lexis as a law review, and the author is a JD, and former clerk for the State Supreme Court. Would you like to give *your* credentials in downplaying his?

You can read the law review for yourself if you want, he cites to numerous primary and other secondary sources to validate his arguments about Jefferson. The quote *in question,* from your website, concerns Madison, and I'm not entirely sure if that is evidence he maliciously used in any legal source to support an argument: it seems he just came out and said he believes it to be false. To my knowledge, and I

Additionally, here are the credentials of this Barton, from the law review (help to see if same guy):

"* David Barton is a consultant to state and federal legislators and has been involved in several federal court cases, including at the U.S. Supreme Court. He personally owns thousands of original documents from the Founding Era, including handwritten documents of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Barton has been appointed by State Educational Boards in California, Texas, and other states to help write the history and government standards for students in those states. He has served as an editor for national publishers of school history textbooks. Barton is the recipient of several national and international awards, including the Daughters of the American Revolution Medal of Honor, the George Washington Honor Medal, Who's Who in America (1999, 1997), Who's Who in the World (1999, 1996), Who's Who in American Education (1997, 1996), International Who's Who of Professionals (1996), Two Thousand Notable American Men Hall of Fame (1995), Who's Who Among Outstanding Americans (1994), Who's Who in the South and Southwest (2001, 1999, 1995), Outstanding Young Men in America (1990), and numerous other awards. He is the author of numerous books and holds a B.A. from Oral Roberts University and an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Pensacola Christian College. "

That good enough for you, or are we going to quibble he wasn't voted "Outstanding Young Men in America" the subsequent year of '91 as well?

This is one of your many, just like enfant, comments that are not needed: they only exhibit your ability to be sarcastic, and not be serious about a debate. You falsify what I had stated: I did not say that it "is equivalent" to approval, I argued that denial of certain "could imply" such approval. Your hyperbolic, ridiculous claim only serves to further detract the discussion from the real issues, and instead you like to frequently, along with Mr. Enfant there, attack my legal education. Attack the argument: of which you're not doing too good of a job. Where is your evidence and citations for your arguments? Do you have any?

Incorrect: this is the same topic. Examining the historical foundation of this nation is critical to examining Newdow and other cases. Note my evidence above, concerning the history of this nation. Do I need to start keeping a list?

1. Mayflower Compact
2. Decl. of Ind.
3. Lincoln @ Gettysburg
4. Congressional findings for 4 U.S.C. 4

Have you offered *anything* to show the contrary?

Additionally, if I'm cooking some hamburgers on the grill, and burn myself with some grease, and yell "Goddamnit!," have I just engaged in a religious act?

Note my above evidence, from Jefferson, concerning his "supposed contempt" of religion. I believe the author makes a convincing point, that although he was by no means a deist, he certainly wasn't an extreme secularist, and he recognized the importance of God in the founding of this nation. Why would he proclaim as much in the Declaration of Independance?

You ignore, completely, my argument that S. Ct. dicta has alot of persuasive power, especially for inferior courts. Numerous cases that I have already cited have mentioned the fact that the S. Ct.'s dicta must be assumed as "the way the Court might decide this issue," and numerous activist decisions have relied on S. Ct. dicta to expand the law. Odd then, isn't it, that you now argue we should ignore dicta?

Additionally, this dicta that I have provided you, the four examples, seem to be *very* persuasive that the Court was wishing to tell the inferior Courts, "we wish to limit our holding: this does not expand to all areas of religion in the public life." In fact, O'Connor specifically has stated that she believes the Pledge to be constituitional. Again, I have a citation I have provided of 13 S. Ct. justices, 5 on the court, with Stevens a questionable, iffy sixth, to show that they believe the Pledge to be Constitutional. We'll see, come October, when they decide the issue of Newdow.

Additionally, the "pervasive" threat has been recognized in Newdow. Numerous law reviews speak to the danger that such a holding would give: threatening the teaching of the Decl. of Independance, and even the statement that the S. Ct. begins their session with: "God Save the United States and this Honorable court." If you don't see that as a consequence of Newdow, lets just take one of Newdow's own statements on the matter: "I want to see religion completely obliterated from the public sphere." He's made many statements of this kind in newspapers before. Its clear what his, and the Ninth Circuit's intentions are.

I could say the same of your remarks about my legal education.

The Sherman decision seems very well reasoned to me. It quotes some of the historical arguments that Brennan, Goldberg, and Harlan have made in past decisions, it cites the dictum (the 4 passages I have given you) of the past decisions as authority that the S. Ct. does not intend for establishment clause cases to totally obliterate religion completely in the public light, and it certainly was a consensus decision. Their "pulling leg" statement has been praised by numerous law reviews as being a "cautious" inferior court, the direct contrast to the always-being-overturned 9-0 Ninth Court, which tries to act as if they know everything, and can dismiss S. Ct. precedent.

It sounds like you either don't know about, or have a certain revulsion for a sound, legal argument that has been made for years. Do you even know who Rosenberg is? Hollow Hope is required reading for almost any political science course on the judiciary.

If you want to find a current Supreme Court Justice's opinion on court legitimacy, go type "O'Connor Court Legitimacy" into findlaw.com or gigalaw.com, and see what comes up. Enjoy the reading.

Exactly how is "Under God" in a Pledge distinguishable from "God Save this Honorable Court?" No court authority has offered such a proposition... some have offered the counter argument...

Interesting, the weight of autority says otherwise. Of the creators of the Constitutions, the delegates of the Const. Convention, how many were *not* Christians again? Over half were lawyers, and the vast majority were Christians. Do you wish to debate this *historical fact*?

Additionally, note the following, which cited your source, and then made this conclusion:

"Despite these perceptions, and contrary to some contemporary thinking, religion and politics have an interwoven and long-standing tradition in American history. As recently noted by historian George Marsden, during the American colonial period it was assumed that religion and politics were inseparable. 5 This assumption was true not only of the early Puritan efforts to create a religiously grounded society, 6 but also of the later colonial experience, characterized by increased religious diversity and tolerance. Groups such as the Quakers and Baptists, strongly committed to the separation of church and state and religious tolerance, nevertheless viewed religion relevant to political reflection. 7 As religious diversity increased during this formative [*113] period, leading to greater tolerance for other sects, there was no question that religious beliefs could continue to inform and provide the basis for moral and concomitant political thought. "

- DePaul Law review, Fall 2000, Mark W. Cordes. I'm sure the DePaul Law review is an ok source, isn't it?

Correct, and that metaphor does not say there is complete seperation. Court cases, later, have stated that the intention of the seperation is not to be absolute: I believe I've cited Brennan making such an argument in this thread.

The Congressional findings are from 2002, and help courts interpret the legislative intent of 4 USC 4. Unless you just want to ignore what they say, you cannot dismiss the historic tradition of this nation being a religious nation.

I've cited the other decisions to you, criticizing the holding of Newdow by following the decision in Sherman. Do you have *anything* supporting Newdow, from *any* Court? Court decisions this "groundbreaking" are cited very quickly, and its been about a year, and so far the only courts coming down on the issue are saying, "wrong."

Stephen Maturin

Supreme Court Rule 10 leads off with:

Thus, denial of the cert petition in Sherman simply means that something less than four justices found "compelling reasons" to review the case. It's firmly established that denial of certiorari is not a comment on the merits of a lower court's decision. I'm sure you're right about the Court finding no conflict, though. After all, Sherman was the only federal court of appeals case of its kind at that time.

Quick point of order: Newdow I both set forth and applied all three EC tests. Newdow II scaled that back considerably. The amended decision omitted the panel's earlier finding that the addition of "under God" to 4 U.S.C. sec. 4 was unconstitutional. Since Newdow II addresses only the school district Pledge recitation policy, it applies only the coersion test.

To put a finer point on it, there's no Pledge-specific Supreme Court case law on this "forced to hear it" issue. However, Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) is a reasonably close fit. From the majority opinion in that case:

Not a perfect fit, of course, but it's pretty doggone close. After all, one of the reasons Justice Scalia dissented in Lee was his belief that an EC test focusing on psychological coersion leads logically to the conclusion that Pledge recitation in public schools is unconstitutional:

In light of Scalia's predictive comments, it seems to me that the Newdow court's reliance on and application of Lee -- which is binding authority -- were eminently reasonable.

enfant terrible

Finally a statement from you that is amply supported by evidence!

Unfortunately, I have a life. There is little time I can devote to this debate before midnight or so.

Toto

Lev -

You have made some clear errors in regard to what denial of cert means. Just admit it and get on with it, or everyone will think you're just a blustery fraud.

And please don't think that just because you can point to a law review article that agrees with you, that you have "cited authority" for a proposition and everyone else should just concede - especially when one of the articles you cite is by that fraud David Barton, whose only real degree is a B.A. from Oral Roberts University.

Since this is a discussion board, it may take time for people to get around to all of your articles, especially since most of us are not sitting around bored with access to Lexis and a law library.


<mod hat on>
Please do not PM me any more about how unfair things are here. As a mod, I can't put you on ignore, but I really don't have time for your emotional outbursts.

You have said some insulting things here, and been needled in return, but nothing that rises to the level of insult that turns the discussion into a food fight. Nothing that I or anyone else have said compares to your describing the 9th circuit as kindergartners who can't color inside the lines. If you want to complain about the moderation, there is a separate forum called "Bugs, Complaints" or something like that. I will not answer any more of your PM's.

Toto, as moderator of CSSSA

hezekiah jones

Super thread, (most) people. I chomp at the bit with no time to chew, but I do have to say that O'Connor's footnote in Wallace is the height of arbitrary caprice (and almost as bad as citing it ).

Leviathan

Excuse me for having time off fellas, and posting a debate. You have a "life," excellent. No need to tell me you can't get to the debate: that's fine, I'm sure others will be able to discuss this cordially.

Toto, I'm going to address you first, b/c you just made (another) grave error, that shows you don't read my posts, and furthermore you ignore my evidence (these are facts, let me show you why).

Error 1: And you're the one telling me to admit "errors?" I made a reasonable argument, concerning cert., on an *inference.* In contrast, you stated I was saying FOR CERTAIN that the S. Ct. denied cert. b/c they thought the law was right. I said that "could" be the case, not that it WAS.

Error 2: even more blatant. In response to your and enfant's personal attacks, I have patiently tried to give you more evidence and warrants for my argument. Your above quotation cites the "crayon" statement you believe I made. You should note, I did not make that remark, my source did. I find it very, very funny that you want to personally attack my legal education, on numerous incidents, and the least bit of sarcastic humour, from my source, not even from me, warrants your chastizement.

Should I expect you to fully recant your statement above, with an apology? No: but it does go to show you didn't read my post, and misinterpreted what I was saying, now doesn't it?

Lets just have a fun debate, ok? I'm a theist, I believe Newdow was wrong, you think the opposite. Fine, that's great: I'd rather talk to someone I disagree with than someone I agree with. No need for personal stuff, at all.

Stephen:

Thank you for the citation to a rule that says cert. is discretionary. My argument is that on errors of law which are hotly controversial, which the First Amendment, along with the Fourteenth are the most litigated, when the Court denies cert. in a case that was getting alot of public attention, I'd say we may be able to draw the reasonable inference that the Court is telling us there is no conflict in the law.

Do you agree?

Thank you for the correction. I was aware of Newdow II scaling back the decision, but I still believed that all of their analysis still applied, just only to the Ninth Circuit jurisdiction, instead of declaring outright 4 USC 4 being unconstitutional per se.

But I'm sure we can both agree, with both petitioner and respondent pressing the S. Ct. to review this case, when it is reviewed, don't you believe the Court will have to entertain Newdow's argument that its constitutional per se (Newdow I)?

Also Stephen, you are correct, I believe that Lee is about the closest thing to authority for this proposition. How do you reconcile the paragraphs you've just cited, with the 4 cases, of which Lee is one, that cautions inferior courts that the holding of Lee is to be restrained? Its to be restrained, b/c of opinions like O'Connor, Brennan, et. al, who argued that to rule with a more expansive holding, as Newdow is suggesting, is to expand the law to threaten even the Decl. of Independance, and of course the pledge. That's why O'Connor made her remark in Wallace, which I honestly don't see the "problem" with that citation, as others are stating, rather abruptly of course.

Scalia's dissent also seems to have predicted the issue coming to the forefront of American law. Funny, then, that the Seventh Circuit, and presumably others, interpreted the concurring and majority opinion in Lee to *constrain* that court's holding to the specific issue at hand. (I've only read Lee in other cases, not the whole opinion before. I'll try to read that tonight.}

Nice remarks.

Toto

Lev - I see I misinterpreted the "crayon" remark. You did not clearly set it off as a quote. My comment stands that it does not contribute to a healthy dialogue, whether it is yours or the writers for the "Entertainment Law Review"; and I assume you would not have reprinted it here if you did not agree with it.

However, I think it is incorrect to draw any conclusion from the Supreme Court's denial of cert to the Seventh Circuit. You are now claiming that you only said that "could" indicate that the decision was correct, although from the number of times you have repeated the argument, it sounds like you give a high percentage to that probability.

If I criticize your arguments, you do not need to assume it is personal.

Please tell me why you list David Barton as an authority, and if he is your major source of information on church state separation.

pug846

Just to clarify something about Sherman. While it has been cited quite a number of times, it’s almost without exception been cited by other 7th Circuit courts, which are bound by it, and for propositions other than anything to do with Under God in the pledge. If you eliminate the cases that cite Sherman that do not fall in either one of those two categories, you are left with exactly one case: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio v. Capitol Square Review, 210 F.3d 703 (6th Cir. 2000). (The Ohio state motto was held unconstitutional, although the 6th Circuit approved of the holding in Sherman.) So, Newdow doesn’t have far to go before it is cited approvingly by other circuit courts to match the success of Sherman.

Leviathan said:

Bzzz….sorry, try again. The pledge is different than those other historical documents. Perhaps you can explain this to me: When the Supreme Court states that the pledge is not descriptive, but idealistic, how does that square with your statement that the phrase “Under God” in the pledge is merely an act of remembrance? How does it square with the Court’s ruling that children should not be required to state the pledge because it would be prescribing what is “orthodox in politics”?

Well great. Just point me to the case where each of those five current justices directly dealt with the issue and then it’s decided! Oh wait, they don’t exist. In an ideal world, those of us who have faith in the justice system, and after Bush v. Gore there seems to be less of us, believe that justices are capable of listening to good legal arguments and changing their minds. The issue has never been argued in front of the Supreme Court and the justices very well might change their mind once they are presented with the logic and force of the majority opinion in Newdow. They won’t, of course, and not because the logic of the decision isn’t sound, but because they would be strung up.

He’s ignorant about religion; it seems rather self-evident. Again, do you believe for a moment if a state required its children (with an opt out option) to recite a second pledge that stated “Under No Gods,” would it pass the coercion test? Or would that be “prescrib[ing] what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”?

But the court has already ruled that reciting the pledge is not a ceremonial act. And regardless, the only way a reference to God is viewed as ceremonial is because the Court seems to refuse to acknowledge there are a lot of religions out there that don’t recognize the existence of God or recognize the existence of many gods. They live in such a sheltered world that they seem to ignore the obvious fact, pointed out in Newdow, that a statement like Under God is religious because not all religions are monotheistic.

Yes. Now you’re catching on!

Perhaps because the five Justices found no “compelling reasons” to do so.

Well, we agree on something at least.

Can I play arm chair psychologist too? You realize how completely ridiculous this argument is, yes?

Okay, then using the same standard, Sherman is “questionable law” since it is in direct contravention with another Federal Court of Appeals decision, namely the 9th Circuit’s Newdow decision.

In the same way that ratifiers of the 14th Amendment would fail the Brown test? (Something tells me Barton wouldn’t be bothered at all if separate but equal were still law.)

I’d be curious how anyone who has even read Newdow can believe it can be stretched to cover the statement “God Save the United States and this Honorable court.” Ignoring for the moment that court doesn’t require people to say it, it has nothing at all to do with impressionable school children, which was one of the most important aspects of the court’s reasoning in Newdow. Are these the same people that believe Lawrence will lead to the end of the world?

Kevbo

No, the pledge is no more a prayer than a teacher starting the day with, "Good morning class, and now we're going to begin a federally sanctioned recitation that demonstrates our allegience to our flag, the republic for which it stands, and the will of the Judeo-Christian God."

The real issue is that there is a constitutional argument that Congress should not take an active role in proclaiming such things as "The United States is subject to the will of the Judeo-Christian God." The courts wouldn't have to take issue with this if Congress wouldn't do things like that.


Polls for 200+ years have confirmed that, indeed, the majority of Americans cling to some form of Christian belief. How does this give Congress the authority to disregard the Constitution and legislate religious affirmations that disagree with the philosophies of tens of millions of its citizens, regardless of what the majority believe?


Yes, the Founding Fathers and parts of the Constitution were indeed hypocritical and forced to make concessions to popular opinion that we consider wrong today. Consider the 3/5 compromise that gave slaveholding states extra legislative power even though those states refused to grant the slaves their human rights as guaranteed in the constitution. Consider the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves (By the way, I've heard that Jefferson did not include a reference to any deity in the original drafts of the DoI, but that the more religiously-inclined Founding Fathers wished to include such a reference, but I'll have to check into that). Unfortunately, majority opinion can still function in oppressing various minorities. That's what the Constitution, including the First Amendment, was designed to protect.

The pledge does not read, "I pledge allegience to... one Nation, which the majority of people believe is subject to the will of the Judeo-Christian God, but that a significant number of others believe is not," it simply declares "I pledge allegience to... one Nation, under God," no argument. It is an officially sanctioned statement of allegience pledging directly to the authority of the Judeo-Christian God and its recitation required to be lead during school in most states as well as being a requirement for gaining citizenship, it is not just a trivial acknowledgment of some peoples' tradition. Furthermore, the pledge was changed from its perfectly acceptable pre-1954 form in a stated effort to cram more religion down the collective throat of the people, not to recognize any historical traditions.

There is no constitutional rule against public officials expressing belief in any particular religion. There is a constitutional rule that prevents public officials from using sectarian religion as the basis of policy, legislation, descrimination, and so on.

Obviously, no one is going to attempt to edit any religious references in original founding documents (although Fundamentalists would be glad to stick in a few explicit references to their religion). However, some people have succeeded in recently adding religious references to perfectly inclusive official statements of patriotism, and the reversal of this latter act is the issue at hand.

As I have shown above, the pledge is a far cry from a mere recognization that many people believe in the Judeo-Christian God. It includes a recently added and officially sanctioned pledge of allegience to a particular class of deity. Again, it's called "The Pledge of Allegience" and not "Things that some people believe." Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is not law and is obviously Lincoln's personal opinion. In Examining the Gettysburg Address, students do not have to affirm any belief in Lincoln's deity.

How is this applicable to Newdow? Newdow challenges a specific law which strongly encourages children (and requires those applying for citizenship) to pledge allegience to the sovreignity of a particular deity. Newdow is not challenging the right of public officials to believe what they wish or even make statements based on their beliefs, it is challenging the infraction of legislators who wish to impose their beliefs through law.

AMVETS is right that this case involves a violation of the right to free exercise, but they are wrong in saying that the violation is on the part of those wishing to remove the 1954 violation! The 1954 law establishing "under God" restricts the right of non-Judeo-Christian believers to declare their personal religious convictions involving the country. This law is an unconstitutional violation of both the establishment clause and the right to free exercise! There is no attempt being made by Newdow to restrict free exercise, on the contrary, free exercise shall be more open to everyone in expressions of patriotism if "under God" is removed from the pledge.

And another constitutional violation is supposed to make up for the one in the pledge? Yes, most people here probably feel that religion grafting itself on our mandatory currency is another violation of the establishment clause.

And the moronic statements continue... this is an anachronistic practice that is not mandatory and is not often worded in that fashion even in many rural southern Bible Belt courts. In addition, no where in the constitution does the phrase "so help me God" appear... any officials who include this in their oath of public office are ad-libbing.

That's great that we've had religious presidents who are free to express their views. What does this have to do with legislating religion?

Right, because everyone knows that the examination of historic documents is the same thing as pledging allegience to God.

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man" - Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, August 14, 1800