God in the Pledge of Allegiance..

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Bacon But before we start licking each other's balls, how about we address the issues on which there is actually a debate?

Delay the ball-licking, yes, but it's nice to interject sometimes to tell someone you agree with them. Kinda helps the other person focus on the parts on which they are being disputed, and not just repeat their entire argument. It's not ball-licking, just a gentle nuzzle to maintain good-natured civility.

Quote by: Bacon Whatever you feel it implies, it is still unconstitutional.

Again, I agree.

<lick lick>

Quote by: Bacon However, some of us think fairness, justness and upholding the values on which the US, and indeed the pledge itself, is based is more important than placating the hypocritical majority.

I acknowledge that.

<gentle nuzzle>

It's just evident that returning to the previous state of equality from pre-1954 would be more a hindrance than a help.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: You've been respectfully asked more than once by multiple people to drop the "I say" and the frequency of using all-caps. By failing to do so, you are demonstrating a disrespect for those who have asked you to eliminate something that is an annoyance to them and a detriment to the content of your posts.

I say:
Read the forum rules. I never use all caps unless is is to highlight a text of focus, or to highlight (and seperate) a quote from other text.

I have NEVER been warned, urged or asked to conform by the forum owners, the moderators (that I know of) or any other person who has the AUTHORITY to ask.

You have asked me, I have declined. It's that simple. Ignore me if you must, but the CHOICE is yours.

Fonceai said: Right. As I wrote, you post a link to an article and then paste the article, when all it does is elaborate on something that was first brought into the thread on Page 1, Post 3, by RickSp, clarified in Post 4 by shield772 and Post 5 by underbear. Any other thoughts on the topic?

I say:
Yes, I have several thoughts on the topic. I kept my post focused on history and facts, as opposed to bias and opinion.

I have plenty of opinion though, if you would like to see read it.

Usually, that is when you say I am "sidetracking" the post, or "derailing" the thread.

There simply is no pleasing you, while still retaining a shred of individuality is there Fonce?

[belverron]

Just be grateful he quotes other users now. He used to write out "so-and-so said:" and it was very confusing. I think he bolded one or the other, too. Anyway, not reallly sure why it bugs you so much.

[Fonceai]

@belverron

Meh, it disrupts the flow of writing.

I could just call him an "asshat" and ignore it.

But I happen to want to read what he says, and it makes it hard to focus on his point when his writing doesn't flow well.

Quote by: OFE Yes, I have several thoughts on the topic. I kept my post focused on history and facts, as opposed to bias and opinion. I have plenty of opinion though, if you would like to see read it.

Nothing person, but if your facts are 4 pages old and don't contribute in this thread, and your personal opinions are ones you acknowledge are derailing, then that answers your question.

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai In New York State, they do. I will cede that it depends on the range of the court; Federal, State, etc. as to what they require.

No. It doesn't. No court may require that you swear on the Bible and/or use the words "...so help me god." Learn what you are talking about before you speak. You only make yourself look foolish.

Quote by: Fonceai No, you are wrong. My wife is taking a course in School Law right now, and it makes it very clear as to what SoCaS means. I'm sorry, but all of this disagreement is stupid because I read it directly from a Federal School Law textbook.

Tell your wife to pay attention. The meaning of the 1st Amendment is not limited to the preference of one religion over another but also includes the preference of religion over non-religion. Whatever you read in your Little Golden Book of Law, you have apparently misunderstood. Please learn what you are talking about before you speak. You are making yourself look like a fool. Your argument is stupid.

Quote by: Fonceai Now, whether or not you like or even agree with what I am presenting, starting at point #1 and continuing to just above the ---, the fact remains that all of it is accurate according to the Constitution of the U.S.

The point is that what you have presented is not accurate. You have failed to understand the case law relevant to the issue.

Quote by: Fonceai Don't forget, just because I know and present the actual legitimate legal perspective doesn't mean I like it.

But you haven't presented the actual legal perspective. You are making yourself look like a fool.

Quote by: Fonceai ...the unfortunate problems with Atheists trying to achieve equal representation through SoCaS.

So you object to granting equal rights to atheists?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: gallo No. It doesn't. No court may require that you swear on the Bible and/or use the words "...so help me god." Learn what you are talking about before you speak. You only make yourself look foolish.

I live in New York. I work in the state capital. I watched them do it at the trial for the two men in Albany accused of funding terrorism.

Play nice. Don't drop words like "foolish" when I'm basing this on something I witnessed.

Quote by: gallo You are making yourself look like a fool. Your argument is stupid.

That's twice you've done that.

I'm not hearing this second hand from her, I read it myself in her book. How am I wrong?

Quote by: gallo You are making yourself look like a fool.

Third times a charm.

How about you back up these little insults with why I'm wrong?

How can I look foolish when you haven't really said why what I'm saying is wrong?

Quote by: gallo So you object to granting equal rights to atheists?

Quite the incorrect conclusion.

I object to atheists citing SoCaS as justification for removing "under God".

The correct way to do it that would garner easier and faster support would be to present to people that when the comment was added it was a illegal and that in the current era of responsibility, as encouraged by our President during his first election, we should strive to return the pledge back to its original, legal roots.

To cite SoCaS is going in the wrong direction. The right direction is the simple approach.

[belverron]

The Lemon Test, established in the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman, holds that for a law to be constitutional, it must

1) have a legitimate, secular legislative purpose
2) have a primary effect neither advancing nor inhibiting religion
3) avoid "excessive entanglement" with religion.

"Under God" seems clearly unconstitutional to me.

Fonceai, you seem misinformed on this subject.

Quote by: Fonceai This is tied into to "respecting an establishment of religion". Passing laws based on a specific religious doctrine is akin to establishing a state religion. That's why Bush's speeches about Christian values are Constitutionally illegal.

Quote by: The First Amendment Congress shall make no law (not "no speech") respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .... (emphasis mine)

What kind of freedom of religion would we have if our elected leaders could not include it in their speeches, anyway? And of course it governs the President not at all.

Quote by: Fonceai 1. Adding "under God" to the pledge was unconstitutional because it added religion to the lives of Americans. It was wrong to do that.

It's unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court can't strike it down?

2. Atheists cannot cite SoCaS to have "under God" removed from the pledge, because doing so would be a violation of SoCaS in the "opposite" direction.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION (I really want you to pick up on that, and I'm unapologetic in advance about the caps). I've conveniently posted what it actually says for you, so read up. Separation of church and state is an extrapolation, nothing more; a buzzterm, if I may. There can be no violation of separation of church and state because it does not exist in a legal sense. If we have laws that favor one religious group, of course the court can strike down preferential legislation.

Quote by: Fonceai 3. From a legal perspective, it can be argued that "under God" respects established religions that have some concept of God/Gods. Therefore, Buddhists and Hindus cannot say "under God" violates their religion. Also, even if the polytheistic or non-theistic religions had a valid case, the government can do nothing "respecting an establishment of religion" over another. They can't make changes just to make the Buddhists and Hindus happy.

The Supreme Court isn't making laws preferential to Buddhists or Hindus! It's striking down laws favoring Christians! How can you think the act, of correcting a violation of "SoCaS," violates it?

Edit: I realize now that I've reposted a lot of information, but I still think it's necessary and makes a nice overview of a lot of the things that have come up.

[Fonceai]

On the speeches...

The President's speeches dealt with Americans endorsing Christian values. He can't, as the literal Head of State, endorse one religions values over another, even in a speech.

Quote by: belverron SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION

Then maybe you should direct this comments to others on this thread who have said it, not me.

Quote by: belverron How can you think the act, of correcting a violation of "SoCaS," violates it?

For exactly the problems that occurring in this thread. People don't understand what it means and misunderstand.

Also, striking down laws favoring Christians, when worded that way, is an agitation to Christians.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on your conclusion. I just don't agree with how you are rationalizing it.

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai I live in New York. I work in the state capital. I watched them do it at the trial for the two men in Albany accused of funding terrorism. Play nice. Don't drop words like "foolish" when I'm basing this on something I witnessed.

Perhaps you should have thought of that before you used the word stupid. Stop acting like a fool.

So you watched the witnesses refuse the Bible and then refuse to repeat "so help me God" and the court forced them to comply? Wow! New York is a funny place. Actually, you are again making yourself look foolish. Since you are unaware of the guarantees of the Constitution, you thought that the oath and the Bible were required. It comes from your failure to educate yourself before you spoke. I did not say that the Bible was not used or that the god bit wasn't tacked on the end in courts. What I said was that in the court cases that I have seen, they didn't do either in swearing in the jury. I also said that if someone objects, the court will recognize constitutional rights and skip the Bible and the god bit. Try it and you will see that the court doesn't even bat an eyelash.

Also, try reading for comprehension.

Quote by: Fonceai That's twice you've done that.

Is it stupid?

Quote by: Fonceai I'm not hearing this second hand from her, I read it myself in her book. How am I wrong?

You are wrong because you didn't understand what you read. The effect of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the government from endorsing or supporting religion - all relilgion. It may not pass a law that prefers one over another or religion over non-religion. Read it again, this time for comprehension.

Quote by: Fonceai Third times a charm. How about you back up these little insults with why I'm wrong? How can I look foolish when you haven't really said why what I'm saying is wrong?

I most certainly did. I explained in detail and even included the Lemon Test applied by the Supreme Court in many cases regarding this question. It seems that you don't understand what you read. And now, even belverron has attempted to explain it to you and still you fail to grasp some very simple ideas.

Quote by: Fonceai Quite the incorrect conclusion.

But that's what you implied.

Quote by: Fonceai I object to atheists citing SoCaS as justification for removing "under God". The correct way to do it that would garner easier and faster support would be to present to people that when the comment was added it was a illegal and that in the current era of responsibility, as encouraged by our President during his first election, we should strive to return the pledge back to its original, legal roots.

Nonsense. Just how far do you think that would go in getting the christians to agree? Essentially, that's what the court case is doing, showing that the words in the Pledge constitute an establishment of religion by the government. Of course, you misunderstand the meaning of "an establishment of religion" since you think it means the established churches. I'll explain again since you didn't seem to grasp what I said the first time. The 1st Amendment was written about 1789 and the language people used then was slightly different. That is why when they forbid laws respecting an establishment of religion they meant that Congress could not pass laws that had the effect of establishing religion.

Quote by: Fonceai To cite SoCaS is going in the wrong direction. The right direction is the simple approach.

Your simple approach gets nowhere in the face of christians. They don't really care if the government imposes their religion on everyone. They believe that to do otherwise violates their 1st Amendment rights.

[gallo]

Quote by: belverron The Lemon Test, established in the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman, holds that for a law to be constitutional, it must 1) have a legitimate, secular legislative purpose 2) have a primary effect neither advancing nor inhibiting religion 3) avoid "excessive entanglement" with religion. "Under God" seems clearly unconstitutional to me. Fonceai, you seem misinformed on this subject.

Quite.

Quote by: belverron Quote by: The First Amendment Congress shall make no law (not "no speech") respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .... (emphasis mine) What kind of freedom of religion would we have if our elected leaders could not include it in their speeches, anyway? And of course it governs the President not at all.

Actually, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. It therefore applies to all actions of any level of government. However, it does not apply to speeches since they do not involve any governmental action. However, it would apply to an executive order. It would apply if someone were required to take an oath on the Bible and end it with "so help me god" in court. That would cause some judge a lot of grief.

Quote by: belverron It's unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court can't strike it down?

Exactly. Explaining nicely to christians doesn't seem to do much good.

Quote by: belverron SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION (I really want you to pick up on that, and I'm unapologetic in advance about the caps). I've conveniently posted what it actually says for you, so read up. Separation of church and state is an extrapolation, nothing more; a buzzterm, if I may. There can be no violation of separation of church and state because it does not exist in a legal sense. If we have laws that favor one religious group, of course the court can strike down preferential legislation.

Actually you are quite wrong. While the words may not be there, the principle is there. The words come from Thomas Jefferson when he explained that the purpose of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause was to build a "wall of separation between church and state." The Supreme Court has quoted Jefferson in making decisions on two occasions, stating that the principle of separation of church and state is quite real. I don't consider Supreme Court decisions to be "buzzterms."

Quote by: belverron The Supreme Court isn't making laws preferential to Buddhists or Hindus! It's striking down laws favoring Christians! How can you think the act, of correcting a violation of "SoCaS," violates it?

He's confused. He sounds like the christians who claimed that their right to free exercise of their religion was being violated when the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals required that Judge Roy Moore's monumental erection be removed from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court.

[belverron]

The First Amendment applies to laws passed by Congress and, through incorporation by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, those passed by the states. That being said ....

Quote by: Fonceai The President's speeches dealt with Americans endorsing Christian values. He can't, as the literal (as opposed to figurative?) Head of State, endorse one religions values over another, even in a speech.

That's wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. You can't find anything to support that anywhere.

Quote by: Fonceai Then maybe you should direct this comments to others on this thread who have said it, not me.

You're the one who's using the general idea of separation of church and state as opposed to the Constitution's more narrowly defined terms. So I address you.

Quote by: Fonceai For exactly the problems that occurring in this thread. People don't understand what it means and misunderstand.

How can you read the words of the Lemon Test and not understand that YOU ARE WRONG?

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai On the speeches... The President's speeches dealt with Americans endorsing Christian values. He can't, as the literal Head of State, endorse one religions values over another, even in a speech.

Yes he can, and he has.

Quote by: Fonceai Then maybe you should direct this comments to others on this thread who have said it, not me.

Right. One has little confidence that you would understand the explanation anyway.

Quote by: Fonceai For exactly the problems that occurring in this thread. People don't understand what it means and misunderstand.

And I thought I had understood pretty what my ConLaw texts said.

Quote by: Fonceai Also, striking down laws favoring Christians, when worded that way, is an agitation to Christians.

Tough.

Quote by: Fonceai Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on your conclusion. I just don't agree with how you are rationalizing it.

Explaining it nicely to christians doesn't work. When they were asked to stop praying before football games they didn't stop. They had to have decisions by a District Court, Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court before they stopped. And then, a student filed suit that her 1st Amendment rights to free exercise of religion were violated because she was not allowed to use the PA system to offer a prayer for everyone. That's a christian for you.

[gallo]

Quote by: belverron How can you read the words of the Lemon Test and not understand that YOU ARE WRONG?

He's confused or he didn't understand what he read, or both.

[belverron]

Quote by: gallo Actually, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. It therefore applies to all actions of any level of government. However, it does not apply to speeches since they do not involve any governmental action. However, it would apply to an executive order. It would apply if someone were required to take an oath on the Bible and end it with "so help me god" in court. That would cause some judge a lot of grief.

The Due Process Clause only covers the states, not "all actions of any level of government." And that's my story until you post a link.

Quote by: gallo Actually you are quite wrong. While the words may not be there, the principle is there. The words come from Thomas Jefferson when he explained that the purpose of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause was to build a "wall of separation between church and state." The Supreme Court has quoted Jefferson in making decisions on two occasions, stating that the principle of separation of church and state is quite real. I don't consider Supreme Court decisions to be "buzzterms."

As I said, it's an extrapolation. The extrapolator happens to be the Supreme Court. I was just trying to move him away from saying "SoCaS means that ..." as though it were of itself a constitutionally meaningful term.

[underbear1]

Fonceai and Bacon,
You two ought to get a room.

[Fonceai]

@gallo

The only time I said "stupid" in this entire thread was when I said:

"This disagreement is stupid."

I never called you stupid, but this is another time you called me a fool.

That's flaming, and if you are resorting to it again and still not putting more substance in your responses, I'll just report you for it.

Quite honestly, between you and belverron, you both seem incapable of being respectful, rational people.

I really want to discuss, but not if the time I take to actually research is going to resort in both of you being so quick to argue that you don't read to understand what I'm trying to say.

Thanks, and enjoy the reports.

[belverron]

I'm frustrated that you cling to wrong information. But point to where I call you a fool.

[Fonceai]

I don't cling. I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong if you can show me how. I've cited my sources. Where are yours?

And I never said you called me a fool. It was directed @gallo

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai I never called you stupid, but this is another time you called me a fool.

And I never called you a fool. Learn to read with care. I said that you were making yourself look foolish.

Quote by: Fonceai That's flaming, and if you are resorting to it again and still not putting more substance in your responses, I'll just report you for it.

And the implication that I am stupid is also flameing.

Quote by: Fonceai Quite honestly, between you and belverron, you both seem incapable of being respectful, rational people.

You mean we're stupid? You reap what you sow. You began the flaming and you whine when you get it back. And you demonstrate your inability to understand what you read by claiming that anyone called you a fool.

Quote by: Fonceai I really want to discuss, but not if the time I take to actually research is going to resort in both of you being so quick to argue that you don't read to understand what I'm trying to say.

But you are wrong. There is nothing to understand. You are dead wrong. Take for example you statement about how in New York everyone is required to use the Bible and that god stuff. Just because you saw it done once?

Grow up and learn what you are talking about. You only make yourself look foolish.

[Chris]

Gallo,

You are not contributing in a healthy manner. You must adhere to the subject matter or leave the discussion. Or if you like, You can challenge Fonceai to a Private Debate.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.