In God we trust debate AGAIN!

Cheveyo, check my post at 7/14 1:41pm for a direct answer (I mention it since you didn't refute it).

 

Been away on a business trip for too long. Just look at all the fun I missed.

First, that's what the media says, and they're only reporting the Mom's side of the story because it sells the story. Second, what does it matter who presents the case or why.

First, that is not just the Mom's side of the story, but the daughter's as well. Not only that, but the FATHER has since said that his daughter was not the one harmed, he was.

Second, it matters who presents the case because that is the way thet the law works. I, as a normal citizen, cannot just decide to file a case to have the death penalty (as an example) ruled unconstitutional. I would need to be subject to (or in danger of being subject to) the death penalty first. Until your rights have been violated, you have no basis for a suit. The court needs the specifics of a case to provide the basis for its ruling and interpretation. You cannot just have the court make a general ruling. You always need the specifics of the case.

In this case, he filed the suit claiming that his daughter has been harmed by the phrase "under God". That, as he himself now admits, is erroneous. On that basis alone, the case should be thrown out completely. He has claimed that his daughter has been harmed by the California schools by being forced to listen to something that goes against her beliefs. Now he is claiming that HE was the one harmed. Seeing as he has never attended California schools, nor been required to say (or listen to the Pledge) in them, he has not been harmed by it. Seeing as his daughter is a willing participant in reciting the Pledge, she has not been harmed. He has no legal basis for this case.

If you want a test case, find someone else who actually can show harm. Find the atheist child of atheist parents. Then there would be some basis for the case. As it is, by legal standards and traditions this ruling should be thrown out.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't undertsnad any of this.

I'm not American, so I can't say anything.

 

Erm... All of that only made me more vehement about my stance on this. Those arguments aren't very well thought out,IMHO and I have a hard time giving any merit to the words of one who uses double negatives with such flagrancy.

 

(No mesage)

 

Sorry, but the message behind the grammar isn't any better than the grammar itself.

It isn't even the fact that I disagree with what is being said, so much as the fact that it is rather contrived, gives no support and is more or less a rampant display of opinions without anything to support it. I'm not sure what you were expecting, but none of this seems to challenge my view.

 

Edit: Only 1 post is allowed per minute.

 

Well, then - kudos for that, I suppose.

 

Don't patronize me!

 

*snort*

 

Darth Fierce, I found your post. You say: ...belief in God doesn't necessarily correlate to religion.

How is this true when some religions, by their definition, revolve around a central belief in a "God"? Others, however, do not, which makes the phrase "Under God" not all-inclusive, as you may believe.

The name God (as it is capitalized) refers to a religious icon. Congress and Eisenhower said as much when the name was drafted into the Pledge. It therefor indicates that the governement endorses said religion, thus violating the Church/State Separation ideas.

Kimball, welcome back!
Seeing as he has never attended California schools, nor been required to say (or listen to the Pledge) in them, he has not been harmed by it.

So this negates the issue that it is unconstitutional? I think not. This has been a long time in the coming. I'm surprised that no one sees (or acknowledges) that.

On a personal note, my best friend's wife is a 2nd grade teacher. She told me that they have been advised by the School Board not to lead the kids in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, something that she outright hates--in fact, I think hate is too light a word for her feelings on this subject (Piggy, you'd like her ). She has sent a note out to her kid's parents asking permission to continue to recite the Pledge--in it's current format--despite this mandate.

This story doesn't apply to my argument (in fact, it incited a heated debate between my friend and I--he's catholic, I'm not ), but I thought it intriguing to see how all of this rhetoric we've been spilling applies to the real world.

 

So this negates the issue that it is unconstitutional? I think not. This has been a long time in the coming. I'm surprised that no one sees (or acknowledges) that.

It does not negate the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the Pledge. It only negates the validity of this as a test case. The courts require a real, specific case in order to make a ruling. I cannot just file a case that says that outlawing abortion is unconstitutional (to use a historical case). Instead you need to wait until a law has been passed against abortion and then, a person who has been denied an abortion because of that law can bring such a case. I, as a single male who has never even attempted to procreate, would have no basis for such a case because no harm has been done to me.

In the same way, when Professor Ed Felton sued the RIAA and DOJ to have parts of the DMCA ruled unconstitutional so he could insure the right of scientists to publish cryptography results, his case was thrown out. Why? Because no harm had been done to him yet. His case was a case of generalities. The courts can only rule on specifics.

Like I said, if you want a test case, find an atheist child of atheist parents. Find a child who choses not to say the Pledge and feels harmed by listening to it each day. THEN you have a valid test case. Until then, this one should be thrown out for lack of basis.

Kimball Kinnison

 

point conceded, Kimball. Well said. do we know if this ruling has been thrown out? It fell out of the news around here, and I haven't heard what's happening next, if anything.

 

do we know if this ruling has been thrown out?

It has not yet been thrown out, but it was given a "stay of execution" by the same judge who issued it. It still remains to be seem if it will stand. My personal opinion is that it will be thrown out, either on the basis of previous precedent (such as the Jehovah's Witness case I mentioned in the pervious thread) or for lack of merit in this case.

It's been fun!

Kimball Kinnison

 

What the hell does it matter and who the hell cares? Seriously if somebody could please answer this for me I would be most grateful. How is this question of monumental importance or even just a teeny tiny itsby bitsy bit of importance? Does it really hurt non-religious, non-Catholic people that it says in God We Trust on dollar bills? Would it really hurt religious Catholics if it didn't say in God We Trust on dollar bills. What the hells the difference? How about from now on we print half the bills with it written on there and half without it. Is that fair? Then all the Catholics could trade for the bills that said in God We Trust and the non-Catholics could trade for the plain bills. And then we could start setting up signs outside of our shops that say: WE DO NOT ACCEPT IN GOD WE TRUST BILLS AT THIS ESTABLISHMENT or: WE ONLY ACCEPT IN GOD WE TRUST BILLS AT THIS ESTABLISHMENT.

You'd think we could concentrate on improving the EDUCATION in the public school systems...but no I guess this is much more important.

 

The girl said she wasn't harmed.

This is the basis for the case to be "completely" thrown out? It is not enough.

Imagine a girl who was raped by someone she knew. She realized that she didn't get pregnant and didn't think she caught any diseases. She said she wasn't harmed. Did that make it right?

To assume we don't have a case until the victim realizes the harm is not correct. I suggest that this not be used as a reason to throw the case out.

And to assume that the victim has not been coerced to say she was or wasn't harmed is faulty. Testimony on a witness stand is what will be used to determine harm, not a remark made to a reporter.

 

Jarik,

Check out my thread, " More important issues facing our country right now than the POA. " that's on the Senate Floor.

I think this issue is discussed in it, so it must be of some importance?


Oh, and in case I haven't been clear, take it off our money.


Latre!

 

Mister_Bunny,

The girl said she wasn't harmed.

This is the basis for the case to be "completely" thrown out? It is not enough.

How about the fact that she is a willing participant in saying the Pledge?

Imagine a girl who was raped by someone she knew. She realized that she didn't get pregnant and didn't think she caught any diseases. She said she wasn't harmed. Did that make it right?

To assume we don't have a case until the victim realizes the harm is not correct.

Here, you are wrong. Using your rape example, the police do not have a case unless the victim decides to press charges (realizes that harm was done). If they refuse to press charges, then from the legal standpoint, they have no authority to arrest him.

No, it doesn't make it right, but according to the basis of law, that is how it is. Like I said before, if you want a test case, find the atheist child of atheist parents, who is forced to say the Pledge or listen to it every day. That would be a valid and admissible case.

Newdow's case was built on the lie that his daughter is an atheist and was forced to participate in saying the Pledge. She considers herself Christian and willingly participates in the Pledge at school. If that information had come out during the trial, the case would have been thrown out almost instantaneously.

Are you then trying to claim that it is okay to lie your way into court in order to get the decision you want from the judge? I don't know about you, but in my book that's known as perjury and is illegal.

If a person were convicted of murder through someone else's lies and the truth came out after the trial, would it not be right to reverse the decision? Why not in this case? Because there is some "higher purpose" involved? From the court's standpoint, it doesn't matter why you lied. If you lie as the basis of your case, your case is almost irreparably damaged. Because of Newdow's lies, his case should be thrown out.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Darn... I hate when the "other side" is right.

As much as I believe that God does not belong in anything relating to government--including the POA--Kimball's examples are accurate.

The ironic thing is, most athiests I know who have athiest children really couldn't care less about the issue.

 

KK makes a good point but I am not familiar enough with the court proceedings to know that the harm caused was lied about. You can form an opinion from outside of court comments, but you don't overturn rulings based on that type of evidence.

Since the case was taken up by a court as well as heard by an appelate court, then harm has been discerned. If lies were utilized to establish the harm, where in the court proceedings have these lies been proved? Where in the court proceedings does a judge say that a parent who wishes that their child not hear "under God" is not harmed? It is the court proceedings which will be examined on appeal. The majority opinion from the 3 judge panel will be heavily scrutinized, but not a newspaper interview.

A perjury complaint would be a new case, to be opened at the local level, giving Newdow even more national attention.

 

Going back to that, for a moment: Is perjury an issue here? Did the daughter, or anyone representing her--including Newdow, himself--take the stand and lie under oath? I'm not familiar with the case, so don't know who was called to testify (although I believe they usually use children's recorded statements rather putting them on the stand). This would certainly be a deciding factor on the final verdict.

Yet another reason to despise divorce and snippy, uncivil parents!

 

Ah, I can see it coming... in an attempt to punish Newdow and avoid the constitutional issue which questions the "Under God" legislation of 1954, his daughter will be found guilty of perjury and the issue will not be addressed.

 

Newdow's daughter did not testify in any way, and was opposed to the case from the start.

Honestly, I am not even sure if Newdow took the stand himself, so perjury might not have bben the best choice of words. However, by claimingthat his daughter was injured (by willingly participating in the Pledge), he at least filed briefs containing outright lies. There are charges akin to perjury that can be applied to such actions.

Accusing Newdow of misconduct (at the least) is not an attempt to hide the issue. It is simply pointing out that he does not have the sufficient basis to bring this case. Like I said, find someone who would make an appropriate test case and then bring it up. Otherwise, he lacks suffiecient standing to support his case.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Cheveyo

"How is this true when some religions, by their definition, revolve around a central belief in a "God"? Others, however, do not, which makes the phrase "Under God" not all-inclusive, as you may believe."

I didn't say it's all-inclusive, I explained how it's independent. Some religions include rules against murder, yet the government can endorse that without being accused of endorsing those religions.

The religions in question here include specific beliefs about a deity(s), its possible manifestations, and the proper ways to practice your respect toward that deity(s). The simple concept that man has inalienable rights granted by its Creator does not endorse any of them.

"The name God (as it is capitalized) refers to a religious icon. Congress and Eisenhower said as much when the name was drafted into the Pledge."

I'm not familiar with the verbiage that went on at the time, but was the word religion, or any specific religion, actually mentioned?


"It therefor indicates that the governement endorses said religion" - which said religion? - "thus violating the Church/State Separation ideas. "

The 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law endorsing religion, which a belief in God does not do.