3/24 NYTimes' William Saffire on 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegciance
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/opinion/24SAFI.html
He says the guy who brought the suit is an idiot, but the words
'under god' should never have been added, but we shouldn't take them
out because it would offend religious people. I don't get it.
\_ WILLIAM SAFIRE, The New York Times' in-house "conservative"
-- who endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 .... -- Ann Coutler
\_ What's with the "indivisible" part of it? Why isn't the USA
divisible? That's against my religion.
\_ They tried dividing it, and there was a big war. Nobody wants
to try again.
\_ speak for yourself.
\_ there isn't even justice for all. only the liberals who
control the courts
\_ yeah, those masters of puppets. we should kill 'em all.
\_ time to stock up on bullets for the coming Civil War
\_ Eight months and counting...
\_ What civil war? The religious types run the military, and
the whiny athesits don't have guns. If it comes to that, I
suggest you find Jesus real fast. The atheists ain't gonna
last long. They exist by the grace of the Christians.
\_ So you're saying atheists exist because Christians are being
gracious enough to not murder them?
\_ More or less. See how long a true Atheist lasts in
the Middle East. (I was refering to the context of
a civil war, Christians vs Atheists, doofus. A
little too tounge in cheek for ya'?)
\_ I'm an atheist *and* a good shot buddy.
\_ I think it's pretty obvious. It was put in by the legislature
(I assume) and found constitutional then. It's not forcing
\_ Um.. read up on the process of judicial review.
religion on anyone, it's the universal conept of God.
Therefore taking it out by the supreme court is overbearing and
just increases the "activist judges" claims. Take it out by
legislature if you want it out.
\_ It forces the idea that there is a god. You know the religious
types would claim they're being opressed if the pledge said
"without god" instead.
\_ As I said, make that argument to the legislature.
\_ The Supreme Court should enforce the law that says
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion..." By inserting reverance to a single god into
a government document, that seems like a violation of
the constitution. It's the job of the courts to defend
the constitution from lesser laws that conflict with it.
\_ excuse me, Goverment documents != Laws - sorry
\_ please name the Statute or Ordinance where it
forces people to worship God?
\_ okay, what is the specific law that they are talking about
that is forcing people to say "under God"?
\_ Nobody is forced to say it. The controversy is about the fact
that it is a commonly-used government text. In many states,
school children are required to listen to the pledge.
\_ then it's not unconstitutional, no law was made that
established a religion or God
\_ why are people forgetting that laws are specific Statutes or
Ordinances that are enforceable by the Executive Branch? the
Pledge of Allegiance is not enforceable and there is no
punishment for not stating it.
\_ In a lot os states, there is punishment for a school which fails to
lead its students in the pledge. The students are effectively
required to listen to the idea that the US is a 'under' or subject
to monotheism.
\_ that is up for the States to decide, "Congress shall make
no law" refers to the Federal Level. States should be
able to do whatever they want
\_ well if there is a God, the whole universe is subject to it.
\_ so putting up the 10 commandments is also forcing people
to listen to the idea that a God exists? |
http://csua.com/feed/