One Nation Under God

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

One Nation Under God

Post by Jeff »

It seems the Supremo Court has decided that "under god" in the pledge is OK.
Does anyone remember Paul Krasner's mag that had a poster showing "One Nation Under God" with Jehova buggering Uncle Sam?
Yahweh
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:05 pm

Post by Yahweh »

From CNN - Court dismisses Pledge case:
The justices said that the pledge does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.

"To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance," Rehnquist wrote.
What does "under God" have anything to do with a "commendable patriotic observance"?
Jesus, Buffy! [url=http://www.fstdt.com]Fundies Say the Darndest Things![/url]
User avatar
DaveH
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:58 am
Location: Under a mountain of REAL work

Post by DaveH »

Why can't they say "one nation under water"? Because it sounds very silly? And "one nation under God" doesn't?
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus
Loon
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: One Nation Under God

Post by Loon »

Jeff wrote:It seems the Supremo Court has decided that "under god" in the pledge is OK.
Does anyone remember Paul Krasner's mag that had a poster showing "One Nation Under God" with Jehova buggering Uncle Sam?
This is not what the majority decided. Though the effect is that the pledge is untouched for now, the Supreme Court (or the majority of the court) found that Newdow did not have the legal status (guardian of his daughter) required to bring the suit.

If I understand correctly, the court esssentially voted 5-3 that Newdow did not have the right to bring the suit. Interestingly, the three justices in the minority indicated that they favored the inclusion of the "Under God" bit.
I guess there he chose to err on the side of more votes. -[size=75]Grammatron[/size]
User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 73562
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Post by Doctor X »

SCOTUS dodged having to make the right decision--recognizing the inclusion is a prayer and an attempt to promote Christian monotheism--to make . . . the right decision. . . .

Huh?

Newdow does not have custody of his daughter. This would set a precedent for non-custodial parents/guardians to "sue on behalf" of children. Bad precedent.

Granted, according to Newdow he "had custody" but lost it for "unjust reasons."

Well . . . anyways . . . this will be back.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out." – Don
DocX: FTW. – sparks
"Doctor X wins again." – Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry." – His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone." – clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far." – Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig." – Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power." – asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." – gnome

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
Marian
Posts: 2286
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:28 am
Location: East of the Sun and West of the Moon

Post by Marian »

Basically what Doctor X said, I agree. They side-stepped the issue, but legally that was correct. (As much as I dislike it).

And it will be back. I think the only reason that this hasn't been harder pressed is that most parents do not wish to subject their children to the inevitible harassment that will take place as a result of such a lawsuit. I personally found this filing, whether intentional or not, to be almost ideal. It allowed the father to take 'the heat', while almost completely publically absolving the daughter, which prevented her from being targetted over the issue. The mother was able to publically state it had nothing to do with the daughter, which spared her from being the target of some nasty, viscious attacks (that were leveled at the father who filed, who as an adult is hopefully better equipped to deal with such, and made the conscious choice to pursue that avenue knowing that would result).

As strongly as many people feel about such issues, it's easy to take on the burden of attack for one's self...it's almost unconscionable to put a child into that position. Especially considering the level of attacks that some people engaged in over their beliefs. :(

I think that quite frankly, someone exposing their child to that...even though the issue has merit, would need to seriously question why they are doing so. And if it's worth the potential cost.

I know that children have been in the line of fire before on important social issues...such as school integration (Brown v. The Board of Education). But while I find it truly heroic...I don't know that if I had children I would be willing to place them in such a position, even for the greater good. Even for the betterment of their future. And I think that was a much clearer issue than the 'Under God' portion (though I agree that it not only has no place, but should be removed).
[size=75]<b><u>Trolls that I'm not feeding</u></b>
Jarod3, Kilik, Interesting Ian

<b><u>Also on ignore...</u></b>
jj[/size]

[url=http://www.elementsgraphics.net/index.php?id=eggs][img]http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/o919a.gif[/img][/url]
Darat
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:00 pm

Post by Darat »

Doctor X wrote:...snip...


Granted, according to Newdow he "had custody" but lost it for "unjust reasons."


...snip...--J.D.
You wouldn't expect a court to award custody of a child to a burn-for-eternity-heathen-atheist, would you? :shock:
User avatar
thaiboxerken
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:51 pm
Location: Oregon, and it rocks!

Post by thaiboxerken »

Yep, but the Bright network is looking for a family to bring up the suit again so that they can't skirt the issue this time.
Carlos is on my ignore list.
User avatar
Denise
Posts: 805
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 4:13 pm

Post by Denise »

I don't understand why he is not allowed to continue? Yes, he does not have physical custody but does he not have visitation? Does he not pay child support?
ceo_esq
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:11 am

Post by ceo_esq »

Denise wrote:I don't understand why he is not allowed to continue? Yes, he does not have physical custody but does he not have visitation? Does he not pay child support?
The problem is that he does not have ultimate decision-making authority regarding the child, and so is not qualified to assert the child's legal interests in court.

Child support payments are not a quid pro quo - a "fee" a noncustodial parent pays in order to gain a vote in decisions regarding the child. You can have all your parental rights terminated and still be required to pay child support.
User avatar
Denise
Posts: 805
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 4:13 pm

Post by Denise »

ceo_esq wrote:
Denise wrote:I don't understand why he is not allowed to continue? Yes, he does not have physical custody but does he not have visitation? Does he not pay child support?
The problem is that he does not have ultimate decision-making authority regarding the child, and so is not qualified to assert the child's legal interests in court.

Child support payments are not a quid pro quo - a "fee" a noncustodial parent pays in order to gain a vote in decisions regarding the child. You can have all your parental rights terminated and still be required to pay child support.
I see what you're saying but again, I would think that he would have some legal interest in this as his rights have not been terminated. To me, it seems like a slap in the face to non custodial fathers who are involved in their children's lives.
ceo_esq
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:11 am

Post by ceo_esq »

Denise wrote:
ceo_esq wrote:
Denise wrote:I don't understand why he is not allowed to continue? Yes, he does not have physical custody but does he not have visitation? Does he not pay child support?
The problem is that he does not have ultimate decision-making authority regarding the child, and so is not qualified to assert the child's legal interests in court.

Child support payments are not a quid pro quo - a "fee" a noncustodial parent pays in order to gain a vote in decisions regarding the child. You can have all your parental rights terminated and still be required to pay child support.
I see what you're saying but again, I would think that he would have some legal interest in this as his rights have not been terminated. To me, it seems like a slap in the face to non custodial fathers who are involved in their children's lives.
Well, a lot of noncustodial fathers agree with you - in fact, a group of them submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court. Another way of looking at the situation, though, is this: although this father has not lost all of his rights regarding the child, he has lost the most relevant one (the right to legally represent the child's interests in court). It's a bit circular to focus on the rights he hasn't lost as a reason why he should still be able to exercise one of the rights he has lost.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 13375
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Re: One Nation Under God

Post by Skeeve »

Jeff wrote:It seems the Supremo Court has decided that "under god" in the pledge is OK.
Does anyone remember Paul Krasner's mag that had a poster showing "One Nation Under God" with Jehova buggering Uncle Sam?
I don't agree, what they did was welch entirely, and avoid the whole issue by ruling on a subsidary issue. I think it's a good thing, really, because there's no possible way that that oath belongs in pledge, and if they were pressed, those whose religious belief required it would find themselves in a very ackward place regarding the law of the land. I'm suspect that the supporters of the oath are hoping for a constitutional amendment, and the detractors waiting for another government before they speak.
Then Skank Of America could start in...