Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm telling you, someone high up is reading this board.

then lets get Howard cleared. Condi baby, the talk ain't offending me. Free at last, Free at last, I want the radio free!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Been gone a few days, so I assumed that the pledge case was discussed? Any consensus?

other than my posting on the standing issue, no.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Any consensus?

Around here, are you kidding?

It was just oral argument. But the tension I'll note in the "constitutional" camp is that the argument seems to be that it's merely a general statement of history, and therefore really not "religious," (and, indeed, interviews with kids suggest they regard it as "just a couple of meaningless words") yet, even as such, it's incredibly important to retain it as part of the pledge.

Apparently Jefferson's concern that state involvement in religion would water faith down has fallen on deaf ears.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
other than my posting on the standing issue, no.

What was your take? Maybe I'll eliminate consensus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Been gone a few days, so I assumed that the pledge case was discussed? Any consensus?

It wasn't discussed at all, oddly enough. I'm with Safire. "The only thing this time-wasting pest Newdow has going for him is that he's right. Those of us who believe in God don't need to inject our faith into a patriotic affirmation and coerce all schoolchildren into going along."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

double post

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It wasn't discussed at all, oddly enough. I'm with Safire. "The only thing this time-wasting pest Newdow has going for him is that he's right. Those of us who believe in God don't need to inject our faith into a patriotic affirmation and coerce all schoolchildren into going along."

A lot of the right-wing press yesterday was concentrating on the idea that it's not right that this small group can take away this bit of meaningful American history just because they decide to take offense at the mention of religion.

I kept waiting for someone to mention "uh, guys, it's a Constitutional provision, exactly meant to protect those small groups from just that offense", but no one thought to do so.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
A lot of the right-wing press yesterday was concentrating on the idea that it's not right that this small group can take away this bit of meaningful American history just because they decide to take offense at the mention of religion.

I kept waiting for someone to mention "uh, guys, it's a Constitutional provision, exactly meant to protect those small groups from just that offense", but no one thought to do so.

And I wouldn't be bothered by the Pledge if it was organic. No one is taking it out of the history books -- the problem is that the government is telling people to say it. It kinda seems unamerican, actually.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It wasn't discussed at all, oddly enough. I'm with Safire. "The only thing this time-wasting pest Newdow has going for him is that he's right. Those of us who believe in God don't need to inject our faith into a patriotic affirmation and coerce all schoolchildren into going along."

I'm with you and Safire and, I guess, almost everybody else here. The NYT ran a overly-fawning article on the father's performance with the SCT yesterday, noting that the audience broke into applause at one point when he gave a clever retort to Rehnquist. He was good on CNN or whatever the other day too. Basically, the argument seemed to boil down to children shouldn't be forced to make any religious choice by the government (whether or not to mouth the words "under God"), and they shouldn't be coerced into mouthing homage to the government's religious choice.

Hello

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And I wouldn't be bothered by the Pledge if it was organic. No one is taking it out of the history books -- the problem is that the government is telling people to say it. It kinda seems unamerican, actually.

By that do you mean if children were asked to recite portions of the Declaration of Independence, say the part about being endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, it would be okay?

What's particularly troubling to me is that the words "under God" were added after the original creation of the pledge, which suggest they are wholly unnecessary to the purpose of the pledge, which they are. Same with "In God we Trust" on coins.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The NYT ran a overly-fawning article on the father's performance with the SCT yesterday, noting that the audience broke into applause at one point when he gave a clever retort to Rehnquist.

Did the audience think it was the Apollo?

From what I understand, Rehnquist asked a question along the lines of other conservatives: Why should't people objecting to the inclusion of "under god" get elected and remove it? Newdow's response was that athiests can't get elected. Bilmore's point seems teh more appropriate response, however: they shouldn't have to get elected because of the constitution.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
By that do you mean if children were asked to recite portions of the Declaration of Independence, say the part about being endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, it would be okay?

The Declaration is a historical document, not a pledge.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
. . .the audience broke into applause at one point when he gave a clever retort to Rehnquist.

Giving a clever retort to Rehnquist wouldn't seem to be a well-thought strategy. Sort of like using sarcasm on Scalia.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And I wouldn't be bothered by the Pledge if it was organic. No one is taking it out of the history books -- the problem is that the government is telling people to say it. It kinda seems unamerican, actually.

Isn't the very concept of Pledge Alligence sort of un-american in the sense you mean. "I pledge alligence to the flag." There are people who like to burn the flag- should their kids have to hear the Pledge?

What if I'm a seperatist? Should my kids have to buy into the "one nation" part?

I know there is a specific amenment to religion, but still. From what I've read of the oral argument- we'll still be under god for awhile. anyone know of a transcript?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Newdow's response was that athiests can't get elected.

that might give me pause to question the premise of Athism.